Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

2. CULABA v.

CA 427 S 721 accept receipts without the


supervisors name. However, the
Francisco Culaba and Demetria
court held that the primary issue in
Culaba v. Court of Appeals and San
the case at bar is the principles of
Miguel Corporation
agency. It was incumbent upon Sps.
Sps. Culaba were the owners of the Culaba to exercise ordinary diligence
Culaba Store engaged in sale and to verify and identify the extent of
distribution of San Miguel beer the alleged agent's authority. It was
products. SMC sold beer products on the burden of Sps. Culaba to
credit to Culaba Sps. for 28,650Php establish the agents true identity.
evidenced in a Temporary Credit
Invoice. Culaba Sps. made a partial
payment of 3,740Php. Issue: Is there payment by the Sps.
Culaba? Does payment to an alleged
supervisor constitute establishing
Thereafter, Culaba Sps. failed to pay and determination of his authority?
despite demand from SMC. SMC filed
an action for recollection of a sum of
money. Held: The petition was dismissed.
Payments purportedly made to a
supervisore of SMC, who was in SMC
Sps. allege that they had already
uniform, and drove the company
paid the money in full to which they
van. He appeared to be authorized
presented their Temporary Charge
to accept payments as he showed a
Sales Liquidation Receipts dated
list of customers accountabilities and
around April and that they paid to an
even issued its liquidation receipts
SMC supervisor who came in an SMC
which were genuine. Unfortunately,
van. This supervisor showed a list of
Sps. Culaba did not ascertain his
customers and accountabilities, thus
identity and authority. Nor did they
he paid him in good faith.
ask for identification to prove his
authority. Thus, the payments the
petitioners claimed they made were
SMC alleged in their affidavit that the not the payments discharged their
said TCSL Receipts were reported lost obligation to SMC.
and was published on july 9.

A person dealing with an agent is put


Ruling of RTC upon inquiry and must discover upon
The trial court held that it was his peril the authority of the agent.
unusual that defendant forgot the Persons dealing with an assumed
name of the SMC supervisor and he agents are bound at their peril to
did not require the supervisor to ascertain not only the fact of agency
write his name on the receipt. but also the nature and extent of
authority. Failing to ascertain the
identity and authority of the agent,
they cannot claim to have paid in
Ruling of the CA
good faith.
It was the natural and usual way of
SMCs business transactions to

Digest By: KPaclibar


Digest By: KPaclibar