You are on page 1of 5

AGENCY CASES

NATURE, FORM AND KINDS OF AGENCY

Agency
- Contract
- Binds himself to:
o Render some service; or
o Do something in representation or on behalf of
another
- With the consent or authority of the latter.

Kinds
1.1 Express; or
1.2 Implied from:
a. The acts of the principal;
b. His silence or lack of action, or
c. His failure to repudiate the agency, knowing that
another person is acting on his behalf without authority.

2.1 General – comprises all the business of the principal;


2.2 Special – on or more specific transactions.

Forms
1. May be oral, unless the law requires a specific form.

Acceptance by the agent


1. May be express; or
2. Implied:
a. From his acts which carry out the agency, or
b. From his silence or inaction according to
circumstances.
c. If the principal delivers his power of attorney to the
agent and the latter receives it without any objection (between
present).

As a general rule, the acceptance of the agency between persons who are
absent cannot be implied from the silence of the agent.
 EXCPN:
1. When the principal transmits his power of attorney to the agent,
who receives it without any objection;
2. When the principal entrusts to him by letter or telegram a power
of attorney with respect to the business in which he is habitually
engaged as an agent, and he did not reply to the letter or telegram.

Notice of power of attorney


- If Principal specially inform = latter becomes a duly authorized agent
with respect to the person who received the special information.
- If Principal states by public advertisement that he has given a power of
attorney to a third person = latter becomes duly authorized agent with
regard to any person.
- The power shall continue to be in full force until the notice is
rescinded in the same manner in which it was given.

Sale of a piece of land or any interest therein – shall be in writing; otherwise,


the sale shall be void.

Nature
- Presumed to be for compensation, unless there is proof to the contrary.
- If couched in general terms, comprises ONLY acts of administration
even if:
o Principal should state that he withholds no power; or
o That the agent may execute such acts as he may consider
appropriate; or
o Even though the agency should authorize a general and
unlimited management.

Special Powers of Attorney, when necessary:


1) Making payments that are not usually considered as acts of
administration;
2) Effecting novations which will put an end to obligations already in
existence at the time agency was constituted;
3) Compromising, submitting questions to arbitration, renouncing the
right to appeal from a judgment, waiving objections to the venue of an
action, or to abandon a prescription already acquired;
4) Waiving any obligation gratuitously;
5) Entering into any contract where ownership of an immovable shall be
transmitted or acquired, gratuitously or for valuable consideration;
6) Making gifts;
a. Except: customary ones for charity
b. Except: those made to employees in the business managed by
the agent.
7) Making a loan or borrowing money
a. Except: urgent and indispensable for the preservation of the
things which are under administration;
8) Leasing any real property to another person for more than one year;
9) Binding the principal to render some service without compensation;
10) Binding the principal in a contract of partnership;
11) Obligating the principal as a guarantor or surety;
12) Creating or conveying real rights over immovable property;
13) Accepting or repudiate an inheritance;
14) Ratifying or recognizing obligations contracted before the agency;
15) Other act of strict dominion.

Nature of powers of an Agent

 Special power to sell = power to mortgage;


Special power to mortgage = power to sell
 Must act within the scope of his authority; may do such acts as may be
conducive to the accomplishment of the purpose of the agency.

If an agent acts in his own name


- principal has no right of action against persons with whom the agent
has contracted
- Neither have such persons against the principal.
- Agent is the one directly bound in favor of the person with whom he
has contracted, as if the transaction were his own.
- EXCPN: whent the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
- Shall be understood without prejudice to the actions between the
principal and agent.

1. Prats v. Court of Appeals, 81 SCRA 360 (1978).

Although agent is not efficient procuring cause, he may be


compensated from efforts exerted to bring principal and buyer
together.
Doronila was dealing exclusively with the said buyer longer
before Prats came into the picture but on the other hand, Prats’ effort
somehow were instrumental in bringing them together again and
finally consummating the transaction.

2. Manotok Bros. Inc. v. CA, 221 SCRA 224 (1993).

The established principle is that a broker or gent is not entitled


to any commission until he has successfully done the job given to him.
Going deeper however into the case would reveal that it is within the
coverage of the exception rather than of the general rule.
In an earlier case, the Court ruled that when there is a close,
proximate and causal connection between the agent’s efforts and labor
and the principal’s sale of his property, the agent is entitled to a
commission.

