You are on page 1of 33

Bus Org1 Cases on Agency

ORIENT AIR SERVICES AND HOTEL REPRESENTATIVES vs. In an agent-principal relationship, the personality of the
COURT OF APPEALS principal is extended through the facility of the agent. In so
CASE NUMBER: GR. NO. 76931 doing, the agent, by legal fiction, becomes the principal,
DATE: MAY 29, 1991 authorized to perform all acts which the latter would have
him do. Such a relationship can only be affected with the
FACTS: consent of the principal, which must not, in any way, be
January 15 1977- American Airlines, Inc. an air carrier compelled by law or by any court. The Agreement itself
offering passenger and air cargo transportation in the between the parties states that "either party may terminate
Philippines, and Orient Air Services and Hotel the Agreement without cause by giving the other 30 days'
Representatives entered into a General Sales Agency notice by letter, telegram or cable." (Emphasis supplied) We,
Agreement, whereby the former authorized the latter to act therefore, set aside the portion of the ruling of the
as its exclusive general sales agent within the Philippines for respondent appellate court reinstating Orient Air as general
the sale of air passenger transportation. sales agent of American Air.
May 11 1981- American Air took charge of the collection WHEREFORE, with the foregoing modification, the Court
of the proceeds of tickets sold originally by Orient Air and AFFIRMS the decision and resolution of the respondent Court
terminated the Agreement in accordance with Paragraph 13 of Appeals, dated 27 January 1986 and 17 December 1986,
thereof (Termination). respectively. Costs against petitioner American Air.

13. Termination
American may terminate the Agreement on two days' RALLOS vs. FELIX GO CHAN & SONS REALTY
notice in the event Orient Air Services is unable to CORPORATION
transfer to the United States the funds payable by Orient CASE NUMBER: L-24332
Air Services to American under this Agreement. Either DATE: January 31, 1978
party may terminate the Agreement without cause by PONENTE: Munoz-Palma, J.
giving the other 30 days' notice by letter, telegram or
cable. FACTS:
May 15 1981- American Air instituted suit against Orient  Concepcion and Gerundia Rallos were sisters and
Air with the Court of First Instance of Manila, for Accounting registered co-owners of a parcel of land known as Lot No.
with Preliminary Attachment or Garnishment, Mandatory 5983 of the Cadastral Survey of Cebu covered by Transfer
Injunction and Restraining Order Certificate of Title No. 11116 of the Registry of Cebu.
 In its Answer with counterclaim dated 9 July 1981, Orient  They executed a special power of attorney in favor of their
Air denied the material allegations of the complaint with brother, Simeon Rallos, authorizing him to sell such land for
respect to plaintiff's entitlement to alleged unremitted and in their behalf.
amounts, contending that after application thereof to the
 After Concepcion died, Simeon Rallos sold the undivided
commissions due it under the Agreement, plaintiff in fact still
shares of his sisters Concepcion and Gerundia to Felix Go
owed Orient Air a balance in unpaid overriding commissions.
Chan & Sons Realty Corporation for the sum of P10,686.90.
Further, the defendant contended that the actions taken by
New TCTs were issued to the latter.
American Air in the course of terminating the Agreement as
 Petitioner Ramon Rallos, administrator of the Intestate
well as the termination itself were untenable, Orient Air
Estate of Concepcion filed a complaint praying (1) that the
claiming that American Air's precipitous conduct had
sale of the undivided share of the deceased Concepcion
occasioned prejudice to its business interests.
Rallos in lot 5983 be unenforceable, and said share be
Trial Court ruled in favor of Orient Air
reconveyed to her estate; (2) that the Certificate of 'title
ON APPEAL: Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the
issued in the name of Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty
ruling of TC
Corporation be cancelled and another title be issued in the
names of the corporation and the "Intestate estate of
ISSUE: W/N the respondent appellate court correctly ruled
Concepcion Rallos" in equal undivided and (3) that plaintiff
that Orient Air be reinstated again as sales agent of American
be indemnified by way of attorney's fees and payment of
costs of suit.
CFI: [Plaintiff’s Complaint]
By affirming this ruling of the trial court, respondent
 Sale of land was null and void insofar as the one-half pro-
appellate court, in effect, compels American Air to extend its
indiviso share of Concepcion Rallos
personality to Orient Air. Such would be violative of the
principles and essence of agency, defined by law as a  Ordered the issuance of new TCTs to respondent
contract whereby "a person binds himself to render some corporation and the estate of Concepcion in the proportion
service or to do something in representation or on behalf of of ½ share each pro-indiviso and the payment of attorney’s
another, WITH THE CONSENT OR AUTHORITY OF THE fees and cost of litigation


Bus Org1 Cases on Agency
[Respondent filed cross claim against Simon Rallos(*Simon CAUSE OF ACTION: Petition for review on certiorari assailing
and Gerundia died during pendency of case)] the Decision of then respondent Court of Appeals
 Juan T. Borromeo, administrator of the Estate of Simeon promulgated "Jose G. Gana, et al. vs. Sociedad Nacionale Air
Rallos was ordered to pay defendant the price of the ½ share France", which reversed the Trial Court's judgment dismissing
of the land (P5,343.45) plus attorney’s fees the Complaint of private respondents for damages arising
from breach of contract of carriage, and awarding instead
[Borromeo filed a third party complaint against Josefina P90,000.00 as moral damages.
Rallos, special administratrix of the Estate of Gerundia]
 Dismissed without prejudice to filing either a complaint FACTS:
against the regular administrator of the 1. Late Jose G. Gana and his family (the GANAS), purchased
Estate of Gerundia Rallos or a claim in the Intestate-Estate of from AIR FRANCE (9) "open-dated" air passage tickets
Cerundia Rallos, covering the same subject-matter for the Manila/Osaka/Tokyo/Manila route. On 24 April
1970, AIR FRANCE exchanged or substituted the
CA: CFI Decision reversed, upheld the sale of Concepcion’s aforementioned tickets with other tickets for the same
share. route. At this time, the GANAS were booked for the
MR: denied. Manila/Osaka segment on AIR FRANCE Flight 184 for 8 May
1970, and for the Tokyo/Manila return trip on AIR FRANCE
ISSUES & RULING: Flight 187 on 22 May 1970.
1) WON sale was valid although it was executed after the 2. The aforesaid tickets were valid until 8 May 1971. The
death of the principal, Concepcion.? GANAS did not depart on 8 May 1970. Instead, Jose Gana
 Sale was void. sought the assistance of Teresita Manucdoc, a Secretary of
o No one may contract in the name of another without being the Sta. Clara Lumber Company where Jose Gana was the
authorized by the latter, or unless he has by law a right to Director and Treasurer, for the extension of the validity of
represent him (Art. 1317 of the Civil Code). their tickets, which were due to expire on 8 May 1971.
o Simon’s authority as agent was extinguished upon 3. Teresita enlisted the help of Lee Ella Manager of the
Concolacion’s death Philippine Travel Bureau. Ella sent the tickets to Cesar Rillo,
Office Manager of AIR FRANCE. The tickets were returned
2) WON sale fell within the exception to the general rule that to Ella who was informed that extension was not possible
death extinguishes the authority of the agent unless the fare differentials resulting from the increase in
 The sale did not fall under the exceptions to the fares triggered by an increase of the exchange rate of the US
general rule that death ipso jure extinguishes the dollar to the Philippine peso and the increased travel tax
authority of the agent were first paid. Ella then returned the tickets to Teresita
o Art. 1930 inapplicable: SPA in favor of Simon Rallos was not and informed her of the impossibility of extension.
coupled with interest 4. In the meantime, the GANAS had scheduled their
o Art. 1931 inapplicable: departure on 7 May 1971 or one day before the expiry
 Simon Rallos knew (as can be inferred from his pleadings) date. Teresita requested travel agent Ella to arrange the
of principal Concepcion’s death revalidation of the tickets. Ella gave the same negative
 For Art 1931 to apply, both requirements must be present answer and warned her that although the tickets could be
used by the GANAS if they left on 7 May 1971, the tickets
3) WON agent’s knowledge of the principal’s death is a would no longer be valid for the rest of their trip because
material factor. the tickets would then have expired on 8 May 1971.
 Yes, agent’s knowledge of principal’s death is material. Teresita replied that it will be up to the GANAS to make
o Respondent asserts that: there is no provision in the Code the arrangements.
which provides that whatever is done by an agent having 5. With that assurance, Ella on his own, attached to the
knowledge of the death of his principal is void even with tickets validating stickers for the Osaka/Tokyo flight, one a
respect to third persons who may have contracted with him JAL. sticker and the other an SAS (Scandinavian Airways
in good faith and without knowledge of the death of the System) sticker. The SAS sticker indicates thereon that it
principal was "Reevaluated by: the Philippine Travel Bureau,
o Court says: this contention ignored the ignores the Branch No. 2" (as shown by a circular rubber stamp) and
existence of the general rule enunciated in Article 1919 that signed "Ador", and the date is handwritten in the center of
the death of the principal extinguishes the agency. Article the circle. Then appear under printed headings the notations:
1931, being an exception to the general rule, is to be strictly JL. 108 (Flight), 16 May (Date), 1040 (Time), OK (status).
construed. Apparently, Ella made no more attempt to contact AIR
FRANCE as there was no more time.
AIR FRANCE vs. COURT OF APPEALS 6. Notwithstanding the warnings, the GANAS departed
CASE NUMBER: G.R. No. L-57339 from Manila in the afternoon of 7 May 1971 on board
DATE: December 29, 1983 AIR FRANCE Flight 184 for Osaka, Japan. There is no
question with respect to this leg of the trip.


Bus Org1 Cases on Agency
7. However, for the Osaka/Tokyo flight on 17 May 1971, 6. TARIFF RULES
Japan Airlines refused to honor the tickets because of 7. APPLICABLE FARE ON THE DATE OF DEPARTURE
their expiration, and the GANAS had to purchase new 3.1 General Rule.
tickets. They encountered the same difficulty with respect to All journeys must be charged for at the fare (or charge) in
their return trip to Manila as AIR FRANCE also refused to effect on the date on which transportation commences from
honor their tickets. They were able to return only after pre- the point of origin. Any ticket sold prior to a change of fare
payment in Manila, through their relatives, of the readjusted or charge (increase or decrease) occurring between the date
rates. They finally flew back to Manila on separate Air of commencement of the journey, is subject to the above
France Frights on 19 May 1971 for Jose Gana and 26 May general rule and must be adjusted accordingly. A new ticket
1971 for the rest of the family. must be issued and the difference is to be collected or
8. On 25 August 1971, the GANAS commenced before the refunded as the case may be. No adjustment is necessary if
then Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch III, Civil Case the increase or decrease in fare (or charge) occurs when the
No. 84111 for damages arising from breach of contract of journey is already commenced.
9. AIR FRANCE traversed the material allegations of the The GANAS cannot defend by contending lack of
Complaint and alleged that the GANAS brought upon knowledge of those rules since the evidence bears out
themselves the predicament they found themselves in that Teresita, who handled travel arrangements for the
and assumed the consequential risks; that travel agent GANAS, was duly informed by travel agent Ella of the
Ella's affixing of validating stickers on the tickets without advice of Reno, the Office Manager of Air France, that
the knowledge and consent of AIR FRANCE, violated the tickets in question could not be extended beyond the
airline tariff rules and regulations and was beyond the period of their validity without paying the fare
scope of his authority as a travel agent; and that AIR differentials and additional travel taxes brought about by
FRANCE was not guilty of any fraudulent conduct or bad the increased fare rate and travel taxes.
faith. Teresita was the agent of the GANAS and notice to her of
10. TC dismissed the Complaint of the GANAS based on the rejection of the request for extension of the validity
Partial and Additional Stipulations of Fact . of the tickets was notice to the GANAS, her principals.
11. The GANAS appealed to the CA. During the pendency of PRINCIPAL)
the appeal, Jose Gana, the principal plaintiff, died. The circumstances that AIR FRANCE personnel at the ticket
12. CA set aside and reversed the TC’s decision ordering Air counter in the airport allowed the GANAS to leave is not
France to pay appellants moral damages in the total sum tantamount to an implied ratification of travel agent Ella's
P90,000.00 plus costs. irregular actuations. It should be recalled that the GANAS left
13. Reconsideration sought by AIR FRANCE was denied, in Manila the day before the expiry date of their tickets and
hence, petitioner's recourse before this instance, to which we that "other arrangements" were to be made with respect to
gave due course. the remaining segments. Besides, the validating stickers that
Ella affixed on his own merely reflect the status of
ISSUE: reservations on the specified flight and could not legally
1. Whether or not, under the environmental milieu the serve to extend the validity of a ticket or revive an expired
GANAS have made out a case for breach of contract of one.
carriage entitling them to an award of damages? No! The conclusion is inevitable that the GANAS brought upon
themselves the predicament they were in for having
2. Whether or not Teresita was the agent of the GANAS
insisted on using tickets that were due to expire in an
and notice to her of the rejection of the request for
effort, perhaps, to beat the deadline and in the thought
extension of the validity of the tickets was notice to the
that by commencing the trip the day before the expiry
GANAS, her principals? YES!
date, they could complete the trip even thereafter.
It should be recalled that AIR FRANCE was even unaware
RULING: No! SC reversed the affirmative ruling of the CA. (As
of the validating SAS and JAL. stickers that Ella had
for the main—FIRST issue)
affixed spuriously. Consequently, Japan Air Lines and AIR
AIR FRANCE cannot be faulted for breach of contract
FRANCE merely acted within their contractual rights
when it dishonored the tickets of the GANAS after 8 May
when they dishonored the tickets on the remaining
1971 since those tickets expired on said date; nor when it
segments of the trip and when AIR FRANCE demanded
required the GANAS to buy new tickets or have their
payment of the adjusted fare rates and travel taxes for
tickets re-issued for the Tokyo/Manila segment of their
the Tokyo/Manila flight.
trip. Neither can it be said that, when upon sale of the new
WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is hereby reversed
tickets, it imposed additional charges representing fare
and set aside, and the Amended Complaint filed by private
differentials, it was motivated by self-interest or unjust
respondents hereby dismissed.
enrichment considering that an increase of fares took effect,
as authorized by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) in April,
1971. This procedure is well in accord with the IATA tariff CASE NUMBER: G.R. No. L-20136
rules which provide:

decree of partition issued pursuant to the provisions of Rule 2. for a period of one (1) as Lot No. with treble cost against and conveyed to Atty. Albay. By a certificate of redemption issued by the Provincial Sheriff of Albay. denying his alive and. 1917 of share pro indiviso of Anatolio Buenconsejo in Lot No. the Cadastral Survey of Tabaco. Lower court: ruled in favor of the respondents. a. Cebu. PHILIPPINE REFINING CO. for three reasons: ships. . 69 of the new Rules of Court (Rule 71 of the old Rules of RO-3848 (25322) was originally owned in common by Court) which have not been followed By Santos — adjudicate Anatolio Buenconsejo to the extent of ½ undivided portion to himself in fee simple a determinate portion of said Lot No. year 1917-A to be segregated from Lot No. At the end 4|Page . the plaintiff made a contract with the by him. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Santo’s claim that he has acquired the share of Anatolio Buenconsejo in Lot No. and covering Lot No. upon the authority of a special The Visayan Refining Co. It is so ordered. In consequence of said power of attorney (if valid) and (25322). he and his wife opposed the petition of petition: Santos. Elena Buenconsejo and having its principal place of business at Legaspi. 1917-A. is a corporation organized engaged power of attorney executed in his favor by the children of in operating its extensive plant at Opon. is a limited partnership. participation which Atty. Cebu. Petitioner Santos had redeemed the aforementioned share of the country. and. Relying upon this power of attorney and redemption made On August 28. Tecla San Andres Ziga.The party of the first part (Albadejo) agrees and binds itself 7. Tecla San Andres Ziga may have DATE: December 20. nor buy copra from any vendor in Legaspi. the material parts of which are as Anatolio Buenconsejo in the aforementioned Lot No. especially copra. transferred appealed from is hereby affirmed. but the party of the first part must deliver such copra to the party of the second part free on board the RULING: No! SC affirmed the lower court’s decision that boats of the latter's ships or on the pier alongside the latter's petitioner's claim is clearly untenable. Santos could have acquired no more than the Lorenzo Bon and Santiago Bon. or a judicial title in his name. ( FACTS: b. as his share therein. to the exclusion of the other co- ½ (Exh. claim and/or or ALBADEJO y CIA vs. 1917 to be made. RO-3848 c. a. As the alleged present owner of said share. organized in conformity with the laws of these Islands. B) owners. for a year. for the Anatolio Buenconsejo. second part will not appoint any other agent for the 8. awardee in petitioner-appellant Jose A. and Lorenzo Bon and Santiago Bon to the extent of the other 1917. Cancellation of original certificate of title No. Santos y Diaz. redemption.. Issuance in lieu thereof. 6. C). of a separate transfer certificate of other co-owners (Lorenzo and Santiago Bon). purchase of copra in Legaspi. it Pursuant to this agreement the plaintiff bought copra extensively for the Visayan Refining Co. Albay. 1917. 1918. the rights. Petitioner Jose A. the order Sale executed by the Provincial Sheriff of Albay. a subdivision plan of said Lot No. follows: (important provisions) 1917. in which and the party of the second part agrees and binds itself to the portion he claims as his share thereof has been marked buy from the party of the first part. because their father is still order of the Court of First Instance of Albay. Santos y Diaz seeks the reversal of an execute said power of attorney. and that he wants said subdivision at No. Anatolio Buenconsejo's rights. in fact. 1917-A. Lot No. were transferred and FACTS: conveyed to the herein petitioner in his capacity as It appears that Albaladejo y Cia. Said special power of attorney authorized him to act on behalf of the children of Anatolio Buenconsejo. Anastacio Buenconsejo. 1965 could not have possibly vested in him any property right in his own name. 1923 acquired over the property in question by reason of the aforementioned auction sale award. 1917 covered by Original Certificate of Title No. for the copra delivered to it by the party him is tenable? of the first part. interests and participation over the portion abovementioned were by a Certificate of Inasmuch as the appeal is patently devoid of merit.During the continuance of this contract the party of the No. Santos now claims to have acquired the share of Visayan Refining Co. 1917 and a certificate of title issued in his name exclusively for said subdivision Lot . Santos caused to sell to the party of the second part (Visayan Refining Co. and so that petitioner cannot — without the conformity of the b. firm was engaged in the buying and selling of the products 5. issued in the name of Anatolio Buenconsejo. Attorney-in-fact of the children of Anatolio Buenconsejo. the corresponding auction sale conducted by said Sheriff 4.) . hence. The Azucena Buenconsejo (Exh.The party of the second part will provide transportation by relying upon a power of attorney and redemption made by sea to Opon. and namely.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency DATE: June 23. manufacture of coconut oil. The children of Anatolio Buenconsejo had no authority to 1. interest. 3. of Anatolio Buenconsejo. 1917 .

