LIM vs.

G.R. No. 102784 February 28, 1996

whatever form they may have been entered into, provided all the essential
requisites for their validity are present.


There are some provisions of the law which require certain formalities for
particular contracts. It is required for for the validity of the contract; to make
the contract effective as against third parties and; for the purpose of proving
the existence of the contract. A contract of agency to sell on commission basis
does not belong to any of these three categories, hence it is valid and
enforceable in whatever form it may be entered into. FYI: There is only one
type of legal instrument where the law strictly prescribes the location of the
signature – which is in notarial wills found in Article 805 NCC.

On October 8, 1987, Rosa Lim who had come from Cebu received from private
respondent Victoria Suarez the following two pieces of jewelry; one 3.35 carat
diamond ring worth P169K and one bracelet worth P170K, to be sold on
commission basis. The agreement was reflected in a receipt.
On December 15, 1987, Lim returned the bracelet to Suarez, but failed to
return the diamond ring or to turn over the proceeds thereof if sold. As a result,
private complainant, aside from making verbal demands, wrote a demand
letter to petitioner asking for the return of said ring or the proceeds of the sale
Lim’s contention: She was not an agent of Suarez. In fact, she was a
prospective buyer of the pieces of jewelry. She told Mrs. Suarez that she would
consider buying the pieces of jewelry for her own use and that she would
inform the private complainant of such decision before she goes back to Cebu.
She cannot be liable for estafa since she never received the jewelries in trust
or on commission basis from Vicky Suarez. The real agreement between her
and the private respondent was a sale on credit with Mrs. Suarez as the ownerseller and petitioner as the buyer, as indicated by the bet that petitioner did
not sign on the blank space provided for the signature of the person receiving
the jewelry but at the upper portion thereof immediately below the description
of the items taken.
WON the real transaction between Lim and Suarez was that of sale or that of
contract of agency to sell? Contract of Agency.
Receipt contains the following provisions:
XXX I received from Vicky Suarez the following jewelries XXX
XXX if I could not sell, I shall return all the jewelry within the period mentioned
above; if I would be able to sell, I shall immediately deliver and account the
whole proceeds of sale thereof to the owner of the jewelries at his/her
residence XXX
Materiality of the location of Lim’s signature:
Rosa Lim’s signature indeed appears on the upper portion of the receipt
immediately below the description of the items taken. This does not have the
effect of altering the terms of the transaction from a contract of agency to sell
on commission basis to a contract of sale. Contracts shall be obligatory in

In the case before us, the parties did not execute a notarial will but a simple
contract of agency to sell on commission basis, thus making the position of
petitioner’s signature thereto immaterial.
Contention of Lim that Suarez authorized Nadera to receive the ring:
Suarez testified that Aurelia Nadera is highly indebted to her, so if she gave
authority for Nadera to get possession of it she will be exposing herself to a
high risk.
SUMMARY: Litigation ensued between Rosita Ku and Equitable. When CA
ruled in favor of Rosita, Equitable filed a motion for an extension of 30 days to
file its petition for review as it allegedly received the CA decision on April 25,
2000. However, Rosita argues that the petition is defective because Bank
actually received CA decision on April 24, 2000 when Joel Rosales, an employee
of Bank’s law firm received it from the Post office and thus Equitable should
have filed motion for extension on May 9, 2000 not May 10. Equitable replied
that Joel is not an agent of the bank as expressly mentioned in his affidavit.
HELD: Bank filed petition beyond reglementary period. There was perfection of
the agency as Joel Rosales averred in his affidavit that “on occasions when I
receive mail matters for said law office, it is only to help them receive their
letters promptly,” implying that counsel had allowed the practice of Rosales
receiving mail in behalf of the former. There is no showing that counsel had
objected to this practice or took steps to put a stop to it. However, in the
interest of justice, the petition was still given due course.

PERFECTION FROM SIDE OF PRINCIPAL: An agency may be express but it
may also be implied from the acts of the principal, from his silence, or lack
of action, or his failure to repudiate the agency, knowing that another
person is acting on his behalf without authority.

PERFECTION FROM SIDE OF AGENT: Likewise, acceptance by the agent
may also be express, although it may also be implied from his acts which
Agency - SJBPrior | 1

