You are on page 1of 9


AGENCY DIGESTS B. Formal Requisites (ART. 1873 to 1877) 1. RALLOS V YANGCO FACTS: * Yangco sent Rallos a letter inviting the latter to be the consignor in buying and selling leaf tobacco and other native products. Terms and conditions were also contained in the letter. * Accepting the invitation, Rallos proceeded to do a considerable business with Yangco through the said Collantes, as his factor, sending to him as agent for Yangco a good deal of produce to be sold on commission. * Rallos sent to the said Collantes, as agent for Yangco, 218 bundles of tobacco in the leaf to be sold on commission, as had been other produce previously. * The said Collantes received said tobacco and sold it for the sum of P1, 744. The charges for such sale were P206.96, leaving in the hands of said Collantes the sum of 1,537.08 belonging to Rallos. This sum was, apparently, converted to his own use by said agent. * It appears, however, that prior to the sending of said tobacco Yangco had severed his relations with Collantes and that the latter was no longer acting as his factor. This fact was not known to Rallos; and it is conceded in the case that no notice of any kind was given by Yangco of the termination of the relations between Yangco and his agent, Collantes. * Yangco thus refused to pay the said sum upon demand of Rallos, placing such refusal upon the ground that at the time the said tobacco was received and sold by Collantes, he was acting personally and not as agent of Yangco. ISSUE: W/N Collantes is an agent of Yangco. If so, Yangco as principal must refund to Rallos the said sum brought by the sale of the produce RULING: Yes Yangco, as principal is liable. Having advertised the fact that Collantes was his agent and having given special notice to Rallos of that fact, and having given them a special invitation to deal with such agent, it was the duty of Yangco on the

termination of the relationship of the principal and agent to give due and timely notice thereof to Rallos. Failing to do so, he is responsible to them for whatever goods may been in good faith and without negligence sent to the agent without knowledge, actual or constructive, of the

inventory the word “received” followed by the name “Ricardo Flores” with the words “managing agent” immediately following his name. ISSUE: W/N Ricardol Flores was the agent of Camps Ruling: Yes Evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding that Flores is the agent of Camps in the management of the bar of the

termination of such relationship 2. B. H. MACKE ET AL V JOSE CAMPS FACTS: * B. H. Macke and W.H. Chandler, partners doing business under thee firm name of Macke, Chandler And Company, allege that during the months of February and March 1905, they sold to Jose Camps and delivered at his place of business, known as the: Washington Café,” various bills of goods amounting to P351.50; that Camps has only paid on account of said goods the sum of P174; that there is still due them on account of said goods the sum of P177.50 * Plaintiffs made demand for the payment from defendant and that the latter failed and refused to pay the said balance or any part of it * Macke, one of the plaintiffs, testified that on the order of one Ricardo Flores, who represented himself to be the agent of Jose Camps, he shipped the said goods to the defendant at the Washington Café; that Flores (agent) later acknowledged the receipt of the said goods and made various payments thereon amounting in all to P174; that believes that Flores is still the agent of Camps; and that when he went to the Washington Café for the purpose of collecting his bill he found Flores, in the absence of Camps, apparently in charge of the business and claiming to be the business manager of Camps, said business being that of a hotel with a bar and restaurant annexed. * A written contract was introduced as evidence, from which it appears that one Galmes, the former of “Washington Café” subrented the building wherein the business was 3. RIO Y OLABARRIETA AND MOLINA V YU TEC & CO. FACTS: *Plaintiff, Rio is a co partner/ship organized and existing under the laws of the Phil Islands. The defendant, Yu Tec and Co is a domestic corporation and the defendant, Calvin is of age and a resident of Manila conducted, to Camps for 1 year for the purpose of carrying on that business, Camps obligating himself not to sublet or subrent the building or the business without the consent of the said Galmes. *This contract was signed by Camps and the name of Ricardo Flores as a witness and attached thereon is an inventory of the furniture and fittings which also is signed by Camps with the word “sublessee” below the name, and at the foot of this

Washington Café with authority to bind Camps, his principal, for the payment of the goods The contract sufficiently establishes the fact that Camps was the owner of the business and of the bar, and the title of “managing agent” attached to the signature of Flores which appears on that contract, together with the fact that at the time the purchases were made, Flores was apparently in charge of the business performing the duties usually entrusted to a managing agent leave little room for doubt that he was there as the authorized agent of Camps. Agency by Estoppel --- One who clothes another with apparent authority as his agent, and holds him out to the public as such, can not be permitted to deny the authority of such person to act as his agent, to the prejudice of innocent third persons dealing with such person in good faith and in the honest belief that he is what he appears to be. Estoppel---“Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he can not, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission be permitted to falsify; and unless the contrary appears, the authority of the agent must be presumed to include all the necessary and usual means of carrying his agency into effect.