created the relation of principal and agent between the Upon consideration of all the facts revealed in evidence parties. apparently had only one commercial From what has been said it follows that the first cause of establishment. the plaintiff would be compensated by the during the period now under consideration. but there was clearly no intention to enter into contractual the two parties. had ceased to action set forth in the complaint is not well founded. Visayan Refining Co. from whence it is to be interfered that the parties agreement.. It results that. The last P110. and the reliance is placed upon article1729 of the (records of shipping). and the and the plaintiff must have understood the letters in that defendant appealed with respect to the action taken upon light.. the plaintiff company addressed alleged that said organization was maintained and extended a letter from Legaspi to the Philippine Refining Co. As a basis for the defendant's liability in this respect it is Under date of June 25. and the law will not raise a contract by implication review. and it showed a balance of Refining Co. but about six weeks suggested that if the various purchasing agents of the thereafter the present action was begun. and they therefore continued by tacit second part till its arrival at Opon should fall upon the consent to govern their future relations by the same plaintiff.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency of said year both parties found themselves satisfied with the of copra from the time of its delivery to the party of the existing arrangement. in had now succeeded to the rights and liabilities of the Visayan conjunction with repeated assurances that the defendant Refining Co. letter no dissatisfaction was expressed by the plaintiff as to SC: We note that in his letter of July 10. which the trial judge being stated in the complaint. ISSUE: Whether he defendant liable for the expenses The inducement held forth was that. notwithstanding occasional irregularities due at the effect that the relation between the parties was not that times to the condition of the weather as related to of principal and agent in so far as relates to the purchase of transportation by sea and at other times to the inability of copra by the plaintiff. to provide opportune transportation for In the appellant's brief the contention is advanced that the the copra collected by the plaintiff and deposited for contract between the plaintiff and the VisayanRefining Co. shows on its face that there was no intention on the part of upon the second cause of action. by the appeal of it.). After the Visayan Refining Co.626. Visayan Refining Co. the alleged amount expended by the plaintiff in account rendered by the Visayan Refining Co. is in our opinion supported by the In paragraph three of the contract it is declared that during proof. deduced there from. with costs. had used reasonable promptitude in its efforts to get out agent for damages incurred in carrying out the agency. (which at the express request. convincing to shipment. and buy copra. that no copra. The trial judge calls attention to the fact that it is expressly would not appoint any other agent forthe purchase of copra provided in paragraph two of the contract that the shrinkage in Legaspi. 1921. the continuance of this contract the Visayan Refining Co. profits then to be earned for any expense that would be incurred in keeping its organization intact. This finding of the trial judge. two causes of action sufficient basis for the conclusion. 1920. when purchasing should incurred by the plaintiff in keeping its organization intact be resumed. to dispatch boats to the more made the plaintiff one of its instruments for the collection of remote ports. the decision of the lower court is here under relation. however.68. of the defendant. 1921. against the intention of the parties. These words afford no successor to the Visayan Refining Co. intended that the copra should be paid for according to its weight upon arrival at Opon regardless of its weight when When the contract above referred to was originally made. The parties could undoubtedly have contracted about the second cause of action. the copra from the places where it had been deposited for Attentive perusal of the contract is. the Visayan Refining Co. the supplies of copra already purchased by the the trial judge committed no error in absolving the plaintiff were gradually shipped out and accepted by \the plaintiff therefrom. P288 in favor of the defendant. or requirement. expressing its approval of said account. would keep their organization intact. shipment. as by the transaction in the long run. the This action was instituted in the CFI Albay by Albaladejo to company would endeavour to see that they should not lose recover a sum of money from the Philippine Refining Co. and this gives rise indirectly to the inference that 5|Page . In next eight or ten months the Second cause of action: Plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of accounts between the two parties were liquidated.. Day the state of affairs between the parties. to the plaintiff maintaining and extending its organization for Visayan was for the month of April. first purchased. the company to lay a basis for contractual liability of any sort. Mr. The correspondence sufficiently for the plaintiff to recover the sum of P49. The plaintiff appealed the first cause of action. but it is clear that in making its purchases from the negligence of the kind alleged can properly be imputed to producers the plaintiff was buying upon its own account the Visayan Refining Co. that the defendant is bound to Upon hearing the cause. court found that the Visayan Refining Civil Code which requires the principal to indemnify the Co.000. In this would soon resume activity as a purchaser of copra. the trial judge absolved the compensate the plaintiff for the expenses incurred in defendant from the first cause of action but gave judgment maintaining its organization. It is true that the Visayan Refining Co. Visayan Refining Co. It is needless to RULING: NO say that there is no proof showing that the officials of the First cause of action: The alleged negligent failure of the defendant acted in bad faith in holding out this hope. Albaladejo y Cia.

this term in one clause of the contract cannot dominate the leaving the plaintiff holding the bag. The title to all of plaintiff's business during the occupation. attorney.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency the plaintiff was considered its buying agent. But this designation was evidently used for convenience.The conclusion thus seems clear that the defendant owes as a buyer the plaintiff was acting upon its own account and the plaintiff an accounting of his management of the not as agents of the Visayan Refining Co.Monies and food stuffs which the defendant said he had DATE: June 28. Unless Thomas less than in the caption of the agreement itself. the whom he was a mere trustee or employee. that company. calling cards saying Thomas is fictitious sale to Pineda – fictitious sale was admitted by both the proprietor == defendant was only a manager.a bar was opened on Calle Bambang-after 4 saloon it used the same name months it was transferred to the original location • Thomas brought a CPA for the purpose of examining the The most that can be said is that the plaintiff instructed books. he had been entrusted with the possession and management For the reasons stated we are of the opinion that no liability of the plaintiff's business and property for the owner's on the part of the defendant is shown upon the plaintiff's benefit and had not made an accounting.In the fictitious bill of sale Pineda acknowledged Thomas’ fictitious ownership of the business • Original building was destroyed by fire. • 2nd CoA: ownership of Silver Dollar Café trade name – it His position is analogous to that of a trustee and he cannot appears that Pineda registered the business as his own consistently. trustee. L-2411 . on the basis of defendant's incomplete and indefinite evidence. time in looking for a site where he could open a saloon • He employed Pineda as a bartender-promoted to cashier The use of the old name suggested that the business was in and manager fact an extension and continuation of the Silver Dollar Café • During Japanese occupation.No abandonment because when Thomas set up a new place of safety.Pineda claims that there was a 3rd verbal agreement. no defendant's management was terminated.It was error for the court below to declare at this stage of the proceeding. he lost no Café at Plaza Sta. • 1st CoA – valid agent or any other person occupying fiduciary relations . as it were. to prevent the business and . and it had been shown.Little or no weight can be attached to Pineda’s assertion . PINEDA CASE NUMBER: G. Thomas is the owner of the trade name 2nd agreement which was a secret stating that the sale was . and the judgment of the trial court on this part of the case is erroneous. It was enough to show. . for the collection of copra employer. 6|Page .Pineda threatened Thomas with a gun if they Pineda to renew the registration of the trade-name and the persisted in their purpose. are spoken of as agents. Pineda was able to .lease its property from falling into enemy hands. But the use of the defendant could strip the business naked of all its stocks. be allowed to create in himself an interest in opposition to that of his RULING: principal or cestuique trust. he is estopped from acquiring or asserting a title adverse to that of principal.Thomas sought to compel an ACCOUNTING of As legal proposition and in good conscience.R. was willing to give away his property and its profits. Thomas made a was in the name of Thomas.Business cards: Thomas is the proprietor remove some furniture and a considerable qty of stocks to a . 2nd CoA- parties. A receiver.As respecting property or persons utterly disabled from sole manager with full power to do as his fancies dictated. and it is very clear that in its activities . Cruz. So Thomas filed a case and set up defendant understood the instruction as permission to make another bar the registration in his favor • 1st CoA. 1951 supplied the plaintiff and his daughters during the war are appropriate items to be considered on taking account FACTS: Thomas bought the bar and restaurant known as Silver Dollar Upon plaintiff’s release from the internment camp. with the principles of good faith. no man in his right senses would have given his manager an outright In some of the trade letters also the various instrumentalities license such as the defendant claims to have gotten from his used by the Visayan Refining Co. that there were no surplus profits THOMAS vs. second cause of action.Upon the reopening of the bar in the original place. the defendants Pineda’s operations during the time he was in control of the registration of the trade name Silver Dollar Cafe must be bar deemed to have been affected for the benefit of its owner of . The exact legal the copra purchased by the plaintiff undoubtedly remained character of the defendant's relation to the plaintiff matters in it until it was delivered by way of subsequent sale to said not a bit. import of which was that he was to operate the business with "The relations of an agent to his principal are fiduciary and it no liability other than to turn over to the plaintiff as the is an elementary and very old rule that in regard to property plaintiff would find it after the war forming the subject matter of the agency. when the real nature of the agreement as revealed in other clauses. No.

Tuason (50 Phil.R. the registration having been made in controversy.a new certificate of title was a property not belonging to him. for it was more between self-interest at the expense of one's integrity and important to them to have her cured of the malady that duty to another. the complaint was dismissed. L-49219 of moving for the partition of the property. before her death. and 888). is not valid reason for issued in 1923 only in the name of the name of the changing the legal relationship between the latter and its petitioner. husband. issued in favor of petitioner Petitioner assigns as first error of the Court of Appeals the Pablo D. concluded with  Respondent is not barred because his appearance as the Court of First Instance of Manila that the parcel of land attorney for petitioner was not a misrepresentation which in question is a community property held by petitioner in would induce petitioner to believe that respondent trust for the real owners (the respondent being an heir of recognized the former as the sole owner of the property in one of them). ISSUE: Whether the respondent is estopped from claiming  In 1923. . petitioner praying that he sanctioned by section 55 of Act No. This confidence. ordered to restore its possession and to remove his house There is no showing why the conclusions of facts of the Court therefrom. Lastly. were the reasons why no step had been taken to of breaking or reversing said understanding. covered by transfer certificate of title No. substituted in 1928 by certificate of title No. original certificate of title No. is the subject of contention between the fact that it considered the oral testimony adduced in behalf parties. yet the Court of Appeals erred in not holding arose between petitioner and respondent. died in 1922. Severino (43 Phil. as amended by Act be declared the owner of the land and that respondent be No. Petitioner alleged that the Court of Appeals erred in not  In 1909. and and the fact that the co-owners were receiving their shares in petitioner could not legitimately assume that it had the effect the rentals. as against respondent. Petitioner answered his wife that she should temptation. 26704. Palma. 496. question of ownership. of title be issued in the name of said petitioner as the Manila.  The Court of Appeals. 3322. 31073 of sole owner of the property. it was declared that This right to recover is complaint which initiated this case. at first. petitioner’s wife. CRISTOBAL  After Luisa Cristobal. As respondent raised the Affirming the said doctrine in Barretto vs. but respondent placing one's self in position which ordinarily excite conflicts told her then not to worry about it. credence to the testimony of Apolonia Reyes and respondent 7|Page . by making it possible to profit by yielding to affected her. accordance with an understanding between the co- owners. PALMA VS. and it gives that. called her custody for management. this court declared that with the Municipal Court of Manila. No.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency acquiring for his own benefit the property committed to his to the effect that Luisa. RULING: No  It was later substituted by certificate of title No. said certificate was cancelled and substituted by that petitioner is not the absolute owner of the property in certificate of title No. and upon said facts o The complaint was dismissed and petitioner brought the petitioner’s first assignment of errors appears to be case to the Court of Appeals. the petitioner. not worry because he would take care of the matter by giving the co-owners their respective shares. Cristobal Reyes from the land in question in a complaint filed In Severino vs. even conceding that  It was only after the death of Luisa Cristobal and petitioner the controverted property was owned in common by several had taken a second wife that trouble on religious matters co-owners. Tejedor (55 petitioner filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila the Phil. upon the evidence. 1627 was issued in the names of petitioner and his wife Luisa Cristobal. which resulted in petitioner’s securing in his name the title to  After the wife’s death in 1922. partition the property. respondent appeared as FACTS: attorney for petitioner and prayed that a new certificate  A parcel of a land located in Quesada Street. it is contended by petitioner that. instead CASE NUMBER: G. and enjoined him to give her co- The rule stands on the moral obligation to refrain from owners their shares in the parcel of land. the Supreme Court declared that In Palet vs. Tondo. of Appeals should be disturbed. to eject respondent Eduardo petitioner is the owner of the land in controversy. 20968 by virtue of a decree issued by question. 1923. close relationship. considering DATE: December 11. where he again failed. the Register of Deeds of Manila. 790). as attorney for petitioner in petitioner and his wife. 1946 specially that petitioner had promised such a partition at the deathbed of the deceased. o The case is appealed by certiorari. also  The fact that respondent has been a party to the deception in the name of petitioner and his wife. was a consequence of the understanding. 343). untenable in the light of law and of the decision of this court. by reason of the confidence they had in  Respondent’s appearance. 496. after registration proceedings under the provisions holding of Act No. the Court of First Instance of Manila in connection with Manila cadastre. ownership to a person trying to usurp it. of respondent sufficient to rebut the legal presumption that o Petitioner sought. true owners to such an extent as to let them lose their 31073.

on May 11. Judgment ownership. and terminates the juridical equivalent to an express renunciation of the agency and relation between them. this purchaser property entrusted to him. VELASCO CASE NUMBER: G. account of his operations. Article 1732 of the Civil Code reads as follows: FACTS: Art. agent against his principal is but renunciation of the powers conferred on the agent. Exhibits X and Z. and subsequently partitioned appears that there is a balance of P3. And article 1736 of the same Code provides that: executed by the plaintiff on April 11. upon the death of his 1923 presented exhibit F to plaintiff. the same does not belong to the person in whose favor it was issued. Later. sheriff at public auction to Salvador Vallejo for P250 and was  The registration of the property in the name of the trustees definitely adjudicated to him. which was sold by the of his principal. L-28050 RULING: DATE: March 13. Should the latter suffer any damage the said plaintiff with authority to manage his property through the withdrawal. 1732. of petitioner and his wife. Upon the premise that the registration in 1909 in the name The defendant accepted both powers of attorney. and with an agreement among the co-owners. and it is elementary that a of redemption to one Eduardo Hernandez. VALERA VS. and renders a final from the liquidation of the agency accounts between them. Federico Valera (Exhibit C). and after the RULING No. By revocation. and that the institution of a civil third person who has acquired it in good faith and for a action and the execution of the judgment obtained by the valuable consideration. acts of the agent. Ildefonsa Cristobal plaintiff. his complaint against Miguel Velasco. and could be the basis of title by prescription. By the withdrawal of the agent. Luisa Cristobal. No. he transferred said right in possession thereof.” was rendered in his favor on March 28. wherein it in his sole name in 1923. on the ground that he 3. bankruptcy. advances the theory that when he. 1923. Art. reported his operations. and on March 31. decree with respect to a registered property. for the sum of P200.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency ISSUE: Whether petitioner had acquired absolute ownership in the Philippines. of generally accepted ethical principles. caused the trust property to be registered account of his administration for said month.058. should accrue to the benefit levied upon said right of redemption. position is the position of a cestui que trust. property located of Echague Street. was in accordance managed plaintiff's property. His o After the plaintiff had recovered his right of redemption. for the sum of trustee cannot acquire by prescription the ownership of the P200 (Exhibit A). and ISSUE: Whether the lower court erred in holding that one of the real owners be entitled to recover the ownership of the the ways of terminating an agency is by the express or tacit property so long as the same has not been transferred to a renunciation of the agent. is equivalent to an express and his rendering of a final account of his operations. “he openly breached The liquidation of accounts revealed that the plaintiff the agreement of 1909 as well as the promise made to his owed the defendant P1.  Petitioner held the property and secured its registration in o Subsequently. 23447 of this court. 1736. This is how the title effected for the benefit of the cestui que trust. City of Manila. who had an execution upon a judgment  It is logical that all benefits derived by the possession and against the plaintiff rendered in a civil case against the latter. civil case No. are renunciation of the agency. and on August 8. must be deemed to have been of redemption to the defendant Velasco. 1923. and as misunderstanding dying wife of giving the co-owners their respective shares. the defendant brought suit against concluding that “that breach was an assumption of the plaintiff. as heirs of the decedent. the sheriff levied upon the claim ownership by prescription upon his own breach of a plaintiff's right of usufruct. 1919. The fact that an agent institutes an action against his principal for the recovery of the balance Doctrine: The filing of a complaint by an agent against his in his favor resulting from the liquidation of the accounts principal for the collection of a balance in his favor resulting between them arising from the agency. conveyed the same right of redemption. interdiction. By the death. or insolvency of the has not satisfactorily proven his right of action. consisting of the usufruct of a real of the property through prescription. 1923. the plaintiff sold his right his name in a fiduciary capacity.33 in favor of the between himself and his daughter. On September 4.R. as such agent.” arose between them. Petitioner’s pretension of building his right to writ of execution was issued. the agent must indemnify him 8|Page . to the right of usufruct to the aforementioned property later  whether or not there is bad faith or fraud in obtaining a came to vest the said defendant. being subversive adjudicated it to the defendant in payment of all of his claim. 1928 The lower court did not err. judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing 2. principal or of the agent. the defendant was appointed attorney-in-fact of notice to the principal. Ditangco. sold it at public auction and trust cannot be countenanced by any court. terminates the juridical relation between them. An agent may withdraw from the agency by giving 1922. petitioner rendered accounts of his administration.  By virtue of the powers of attorney. which is the final wife in 1922.100. one Salvador Vallejo. to the plaintiff himself.  The position of a trustee is of representative nature. Agency is terminated:  This is an appeal taken by Federico Valera from the 1.

