Agency | Who has the obligation to determine existence and scope of 1

agency?
[Type the document title]

Harry E. Keeler Electric Co. Inc. vs Domingo Rodriguez

G.R. No.L-19001 | November 11, 1922 | J. Johns

CASE SUMMARY Keeler Inc. sells electric plants and told Montelibano that for every
consummated sale, either per plant sold or customer found, he can get 10% of the amount
the plant is sold for. Montelibano got Rodriguez on board and the plant was installed and the
former was paid. Keeler however commenced action to collect from Rodriguez for nonpayment which is repudiated by the latter, claiming to have paid Keeler via Montelibano
because he was held out to be an agent with authority to collect. SC held that there is no
evidence to support the claim of Rodriguez. The evidence of receipts presented was a
personal one signed by Montelibano. No evidence that Keeler ever delivered any statements
to Montelibano, or that he was authorized to receive or receipt for the money, and
defendant's own telegram shows that Keeler "did not present bill" to defendant.
FACTS
Plaintiff is a domestic corporation in the electrical business, engaged in the sale of the
Matthews electric plant. Rodriguez lives in Occ. Negros and one Montelibano lives in
Iloilo.
Montelibano approached Keeler, claiming he could find a purchaser for the plant and so
Keeler told him he would receive 10% per plant sold or customer found, if the sale is
consummated.
As such, Montelibano interviews defendant Rodriguez and sold him a plant. It was
delivered to Iloilo and installed. He then paid Montelibano without the knowledge of
Keeler.
Keeler then commenced the present action against Rodriguez for non-payment of the
agreed P2,513.55 price plus interest. The defendant on the other hand claims to have
already paid.
LC ruled in favor of Rodriguez Keeler appealed, claims court erred in holding that (1)
payment to Montelibano discharges the debt of Rodriguez, (2) bill was given to
Montelibano for collection purposes, (3) Keeler held out Montelibano as an agent
with the authority to collect, and (4) ruling in favor of Rodriguez.
SC held that facts are conclusive that Rodriguez paid Montelibano and that the amount
was never paid to Keeler. Since Rodriguez alleges having received the plan and paid, it
develops upon him to prove payment to Keeler by a preponderance of evidence.
H.E. Keeler, president of Keeler, testified Employee Juan Cenar was given a
statement of account totaling Php 2,563,95. Montelibano had no authority to receive or
receipt for money because his task was limited to finding purchasers; he was no an
electrician; cant install
Cenar testified he went with the
shipment; installed plant; saw Rodriguez
The receipts header:
test and approve it; Rodriguez asked to
see the statement and kept it, telling
STATEMENT
Folio No. 2494
Cenar that he will pay in Manila
Rodriguez testified Montelibano sold,
Mr. DOMINGO RODRIGUEZ,
delivered, and ordered installation;
Iloilo, Iloilo, P.I.
evidence = statement and receipt signed
In account with
by Montelibano to whom he had paid
ISSUE
1. W/N Montelibano acted as the agent of
Keeler Inc? - No

HARRY E. KEELER ELECTRIC

COMPANY, INC.
221 Calle Echaque, Quiapo, Manila,
P.I.
MANILA, P.I., August 18, 1920.

The receipt is signed as follows:

Received payment
HARRY E. KEELER ELECTRIC CO. Inc.,
Recibi

RATIO
Nothing on the face of receipt to show Montelibano was the agent of, or that he was
acting for, the plaintiff. It is his own personal receipt and signature.
Outside of the fact that Montelibano received the money and signed this receipt, there
is no evidence that he had any authority, real or apparent, to receive or
receipt for the money.
Neither is there any evidence that Keeler ever delivered the statement to
Montelibano, or authorized anyone to deliver it to him.
Rodriguez also presented evidence a statement that shows Cenars travel expenses,
supporting the claim that Cenar installed the plant and not Montelibano, otherwise,
why would Cenar need to have travelled? + Testimony shows the question of
Montelibano's authority to receive the money must have been discussed between the
parties, and that, in making the payment, Rodriguez relied upon Montelibano's own
statements and representation, as to his authority, to receipt for the money.
In the final analysis, the plant was sold by Keeler to Rodriguez, and was consigned by
Keeler and installed by Cenar, acting for, and representing, the Keeler whose expense
for the trip is included in, and made a part of, the bill which was receipted by
Montelibano.
No evidence that Keeler ever delivered any statements to Montelibano, or that he was
authorized to receive or receipt for the money, and defendant's own telegram shows
that Keeler "did not present bill" to defendant.
Article 1162 of the Civil Code provides Payment must be made to the persons in
whose favor the obligation is constituted, or to another authorized to receive it in his
name
o Ormachea Tin-Conco vs. Trillana: Repayment of a debt must be made to the
person in whose favor the obligation is constituted, or to another expressly
authorized to receive the payment in his name.
And article 1727 provides The principal shall be liable as to matters with respect to
which the agent has exceeded his authority only when he ratifies the same expressly
or by implication.
Mechem on Agency says:
o fundamental principles in determining w/n there is assumed authority :(1) that
the law indulges in no bare presumptions that an agency exists: it must be
proved or presumed from facts; (2) that the agent cannot establish his
own authority, either by his representations or by assuming to exercise it; (3)
that an authority cannot be established by mere rumor or general
reputation; (4)that even a general authority is not an unlimited one; and
(5) that every authority must find its ultimate source in some act or
omission of the principal.
o The person dealing with the agent must also act with ordinary prudence and
reasonable diligence. Obviously, if he knows or has good reason to believe that
the agent is exceeding his authority, he cannot claim protection.
DECISION The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and one will be entered here in
favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of P2,513.55 with interest at the
legal rate from January 10, 1921, with costs in favor of the appellant. So ordered.