Week No.

A. Historical Context
1. World Context
2. Philippine Context

The Spanish term for principal is mandante. Among the terms used for agent are mandatario, attorneyin-fact, proxy, delegate or representative.

-Laws 28 and 32, Title 12, Partida 3

-Spanish Civil Code (Civil Agency)
-Spanish Code of Commerce (Commercial Agency)
-Civil Code Art. 2270 (2)

B. Nature, Concept and Purpose

1. Agency as a contract- It is a preparatory contract. It is a contract entered not for its own end but tobe able to

enter into other contracts.

a) Definition (Art. 1868)

- By contract of agency a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in

representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter
i. Critique/ Articles

ii. Other definitions

b) Essential requisites/ elements (Art. 1318)

-Espiritu, XV Lawyers Journal 297

-J.B.L. Reyes, XVI Lawyers Journal 138
-Rallos vs. Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corp., 81 SCRA 251

1. Consent, express or implied;

Note: A person may express his consent
(a) by contract (Art. 1868), orally or in writing,
(b) by conduct (Art. 1869)
(c) by ratification (Art. 1910) or the consent may arise
(d) by presumption or operation of law.

The basis for agency is representation. On the part of the principal, there must be an actual intention to appoint
or an intention naturally inferable from his words or actions; and on the part of the agent, there must be an intention to
accept the appointment and act on it, and in the absence of such intent, there is generally no agency. Dominion
Insurance Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 376 SCRA 239 (2002); Loadmasters Customs Services, Inc. v. Glodel Brokerage
Corp., 639 SCRA 69 (2011).

2. Object of the contract is the execution of a juridical act in relation to 3rd persons;

In an agent-principal relationship, the personality of the principal is extended through the facility of the agent. In
so doing, the agent, by legal fiction, becomes the principal, authorized to perform all acts which the latter would have
him do. Such a relationship can only be effected with the consent of the principal, which must not, in any way, be
compelled by law or by any court. Litonjua, Jr. v. Eternit Corp., 490 SCRA 204 (2006).

3. The agent acts as a Representative and not for himself;

Whether or not an agency has been created is determined by the fact that one is representing and acting for
another. The law makes no presumption of agency; proving its existence, nature and extent is incumbent upon the
person alleging it. Urban Bank, Inc. v. Pea, G.R. No. 145817, 19 October 2011.

4. The agent acts within the Scope of his authority.

Delegated Acts
GR: Anything that can be done by the principal
XPN: Acts that cannot be done through an agent:
a) Personal acts: if personal performance is regulated by law or public policy or
agreement;
b) Criminal or illegal acts: attempt to delegate another authority to do an act which, if
done by the principal would be illegal, is void.
c) Characteristics

1.) Consensual: perfected by mere consent;

Classified - Confidential

An agency may be expressed or implied from the act of the principal, from his silence or lack of action, or failure
to repudiate the agency. Litonjua, Jr. v. Eternit Corp., 490 SCRA 204 (2006).
The basis for agency is representation. Here, there is no showing that Brigida consented to the acts of Deganos
or authorized him to act on her behalf, much less with respect to the particular transactions involved. Petitioners' attempt
to foist liability on respondent spouses through the supposed agency relation with Deganos is groundless and ill-advised.
Besides, it was grossly and inexcusably negligent of petitioners to entrust to Deganos, not once or twice but on at least
six occasions as evidenced by six receipts, several pieces of jewelry of substantial value without requiring a written
authorization from his alleged principal. A person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his
peril the authority of the agent. Bordador v. Luz, 283 SCRA 374 (1997).
A co-owner does not become an agent of the other co-owners, and therefore, any exercise of an option to buy a
piece of land transacted with one co-owner does not bind the other co-owners of the land. 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. Since there was no showing that the other co-owners consented to the act of one co-owner nor authorized
her to act on their behalf with regard to her transaction with purported buyer. The most prudent thing the purported
buyer should have done was to ascertain the extent of the authority said co-owner; being negligent in this regard, the
purported buyer cannot seek relief on the basis of a supposed agency. Dizon v. Court of Appeals, 302 SCRA 288 (1999).