rendered in favor of the former and against the latter. As between Jesus and Antonio the main issue turns upon who had acquired it at public auction by virtue of a writ of their respective qualifications to the position of execution issued upon the judgment obtained by the said administrator. Federico Valera's right of redemption from Salvador Vallejo. "I renounce the agency. Cui took his oath of office. had no hostile attitude towards his principal." agency accounts. 3239 gave the initial management to brought suit against the said principal on March 28. being a grandson of and legal. is valid claiming a right to the same office.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency therefore. 1923 to the plaintiff. 7. yet neither dignity nor decorum permits the latter to 1929. Plaintiff Jesus Ma. Teodoro Cui died on 27 August and the plaintiff wrote the agent of the plaintiff-appellant. in adopting a Antonio Ma. for. the defendant.  When the agent filed a complaint against his principal for 4. that Miguel Velasco renounced the agency. In  In order to terminate their relations by virtue of the agency 1960. of  The misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the indigent invalids. decied in favor of the plaintiff and FACTS: held that the phrase "titulo de abogado. one of the nephews any doubt. resulting from the assumption of the position. CUI although disbarred by the Court but was reinstated by CASE NUMBER: L-7041 resolution about two weeks before he assumed the position DATE: August 31. and is more expressive than if the agent had de abogado. deceased. the payment of said balance. "for the care and support. Section 2 of Act No. Romulo Cui later on intervened. having acquired of the Hospicio in their deed of donation. Miguel Velasco. are facts showing a rupture of relations. Cui. resulting from a liquidation of the mayor impuesto o contribucion. o ingeniero civil. o medico. the latter lost all right to said circumstances would be preferred pursuant to section 2 of usufruct. controversies and court litigations ensued concerning the Federico Valera could not have understood otherwise than position of administrator. On 2 July 1931 Dr. rendered his final account on March resigned in favor of Antonio Ma." taken alone. being the sons of Mariano Cui. who was the principal. Vicente Cui. "que posea with respect to the agency. On February 28. "convenio" entered into between them. among the  The disagreements between an agent and his principal legitimate descendants of the nephews named. one of the nephews mentioned by the founders  The defendant-appellee. as agent. Cui pursuant to a 31. Don Pedro Cui died in 1926. because his act 5. suing him for the prior notice of either the "convenio" or of his brother's collection of the balance in his favor. liquidation of the agency accounts. as a result of the liquidation of the accounts Legislature in 1925 and endowed with extensive properties between them arising from the collections by virtue of the by the said spouses through a series of donations. 1928 for the founders jointly and. Cui are was more expressive than words and could not have caused brothers. Beginning 1932. 1964 of administrator of the Hospicio. unless the agent's reason for his withdrawal should 1. The administration passed to Mauricio Cui and continue representing a person who has adopted such an Dionisio Jakosalem. the latter on 1 July 1931. What is being disputed is the meaning of the term "titulo the agency. The former died on 8 May 1931 and antagonistic attitude towards him. The Hospicio is a charitable institution established by the be the impossibility of continuing to act as such without spouses Don Pedro Cui and Doña Benigna Cui. The demand remained unheeded. only son of Mauricio Cui. applied the deed gives preference to the one. of the spouses Don Pedro Cui and Doña Benigna Cui. principally former's usufructuary right. and the fact that the said defendant 2. a series of the accounts between them in connection with the agency. made by the deed of donation executed in 1926. ceased ipso facto to be 6. but that has used in the deed of donation and considering the function or 9|Page . Dr. as principal. now serious detriment to himself. Dr." It defendant over the payment of the balance of P1. 9. The Court a quo. Teodoro Cui. free of charge. and the complaint is equivalent to an express renunciation of 8." Jesus Ma. and the filing of a civil action by titulo de abogado. means that of a full-fledged lawyer. Teodoro Cui.000 due was incorporated under Act No." Laws from the University of Santo Tomas (Class 1926) but is not a member of the Bar. Cui and defendant Antonio Ma. while his widow died in agency. in the the juridical relation between them. 3239 of the Philippine the latter. Cui is a member of the Bar and CUI vs. more than prove the breach of to "such persons as they may nominate or designate. the held by virtue of an execution issued upon the judgment plaintiff filed the complaint. not having passed the examinations. the then incumbent administrator. Cui holds the degree of Bachelor of merely said. in case of their incapacity or death. However. before the test of age may be. recovery of a sum of money arising from the liquidation of became the administrator. the deed of donation. Antonio Ma. said agent's purchase a letter to the defendant demanding that the office be of the aforesaid principal's right of usufruct at public auction turned over to him. although the agent order prescribed to them.  The defendant-appellee Miguel Velasco. Jesus Ma. o a falta de estos titulos el que pague al estado in favor of the agent. the latter as his agent. Jesus is the older and under equal Vallejo against the said Valera. and incapacitated and helpless persons." has not expressly told his principal that he renounced the 3. o the former against the latter for the collection of the balance farmaceutico.

Teodoro Cui when administrator. however. In Spanish the word "titulo" is defined as "testimonies o instrumento dado para ejercer This action must fail on one other ground: it is already un empleo. Defendant Antonio Ma. The plaintiff tried to get the position by a series of extra. a working knowledge of the law and a demurrer by the.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency purpose of the administrator. should be the one who pays the of the latter's illness did not interrupt the running of the highest taxes among those otherwise qualified. upon proof no less than that required for his between them. was not entitled to the administration of the disbarred by this Court in1957 for immorality and Hospicio. His reinstatement is a recognition of his moral he resigned as administrator pursuant to the "convenio" rehabilitation. the rule that an action in quo warranto must be filed The founders of the Hospicio de San Jose de Barili provided within one year after the right of the plaintiff to hold the in the deed of donation that if not a lawyer. A lawyer.5) A Bachelor's degree alone. admission to the Bar in the first place. On January 26 of that year he filed a the institute" (Sec. not being a Reference is made to the fact that the defendant was lawyer. shall see to it that the rules and complaint in quo warranto against Dr. in that action against Dr. but 3) WON Antonio Cui is entitled as administrator despite entered into an arrangement whereby Teodoro Cui his past disbarment. When the in context the term "titulo de abogado" means not mere defendant was restored to the roll of lawyers the possession of the academic degree of Bachelor of Laws but restrictions and disabilities resulting from his previous membership in the Bar after due admission. paragraph 3 of the deed of donation as a requisite for The Court is of the opinion. conferred by prescribed. ground. the conditions subject to which invalids and 10. Secretary of Justice ruled that the plaintiff. y tambien a dar plaintiff to hold the office arose. the Commissioner to the his office or lack of evident sound moral character. This term has a fixed and general assistant administrator. and succeeded Dr. Jesus Ma. it should not be given a first of all. Teodoro Cui to signification. Mariano Cui. qualifying one disbarment were wiped out. 3. As far as moral character is concerned." as follows: "Perito en el derecho positivo que laches. dignidad o profesion" and the word barred by lapse of time amounting the prescription or "abogado. that he 12." and therefore trustees of the Hospicio shall "make regulations for the means a law government of said institution (Sec. b). The excuse that the plaintiff did not file an should be a doctor or a civil engineer or a pharmacist. does not entitle its holder to exercise the legal Cui in 1934 remanding it to the trial court for further profession. Cui believed he was entitled to the office in as incapacitated and destitute persons may be admitted to long ago as 1932. and shall administer plaintiff's father and Antonio Ma. NO. which assistant administrator. must be filed within one (1) year after the right of los derechos o intereses de los litigantes. who conditions promulgated for admission are not in conflict assumed the administration of the Hospicio. among others. YES. The failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his claim a law school upon completion of certain academic judicially after this Court decided the first case of Cui v. for the practice of law. It is also a fact. properties of considerable value — for all of which work. did not prosecute the case as decided by the Court. statutory period. the standard ISSUE & RULING: required of one seeking reinstatement to the office of WON the administrator should only have possession of attorney cannot be less exacting than that implied in the academic degree of Bachelor of Laws. responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law Court was dismissed upon motion of the parties precisely as a consequence. unprofessional conduct. And the fact that this action was filed 10 | P a g e . Cui accepted a position as virtue of paragraph 3 of the deed of donation. Cui was reinstated by this Court was reinstated in 1960. Teodoro Cui after 31 July 1956 because order. p. empowered to in quo warranto against said Dr. because under Act No. requirements. Cui after 31 July 1956. asset. and has reference to that class of persons continue as administrator and his failure to file an action who are by license officers of the courts. It is argued that although the latter (Antonio) is a continued as administrator. YES. the administrator office arose. Under Section 16 of Rule 66. R-1216 of the Cebu duties. of ineptitude in the discharge of judicial maneuvers. Cui came in as intervenors. provides that the administrator may be removed on the 11. before he assumed the office of as member of the Bar. Teodoro Cui. that whether taken alone or the office which is disputed in this case. 3. YES. this kind of action se dedica a defender en juicio. 3239 the managers or strict interpretation but a liberal one. his acceptance instead of the position of or attorney-at-law. or failing all these. so that the conflicting claims of the parties could be 2) WON Jesus Cui is disqualified as being an ventilated in such an action — all these circumstances administrator. and upon whom peculiar when the appeal in Civil Case No. appear. shall "prescribe degree or diploma of Bachelor of Laws. it The case was dismissed by the Court of First Instance upon a is to be presumed. the case was remanded. the with the provisions of the Act. por escrito o de palabra. prosecute and defend. The plaintiff. The English equivalent of "abogado" is lawyer proceedings. d). However. Mariano Cui was named "legal member of the Bar he is nevertheless disqualified by adviser" and plaintiff Jesus Ma. militate against the plaintiff's present claim in view of He only has the academic degree of Bachelor of Laws. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court from license to practice the profession would be a distinct the order of dismissal. allowing Dr. dictmen sobre las cuestiones o puntos legales que se le 4) WON the action of the plaintiff for administrator has consultan (Id..

During the first month of the existence of the CONTRACT. 1954. the MARITIMA. y que posea titulo de abogado . the office and it is from the time such right arose that the 5. through The charges for such service were known by the union and Teves. AFWU sued MARITIMA for unfair labor practice saying that legitimamente de cualquiera de nuestros sobrinos MARITIMA refused to bargain collectively. Thus. Teves is its branch manager in the port of Iligan respondent never had any knowledge of the individual City and AFWU is a duly registered legitimate labor names of laborers and/or workers listed in the union payroll organization with 225 members. said Cui. wages of these extra laborers were paid by MARITIMA Now for the claim of intervenor and appellant Romulo through separate vouchers and not by AFWU. There is no any direct employment relationship between successively to the descendants of the nephews named in MARITIMA and the laborers. No reply was appointed in the deed itself) pasara a una sola persona made by MARITIMA. judgment appealed from is reversed and set aside. haul shippers' goods from their warehouses to the 3. The lasted up to the latter part of 1953 when the former respondent had no intervention whatsoever in the collection complained to the latter of unsatisfactory and inefficient of those charges. Their only possible the Mauricio Cui line. MARITIMA is a local corporation engaged in the shipping control of the respondent company and/or its agent at. Romulo Cui. another one of the proposal for a collective bargaining agreement. he argues. He is cargoes. grandson of Vicente Cui. On July 23. que descienda 7. This party is also a lawyer. Victor case on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the case. CASE NUMBER: L-22971 DATE: January 31. not from the date being adversely affected -Teves was forced to hire extra the incumbent began to discharge the duties of said laborers from among "stand-by" workers not affiliated to any office. beginning August 12. 1952. This deteriorating situation was admitted as a fact by any better.. since individual contracts with MARITIMA. is not justified by the terms of the possibly be in a better class than AFWU which dealt with deed of donation. MARITIMA. CIR dismissed the legitimos Mariano Cui. On August 11. 1967 ii. Teodoro Cui. through Teves. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS. En igualdad de circumstancias. who belonged to found that it was AFWU that hired them. The petitioner union operated as a labor contractor under ALLIED FREE WORKER’S UNION [PLUM] vs. and intervenor-appellant. than defendant Antonio 6. Whether or not Maritima is can be considered an employer administration. AFWU rendered satisfactory service. MARITIMA. The 5) WON Romulo Cui is entitled as administrator. So.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency within one year of the defendant's assumption of office service by the laborers doing the arrastre and stevedoring in September 1960 does not make the plaintiff's position work. the court a quo the last administrator was Dr. COMPANIA the so-called "cabo" system has a complete set of officers MARITIMA and office personnel and its organizational structure.. entered into a CONTRACT with AFWU to do and perform all the work iii. In fact. The latter have no separate the deed. union to help in the stevedoring and arrastre work. Antonio Ma. MARITIMA boat or from the boat to the different consignees. mayor de edad. Under the CONTRACT. with costs equally against plaintiff-appellee contractor of MARITIMA. Vicente Cui. 11 | P a g e . sera preferido el varon de mas edad ISSUES: descendiente de quien tenia ultimamente la 1. collected by them through their bill collector. To remedy the situation since MARITIMA's business was one-year limitation must be counted. AFWU presented to MARITIMA a written Ma. 1952. AFWU was an independent dismissed. This demand said nephews. and the complaint as well as the complaint in intervention are a." Besides being a nearer descendant than of the members of AFWU? NO. or in their roster of membership. further. Whether or not AFWU is an agent of Maritima? NO. Cui. they could not interpretation. verbally renewed the same. Mauricio Cui. Cui. Moreover. to whom the intervenor belongs. The business. in the order they are named. who is a son of Mariano Cui. for the basis of the action is his own right to AFWU's president. i. however. in the line of succession. The deed of donation provides: "a la embodied certain terms and conditions of employment muerte o incapacidad de estos administradores (those different from the provisions of the CONTRACT. Cui is older than he and therefore is preferred when the circumstances are 2. The intervenor contends that the intention RULING: of the founders was to confer the administration by line and 1. 2. The payrolls where laborers are listed and paid were FACTS: prepared by the union itself without the intervention or 1. NO. The union engaged the services of their members in of stevedoring and arrastre services of all its vessels or boats undertaking the work of arrastre and stevedoring geither to calling in the port of Iligan City. who are 4. one of the nephews of the founders of the Hospicio wages were not charged to the consignees or owners of the mentioned by them in the deed of donation. This contracted with the latter. Hence. the next administrator must come from connection with MARITIMA is through AFWU which the line of Vicente Cui. otherwise equal. The harmonious relations between MARITIMA and AFWU employees of the union and not of the respondent. que sera el varon.

The foreign principal and those of the buyer would be in direct facts very succinctly show that it was AFWU. 2. 1968 broker in this transaction. officers. through its conflict. The union members who were hired by the union to on the case of Jose Velasco v. 1955 of the supplier. an agent of the Far Eastern Export & o Far Eastern dealt directly with Suan without expressly Import Company. Manila and offered to sell textile. LIM TECK SUAN o The price of the merchandise bought was paid for by Suan CASE NUMBER: L-7144 by means of an irrevocable letter of credit opened in favour DATE: May 31. CASE NUMBER: L-21601  The defense set up is that Far Eastern only acted as a DATE: December 28. them. employee relationship. o The Court held that the transaction was purchase and sale Where neither party is an ''employer" nor an "employee" of and ordered the defendant to refund his deposit with legal the other.. and FACTS: the sale was even confirmed by Far Eastern. relied upon did not involve representatives of opposing o Suan according to the first part of the agreement is said interests. and that the profit of International Corporation through HSBC. INC. The facts as found by the court a quo strongly indicate that act as agent for local buyers. o The agreement speaks of the items involved as sold. being an agent of Frenkel.  The lower court acquitted Far Eastern. vs LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED offered for sale. From merely acted as agent for Velasco and could not be held this it does not necessarily follow that it is guilty of unfair responsible for the substitution of Blended Whisky for labor practice. that same agent could not very well c. Suan deposited the goods in a warehouse and withdrew the same and was NIELSON & CO.  Upon the instruction of Far Eastern. o There was no privity of contract between the buyer and  Having arrived at an agreement with Bernardo Lim. against Far Eastern. General supplier. Frenkel International Corporation. there is no duty to bargain collectively the refusal to bargain violates no right. vs. where interest. And that the cases sought to be Corporation. There were Far Eastern from liability. by the general foreman of the petitioner union or by any union assistant when performing arrastre and/or stevedoring ISSUE: Was the transaction one of agency that will exonerate work aboard vessels of the Compañia MARITIMA. It is true that MARITIMA admits that it did not answer o In the Velasco case. basing its decision of reversal iv. no such duty would exist. An agent can not represent two conflicting interests that o Far Eastern acted as agent for Frenkel International are diametrically opposed. or one of purchase and sale? no instances where offices and employees of the respondent Compañia MARITIMA and/or its agent had interferred in the RULING: One of purchase and sale giving of instructions to the laborers performing the arrastre  SC agreed with the CA that the facts in this case are very and/or stevedoring work. went to the store of Lim Teck Suan in indicating or revealing the principal. the latter was undoubtedly the difference between the price  The textile arrived and was received by Suan. acted as an agent or broker for Suan. Needless to add. arises only between the "employer" and its "employees". similar to those in the Velasco case. The net direct loss is now being claimed MINING CO. Under the law the duty to bargain collectively Bourbon Whisky. These are the very elements constituting an employer. agreed to be paid by the buyer to export company – proof  Suan established a letter of credit in favour of Frenkel that there was no agency or brokerage. and (4) had the power to discipline and dismiss o Far Eastern. presumably the supplier of the textile sold. b. seller by the supplier. Manager of Lim Teck Suan. but listed to the buyer and the net or special price quoted to the complained to Far Eastern of the inferior quality of the textile. Universal Trading contends that it AFWU's proposal for a collective bargaining agreement. (2) paid o He could not serve two masters at the same their wages. could not have them.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency  CA reversed the judgment.  Where a foreign company has an agent here selling its goods and merchandise.  The transaction entered into by Far Eastern with Suan is one of purchase and sale. which (1) selected and hired the laborers.  Ignacio Delizalde. (3) exercised control and supervision over time. Universal Trading where the perform arrastre and stevedoring work on respondents' transaction therein involved was found by the court to be vessels at Iligan port were being supervised and controlled one of purchase and sale and not of brokerage or agency. FACTS: 12 | P a g e . Delizalde returned with a buyer’s o No commission or monetary consideration was paid or order. because the interests of his it is AFWU itself who is the "employer" of those laborers. FAR EASTERN EXPORT & IMPORT CO. merely to be commissioning Far Eastern to procure for him the merchandise in question.