3. Inland Realty v. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA 70 (1997).

4. Medrano v. CA, 452 SCRA 77 (2005).

5. Ticong v. Malim, 819 SCRA 116 (2017).

6. Rallos v. Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corp., 81 SCRA 251


(1978).

7. Orient Air Services v. CA, 197 SCRA 645 (1991).

8. Tan v. Gullas, 393 SCRA 334 (2002).

9. Macondray & Co. v. Sellner, 33 Phil. 370 (1916).

10. Guardex v. NLRC, 191 SCRA 487 (1990).

11. Dominion Insurance Corp. v. CA, 376 SCRA 239 (2002).

FORMALITIES OF AGENCY

12. Patrimonio v. Gutierrez, 724 SCRA 636 (2014).

13. Virata v. Ng Wee, G.R. No. 220926, 5 July 2017.

14. Gutierrez Hermanos v. Orense, 28 Phil. 572 (1914).

15. City-Lite Realty Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 325 SCRA 385


(2000).

16. Escueta v. Lim, 512 SCRA 411 (2007).

17. Pahud v. Court of Appeals, 597 SCRA 13 (2009).

18. Yoshizaki v. Joy Training Center of Aurora, 702 SCRA 631


(2013).

19. Lim v. Court of Appeals, 254 SCRA 170 (1996).

20. Bordador v. Luz, 283 SCRA 374 (1997).


21. Salvador v. Rabaja, 749 SCRA 654 (2015).

22. Country Bankers v. Keppel Cebu Shipyard, 673 SCRA 427


(2012).

23. Republic v. Bañez, 772 SCRA 297 (2015).

24. Pineda v. Court of Appeals, 226 SCRA 754 (1993).

POWERS, RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF AN AGENT

25. Bank of P.I. v. Laingo, 787 SCRA 541 (2016).

26. Cervantes v. Court of Appeals, 304 SCRA 25


(1999).

27. BA Finance v. CA, 201 SCRA 157 (1991).

28. British Airways v. Court of Appeals, 285 SCRA 450 (1998).

29. Virata v. Ng Wee, G.R. No. 220926, 5 July 2017.

30. Domingo v. Domingo, 42 SCRA 131 (1971).

31. Cosmic Lumber v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 168 (1996).

32. Villaluz v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 814 SCRA 466 (2016).

33. Escueta v. Lim, 512 SCRA 411 (2007).

34. Municipal Council of Iloilo v. Evangelista, 55 Phil. 290 (1930).

35. Eurotech Industrial Technologies, Inc. v. Cuizon, 521 SCRA 584


(2007).

36. National Power Corp. v. NAMARCO, 117 SCRA 789 (1982).

37. DBP v. CA, 231 SCRA 370 (1994).

38. Pahud v. Court of Appeals, 597 SCRA 13 (2009).

39. Green Valley v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 133 SCRA 697


(1984).

OBLIGATIONS OF THE PRINCIPAL

40. Manila Memorial Park Cemetery v. Linsangan, 443 SCRA 377


(2004).

41. Harry Keeler v. Rodriguez, 4 Phil. 19 (1922).

42. Hahn v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 537 (1997).

43. Dominion Insurance Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 376 SCRA 239


(2002).
EXTINGUISHMENT OF AN AGENCY

44. Exchange Bank v. Briones, 822 SCRA 103 (2017).


Sevilla v.

45. Rallos v. Yangco, 20 Phil 269 (1911). Perez v.


PNB, 17 SCRA 833
(1966).

46. CMS Logging v. Court of Appeals, 211 SCRA 374


(1992).

47. Bitte v. Jonas, 777 SCRA 489 (2015).

48. DyBuncio and Co. v. Ong Guan Ca, 60 Phil 696


(1934).

49. Republic v. Evangelista, 466 SCRA 544 (2005).


Int’l

50. Court of Appeals,160 SCRA 171 (1988).

51. Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 1


(1990).

52. National Sugar Trading v. PNB, 396 SCRA 528


(2003).

You might also like