Agency Homework for 1 February 2013

I. Agency v. Broker

a. What is a broker?

Schmid and Oberly, Inc. v. RJL Martinez, 166 SCRA 493 (1988)

b. A broker can also be an agent.

Domingo v. Domingo, G.R. No. L-30573, 29 October 1971

c. Broker v. Agent

Litonjua, Jr. v. Eternit Corp., 490 SCRA 204 (2006) Araneta, Inc. v. Del Paterno, 91 Phil. 786 (1952)

d. Compensation

i. Right of Agent

Articles 1875, 1909

Prats v. CA, G.R. No. L-39822, 31 January 1978 Manotok Brothers v. CA, G.R. No. 94753, 7 April 1993

Domingo v. Domingo, G.R. No. L-30573, 29 October 1971

ii. Procuring Cause

Danon v. Brimo & Co., G.R. No. 15823, 12 September 1921 Hahn v. CA, G.R. No. 113074, 22 January 1997 Tan v. Gullas, G.R. No. 143978, 3 December 2002 Philippine Health-Care Providers v. Estrada, G.R. No. 171052, 28 January 2008 Sanchez v. Medicard, G.R. No. 141525, 2 September 2005

iii. Both subject to stipulation

Guardex v. NLRC, 191 SCRA 487 (1990)

II. Classifications of Agency

a. Express Agency v. Implied Agency

Article 1869

i. Implied from Acts of Principal

Uniland Resources v. DBP, G.R. No. 95909, 16 August 1991

ii. Implied from Acts of the Agent

Articles 1870 to 1872

b. Agency by estoppels/Ostensible Authority/Apparent Authority

Articles 1873, 1900, 1911, 1921, 1922

Nogales v. Capitol Medical, G.R. No. 142625, 19 December 2006 Litonjua v. Eternit, G.R. No. 144805, 8 June 2006 Pahud v. CA, G.R. no. 160346, 25 August 2009 Naguiat v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 118375, 3 October 2003 Woodchild v. Roxas, G.R. No. 140667, 12 August 2004 Yun Kwan Byung v. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 163553, 11 December 2009

Agency by estoppel is defined as one created by operation of law and established by proof of such acts of the principal as reasonably lead third persons to the conclusion of its existence. Arises where principal by negligence in failing to supervise agents affairs, allows agent to exercise powers not granted to him, thus justifying others in believing the agent possesses requisite authority. BLACKs, supra, p. 62. An ostensible agency is an implied or presumptive agency which exists where one, either intentionally or from want of ordinary care, induces another to believe that a third person is his agent, though he never in fact, employed him. It is, strictly speaking, no agency at all, but is in reality based entirely upon estoppel. Apparent authority refers to the power to affect the legal relations of another person by transactions with third persons, professedly as agent for the other, arising from and in accordance with the others manifestations to such third persons.1 c. Agency by operation of law

Articles 1869, 1884(2), 1930, 1931

1

Professional Inc. v. Sps. Agana, G.R. Nos. 126297, 127590, 126467, 31 January 2007.

d. Universal, general and special

Article 1878

Siasat v. IAC, 139 SCRA 238 Dominion Insurance v. CA, G.R. No. 129919, 6 February 2002

e. Durable agency

Article 1930

f. Agency couched in general terms v. agency couched in specific terms

Articles 1877 to 1880

i. Transactions Covered

Article 1878

Veloso v. CA, G.R. No. 102737, 21 August 1996

ii. Mortgage

Article 1878(12)

PNB v. Sta. Maria, 29 SCRA 303 Bank of Philippine Islands v. De Coster, 47 Phil. 594 Mercado v. Allied Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 171460, 27 July 2007

iii. Loan/Borrowings

Article 1878(7)

Hodges v. Salas, 63 Phil 567

iv. Sell

Article 1878(5)

Strong v. Gutierrez Rupide, 6 Phil. 680 Katigbak v. Tai Hung Co., 52 Phil. 622 Bravo-Guerrero v. Bravo, G.R. No. 152658, 29 July 2005

v. Lease

Article 1878(8)

Chua v. IAC, 229 SCRA 99

vi. Compromise

Article 1878(3)

Dungo v. Lopena, 6 SCRA 1007 (29 December 1962) Vicente v. Geraldez, G.R. No. L-32473, 31 July 1973

vii. Other acts of strict dominion

Article 1878(12)

Insular Drug Co. v. Philippine National Bank, 58 Phil. 684 (21 October 1936)

g. Oral v. Written

Articles 1869, 1874

Air France v. CA, G.R. No. L-57339, 29 December 1983 Angeles v. PNR, 500 SCRA 444 (2006) Jimenez v. Rabot, 38 Phil. 378 City-Lite v. CA, 325 SCRA 385 Cosmic Lumber v. CA, G.R. No. 114311 29 November 1996 Rodriguez v. CA, G.R. No. L-29264, 29 August 1969 Oesmer v. Paraiso Development, G.R. No. 157493, 5 February 2007 San Juan Structural Steel v. CA, 296 SCRA 631

Delos Reyes v. CA, 313 SCRA 632 AF Realty v. Dieselman Freight, 373 SCRA 385 Pahud v. CA, G.R. No. 160346, 25 August 2009