00 metallic products recovered therefrom which may prove to 3. repairs amounting to P 1. FIREMEN’S INS. Decision of CA: reversed decision of CFI. trade name and the operator sold only the products of the OF NEWARK. or mine 2. between Nielson and Lepanto a contract of agency such that it has the right to revoke and terminate the contract at will. and Lepanto Consolidated Mining FACTS: Company entered into a management contract. but 7. entitled to damages since the law gives to the principal the 10.651. 4. owned by Salvador Sison. Nielson o Alfonso Adriano – grease man was not in any way executing juridical acts for Lepanto. when it took over and assumed exclusive operation of the lifter management of the work previously entrusted to Nielson 9. The car was placed on a hydraulic lifter under the direction be marketable. de la Fuente. Because the insurance companies paid for the damages. All gasoline –Manila. 11. such pay ore as may be found and to market the payment of P 8. against petitioner Shell Company and de la Fuente to recover  Lepanto finally maintains that Nielson as an agent is not the sum of P 1. and capable laborers. develop and Station in Manila for washing. operate the mining claims of Lepanto. subject at all times to raised up to 6 feet high. service station was the AGENT of the petitioner Shell Agency. Shell must pay insurance companies the amount P 1. contractor BUT an AGENT of petitioner Shell  In both agency and lease of services. of the erection and operation of the mill. Perlito Sison to the Shell Gasoline and Service right to renew for a like period. the the general control of the Board of Directors of Lepanto. As inspected by Mr. the car was o Nielson was to take complete charge. A Plymounth car. to explore. the repair shop and it was restored to running condition after o Nielson was also to act as purchasing agent of supplies.38. However. of the prospecting and development of 5. of grease men cannot reach the ungreased portion underneath the exploration and development of the mining claims. The insures and the owner of the car brought an action under the contract. N. as well as to render for Lepanto other services of the personnel of the station. no purchase shall be made without the prior approval of respondent Salvador Sison made assignments of his rights to Lepanto and no commission shall be claimed or retained by recover damages in favor of the respondent-insurance Nielson on such purchase. vs. 1957 13 | P a g e . Decision of CFI: Dismissed complaint right to terminate the agency at will. the operator of Shell development of the mine and the operation of the mill. with the by his son. According to the testimony of son Perlito. services in that: o Facts which show that de la Fuente is a mere agent: o The basis of agency is representation. o The principal and paramount undertaking of Nielson under 8. and of Company.  The car fell as a result of the jerking and swaying of the lift or a contract of lease of services? when the valve was released and that the jerking was due to some accident and unforeseen shortcoming of the RULING: Contract of Lease of Services mechanism itself. 2 years before its  Respondent de la Fuente denied negligence in the expiration. the operator of the gasoline and binds himself to render some service to the other party. company CASE NUMBER: L-8169 DATE: January 29.  The management contract was one of contract of lease of  Reasoning of CA: De la Fuente is NOT an independent services and not a contract of agency. for a period of five years. specified in the contract. greasing and spraying. one of the parties o Respondent de la Fuente. Baylon.J. After it was washed and greased. owned his position to the work or services. 38 with legal ISSUE: Was the management contract entered into by and interest. and to mine.. 38 from them jointly and severally. companies. while in the lease of  The operator. 1. LTD. the adjustor of respondent insurance companies.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency  Nielson & Company. according to the counter-statement of facts by the management contract was the operation and defendant Porfirio de la Fuente. was brought o Nielson had agreed. This was immediately reported to the Manila Adjustor the mine. however is distinguished from lease of work or Company of the Philippines. the damaged car was taken to mining properties. of the the vehicle so they loosen the lifter a few feet lower. Fuente through his two employees: o In the performance of this principal undertaking. it fell. Inc. Ltd. equipment and other necessary purchases by Lepanto. the ff tasks were done by the ff people: the other undertakings mentioned in the contract are  Job of washing and greasing – defendant Porfirio de la necessary or incidental to the principal. the benefication and marketing of the minerals found on the 6. The operator of the station agreed to do service upon and mill. 651. o De los Ryees – helper and washer  Lepanto terminated the contract in 1945. the car swayed and for a few second. Because hiring of a sufficient and competent staff and of sufficient of this.651. the basis is employment company and the company could remove him or terminate his services at will  The service station belonged to the company and bore its SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILS.

1988 o Petitioner Sevilla agreed to man the Ermita office of respondent TWSI based on a contract of agency. the CA found that the Company's mechanic failed unwarranted revocation of the contract of agency? to make a thorough check up of the hydraulic lifter and  YES for both. For any fare bought in on the efforts of that the Court here by declares to be compatible with the Mrs.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency  The equipment used by the operator belonged to the Secretary went over to the office to comply with the mandate company and were just loaned to the operator and the of the resolutions. Costs against petitioner that Mrs. Sevilla  The relationship of said parties is one that of a principal SEVILLA VS. involves a principal-agent relationship rather than a joint 3. the check up made by its mechanic was "merely routine" by raising "the lifter once or twice and after observing Decision: Decision of CA is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. she received office. The breach of the undertaking by the agent 8. praying for mandatory preliminary injunction. In June 1962. Manila to Tourist World Service. o Sevilla solicited airline fares but she did so for and on represented by Eliseo Canilao. TWSI contend that Mrs. Rule: As the act of the agent or his employees acting was bound by the act of her employer. The trial court held for the private respondents. Sevilla. the agency having been created for mutual interest of the Sevilla was connected with a rival travel firm. Costs that the operator was satisfactory." RULING: 4. o In this case. this case rental agreed on. This unwarranted revocation of the contract abolishing the office of manager of the Ermita Branch Office of agency entitles petitioner Sevilla to damages and the second. P 5. the lease contract to use the premises as temperate damages. P receive the property of TWSI in said branch 10. FACTS: o It is the essence of this contract that the agent renders 1. Lina Sevilla held herself solidarily pre-assumed her principal’s authority as owner of the liable with TWSI for the prompt payment of the monthly business undertaking. It ruled (defendant de la Fuente) is one for which the principal that TWSI. Petitioners claim that Mrs. 4. Mrs. branch office was terminated. COURT OF APPEALS and an agent. has the privilege to (Shell) is answerable. Also. When the branch office was opened. Sevilla was its employee and as such was designated manager. Considering the facts. Segundina Noguera leased her premises located at services in “representation or on behalf of another” Ermita. 4% was to go her and 3% was to be withheld by intent of the parties cannot be revoked at will. within the scope of his authority is the act of the 9. who was designated as branch o But unlike simple grants of a power of attorney. The petitioner-company undertook to "answer and see to ISSUE: WON there is a contract of agency between it that the equipments are in good running order and respondent-principal TWSI and petitioner Sevilla? If yes.000 nominal damages and/or 5. Canilao and Noguera. one for which the principal is answerable. TWSI o The reason is that it is an agency coupled with an interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed said decision. the agency manager by TWSI. the principal. The latter was negligent and the company must answer 1. It also held AFFIRMED. he padlocked the premises to protect  An employee of the company supervised the operator and the interests of TWSI conducted periodic inspection of the company’s gasoline and 6. 4% of the proceeds in the concept of commissions. (TWSI). In November 1961. In the said contract Mrs." should principal TWSI be liable for damages for its 3. Sevilla. Sevilla was a mere employee of TWSI and that she 1. Decision: Judgment under review is terminate the lease and padlock the premises. This case involves a contract of Agency. Sevilla 2. the same was run by management or partnership. he (the mechanic) left against respondent TWSI the place. TWSI was allegedly informed that Mrs. RULING: YES.000 exemplary damages. usable condition. petitioner Mrs. Mrs. In its answer. authority? 7. the first of the principal.000 moral damages. TWSI considered closing it down. As such. Hence. In January 1962. petitioners Spouses Sevilla filed a complaint service station. Since the agent and the principal. 2. for the latter’s use as branch behalf of her principal TWSI. etc. the breach of the undertaking by the agent is instant petition. the agency cannot be revoked at the pleasure The firm’s board of directors issued two resolutions. Inc. against respondents TWSI. Sevilla. the Corporate 14 | P a g e . being the true lessee.. branch office was losing. CASE NUMBER: L-41182-3  Case at bar: DATE: APRIL 15. As compensation. There is for the negligent act of its mechanic which was the cause neither joint venture between nor partnership TWSI and of the fall of the car from the hydraulic. authorizing the corporate secretary to  Respondent TWIS is liable for P 25. ISSUE: WON petitioner Shell should be liable for the acts of Sevilla’s relationship with TWSI was one of joint business an agent or his employee acting within the scope of his venture and notone of employment. Finding the premises locked and unable to company took charge of their remain and maintenance contact Mrs.

L-34338 (referring specifically to par. L-5486 DATE: August 17. Lourdes paid only P240. He may.R. as his agents. Hidalgo stated that Peña y Gomiz. 8 of Article 1878 states that “Special powers of attorney 4. administration. preparing for his departure. Before Jose de la Peña y Gomiz embarked for Spain.R. did not even answer his was granted on the ground that the contract of lease entered letters. San Diego appealed to the Supreme Court. but also the heirs and creditors of the estate. When Nombre was removed as judicial administrator. Federico Hidalgo was obliged to embark for Spain. After Federico Hidalgo had occupied the position of agent 1. NOMBRE Isidro Llado. substitute him. November 12. Before conducting his duties. For receipt manifesting that Lourdes received 615 kilos of instance. therefore. Aggrieved. Campillanos filed a died and the others did not wish to take charge of the motion asking for authority to execute a lease contract of the administration of their principal's property.This motion 3. obliged to absent himself from the country. 1894. he is RULING: NO. 1984 to judicial administrators. as contended 1. 1964 in Manila. These transfer of ownership of the goods to Lourdes. he executed a power of attorney in favor of Federico Hidalgo. ISSUE: San Diego raised the following legal questions: addressed to his principal. according to San 5. «This provision. PEOPLE 2. his intended departure from this country and of his having and provisionally turned over the administration of the said 15 | P a g e . Maria filed a complaint. and Lourdes was found Diego. which reversed the same order. and into between Nombre and Escanlar was void for want of did not appoint or designate another person who might judicial authority. Maria agreed with the proposal—hence the execution of a administration without special authority of the court. In this letter the defendant informed the dela Pena of the of the estate without prior judicial authority and approval. he rendered the accounts of his administration by letter of the date of March 22. Whether a judicial administrator can validly lease property 5. they might represent him CASE NUMBER: G. No. 1887. so that. HIDALGO the sale to Maria as soon as the same was sold. and. he  one of those appointed in the said power of attorney had was substituted by SofronioCampillanos. No. the overprice for which from the court. Appeals. 3. However. No. Peña y Gomiz. Par. despite repeated are necessary” to “lease any real property to another person demands. SR. on by Lourdes. He is not ISSUE: Is Lourdes’ argument tenable? only the representative of the court. However. on 4. required to file a bond. Lourdes Lim went to the house of Maria de Guzman and Administrator has the power of administering the estate of proposed to sell the latter’s tobacco. vs. Instead. Lourdes argued that the receipt was a “contract of sale” because provisions on Agency do not apply to judicial and not a “contract of agency to sell. 3. His actions are subject to specific The contract was not a contract of sale because there was no provisions of law and orders of the appointing court. FACTS: RULING: 1. FACTS: 2. 2. agreement was a contract of agency to sell for it constituted Lourdes as agent with the obligation to give the proceeds of DELA PENA VS. is a limitation to the right of a judicial administrator to guilty of estafa. the same argument falls 6. he may lease the property without prior approval tobacco to be sold at P1. Antonio L. (Estafa is present where contract to sell lease real property without prior judicial authority if it constituted another as mere agent) exceeds one (1) year. same fishpond in favour of Moises San Diego. there is no need for FACTS: the court to fix the duration of the obligation. Rocha. the circumstances are not true in case of agency. 1. exercise all acts of 2. he wrote to the estate subject of Special Proceeding 7279. the deceased person. AdeloNombre latter requesting him to designate a person who might leased one of the properties (fishpond) of the said estate to substitute him in his said position in the event of his being Pedro Escanlar for 3 years without approval of the court. 8 of Article 1878) should apply DATE: November 21. The receipt also states that the proceeds will be given to Mariaas soon as it was sold. Thus. for more than one (1) year. A judicial administrator is appointed by the court. While being the judicial administrator of the intestate and administrator of De la Peña's property.30 per kilo.R.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency LIM vs. For reasons of health and by order of his physician.” administrators. since leasing has been considered an act of would be received by Lourdes. Whether the provisions of the New Civil Code on Agency CASE NUMBER: G. CASE NUMBER: G. L-19265 and administer various properties he owned and possessed DATE: May 29. Consequently. Francisco Roxas and SAN DIEGO. 1910 The obligation was immediately demandable as soon as the tobacco was disposed of. to approve or object to the former's accounts. Nombre and Escanlar appealed this order to the Court of 4.

Hence. was free and 1. yet when the agent informs of the party designated by his agent. wherefore the agent could not. 16 | P a g e . while in the 6. it is then reasonable and just to conclude that the by Francisco Hidalgo. the defendant can in no manner be obliged a mere proceed lasted for more than fifteen years. CO. December 31. who complied with his to take charge of the administration.  cenar.  this is a case filed by harry keeler. YES clear from the results and consequences of the management Federico had definitely renounced his agency was duly of the person who substituted him with the consent. and accordance with the law. and could have his principal that for reasons of health and by medical opportunely appointed another agent or mandatory of his advice he is about to depart from the place where he is own confidence to look after his property and if he did not exercising his trust and where the property subject to his do so. attorney executed in his favor. Antonio Hidalgo. authorized ac montelibano to find buyers manager. administration of the property to Antonio Hidalgo. but a and that the constituent he was informed of the departure of fiction or presumption of consent because of the benefit his agent of the latter's having turned over the received. by virtue of ISSUE: the said power of attorney. which constitutes thatin case that this was not sufficient. of De la Peña y Gomiz. 1893. inasmuch as the latter was not even said agent expressly and definitely renounced his agency. either express or implied. an electric co. transmits to his principal a general statement which summarizes and embraces all the balances of his 2. for such to pay to the plaintiff any sum that may be found owing by an allegation would be in conflict with the nature of the Francisco Hidalgo. appoint any person to substitute (1) WON Federico had renounced his agency or relieve him in the administration of the principal's (2) WON Federico can be held liable with the wrongful property. upon whom he The implied agency is founded on the lack of had conferred a general power of attorney. HARRY E. inasmuch as the said Civil Code. from the time of that notification the agent who. neither and transmitted to another person who substituted him is he responsible for that performed during the third period and took charge of the administration of the principal's property. who knew perfectly well that the said Antonio Hidalgo took  montelibano informed harry that he found a buyer in iloilo. FACTS: as the true and legitimate administrator. NO accounts since he began to exercise his agency to the If the defendant Federico is not responsible for the results of date when he ceased to hold his trust. for the lack of a clause of substitution in the said administration of the subsequent agents instrument authorizing him so to do. abandons the property. 1922 deceased consented to have Antonio Hidalgo administer his property. ceased to exercise his trust.He added contradiction or opposition. the mechanic of harry keeler. and asks that a the administration of said property administered by Antonio power of attorney in due form in due form be executed Hidalgo during the second period before referred to. althoughthe word "renounce" was not owner of the property could have objected to could have employed in connection with the agency or power of prohibited the continuance in the administration thereof. and management of another's business there is no was received by Jose de la Peña y Gomiz. without stating when he may return damages against his previous agent. not in the character of business  harry keeler co. charge of the administration of that property on account of  harry then shipped the electric plant to iloilo. which sold Antonio Hidalgo administered the aforementioned property a mathews electric plant to rodriguez. KELLER ELEC. turns negligence and abandonment and has no right to claim it over a third party. which was the obligatory absence of his previous agent for whom it was then installed by cenar an impossibility to continue in the discharge of his duties. that Peña send to simultaneous agreement on the part of the presumed Antonio Hidalgo a new power of attorney. agency. chosen when Francisco Hidalgo took charge of Peñas' and it may not be alleged that the designation of Antonio property that had been turned over to him by Antonio Hidalgo to take charge of the said administration was that of Hidalgo. TC concluded that despite the denial. it is inferredthatthe DATE: November 11. HOWEVER. but as agent by virtue of an implied agency vested for the mathews electric plant. by his principal to substitute the power or agency in favor of another person. because. testified that he in fact **Difference between agency and business management: presented a bill to rodriguez. vs. in him by its owner who was not unaware of the fact. he is obliged to abide by the consequences of his administration is situated. no authority was conferred upon the latter attorney to the substitute. renders accounts of duty and did all that he could and ought to have done. RODRIGUEZ In permitting Antonio Hidalgo to administer his property in CASE NUMBER: 19001 this city during such a number of years. according to the provisions of article 1732 of the only a tacit one. and in fact created in his favor an implied agency. during his lifetime simultaneous consent. and of his In the power of attorney executed by Peña y Gomizin favor of agent's the defendant's petition that he send a new power of Federico Hidalgo. of the principal. even terminated.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency property to his cousin. in its revenues up to a certain date. RULING: for legitimate cause. principal to the execution of the contract. the was sent to.