2.) Nominate: it has its own name;

3.) Principal: does not depend on another contract for its existence and validity;

If an act done by one person in behalf of another is in its essential nature one of agency, the former is the agent
of the latter notwithstanding he or she is not so called it will be an agency whether the parties understood the exact
nature of the relation or not. Doles v. Angeles, 492 SCRA 607 (2006).
Even when it is provided under the Agreement that the agency manager is considered an independent contractor
and not an agent, nonetheless when the terms thereof authorized the agency manager to solicit and remit offers to
purchase interments spaces, it covers an agency arrangement since the agency manager represented the interest of the
memorial company, and the latter in turn had authorized her to represent in dealings with its clients/prospective buyers.
Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. v. Linsangan, 443 SCRA 377 (2004).

4.) Preparatory and Representative: entered into as a means to an end;

Agency is basically personal, representative, and derivative in nature. The authority of the agent to act emanates
from the powers granted to him by his principal; his act is the act of the principal if done within the scope of the
authority. Qui facit per alium facit per se. He who acts through another acts himself. Rallos v. Felix Go Chan &Sons
Realty Corp., 81 SCRA 251 (1978).
The essence of agency being the representation of another, it is evident that the obligations contracted are for
and on behalf of the principala consequence of this representation is the liability of the principal for the acts of his
agent performed within the limits of his authority that is equivalent to the performance by the principal himself who
should answer therefor. Tan v. Engineering Services, 498 SCRA 93 (2006).
The other consequence of the doctrine of representation are:
When an agent purchases the property in bad faith, the principal should also be deemed a purchaser in bad faith.
Caram, Jr. v. Laureta, 103 SCRA 7 (1981).
Notice to the agent is notice to the principal. Air France v. Court of Appeals, 126 SCRA 448 (1983).
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. Safic Alcan & Cie v. Imperial Vegetable Oil Co., Inc., 355 SCRA 559 (2001).
It is clear from Article 1868 that the basis of agency is representation. On the part of the principal, there must
be an actual intention to appoint or an intention naturally inferable from his words or actions; and on the part of the
agent, there must be an intention to accept the appointment and act on it, and in the absence of such intent, there is
generally no agency. One factor which most clearly distinguishes agency from other legal concepts is control; one person
- the agent - agrees to act under the control or direction of another - the principal. Indeed, the very word "agency" has
come to connote control by the principal. Victorias Milling Co. v. Court of Appeals, 333 SCRA 663 (2000)
In a situation where two agents enter into a contract of behalf of their principals, even if the principals do not actually
and personally know each other, such ignorance does not affect their juridical standing as agents, especially since the
very purpose of agency is to extent the personality of the principal through the facility of the agent. Doles v. Angeles,
492 SCRA 607 (2006).
It is said that the basis of agency is representation, that is, the agent acts for and on behalf of the principal on matters
within the scope of his authority and said acts have the same legal effect as if they were personally executed by the

Classified - Confidential

principal. By this legal fiction, the actual or real absence of the principal is converted into his legal or juridical presence
Technologies, Inc. v. Cuizon, 521 SCRA 584 (2007)
Article 1897 reinforces the familiar doctrine that an agent, who acts as such, is not personally liable to the party
with whom he contracts. The same provision, however, presents two instances when an agent becomes personally liable
to a third person. The first is when he expressly binds himself to the obligation and the second is when he exceeds his
authority. In the last instance, the agent can be held liable if he does not give the third party sufficient notice of powers.
Eurotech Industrial Technologies, Inc. v. Cuizon, 521 SCRA 584 (2007).
Notice to the agent should always be construed as notice binding on the principal, even when in fact the
principal never became aware thereof. Air France v. Court of Appeals, 126 SCRA 448 (1983).

5.) Unilateral/Bilateral:
a. Unilateral: if contract is gratuitous, it creates obligations for only one of the parties,
b. Bilateral: if for compensation, it gives rise to reciprocal rights and obligations
d) Purpose - To extend the personality of the principal through the facility of the agent

The right of inspection given to a stockholder under the law can be exercised either by himself or by any proper
representative or attorney-in-fact, and either with or without the attendance of the stockholder. This is in conformity with
the general rule that what a man may do in person he may do through another. Philpotts v. Phil. Mfg. Co., 40 Phil 471
(1919).
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. Orient Air Service &
Hotel Representatives v. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 645 (1991).

e) Basis Representation The acts of the agent on behalf of the principal within the scope of his

authority produce the same legal and binding effects as if the principal personally did them.
f) Parties The principal and the agent

Who can be a principal?

