[ACQUIRED JURISDICTION; OVER THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDANT; BY ● As per the COMELEC’s rules, “If a campaign material is donated,

f a campaign material is donated, it must be

VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION] so stated on its face, acknowledged that nothing of that sort was written on
40 RODRIGUEZ V. ALIKPALA all the materials made by petitioner.”
December 19, 2006
 | CARPIO-MORALES, J. | ● There was no such acknowledgment found on the materials. The court held
that Mercado must pay the balance of P924,906 for the campaign materials.
Petitioner/s: JESUS M. GOZUN 2. W/N Lilian was authorized to borrow money from Gozun? — NO, Lilian had
Respondent/s: JOSE TEOFILO T. MERCADO a.k.a. ‘DON PEPITO MERCADO,’ no authority; Mercado is NOT liable for Lilian’s cash advances.
● “Generally, the agency may be oral, unless the law requires a specific form.
Facts: However, a special power of attorney is necessary for an agent to, as in this
● Mercado ran for the 1995 local elections for the position of Governor in case, borrow money, unless it be urgent and indispensable for the
Pampanga. 
 preservation of the things which are under administration. Since nothing in
● Gozun, Mercado’s friend and owner of a publishing and printing house, this case involves the preservation of things under administration, a
submitted draft samples and price quotations for the printing of campaign determination of whether Lilian had the special authority to borrow money on
materials to Mercado. Gozun was thereafter informed by Mercado’s wife, behalf of respondent is in order.” 

Annie, that Mercado approved the quotations. Thus, Gozun began printing ● It is a general rule in the law of agency that, in order to bind the principal by
the campaign materials. 
 a mortgage on real property executed by an agent, it must upon its face
● Due to the urgency and quantity of the order, Gozun availed the services of purport to be made, signed and sealed in the name of the principal,
2 other publishing houses owned by his mother and daughter. After the otherwise, it will bind the agent only. It is not enough merely that the agent
printing of materials, Gozun delivered it to Mercado’s headquarters in San was in fact authorized to make the mortgage, if he has not acted in the name
Fernando. 
 of the principal. 

● Meanwhile, early one morning, Mercado’s sister-in-law Lilian Soriano, ● There was no SPA between Mercado and Lilian. Although Gozun claims
obtained a cash advance of P253,000 from Gozun for the allowances of poll that Mercado himself authorized 
 the loan, the statement of account says
watchers and other election related expenses because allegedly, they were that it was in behalf of Annie. Thus, the alleged authority cannot be clearly
unable to go to the bank. Lilian said that she was borrowing money in behalf inferred. 

of Mercado’s wife as was indicated in the succeeding Statement of Account. ● It bears noting that Lilian signed in the receipt in her name alone, without
● Gozun submits that Mercado informed him that he had authorized indicating therein that she was acting for and in behalf of respondent or his
Lilian to obtain the loan. However, Lilian signed the receipt in her name wife. Thus, she bound herself in her personal capacity and not as an
alone. 
 agent of respondent or anyone for that matter. 

● Gozun then sent a Statement of Account to Mercado in the total amount of
P2,177,906, itemized as follows: Dispositive
○ For Gozun’s publishing house: P640,310 WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 8, 2004 and
○ 2 Other publishing houses: P1,284,596 the Resolution dated April 14, 2005 of the Court of Appeals are hereby REVERSED
○ Payment for Lilian’s cash advance “in behalf of Annie Mercado”: and SET ASIDE.
P253,000 
 The April 10, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 57, is
● Annie, Mercado’s wife, paid P1M to Gozun and was issued a receipt. 
 REINSTATED mutatis mutandis, in light of the foregoing discussions. The trial court’s
● Despite the repeated demands of Gozun however, Mercado failed to settle decision is modified in that the amount payable by respondent to petitioner is reduced
the remaining amount (^ out of the P2m) and 
 this subsequently led them to to P924,906.
file a case to recover the balance plus damages and costs. 
 SO ORDERED.
● Mercado claimed that:

○ The campaign materials that Gozun delivered were donations to his
campaign and that he did not authorize his wife 
 to enter into a
contract for the campaign materials.
○ Also, he stressed that he did not authorize Lilian to borrow money
from Gozun. 

○ He further claimed that the P1M paid by Annie to Gozun was for a
job well done as he would voluntarily help his 
 campaign and
would give his opinions on his campaign strategy. 


Ruling:
1. W/N Mercado is bound to pay for the campaign materials? — YES