GUTIERREZ HERMANOS V ORENSE FACTS: * Orense had been the owner of a parcel of land. with the building and improvements thereon situated in the pueblo of Albay. plaintiff had to demand Orense that he execute in legal form a deed of conveyance of the parcel of land but the latter refused to do so. a nephew of Orense.2 * Rio alleges that Yu Tec & Co. Calvin. without any justifiable cause or reason.000 at the end of the second year. 4. nephew of Orense. Molina had no authority to sell the property upon any terms and conditions after the stipulated period. Molina to find a purchaser or a lessee of a tract of land belonging to it located on Calle Velasquez. W/N the sale executed by Duran. all to be secured by a first mortgage * Rio accepted the offer but Yu Tec Company made several excuses and refused to carry out the agreement * That defendant. and he should be compelled to execute said deed because his nephew is notoriously insolvent and cannot reimburse plaintiff company for the price of sale which he received * Duran failed to exercise his right of repurchase and Orense also refused to deliver the property and to pay rental thereof ISSUE: 1. There is no evidence in the record of any written contract between Rio and Yu Tec for the sale and purchase of the real property Exhibit B (letter giving authority to J. Duran might sell the property to plaintiff company and that he did confirm and ratify the sale by means of public instrument executed before a notary It follows that Orense conferred verbal. entered into a contract by which he purchased the property from the company. power of agency upon his nephew Duran. W/N a contract of agency. made known its offer to the respondent company which refused to accept it * Yu Tec offered to sell the land for P42. approved the action of his nephew. it is questionable that Orense. with interest of 8% and the remaining P25. with the latter’s knowledge and consent. who accepted it in the same way by selling the said property The principal must fulfill all the obligations contracted by the agent.000 instead. and ordering company to comply with the contract and to execute a deed to Rio and to pay damages of P12. but afterwards became perfectly valid and cured of the defect of nullity it bore at its execution by the confirmation solemnly made by the said owner upon his stating under oath to the judge that he himself consented to his nephew’s making the said sale 5. that fact would destroy the legal force and effect of Exhibit C (specified and defined the terms and conditions of any sale made by Molina In the absence of a renewal or extension in writing signed by the party to be charged or its agent. executed by Duran was publicly and freely confirmed and ratified by Orense in a verbal declaration made by him to the effect that the instrument was executed by his nephew with his knowledge and consent * In order to perfect the title to said property.500 the aforementioned property with Duran having the right to repurchase for the same price within 4 years * Plaintiff had not entered into possession of the land since it is being occupied by Orense and Duran. Tondo.000 and that Mollina. and had been registered under his name * Jose Duran. with full knowledge of the facts and within the specified period. Molina as agent of Yu Tec and if the latter shall not take advantage of selling it within the time given. which was then a limited partnership. its agent. for P 1. a parcel of land situated in Alaminos. Pangasinan * The property in question. in favor of that Orense publicly ratified and confirmed the said sale 2. the authority given shall be cancelled) is nothing more than an authority to sell While Exhibit B might be construed as fixing the price of the sale of the parcel of land. by virtue of a contract of lease executed by plaintiff to Duran * Said instrument of sale of property. JIMENEZ V RABOT FACTS: * Gregorio Jimenez filed this action to recover from Rabot.V. J. fraudulently conspiring with Yu Tec.000 was to be paid on the signing of the contract. executed before a notary a public instrument whereby he sold and conveyed to Gutierrez Hermanos. Rio suffered damages in the sum of P12.000 and prays that the sale to Calvin be declared null and void. * Within the time given the agent found a purchaser in the name of plaintiff (Rio) which offered to purchase the land for the sum of P 40. the agent. together with two other . authorized its agent. who acted within the scope of his authority Even if said consent was granted subsequently to the sale. could not enforce the specific performance of Exhibit B. and the balance within two years. the owner of the property. or at least implied. who in this case acted as the manager of his uncle’s business and Orense’s ratification produced the effects of an express authorization to make the said sale “A contract executed in the name of another by one who has neither his authorization nor legal representation shall be void.000 ISSUE: W/N the contract of purchase and sale of real property is void “unless the authority of the agent be in writing and subscribed by the party sought to be charged” RULING: Yes Molina. it does not specify the terms and conditions upon which the sale was to be made Since Exhibit B already expired. Manila. unless it should be ratified By the person in whose name it was executed before being revoked by the other contracting party” The sale of the said property made by Duran to Gutierrez Hermanos was indeed null and void from the beginning. express or implied was present in this case RULING: YES TO BOTH Evidence shows that Orense did give his consent in order that his nephew. * By reason thereof. of which P7.

