Dela Peña v. Hidalgo, 16 Phil.

450 (1910)
FACTS: The defendant, as such agent, collected the rents and income from the said
properties, amounting to P50,244, which sum, collected in partial amounts and on different
dates, he should have deposited, in accordance with the verbal agreement between the
deceased and himself, the defendant, in the general treasury of the Spanish Government at an
interest of 5 per cent per annum, which interest on accrual was likewise to be deposited in
order that it also might bear interest; that the defendant did not remit or pay to Jose de la Peña
y Gomiz, during the latter's lifetime, nor to nay representative of the said De la Peña y
Gomiz, the sum aforestated nor any part thereof, with the sole exception of P1,289.03, nor
has he deposited the unpaid balance of the said sum in the treasury, according to agreement,
wherefore he has become liable to his principal and to the defendant-administrator for the
said sum, together with its interest, which amounts to P72,548.24 and that, whereas the
defendant has not paid over all nor any part of the last mentioned sum, he is liable for the
same, as well as for the interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the time of the filing of
the complaint, and for the costs of the suit. By virtue of the powers conferred upon him by
Peña y Gomiz, he took charge of the administration of the latter's property and administered
the same until December 31, 1893, when for reasons of health he ceased to discharge the
duties of said position; that during the years 1889, 1890, 1891, and 1892, the defendant
continually by letter requested Peña y Gomiz, his principal, to appoint a person to substitute
him in the administration of the latter's property, inasmuch as the defendant, for reasons of
health, was unable to continue in his trust; that, on March 22, 1894, the defendant Federico
Hidalgo, because of serious illness, was absolutely obliged to leave these Islands and
embarked on the steamer Isla de Luzon for Spain, on which date the defendant notified his
principal that, for the reason aforestated, he had renounced his powers and turned over the
administration of his property to Antonio Hidalgo, to whom he should transmit a power of
attorney for the fulfillment, in due form, of the trust that the defendant had been discharging
since January 1, 1894, or else execute a power of attorney in favor of such other person as he
might deem proper.
ISSUE: WON Hidalgo can be liable as an agent/ WON there is implied agency
HELD: From the procedure followed by the agent, Federico Hidalgo, it is logically inferred
that he had definitely renounced his agency was duly terminated, according to the provisions
of article 1732 of the Civil Code, because, although in the said letter of March 22, 1894, the
word "renounce" was not employed in connection with the agency or power of attorney
executed in his Favor, yet when the agent informs his principal that for reasons of health and
by medical advice he is about to depart from the place where he is exercising his trust and
where the property subject to his administration is situated, abandons the property, turns it
over a third party, and asks that a power of attorney in due form in due form be executed and
transmitted to another person who substituted him and took charge of the administration of
the principal's property, it is then reasonable and just to conclude that the said agent expressly
and definitely renounced his agency, and it may not be alleged that the designation of Antonio
Hidalgo to take charge of the said administration was that of a mere proceed lasted for more
than fifteen years, for such an allegation would be in conflict with the nature of the agency.
The proof of the tacit consent of the principal, Jose de la Peña y Gomiz, the owner of the
property administered — a consent embracing the essential element of a legitimate agency,
Federico Hidalgo, his agent, who was giving up his trust, requested him to send a new power
of attorney in favor of the said Antonio Hidalgo, nevertheless he, Jose de la Peña y Gomiz,
saw fit not to execute nor transmit any power of attorney whatever to the new administrator
of his property and remained silent for nearly nine years; Wherefore, in permitting Antonio
Hidalgo to administer his property in this city during such a number of years, it is inferred,
from the procedure and silence of the owner thereof, that he consented to have Antonio
Hidalgo administer his property, and in fact created in his favor an implied agency, as the true
and legitimate administrator. The implied agency is founded on the lack of contradiction or
opposition, which constitutes simultaneous agreement on the part of the presumed principal
to the execution of the contract, while in the management of another's business there is no
simultaneous consent, either express or implied, but a fiction or presumption of consent
because of the benefit received. The defendant Federico Hidalgo, having ceased in his
administration of the property belonging to Peña y Gomiz, is only liable for the results and
consequences of his administration during the period when the said property was in his
charge, and therefore his liability can not extend beyond the period of his management