1

I.

1.
No. “B” did not violate his fiduciary relationship with his principal “A”
because “B” acted within his scope of authority given to him by “A” which is to
sell the property for at least £5,000,000.00 and “B” fulfilled the obligation and sold
it for more than the agreed amount which benefits the principal. Even if buyer “Z”
was the friend of “B” it did not amount to bad faith in the part of “B” since she still
acted within the authority granted by “A”

2.
No. “A” cannot nullify the sale or at the very least collect damages against
“B” because there was no bad faith, negligence, or malice on the part of “B” with
regard to the exercise of the agency agreement. .The Civil Code states that the
principal must be bound to the contract entered to by the agent if the agent acted
in representation of the principal and within the scope of authority, which is, to
sell the property for at least £5,000,000.00.

3.
A agent is one who has the power to do anything that is authorized by the
principal and there is a fiduciary relationship between the agent and the principal.
A agent has the power to enter into contracts in representation of a principal if
authorized which may include acts of administration or acts of dominion. A
agency is generally onerous unless otherwise stated. An agent cannot buy the
property entrusted by the principal unless he is authorized.
A commission agent is a profession where the commission agent is
tasked with bringing buyers and sellers together and to negotiate between them.
There is no fiduciary relationship between the commission agent and the
principal. The commission agent may buy the property of its client and is paid
only a commission for the sale.

4.
No, “B” cannot demand the “A” pay him commission for selling the
property to “X” if there is no stipulation in the contract of agency that warrants
such commission. Since the principal did not grant a commission under the
contract of agency, “B” may not demand the commission.
II.
 2

1.
Yes, Alma may be held liable even if Teta, her agent, did not state that she was
only an agent of Alma when she signed the bank document for the loan and to
mortgage Alma’s property as security for the loan since the Civil Code provides
that a principal may be held liable even if the agent acted on his own name if the
principals property was involved in the contract the agent signed who was acting
within the authority given by the agent.

2.
Yes, the property of Alma can be foreclosed since Teta was acted within the
authority of Alma evidenced by the Special Power of Attorney granted to her.
Civil Code provides that a principal may be held liable even if the agent acted on
his own name if the principals property was involved in the contract the agent
signed who was acting within the authority given by the agent.

III.
1.
 3

Edea has a better right over the property as compared to Adel since the
first sale to Adel is void since it was without a Special Power of Attorney. The
Civil Code Provides that a Special Power is needed for the sale of immovable
property. Since the sale to Adel was void, Edea has a better right since Fujin was
now armed with a Special Power of Attorney during the sale to Edea.
2.
Fujin shall be liable to Raijin since there was bad faith on the part of Fujin
since she sold the property to two different persons. The Civil Code provides that
those who are negligent, who commit fraudulent acts, and exercise bad faith are
liable for damages. Adel, the first buyer should have exercised diligence to
ascertain whether or not Fujin was actually authorized to sell the property of
Raijin.
3.
No, my answer would not change even if Raijin was informed by Fujin of
the previous sale to Adel because if that where the cause, both Raijin and Fujin
would be in bad faith. In that case, Both Fujin and Raijin will be liable to Adel for
the return of the price that he paid in consideration of the property.
4.
If the transaction’s subject matter involves the rent or lease of the
property of Fujin. My answer would change depending on the duration of the
lease since the Civil Code provides that the act of the agent to lease the property
of the principal must be made in a Special Power of Attorney. It is also covered
under the statute of frauds that lease of at lease one year or more must be
evidenced in writing.

IV.

1.
 4

Yes, the agency relationship between the lawyer and the client was
automatically terminated since the principal already performed the subject matter
of the agency. The purpose of the agency was already accomplished therefore, it
is terminated. The Civil Code provides that the agency is terminated when the
principal takes over the execution of the act.

2.
No, the client cannot unilaterally rescind the agency relationship with his
lawyer it was for the benefit of both the lawyer, to collect his unpaid fees
amounting to One Million, and the client, in order for his property to be sold.

V.
1.
 5

The duty of loyalty states that the agent must at all times avoid conflict of interest with
regard to his interest and the interest of his principal. He should prefer the interest of his
principal over his own interest since he will be liable for damages if he chooses his interest over
that of his principal. If an agent has been engaged by 2 or more principals, for different
transactions, the interests of the agent must give way to the interests of the principal. And that
there must be no conflict of interest between each of the principals that he contracts with.
2.
No, “Y” cannot demand that “A” indemnify him for P500,000.00 which represents the price
difference had “A” sold the property to “C” since there was no damage incurred by “Y” and that
there was no bad faith or negligence on the part of “A” the agent. The contract of agency
between “Y” and “A” was fulfilled since its terms were met , which is to sell the property for at
leat 2 Million
3.
Yes, “X” can demand that “A” forward him the P200,000.00 Commission that he received from
“C” since the Civil Code provides that “A” has a duty to account his transactions and to deliver to
the principal whatever he may have received by virtue of the agency. He must reveal to the
Principal that “C” gave him a bonus P200,000.00. He is guilty of breach of loyalty.

VI.
1.
 6

If I were the agent and an order comes in for 30 units I would give to the
buyer 10 units from principal X, 10 units from principal Y, and 10 units from
principal Z. I would do this because I have knowledge that the goods from the
three principals come at the same time with the same expiration date and that
the first 10 units from each principal expire in a week’s time. I would do this
method in order not to be negligent since the first 10 units expire in 1 week.
2.
If there are 9 remaining units remaining and the end of the third week
approaches, the agent “A” must make this fact known to the principal that the
nine units are about to be expired. The agent also has the duty to bear the loss of
the 9 remaining units.

VII.
1.
 7

No, in the event that “X” refuses to comply with the contract entered into by “4”, “Z” cannot
force “X” to comply with his contractual obligations under the doctrine of agency by estoppel
since the element of fraud is missing in this case. Fraud is an element for there to be a agency
of estoppels. The acts of all sub-against against the will of the principal are likewise void.
2.
Yes, “A” and the rest of the sub-agents may demand their commission if after the
termination of the agency, “X” sells the property to “Z” since they were the reason that “X” found
buyer “Z” who was willing to buy his property at P4,000,000.00. It would unjustly enrich “Z” since
it was through the efforts of the sub-agents that he found a buyer.
3.
legal issue that I can identify in this problem is whether or not the Agency agreement
appointing “A” to sell the land of “X” is a general power or a special power since it was not
mentioned in the problem. If the agency agreement was merely a general power, “A” would not
have the authority to sell the property in the first place since a general power only covers acts of
administration and not acts of dominion.