and he acts within those limits. it is insufficient. Gregorio Jimenez went back to Alaminos and demanded that his sister surrender the piece of land to him. just as any other instrument intended to transmit or convey an interest in such property ought to appear in a public document Art. instituted an action for the ejectment of private respondent Isidro Perez and recover the possession of a portion of lot 443 before the RTC * Estrada entered into a Compromise Agreement with Perez. the authority of the latter shall be in writing. agent thus binding the principal over the compromise agreement made by the agent to a third person. * She refused upon some pretext or other to do so and as a result. VillamilEstrada as attorney-in-fact to initiate. with the understanding that a deed of conveyance would be executed when the balance should be paid. Perez in selling the portion of the said property RULING: No The authority granted Villamil-Estrada under the special power of attorney was explicit and exclusionary: for her to institute any action in court to eject all persons found on lots number 9127 and 443 so that Cosmic Lumber could take material possession thereof and for this purpose. plaintiff instituted an action to recover the land from her control * Meanwhile. he has to pay to plaintiff through Estada the sum of P26. the principal cannot question the validity of his act The general rule here applicable is that the description must be sufficiently definite to identify the land either from the recitals of the contract or deed or from external facts referred to in the document. the terms and conditions such as: “ In order for Perez to buy the said lot he is presently occupying. alienation by sale of an immovable certainly cannot be deemed protective of the right of Cosmic Lumber to physically possess the same. principal and Paz Estrada. the authority of an agent to execute a contract for the sale of real estate must be was sufficient to enable her to bind her brother of the sale made in favor of Rabot RULING: Yes As a matter of formality. COSMIC LUMBER CORPORATION V CA FACTS * Cosmic Corporation. 1713 of the Civil Code requires that the authority to alienate land shall be contained in an express mandate Subsection 5 of section 335 of Code of Civil Procedure say that the authority of the agent must be in writing and . thereby enabling one to determine the identity of the land and if the description is uncertain on its face or is shown to be applicable with equal plausibility to more than one tract. Nicolasa approached Rabot and the latter agreed to buy the property for the sum of P500. institute and file any court action for the ejectment of third persons and/or squatters of the entire lot 9127 and 443 for the said squatters to remove their houses and vacate the premises in order that the corporation may take material possession of the entire lot * Paz G. Paz Estrada to Perez under the compromise agreement ISSUE: W/N there is a contract of agency between Cosmic Lumber. it being then in her possession. 6. otherwise. to appear at the pre-trial and enter into any stipulation of facts and/or compromise agreement but only insofar as this was protective of the rights and interests of Cosmic Lumber in the property Nowhere in this authorization was Villamil-Estrada granted expressly or impliedly any power to sell the subject property nor a portion thereof Neither can a conferment of the power to sell be validly inferred from the specific authority “to enter into a compromise agreement” because of the explicit limitation fixed by the grantor that the compromise entered into shall only be “so far as it shall protect the rights and interest of the corporation in the aforementioned lots”. Ilocos Sur. the sale should be void. registration and other incidental expenses shall be shouldered by Perez * although the agreement was approved by the trial court and the decision became final and executory it was not executed within the 5 year period from date of its finality allegedly due to the failure of Cosmic Lumber to produce the owner’s duplicate copy of title needed to segregate from lot 443 the portion sold by the attorney-in-fact. very much less than its assessed value of P250/sqm and considering further that plaintiff never received the proceeds of the sale When the sale of a piece of land or any interest thereon is through an agent.3 parcels in the same locality originally belonged to Jimenez. by virtue of her power of attorney. * He wrote his sister a letter from Vigan in which he informed her that he was pressed for money and requested her to sell one of his parcels of land and send him the money in order that he might pay his debts. Villamil Estrada.640 computed at P80/square meter and that Cosmic Lumber recognizes ownership and possession of Perez by virtue of this compromise agreement over said portion of 333 sqm of lot 443 and whatever expenses of subdivision. P250 was paid at once. Nicolasa executed and delivered to Rabot a deed purporting to convey to him the parcel of land ISSUE: W/N the authority conferred on Nicolasa by the letter subscribed by the party to be charged SC: the authority expressed in the letter is a sufficient compliance with both requirements The purpose in giving a power of attorney is to substitute the mind and hand of the agent for the mind and hand of the principal. through its General Manager executed a Special Power of Attorney appointing Paz G. having been assigned to him as one of the heirs in the division of the estate of his father * It further appears that while Gregorio Jimenez was staying at Vigan. a power of attorney to convey real property ought to appear in a public document. more so when the land was being sold for a price of P80/sqm . and if the character and extent of the power is so defined as to leave no doubt as to the limits within which the agent is authorized to act. * Acting upon this letter. * Nicolasa admits having received this payment but there is no evidence that she sent it to her brother * After one year. his property in Alaminos was confided by him to the care of his elder sister Nicolasa Jimenez. In the context of special investiture of powers to Villamil-Estrada. Thus. The letter contains no description of the land to be sold other than is indicated in the words “one of my parcels of land”.

