Case:

Orbeta v. Sendiong 463 SCRA 180 (2005)

Facts of the case:

Maximo Orbeta sold a land to the spouses namely Juan Sendiong and Exequila
Castellanes with all the improvement exist thereon. After this transaction a complaint
for a recovery of possession, quieting of title and damages with a prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was filed by the heirs of Orbeta. In the
courts proceedings it declared the null and void, the sale made by Maximo Orbeta
with the respect of conjugal share of his spouse and ordered spouses Pretzylou and
Genosa Sendiong to restore the petitioners title and respective shares of subject to
land.

Because of that respondent has hired his attorney-in-fact and daughter Mae A.
Sendiong to file a petition for Annulment of Decision with a Prayer for a Temporary
Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction with the Court of Appeals.
Before the Court of Appeals, the petitioners argued about the petition of the
annulment of judgment was fatally infirm as the certification on non-forum was
signed by the attorney-in-fact by virtue of a General Power of Attorney. But despite
the argument of the petitioner, the Court of Appeals granted the petition to the
respondent. The petitioners here in asssail the validity of the decision of the Court of
Appeals in granting a petition for annulment of a judgment.

Issues:
Whether the attorney-in-fact had the power to sign the verification and certification?

Rulings of the court:

Yes, The Court ruled that the agents signing therein of the verification and
certification is already covered by the provisions of the general power of attorney
issued by the principal.
Case: DOMINGO v. DOMINGOG.R. No. L-30573; October 29, 1971

Facts of the Case:

On June 2, 1956, Vicente M. Dominggo granted his agent Gregorio Dominggo which
is a real state broker to sell his land. That is compose of 88,477 square meters which
have a rate of P 2 per square meter ( which cost P 176,954.00) with an additional
commission of 5% to total price of the property if it was sold by Vicente or anyone
else within 30 day duration of the agency or within 3 months after the termination of
contract of the agency which Vicente will personally his property. The contract of the
agency has a triplicate copy, one copy is in Vicente and the original and another copy
were retained on Gregorio. On June 3,1956 Gregorio authorized an intervenor Teofilo
Purisima to look for a buyer, by promising him a half of the 5% commission. There
after Teofilo introduced the buyer which Oscar De Leon, then the negotiation start
until Oscar De Leon acquired the property at a lower rate of P 1.20 per square meter.
So Oscar De Leon gives an earnest money to Vicente which should be forwarded to
Gregorio as a gift in persuading Vicente to sell his property at lower rate.

When Gregorio sensed something fishy he decided to go to Vicente to claim his 5%

commission to but unfortunately Vicente grabbed the original document and tore it to
pieces. Because of that Gregorio went to the Register of Deeds and discovered that
the buyer of the property was not named by Oscar de Leon but on his wife Amparo
Diaz. Upon knowing that Gregorio file a complaint to Vicente for the purpose of
claiming his 5% commission on the sale of the property which cost P 109,000.

Issue:
Whether or not Gregorio is entitled for the 5% commission?

Rulings of the court:

No, Gregorio is not entitled to receive the 5% commission.

The Supreme Court held that the law imposes upon the agent the absolute obligation to
make a full disclosure or complete account to his principal of all his transactions and
other material facts relevant to the agency, so much so that the law as amended does
not countenance any stipulation exempting the agent from such an obligation and
considers such an exemption as void.Hence, by taking such profit or bonus or gift or propina
from the vendee, the agent thereby assumes a position wholly inconsistent with that of being an
agent for his principal, who has a right to treat him, insofar as his Commission is
concerned, as if no agency had existed. The fact that the principal may have been
benefited by the valuable services of the said agent does not exculpate the agent who
has only himself to blame for such a result by reason of his treachery or perfidy.
Case :
ACE NAVIGATION CO., INC., petitioner, vs. FGU INSURANCE
CORPORATION and
PIONEER INSURANCEND SURETY CORPORATION, Respondents.
Facts of the Case:
On July 19,1990 Cardia Limited is the one who shipped the 8,260 metric tons of
cement which costs P 18,048, 421. The subject of the vessel was owned by PAKARTI
then charted it to SHINWA and entered a contract with SKY then forwarded to an
agent
of KEE YEH then lastly to REGENCY which directly dealt with the consignee
HEINDRICH that accordingly issued a Clean Bill of Lading. Upon arriving the vessel
to the port of Manila, HEINDRICH and ACENAV have an inspection on the vessel
which is an agent of CARDIA they have found out that out of 165,200 bags of cement
43,905 bags was in bad order. So with that REGENCY and other respondents as co-
insurers of the cargo paid the consignee the amounts of P 427,036.40 and P
284,690.94.

On August 8,1991, the petitioner decided to file a case to co-insurers of the cargo
which was REGENCY, PAKARTI, SHINWA and SKY as the agent of the KEE YEE
as reliable for the damages of the vessel.

Issue:
Whether or not there is negligence of the co-insurers of the cargo in keeping the
safety of the vessel?

Rulings of the Court:

Yes, as proved that the parties held in time charter party the co-insurers of the cargo
SHINWA,PAKARTI, KEE YEH and its agent SKY are solidarily liable for the 70%
damages sustained in the cargo. Due to the failure of exercised of extraordinary
diligence in the vigilance over the bag of cement entrusted to them to transport. The
30% remaining balance to the sustained damage is solidarily liable to ACENAV as
known as the agent of CARDIA upon finding that the damage was partly due to the
cargos inferior packing