Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
SEVERINO vs. SEVERINO The relations of an agent to his principal are fiduciary and in regard to the property forming the subject-matter of the agency, he is stopped from acquiring or asserting a title adverse to that of the principal. An action in personam will lie against an agent to compel him to return or transfer to his principal, or the latter's estate, the real properly committed to his custody as such agent and also it execute the necessary documents of conveyance to effect such retransfer. an agent is not only estopped from denying hi principal's title to the property, but he is also disable from acquiring interests therein adverse to those of his principal during the term of the agency THOMAS vs. PINEDA A receiver, trustee, attorney, agent, or any other person occupying fiduciary relations respecting property or persons, is utterly disabled from acquiring for his own benefit the property committed to his custody for management. This rule is entirely independent of the fact whether any fraud has intervened. No fraud in fact need be shown, and no excuse will be heard from the trustee. I PALMA vs. CRISTOBAL The relations of an agent to his principal are fiduciary and in regard to property forming the subject matter of the agency, he is estopped from acquiring or asserting a title adverse to that of the principal. His position is analogous to that of a trustee and he cannot consistently, with the principles of good faith, be allowed to create in himself an interest in opposition to that of his principal or cestui que trust. A trustee cannot acquire by prescription the ownership of a property entrusted to him. The position of a trustee is of representative nature. It is logical that all benefits derived by the possession and acts of the agent, as such agent, should accrue to the benefit of his principal. RAMOS vs. CAOIBES Where an agent makes use of his power of attorney after the death of his principal, the agent has the obligation to deliver the amount collected by him by virtue of said power to the administratrix of the estate of his principal. Where a donation of personal property was made in writing but has not been accepted in the same form, the donation is not valid. Nor can it be considered a donation upon valuable consideration where no services or valuable consideration were involved. The mere fact that the agent collected the principal's claim from the War Damage Commission is not such a service as to require compensation. the contract of agency is presumed to be gratuitous, unless the agent is a professional agent. PEOPLE vs. BULU CHOWDURY An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. It has been held that the existence of the corporate entity does not shield from prosecution the corporate agent who knowingly and intentionally causes the corporation to commit a crime. The corporation obviously acts, and can act, only by and through its human agents, and it is their conduct which the law must deter. The employee or agent of a corporation engaged in unlawful business naturally aids and abets in the carrying on of such business and will be prosecuted as principal if, with knowledge of the business, its purpose and effect, he consciously contributes his efforts to its conduct and promotion, however slight his contribution may be. The law of agency, as applied in civil cases, has no application in criminal cases, and no man can escape punishment when he participates in the commission of a crime upon the ground that he simply acted as an agent of any party. The culpability of the employee therefore hinges on his knowledge of the offense and his active participation in its commission. Where it is shown that the employee was merely acting under the direction of his superiors and was unaware that his acts constituted a crime, he may not be held criminally liable for an act done for and in behalf of his employer. Agents or representatives appointed by a licensed recruitment agency whose appointments are not previously approved by the POEA are considered "nonlicensee" or "non-holder of authority" and therefore not authorized to engage in recruitment activity. The obligation to register its personnel with the POEA belongs to the officers of the agency. A mere employee of the agency cannot be expected to know the legal requirements for its operation. EDUARDO B. OLAGUER, petitioner, vs. EMILIO PURUGGANAN, JR. AND RAUL LOCSIN It is a general rule that a power of attorney must be strictly construed; the instrument will be held to grant only those powers that are specified, and the agent may
1
the events, not on the agents or factors responsible for them. To avail of the exemption granted in the law, it is not necessary that the persons responsible for the occurrence should be found or punished; it would only be sufficient to establish that the unforeseeable event, the robbery in this case, did take place without any concurrent fault on the debtor's part, and this can be done by preponderant evidence. To require in the present action for recovery the prior conviction of the culprits in the criminal case, in order to establish the robbery as a fact, would be to demand proof beyond reasonable doubt to prove a fact in a civil case. It is undeniable that in order to completely exonerate the debtor for reason of a fortuitous event, such debtor must, in addition to the casus itself, be free of any concurrent or contributory fault or negligence. This is apparent from Article 1170 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, providing that: . . It is clear that under the circumstances prevailing at present in the City of Manila and its suburbs, with their high incidence of crimes against persons and property, that renders travel after nightfall a matter to be sedulously avoided without suitable precaution and protection, the conduct of respondent Maria G. Abad, in returning alone to her house in the evening, carrying jewelry of considerable value, would be negligent per se, and would not exempt her from responsibility in the case of a robbery. We are not persuaded, however, that the same rule should obtain ten years previously, in 1961, when the robbery in question did take place, for at that time criminality had not by far reached the levels attained in the present day. INTL FILMS vs. LYRIC FILMS The defendant company, as subagent of the plaintiff in the exhibition of the film "Monte Carlo Madness", was not obliged to insure it against fire, not having received any express mandate to that effect, and it is not liable for the accidental destruction thereof by fire. NAPOCOR vs. NATIONAL MERCHANDISING CORP. the agent who exceeds the limits of his authority without giving the party with whom he contracts sufficient notice of his powers is personally liable to such party. The Court, however, further reduced the solidary liability of defendants-appellants for liquidated damages.
