Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
rd
ARTICLES 1868-1872
FACTS:
Ker and Co, Ltd. was assessed by then Commissioner of
Internal Revenue Domingo the sum of P 20,272.33 as the
commercial brokers percentage tax, surcharge and
compromise penalty.
ISSUE:
W/N Plaintiff De la Cruz is considered as an agent of the
corporation and as such entitled to reimbursement for
expenses incurred in conncection with agency
When Escandor didnt get any word from Orbeta after 3 days,
she herself inquired in writing from Rubberworld about her offer
of sale of a fire truck. She then sent a revised price quotation
some ten days laeter.
ISSUE:
W/N the relationship thus created is one of vendor and vendee
(contract of sale) or of broker and principal (contract of agency)
RULING:
Broker and principal- contract of agency
By taking the contractual stipulations as a whole and not just
the disclaimer, it would seem that the contract between them is
a contract of agency
ISSUE:
W/N Orbeta is an agent of Guardex Enterprises thus entitled to
sales commission
RULING: No
The claim that she gave verbal authority to Orbeta to offer to a
fire truck to Rubberworld was belied from the fact that months
prior to Orbetas approaching Escandor, the latter already had
made a written offer of a fire truck to Rubberworld. All that she
consented to was for Orbeta to follow up that pending offer. It
seems fairly evident that the representation allowance of
P250 was meant to cover the expenses for the follow up
offered by Orbeta-an ambiguous fact which does not of itself
suggest the creation of an agency and is not at all inconsistent
with the theory of its absence in this case.
4.
ORIENT
AIR
SERVCES
REPRESENTATIVES V CA
AND
HOTEL
FACTS:
American Airlines, inc, an air carrier offering passenger and air
cargo transportation in the Phils, and Orient Air Services and
Hotel Representatives entered into a General Sales Agency
Agreement whereby the former authorized the latter to act as
its exclusive general sales agent within the Phils for the sale of
air passenger transportation
5. BORDADOR V LUZ
d. service and supervise sales agents in the assigned territory
including if required by American the control of remittances and
commissions retained
FACTS:
Petitioners were engaged in the business of purchase and sale
of jewelry and respondent Brigida Luz, also known as Aida
Luz, was their regular customer.
RULING: Yes
It is a well settled principle that in the interpretation of a
contract, the entirety thereof must be taken into consideration
to ascertain the meaning of its provisions. The various
stipulations in the contract must be read together to give effect
to all
involved were already paid for and all that Luz owed Bordador
was the sum or P21, 483 representing interest on the principal
account which she had previously paid for.
RULING: No
Gomiz, before embarking for Spain, executed before a notary a
power of attorney in favor of Hidalgo as his agent and that he
should represent him and administer various properties he
owned and possessed in Manila.
6. DE LA PENA V HIDALGO
FACTS:
De la Pena y de Ramon and De Ramon, in her own behalf and
as the legal guardian of her son Roberto De la Pena, filed in
the CFI a written complaint against Hidalgos
FACTS:
Duran, a nephew of Orense, with the latters knowledge and
consent, executed before a notary a public instrument whereby
he sold and conveyed to plaintiff company for P1,500 the said
property
owner upon his stating under oath to the judge that he himself
consented to his nephews making the said sale
8. JOHNLO TRADING CO V FLORES
FACTS:
M.B. Florentino & Co, Ltd, filed with the CFI of La Union
against Johnlo Trading Company and Lipsett Pacific
Corporation a case for the collection of the sum of P14,304.19
and damages in the sum of P10,000.
This suit involves the validity and efficacy of the sale under
right of redemption of a parcel of land and a masonry house
with a nipa hut erected thereon, effected by Duran, a nephew
of the owner of the property, Orense for the sum of P1,500 by
means of a notarial instrument
RULING: Yes
Reecords in this case shows that Orense did give his consent
in order that his nephew, Duran might sell the property in
question to company and that he did thereafter confirm and
ratify the sale by means of a public instrument executed before
a notary
It having been proven at the trial that Orense gave his consent
to the said sale, it follows that he conferred verbal, or at least
implied, power of agency upon his nephew Duran who
accepted it in the same way by selling the said property
The principal must therefore fulfill all the obligations contracted
by the agent, who acted within the scope of his authority
1. RALLOS V YANGCO
FACTS:
Yangco sent Rallos a letter inviting the latter to be the
consignor in buying and selling leaf tobacco and other native
products. Terms and conditions were also contained in the
letter.
The said Collantes received said tobacco and sold it for the
sum of P1,744. The charges for such sale were P206.96,
leaving in the hands of said Collantes the sum of 1,537.08
belonging to Rallos. This sum was, apparently, converted to
his own use by said agent.
It appears, however, that prior to the sending of said tobacco
Yangco had severed his relations with Collantes and that the
latter was no longer acting as his factor. This fact was not
known to Rallos; and it is conceded in the case that no notice
of any kind was given by Yangco of the termination of the
relations between Yangco and his agent, Collantes.