This being the case. * This subdivision was developed by private respondent Phil Ville Development for parties and Housing to Corporation loans (PVDHC) from the primarily qualified obtain Casidsid. and Atty Victor Villanueva.4 conferred in writing and must give him specific authority. together with the location plan and copy of the TCT to Atty. lacked the requisites essential for the perfection of contracts Both spouses dealt with Gatus who was not the agent of PVDHC. PVDHC was to enter into agreements concerning subject units with both spouses only upon approval of their loan applications with GSIS which failed to materialize There are no written contracts to evidence the alleged sales. Quezon area of 71. Holdings). RAET V CA FACTS: * Petitioners Cesar and Elvira Raet (the spouses Raet) and petitioners Rex and Edna Mitra (Spouses Mitra) negotiated with Amparo Gatus concerning the possibility of buying the rights of the latter to certain units at the Las Villas de Sto.653 while the latter paid P27. The criminal case for estafa against her was dismissed because it was found out that she never represented herself to be an agent of PVDHC Both spouses knew from the beginning that Gatus was negotiating with them in her own behalf and not as an agent of PVDHC There is thus no basis for the finding of HLURB Arbiter that Gatus was the agent of PVDHC with respect to the transactions in question Since PVDHC had no knowledge of the figures Gatus gave to both spouses as estimates of the costs of the units. * Spouses Raet and Spouses Mira paid Gatus the total amounts of P40. the judgment based thereon is necessarily void When an agent is engaged in the perpetration of a fraud upon his principal for his own exclusive benefit. Legal Counsel of City-Lite * City-Lite conveyed its interest to purchase a portion or one-half (1/2) of the front lot of the “Violago Property” Apparently. PVDHC demanded them to vacate the units they were occupying and ejectment cases were filed against them ISSUE: W/N there were perfected contracts of sale between petitioners and private respondent PVDHC involving the units in question RULING: No SC: Parties in this case had not reached any agreement with regard to the sale of the units in question Records do not show the total costs of the units in question and the payment schemes therefore.000 and P35.000 to PVDHC on the understanding that these accounts would be credited to the purchase prices of the units which will be determined after the approval of their loan applications with the GSIS. Mamaril wrote Metro Drug (Al G. * The front portion consisting of 9. Holdings and Realty Corporation (F. If both spouses and PVDHC had indeed entered into contracts involving said units. CITY-LITE REALTY CORPORATION V CA FACTS * Private Respondent F. The parties’ transactions thus. In containing the broker’s description of the property and the asking price of P6. however. Roy) expressing City-Lite’s desire to buy the entire front lot of the subject property instead of only half thereof provided the asking price of P6. net of withholding taxes and other charges. it is rather strange that contracts of such importance have not been reduced in writing 8. The figures referred to by both spouses were mere estimates given to them by Gatus. PVDHC would process the applications for the purchase of the units upon the approval by the GSIS of petitioners’ loan application * Spouses Raet presented GSIS policy of Ernesto . HOLDINGS was not receptive to the purchase of only half of the front lot * Atty. As they were not GSIS members. Phase 4A of the subdivision while Spouses Mitra were given the unit on Lot 7. Roy sent a sales brochure. Bulacan. They were advised by PVDHC to seek other sources of financing but were still allowed to remain in the said premises * Failure of both spouses to raise money. Rodriguez Avenue. Executive Vice President. while the spouses Mitra that of Dena Lim. Contact person was Meldin Al G. Nino Subdivision in Meycauyan. it could not have ratified the same at the time the latter applied for the purchase of the units. Gelacio Mamaril.000 respectively for which they were issued receipts by Gatus in her own name * Both spouses applied directly with PVDHC for the purchase of units in the said subdivision. entirely outside the scope of his agency 7. a power of attorney must so express the powers of the agent in clear and unmistakable language It is therefore clear that by selling to Perez a portion of Cosmic Lumber’s land through a compromise agreement.250/sqm was reduced and that payment be in installment for City also known as the “Violago Property” or the “San Lorenzo Ruiz Commercial Center. either to conduct the general business of the principal or to execute a binding contract containing terms and conditions which are in the contract he did execute For the principal to confer the right upon an agent to sell real estate. Roy. disapproved the loan applications of both spouses. Villamil-Estrada acted without or in obvious authority. was the registered owner of a parcel of land situated along E.P.P. Block 67. Phase 4A thereof * GSIS. formerly the Sparta Holdings Inc. commission was 2% of selling price.” with an Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). Metro Drug Inc. Block 61.754 sqm * The property was offered for sale to the general public through the circulation of a sales brochure with terms of payment negotiable. The former paid P32. they looked for members who could act as accommodation parties by allowing them to use their policies. a practicing lawyer and a licensed real estate broker. Mamaril passed in turn passed on these documents to Antonio Teng. The sale ipso jure is consequently void and so is the compromise agreement. *Spouses Raet were allowed to occupy the unit built on Lot 4. Roy subsequently informed City-Lite’s representative that it would take time to subdivide the lot and F.192 sqm is the subject of this litigation * Al G.250/sqm addition.P. he is not really acting for the principal but is really acting for himself.