SAFIC ALCAN & CIE vs. IMPERIAL VEGETABLE OIL CO., INC., The basis for agency is representation and a person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent. Every person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent. If he does not make such inquiry, he is chargeable with knowledge of the agent's authority, and his ignorance of that authority will not be any excuse. Persons dealing with an assumed agent, whether the assumed agency be a general or special one, are bound at their peril, if they would hold the principal, to ascertain not only the fact of the agency but also the nature and extent of the authority, and in case either is controverted, the burden of proof is upon them to establish it.
TOYOTA SHAW, INC. Vs. CA A person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent.
EUGENIO vs. CA The substantive law is that payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the obligation has been constituted, or his successor-in-interest or any person authorized to receive it. 39 As far as third persons are concerned, an act is deemed to have been performed within the scope of the agent's authority, if such is within the terms of the power of attorney, as written, even if the agent has in fact exceeded the limits of his authority according to an understanding between the principal and his agent.
WOODCHILD HOLDINGS vs. ROXAS ELECTRIC a corporation may act only through its board of directors or, when authorized either by its by-laws or by its board resolution, through its officers or agents in the normal course of business. The general principles of agency govern the relation between the corporation and its officers or agents, subject to the articles of incorporation, by-laws, or relevant provisions of law Generally, the acts of the corporate officers within the scope of their authority are binding on the corporation. However, under Article 1910 of the New Civil Code, acts done by such officers beyond the scope of their authority cannot bind the corporation unless it has ratified such acts expressly or tacitly, or is estopped from denying them: As for any obligation wherein the agent has exceeded his power, the principal is not bound except when he ratifies it expressly or tacitly.
7
PNB vs. RITRATTO GROUP INC A SUIT AGAINST AN AGENT, ABSENT COMPELLING REASONS, IS NOT A SUIT AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL. In any case, the parent-subsidiary relationship between PNB and PNB-IFL is not the significant legal relationship involved in this case since the petitioner was not sued because it is the parent company of PNB-IFL. Rather, the petitioner was sued because it
8
CIA., S. en C. vs. The PHILIPPINE REFINING CO In the appellant's brief contention is advanced that the contract between the plaintiff and the Visayan Refining Co. created the relation of principal and agent between the parties, and reliance is placed upon article 1729 of the Civil Code which requires the principal to indemnify the agent for damages incurred in carrying out the agency. Attentive perusal of the contract is, however, convincing to the effect that the relation between the parties was not that of principal and agent in so far as relates to the purchase of copra by the plaintiff. It is true that the Visayan Refining Co. made the plaintiff one of its instruments for the collection of copra; but it is clear that in making its purchases from the producers the plaintiff was buying upon its own account and that when it turned over the copra to the Visayan Refining Co., pursuant to that agreement, a second sale was effected.
DE CASTRO vs CA The mere fact that "other agents" intervened in the consummation of the sale and were paid their respective commissions cannot vary the terms of the contract of agency. In any event, the Court found that the 5% real estate broker's commission was reasonable and within the standard practice in the real estate industry for transactions of this nature. AGENT MAY RECOVER THE WHOLE COMPENSATION FROM ANY ONE OF THE CO-PRINCIPALS. The solidary liability of the four co-owners, however,
SARSABA vs VDA DE TE Agency is extinguished by the death of the [51] principal. The only exception where the agency shall remain in full force and effect even after the death of the principal is when if it has been constituted in the common interest of the latter and of the agent, or in the interest of a third person who has accepted the stipulation in his favor.
