Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Facts:
Vicente Domingo granted Gregorio Domingo the exclusive agency
to sell his lot with a commission of 5% on the total price
Gregorio authorized Teofilo Purisima to look for a buyer with half
of the 5% as his commission
Teofilo introduced Oscar de Leon to Gregorio as a prospective
buyer
Oscar offered to purchase the lot at a lower price than that made
by Vicente.
Gregorio was able to persuade Vicente to accept Oscar's offer and
an agreement was made between Vicente and Oscar
P1,000 was given by Oscar as earnest money P300 of which was
advanced by Vicente to Gregorio as his commission
Also, Gregorio received P1,000 from Oscar as 'promised' by Oscar
if Gregorio will be able to persuade Vicente to sell the lot at a
lower price
This 'promised money' or secret bonus of Gregorio was not
disclosed to Vicente
Oscar talked to Gregorio that he is now canceling the sale but he
will not try to recover the earnest money of the secret bonus he
gave
Gregorio, sensing something fishy, went to the Register of Deeds
and discovered that Vicente actually sold the land to Oscar's wife
as shown in the title
Gregorio approached Vicente and demanded his commission but
the latter refused to give him any amount
Page 1 of 6
Agency Digests Set B and C
Issue:
W/N Vicente is still liable to pay Gregorio his commission even
though the latter failed to disclose everything he received form
the transaction
Held:
Gregorio cannot demand from Vicente his commission
Article 1891 states that every agent is bound to render an
account of his transactions and to deliver to the principal
whatever he may have received by virtue of the agency
When Gregorio accepted the secret bonus and failed to disclose
this to his principal, he violated the agency agreement and
FORFEITS HIS RIGHT TO COLLECT THE COMMISSION FORM THE
PRINCIPAL. This is regardless to W/N the principal suffered any
injury because of the breach of trust.
His acceptance of the secret profit corrupted his duty to serve the
interest only of the principal. Instead of exerting his best to
persuade the buyer to purchase the lot on the most advantageous
terms desired by his principal, he succeeded in persuading his
principal to accept the terms of the buyer to the detriment of his
principal.
U.S. VS. REYES (36 PHIL. 791)
FACTS:
R. B. Blackman, a surveyor in Pangasinan had an oral agreement
with Domingo Reyes. The latter would collect in behalf of
Blackman amounts due from 12 individuals in connection with
the survey of their lands totaling to Php 860.00. He only
succeeded in collecting Php 540 and delivered Php 368 to
Blackman, retaining the balance of Php 172.00. Both parties had
different claims. Blackman said that the
agreement was 10% commission for Reyes. But Reyes insisted it
was 20%. If the Court would accept
Blackmans claims, Reyes would be entitled to Php 54.00
therefore Php 172.00 misappropriated or Php
118.00 if commission was deducted. On the other hand, if the
Court accepts Reyes claims which was
20% then 20% of the amount supposed to be collected was Php
172.00. Reyes was found guilty of estafa.
ISSUES:
1) Whether there was a contract of agency between the parties?
2) Whether its terms and conditions are complied with?
HELD:
There was a contract of agency. But with the terms and
conditions are not complied with. On the onset there was a
contract of agency through an oral agreement. Reyes was bound
to pay the principal all he received from the collecting dues as
stated by Blackman. In view of the discrepancy in the evidence
the court was not disposed to set up judgment as superior to that
of the trial court. Also conceding that Reyes was to receive 20%,
this unless some contrary and express stipulation was included
would not entitle him in advance to 20% of the amount actually
collected. The right to receive a commission of either 10% or
20% did not make to hold out any sum he chose. Since for all
practical purposes the agency was terminated the agent was
under the obligation to turn over to the principal the amount
collected, minus his commission or that amount.
which had been sold to Bosque and Ruiz by the plaintiff, acting
through her attorney in fact, one Manuel Pirretas y Monros.
The case stemmed from the following:
1. Prior to September 17, 1919, the plaintiff Villa was the
owner of a printing establishment and bookstore
located at Escolta, Manila, and known as La Flor de
Cataluna, Viuda de E. Bota, with the machinery, motors,
bindery, type material furniture, and stock appurtenant
thereto. Upon the date stated, the plaintiff, then and
now a resident of Barcelona, Spain, acting through
Manuel Pirretas, as attorney in fact, sold the
establishment above-mentioned to the defendants
Guillermo Garcia Bosque and Jose Pomar Ruiz,
residents of the City of Manila, for the stipulated sum of
P55,000.
2. In 1920, Pirretas absented himself from the Philippine
Islands on a prolonged visit to Spain; and in
contemplation of his departure he executed a
document purporting to be a partial substitution of
agency, whereby he transferred to "the mercantile
entity Figueras Hermanos, or the person, or persons,
having legal representation of the same," the powers
that had been previously conferred on Pirretas by the
plaintiff "in order that," so the document runs, "they
may be able to effect the collection of such sums of
money as may be due to the plaintiff by reason of the
sale of the bookstore and printing establishment
already mentioned, issuing for such purpose the
receipts, vouchers, letters of payment, and other
necessary documents for whatever they shall have
received and collected of the character indicated."
