Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

G.R. No.

149353             June 26, 2006

JOCELYN B. DOLES, Petitioner,
vs.
MA. AURA TINA ANGELES, Respondent.

DECISION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

FACTS

Jocelyn B. Doles (Doleges) alleged that she referred her friends to Aura T. Angeles
(Angeles), who lends money thru her capitalist Aresenio Pua (Pua). Dolores’ friends
issued personal checks in payment of the loan but said checks were bounced due to
insufficiency of funds. Angeles got furious and threatened Doles that a criminal case will
be filed against the latter if such loan would not be settled. This prompted Doles who
was forced to issue eight checks to answer for the bounced checks of the borrowers
she referred and caused her to execute an "Absolute Deed of Sale" over her property in
Bacoor, Cavite, to avoid criminal prosecution. RTC held that the sale was void for lack
of consideration but this was reversed by the CA.

ISSUE

Whether or not there was a contract of agency as to both parties and their principals.

RULING

Yes. The facts revealed that Doles acted as the agent to her friends in order to borrow
money from Angeles, of whom the latter acted as agent to her capitalist Pua. With this,
Angeles is estopped to deny that she herself acted as agent of a certain Arsenio Pua,
her disclosed principal. She is also estopped to deny that petitioner acted as agent for
the alleged debtors, the friends whom Doles referred.

In this case, it can be gleaned that the parties are not creditors and debtors of each
other. In the contract of agency, it is not material if respective principals do not meet, for
the purpose of agency is to extend personality thru the facility of agents. Under Article
1868 of the New Civil Code, the basis of agency is representation. The question of
whether an agency has been created is ordinarily a question which may be established
in the same way as any other fact, either by direct or circumstantial evidence. The
question is ultimately one of intention. Agency may even be implied from the words and
conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the particular case. Though the fact or
extent of authority of the agents may not, as a general rule, be established from the
declarations of the agents alone, if one professes to act as agent for another, she may
be estopped to deny her agency both as against the asserted principal and the third
persons interested in the transaction in which he or she is engaged.

In the case at bar, petitioner knew that the financier of respondent is Pua; and
respondent knew that the borrowers are friends of petitioner, hence agents are
estopped from denying the existence of agency if their actions prove otherwise.

 PRINCIPLE/S ENUNCIATED BY THE SUPREME COURT

1. The purpose of agency is to extend the personality of the principal through the
facility of the agent.

Article 1868 expressly provides that “By the contract of agency, a person binds
himself to render some service or to do some in representation or on behalf of
another, with the consent or authority of the latter.

2. If an act done by one person in behalf of another is in its essential nature one of
agency, the former is the agent of the latter notwithstanding he or she is not so
called.

This can be explained in Article 1870 that “Acceptance by the agent may also be
express or implied from his acts which carry out the agency, or from his silence
or inaction according to the circumstances.

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS/REALIZATIONS

My understanding of the existence of agency has been substantiated upon reading this
case in full text. I realized that, words and conduct of the agents may imply the
existence of agency. If one professes to be an agent of the other, he or she is estopped
from denying the same. The fact that one represents and is acting for another, and if
relations exist which will constitute an agency, it will be an agency whether the parties
understood the exact nature of the relation or not.

If their respective principals do not actually and personally know each other, such
ignorance does not affect their juridical standing as agents, especially since the very
purpose of agency is to extend the personality of the principal through the facility of the
agent.
G.R. No. 149353             June 26, 2006

JOCELYN B. DOLES, Petitioner,
vs.
MA. AURA TINA ANGELES, Respondent.

DECISION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

FACTS

Jocelyn B. Doles (Doleges) alleged that she referred her friends to Aura T. Angeles
(Angeles), who lends money thru her capitalist Aresenio Pua (Pua). Dolores’ friends
issued personal checks in payment of the loan but said checks were bounced due to
insufficiency of funds. Angeles got furious and threatened Doles that a criminal case will
be filed against the latter if such loan would not be settled. This prompted Doles who
was forced to issue eight checks to answer for the bounced checks of the borrowers
she referred and caused her to execute an "Absolute Deed of Sale" over her property in
Bacoor, Cavite, to avoid criminal prosecution. RTC held that the sale was void for lack
of consideration but this was reversed by the CA.

ISSUE

Whether or not there was a contract of agency as to both parties and their principals.

RULING

Yes. The facts revealed that Doles acted as the agent to her friends in order to borrow
money from Angeles, of whom the latter acted as agent to her capitalist Pua. With this,
Angeles is estopped to deny that she herself acted as agent of a certain Arsenio Pua,
her disclosed principal. She is also estopped to deny that petitioner acted as agent for
the alleged debtors, the friends whom Doles referred.

In this case, it can be gleaned that the parties are not creditors and debtors of each
other. In the contract of agency, it is not material if respective principals do not meet, for
the purpose of agency is to extend personality thru the facility of agents. Under Article
1868 of the New Civil Code, the basis of agency is representation. The question of
whether an agency has been created is ordinarily a question which may be established
in the same way as any other fact, either by direct or circumstantial evidence. The
question is ultimately one of intention. Agency may even be implied from the words and
conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the particular case. Though the fact or
extent of authority of the agents may not, as a general rule, be established from the
declarations of the agents alone, if one professes to act as agent for another, she may
be estopped to deny her agency both as against the asserted principal and the third
persons interested in the transaction in which he or she is engaged.

In the case at bar, petitioner knew that the financier of respondent is Pua; and
respondent knew that the borrowers are friends of petitioner, hence agents are
estopped from denying the existence of agency if their actions prove otherwise.

 PRINCIPLE/S ENUNCIATED BY THE SUPREME COURT

1. The purpose of agency is to extend the personality of the principal through the
facility of the agent.

Article 1868 expressly provides that “By the contract of agency, a person binds
himself to render some service or to do some in representation or on behalf of
another, with the consent or authority of the latter.

2. If an act done by one person in behalf of another is in its essential nature one of
agency, the former is the agent of the latter notwithstanding he or she is not so
called.

This can be explained in Article 1870 that “Acceptance by the agent may also be
express or implied from his acts which carry out the agency, or from his silence
or inaction according to the circumstances.

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS/REALIZATIONS

My understanding of the existence of agency has been substantiated upon reading this
case in full text. I realized that, words and conduct of the agents may imply the
existence of agency. If one professes to be an agent of the other, he or she is estopped
from denying the same. The fact that one represents and is acting for another, and if
relations exist which will constitute an agency, it will be an agency whether the parties
understood the exact nature of the relation or not.

If their respective principals do not actually and personally know each other, such
ignorance does not affect their juridical standing as agents, especially since the very
purpose of agency is to extend the personality of the principal through the facility of the
agent.