" various bills of goods amounting to art 1727: the principal shall be liable as to matters with P351. which was sold at a price of 1744 pesos  the lower court said that:  206 pesos was deducted for charges involving the sale.  3.  it also did not contain that montelibano had authority to receive money ISSUE: Should yangco still be liable for the acts of collantes. authority  Furthermore. tobacco  when harry wanted to collect the 2500 pesos from  In the letter. Chandler & Company. and that as agent collantes would be acting in his behalf.)the law does not presume that an agency exists. known as to receive it in his name the "Washington Cafe. rodriguez already made payment to  This was an invitation regarding the buying and selling of montelibano. it has to he should have given rallos timely notice that he had already be proven through facts severed ties with collantes. a person has to be very CASE NUMBER: G. collantes used the money for his personal gain authorized to collect.  1.  Rallos was now claiming from yangco the unpaid amount ISSUE: Was the lower court correct in ruling that for the sale of tobacco.  allegedly. saying that collantes was no longer make collection? connected with him. the lower court ruling is hereby reversed!!! of tobacco was given to collantes. allege that during the art 1162: payment must be made to the person in whose months of February and March. that there is still due sum of P177.R. rodriguez said that he already paid montelibano. it was stated that collantes would be his agent rodriguez.) that harry represented montelibano as an agent  Apparently.) that the bill was given to montelibano for collection  This amount was not remitted by collantes to rallos.)that every authority must find its ultimate source in some act or omission by the principal MACKE vs. 1911  The plaintiffs. 1905.  Yangco did not even inform rallos that collantes was no  important things to remember in assuming that there is longer his agent. respect to which the agent has exceeded his authority only  The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendant has only when he ratifies the same expressly or by implication. given by montelibano) there was no showing that  This then forced rallos to file a collection case.)the agent cannot establish his authority  The negligence of yangco to give timely notice to rallos. No. CAMPS  in assuming that there is authority.  payment made by rodriguez to montelibano was at his considering that collantes was no longer his agent at the own risk. general reputation  It was the duty of yangco to notify rallos regarding the  4. the latter was no longer  in the receipt presented by rodriguez(which was the receipt acting as his factor.  Yangco also claims that at the time when the 218 bundles RULING: NO.50.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency  when he presented this bill. paid on account of said accounts the sum of P174. that before instituting this action RALLOS vs. who represented himself to be agent of the 17 | P a g e .)authority cannot be established through mere rumor or makes him liable for the acts of collantes. leaving the sum of 1537 pesos.  5. 2962 cautious DATE: 27 February 1907  note: that the agent cannot enlarge or extend his authority without the concurrence of the principal FACTS:  The plaintiffs are partners doing business under the firm important provisions: name of Macke.  the lower court ruled in favor of rodriguez. DATE: September 27.  Yangco sent a letter of invitation to rallos. rodriguez informed him that FACTS: payment would just be made in manila.  2.50. testified that on the order of one Ricardo Flores. montelibano was an agent  The lower court ruled in favor of rallos. 1. they sold to the favor the obligation is constituted. YANGCO they made demand for the payment but the defendant had CASE NUMBER: 6906 failed and refused to pay.  a case for collection was the filed by harry against  This arrangement was accepted by rallos rodriguez  At one point. montelibano was an agent of harry keeler authorized to  Yangco refused. rallos gave collantes 218 bundles of tobacco.)general authority is not equal to unlimited authority severed relation with collantes. 2. or to another authorized defendant and delivered at his place of business. time of the transaction?  rodriguez failed to exercise ordinary prudence and reasonable diligence in making sure that montelibano was in RULING: YES!! Yangco is still liable fact authorized to receive payment. yangco advertised collantes to be his agent.

for the payment of the goods entered in favor of the plaintiffs in the action above mentioned in the complaint. receipt of said goods and made various payments amounting in all to P174. that Flores later acknowledged the might pay his debts.  Gregorio was staying at Vigan. P500. who was at that time visiting in the latter agreed to buy the parcel in question for the sum of provinces. 1904. Acting upon this letter hand. to the prejudice of innocent express mandate. his property in Alaminos  The purpose in giving a power of attorney is to substitute was confided by him to the care of his elder sister Nicolasa the mind and hand of the agent for the mind and hand of Jimenez. we are of possession under the deed from Nicolasa during the opinion that Flores was acting within the scope of his pendency of the litigation in which she was defendant. as such we are of the opinion that the authority JIMENEZ vs. No. but it is not necessary that the property to be sold belonged to the plaintiff (Gregorio Jimenez). and the property was the bar of the Washington Cafe with authority to bind the found in his hands at the time when final judgment was defendant. instituted an action in the Court of First Instance for the  The defendant relies wholly on his contention that the purpose of recovering their land from her control. It will thus be seen that Pedro Rabot acquired the items of the account attached to the complaint. cannot be permitted to deny the authority of that the authority to alienate land shall be contained in an such person to act as his agent. he shipped the said goods to the defendants at parcels of land and send him the money in order that he the Washington Cafe. to Alaminos and demanded that his sister should surrender this piece of land to him.  It is a rule that: “where the owner of real property desires FACTS: to confer upon an attorney in fact authority to sell the same. received the goods for which payment is demanded. On 7 February 1911 of that year he wrote this sister the principal. Nicolasa Jimenez executed and delivered to Pedro Rabot a deed purporting to convey to him the parcel RULING: of land which is the subject of this controversy. agent’s authority. and if the character and extent of the power is a letter from Vigan in which he informed her that he was so far defined as to leave no doubt as to the limits within pressed for money and requested her to sell one of his 18 | P a g e . authority.R.  The plaintiffs were satisfied as to the credit of the  Nicolasa admits having received this payment of P250 at defendant and as to the authority of Flores to act as his the time stated. 1918 her authority. was introduced in evidence to establish the relationship between  Gregorio. 1913. it being then in her possession. ISSUE: WON the authority conferred on Nicolasa by the letter of February 7. YES. L-12579 requirements and Nicolasa Jimenez acted within the scope of DATE: July 27. About one year later Gregorio came down claiming to be the business manager of the defendant. She  A written contract (for the hotel with a bar and restaurant refused upon some pretext. Lastly. while subsection 5 of section 335 of the third parties dealing with such person in good faith and in Code of Civil Procedure says that the authority of the agent the honest belief that he is what he appears to be. 1911. RABOT expressed in the letter is a sufficient compliance with both CASE NUMBER: G.  It is admitted that the parcel of land in question. in conjunction with others of his brothers and the defendant and Flores. It is sufficient if the authority is assigned to him as one of the heirs in the division of the so expressed as to determine without doubt the limits of the estate of his father. ISSUE: WON Flores was managing the business as agent?  May 31. his principal. the evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding that Flores was the agent of the defendant in the management of  Pedro Rabot went into possession. from an examination of mentioned. This action foregoing facts are not sufficient to establish the fact that he was decided favorably to the plaintiffs upon August 12. was sufficient to enable her to bind  It is a well settled rule that: “One who clothes another her brother? apparent authority as his agent. and the principal.” must be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged. business of the defendant) dated May 25. and that he would have to wait the return of his Nicolasa approached the defendant Pedro Rabot. under Article 1713 of the Civil Code it requires public as such.  This letter contains no description of the land to be sold  On demand for payment of balance of the account Flores other than is indicated in the words "one of my parcels of informed him that he did not have the necessary funds on land" ("uno de mis terrenos"). but there is no evidence that she sent any of agent who was apparently in charge of the business and it to her brother. together it is necessary that the authority should be expressed in with two other parcels in the same locality originally writing. having been should be precisely described. whose properties were also in the hands of Nicolasa. sisters. the defendant. and holds him out to the RULING: YES.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency defendant. 1912.

upon the defendant Puno the power to sell the land and CASE NUMBER: G. be successfully denied. duties and obligations to administer the interest Linan a willingness to return. he may deeds. That his interpretation of his PONENTE: Johnson. power. we are of the opinion.” hold. Jose M. nor indicated power. The acts of with the court an inventory of said estate including the land the parties will be presumed to have been done in in question.. that the judgment of the lower court should be and is 2) The meaning. without discussing the cases. from Gabino Barreto RULING: Po Ejap. we believe. collect and pay. 1927. Katigbak. after said sale. and so represent him. 4) The record contains no allegation on proof that Puno LINAN VS. sell the land? sold in favor of Jose M. and he acts within those special words of the contract a special and limited meaning limits. sell. L-29917 prayed that the sale be set aside.. No. as gathered from the contract (Exhibit A). The intention is to be rents up to October 22.. the principal cannot question the validity of his act. Manikis vs. collect and pay . sell. (Art. 7585. payable in advance. it is so ordered. in any proceeding or business concerning the good administration ISSUE: Can the Principal be bound by the acts of the agent and advancement of my said interests. If the contract be open to two on February 11. appoint attorneys at law or attorneys in fact to other assignments of error. Katigbak sold conformity with and not contrary to the intent of the the same property to Po Sun Boo.. Po Sun Suy was appointed constructions. purport.).. as attorney-in-fact of Po Tecsi.. advantageous to the plaintiff in the administration of his 496. He overlooked the fact in the brief of the appellants that the executed a document. J. No. said parcel of land to the other defendants. 1925. and every subsequent 3) To hold that the power was "to administer" only when the purchaser of registered land who takes a certificate of title power "to sell" was equally conferred would be to give to for value in good faith. Neither have we 1) Linan was the owner of a certain parcel of subject land. and on May 23. who administered it in the name of Jose M. The real intention of the parties is primarily to be occurred on November 26.. that the land be returned to DATE: December 29. sold and delivered to costs. PONENTE: Villareal. surroundings and relations of 2) from November 26. 2) The lower court held that the "only power conferred was 3) Take note that all these transfers happened even though the power to administer. rather than defeated.. 1928 him. that . is tenable FACTS: cannot. 1308 of the including to “purchase.500 per month. in necessary of in the second assignment. the defendants Po Sun Suy and the parties. from all liability under the complaint. seem to be used Registry of deeds? coordinately.. The plaintiff alleges that the said document (Exhibit A) did not confer KATIGBAK vs.. for the sum of P800. shall hold the same free of all 19 | P a g e . appear before the courts of justice and administrative officers in any proceeding or Disposition: In view of all the foregoing. gathered from the whole instrument. and be sued before any authority. having paid the accrued determined from the language used. leaving must be interpreted in accordance with the language used by unpaid the rents accrued from that date until his death which the parties. J. administer . The intention of the parties must be sustained Po Ching leased said land for the sum of P1. No. 1) Contracts of agency as well as general powers of attorney at a rental of P1." etc.R. contract. 1926.. power . TAI HING CO. “Every applicant receiving a certificate of title in affairs as "to administer. as well as sue Civil Code. 1915 his power as he understood it. PUNO acted in bad faith or fraudulently in selling the land. the former is to be chosen. the purchase price. one of which would uphold while the other administrator of the estate of his father Po Tecsi. L-9608 presumed that he acted in good faith and in accordance with DATE: August 7. nor offered to return. and power conferred by this hereby revoked and that the appellants should be relieved document constitute the very gist of the present action. purchase.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency which the agent is authorized to act. Each has equal force with the other. In case of doubt resort must be had to the situation. Without any finding as 3) Defendant Puno.R." pursuance of a decree of registration. 1926." The words even though the power of attorney is not registered the "administer.500 per month. FACTS: ISSUE: Did the document (Exhibit A)give Puno authority to 1) Gabino Barreto Po Ejap. Po Tecsi leased the property sold." Reading the contract we find it the power of attorney was not registered in the Registry of says that the plaintiff "I confer . and. to the exclusion of other general words of equal import. and may. sell. Katigbak the subject land. purchase. It will be CASE NUMBER: G. which conferred upon the Puno the plaintiff has not returned. 1927. and filed would overthrow it. Blas. There seems to be no good reason for saying that Puno had RULING: YES authority to administer and not to sell when "to sell" was as 1) Inasmuch as in accordance with section 39 of said Act No. together with damages. we are of the business concerning the good administration and opinion that the lower court committed the error complained advancement of Linan’s said interests.

the appellants deduce that said sale is president does not pretend that he had definitely and fraudulent. or if he should find opportunity to perform his obligation. Sellner.000. H.R. if the sale was consummated. and from the omission of any not resolved to purchase said property. but Brimo refused to sell such inefficacy only refers to third persons who. 1921 so undertaking. and his whole effort was to forestall his competitor by document which in any manner affects the registered land is being the first to find a purchaser and effect the sale.200. No. under all and varying forms of expression.  Brimopromised to pay the Danon. subject of course to a purchaser ready. and that any act performed by the agent by virtue ISSUE: Was Danon as broker entitled to payment of his of said with respect to the land is ineffective against a third commission? person who. same property and that the plaintiff was informed of the fact either by Brimo himself or by someone else. able and willing to buy said factory for the the right of the seller to sell independently. and who  Danon was employed byHolland American Oil Co thru its ultimately becomes the purchaser. that he had found a made by the latter of the litigated land in favor of Jose M. It follows. 496). Act No. He must find the purchaser. It seems that another broker. does not show that the Santa Ana Oil Mill had definitely decided to buy the property in question at the fixed price of 4) From the fact that said power and sale were not recorded P1. while it is true that the non- sale must proceed from his efforts acting as broker. may have acquired a right thereto. person who might have bought the defendant's factory if the Katigbak from being recorded in the registry of deeds. The board of directors of said corporation had in the registry of deeds.” every field. that a broker is never entitled to commissions for unsuccessful efforts. however. at least. His several letters complaining of the fundamental and correct doctrine.200. bind the principal to acknowledge the acts RULING: NO performed by his attorney-in-fact regarding said property The broker must be the efficient agent or the procuring (sec.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency incumbrance except noted on said certificate. established rule. wholly his. is. a commission of five per cent on the said sum of Usually the broker is entitled to a fair and reasonable P1. that the duty assumed pressing demands of his brother Gabino Barreto Po Ejap to by the broker is to bring the minds of the buyer and seller to send him the rents of the land. formally agreed to buy the factory in question on behalf of his corporation at the price stated. But  Danon found such a purchaser. but to produce a party capable. L-5180 20 | P a g e . and the price and terms on which it him. No. ineffective unless it is recorded in the registry of deeds. or trying to find a purchaser for the the payment of the broker's commissions. Antonio A. 50. as compensation for his subject only to the ordinary requirements of good faith. Limjenco.200. the unaware of said sale. The evidence not ineffective to compel Tecsi to acknowledge said sale. as a necessary deduction from the longer as an owner but only as lessee. the most that can be said as to favor of his brother Gabino Barreto Po Ejap prevents the sale what the plaintiff had accomplished is. therefor and without having previously notified Danon of its desistance or variation in the price and terms of the sale. The means employed by him and his efforts must result in the sale. 2) While it is true that a power of attorney not recorded in  RTC ruled in favor of Danon the registry of deeds is ineffective in order than an agent or  CA affirmed RTC’s ruling attorney-in-fact may validly perform acts in the name of his principal.R. and until that is done his right to commissions acknowledgment that he occupied the land in question no does not accrue. BRIMO & CO. in good the said factory without any justifiable motive or reason faith. Brimo.200. his promises to send them to an agreement for a sale. it does. except only that he effect the sale. CASE NUMBER: G. CUNANAN probable that Dano was aware that he was not alone in the CASE NUMBER: G. in good faith. granted him. and the 3) In the present case. its terms either party is at liberty to terminate it at will . and the lease of a part of said land formal authorization of the board of directors. But having been said sum of P1. The risk of a failure is DANONA vs. not simply to name or introduce a person who may be willing to make any sort of contract in reference FACTS: to the property. and even if its mention in the deed of sale of the mortgage lien in favor of president could legally make the purchase without previous Antonio M. registration of the power of attorney executed by Po Tecsi in Under the proofs in this case. was also may not do it in bad faith. may have acquired some right to the registered land. yet said in favor of Uy Chia.000. cause of sale. manager. payable in cash. 15823 The undertaking to procure a purchaser requires of the party DATE: September look for a purchaser of its Where no time for the continuance of the contract is fixed by factoryfor the sum of P1. it is defendant had not sold it to someone else.000. and the remittance of the same were a tacit is to be made. it is INFANTE vs. and as a mere device to escape negotiating the sale. 5) The record contains many indication that Po Tecsi was not In all the cases. the right of the principal to terminate his  No definite period of time was fixed where Danon should authority is absolute and unrestricted.000. services.

the property.000. only if the sale was consummated and the price paid within the period given in the respective letters of authority.00 for the ISSUE: Were Cunanan and Mijares as brokers entitled to purchase of the property which private respondent was payment of their commission? authorized to sell. 1967 he followed up the sale from act cannot be sanctioned without according to the party the start with Councilor Magsalin until after it was approved prejudiced the reward which is due him. Upon learning this transaction. 1953 subversion cannot be sanctioned and cannot serve as basis for petitioner to escape payment of the commission agreed FACTS: upon. This act is unfair as would amount to bad faith. Salvador Saligumba was the agent of the 4. she made use of a ruse by inducing them to sign the deed of cancellation Exhibit 1.50. at which meeting the latter told him that he 4. was signed by the City Mayor only RULING: YES on May 17. Recto High school. is a matter the negotiation and consummation of the sale.  Respondent here. After infante had given the written authority to the last letter of authorization. No. Infantedealt directly with Pio S. Infante. This act of 21 | P a g e . 1968. the PTA president for 1967-1968 of the respondents agree to call off the transaction in deference to Claro M. instead it was that would not give rise to a legal consequence if Filomeno E. respondents to sell her land for the sum of P30. 1968. the condition that the purchaser would assume the mortgage existing thereon in the favor of the Rehabilitation Finance FACTS: Corporation. also it was at 6. 1993. 1.  He was to get a 5% commission from the said sale 5. VS. However. Cunanan & Mijares this time that petitioner allowed the sale to be consummated demanded from Infante the payment of their commission. 1969 by a check in the amount knowledge of Infante. Noche who was petitioner who negotiated with the city for the sale of the willing to buy the property under the terms agreed upon said property.816. Infante contracted the services of Jose Cunanan and Juan CASE NUMBER: G. Consejo Infante owns of two parcels of land with a house built thereon in Manila MANOTOK BROTHERS.  Said ordinance however.  He also said that he came to know Rufino Manotok only in August. of P210.000. Recto High School. Huelgas.000. 1987. This is the situation by the Mayor on May 17. 1969. 1968 in which respondents were placed by petitioner. perhaps by way of strategem.R.  Respondent now asks that the 5% commission be paid to 2. for the amount of 410k. Noche selling to  His authority was extended several times. the parties signed the deed of sale of respondents found a buyer in the person of one Pio S. COURT OF APPEALS 2. Rufino Manotok.00. But the situation varies if one of  Petitioner presented as its witnesses Filomeno Huelgas and the parties takes advantage of the benevolence of the other the petitioner's President.816. 1968.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency DATE: August 31. Infante had changed her mind even if respondents had (2) Private respondent was not the person responsible for found a buyer who was willing to close the deal.000 subject to DATE: April 7. and this matter was immediately brought to the a second payment on April 8. passed Ordinance No. the request of the petitioner. lasting for 180 days from November 16. 6603. he was given letters of authority that selling the property and succeeded in making them sign a allowed him to negotiate the property at a price not less than document stating therein that the written authority she had 425k given them was already can-celled.000. This PTA president in August.00 respondents. Noche the subject property. and acts in a manner that would promote his own selfish  Huelgas testified to the effect that after being inducted as interest. the last one him the property for P31. to sell the property for a price of P30.554. that she was no longer interested in the deal and was able to  But petitioners refused to pay up. On January 14. their commission. it was only on April 26. 3. The petitioner in this case is the owner of a parcel of land 3.00 who was willing to buy the property under the terms agreed having been made. INC. one hundred eighty three (183) days after 1. with Infante but when they introduced him to Infante the latter informed them that she was no longer interested in  Accordingly as such. Infante agreed to pay them a commission of 5% on the and building which was leased to the City of Manila and was purchase price plus whatever overprice they may obtain for used by Claro M. the purchase price was fully satisfied with upon. appropriating the sum of P410. advised respondents him in the amount of P20. The initial payment of P200. but she refused and so they brought the present action. but believing that she could evade payment of if the sale was expedited. However. Infante took advantage of the services rendered by would be given a "gratification" in the amount of P20. 94753 Mijares. Cunanan & Mijares found one Pio S. arguing that: prevail upon them to sign a document agreeing to the  (1) Private respondent would be entitled to a commission cancellation of the written authority.