-The principal may be a Natural person or a Juridical person. He must be Capacitated.
-The rule is if a person is capacitated to act for himself or in his own right, he can act through an
agent.
Must the agent have capacity?
-Insofar as 3rd persons are concerned, it is enough that the principal is capacitated;
-but insofar as his obligations to his principal are concerned, the agent must be able to bind
himself.
Principal- one whom the agent represents and from whom he derives his authority; he is the
person represented. Agency imports the contemporaneous existence of a principal, and there is
no agency unless one is acting for and in behalf of another.
one who acts for and represents another; he is the person acting in a representative capacity.
The agent has derivative authority in carrying out the principals business. He may employ his
own agent in which case he becomes a principal with respect to the latter

2. Agency as a relation- implies a power in an agent to contract with a 3rd person on behalf of a principal.
Nature of Relation between Principal and Agent:
a) Fiduciary character - based on trust and confidence.

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 estopped from acquiring or asserting a title adverse to that of the principal. Severino v. Severino, 44 Phil. 343
(1923).
By reason of the personal, representative and derivative nature of agency, agency is extinguished by the death of the
principal or agent. Rallos v. Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corp., 81 SCRA 251 (1978).
A contract of agency is generally revocable as it is a personal contract of representation based on trust and confidence
reposed by the principal on his agent. As the power of the agent to act depends on the will and license of the principal he
represents, the power of the agent ceases when the will or permission is withdrawn by the principal. Thus, generally, the agency
may be revoked by the principal at will. Republic v. Evangelista, 466 SCRA 544 (2005).

Classified - Confidential

In an agency, the principals personality is extended through the facility of the agentthe agent, by legal fiction,
becomes the principal, authorized to perform all acts which the latter would have him do. Such a relationship can only be effected
with the consent of the principal, which must not, in any way, be compelled by law or by any court. The Agreement itself between
the parties states that either party may terminate the Agreement without cause by giving the other 30 days notice by letter,
telegram or cable. Orient Air Services v. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 645 (1991).

b) Representative character - Agents cannot do acts contrary to the principals interest. Why? Once there

is recognition of the agency, he will be in estoppel.

Week No. 9

C. Agency Distinguished From/Compared With Other Similar Contracts/Relations

1. Partnership (Art. 1767)

By the contract of partnership two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or
industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves.
Two or more persons may also form a partnership for the exercise of a profession.

2. Lease of Work or Service (Art. 1644)

In the lease of work or service, one of the parties binds himself to execute a piece of work or to render
to the other some service for a price certain, but the relation of principal and agent does not exist
between them.

Agent represents the principal

Relationship can be terminated at the will of either
principal or agent
Agent exercises discretionary powers

Worker or lessor of services does not represent his

employer
Generally, relationship can be terminated only at
the will of both
Employee has ministerial functions

-Nielson & Company, Inc. v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, 26 SCRA 540
The relationship between the corporation which owns and operates a theatre, and the individual it hires as a
security guard to maintain the peace and order at the entrance of the theatre is not that of principal and agent, because
the principle of representation was in no way involved. The security guard was not employed to represent the defendant
corporation in its dealings with third parties; he was a mere employee hired to perform a certain specific duty or task,
that of acting as special guard and staying at the main entrance of the movie house to stop gate crashers and to
maintain peace and order within the premises.
- De la Cruz v. Northern Theatrical Enterprises, 95 Phil. 739
But to set the record straight, the concept of a single person having the dual role of agent and employee while
doing the same task is a novel one in our jurisprudence, which must be viewed with caution especially when it is devoid
of any jurisprudential support or precedent. All these, read without any clear understanding of fine legal distinctions,
appear to speak of control by the insurance company over its agents. They are, however, controls aimed only at specific
results in undertaking an insurance agency, and are, in fact, parameters set by law in defining an insurance agency and
the attendant duties and responsibilities an insurance agent must observe and undertake. They do not reach the level of
control into the means and manner of doing an assigned task that invariably characterizes an employment relationship as
defined by labor law. Tongko v. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (Phils.), Inc., 640 SCRA 395 (2011).

