Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
11. The VSP form the term itself was merely a proposal.
It created no demandable right in favor of Sosa for the
delivery of the vehicle to him, and its non-delivery did not
cause any legally indemnifiable injury.
II. Mr. Popong Bernardo has no authority to sign for
and behalf of Toyota
1. Sosa knew that Bernardo was only a sales
representative of Toyota and hence a mere agent of the
latter. It was incumbent upon Sosa to act with ordinary
prudence and reasonable diligence to know the extent of
Bernardo's authority as an agent
2. To reinforce this contention, the Supreme Court in
Cruz vs. CA, a case involving a similar factual milieu, held
that person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and
must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent.
3. Moreover, Plaintiff did not even present Bernardo as
witness to substantiate their claims.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is prayed to this
HONORABLE COURT, that judgement be rendered in favour
of Toyota Shaw Inc., absolving it from any liability for the
injury the plaintiff has allegedly suffered. Other relief just
and equitable is likewise prayed for.
Manila City, December 10, 2015
SANTOS LAW OFFICE
20TH Floor SBC Plaza,
Mendiola, City of Manila
By:
Copy Furnished:
JUDD REYES
REYES LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Plaintiff