Ruling: Yes
Evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding that Flores is the
agent of Camps in the management of the bar of the
Washington Caf with authority to bind Camps, his principal,
for the payment of the goods
RULING: Yes
Yangco, as principal is liable. Having advertised the fact that
Collantes was his agent and having given special notice to
Rallos of that fact, and having given them a special invitation to
contract between Rio and Yu Tec for the sale and purchase of
the real property
Exhibit B (letter giving authority to J. Molina as agent of Yu Tec
and if the latter shall not take advantage of selling it within the
time given, the authority given shall be cancelled) is nothing
more than an authority to sell
FACTS:
Plaintiff, Rio is a copartnernership organized and existing
under the laws of the Phil Islands. The defendant, Yu Tec and
Co is a domestic corporation and the defendant, Calvin is of
age and a resident of Manila
Rio alleges that Yu Tec & Co, which was then a limited
partnership, authorized its agent, J.V. Molina to find a
purchaser or a lessee of a tract of land belonging to it located
on Calle Velasquez, Tondo, Manila.
Within the time given the agent found a purchaser in the name
of plaintiff (Rio) which offered to purchase the land for the sum
of P 40,000 and that Mollina, its agent, made known its offer to
the respondent company which refused to accept it
RULING: Yes
Molina, the agent, could not enforce the specific performance
of Exhibit B. There is no evidence in the record of any written
7
RULING: Yes
As a matter of formality, a power of attorney to convey real
property ought to appear in a public document, just as any
other instrument intended to transmit or convey an interest in
such property ought to appear in a public document
5. JIMENEZ V RABOT
FACTS:
Gregorio Jimenez filed this action to recover from Rabot, a
parcel of land situated in Alaminos, Pangasinan
FACTS
Cosmic Corporation, through its General Manager executed a
Special Power of Attorney appointing Paz G. Villamil-Estrada
as attorney-in-fact to initiate, institute and file any court action
for the ejectment of third persons and/or squatters of the entire
lot 9127 and 443 for the said squatters to remove their houses
and vacate the premises in order that the corporation may take
material possession of the entire lot
7. RAET V CA
FACTS:
Petitioners Cesar and Elviira Raet (the spouses Raet) and
petitioners Rex and Edna Mitra (Spouses Mitra) negotiated
with Amparo Gatus concerning the possibility of bu*ying the
rights of the latter to certain units at the Las Villas de Sto. Nino
Subdivision in Meycauyan, Bulacan.
RULING: No
The authority granted Villamil-Estrada under the special power
of attorney was explicit and exclusionary: for her to institute
any action in court to eject all persons found on lots number
9127 and 443 so that Cosmic Lumber could take material
possession thereof and for this purpose, to appear at the pretrial and enter into any stipulation of facts and/or compromise
agreement but only insofar as this was protective of the rights
and interests of Cosmic Lumber in the property
Spouses Raet and Spouses Mira paid Gatus the total amounts
of P40,000 and P35,000 respectively for which they were
issued receipts by Gatus in her own name
Both spouses applied directly with PVDHC for the purchase of
units in the said subdivision. As they were not GSIS members,
they looked for members who could act as accommodation
parties by allowing them to use their policies. PVDHC would
process the applications for the purchase of the units upon the
approval by the GSIS of petitioners loan application
In the context of special investiture of powers to VillamilEstrada, alienation by sale of an immovable certainly cannot
be deemed protective of the right of Cosmic Lumber to
physically possess the same, more so when the land was
being sold for a price of P80/sqm , very much less than its
assessed value of P250/sqm and considering further that
plaintiff never received the proceeds of the sale
For the principal to confer the right upon an agent to sell real
estate, a power of attorney must so express the powers of the
agent in clear and unmistakable language
Both spouses dealt with Gatus who was not the agent of
PVDHC. The criminal case for estafa against her was
dismissed because it was found out that she never
represeneted herself to be an agent of PVDHC
The property was offered for sale to the general public through
the circulation of a sales brochure containing the description of
the property and the asking price of P6,250/sqm with terms of
payment negotiable. In addition, brokers commission was 2%
of selling price, net of withholding taxes and other charges.
Contact person was Meldin Al G. Roy, Metro Drug Inc.
Roy and/or Metro Drug was a mere broker and Roy/s only job
was to bring parties the parties together for a possible
transaction
FACTS:
Simmie filed an action against Brodek to recover the sum of
1,350 pesos for services performed by the former for Brodek in
the purchase of a interest in the launch called Fred L. Dorr.
Atty. Mamaril wrote Metro Drug (Al G. Roy) expressing CityLites desire to buy the entire front lot of the subject property
instead of only half thereof provided the asking price of
P6,250/sqm was reduced and that payment be in installment
for a certain period
10
Upon the first cause of action, the trial court held that the
compensation for services of plaintiff was the gratuitous use
and occupation of some of the houses of the deceased by the
plaintiff and his family
As to the second cause, the court held that the plaintiff did not
have any source of income that could produce him such a
large sum of money as that invested in the construction of the
house; and the fact that the deceased had more than the
necessary amount to build the house
RULING: NO
Plaintiff insists that, as his services as agent of the deceased
M Larena having been rendered, an obligaton to compensate
them must necessarily arise.
The trial court held that the compensation for the services of
the plaintiff was the gratuitous use and occupation of some of
the houses of said deceased by plaintiff and his family
RULING: YES
Where Brodek enters into a contract through his authorized
agent Dorr, with Simmie to purchase property, agreeing to pay
a fixed price for such property, allowing Simmie, a sum equal
to the difference between this fixed price and whatever sum
less than that for which Simmie is able to purchase the
property, and Simmie has completed the contract of sale and
there is nothing left to be done except the payment of the said
property, and then Brodek closes said contract without the
intervention of Simmie, the former is liable to the latter for an
amount equal to the difference between the actual purchase
price of said property and the which Brodek agreed to pay for
the same