the latter to purchase the said launch for the principal. HOLDINGS refused to execute the corresponding deed of sale in favor of City-Lite of the front lot of the property * Trial court ruled in favor of City-Lite ordering F. and then Brodek closes said contract without the intervention of Simmie. plaintiff claims the sum of P9. agreeing to pay a fixed price for such property.500 pesos.P.P.P. Simmie ISSUE: W/N there was a contract of agency between Brodek and Simmie. Roy and/or Metro Drug was only to assist F. But the final evaluation.500 pesos and 2. BRODEK of sale and there is nothing left to be done except the payment of the said property.P.056.5 a certain period * The parties reached an agreement and Roy agreed to sell the property to City-Lite provided only the latter submit its acceptance in writing to the terms and conditions of the sale * For some reason or another and despite demand.600 on two causes against the administrator of the estate of the deceased Mariano Larena * Upon his first cause of action. Holdings.150 pesos and that there was due from Brodek to him the difference between 3.250 payable as follows: P15 M as down payment to be payable immediately upon execution of the deed of sale and the balance within 6 months from down payment without interest * CA reversed TC’s decision ISSUE: W/N there was a perfected contract of sale between CityLite and respondent F. with Simmie to purchase property. a sum equal to the difference between this fixed price and whatever sum less than that for which Simmie is able to purchase the property. and Simmie has completed the contract 10. Dorr. the sale should be as it is declared null and void 9. however it is a fact that during said period.P.P. he did not receive any compensation. SIMMIE V H. the sale shall be void. In other words. otherwise. 1874 of NCC: “When the sale of a piece of land or any interest therein is through an agent.350 pesos for services performed by the former for Brodek in the purchase of a ½ interest in the launch called Fred L. HOLDINGS President requesting Metro Drug’s assistance in finding buyers for the property Memorandum indicates that Meldin G.000 * Evidence shows that plaintiff rendered services to the deceased. the trial court held that the compensation for services of plaintiff was the gratuitous use and occupation of some of the houses of the deceased by the plaintiff and his family * As to the second cause. Holdings in looking for buyers and referring to them possible prospects whom they were supposed to endorse to F. and for that reason he is entitled to recover the sum disbursed by him in its construction. the former is liable to the latter for an amount equal to the difference between the actual purchase price of said property and the which Brodek agreed to pay for the same * Simmie filed an action against Brodek to recover the sum of 1.150 pesos.600.J.350 pesos *Inferior court ruled in favor the plaintiff.P. Roy mere contact person Art. * Evidence shows that Brodek was the owner of ½ interest in the said launch prior to the time of the alleged contract and that one A. plaintiff alleges that one of the buildings belonging to the deceased and described in his complaint was built by him with the consent of the deceased. Roy were not authorized to sell the property to City-Lite. AGUNA V.500 pesos and whatever sum less than that amount for which he could purchase the said launch *He further claims that by virtue of this agreement he entered into a contract with the said Washburn to pay to the latter the sum of 2. and that the authority of Roy was only limited to that of mere liaison or contact person RULING: No. amounting to P20. * Simmie claims that he entered into a contract with Brodek by the terms of which he was to purchase the half interest owned by said Washburn for a sum not to exceed 3. the authority of the latter shall be in writing. and the fact that the deceased had . Holdings. allowing Simmie. LARENA FACTS: * This action is brought to recover the sum of P29. HOLDINGS because of a lack of definite agreement on the manner of paying the purchase price and that Metro Drug and Meldin Al G. the alleged value of services rendered by him to said deceased as his agent in charge of the deceased’s houses situated in Manila * Under the second cause of action. consisting in the collection of the rents due from the tenants occupying the deceased’s houses in Manila and attending to the repair of said houses when necessary. F. the court held that the plaintiff did not have any source of income that could produce him such a large sum of money as that invested in the construction of the house. Washburn was the owner of the other half. Roy and/or Metro Drug was only a contact person with no authority to conclude a sale of the property Roy and/or Metro Drug was a mere broker and Roy/s only job was to bring parties the parties together for a possible transaction FACTS: SC: for lack of a written authority to sell the “Violago Property” on the part of Roy and/or Metro Drug. *He further claims that he was to receive for such services a sum equal to the difference between 3. He also took such steps as were necessary to enforce the payment of rents and all that was required to protect the interests of the deceased in connection with said houses * Evidence also shows that at the time he rendered his services. HOLDINGS to execute a deed of sale of the property in favor of the former for the total consideration of P55. plaintiff occupied a house belonging to the deceased without paying any rent at all * Upon the first cause of action. or the sum of 1. Brodek RULING: YES Where Brodek enters into a contract through his authorized agent Dorr. appraisal and acceptance of the transaction could be made only by F.” The absence of authority to sell can be determined from the written memorandum issued by respondent F.