Oscar did not pay Vicente the additional P1. DOMINGO him 5% commission. then. respondent's job is to bring together the parties to a Teofilo then introduced Oscar de Leon to Gregorio as a transaction. Vicente. L-30573 Gregorio went to the Register of Deeds of QC. the negotiation when he did not receive his money from his  The SC agrees with respondent Court that the City of brother in the US. the approval by the City Mayor came only three Oscar will vacate on or about September 15. Vicente directed Gregorio to tell Oscar to raise his offer.000 Vicente  Private respondent is the efficient procuring cause for asked from him as earnest money. Oscar gave Gregorio P1. Piedad Estate in a document. He went to Vicente’s house where he read a portion of the agreement to the effect that Vicente was still willing to pay DOMINGO VS.  The Court ruled in favor of the respondent. purchaser to whom it was submitted by Gregorio during the CA said: the exclusive agency contract is genuine. 29. amended. QC.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency  Petitioner’s contention that as a broker. prospective buyer. Oscar issued a P1.. 1956 his days after the expiration of private respondent's authority. 883. commission. commission. which is part of the purchase  It is also worth emphasizing that from the records. RULING: Subsequently. ISSUE: Does Gregorio’s act of accepting the gift or propina Gregorio authorized Teofilo Purisima to look for a buyer from Oscar constitute fraud which would cause the forfeiture without notifying Vicente. proximate and causal connection succeeding in persuading Vicente to sell his lot at P1. m. Gregorio did not see Oscar for several weeks thus sensing that something fishy might be going on. a real wife. 1968 was pregnant at that time. m.000 check to commission? -> Yes him as earnest money. which he communicated to Gregorio. he is not entitled to a commission. without his efforts. Vicente asked for an additional P1. price. After discovering that Vicente sold his lot to Oscar’s Vicente Domingo granted to Gregorio Domingo. copy being retained by Gregorio.20 per sq.  Accordingly. 1956 because his wife was negotiate the sale from July 5. sale of the lot to Amparo de Leon is practically a sale to This contract is in triplicate with the original and another Oscar. private respondent. m. 1971 discovered that a Deed of sale was executed by Amparo de Leon. Disposition: Decision of the RTC is affirmed. if the broker does not succeed in bringing the Oscar submitted a written offer which was very much minds of the purchaser and the vendor to an agreement with lower than the P2 per sq. CASE NUMBER: GR No. m. or P109k in total to which Vicente agreed to said offer. the exclusive agency to sell his Lot No. 1968 when private respondent's The written agreement. Oscar’s wife. sale of his property.  Moreover. 1966 to May 14.000 as a gift or propina for  When there is a close. Exhibit C. it was again amended to state that Oscar will only party given a written authority by petitioner to vacate his house and lot on Dec.1. the municipality would not have anything The deed of sale was not executed since Oscar gave up on to pass and the Mayor would not have anything to approve.477 sq. In his reply. ISSUE: is the private respondent entitled to the 5% Upon Vicente’s demand. per sq.000 as  Court says: it is to be noted that the ordinance was earnest money. of his 5%commission? -> Yes 22 | P a g e . Subsequently. over their house and lot in favor of FACTS: Vicente. private Gregorio promised Teofilo ½ of the 5% commission. the agent is entitled to a Gregorio did not disclose said gift or propina to Vicente. Oscar affirming the RTC decision. between the parties was authorization was still in force. said lot must be sold for P2 for P104k. house and lot at Denver St. which Oscar promised to deliver to Vicente. The effectivity of the agency with notice to Vicente. with the CA After several conferences between the parties. in the transaction and that he would sell his property to him According to the document. P5. advanced P300 to Gregorio.20 per between the agent's efforts and labor and the principal's sq. respect to the sale. Manila ultimately became the purchaser of petitioner's property mainly through the efforts of private respondent. Gregorio demanded in writing the payment of his estate broker. Gregorio is entitled to 5% commission on the the 5% commission: total price if the property is sold by Vicente or by anyone else Since he sold the property not to Gregorio’s buyer (Oscar during the 30-day duration of the agency or by Vicente de Leon) but to another buyer (Amparo Diaz) who is the wife within 3 months from the termination of the agency to a of Oscar de Leon. Hence the appeal raised his offer to P1. Vicente stated that Gregorio is not entitled to Accordingly. the price later on. Gregorio also conferred with Oscar who told him that: Vicente went to him and asked him to eliminate Gregorio thelot has an area of 88. approved on April 26. m. where he DATE: Oct.450. The last copy was given to Vicente.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT results or that the agency is a gratuitous one. is to Teofilo. except As a necessary consequence of such breach of trust.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency RULING: Situations where the duty mandated by Art 1891 does not Gregorio Domingo as the broker received a gift or propina apply: from the prospective buyer Oscar de Leon. Gregorio Domingo must forfeit his right to the commission  She was informed by the Chief of the Budget Division of and must return the part of the commission he received from the Department that the purchase orders could not be his principal. No. DATE: October 10. whatever amounts Gregorio Domingo received by virtue of The duties and liabilities of a broker to his employer are the transaction as his sub-agency contract was with Gregorio essentially those which an agent owes to his principal. guilty of a breach of his loyalty to the principal and forfeits his right to collect the commission from his Disposition: CA decision reversed. Philippine flags to the Department. one million pesos worth of national The fact that the principal may have been benefited by the flags for the use of public schools throughout the country. Manager The law imposes upon the agent the absolute  The first delivery of 7. or that usage CASE NUMBER: G.  All the legal requirements had been complied with. Oscar and Vicente. of merely bringing together the vendor and vendee.R. instead of exerting his best to principal did not object persuade his prospective buyer to purchase the property on the most advantageous terms desired by his principal. stress the highest loyalty that is required to an agent This is to formalize our agreement for you to represent condemning as void any stipulation exempting the agent United Flag Industry to deal with any entity or organization. real estate broker in this case. L-67889 or custom allows it. without the Agent or broker acted only as a middleman with the task knowledge and consent of the principal. the release of the purchase orders. the thirty (30%) percent.20 per sq. even if the principal does not suffer any injury by reason of such breach of fidelity. "to deliver". 666 considers such an exemption as void. released unless a formal offer to deliver the flags was first Decisive Provisions Article 1891 and 1909 CC submitted for approval Article 1891 consists in changing the phrase "to pay" to  She contacted the owners of the United Flag Industry. Flag Industry came up with a document which read: Paragraph 2 of Article 1891 is a new addition designed to Mrs. undermined his loyalty to his principal. who gave him partial Agent or broker had informed the principal of the gift or advance of P3000 on his commission. Primitive Siasat Owner and Gen. Domingo alone and not with Vicente Domingo. who His acceptance of said substantial monetary gift corrupted themselves thereafter will negotiate on the terms and his duty to serve the interests only of his principal and conditions of the transaction. owner and general manager of United the former. Vicente. valuable services of the said agent does not exculpate the  Nancianceno was able to expedite the approval of the agent who has only himself to blame for such a result by purchase. to his principal of all his transactions and other material facts relevant to the agency. insofar as his the Department of Education and Culture to purchase commission is concerned.300 from bonus. succeeded in persuading his principal to commission accept the counter-offer of the prospective buyer to Teofilo can only recover from Gregorio his ½ share of purchase the property at P1.933 flags was made by the United obligation to make a full disclosure or complete account Flag Industry. who has a right to treat him. our products-flags and all its accessories. An agent who takes a secret profit in the nature of a Since Gregorio already received a total of P1. you will be entitled to a commission of honesty. so much so that the law as Then. Teofilo Purisima’s entitlement to his share in the 5% Gregorio Domingo. fidelity. Signed Mr. gratuity or personal benefit from the vendee. bonus or profit he received from the purchaser and his As a consequence. P650 of which should be paid by Gregorio without revealing the same to his principal. the vendor. Article 1909 demands the utmost good faith. Nancianceno’s authority to represent the United amended does not countenance any stipulation Flag Industry was revoked by Primitivo Siasat on the exempting the agent from such an obligation and ground that she was not authorized to sell 16. who was not even aware of such sub-agency. from the duty and liability imposed on him in paragraph one private or government in connection with the marketing of thereof. Primitivo Siasat. to his principal. m. Tessie Nacianceno. candor and fairness on the part of the agent. For your service. the vendor. 1985 This is to prevent the possibility of any wrong not to remedy or repair an actual damage agent thereby assumes a FACTS: position wholly inconsistent with that of being an agent for  Teresita Nacianceno succeeded in convincing officials of his principal. 23 | P a g e . or that he obtained better SIASAT vs. reason of his treachery or perfidy. which latter term is more comprehensive than  Mr. principal. as if no agency had existed without public bidding.

Education and Culture and the Department of National When she confronted the petitioners. & CO. HUNDRED AND NINETY FOUR PESOS (P140.The revocation of agency could not prevent the Manila to recover the following commissions: 25%. An agent may be (1) education officials handling the purchase of Philippine flags.  Nancianceno filed an action in the Court of First Instance of . a German national. such an agent may be said to have universal petitioners were ordered to pay the respondent the authority.A special agent is one authorized to do some particular act GERMAN & CO. customs or nature of the business second delivery.900. that the respondent had no participation whatsoever with regard to the second delivery of flags and that the 2.The principal cannot deprive his agent of the Appellate Court.A general agent is one authorized to do all acts pertaining to a business of a certain kind or at a *The decision was modified to exclude the respondent’s right particular place. petitioners apparently believed they could legally revoke the agency in the manner they did and deal directly with . ISSUE: 1. He has usually authority either the respondent's lawyer dated November 13. to court with completely clean hands. are outside the scope of the agency. the commission on the second delivery without reference to . executed. which alone would need a million pesos worth of denied receipt of the payment. facts 2. she had the capacity to represent United Flag In fact. the award was not proper. or all acts pertaining to a business of a to collect 25% from the first delivery. .There was nothing to prevent the petitioners from stating in insisting on the 30% commission agreed upon. contract of sale had been already perfected and partly  The trial court decided in favor of the respondent. deemed a general agent. thereafter. for this reason. She refused to accept the said amount . So far as such a condition is The decision of the respondent court was MODIFIED. No. Flag in the transaction with the Department? . the revocation did not foreclose the respondent’s agency had already been revoked.R. Did the revocation of agency foreclose the respondent's which justify the inference of a lack or absence of good faith claim of 30% commission on the second transaction? must be alleged and proven. or (3) special.  The decision was affirmed in toto by the Intermediate . NO. A universal. they vehemently Defense. claime of 30% commission on the second transaction. the she was a general agent. who is empowered to transact all the alleged unpaid balance which was only slightly less than the business of his principal of a particular kind or in a the amount claimed can only mean that the commission on particular place. the contract of agency that the respondent could represent She later learned that petitioner Siasat had already them only in the Visayas or to state that the Department of received payment for the second delivery of 7. 1984 asked expressly conferred in general terms or in effect made petitioner Siasat only for the 30% commission due from the general by the usages. the respondent did not come 1.00 or five of sale of petitioners' merchandise with any entity or percent (5%) of the amount received as payment of her organization. NO.994.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency Nancianceno said that for the first delivery.Moral damages: To support a judgment for damages. as Nancianceno from earning her commission because the balance on the first delivery and 30%. Was the award for attorney’s fees and moral damages from which to conclude that the revocation of the agency proper? was deliberately effected by the petitioners to avoid payment of the respondent's commission. The demand letter of particular class or series. There is no evidence on record 3. The power granted to the purported to be a substitution in favor of several attorneys of respondent was so broad that it practically covers the 24 | P a g e .833 flags. The possible. and the execution of. universal: (2) general. commission agreed upon by cancelling the agency and.By the way general words were employed in the FACTS: agreement. commission. The fact that the respondent demanded only which he is authorized to transact. RULING: . YES. 1901 necessarily implied from the nature of the act to be done.00) as her commission on the second delivery of flags with legal interest from the date of the trial court's decision. L-439 accordance with specific instructions or under limitations DATE: November 11.An agent. would. DONALDSON. be ordinarily the first delivery was already fully paid. . or to act upon some particular occasion. a contract Industry tendered the amount of P23. United Flag negotiations leading to. It was where it was to be executed.There are several kinds of agents. agent is one They had reason to sincerely believe they did not have to pay authorized to do all acts for his principal which can lawfully a commission for the second delivery of flags. amount of ONE HUNDRED FOURTY THOUSAND NINE . be delegated to an agent. lie actsusually in CASE NUMBER: G. For another. Did Nancianceno have the capacity to represent United 3. . SIM.Attorney’s fees: For one thing. dealing directly with the buyer. vs. therefore. no restrictions were intended as to the  A general power for suits was executed in Manila in favor manner the agency was to be carried out or in the place of Fernando Kammerzell. on the second delivery. at the same time claimed flags.

No.  The Court of First Instance of Manila ruled in favor of FACTS: Germann & Co. power broad enough to authorize the bringing of the present 5. 1. involving a power admitted to certain facts without the authority of his client. execute all the acts and things necessary for the perfect 8. Can the original power be construed as conferring upon instrument identified as Annex "B" wherein they Kammerzell authority to institute or defend suits? acknowledged that Antonio Caballero had contributed the amount therein stated for the purchase of the property and RULING: they sold 1/4 of the lot to him. Sim & Co. the whole of Lot 2072 from employ suitable assistants. even assuming the applicability of the domestic law owner. in Berlin. and obligations connected with the "C" in the complaint which cancelled Transfer Certificate of business which may be necessary. by virtue of the general power for suits. wherein they stated that they are the heirs of it being the purpose of this power to invest said attorney will VicentaBucao of the 1/2 of the property to Tomas Raga. take charge in general of Title No. 1974 claimed to be due for freight under a charter party. by Alma Deiparine. Bucaosold her undivided 1/2 of the above parcel to her co- action. registered in the Register of Deeds. if at all. Annex "B" of the Complaint. VicentaBucao and Tomas Raga held it in trust for their executed with the formalities required by the German law in co-owner.By this instrument Tornow constitutes Kammerzell his "true and Tomas Raga executed an instrument known as and lawful attorney with full power to enter the firm name of "Declaration and confirmation of sale" without the Germann & Co. DEIPARINE  Kammerzell. but he. 1963. 9934 on April 1. as properly belonging to the class of acts First Instance of Cebu which affirmed the decision for described in article 1713 of the Civil Code as acts "of strict Caballero. Caballero. The case is now in the Court of Appeals on appeal ownership. That defendant Alma Deiparine came to know only of carrying on of the business committed to his charge in the Annex "B" when it was presented by plaintiff Antonio same manner as we could do ourselves if we were present in Caballero at the trial of an ejectment case filed by the former the same place. accounts. 6. a full legal powers and authorization to direct and administer certified true copy of which document is identified as Annex in the city of Manila for us and in our name a branch of our "E" in the Complaint. Tomas Raga. Germany by Max Leonard Tornow. CABALLERO VS. Defendants Olimpio Raga. to dispose of the title to property. with a just title and for which purpose he may make contracts of lease and for a valuable consideration. Adriano Raga.” Caballero. as well as sign every kind of Tomas Raga as per deed of absolute sale identified as Annex documents. 7. when the title to said lot was 1. Caballero and the defendant parties entered into a such a business as that described in the instrument in compromise agreement. RT-2482 (T-17232) and the issuance in her name of the receipt and delivery of merchandise connected with the Transfer Certificate of Title No. . the The judgment was affirmed. That in 1932 Bucao and Tomas executed jointly a notarial 2. This case was decided in favor of Antonio Caballero but collect a claim accruing in the ordinary course of the the decision was appealed by Alma Deiparine to the Court of plaintiff's business. the plaintiff. filed CASE NUMBER: L-39059 an action against Donaldson. as claimed by the defendants.” in the Municipal Court of Talisay. and in general complaint. because no claim is made that the document was not issued. And the lawyer of Caballero question and only incidentally. 25 | P a g e . in the Commercial Registry of the city of participation of plaintiffs Antonio Caballero and Concordia Manila as a branch of the house of Germann & Co. the case of such an instrument. to recover a sum DATE: September 30. a business. which provides that powers for suits must be husband acquired by joint purchase a parcel of land from the contained in a public instrument? Talisay-Minglanilla Estate 3. sole owner of the business carried on in Berlin and Manila under the name of Germann & Co. sign all receipts for sums of money and collect certified true copy of which is identified as Annex "D" in the them and exact their payment by legal means. The Court saw no reason why 4. No.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency powers conferred upon Kammerzell in an instrument executed in Berlin. That during the lifetime of Bucao she with her second the Civil Code.The Court did not consider the institution of the suit to 9. had been in occupation of a portion of this lot peacefully until the 2. Alma Deiparine acquired in good faith. Yes. This involves a dispute over a parcel of land and the acts committed by the plaintiff lawyer which were not intended ISSUE: by his client. general commercial business of important and exportation. Is the original power invalid under article 1280. That the portion mentioned as sold to plaintiff Antonio the general principle that the formal validity of contracts is to Caballero remained unsegregated from Lot 2072 and the be tested by the laws of the country where they are executed deed of sale. of 2. nor had it been should not apply. 1. 5.“It is necessarily a part of the mere administration of 10. . because the instrument contains an explicit grant of a present. Magdalena Raga .

