You are on page 1of 1

E 19 - NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, (NFA), petitioner, vs.INTERMEDIATE A ELLATE !OURT, "U ERIOR ("#) "HI IN# !

OR ORATIOn Gil Medalla, as commission agent of the plaintiff Superior Shipping Corporation, entered into a contract for hire of ship known as "MV Sea Runner" with defendant National Grains Authority !nder the said contract Medalla o"ligated to transport on the "MV Sea Runner" #,$$% sacks of rice "elonging to defendant National Grains Authority from the port of San &ose, 'ccidental Mindoro, to Mala"on, Metro Manila !pon completion of the deli(ery of rice at its destination, plaintiff on 'cto"er )*+*, wrote a letter re,uesting defendant NGA that it "e allowed to collect the amount stated in its statement of account -he statement of account included not only a claim for freightage "ut also claims for demurrage and ste(edoring charges amounting to .*/,$/# +% 'n No(em"er )*+*, plaintiff wrote again defendant NGA, this time specifically re,uesting that the payment for freightage and other charges "e made to it and not to defendant Medalla "ecause plaintiff was the owner of the (essel "MV Sea Runner 0n reply, defendant NGA informed plaintiff that it could not grant its re,uest "ecause the contract to transport the rice was entered into "y defendant NGA and defendant Medalla who did not disclose that he was acting as a mere agent of plaintiff -hereupon defendant NGA paid defendant Medalla for freight ser(ices in connection with the shipment of #,$$% sacks of rice .laintiff wrote defendant Medalla demanding that he turn o(er to plaintiff the amount of .1+,%%% %% paid to him "y defendant N2A 3efendant Medalla, howe(er, "ignored the demand " .laintiff was therefore constrained to file the instant complaint &udgment was rendered in fa(or of the plaintiff 3efendant National 2ood Authority appealed to this court on the sole issue as to whether it is 4ointly and se(erally lia"le with defendant Gil Medalla for freightage

.etitioner N2A;s contention holds no water 0t is an undisputed fact that Gil Medalla was a commission agent of respondent Superior Shipping Corporation which owned the (essel "MV Sea Runner" that transported the sacks of rice "elonging to petitioner N2A -he conte6t of the law is clear Art )##/, which is the applica"le law in the case at "ar pro(ides5 Art )##/ 0f an agent acts in his own name, the principal has no right of action against the persons with whom the agent has contracted< neither ha(e such persons against the principal 0n such case the agent is the one directly "ound in fa(or of the person with whom he has contracted, as if the transaction were his own, e6cept when the contract in(ol(es things "elonging to the principal -he pro(ision of this article shall "e understood to "e without pre4udice to the actions "etween the principal and agent Conse,uently, when things "elonging to the principal are dealt with, the agent is "ound to the principal although he does not assume the character of such agent and appears acting in his own name 0n other words, the agent;s apparent representation yields to the principal;s true representation and that, in reality and in effect, the contract must "e considered as entered into "etween the principal and the third person Corollarily, if the principal can "e o"liged to perform his duties under the contract, then it can also demand the enforcement of its rights arising from the contract -he petition is here"y 3=N0=3 and the appealed decision is here"y A220RM=3

-he appellate court affirmed the 4udgment of the lower court, hence, this appeal "y way of certiorari, petitioner N2A su"mitting a lone issue to wit5 whether or not the instant case falls within the e6ception of the general rule pro(ided for in Art )##/ of the Ci(il Code of the .hilippines 0ssue5 78N N2A is 4ointly and se(erally lia"le with defendant Gil Medalla for freightage 7hether or not the instant case falls within the e6ception of the general rule pro(ided for in Art )##/ of the Ci(il Code of the .hilippines 0t is contended "y petitioner N2A that it is not lia"le under the e6ception to the rule 9Art )##/: since it had no knowledge of the fact of agency "etween respondent Superior Shipping and Medalla at the time when the contract was entered into "etween them 9N2A and Medalla: .etitioner su"mits that "9A:n undisclosed principal cannot maintain an action upon a contract made "y his agent unless such principal was disclosed in such contract 'ne who deals with an agent ac,uires no right against the undisclosed principal "