3. When the time came for the payment of the second
installment and accrued interest due at the time, the
purchasers were unable to comply. Figueras Hermanos,
acting as attorney in fact for the plaintiff, an agreement
was Afterwhich, another document was entered
(Exhibit 1) whereby the partnership in said document
it stated that Bosque is indebted to Villa in the amount
of 32k which France and Goulette are bound as joint
and several sureties, and that the latters partnership
had transferred all its assets to the Bota Printing
Company.
4. Rosa is now alleging that Figueras had no authority to
execute the contract containing the release of
Guillermo from the liability, and that she had not
ratified the same. Defendants argue otherwise, using
the agreement as a novation releasing him from
personal liability.
CFIs ruling:
The defendant Ruiz put in no appearance, and after
publication judgment by default was entered against him. The
other defendants answered with a general denial and various
special defenses. The trial judge gave judgment in favor of the
plaintiff, requiring all of the defendants, jointly and severally, to
pay to the plaintiff the sum of P19,230.01, as capital, with
stipulated interest, plus the further sum of P1,279.70 as interest
already accrued and unpaid upon the date of the institution of the
action, with interest.
ISSUE:
FACTS:
HELD:
Page 2 of 6
Agency Digests Set B and C
fixed by him and power to collect money due to the plaintiff upon
any account, with a further power of substitution, yet it is
obvious upon the face of the act of substitution (Exhibit B) that
the sole purpose was to authorize Figueras Hermanos to collect
the balance due to the plaintiff upon the price of La Flor de
Catalua, the sale of which had already been affected by Pirretas.
The act of substitution conferred no authority whatever
on M. T. Figueras as an individual.
In view of these defects in the granting and exercise of
the substituted power, we agree with the trial judge that the
Exhibit 1 is not binding on the plaintiff. Figueras had no authority
to execute the contract of release and novation in the manner
attempted; and apart from this it is shown that in releasing the
sureties Figueras acted contrary to instructions. From this it is
obvious that Figueras had no actual authority whatever to release
the sureties or to make a novation of the contract without their
additional guaranty.
As a result of our examination of the case the SC find no error in
the record prejudicial to any of the appellants, and the judgment
appealed from was affirmed, So ordered, with costs against the
appellants.
DBP V. CA
An agent acting as such is not personally liable unless he
expressly binds himself or exceeds his authority. FACTS: Juan
Dans, together with his wife Candida, applied for a loan of P500K
with the DBP. He was 76 at that time. He was advised by DBP to
obtain a mortgage redemption insurance with the DBP Mortage
Redemption Insurance Pool (DBP MRI pool)
The loan was approved at a reduced amount of P300K. DBP
also deducted P1,476 as payment of the MRI premium. After than,
Dans accomplished the application for Insurance and Health
statement for the DBP MRI pool. The premium minus a 10%
service fee was credited by DBP to the account of DBP MRI pool.
And then, Dans died of cardiac arrest. DBP MRI Pool notified
DBP that he was not eligible for MRI coverage for being over the
acceptance age limit of 60 years at the time of the application.
DBP informed Candida of the disapproval of her late husbands
application and offered to refund that premium of P1,476 but she
refused. She also refused the ex gratia settlement of P30,000.
Candida, as administratix of her late husbands estate, filed a
complaint for collection of sum of money with damages. The RTC
rules in her favor but absolved DBP MRI Pool from liability for
there was no privity of contract between it and the deceased. The
RTC also found DBP in estoppel for having led Dans into applying
despite knowledge of the age ineligibility. The CA affirmed thus
the case at bar.
ISSUE: W/N DBP is liable
HELD: YES
In dealing with Dans, DBP was wearing 2 hats, one, that of a
lender and two that of an insurance agent. It required the
borrower, as a matter of policy and practice, to secure MRI
coverage but instead of allowing Dans to look for his own
insurance carrier, DBP compelled him to apply with the DBP MRI
Pool. It also deducted from the proceeds of the loan, MRI
premium and deducted from this 10% as service fee for the
application form and his health statement. As an insurance agent,
DBP made Dans go through the motion of applying for said
insurance despite knowing that his application would never be
approved for being over the age limit.
Art. 1897 provides that the agent who acts as such is not
personally liable to the party with whom he contracts, unless he
expressly binds himself or exceeds the limit of his authority
without giving such party sufficient notice of his powers.
DBP exceeded the scope of its authority when it accepted Dans
application for it is not authorized to accept applications for MRI
when its clients are over 60 years of age. Also there is no showing
that Dans knew of the limitation on DBPs authority to solicit
applications for MRI. If the 3rd person dealing with an agent is
unaware of the limits of the authority conferred by the principal
on the agent and the 3rd person has been deceived by the nondisclosure by the agent, the latter is liable for damages to him.
But DBP cannot be liable for the entire value of the insurance
policy. Considering his advanced age, there is no absolute
certainty that Dans could obtain an insurance coverage from
Page 3 of 6
Agency Digests Set B and C
EUGENIO V. CA
Page 4 of 6
Agency Digests Set B and C
Page 5 of 6
Agency Digests Set B and C
cash at the specific request of Tiac. In turn, Tiac issued nine (9)
postdated checks to Valiant as payment for the paper products.
Unfortunately, sad checks were later dishonored by the drawee
bank.
Thereafter, Valiant made several demands upon petitioner to pay
for the merchandise in question, claiming that Tiac was duly
authorized by petitioner as the manager of his Binondo office, to
enter into the questioned transactions with Valiant and Tan.
Petitioner denied any involvement in the transaction entered into
by Tiac and refused to pay Valiant.