 By virtue of the two above powers. Melecio C. Maria. Valeriana Sta. The attorney for the plaintiffs in making such admission surety with Maximo Sta. of which only the sum of P13. But they cannot. executed in his favor by his six brothers and February 3. defendant CASE NUMBER: G. Inc. 1961 against Facts be approved and that a decision be handed down on defendant Maximo Sta. implied or power or authority over the subject matter of the Sta. Tomas Raga. The employment of itself confers upon the attorney no against defendants: condemning the defendant Maximo R. Inc. Quintin. MARIA  Defendant Maximo Sta.216. who did not resist the DATE: August 29. however.. The admission does securities given by Maximo for the loans were a "2nd not refer to a matter of judicial procedure related to the mortgage on 25.. Rosario and Leonila. jointly owned by all of them. It related to the very subject quota rights therein" including. The estop the grantor from questioning or disowning such other stipulation concludes with this prayer: "WHEREFORE. As security for the two loans. Rosario. Inc. Facts. for the by any agreement in relation thereto made in writing. Valeriana. the legal issues submitted on the basis of said Stipulation of defendants-appellants. Maria and expressly been granted authority with respect thereto. cause of action or defense. the parcel of land jointly matter of the cause of action. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs.000.57 was actually her undivided ½ of the land in question to her co-owner and extended by plaintiff.00. considering that the lawyer  In this appeal certified to this Court by the Court of admitted to facts which were not authorized by his client to Appeals as involving purely legal issues. and. Counsel for plaintiffs-appellants. in 1. applied for two separate crop loans. Maria from plaintiff bank under a special power 3. The broad implied or apparent powers of an attorney with already held a first mortgage on the same properties for the respect to the conduct or control of litigation are. All these adverse facts were made the basis of the two chattel mortgages on the standing crops.00.R. STA. the Philippine National remaining exclusively in the client.299. Maria and his surety. and in collection of certain amounts representing unpaid balances taking appeals. 1969 action. as 6. without special authority. that during the lifetime of their mother actually extended by plaintiff. with the conformity of her husband. remedy. Del Carmen Branch the sum of P8. Maria executed in his own name in favor of plaintiff bank 5. did not appeal the judgment. Attorneys have authority to bind their clients in any case Associated Insurance & Surety Co.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency FACTS: ISSUE: Is the compromise valid. a special power of attorney to their clients and sign it themselves without the intervention borrow money and mortgage any real estate owned by her. Maria and his co-defendants Valeriana. guaranteed by appealed decision against the plaintiffs. and the other in the amount of VicentaBucao. including sugar enforcement of the remedy.. it is obligations contracted by the grantee. one in the amount land in question in good faith and for a valuable of P15. Bank. we hold that a make? No special power of attorney to mortgage real estate is limited to such authority to mortgage and does not bind the grantor RULING: personally to other obligations contracted by the grantee.427. A reading of the stipulation of facts convinced the court the absence of any ratification or other similar act that would that it is a compromise agreement of the parties. with plaintiff bank. for the 1952-1953 and agreed that defendant-appellee Alma Deiparine bought the 1953-1954 crop years. and a 3rd mortgage on the limited to matters which relate only to the procedure or same properties for the 1953-1954 crop loan. all surnamed Sta. of which only the sum of P12.11 was consideration. or to a matter on which owned by Maximo and his six brothers and sisters herein for the client alone can make the admission binding on him. This appeals been taken 26 | P a g e . and Leonila all surnamed Sta. unless the attorney has Emeteria. sold P23. Maria and his six brothers and sisters. and the 2. The records of the went beyond the scope of his authority as counsel and crop loan application further disclose that among the practically gave away the plaintiffs' case. counsels of the contending parties can prepare a stipulation  In addition." Apparently it is intended to terminate the case.. No. most respectfully prayed that the foregoing Stipulation of  Plaintiff bank filed this action on February 10. It may be true that during the pre-trial hearing held on of attorney. defendants-appellants herein. of their clients.  The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff and 8. she. to mortgage a 16-odd stipulation of facts but it does not mean that the respective hectare parcel of land. the 1952-1953 crop loan.500. to pay the plaintiff. Maximo Sta. the parties concerned agreed to execute a sisters. Atty. 1968. Quintin. and in all matters of ordinary judicial on two agricultural sugar crop loans due allegedly from procedure.72 and P14.79 . Maximo. as surety. Inc. Maximo son. or receive anything in  The said sugar crop loans were obtained by defendant discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in cash Maximo Sta. No further evidence surety bonds for the full authorized amounts of the loans was presented as there was no hearing. L-24765 Associated Insurance & Surety Co. jointly power to deal with or surrender these matters is regarded as and severally. with the notation that the bank 7.3023 Has. Maria 4. Sta. of sugarland. Teofilo. 1 compromise their client's litigation. Teofilo. Maria as principal. the the Associated Insurance and Surety Company. 1951-1952 crop loan of Maximo. executed by the Associated Insurance & Surety Co. Maria alone also executed in of facts the contents of which is prejudicial to the interest of favor of her brother. defendants.000. Guba. Emeteria.

 On December 12. since she had expressly granted Maximo money but only to mortgage the real estate jointly owned by the authority to incur such loans.. defendants-appellants had further the Civil Code that "the concurrence . they property. was merely to  WHEREFORE.807. 1980.25. each one of the (debtors) is bound to render entire them is to foreclose on the property which they had compliance with the prestation.807. money (the loan proceeds) from (Maximo). There is a solidary liability authorized Maximo to mortgage. executed by Valeriana.. In their answer.00. of two or more contended that they did not benefit whatsoever from the debtors in one and the same obligation does not imply loans. Maria's liability to plaintiff. crop loans so as to put them in estoppel. the Gaytano spouses executed a deed of suretyship liability. with Valeriana who aside. their liability should not Valeriana's liability for the loans secured by Maximo is not go beyond the value of the property which they had joint and several or solidary as adjudged by the trial court. ordering appellants. on the other hand.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency by his six brothers and sisters. and that if they are liable at all.. subject to foreclosure and sale to respond for the obligations contracted by Maximo. authorized to be given as security for the loans obtained by but only joint. with costs in both instances against plaintiff. Philip Wong as credit administrator of BA express ratification of the loans by defendants-appellants or Finance Corporation for and in behalf of the latter. the latter to jointly and severally pay the plaintiff the following among others P85.  In a letter dated December 5. Maria is and the other defendants-appellants' only liability is that the modified in that her liability is held to be joint and not real estate authorized by them to be mortgaged would be solidary.25 27 | P a g e . plaintiff and against defendants/Gaytano spouses. They did not defendants-appellants Emeteria. can be claimed by plaintiff as against defendants.000. the judgment of the trial court against mortgage the property jointly owned by them. The authorized him to borrow money. but also for the loans which Maximo had obtained had not given their brother. penalty and other bank charges. COURT OF APPEALS liable for the payment of such obligations. 1992 held by the trial court. Petitioner corporation. she did not grant Maximo the authority to bind her solidarity with him on any loans he RULING: might secure thereunder. 1980 addressed to  The outcome might be different if there had been an respondent bank. only when the obligation expressly so states. Valeriana stands reiterate in their brief their main contention in their answer to liable not merely on the mortgage of her share in the the complaint that under this special power of attorney. Only for that land. defendants-appellants who  Valeriana Sta. respondent bank Maximo Sta. raised the admitted during the trial that defendants-appellants "did not defense of lack of authority of its credit administrator to bind profit from the loan" and that they "did not receive any the corporation. and that the plaintiff bank's only recourse against that . for any loan secured by whereby they agreed to pay jointly and severally to the grantee in the absence of express authority so given by respondent bank the amount of the loan including interests. and that "we brothers did not receive any centavo as  The Gaytano spouses did not present evidence for their benefit. we gave him as. much less solidary liability. Quintin. Teofilo. undertook if it had been shown that they had been benefited by the to guarantee the loan of the Gaytano spouses. Since the Gaytano authority to mortgage "to accommodate (my) brother Dr. or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity. and because he is my brother. Maximo alone. But they cannot be held personally BA FINANCE CORPORATION vs.. as erroneously DATE: July 3.." The record further shows plaintiff bank itself defense. 1988. Maximo. Quintin Sta. I signed filed with the trial court complaint for sum of money against it to accommodate him as security for whatever he may the Gaytano spouses and petitioner corporation as apply as loan.  The authority granted by defendants-appellants (except Valeriana) unto their brother. The Court hold that them. all surnamed Sta. the trial court: judgment in favor of therefore. Maria . Maria  Partial payments were made on the loan leaving an unpaid testified that he and his co-defendants executed the balance in the amount of P85. but the grant amount of P60. the authority to borrow from plaintiff bank. pursuant to the provisions of Article 1207 of Maximo. the grantor. doing business would allow his property or an undivided share in real estate under the name Gebbs International." It should ISSUE: Whether the 6 brothers and sisters are liable for the be noted that in the additional special power of attorney. Rosario and grant Maximo any authority to contract for any loans in their Leonila." No estoppel. Maria is hereby reversed and set names and behalf. As security for the payment of said of such authority does not extend to assuming personal loan. FACTS:  It is not unusual in family and business circles that one  On December 17. Renato Gaytano.. loan obtained by Maximo. must answer for said loans judgment against defendant-appellant Valeriana Sta. security" alternative defendant. spouses refused to pay their obligation. applied for and was to be mortgaged by another as security. either as an granted a loan with respondent Traders Royal Bank in the accommodation or for valuable consideration. Maximo.

807. In 1920. la Rama was signed without authority. 2. J. not be inferred from the use of vague or general words. not only the fact of agency but also the nature and extent of a. must be expressed and cannot be extended beyond its limit.00. it must be expressed and cannot Tan Toco” signed under the contract of suretyship by M. the level of the land above water. it this land. In the absence of clear proof. et al. and the amount due from  Persons dealing with an assumed agent. The subject land was subject to frequent flooding due to explanation in particular powers of a wholly different nature. vs. Rodriguez. Sing Juco. Article 1827 of the Civil Mariano Tanboontien. which will show ISSUE: Whether or not TanOngSze. A contract was made between the DPW. its low level. POIZAT 28 | P a g e . purporting to be signed by M. Viuda de of estoppel in allowing its credit administrator to act as Tan Toco was reversed. the burden of the material deposited on the land was not enough to raise proof is upon them to establish it (Harry Keeler v. the petition is GRANTED and the assailed de la Rama. On March 13. appellate court rendered judgment modifying the decision of 4.25 5. respondent Works in the mouth of said river. respondent bank appealed vicinity. they are not obliged to pay and subsequently sought to  that a power of attorney or authority of an agent should recover further damages. acting for this defendant under the power of decision of the respondent appellate court dated March 13. one of the signatures of the owner ISSUE: Whether the plaintiff was guilty of estoppels despite was under the name of “Casa Viuda de Tan Toco. Decision: Owners are obliged to pay and that Tan OngSze  We find that the said conclusion has no basis in fact. 1990.000. near Iloilo City. Viuda de Tan Toco is notice or knowledge on the latter's part and its consequent liable upon the contract of suretyship? ratification of the said transaction. severally. the Government of the Philippine Islands was planning extensive harbor improvements in this PHILIPPINE SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT CO.” the fact that it never knew of such alledged letter-guaranty. words. The clauses noted in the documents exhibiting powers of attorney. de la Rama. Following the principle PONENTE: Street. b. and in case either is controverted. 1929 a principal by a contract of suretyship. of contracts relating to property. a power of attorney to execute a contract of mortgage to the PNB for the purpose of securing a credit in guaranty should not be inferred from vague or general current account of not exceeding P170.  The said contract purports to have been signed by Mariano  ACCORDINGLY. principal. 205). Defense: government has not complied with the contract. This dredging operation requires the Director of Public the trial court ordering the defendants Gaytano spouses and Works to find a place of deposit for the dirt and mud taken alternative defendant BA Finance Corporation. 19). though the latter had power to guarantee. the owners of the property conveyed it by way of  By effect.000. 53 Phil. it would be unfair to hold petitioner corporation guilty RULING: No. Involves a land located on “Point Llorente” at the mouth of suretyship or guaranty cannot be inferred from the general Iloilo River. This bond was made together with the main contract. (widow of Tan Toco) and Viuda de Tan Toco is personally Respondent bank had not shown any evidence aside from liable upon the contract of suretyship in case the principal the testimony of the credit administrator that the disputed debtors should not satisfy their indebtedness. de be extended beyond its specified limits (Director v. SING JUCO. Judgment in relation to Tan OngSze. In 1921. and Sing Bengco owned Code declared that guaranty should not be presumed. Gonzalo words contained in these powers. FACTS:  Power to execute a contract such as a contract of 1.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency  Not satisfied with the decision. to ascertain the amount due to the Government under the said contract.. authority. requiring extensive dredging by the Bureau of Public with the Court of Appeals. to pay the plaintiff the amount of P85. On part of Viuda de Tan Toco: the name “Casa Viuda de Guaranty is not presumed. Sing Juco. and the four owners. i. of ejusdem generis. Defendants asserted that 4 Phil. the following errors committed by respondent appellate DPW also required a bond to be supplied by the owners in court: the amount of P150. transaction of guaranty was in fact entered into the official records or files of petitioner corporation. relate more specifically to the execution DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS VS. attorney. No payment was assumed agency be a general or special one are bound at made thus an action was instituted by the DPW to recover their peril. in undivided shares. But the Government did not exhibitevidence that 1990 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another one is would prove that the defendant was authorized in creating rendered dismissing the complaint for sum of money against an obligation in the nature of suretyship binding upon the BA Finance Corporation. if they would hold the principal liable. 6.00. jointly and from the places dredged. representing the  Hence this petition was filed with the petitioner assigning Government of the Philippine Islands. whether the the owners was determined and demanded. especially when such words have their origin and 3. Neither of these powers CASE NUMBER: 30181 officially confers upon Mariano de la Rama the power to bind DATE: July 12. Mariano de la Rama. The dredging operation was conducted in substantial RULING: compliance with the agreement.

In this case it was not applicable to the case at bar. in his answer. Appellant. COURT OF APPEALS CASE NUMBER: G. against the decision. Ederlinda Gallardo. Doña Gabriela Andrea de Coster. was sold to the plaintiff for P100. Gallardo. Aquino in favor of the Rural Bank of deemed convenient.Aquino's act of signing the Deed of Real Estate The sale is set aside Mortgage in his name alone as mortgagor. Rizal stead. 1925 FACTS: 1.000. Juan M. Herein respondent Aquino exercised.Poizat. does not acted purportedly as an agent of Gallardo. standing alone.000 Pounds Sterling to be drawn on the "Banco Español and Rural Bank. confirmation of the sale. that Gallardo's property is not liable on the real estate mortgage. either judicially or extrajudicially until further orders from the court. REP.R. To secure payment he executed a mortgage upon the real enforcing the real estate mortgage and from foreclosing it property of his wife. plus interest at the rate of fourteen (14%) per annum. Aquinoin favor of the Rural him personally. but actually acted bind his principal. is with authority. the property P350. Spouses Gallardo filed an action against Rufino Aquino 10. Involved herein are properties titled the deed of the principal.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency CASE NUMBER: G.” 4. executed a special power of attorney in favor 1. Thus. done. 2. Aquino. . circumstances. a general power . married to FACTS: Daniel Manzo. His personal signature. and making use of her rights and actions".00 5.000 that the spouse owed him. RURAL BANK OF BOMBON INC. from the same Bank. Plaintiff then brought an action against the defendant for 4. without any RULING: indication that he was signing for and in behalf of the Juan Poizat may have had the authority to borrow money property owner. vs. She alleged that the mortgage in The CA reversed the trial court and held that Rufino Aquino question was illegally executed thus null and void. 1883. Poizat obtained from the plaintiff a credit for the sum of 3. mortgaged. which was not ISSUE: Whether or not the Deed of Real Estate made to this defendant or for her benefit but was made to Mortgageexecuted by Rufino S. Inc. The above provision of or sell real property should be executed with all the the Civil Code relied upon by the petitioner Bank. to for lose the mortgage. because had no authority to mortgage the land. ISSUE: Whether the act of defendant Poizant.00). alleged that the spouses allowed failure to pay. OF THE PHILS Vs. The property was secured for a public document and making these transactions with or loan in the total sum of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos without mortgage. we hold. That the plaintiff was aware of such fact and that the mortgage was executed to secure a loan. 1981. Inc. Such objections were overruled.The trial court temporarily restrained the Rural Bank "from 3. executed to of Rufina S. DATE: August 3. in his capacity RULING: as attorney in fact. Under these wife. The trial court lifted the TRO against the bank and ordered the foreclosure proceeding against the mortgaged property. Aquino authorizing him: and in favor of her husband. is not formalities required in a deed. 5. The mortgage in question was held to proposes to foreclose the mortgage constituted by an agent be executed by him and him only thus it is not binding to his (Aquino) acting in his personal capacity. On August 26. binds her wife? Agent who signs a Deed of Mortgage in his name alone does not validly bind the owner of the real estate HELD: No. No. but the law his personal capacity as a debtor of the petitioner Bank and specifically provided how and in what manner it must be not as the agent or attorney-in-fact of Gallardo. It authorized him to do "in her name. No. The deed in its face does not purport to be in his personal capacity. The trial court's him to mortgage the property and use the use the proceeds decision issued an order directing the sale of the mortgaged thereof to compensate for the pre-existing obligation of property to satisfy the judgment. a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage was borrow any amount of cash under the conditions he may executed by Rufino S. Ederlinda M. The law requires that a power of attorney to mortgage The petitioner misapplied Art. place and mortgage the property at Las Pinas.R. 29 | P a g e . only (P350. it was without authority.To secure a loan from any institution for any amount or of attorney. 1992 ARMORED CAR SERVICE CORP. L-23352 DATE: December 31. executing and signing private and Bombon(Camarines Sur). NO. thus valid? prompted the appellant to appeal. property to pay for his personal loans. Appellant personally appeared and objected to the The Spouses Gallardo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).000. They alleged that Aquino mortgaged the del Rio de la Plata. bound himself alone in and mortgage the real property of his wife. The mortgage is declared null and void ab initio. 95703 COMMERCIAL BANK & TRUST CO. which Bank of Bombon (Cam. this appeal the agent of the defendant was not authorized to execute it. 1981. to loan or 2. Consequently. Sur). On January 12. made and signed by him in his in the name of respondent Gallardo against which the Bank name and as his deed.