in turn. 3514. After hearing all the adverse claims on the amount of the judgment the court ordered that the attorney's lien in the amount of 15 per cent of the judgment. the Insular Drug Co. through her attorney-in-fact Tan Buntiong. Mauricio Cruz & Co. which can [be acted upon] only by agents does so at his peril. Upon examination of the checks deposited by Foerster with PNB..000 each making a total of P12. The assignment executed by the latter during his lifetime in favor of the defendant Mauricio Cruz & Co.Arroyo. the case being filed in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo.69. which the court. in his own behalf and as counsel for the late Jose Ma. and must abide by the consequences if the agent who indorses the same is without authority. it cannot be explained how the plaintiff could have rendered services as he did for 8 years without receiving and claiming any compensation from the deceased. After the case was remanded to the court of origin. the said clerk of court delivered on the same date to said Attorney Jose Evangelista the said amount of P6.6 more than the necessary amount to build the house ISSUE: W/N there was a contract of agency between plaintiff and respondent entitling the former compensation for services rendered in favor of the latter RULING: NO Plaintiff insists that. as alleged assignee of the rights of the late Attorney Antero Soriano by virtue of the said judgment in payment of professional . the deed of assignment of the credit executed by Tan Toco's widow. Antero Soriano also appeared claiming the amount of the judgment as it had been assigned to him. there were several endorsements guaranteed by the PNB manager Angel Padilla for Carmen E. the Philippine National Bank. Foerster committed suicide. be recorded in favor of Attorney Jose Evangelista.92. The trial court held that the compensation for the services of the plaintiff was the gratuitous use and occupation of some of the houses of said deceased by plaintiff and his family If it were true that the plaintiff and the deceased had an understanding to the effect that plaintiff was to receive compensation aside from the use and occupation of the houses of the deceased.40. an obligation to compensate them must necessarily arise. Antero Soriano. Foerster was formerly a salesman of the drug company for the island of Panay and Negros. Arroyo. in favor of late Antero Soriano 2.000. In pursuance of the resolution of the court below ordering that the attorney's lien in the amount of 15 per cent of the judgment be recorded in favor of Attorney Jose Evangelista. as did also the Philippine National Bank. Although there was no evidence showing that the bank knew that Foerster was misappropriating the funds of his principal. Arroyo’s intestate estate. Municipal Council of Iloilo vs. Inc. de Foerster. When the Manila office of the drug company investigated and discovered the anomalies.000. With these two payments of P6. which prayed that the amount of the judgment be turned over to it because the land taken over had been mortgaged to it. which was consequently withdrawn by the couple and a certain V. acting with the consent of the appellant widow. Inc. Any person taking checks made payable to a corporation.44 against the municipality of Iloilo was reduced to P30. is confined to the claim of Mauricio Cruz & Co. The CFI of Iloilo rendered judgment in a case awarding Tan Toco the recovery of the value of a strip of land taken by the municipality of Iloilo from her. as was done. the wife of U. This appeal. 13.. ROBINSON FLEMING V.000 mentioned above in consideration of said lawyer's waiver of the remainder of the 15 per cent of said judgment amounting to P444. fixed at 15 per cent of the amount of the judgment. The drug company saw fit to stand on the proposition that checks drawn in its favor were improperly and illegally cashed by the bank for Foerster’s personal account.. Foerster. A salesman with authority to collect money belonging to his principal does not have the implied authority to indorse checks received in payment. as his services as agent of the deceased M Larena having been rendered. Evangelista. then. in his behalf and as counsel for the administratrix of Jose Ma. in his own behalf and as counsel for the administratrix of the deceased Jose Ma .000 on account of the judgment rendered in said civil case No. Issue: Whether the bank is liable for the amount indorsed and withdrawn by Foerster using company checks even if the latter is an agent of the drug company. claims that it never received the face value of the 132 checks in question covering a total of Php 18. The bank is liable for the amount withdrawn by Foerster and will have to stand the loss occasioned by negligence of its agents. 11. the judgment for P42. declaring valid and binding 1. assigned to Mauricio Cruz & Co. the claimants appeared. Ratio: Yes on both issues. He also acted as a collector of the company. which was adjudicated by said court to Mauricio Cruz & Co. Whether the bank is liable for the negligence of its agents when they allowed encashing of the checks without prior authority from the company. the codefendants of Attorney Jose Evangelista agreed not to discuss the payment made to the latter by the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo of the amount of P6.966. At the hearing of the instant case. filed a claim in the same case for professional services rendered by him. mainly taking checks from the Iloilo branch of the drug company and depositing them to the company account with Philippine National Bank. Insular Drug Company VS National Bank Facts: U. Then municipal treasurer of Iloilo deposited with the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo the amount of P6.E. The right of an agent to indorse commercial paper is a very responsible power and will not be lightly inferred. and directed the municipality of Iloilo to file an action of interpleading against the adverse claimants. and by him. Atty. 285. CRUZ 12. Jose Evangelista and Jose Arroyo.E. Bacaldo (stenographer of Foerster).966. At the hearing on said claim. Evangelista and Tan Toco FACTS: This is an appeal taken by Tan Toco of the decision of CFI of Iloilo.

