Gan vs CA Facts: In the morning of 4 July 1972, the accused Hedy Gan was driving along North Bay

Boulevard, Tondo, Manila. There were two vehicles parked on one side of the road, one following the other. As the car driven by Gan approached the place where the two vehicles were parked, there was a vehicle coming from the opposite direction, followed by another which tried to overtake the one in front of it thereby encroaching the lane of the car driven by Gan. To avoid a head-on collision, Gan swerved to the right and as a consequence, hit an old man who was about to cross the street, pinning him against the rear of one of the parked vehicles. The force of the impact caused the parked vehicle to move forward hitting the other parked vehicle in front of it. The pedestrian was injured, Gan's car and the two parked vehicle suffered damages. The pedestrian was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. Gan was convicted of Homicide thru reckless imprudence. On appeal, CA modified the trial court's decision convicting Gan of Homicide thru simple imprudence. Issue: WON CA erred in convicting petitioner Gan for Homicide thru simple imprudence. Held: A corollary rule is what is known in the law as the emergency rule. "Under that rule, one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence." Viloria vs Continental Airlines, Inc. In 1997, while the spouses Viloria were in the United States, they approached Holiday Travel, a travel agency working for Continental Airlines, to purchase tickets from Newark to San Diego. The travel agent, Margaret Mager, advised the couple that they cannot travel by train because it is fully booked; that they must purchase plane tickets for Continental Airlines; that if they wont purchase plane tickets; theyll never reach their destination in time. The couple believed Magers representations and so they purchased two plane tickets worth $800.00. Later however, the spouses found out that the train trip isnt fully booked and so they purchased train tickets and went to their destination by train instead. Then they called up Mager to request for a refund for the plane tickets. Mager referred the couple to Continental Airlines. As the couple are now in the Philippines, they

filed their request with Continental Airlines office in Ayala. The spouses Viloria alleged that Mager misled them into believing that the only way to travel was by plane and so they were fooled into buying expensive tickets. Continental Airlines refused to refund the amount of the ticket and so the spouses sued the airline company. In its defense, Continental Airlines claimed that the ticket sold to them by Mager is non-refundable; that, if any, they are not bound by the misrepresentations of Mager because theres no agency existing between Continental Airlines and Mager. The trial court ruled in favor of spouses Viloria but the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the RTC. ISSUE: Whether or not a contract of agency exists between Continental Airlines and Mager. HELD: Yes. All the elements of agency are present, to wit: i. there is consent, express or implied of the parties to establish the relationship; ii. the object is the execution of a juridical act in relation to a third person; iii. the agent acts as a representative and not for himself, and iv. the agent acts within the scope of his authority. The first and second elements are present as Continental Airlines does not deny that it concluded an agreement with Holiday Travel to which Mager is part of, whereby Holiday Travel would enter into contracts of carriage with third persons on the airlines behalf. The third element is also present as it is undisputed that Holiday Travel merely acted in a representative capacity and it is Continental Airlines and not Holiday Travel who is bound by the contracts of carriage entered into by Holiday Travel on its behalf. The fourth element is also present considering that Continental Airlines has not made any allegation that Holiday Travel exceeded the authority that was granted to it. Continental Airlines also never questioned the validity of the transaction between Mager and the spouses. Continental Airlines is therefore in estoppels. Continental Airlines cannot be allowed to take an altogether different position and deny that Holiday Travel is its agent without condoning or giving imprimatur to whatever damage or prejudice that may result from such denial or retraction to Spouses Viloria, who relied on good faith on Continental Airlines acts in recognition of Holiday Travels authority. Estoppel is primarily based on the doctrine of good faith and the avoidance of harm that will befall an innocent party due to its injurious reliance, the failure to apply it in this case would result in gross travesty of justice.