Equitable PCI v Ku

March 26, 2001

Facts:

Litigation ensued between Rosita Ku and Equitable. When CA ruled in favor of Rosita,
Equitable filed a motion for an extension of 30 days to file its petition for review as it
allegedly received the CA decision on April 25, 2000. However, Rosita argues that the
petition is defective because Bank actually received CA decision on April 24, 2000 when
Joel Rosales, an employee of Bank’s law firm received it from the Post office and thus
Equitable should have filed motion for extension on May 9, 2000 not May 10. Equitable
replied that Joel is not an agent of the bank as expressly mentioned in his affidavit.

Issue: Whether or not there was perfection of agency.

HELD: Bank filed petition beyond reglementary period. There was perfection of the
agency as Joel Rosales averred in his affidavit that “on occasions when I receive mail
matters for said law office, it is only to help them receive their letters promptly,” implying
that counsel had allowed the practice of Rosales receiving mail in behalf of the
former. There is no showing that counsel had objected to this practice or took steps to
put a stop to it.  However, in the interest of justice, the petition was still given due
course.

The Court is not wholly convinced by petitioner's argument. The Affidavit of Joel
Rosales states that he is "not the constituted agent of `Curato Divina Mabilog Nedo
Magturo Pagaduan Law Office.'" An agency may be express but it may also be implied
from the acts of the principal, from his silence, or lack of action, or his failure to
repudiate the agency, knowing that another person is acting on his behalf without
authority. Likewise, acceptance by the agent may also be express, although it may also
be implied from his acts which carry out the agency, or from his silence or inaction
according to the circumstances. The facts are, therefore, inadequate for the Court to
make a ruling in petitioner's favor