7 services rendered by him to the said widow and her coheirs. in the first place. Atty. but Atty. the appellant alleges that the payments admitted by the court in its judgment. must be added to the P700. S ISSUE: Whether the assignment made by Tan BoonTiong to Atty. When the assignment was made to Atty. That the said assignment was not in consideration of the professional services by Atty. for the reason that. . since: a. S in favour of Mauricio Cruz & Co. That the deed of assignment by Atty.  An agent of attorney-in -fact empowered to pay the debts of the principal.CFI then rendered the following decision: 1. case 5. on the ground that they were considered as payments made for professional services rendered. S of all the credits and rights of belonging to Tan Toco (from the “strip of land case”) is valid as payment for the professional services rendered by Atty. S – this was already decided! Because the rights. and may satisfy them by an assignment of a judgment rendered in favor of said principal  When a person appoints two attorneys-in-fact independently. made in payment of professional services in other cases.So the court judged in favour of Atty.Iloilo paid Atty. S was NOT counsel for Tan Toco in the case regarding the recovery of value of the strip of land 5.But Tan Toco appealed and said that #1 and #2 were null and void and the balance of 30K++ should be given to her instead of Mauricio Cruz and Co Inc. E and ordered Municipality of Iloilo to file an action of interpleading against the claimants . BoonTiong is authorized to employ and contract for the services of lawyers upon such conditions as he may deem convenient AND take charge of any actions necessary or expedient for the interests of his principal and defend suits brought against her  [AGENCY!]  Implied power: authority to pay for professional services thus engaged by the principal  The assignment made by Atty. S for professional services rendered by the firm of “Soriano & Arroyo”.  Tan Toco (widow) contended the following: 1. She already paid Atty. amounting to P2. Municipal Council of Iloilo vs. Atty.So Mauricio claimed the remaining amount since he is the assignee of the rights of Atty.CFI awarded to Tan Toco 42K++ for the value of a strip of land taken by the municipality to widen a public street . S to Tan Toco 4. The payment was already satisfied even before the execution of the deed of assignment b. S to collect the amount of judgment. VALID. BoonTiong in favour of Atty. E. ISSUE: Whether the deeds of assignment in this case are null and void HELD: NO. being Chinese.Atty. E)(as counsel of Jose Maria’s intestate estate) filed a claim in the same case for professional services rendered by him o He acted with Tan Toco’s consent o And the court fixed at 15% of the amount of judgment as payment for his professional services .The Court also delivered 6K to Atty. They only “hired” Atty. S is valid and binding 2. That the deed of assignment executed by Tan Toco’s widow thru Atty. but in order to facilitate the collection of the amount of said judgment in favor of the appellant. The lawyers who represented her were Arroyo and Evangelista who filed a claim for professional fees!! 6. 1928 . INDIRECTLY: the assignment made to Atty. S money for his services in 1928 after the deed of assignment was executed 2. not by Antero Soriano personally. S and determined in the previous judgment was made in consideration of the professional services rendered by Atty. as made by Tan Toco's widow to Attorney Antero Soriano for professional services rendered to her and to her coheirs. Atty. credit.  Tan Toco contends. Evangelista (Atty. etc. S to Tan Toco HELD: YES. Municipal of Iloilo should pay Mauricio Cruz & Co Inc 30K++ .So from the 42K – 12K. by the firm of Soriano & Arroyo. S) (pero he died diba?) . that said assignments was not made in consideration of professional services by Attorney Antero Soriano.. The payment he received for his services is inadequate (10K) 3. she had encountered many difficulties in trying to collect. and to employ lawyers to defend the latter's interests. does not contravene the prohibition of article 1459. evidenced by receipts 2. of the Civil Code. BoonTiong was VALID as payment for professional services rendered by Atty. Antero Soriano (Atty. S. for they had already been satisfied before the execution of said deed of assignment. Inc. Evangelista and Tan Toco (widow) FACTS: 1924: . since Tan Toco is Chinese. Inc is valid and binding 3. S appeared as counsel for Tan Toco many times and won several times too for them. . is impliedly empowered to pay the lawyer's fees for services rendered in the interests of said principal. who has not taken any part in the case wherein said judgment was rendered.900. In support of her contention on this point. the consent of the one will not be required to validate the acts of the other unless that appears positively to have been the principal's attention  The assignment of the amount of a judgment made by a person to his attorney. the 30K was awarded to Mauricio Cruz and Co. Tan Toco still wired Atty.Other claimants also appeared: PNB and Atty. E waived the remaining amount that should be given to him . in that “strip of land case” was payment for his professional services rendered in connection with the other cases (client still Tan Toco)—so the only thing left to do is to COLLECT! 7. S the 6K . S. That the deed of assignment was drawn up in contravention of the prohibition that lawyers cannot acquire even by assignment (Article 1491 (5))  BUT THE COURT SAID THAT TAN TOCO’S CONTENTIONS ARE UNTENABLE: 1. she cannot make transactions properly (HAHA) c.