3. Independent Contractor (Art. 1713)

By the contract for a piece of work the contractor binds himself to execute a piece of work for the
employer, in consideration of a certain price or compensation. The contractor may either employ only his
labor or skill, or also furnish the material. (1588a)
Classified - Confidential

Taking into consideration the facts that the operator owed his position to the company and the latter could remove him
or terminate his services at will; that the service station belonged to the company and bore its tradename and the
operator sold only the products of the company; that the equipment used by the operator belonged to the company and
were just loaned to the operator and the company took charge of their repair and maintenance; that an employee of the
company supervised the operator and conducted periodic inspection of the company's gasoline and service station; that
the price of the products sold by the operator was fixed by the company and not by the operator; and that he was a
mere agent, the finding of the Court of Appeals that the operator was an agent of the company and not an independent
contractor should not be disturbed.
- Shell Company of the Phil. V. Firemens Insurance, 100 Phil. 757

4. Negotiorum Gestio

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

- Africa v. Caltex Phil., Inc., 16 SCRA 448

(Art 2144) Whoever voluntarily takes charge of the agency or management of the business or property
of another, without any power from the latter, is obliged to continue the same until the termination of
the affair and its incidents, or to require the person concerned to substitute him, if the owner is in a
position to do so. This juridical relation does not arise in either of these instances:
(1) When the property or business is not neglected or abandoned;
(2) If in fact the manager has been tacitly authorized by the owner. In the first case, the
provisions of articles 1317, 1403, No. 1, and 1404 regarding unauthorized contracts shall govern.
In the second case, the rules on agency in Title X of this Book shall be applicable. (1888a)
(Art 2145) The officious manager shall perform his duties with all the diligence of a good father of a
family, and pay the damages which through his fault or negligence may be suffered by the owner of the
property or business under management.
The courts may, however, increase or moderate the indemnity according to the circumstances of each
case. (1889a)

5. Loan (Art. 1933)

-De la Pea v. Hidalgo, 16 Phil. 450

By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to another, either something not consumable so that
the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it, in which case the contract is called a
commodatum; or money or other consumable thing, upon the condition that the same amount of the
same kind and quality shall be paid, in which case the contract is simply called a loan or mutuum.
Commodatum is essentially gratuitous.
Simple loan may be gratuitous or with a stipulation to pay interest.
In commodatum the bailor retains the ownership of the thing loaned, while in simple loan, ownership
passes to the borrower. (1740a)

-2 C.J.S. 1030

6. Sale (Art. 1458)

- Jai Alai Corp. v. BPI, 66 SCRA 29

By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership and to
deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent.
A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional. (1445a)

- Quiroga v. Persons Hardware, 38 Phil. 501

- Gonzalo Puyat and Sons v. Arco Amusement Co., 72 Phil. 402
Classified - Confidential

- Velasco v. Universal Trading Co. v. Lim Teck Suan, 97 Phil. 171

- Pearl Island Commercial Corp. v. Lim Tiang Tong, 101 Phil. 789
- Lim v. People, 133 SCRA 333
- Green Valley Poultry & allied Products, Inc. v. IAC 133 SCRA 697
- Bert Osmea & Associates v. CA, 120 SCRA 395
7. Trusteeship (Art. 1440)

A person who establishes a trust is called the trustor; one in whom confidence is reposed as regards
property for the benefit of another person is known as the trustee; and the person for whose benefit the
trust has been created is referred to as the beneficiary.
Agency
Agent usually holds no title at all
Agent usually acts in the name of the principal
Agency usually may be terminated or revoked any
time
Agency may not be connected at all with property
Agent has authority to make contracts which will be
binding on his principal
Agency is really a contractual relation

8.

