Edwin Cuizon alleged that he is not a real party in interest in this case.

According to him, he was

Soriamont Steamship Agencies Inc. & Ronas v Sprint Transport Services, & Papa
Sprint filed for a complaint for a sum of money against Soriamont and Ronas
Subject of dispute: ELA (EQUIPMENT LEASE AGREEMENT)
Sprint alleges:
It entered into a lease agreement for Equipment with Soriamont
Sprint agreed to lease chassis units for the transport of container vans
Thru authorization letters, Ronas (on behalf of Soriamont and PAPA TRUCKING
SERVICES [PTS]) were able to withdraw 2 chassis units from the container yard of
Sprint.
Soriamont and Ronas failed to pay rental fees.
Sprint was subsequently informed that the equipment was LOST
Despite demands, Soriamont and Ronas failed to pay rental fees and failed to replace
equipment.
Soriamont and Ronas alleges:
It was [PTS] who withdrew the equipment.
Soriamont and Ronas filed a Third Party Complaint against [PTS], who failed to answer
and thus was declared in default
RTC favored Sprint, held Soriamont liable
CA
- found that the contract contained an AUTOMATIC RENEWAL CLAUSE
- Found that Soriamont authorized the withdrawal of [PTS] of the equipment
- Affirmed RTC decision
ISSUE: Whether or not PTS is an agent of Soriamont?
Soriamont is essentially challenging court findings that PTS withdrew the equipment as
an agent of Soriamont.
In effect, Soriamont is raising questions of fact which is NOT ALLOWED
Rule 45 -> only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review
Evidence shows that the preponderance of evidence supports the existence of an agency
relationship between Soriamont and PTS.
The ELA explicitly authorized Soriamont to appoint a representative who shall withdraw
and return the leased chassis units (which is PTS)
Since the ELA was not shown to be terminated, its AUTOMATIC RENEWAL CLAUSE took
effect pursuant to their contract.
The settled rule is that persons dealing with an assumed agent are bound at their peril;
and if they would hold the principal liable, they must ascertain not only the fact of agency, but also the
nature and extent of authority, and in case either is controverted, the burden of proof is upon them to
prove it. Sprint has successfully discharged this burden.
Alternatively, if PTS is found to be its agent, Soriamont argues that PTS is liable for the
loss of the subject equipment, since PTS acted beyond its authority as agent. Soriamont cites Article
1897 of the Civil Code, which provides:
acting as mere agent of his principal, which was the Impact Systems, in his transaction with
Eurotech and the latter was very much aware of this fact.
ISSUE: WON Edwin exceeded his authority when he signed the Deed of Assignment thereby binding
himself personally to pay the obligations to Eurotech
HELD: No.
Edwin insists that he was a mere agent of Impact Systems which is owned by Erwin and that his
status as such is known even to Eurotech as it is alleged in the Complaint that he is being sued in
his capacity as the sales manager of the said business venture. Likewise, Edwin points to the Deed
of Assignment which clearly states that he was acting as a representative of Impact Systems in said
transaction.
Art. 1897. 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 limits of his authority without giving such party
sufficient notice of his powers.
In a contract of agency, a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in
representation or on behalf of another with the latters consent. Its purpose is to extend the
personality of the principal or the party for whom another acts and from whom he or she derives
the authority to act. The basis of agency is representation, that is, the agent acts for and on behalf
of the principal on matters within the scope of his authority and said acts have the same legal
effect as if they were personally executed by the principal.
elements of the contract of agency: (1) consent, express or implied, of the parties to establish the
relationship; (2) the object is the execution of a juridical act in relation to a third person; (3) the
agent acts as a representative and not for himself; (4) the agent acts within the scope of his
authority
An agent, who acts as such, is not personally liable to the party with whom he contracts. There are
2 instances when an agent becomes personally liable to a third person. The first is when he
expressly binds himself to the obligation and the second is when he exceeds his authority. In the
last instance, the agent can be held liable if he does not give the third party sufficient notice of his
powers. Edwin does not fall within any of the exceptions contained in Art. 1897.
In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a managing agent may enter into any contracts
that he deems reasonably necessary or requisite for the protection of the interests of his principal
entrusted to his management.
Edwin Cuizon acted well-within his authority when he signed the Deed of Assignment. Eurotech
refused to deliver the 1 unit of sludge pump unless it received, in full, the payment for Impact
Systems indebtedness. Impact Systems desperately needed the sludge pump for its business since
after it paid the amount of P50,000.00 as downpayment it still persisted in negotiating with
Eurotech which culminated in the execution of the Deed of Assignment of its receivables from
Toledo Power Company. The significant amount of time spent on the negotiation for the sale of the
sludge pump underscores Impact Systems perseverance to get hold of the said equipment. Edwins
participation in the Deed of Assignment was reasonably necessary or was required in order for
him to protect the business of his principal.

Art. 1897. 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 limits of his authority without giving such party sufficient notice
of his powers.

The burden falls upon Soriamont to prove its affirmative allegation that PTS acted in any
manner in excess of its authority as agent, thus, resulting in the loss of the subject equipment. To
recall, the subject equipment was withdrawn and used by PTS with the authority of Soriamont. And for
PTS to be personally liable, as agent, it is vital that Soriamont be able to prove that PTS damaged or
lost the said equipment because it acted contrary to or in excess of the authority granted to it by
Soriamont. As the Court of Appeals and the RTC found, however, Soriamont did not adduce any
evidence at all to prove said allegation.

Eurotech Industrial Technologies, Inc. v. Edwin Cuizon and Erwin Cuizon

G.R. No. 167552 April 23, 2007
Chico-Nazario, J.

FACTS:
Eurotech is engaged in the business of importation and distribution of various European industrial
equipment. It has as one of its customers Impact Systems Sales which is a sole proprietorship
owned by Erwin Cuizon.
Eurotech sold to Impact Systems various products allegedly amounting to P91,338.00. Cuizons
sought to buy from Eurotech 1 unit of sludge pump valued at P250,000.00 with Cuizons making a
down payment of P50,000.00. When the sludge pump arrived from the United Kingdom, Eurotech
refused to deliver the same to Cuizons without their having fully settled their indebtedness to
Eurotech. Thus, Edwin Cuizon and Alberto de Jesus, general manager of Eurotech, executed a
Deed of Assignment of receivables in favor of Eurotech.
Cuizons, despite the existence of the Deed of Assignment, proceeded to collect from Toledo Power
Company the amount of P365,135.29. Eurotech made several demands upon Cuizons to pay their
obligations. As a result, Cuizons were able to make partial payments to Eurotech. Cuizons total
obligations stood at P295,000.00 excluding interests and attorneys fees.