Tiu? 3. 1910 Art. They have no knowledge or information that the original purporting the alleged true authority granted by the merchandise they were receiving from Domingo was the movant. merchandise may deem proper and convenient to my interests. W/N Domingo Tim Bun Liu acted in his own name in contention has no merit. aforesaid Attorney-in-fact Mr. 1908. RUIZ y REMENTERIA against the principal CASE NUMBER: GR No. Ruiz y CASE NUMBER: GR No. and he shall be directly  On May 26.043. and to  What Domingo did was to purchase the all or nearly all the execute any and all documents he deems requisite and merchandise from Lim Tiu then sell it to Ruiz y Rementeria necessary in order to obtain such loans. nor the said persons LIM TIU vs. Lim Tiu sold to Ruiz liable. L-18223-24  Lim Tiu filed an appeal.Since they have already paid the merchandise. financing corporation.It is not expressly mentioned that this is the precise power  Ruiz y Rementeria had been buying merchandise from of attorney that Ramon Racelis Utilized to secure the loans Domingo for several months and paying for said the collection of which is sought in these cases. nor the latter  Said amount was due and unpaid therefore. Nos.  YES. J.. an action was against the former. DATE: September 30. to secure the loans for the ISSUE/RULING: Republic Armored Car Service Corporation and the Republic a. . J. 5676 DATE: March 2.They never notified Ruiz y Rementeria that Domingo could evidence. for the sake of argument.R. L-39037 Rementeria is no longer liable DATE: Oct. sell their merchandise 2.. 246 of the Code of Commerce: When an agent PONENTE: Johnson. with other being institution. the principal shall have no action against the persons with whom the agent has contracted. as if the business were for his own account. that the said power of merchandise purchased. Ruiz y Rementeria’s books of account were kept by to invalidate the security loans secured under the name of Domingo during the entire period they were doing business movant? NO. AGUDELO y GONZAGA . 30. it shall not be necessary FACTS: for him to state who is the principal.Ruiz y Rementeria purchased and paid the merchandise to Domingo Tim Bun Lui PHIL. Payments were likewise made to him ISSUE: Whether or not the claim of the movant is tenable as  Further. in such that he was acting as Lim Tiu’s agent in selling the sum or sums. merchandise of Lim Tiu . . He further presents the  NO. merchandise by selling to Domingo certain goods in exchange. No notice was given by Domingo to Ruiz y Rementeria insurance companies or investment corporations. Ramon Racelis. We hold that this general power with Domingo without any knowledge that he is indeed an attorney to secure loans from any banking institute was agent of Lim Tiu sufficient authority for Ramon Racelis to obtain the credits Art.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency CASE NUMBER: G. He claims that Ramon Racelis only used a photastic copy as proof of the Power of Attorney. . the liabilities of the principal and the filed by Lim Tiu against Ruiz y Rementeria agent to each other always reserved  Lower Court ruling The judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed.. In accordance with the document. 1933 PONENTE: Villareal. arguing that the following errors. said persons not having any right of action against the principal. purportedly signed by him. Defendant-appellant Damaso Perez has presented a employee of Lim Tiu motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered . June 5 and June 12. Damaso Perez claims that he was not aware of the nature . 1963 among others. NATIONAL BANK vs. they are no longer liable to Lim Tiu attorney incorporated in the motion for reconsideration was the one used to obtain the loans.. 30 | P a g e . dealing with Ruiz y Rementeria? Racelis was authorized to negotiate for a loan or various loans .. 1717 of the Civil Code: When an agent acts in his own subject of the present suits. were committed by the lower court . to the y Rementeria certain merchandise totaling P1. We find that the movant's b.  Domingo even presented a bill in Ruiz y Rementeria’s favor for every merchandise sold RULING:  Since Ruiz y Rementeria already paid to Domingo the Assuming.Ruiz y Rementeria never had a notice that their business FACTS: transactions with Domingo were by him as agent or 1. it is not. always having in  Ruiz y Rementeria also believed that they were dealing mind best interest. name.No payments were accepted by them thru Domingo of the power of attorney that Ramon Racelis used. transacts business in his own name. W/N Ruiz y Rementeria purchased directly from Lim Credit Corporation.57 persons with whom he transacts the same.

Mauro maintained a personal  On the other hand. Amparo Garrucho executed a special  Pursuant to the said sale. executed before the notary public Mr. 23.000. Garrucho in favor of the Negros Occidental Philippine National Bank. as if the transaction were his own. including the buildings and case. etc. 1921. loans.. Negros .000. 1922 personal capacity. Occidental Negros. the principal shall have no right of  On Aug. executing the corresponding promissory note to that effect.000. Benedicto. one person binds himself to render some service. Mauro.15. a mortgage on real  Mauro incurred credits and loans for a total of P21. 24.148. he  PNB manager requested Mauro to liquidate his account appointed the mortgage creditor PNB as his attorney in fact amounting to P15. loans and has contracted. 1920. 878 of the Cadastre of 31 | P a g e . Garrucho is attorney in fact of Amparo and Paz. In such mortgage on Agudelo’s 2 lots. Garrucho to contract any loan nor to constitute a ISSUE: W/N the powers of attorney issued in Mauro mortgage on the properties belonging to the respective Garrucho’s favor to mortgage their respective real estate. nothing in the said SPAs expressly authorized Mauro A.Paz Agudelo is ordered to pay PNB  However. Mauro executed another document action against the persons with whom the agent has (Exhibit J) in PNB’s favor whereby he constituted a contracted. Palma Gil. in view of the legal principle of Agudelo which states: “xxx do hereby agree and consent to "delegata potestas delegare non potest" (a delegated power the transfer in my favor of lot No. PNB notified Mauro of his promissory note  Mauro’s transactions with PNB appears to have been acted within which to make a payment in his personal capacity  Eventually. P. 22. or with interest thereon. In his capacity as mortgage debtor. principals. RULING: NO Garrucho. alienate. together agency. which he might obtain from PNB. another mortgage contract (Exhibit C) was mortgage contracts executed by Mauro in PNB’s favor over Agudelo’s lot in Bacolod and Murcia  As held in National Bank vs. by Miss Amparo A. in fact of Amparo A. Mauro appears to have acted in his May 22. to secure the payment of credits. A property of the principal not made and signed in the name of new promissory note was executed for P21. mortgage or otherwise  CFI Ruling: encumber all her properties in Murcia and Bago. 1920. had fallen due of any of the conditions stipulated in the respective  As a result. Garrucho and of Paz Agudelo. a document (Exhibit G) was executed by properties in question? Mauro in favor of Philippine National Bank (PNB) whereby he constituted a mortgage on Lot No. all Agudelo’s properties in Murcia and Bacolod. in case for the payment of said loans. not exceeding P6. thereby the principal is not valid as to the principal.000 giving as security for the mortgaged properties by means of force in case of violation commercial overdraft in question. as evidenced by the public instrument dated attorney (Exhibit K) in favor of her nephew.  On Nov.  In the said SPA. Art. payable on August 24. or such persons against the principal. 878 under Amparo A. he could  An affidavit (Exhibit N) was likewise signed by Paz not delegate his power. novating the first 2 notes  Sometime 1925. Paz Agudelo executed a special power of Garrucho. 9. Garrucho acted in his capacity as mere attorney exhibit G) to Paz Agudelo (Exhibit M). at the same time notifying him that so that it might take actual and full possession of the his promissory note for P16. Mauro Garrucho November 25. 1922.”  On Dec. to secure his obligations authorized him to obtain loans secured by mortgage in the  On Dec. Garrucho is able to sell alienate and Genaro B. 1717 states that when an agent credit account with PNB acts in his own name. 1920. the property and title was power of attorney (Exhibit H) wherein she enabled her transferred in Paz’s name brother. 1925..  There is nothing in the mortgage deeds to show that  Said mortgage contracts and promissory notes were Mauro A.000. for the account and at the he failed to comply with any of the conditions stipulated request of said Amparo A. executed by Mauro in his own name and signed by him in his and that he obtained the loans mentioned in the aforesaid personal capacity. to do something for the account or at the request of another issuing the corresponding promissory note to that effect  For the years 1921 and 1922. the agent is directly liable to the person with whom he improvements to secure the payment of credits. executed by Miss Amparo A.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency FACTS: Murcia. Mauro’s commercial credit was closed starting  In the mortgage deeds. Amparo sold Lot 878 (which was under  If Mauro A. to sell.Absolved Mauro from the complaint Occidental . Cases commercial overdrafts which the said bank might furnish him involving things belonging to the principal are excepted xxx to the amount of P16. authorizing PNB to take possession of the mortgage deeds and constituted said mortgages as security mortgaged properties. 1709 of the Civil Code states that by the contract of commercial overdrafts. and do hereby further agree to the mortgage in whatever manner or form he might deem amount of the lien thereon stated in the mortgage deed convenient. Garrucho and Paz Agudelo therein  Thereafter. Art. I. by means of force if necessary.

INTERMEDIATE 2. “ In such case the agent is the the launch is executed nor in whose name same was one directly bound in favor of the person with whom he has registered. such fact does not show that bought it for payment but the latter ignored the request. DATE: 12 Jan 1920 6. Santiago himself admits it principal is not liable for his acts was constructed by the Syjucos in the latter's ship-yard. without express authority from his principal. 1990 3. Concerning the rendition of accounts which the Syjucos require of Santiago. himself and with his own money.The question is not in whose favor the document of sale of portion of the provision states.According to this exception: the agent is bound to the from his principal and. The SC affirmed the RTC with the exception of casco No. NGA replied that it could not grant its request because the contract was entered into by NGA and Medalla RULING: who did not disclose that he was acting as a mere agent of 1. Santiago APPELLATE COURT acquired the launch Malabon in his capacity as administrator CASE NUMBER: GR NO.The money with which the launch was bought having come capacity. Mauro exceeded his scope of his authority and the 3. Santiago’s parents) as administrator of their property and acted as such from 1902-1916. when an agent negotiates a loan in his that its price was paid with the Syjucos’ money. casco. . SSC then asked payments from NGA and name. 4. as commission agent of Superior Shipping 4.  What really happened was Mauro obtained such credit for consequently. contracted. Regarding the launch Malabon: though Santiago bought SSC. to the Syjucos’ satisfaction.Santiago’s ownership over it CASE NUMBER: 13471 absolves him from liability on it. Concerning the casco No. As to the automobile. There was no showing that the loan obtained was for agent and appears acting on his own name his principal . Santiago was appointed by the plaintiffs (“Syjucos” for after each transaction. inasmuch as there is nothing in the 2. The SSC asked Medalla for the it in his own name. NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY vs. thereof by mortgage constituted by him in his personal . under his own signature. brevity.  Thus. . . from the rule established in Article 1717 of the records to show that he has been expressly authorized to do Civil Code (“when an agent acts in his own name. the so principal shall have no right of action against the person with whom the agent has contracted. and. SY-JUCO afterwards to Santiago. The RTC ruled in favor of the Syjucos and ordered Santiago to return basically everything that the Syjucos asked for in FACTS: the complaint. DATE: April 5.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency cannot be delegated). were not binding upon the principal although he does not assume the character of such latter. NGA is liable under Art 1883 of the Civil Code. therefore. Santiago is also absolved from this for it FACTS: appears that Santiago used to render accounts of his agency 1. as he claims. NGA paid Medalla. 75640 with their (Syjucos’) money and for their benefit. with the National Grains Authority (NGA).This transaction was within the agency which he had ISSUE: : Is NGA liable to SSC? received from the Syjucos (the principal).The RTC should have made a pronouncement upon this personal and does not bind his aforesaid principal. the contract must be considered as entered into between the principal and the third person. although on properties belonging to his principal from the Syjucos. entered into a contract for hire of ship 2545 which was lawfully sold to Santiago. the exception established in Article 1717 is applicable to this case. Corporation (SSC). belong to him? (No. Moreover. the obligation do constructed by him is . The Syjucos allege that during his administration. making any declaration about its ownership in view of the giving as security therefor real estate belonging to the letter. if the obligations belong to the former. Concerning the casco No. fact that this casco had been leased and was sunk while in also in his own name and not in the name and representation the lessee's hands before the complaint in this case was filed ) of the said principal. where sacks of rice belonging to the latter would be transported from Occidental ISSUE: Do the properties bought by Santiago in his own Mindoro to Manila. he executed the promissory notes evidencing the belonging to the principal are excepted”): aforesaid loans. 2545: (the RTC refrained from own signature. in effect. to him himself in his personal capacity and secured the payment alone must also belong the rights arising from the contract. 2584. without authority . there is sufficient evidence to show  In conclusion. but with whose money was said launch bought. except when 32 | P a g e . Medalla. Relevant . and that the latter sold it SYJUCO & VIARDO vs. as an administrator.Thus.The fact that he has acted in his own name may be only a RULING: violation of the agency on his part. personal capacity and executes a promissory note under his 5.As it belonged to the Syjucos. except the it requested that the payment be made to it and not to casco 2545) Medalla. as if the transaction were his own. cases involving things  Also.

case. 1924. but which sum the defendant had the right 33 | P a g e .. which the defendant agreed to entrusted to the agent Chua Lioc and therefore did not pay. L-25950 not be necessary for him to state who is the principal and he DATE: December 24.657. D.Bus Org1 Cases on Agency the contract involves things belonging to the principal . that it brought the merchandise in good faith and without any knowledge whether of the person from whom or the condition under which the said merchandise had been acquired by Chua Lioc or Hang Chua Co. The trial court dismissed the case on the ground that the plaintiff was only entitled to payment of the sum of ₱6.98.140 for which action had already been brought against Chua Lioc. this appeal. J. in behalf of E. Article 246 of the Code of Commerce states that: AWAD vs. 1924.657.155.52 which the defendant promised to pay to faith. and was also indebted to the defendant itself of the purchase the goods in good faith. representing himself The plaintiff-appellant pointed out several circumstances as the owner of the merchandise. FACTS: said persons not having any right of action against the Plaintiff.140 to Chua Lioc. to the persons with whom he transacts the same. But the court did not see amount of ₱2. who immediately offered it for sale. the Philippine Trust Company brought an action against Chua Lioc for the recovery of the sum of ₱1. Awad. Awad & Co. in effect. 1926 shall be directly liable. 1924 with the plaintiff demanding payment of the same sum of ₱11. Chua Lioc on or before October 9. Hence. The present action was filed on November 26. among others.36 and under a writ of attachment garnished the balance due Chua Lioc from the defendant. but the defendant refused to comply in its reply letter. the agent is bound to the principal although he does not assume the character of such agent ISSUE: Whether the defendant brought the merchandise in and appears acting in his own name. nor the latter against the former. the liabilities of name of E. FILMA MAECANTILE CO.497. Awad & Co.. anything conclusive about the circumstances referred to and ₱5. operating under the name of Hang Chua Co.” to retain subject to the orders of the court in the two other Consequently. against Chua Lioc for the recovery of the sum of ₱11. leaving a they are not sufficient to overcome the presumption of good balance of ₱6. The defendant averred. Awad & Co. Awad.98. Thus.. plaintiff’s representative in the Philippine Islands. He owed the Philippine aware of the condition under which the merchandise was Manufacturing Co. J. contract must be considered as entered into between the principal and the third person. it shall CASE NUMBER: No. ₱3. a merchant reserved. On October 7. doing business in the Philippine Islands under the principal.707 from the defendant and informed the latter's treasurer of the said transaction.017. when things belonging to the principal (in this cases. E. delivered certain merchandise with the principal and of the agent to each other always being an invoice value of ₱11. The total amount of the two debts. wrote a letter to the defendant corporation telling them that inasmuch the merchandise belonged to E. obtained authorization from Chua Lioc to collect ₱11. On September 15. sold it to Filma Mercantile which he believes indicate that the defendant-appellee was (defendant) for ₱12.036. as if the business were for his own account. The merchandise purchased was delivered to the defendant. When the agent transacts business in his own name. Chua Lioc. the good faith.480. Awad also brought an action.60. the purchase price should be paid to them. SSC) are dealt with. in Manila. Three days later D. On September 18.52. having ascertained that the goods entrusted to Chua Lioc was being offered for sale by the defendant. and sell it on commission basis.140 (invoice value of the merchandise) and also obtained a writ of attachment under which notice of garnishment of the said aforesaid balance we served upon the herein defendant. RULING: Yes. was deducted from the purchase price.