Trust
Trustee may hold legal title to the property
Trustee may act in his own name
Trust usually ends by the accomplishment of the
purposes for which it was formed
Trust involves control over property
Trustee does not necessarily or even possess such
authority to bind the trustor or the cestui que trust
Trust may be the result of a contract, it may also
be created by law

- 2 C.J.S. 1034

Broker

The question as to what constitutes a sale so as to entitle a real estate broker to his commissions is extensively
annotated in the case of Lunney vs. Healey (Nebraska) . . . 44 Law Rep. Ann. 593 , and the long line of authorities
there cited support the following rule: # The business of a real estate broker or agent, generally, is only to find a
purchaser, and the settled rule as stated by the courts is that, in the absence of an express contract between broker and
his principal, the implication generally is that the broker becomes entitled to the usual commissions whenever he brings
to his principal a party who is able and willing to take the property and enter into a valid contract upon the terms then
named by the principal, although the particulars may be arranged and the matter negotiated and completed between the
principal and the purchaser directly. Macondray & Co. v. Sellner, 33 Phil. 370 (1916).
The duties and liability of a broker to his employer are essentially those which an agent owes to his principal.
Consequently, the decisive legal provisions on determining whether a broker is mandated to give to the employer the
propina or gift received from the buyer would be Articles 1891

9.

- Pacific Commercial Co. v. Yatco, 68 Phil. 398

Guardianship

Agent derives authority from the principal

10.

Bailment

11.

Ship Agent

Guardian derives authority from the court

- 2 C.J.S. 1027
- 3 Am Jur 2d 421
- Fessenden v. Jones, 75 Am. Dec. 445
- McDonald v. spring Valley, 120 N.E. 476, 2 ALR 1355
- 2 C.J.S. 1027
- Switzerland General Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Ramirez, 96 SCRA 297

Classified - Confidential

Week No.10
C.

Kinds, Creation and Existence

1. General Classification
a) Actual Agency (Art. 1868)
b) Apparent or Ostensible Agency (Art. 1873)

c) Agency by Estoppel

-J.B.L. Reyes 16 Lawyers Journal 138

-Rallos v. Yangco, 20 Phil. 269
-Compaia General de Tabacos v. Diaba, 20 Phil. 321
- 2 C.J. 444-445
- 2 C.J. 464-466
- Macke v. Camps, 7 Phil. 553

2. Kinds of Actual Agency

a) As to manner of creation (Art. 1869)

1) Express: actually authorized, either orally or in writing.

2) Implied: implied from acts of principal, from his silence or lack of action or his failure to repudiate the
agency knowing that another person is acting on his behalf without authority.

b) As to character (Art. 1875)

1) Gratuitous: agent receives no compensation for his services.

2) Onerous: agent does receive compensation.

c) As to extent (Art. 1876)

1) General: comprises all the business of the principal.

2) Special: comprises one or more specific transactions.

d) As to scope of authority (Art. 1877, 1878)

1) Couched in general terms: deemed to comprise only acts of administration.

2) Couched in specific terms: authorizes only the performance of a specific act/s.

3) As to Nature and Effects

1) Representative: agent acts in name and representation of principal.

2) Simple/Commission: agent acts in his own name but for the account of the principal.