 Dec. 31. and Ku GiokHeng. 13.  RTC (Sept. business transactions were suspended on said date per Memorandum Circular No. deprived of due process. treasurer of Noddy. and assigned with the Equitable PCI Bank. contending that there was no need to name Rosita Ku as a party in the action for ejectment since she    was not a resident of the premises nor was she in possession of the property. 8. 2000: Atty. and brought them to the Mail and Courier Department.  Ku GiokHeng denied that there was any lease agreement over the property. Mail and Courier Department w/ official duty and responsibility to receive and pick-up from the Manila Central Post Office the various mails. o FOOTNOTE: The last day to file the petition was on June 9. o Bank received CA decision not on April 25. 03-2000. Niedo of said law office inquired as to actual date of receipt of letter. it is only to help them receive their letters promptly. it was received on April 25. 2000: Equitable Bank filed its petition. 2000 .  Rosita filed in CA a special civil action for certiorari assailing the decision of the RTC as she was not made a party to the ejectment suit and was. o Error was caused by an honest mistake. it was 1 day beyond the reglementary period for filing the petition for review OR motion to extend w/c must be filed on May 9. and other mail matters intended for the bank’s various departments and offices at Equitable Bank Building o I am not the constituted agent of “Curato-Divina-MabilogNedo-Magturo-Pagaduan Law Office” for purposes of receiving their incoming mail matters. he and Rosita Ku. therefore. 2000 o April 27. and informed him that based on logbook. 2000. Dismissed complaint and ordered the execution of the MeTC decision. Enjoined the eviction of Rosita from the premises. 2000 by Joel Rosales. 2000 – w/n 30 days  SC: Granted the motion for a 30-day extension “counted from the expiration of the reglementary period” and “conditioned upon the timeliness of the filing of the motion for extension. 2000” o May 8. Rosita failed to redeem the property so the Register of Deeds canceled the TCT in her name and a new one was issued in Equitable’s name. or from his silence or inaction according to the circumstances (Art. o It allowed Ku GiokHeng to remain in the property on the condition that the latter pay rent.. 2000: Decision was sent by the Mail and Courier Department to said Law Office whose receiving clerk opened the letter and stamped on the “Notice of Judgment” their actual date of receipt: “April 27. who was not an agent of its counsel’s law office cannot be considered receipt of the CA Decision by the Bank (or its counsel). Roland A. On occasions when I receive mail matters for said law office.SJBPrior | 2 . ‘94): In favor of Equitable and ordered Ku Giok Heng to vacate the premises.  May 10.2000 – Filed motion for extension for 30 days o June 9. Agency . mortgaged a residential house and lot located in La Vista. 2000: Received CA Decision together with other mail matters. 2000: Equitable filed in SC a motion for an extension of 30 days from May 10. 2000 but on April 24. and Rosita’s father. Rosita argues that the petition is defective because of non-compliance with reglementary period. 2000. correspondence. 2000 . 2000 o April 24. ‘89: Equitable instituted an action for ejectment before MeTC QC against Rosita’s father Ku GiokHeng. filed an action before RTC QC to nullify the decision of the MeTC. However. 2000. letters. FACTS:  Noddy Dairy Products Inc. 2000 – When Equitable filed its motion for extension to file petition for review. failed to pay the loan. 2000): Agreed with Rosita. Ku GiokHeng’s failed to pay rent thus this action. neither am I any such agent of the various other tenants of the said Building. QC which is registered in Rosita’s name  When Noddy. 2000 – Received CA Decision (15 days reglementary period to file petition for review OR file motion for extension) o May 10.”  June 13. 20. Equitable foreclosed the property extrajudicially and was issued a certificate of sale after winning in the foreclosure sale. ‘99): No merit. o April 25. VP/GM of Noddy Inc. Rosales’ Affidavit o Employee of Unique Industrial & Allied Services. Inc.  CA (Mar. incurred a loan from Equitable Banking Corporation (now Equitable PCI Bank)  As security.  May 10.  MeTC (Dec. Buyer in foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of 1 year after the registration of the sale  Ku GiokHeng did not appeal the decision of the MeTC. o April 24. 2000: After sorting out mail matters.copy “was duly delivered to and received by Joel Rosales (Authorized Representative)” as evidenced by a Certification issued by the Manila Central Post Office o May 10. 1870). o No right for his continued possession of or stay as title had been duly transferred to Equitable. erroneously recorded them on page 422 of logbook as having been received on April 25.carry out the agency. o April 25.15 days from the receipt of CA decision Bank’s Reply: Reiterates “its honest representation of having received a copy of CA decision on April 25. Inc. 2000 but because of the Court’s 99 th Anniversary Celebration. Inc. 2000 or until June 9.” Receipt on April 24. 2000 to file its petition for review of the CA decision as the Bank has received the CA decision on April 25. ‘94: Instead. Rosita Ku.

