Plaintiff Mathew S.  Tee seeks to recover, from defendants Tacloban Electric  and Ice Plant Co.,  Inc., Victoriano Chan and  Chan Bun Chit, the amount  of P48,700  representing ten  (10%)  per cent of a $243,500 allocation allegedly  secured by said plaintiff from the Central Bank of the Philippines in addition to the sum of P10,000, by way of expenses of litigation and attorney's fees,  with costs against said defendants.  In  paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and  5 of his complaint plaintiff alleges that:

"2. On or about August, 1955,  defendant  Tacloban  Electric and Ice Plant Co., Inc.,  acting through defendants Chan Bun Chit and Victoriano Chan,  approached  plaintiff  and, informing him that they  needed foreign exchange allocation  for the  purchase  of machineries and  other supplies for the  expansion  of  the  Tacloban Electric and Ice Plant  Co., Inc., they requested  plaintiff to prepare, file and work  for the approval of the application for the said foreign exchange, knowing plaintiff had much experience therein, and promising to pay plaintiff the usual fee  for his work, to which plaintiff agreed.
"3. In compliance  with  the  said agreement,  plaintiff worked for a period  of  six  (6) months, more  or less,  accomplishing  papers, filing them and following up the papers in the different government offices to which they were referred in order to obtain the necessary foreign exchange allocation, as a result of which the Central  Bank granted  an  allocation of ($243,500.00)  two  hundred forty-three THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED  DOLLARS;
"4. The usual, standard fee for the services performed by plaintiff  is  ten  per centum  (10%)  of  the value of  the  allocation obtained, which in this case amounts to (P48,700.00)  FORTY-EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED PESOS;
"5.  Plaintiff has  demanded payment from defendants, but the latter have  failed  and refused,  without justifiable  cause, to comply with plaintiff's demands."

Defendants filed separate  motions  to dismiss,   predicated upon  the ground, among others, that  the  contract referred to  in the complaint is null and  void ab  initio. After  appropriate  proceedings,  the  Court   of First  Instance of  Manila granted  these  motions  and dismissed the case.   Hence, this  appeal by  plaintiff,  who maintains that:

"1.  The trial  court erred  in  dismissing   plaintiff's complaint, without  requiring  defendants  to  answer  or hearing  plaintiff's evidence, on  the  ground  that plaintiff's demand for  compensation for the services he  had  rendered in preparing and working for the approval  of  defendants'  application  for foreign exchange is 'unenforceable under the statute of frauds' because 'of the denials of defendants to recognize that said services  have been rendered in their favor and benefit'.  (Resolution, Record on Appeal, p. 120.)
"2. The  trial  court  further  erred  in  ruling, without  giving plaintiff an  opportunity to present his  evidence, and despite  the allegations of plaintiff's complaint to the contrary, that 'it was  not he (plaintiff) who had obtained the dollar allocation  for  the  defendants' (Record on  Appeal, pp.  121-122),  and for that reason, dismissing his complaint.
"3. The trial court  likewise erred in dismissing plaintiff's complaint on the ground that the aforesaid contract 'is invalid and void' because it is 'contrary  to law and public morals' (Record on Appeal, p. 121).
"4. The trial court  finally erred  in dismissing the complaint as to defendants Victoriano Chan and  Chan Bun Chit, on the ground that  they acted merely 'as intermediaries  or attorney in  fact of the  defendant Tacloban Electric and Ice Plant,  Inc., and, at  the same time,  dismissing  the complaint as to  the  defendant Tacloban Electric & Ice Plant,  Inc.  because it could not be held liable  for the  acts  of an  agent or  intermediary (Record on Appeal,  pp. 122-123)."

The main issue in this case is  the validity of the contract  relied upon  in   the  complaint.   The  lower  court pronounced it void  in  the following language:

"It is gleaned from  the above cited paragraphs of the complaint that a contract of agency existed between plaintiff and defendants. Such contract being contrary to law and public morals  same is invalid and void  and  could not therefore be enforced against  defendants.  Article 1409 of  the Civil Code  prohibits  such  contract and Section  14 of the Central Bank Charter and Act 265 of  the Republic prohibit  and  punish any person  except the interested party  to work for and in behalf of the  party interested to obtain dollar allocation's approval.  Consequently, the  claim  of  plaintiff being  not only prohibited by  law  for  being  against  public policy and morals but likewise punishable by  the same legal  provisions, said claim is void and unenforceable."   (Record  on  Appeal,  121.)

We are fully in agreement  with this view.  According to  plaintiff's complaint, he agreed "to prepare, file and work for,  the approval  of the application"  for foreign exchange of the Tacloban Electric &  Ice Plant Co., Inc., and "in compliance" with said agreement, he "worked for", and secured the corresponding allocation,  "accomplishing the papers, filing them, and following up  the papers in  the different government offices  to  which  they were referred."