3. Creation and Elements of Actual Agency

Classified - Confidential

a) Consent/ Mandate
i. Manifestation of Mandate
- Express (Art. 1869, 1874)
- Implied
- Conde v. CA, 199 SCRA 245
ii. Manifestation of Acceptance
-Express (Art. 1869, 1870) when it is oral or written;
-Implied (Art. 1870-1872) when it can be inferred from the acts of the agent which carry out the agency, or
from his silence or inaction according to the circumstances.
a. Between 2 persons who are present - acceptance is deemed implied when the agent receives a power
of attorney from the principal himself personally without objection. (Is this presumption conclusive? NO,
it can be rebutted by contrary proof.)
b. Between persons who are absent acceptance not deemed implied from the silence of the agent
another as his agent and
confers upon him the authority to perform certain specified acts or kinds of acts on behalf of the principal. Its primary
purpose is to evidence the authority of the agent to 3rd parties w/ whom the agent deals.
may neither go beyond nor
deviate from the power of Attorney. The only exception is when strict construction will destroy the very purpose of the
power.
Meaning of present-- Not limited to face-to-face encounters. Two persons conversing on the phone are also
considered as both present.
Between persons who are absent, the acceptance of the agency cannot be implied from the silence of the agent,
except:
1.) When the principal transmits his power of attorney to the agent, who receives it without any objection;
2.) When the principal entrusts to him by letter or telegram a power of attorney with respect to the business in which
he is habitually engaged as an agent, and he did not reply to the letter or telegram.
- Jimenez v. Rabot, 38 Phil. 357
- Lian v. Puno, 31 Phil. 259
- Katigbak v. Tai Hing Co., 52 Phil. 622
- Amigo v. Teves, 96 Phil. 252
- Villa v. Garcia Bosque, 49 Phil. 126
- Dir. Of Public Works v. Sing Juco, 53 Phil. 205
- BPI v. De Coster, 47 Phil. 594
- Germann & Co. v. Donaldson, 1 Phil. 63
- Macke v. Camps, 7 Phil. 533
- Municipal Council of Iloilo v. Evangelista, 55 Phil.290
- Yu Chuck v. Kong Li Po, 46 Phil. 608
- Insular Drug v. PNB, 58 Phil. 683

Week No. 11
D.
Obligations of the Agent
-Intl Films (China) v. Lyric Films Exchange, 63 Phil. 778
-Nepomuceno, et al. v. Heredia, 7 Phil. 563
-Domingo v. Domingo, 42 SCRA 131
-U.S. vs. Kiene, 7 Phil. 736
-U.S. v. Reyes, 36 Phil. 791
-Ojinaga v. Estate of Perez, 9 Phil. 185
-De Borja v. De Borja, 58 Phil. 811
-PNB v. Welch,Ffairchild, & Co., 44 Phil. 780
-Harry Keeler Electric Co. v. Rodriguez, 44 Phil. 19
-Austria v. CA, 39 SCRA 527
Classified - Confidential

E.
Obligations of the Principal
-Gonzales & Gomez v. Haberer, 47 Phil. 380
-Albaladejo y Cia. Phil. Refining Co., 45 Phil. 556

Week 12
F.
Modes of Extinguishment of Agency
-Barretto v. Santa Maria, 26 Phil. 440
-Coleongco v. Claparols, 10 SCRA 577
-De Buncio & Co. v. Ong Guan Gan, 60 Phil. 696
-New Manila Lumber Co., Inc. v. Republic, 107 Phil. 824
-Infante v. Cunanan, 93 Phil. 693
-Valera v. Velasco, 51 Phil. 695
-Buason and Reyes v. Panuyas, 105 Phil. 795
-Herrera, et al. v. Luy Kim Guam, 110 Phil. 1020
-Del Rosario v. Abad, 104 Phil. 648
-Pasno v. Ravina, 54 Phil. 378
-Perez v. PNB, 17 SCRA 834

Week No. 13
A.
Definition
B.
Parties
C.
Different Kinds of Trusts
1. Express Trust (Art. 1443-1446)
-Ramos v. Ramos, 61 SCRA 284
2. Implied Trust (Art. 1447-1457)
-CUAYCONG V. Cuaycong, 21 SCRA 1192
3. Resulting Trust
4. Constructive Trust
Week No. 14
D.
Enforcement of Trust
1. In relation to laches
a) Fabian v. Fabian, 21 SCRA 213
b) Sotto v. Teves, 86 SCRA 154
2. In relation to Statute of Limitations
a) Gerona v. De Guzman, 11 SCRA 163
E.
Period of Prescription for Reconveyance of Real Property Based on Implied Trust
-Carantes v. CA, 76 SCRA 514
-Alarcon v. Bidin, 120 SCRA 390
-Bueno v. Reyes, 27 SCRA 1179
-Varsity Hills, Inc. v. Navarro, 43 SCRA 503
-Ecsay v. CA, 61 SCRA 369
-Jaramil v. CA, 78 SCRA 420
-Vda. De Nacalaban vs. CA, 80 SCRA 428
-Duque v. Domingo, 80 SCRA 654
-Tongoy v. CA, 123 SCRA 99
-Caragay-Lagno v. CA, 133 SCRA 718

Classified - Confidential