Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Agency Case Doctrines

Agency Case Doctrines

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,642|Likes:
Published by Calypso
Case Digests
Case Digests

More info:

Categories:Business/Law, Finance
Published by: Calypso on Feb 13, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, DOC, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less





VII.What are the obligations and liabilities of agents to their principals?
 Austria v. CA, 39 SCRA 527
-Robbery of the jewelry deemed a fortuitous event and therefore, agentnot responsible for the loss; however, in order to completely exonerateher, she should also be free of any contributory fault or negligence-Although her conduct of going home alone in the evening whilecarrying valuable jewelry would have been negligent per se and wouldnot exempt her from responsibility, said rule is not applicable at thepoint in time that the robbery took place; criminality at that time hadnot reached the levels attained in the present day
PNB v. Manila Surety, 14 SCRA 776
-Bank (agent) answerable for its neglect in collecting the sums due tothe debtor (principal) contrary to its duty as holder of an exclusive andirrevocable PoA to make such collections since an agent is required toact with the care of a good father of a family-By allowing the assigned funds to be exhausted without notifying thesurety, the Bank deprived it of any possibility of recoursing againstthat security; therefore, surety is not liable
Domingo v. Domingo, 42 SCRA 131
-Contract of agency demands utmost good faith, fidelity, honesty,candor and fairness on the part of the agent (real estate broker); agentis obliged to make full disclosure to principal-Agent who takes a secret profit without telling the principal is guilty obreach of his loyalty and forfeits his right to collect commission fromthe principal
Severino v. Severino, 44 Phil. 343
-Defendant came into possession of the land as agent of the deceased(principal); he had been continuously in charge and occupation of theland as administrator; he had always known that the land belonged tothe principal-Since the property is the subject matter of agency, agent is estoppedfrom acquiring or asserting a title adverse to that of the principal-Position analogous to that of a trustee and he cannot be allowed tocreate in himself an interest in opposition to that of the principal
Green Valley Poultry v. IAC, 133 SCRA 697
-Contract may be considered as an agency to sell; therefore, agent isliable for selling on credit without authority from the principal
Municipal Council of Iloilo v. Evangelista, 55 Phil. 290
-Soriano was a lawyer of Tan Toco, but he was not the lawyer in thatparticular case and so the assignment of credit in his favor did notviolate the prohibition in an attorney-client relationship-Also, one who is authorized to employ services of lawyers necessarilyimplies authority to pay for the lawyer’s professional servicesVIII.Responsibility for acts of substitutes – 1892, 1893
Del Rosario v. La Badenia, 33 Phil. 316
-Aragon was acting as a general agent since it was not shown whatlimitations were placed upon his powers to act for the corporation; hispowers appear to have been very broad and no evidence that he actedin excess of authority in extending credit on behalf of the agency-Company was informed that the spouses were acting as sub-agents of Aragon and recognized them as such, as proven by the letters of thecorp.; it was clear that the corp. did not consider them as independentmerchants
International Films v. Lyric Film, 63 Phil. 778
-Verbal agreement between former agent and the company was thatthe film would remain deposited in their safety vault underresponsibility of said former agent; as sub-agent, company could showit in their theaters-Not insuring the film does not constitute fraud or negligence of thecompany since it received no instruction to that effect from itsprincipalIX.What are the obligations and liabilities of agents to third parties?
PNB v. Agudelo, 58 Phil. 655
-Nothing in the mortgage deeds to show that Garrucho (mortgagor) isagent of the owner or that he obtained the loan on behalf of theowners-It appears that Garrucho acted in his personal capacity-He executed the PNs under his own signature without authority fromthe principal, therefore, PNs not binding upon them-His SPA does not authorize him to constitute a mortgage to secure hispersonal obligations, therefore he exceeded his authority-Exception in Art. 1717 where agent contracts in his own name withthings belonging to the principal binds the latter requires that agentdid not exceed his authority
Philippine Products v. Primateria, 15 SCRA 301
parties can’t recover from both the principal and the agent-Art. 1897 provides that agents are personally liable in case theyexceed their authority; however, such law does not hold that in cases
of excess of authority, both the principal and the agent are liable to theother contracting party
NPC v. National Merchandising, 117 SCRA 789
-Agent acted beyond authority for still contracting despite principal’sprohibition-Agent who exceeds authority without giving 3
party notice of hispowers is personally liable-Unenforceability of the contract is against the principal only
National Bank & Welch Fairchild, 44 Phil. 780
-One who has intervened in the making of a contract in the character of an agent cannot be permitted to intercept the thing which the principalis bound to deliver-Agent is precluded from doing act that could prevent performance onthe part of his principal
Tuazon v. Orosco, 5 Phil. 596
-Agent acted as such in securing the debt for his principal-To secure payment, principal’s property was mortgaged; P’s wife eventook part in the execution of the mortgage-Debt incurred by agent is binding upon P provided A acted withinscope of authority-The fact that A also personally bound himself does not relieve P’sliability; it was only a further security to the debt; such an act on thepart of A was valid
Cervantes v. CA, 304 SCRA 25
party cannot use employees’ (agents) actions in confirming theflight after expiration o his ticket to his advantage-Agents acted outside their authority and did not bind PAL (principal)-Since 3
party knew of such excess in authority of the agents, P can’tbe held liable for their acts and 3
party not entitled to recoverdamages from such agents
Smith Bell v. Sotelo, 44 Phil. 874
-Agent signed the contracts in his individual capacity and his ownname, therefore, he is bound by them-Undisclosed principal has no right of action against the 3
Rural Bank of Bombon v. CA, 212 SCRA 25
-In order to bind P on mortgage, it must be made in behalf of P;otherwise, it will bind agent only-Agent’s act of signing mortgage deed in his own name bound himselin his personal capacity as debtor-Exception in Art. 1883 not applicable

Activity (24)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
vjoucher liked this
Marie Uy liked this
Abel Montejo liked this
Mark Pesigan liked this
Krissy Flores liked this
Alyanna Apacible liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->