o PLDT vs. 2) Court gives due course to petition in spite of noncompliance with periods in light of the merits of the petition. Chandler.” implying that counsel had allowed the practice of Rosales receiving mail in behalf of the former.  The Court proceeded to enumerate cases where the rules on reglementary periods were suspended (6 days. Macke and W. no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger. allege that during the months of February and March 1905.  The perfection of an appeal within the period fixed by the rules is mandatory and jurisdictional. o d) sub-lessees. But. if they are: o a) trespassers.  CASE AT BAR: Joel Rosales averred that “on occasions when I receive mail matters for said law office. that Camps has only paid on account of said goods the sum of P174. Strong compelling reasons such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave miscarriage thereof warrant the suspension of the rules. squatters or agents of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment.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. that there is still due them on account of said goods the sum of P177. from his silence. o SEC. service upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one of them. 2000. a judgment in an ejectment suit is binding not only upon the defendants in the suit but also against those not made parties thereto. NLRC: It was only when the Legal Services Division actually received a copy of the decision that a proper and valid service may be deemed to have been made. 1869)  Likewise. it is always in the power of this Court to suspend its own rules. or o f) members of the family. (Oro Cam Enterprises. – Filing is the act of presenting the pleading or other paper of the clerk of court. CA decision REVERSED. 7 days. the rules on reglementary periods can be suspended in this case? (YES) 3) Whether a person can be evicted by virtue of a decision rendered in an ejectment case where she was not joined as a party? (YES) RATIO: 1) Joel Rosales is an agent of Bank’s counsel. although it may also be implied from his acts which carry out the agency. or lack of action. 2 and 10. and strangers to a case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court. that believes that Flores is still the agent of Camps. in the interest of justice. 1 day. it is only to help them receive their letters promptly. unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. 2 days. The motion for extension to file the petition for review was even filed 2 days before the lapse of the 15-day reglementary period Assuming the motion for extension was indeed one day late. Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the pleading or paper concerned. whenever the purposes of justice require it. vs. an agency may be express but it may also be implied from the acts of the principal. they sold to Jose Camps and delivered at his place of business. Inc. 2000. acceptance by the agent may also be express.  Generally. o e) co-lessees. one of the plaintiffs.SJBPrior | 3 .” various bills of goods amounting to P351. CA decision actually received on April 27.H.  Bank also argues such receipt did not constitute notice to its counsel. Rule 13 of ROC. that Flores (agent) later acknowledged the receipt of the said goods and made various payments thereon amounting in all to P174. There is no showing that counsel had objected to this practice or took steps to put a stop to it. ISSUES: 1) Whether Joel Rosales can be considered the agent of Bank’s counsel and thus service to him was considered service to Bank? (YES) [Whether the act of the law firm in allowing its employee to occasionally receive its mail can be construed to mean an agency relationship? YES] 2) Whether.  Although the Affidavit of Joel Rosales states that he is “not the constituted agent of ‘Curato-Divina-Mabilog-Nedo-Magturo-Pagaduan Law Office”. (Matuguina vs. he shipped the said goods to the defendant at the Washington Café. B. she is nevertheless bound by the judgment of the MeTC in the action for ejectment despite her being a nonparty thereto as the daughter of Ku GiokHeng. o Actual receipt by its counsel was actually on April 27. partners doing business under thee firm name of Macke. or from his silence or inaction according to the circumstances (Art. testified that on the order of one Ricardo Flores. Where one counsel appears for several parties. 3) Even if Rosita were a resident of the property. relatives and other privies of the defendant. CA) Nevertheless. known as the :Washington Café. o b) guests or other occupants of the premises with the permission of the defendant. CA) DISPOSITIVE: Petition GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED. If any party has appeared by counsel. the defendant in the action for ejectment. 13 days. 2. who represented himself to be the agent of Jose Camps. (Art. tardy appeal). 2000. MACKE ET AL V JOSE CAMPS FACTS:  B. Chandler And Company. 1870). as required by Sec. Filing and service defined. and that when he went to the Washington Café for the purpose of collecting his bill he found Flores. o c) transferees pendente lite. H. H. or to except a particular case from its operation. not April 25. or his failure to repudiate the agency. in Agency .50. Bank urges SC to suspend its rules and admit the petition in the interest of justice. he shall only be entitled to one copy of any paper served upon him by the opposite side. knowing that another person is acting on his behalf without authority.

and unless the contrary appears. he can not.One who clothes another with apparent authority as his agent. and the title of “managing agent” attached to the signature of Flores which appears on that contract. can not be permitted to deny the authority of such person to act as his agent. and at the foot of this inventory the word “received” followed by the name “Ricardo Flores” with the words “managing agent” immediately following his name. apparently in charge of the business and claiming to be the business manager of Camps. act. act or omission. Agency .“Whenever a party has. *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. or omission be permitted to falsify. Estopple---. Camps obligating himself not to sublet or subrent the building or the business without the consent of the said Galmes.  A written contract was introduced as evidence. said business being that of a hotel with a bar and restaurant annexed. to Camps for 1 year for the purpose of carrying on that business. the authority of the agent must be presumed to include all the necessary and usual means of carrying his agency into effect. together with the fact that at the time the purchases were made.SJBPrior | 4 . the former of “Washington Café” subrented the building wherein the business was conducted. and to act upon such belief. and holds him out to the public as such. for the payment of the goods The contract sufficiently establishes the fact that Camps was the owner of the business and of the bar. his principal.the absence of Camps. by his own declaration. 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. in any litigation arising out of such declaration. Flores was apparently in charge of the business performing the duties usually intrusted to a managing agent leave little room for doubt that he was there as the authorized agent of Camps. from which it appears that one Galmes. 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 Washington Café with authority to bind Camps. intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true. Agency by Estoppel --.