ANTONIO B. BALTAZAR vs HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN et.al.

,
GR NO. 136433 DECEMBER 6, 2006

FACTS
Pacencia owns a 7-hectare fishpond, her Attorney-in-Fact Faustino leases the fishpond to Eduardo. Lessee
Eduardo in turn sub-leased the fishpond to Rafael. Ernesto who was hired by Eduardo as fishpond
watchman was rehired by Rafael.
Later on, Ernesto sent a demand letter to Rafael for unpaid salaries and non-payment of shares in harvest.
In his answer, Rafael wrote that he is not liable for the unpaid period because he already sub-lease the
fishpond to Mario.
The present case was filed by the alleged nephew of Faustino. Petitioner charged private respondents of
conspiracy, he asserts that he is duly authorized by Faustino to institute the suit and presented a SPA from
his uncle.

ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner is an agent of his uncle thus has a locus standi in the present case.

HELD

NO
The legal maxim potestas non delgare potest; a power delegated cannot be re-delegated, while applied
primarily in political law to the exercise of legislative power, is a principle of agency.
In the present case, petitioner’s principal is an agent himself and such cannot further delegate his agency
to another. Otherwise put, an agent cannot delegate to another same agency. A re-delegation of the
agency would be detrimental to the principal as the second agent has no privity of contract with the former.
Herein petitioner has no privity with Pacencia, the owner and the principal of Faustino.
Moreover, while the Civil Code under Article 1892 allows the agent to appoint a substitute, such is not the
situation in the instant case. The SPA clearly delegates the agency to petitioner to pursue the case and not
merely a substitute. Besides, it is clear in the aforecited Article that what is allowed is a substitute not a
delegation of the agency.