Cases: Philpotts v. Philippine Manufacturing Co., 40 Phil 471 – Page 337

 the general rule is that what a man do in person, he may do thru another. Thus a stockholder may
delegate to another his right to inspect the books of the corporation because this is an act which he
can lawfully do personally. What cannot be done thru an agent: Testify

Rallos v. Felix Go Chan, 81 SCRA 251 – elements of agency : agent actsagent acts within scope of his
authority, principal gives authority to the principal. Consent is extinguished upon death.

 “He who acts through another acts himself” “He who does a thing by an agent is considered as doing it
himself”. By this legal fiction, the actual or real absence of the principal is converted into his legal or
juridical presence.
  Agent act as representative and not for himself.

Orient Air Services v. CA, 197 SCRA 645- (Page 329)

 In Orient Air Service & Hotel Representatives v. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 645 (1991), the Court held
that the purpose of every contract of agency is the ability, by legal fiction, to extend the personality of
the principal through the facility of the agent; but the same can only be effected with the consent of
the principal.

Uy v. CA, 314 SCRA 69 (page 333)- NHA,  agent not even a party to the contract, it is a principal,
agent has no cause of action.

Macke v. Camps, 7 Phil. 553- there was consent, there were acts, that clothe the person with authority
leading the 3rd parties to believe that they were authorized by the principal.

Prudential Bank v. CA, 223 SCRA 350- there was employer-employee relationship, there was a liability
from the bank,

Litonjua, Jr. v. Eternit Corp. 490 SCRA 204 (Page 340)- 2 parties is a corporation, the board did not
give consent to the agent to negotiate the said property, no board resolution for that matter. Consent
must be given thru board resolution. if the company already accepted the money and used the money,
then there is implied consent already. Money deposited was through an escrow. Eterton has not
received it.

Doles v. Angeles, 492 SCRA 607- The parties in the contract were both represented by the agent.
Agency may be established by a lot of ways, by direct/substantial evidence For the purpose of agency,
there is no strict rules on how to establish.

Spouses Viloria v. Continental Airlines, 663 SCRA 57- Agency was established in this case but liability in
the part of the airlines is not established because the agent has an agent, it was the employees fault.

Philix Mining Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 551 SCRA 428 - the name of the contract
may not be controlling what is controlling is the intention of the parties as to what contract they
entered into. Intention was to enter into business venture,

E. Agency distinguished from similar contracts/legal relationships

Cases: Sevilla v. CA, 160 SCRA 171- Page 358 - the SC appreciated the elements of lack of control,
Shell v. Firemen’s Insurance Co., 100 Phil. 757
As the act of the agent or his employees acting within the scope of his authority is the act of the principal, the
breach of the undertaking by the agent is one for which the principal is answerable.

De la Cruz v. Northern Theatrical Enterprises, 95 Phil. 739 - Page 351 (agency vs lease of service)

 One hired by a corporation to perform a specific task, that of acting as a special guard and staying at
the main entrance of a movie house to stop gate crashers and to “maintain peace and order within the
premises” is a mere employee and not an agent as he is not employed to represent the corporation in
its dealing with 3rd persons.

Fressel v. Mariano Uy Chaco Sons & Co, 34 Phil. 122

Nielson & Co. v. Lepanto Consolidated, 26 SCRA 540 (agency vs lease of service) Page 351

 In agency, the agent exercises discretionary powers, while in lease of service, the lessor (like a
servant) ordinarily performs ministerial functions.
 In performing its principal undertaking, N was not acting as an agent of L, in the sense that the term
“agent” is interpreted under the law of agency but as one who was performing material acts for an
employer for a compensation.

Quiroga v. Parsons Hardware, 38 Phil. 501

Gonzalo Puyat & Sons v. Arco Amusement Co., 72 Phil. 402

Pacific Commercial v. Yatco, 68 Phil. 398

Ker v. Lingad, 38 SCRA 524

Manotok Brothers, Inc v. Court of Appeals, 221 SCRA 224

Medrano v. Court of Appeals, 452 SCRA 77

Hahn v. CA, 266 SCRA 537- Page 371

F.  Formalities & Classifications of Agency

Cases:   Harry Keeler Electric Co. v. Rodriguez, 44 Phil. 19

Yu Eng Cho v. Pan American, 328 SCRA 717
Siasat v. IAC, 139 SCRA 238
Dominion Insurance v. CA, 376 SCRA 239
Republic v. Bañez, G.R. No. 169442, October 14, 2015
Conde vs. Court of Appeals, 119 SCRA 245 (1982)

(i) Couched in general terms; couched in specific terms – Arts. 1877 to 1880
1. Mortgage – Art. 1878(12)
2. Loan/borrow – Art. 1878(7)
3. Sell – Art. 1878(5)
4. Lease – Art. 1878(8)
5. Compromise – Art. 1878(3)
6. Other acts of strict dominion – Art. 1878(12)
 Cases: PNB v. Sta. Maria, 29 SCRA 303
Bank of PI v. De Coster, 47 Phil. 594
Hodges v. Salas, 63 Phil. 567

Katigbak v. Tai Hung Co., 52 Phil. 622

Bautista-Spille v. NICORP Management and Development Corp., G.R. No. 214057, Oct. 19, 2015
Chua v. IAC, 229 SCRA 99
Vicente v. Geraldez, 52 SCRA 210
Insular Drug Co. v. National Bank, 58 Phil. 684

1. Duties & obligations, rights and liabilities of agents

(Arts. 1884 – 1909)
(i) Act within scope of authority – Arts. 1879, 1880, 1881, 1882, 1887
(ii) Carry out the agency – Arts. 1884, 1928, 1929
(iii)Not to carry out the agency – Art. 1888
(iv) Loyalty – Art. 1889, 1890, 1491
(v) Diligence – Arts. 1885, 1887, 1909
(vi) Account/deliver – Art. 1891
(vii) Solidary liability – Arts. 1894, 1895
(viii) Pay interest – Art. 1896
(ix) Fraud; negligence – Art. 1909
(x) Specific obligations of commission agents – Arts. 1903 to 1908

Cases: Austria v. CA, 39 SCRA 527

PNB v. Manila Surety, 14 SCRA 776
Domingo v. Domingo, 42 SCRA 131
Severino v. Severino, 44 Phil. 343
Green Valley Poultry v. IAC, 133 SCRA 697
Abacus Securities v. Ampil, 438 SCRA 315
Oliver v. Philippine Savings Bank and Castro, G.R. No. 214567, April 4, 2016