BUASON vs PANUYAS If it does not appear that the second purchasers had actual knowledge of the previous sale to the appellants, they had a right to rely on the face of the certificate of title of the registered owners and of the authority conferred by them upon the agent with a power of attorney recorded on the back of the certificate. In case of double sale of land registered under the Land Registration Act, he who records the sale in the Registry of Deeds has a better right than he who did not. AGENCY; ACTS DONE BY AN AGENT AFTER DEATH OF PRINCIPAL WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH DEATH. The contention that as the death of the principal ended the authority of the agent, the sale made by the latter of the land in question after the death of the principal is null and void, is untenable, it not having been shown that the agent knew of his principal's demise, and for that reason the sale made by the agent is valid and effective with respect to third persons who have contracted wiht him in good faith. (Art. 1723, Old Civil Code, 1931, New Civil Code).
10
VDA. DE GABRIEL vs CIR The first point to be considered is that the relationship between the decedent and Philtrust was one of agency, which is a personal relationship between agent and principal. Under Article 1919 (3) of the Civil Code, death of the agent or principal automatically terminates the agency. In this instance, the death of the decedent on April 3, 1979 automatically severed the legal relationship between her and Philtrust, and such could not be revived by the mere fact that Philtrust continued to act as her agent when, on April 5, 1979, it filed her Income Tax Return for the year 1978.
RALLOS vs GO CHAN DEATH AS MODE OF EXTINGUISHMENT; EXCEPTIONS. By reason of the very nature of the
PALICIO VS DE MANZANO PRINCIPAL AND AGENT; REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY. A second power of attorney revokes the first one only after notice given to first agent.
CMS LOGGING, INC VS CA AGENCY; PRINCIPAL WITH ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO REVOKE AGENCY. The principal may revoke a contract of agency at will, and such revocation may be express, or implied, and may be availed of even if the period fixed in the contract of agency has not yet expired. As the principal has this absolute right to revoke the agency, the agent can not object thereto; neither may he claim damages arising from such revocation, unless it is shown that such was done in order to evade the payment of agent's commission. AGENT NOT ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION NOR DAMAGES THEREFOR. Since the contract of agency was revoked by CMS when it sold its logs to Japanese firms without the intervention of DRACOR, the latter is no longer entitled to its commission from the proceeds of such sale and is not entitled to retain whatever moneys it may have received as its commission for said transactions. Neither would DRACOR be entitled to collect damages from CMS, since damages are generally not awarded to the agent for the revocation of the agency, and the case at bar is not one falling under the exception mentioned, which is to evade the payment of the agent's commission.
LIM VS SABAN
11
NATIONAL SUGAR TRADING VS PNB AGENCY; CANNOT BE REVOKED OR CANCELLED AT WILL BY ANY OF THE PARTIES IF THE AGENCY ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS ONE COUPLED WITH INTEREST; CASE AT BAR. [T]he relationship between NASUTRA/SRA and PNB when the former constituted the latter as its attorney-in-fact is not a simple agency. NASUTRA/SRA has assigned and practically surrendered its rights in favor of PNB for a substantial consideration. To reiterate, NASUTRA/SRA executed promissory notes in favor of PNB every time it availed of the credit line. The agency established between the parties is one coupled with interest which cannot be revoked or cancelled at will by any of the parties. BISAYA LAND TRANSPORTATION VS SANCHEZ ESTOPPEL; PARTY PRECLUDED FROM REPUDIATING AN OBLIGATION VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED AFTER HAVING ACCEPTED BENEFITS THEREFROM. The doctrine of estoppel precludes BISTRANCO from repudiating an obligation voluntarily assumed by it, after having accepted benefits therefrom. To countenance such repudiation would be contrary to equity and would put a premium on fraud or misrepresentation, which this Court will not sanction. * AGENCY; OPENING OF A BRANCH DURING EFFECTIVITY OF CONTRACT; EFFECT. It may be true that there is no express prohibition for BISTRANCO to open its branch in Butuan City. But, the very reason why BISTRANCO agreed
12