and at the present time temporarily residing in this city of Tarlac. 2 ang attorney-in-fact ni Tan Toco. In the present case. Puno contend s that the sale was valid and prayed that he be relieved from any liability.. purchase. L-22450 Dec. and may. made in payment of professional services in other cases. The defendant corporation is absolved from liability publication 15. seem to be used coordinately. There seems to be no good reason for saying that Puno had authority to administer and not to sell when "to sell" was as advantageous to the plaintiff in the administration of his affairs as "to administer.. in any proceeding or business concerning the good administration and advancement of my said interests. The lower court held that the "only power conferred was the power to administer. appoint attorneys at law or attorneys in fact to represent him.. he may administer . such as the law requires. No. duties and obligations of Puno: I. Province of Ambos Camarines. Philippine Islands. L-9608) Facts: Linan an owner of a parcel of land executed a document stating the power. and may satisfy them by an assignment of a judgment rendered in favor of said principal  When a person appoints two attorneys-in-fact independently.. the president of the corporation had no knowledge of the existence of the contract although he admittedly saw some printers working in the office.8 DOCTRINES:  An agent of attorney-in -fact empowered to pay the debts of the principal.R. purchase. the contract entered into cannot be considered reasonable and usual because its duration of three (3) years was unusual and unreasonable because it was so onerous for the corporation and even stated that the corporation is liable for the unexpired portion of the contract despite insolvency.. such contract was not ratified by the board of directors. if possible.. of the Civil Code. what was the real intent of the plaintiff. that . P400 of which the defendant Puno should alone be responsible for. sell.C. The SC examined the power conferred upon the defendant Puno (Exhibit A) and ascertain. However. The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiff ruling that Chen had the authority to enter . the contract must be usual and reasonable. case 5. Chen. they would be obliged to pay the unexpired portion of the contract even in the event of insolvency. claims that Chen had no authority top enter into that contract with plaintiff. the land be returned to him together with damages. Chen agreed to enter into a contract with plaintiff Yu Chuck for the printing of their materials. 14. does not contravene the prohibition of article 1491. purchase.  The assignment of the amount of a judgment made by a person to his attorney. No. in necessary cases. Chen was later replaced by Tan Tia Heng who dismissed plaintiff without explanation.. as well as sue and be sued before any authority. so it was not the principal’s intention that they should act jointly in order to make their acts valid. Issue: Whether the sale of Puno acting as an agent of Linan was a valid sale ? Ruling: RTC: Favored plaintiff Linan That the document (1) did not give Puno authority to sell the land.C." etc.. (2) that the sale was illegal and void. Tan Tia Heng. upon Mr. Diego Liñan. As a result. Montano did not consent to the assignment. letter or document if it is not signed by T. Government of the Philippines v. of age. T..R. P. officers of the corporation have an implied authority to enter into contracts if such power is not expressly vested in a certain director or officer. collect and pay.. Wagner 16." Reading the contract we find it says that the plaintiff "I confer . capital of the Province of Tarlac. sell. appear before the courts of justice and administrative officers in any proceeding or business concerning the good administration and advancement of my said interests. married. capital of the Province of Tarlac. who has not taken any part in the case wherein said judgment was rendered. Chen was thereafter appointed as manager of the corporation. But they had different and separate letters of attorney. Diego Linan vs Marcos Puno (G. 3. and to pay the costs SC Favored defendant puno : to quote. sell. The judgment is REVERSED. claiming that in its contract with the corporation is for three (3) years and it was stated that in the event the contract with them is terminated before its expiration. Marcos P." To hold that the G." The words "administer. collect and pay . It had a president but had no business manager.. set forth that I hereby confer sufficient power. a resident of Daet. plaintiff filed an action for specific performance with damages. Kong Li Po into the contract. (3) That defendants should return to the land to the plaintiff. and (4) That the defendants should pay to the plaintiff the sum of P1. taking into consideration a notice made by the president that it shall not recognize any receipt.000 as damages.. It was settled by the Court that as a rule. Lastly. in order that in my name and representation he may administer the interest I possess within this municipality of Tarlac. Plaintiff had no right to presume that any employee of the corporation had an implied authority to enter into a contract of employment which would bring about its ruin. Atty. Yu Chuck v. on the other hand. ISSUE: Whether or not Chen had the authority to bind the corporation in the contract it entered into with plaintiff HELD: No. Puno. Moreover. and to employ lawyers to defend the latter's interests. likewise a resident of this city of Tarlac. is impliedly empowered to pay the lawyer's fees for services rendered in the interests of said principal. power . Each has equal force with the other. June 1911 Puno sold and delivered the said parcel of land to the other defendants for a sum of 800pesos Plaintiff alleges that the document did not confer upon Puno the power to sell the land and prayed that the sale be set aside. the consent of the one will not be required to validate the acts of the other unless that appears positively to have been the principal's attention  Apparently. 1924 FACTS: Kong Li Po is a domestic corporation engaged in the of a Chinese newspaper.I.

we are of the opinion that the contract. 1911. we have taken into account the fact that the plaintiff delayed his action to annul said sale from the month of June. . In reaching this conclusion. until the 15th of February. It will be presumed that he acted in good faith and in accordance with his power as he understood it. Neither have we overlooked the fact in the brief of the appellants that the plaintiff has not returned.9 power was "to administer" only when the power "to sell" was equally conferred would be to give to special words of the contract a special and limited meaning to the exclusion of other general words of equal import. nor offered to return. as gathered from the contract the other defendants acted in good faith. liberally construed. we are of the opinion that the lower court committed the error complained of in the second assignment. That his interpretation of his power. and. nor indicated a willingness to return. 1913. as we think it should be. justifies the interpretation given it by Puno. The record contains no allegation on proof that Puno acted in bad faith or fraudulently in selling the land. without discussing the other assignments of error. and so hold. the purchase price In view of all the foregoing. that the judgment of the lower court should be and is hereby revoked and that the appellants should be relieved from all liability under the complaint. we are of the opinion.