[FORMS OF THE CONTRACT OF AGENCY] the bar of the Washington Cafe with authority to bind Camps, his principal,

ashington Cafe with authority to bind Camps, his principal, for

01 MACKE V. CAMPS
February 27, 1907 | Carson, J. |
Doctrine: Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission,
intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to
act upon such belief, he can not, in any litigation arising out such declaration, act,
or omission, be permitted to falsify it"; and unless the contrary appears, the
authority of an agent must be presumed to include all the necessary and usual
means of carrying his agency into effect.
Facts:
 Sometime between February and March 1905, B. H. Macke and W. H. Chandler
-- partners doing business under the firm name of Macke, Chandler &
Company -- sold to Jose Camps and delivered at the latter's place of business
known as "Washington Cafe" (a hotel with a bar and restaurant) various bills of
goods amounting to P351.50.
 Macke and Chandler alleged that Ricardo Flores, who was Camps' agent and
business manager of Washington Cafe, acknowledged the receipt of said
goods and made various payments thereon amounting to P174. Flores told
them he would have to wait for the return of his principal Camps, who was
away visiting provinces at the time, before he can settle the remaining balance
of P177.50.
 Soon, a demand for payment of the balance was made by Macke and Chandler
upon Camps, who subsequently failed and refused to pay. Camps insisted that
he was not responsible for the balance because Flores was not his agent, and
that he did not receive any of the goods for which payment was demanded.
 The trial court held for Macke and Chandler. Hence, the instant petition.
Issue:
W/N Ricardo Flores is the agent of the defendant?
the payment of the goods mentioned in the complaint.
 Flores was apparently in charge of the business, performing the duties usually
entrusted to managing agent. This left little room for doubt that he was there
as authorized agent of Camps. One who clothes another apparent authority as
his agent, and holds him out to the public as such, cannot be permitted to deny
the authority of such person to act as his agent, to the prejudice of innocent
third parties dealing with such person in good faith.
 Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally
and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon
such belief, he can not, in any litigation arising out such declaration, act, or
omission, be permitted to falsify it; and unless the contrary appears, the
authority of an agent must be presumed to include all the necessary and usual
means of carrying his agency into effect.
 That Flores, as managing agent of the Washington Cafe, had authority to buy
such reasonable quantities of supplies as might from time to time be necessary
in carrying on the business of the hotel bar may fairly be presumed from the
nature of the business, especially in view of the fact that his principal appeared
to have left him in charge during more or less prolonged periods of absence.
Dispositive
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed with the costs of his instance against the
appellant. After expiration of twenty days judgment will be rendered in accordance
herewith, and ten days thereafter the case remanded to the lower court for proper
action. So ordered.
Notes
Insert notes

Held:
YES. In the absence of proof of the contrary we think that this evidence is
sufficient to sustain a finding that Flores was the agent of the defendant in the
management of the bar.
 A written contract dated May 25, 1904, was introduced in evidence, from
which it appears that Galmes, the former owner of Washington Cafe,
subrented the building to Camps for a year, under the condition that Camps
was not to sublet or subrent the building/business without the consent of
Galmes. This contract was signed by Camps and witnessed by Flores, with the
words "managing agent" (el manejante encargado) immediately following the
latter's name.
 In the absence of proof to the contrary, the SC held that this evidence was
sufficient establish that Flores was the agent of Camps in the management of