Section 3 of Article IV of Central Bank Circular No. 44, provides:

"Authorized Agent Banks  are hereby instructed to  inform their clients that under no circumstances should any applicant, his agent or other representatives, follow up an application with the Central Bank  or the Bankers Committee.  All information concerning applications, including actions taken thereon by the Monetary Board or the Bankers' Committee, shall be  communicated to the applicants by their respective Authorized Agent Banks."  (Italics ours.)

Pursuant  to  this  circular, all applications for foreign exchange shall  be made through  authorized agent banks, which are  the  only parties  authorized to  deal with the Central Bank  or  the  Bankers  Committee  in  connection therewith.   Consistently with  this  scheme, plan  or pattern,  the circular declares that, "under no  circumstances should any applicant, his agent, and representatives follow up  an  application with  the  Central  Bank."   Plaintiff's alleged contract to work for the  approval of the foreign exchange application in question and the services he claims to have performed in pursuance of  this contract, "following up the papers in  the different government offices to which they were referred" one  of which is the Central Bank are  inconsistent with the  law  (Republic Act No. 265,  as amended) creating the Central  Bank" upon the authority of which the  circular  above  mentioned was issued and, hence,  contrary  to  the  public  policy  thus adopted.  In short, said contract  is "in-existent and void from the beginning."   (Article 1409  (1),  Civil Code of the Philippines).

Besides, the agreement under consideration is contrary to good customs and public order, for public interest demands that  applications for foreign exchange be considered,  acted upon and disposed of strictly on the basis of the merits  and  demerits of each case.  In other words, the exigencies  of public welfare require  that the proceedings for the  determination  of said  applications  be conducted in the most  impersonal  and impartial manner to forestall  favoritism or the commission  of other irregularities in relation thereto,  or, at least, to minimize  the opportunities  therefor or the  possibility thereof which is, evidently, the purpose of the aforementioned circular, requiring  that  all  applications for  foreign exchange be filed with agent banks and that all representations relative thereto  be  made, not by the "applicant, his agent or other representative",  but through  said agent banks.

"El orden publico, que no signified aqui el  material  mantenimiento de la paz publica,  represents, el  interes publico, social y de ley en  el derecho privado, lo  permanente y essencial de  las instituckmes, lo que, aun favoreciendo  a  algun  individuo  en quien se concreta al derecho,  no puede quedar  a  su arbitrio."  (Manresa, 5.a ed,  Tomo VIII, Volumen II, p. 289.)

"Sec. 167. Generally. *  * * It is a general rule that agreements against public policy ,are illegal and void.  Under  the principles relating to the doctrine of public policy, as applied  to the law of contracts, courts of justice will not recognize or uphold any transaction which,  in its object, operation, or tendency, is calculated to be prejudicial to the public welfare, to  sound morality, or to civic honesty. The  test  is  whether the parties have stipulated  for something inhibited by the law or inimical to, or inconsistent with, the  public welfare.  An  agreement is  against public  policy  if  it is injurious to the interests of the  public, contravenes some established interest of  society,  violates  some public statute, is  against good  morals, tends to interfere with the public  welfare  or safety, or as it is sometimes put, if it is at war with the interests of society and is in conflict with  the  morals of the time.  An  agreement either to  do anything which,  or not to do  anything the omission of  which, is  in any degree,   clearly injurious to the  public  and an agreement  of such a nature that it  cannot be carried  into execution without reaching  beyond  the  parties  and  exercising an injurious influence  over the community  at large are  against public policy.  There  are  many things which  the law  does not prohibit, in the sense of attaching  penalties, but which are so mischievous in their nature and tendency  that on grounds of public policy they cannot be admitted as the  subject of a valid contract.  The question whether a contract is against public policy depends upon its purpose and tendency, and not upon  the fact that  no harm results from it.  In  other  words,  all  agreements the  purpose of  which is to create a situation which  tends to operate to the detriment of the public interest are against public policy and void, whether in the   particular case the purpose of the agreement is or is not effectuated. For  a particular undertaking  to  be  against public  policy actual injury need not be shown; it is enough if the potentialities for harm are present.  * * *" (12 Am. Jr., pp. 663-664.)

The  foregoing  conclusion  renders a determination  of the other issues raised in the  appeal unnecessary.

Wherefore,  the  resolution  appealed  from  is  hereby affirmed, with  costs  against  plaintiff-appellant.  Let the Solicitor General  be  furnished  a certified  copy of this decision  for such  action, if  any, as may be  appropriate under pertinent laws.  It is so ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.