[G.R. No. 102784. February 28, 1996] ROSA LIM, petitioner, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. DECISION HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.: This is a petition to review the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 10290, entitled People v. Rosa Lim, promulgated on August 30, 1991. On January 26, 1989, an Information for Estafa was filed against petitioner Rosa Lim before Branch 92 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.[1] The Information reads: That on or about the 8th day of October 1987, in Quezon City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused with intent to gain, with unfaithfulness and/or abuse of confidence, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud one VICTORIA SUAREZ, in the following manner, to wit: on the date and place aforementioned said accused got and received in trust from said complainant one (1) ring 3.35 solo worth P169,000.00, Philippine Currency, with the obligation to sell the same on commission basis and to turn over the proceeds of the sale to said complainant or to return said jewelry if unsold, but the said accused once in possession thereof and far from complying with her obligation despite repeated demands therefor, misapplied, misappropriated and converted the same to her own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party in the amount aforementioned and in such other amount as may be awarded under the provisions of the Civil Code. CONTRARY TO LAW.[2] After arraignment and trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered: 1. Finding accused Rosa Lim GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of estafa as defined and penalized under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code; 2. Sentencing her to suffer the Indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional as minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor as maximum; 3. Ordering her to return to the offended party Mrs. Victoria Suarez the ring or its value in the amount of P169,000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and 4. To pay costs.[3]

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Judgment of conviction with the modification that the penalty imposed shall be six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty- one (21) days to twenty (20) years in accordance with Article 315, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.[4] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration before the appellate court on September 20, 1991, but the motion was denied in a Resolution dated November 11, 1991. In her final bid to exonerate herself, petitioner filed the instant petition for review alleging the following grounds: I THE RESPONDENT COURT VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION, THE RULES OF COURT AND THE DECISION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN NOT PASSING UPON THE FIRST AND THIRD ASSIGNED ERRORS IN PETITIONERS BRIEF; II THE RESPONDENT COURT FAILED TO APPLY THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE WAS WAIVED WHEN THE PRIVATE PROSECUTOR CROSS-EXAMINED THE PETITIONER AND AURELIA NADERA AND WHEN COMPLAINANT WAS CROSS-EXAMINED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER AS TO THE TRUE NATURE OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHEREIN IT WAS DISCLOSED THAT THE TRUE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES WAS A SALE OF JEWELRIES AND NOT WHAT WAS EMBODIED IN THE RECEIPT MARKED AS EXHIBIT A WHICH WAS RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENT COURT IN AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AGAINST HEREIN PETITIONER; and III THE RESPONDENT COURT FAILED TO APPLY IN THIS CASE THE PRINCIPLE ENUNCIATED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT TO THE EFFECT THAT ACCUSATION IS NOT, ACCORDING TO THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW, SYNONYMOUS WITH GUILT: THE PROSECUTION MUST OVERTHROW THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE WITH PROOF OF GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. TO MEET THIS STANDARD, THERE IS NEED FOR THE MOST CAREFUL SCRUTINY OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE STATE, BOTH ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY, INDEPENDENTLY OF WHATEVER DEFENSE IS OFFERED BY THE ACCUSED. ONLY IF THE JUDGE BELOW AND THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COULD ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED PRECISELY BY THE PERSON ON TRIAL UNDER SUCH AN EXACTING TEST SHOULD SENTENCE THUS REQUIRED THAT EVERY INNOCENCE BE DULY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THE PROOF AGAINST HIM MUST SURVIVE THE TEST OF REASON, THE STRONGEST SUSPICION MUST NOT BE PERMITTED TO SWAY JUDGMENT. (People v. Austria, 195 SCRA 700)[5] Herein the pertinent facts as alleged by the prosecution.

On or about October 8, 1987, petitioner Rosa Lim who had come from Cebu received from private respondent Victoria Suarez the following two pieces of jewelry: one (1) 3.35 carat diamond ring worth P169,000.00 and one (1) bracelet worth P170,000.00, to be sold on commission basis. The agreement was reflected in a receipt marked as Exhibit A[6] for the prosecution. The transaction took place at the Sir Williams Apartelle in Timog Avenue, Quezon City, where Rosa Lim was temporarily billeted. On December 15, 1987, petitioner returned the bracelet to Vicky Suarez, but failed to return the diamond ring or to turn over the proceeds thereof if sold. As a result, private complainant, aside from making verbal demands, wrote a demand letter[7] to petitioner asking for the return of said ring or the proceeds of the sale thereof. In response, petitioner, thru counsel, wrote a letter[8] to private respondents counsel alleging that Rosa Lim had returned both ring and bracelet to Vicky Suarez sometime in September, 1987, for which reason, petitioner had no longer any liability to Mrs. Suarez insofar as the pieces of jewelry were concerned. Irked, Vicky Suarez filed a complaint for estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code for which the petitioner herein stands convicted. Petitioner has a different version. Rosa Lim admitted in court that she arrived in Manila from Cebu sometime in October 1987, together with one Aurelia Nadera, who introduced petitioner to private respondent, and that they were lodged at the Williams Apartelle in Timog, Quezon City. Petitioner denied that the transaction was for her to sell the two pieces of jewelry on commission basis. She told Mrs. Suarez that she would consider buying the pieces of jewelry for her own use and that she would inform the private complainant of such decision before she goes back to Cebu. Thereafter, the petitioner took the pieces of jewelry and told Mrs. Suarez to prepare the necessary paper for me to sign because I was not yet prepare(d) to buy it.[9] After the document was prepared, petitioner signed it. To prove that she did not agree to the terms of the receipt regarding the sale on commission basis, petitioner insists that she signed the aforesaid document on the upper portion thereof and not at the bottom where a space is provided for the signature of the person(s) receiving the jewelry.[10] On October 12, 1987 before departing for Cebu, petitioner called up Mrs. Suarez by telephone in order to inform her that she was no longer interested in the ring and bracelet. Mrs. Suarez replied that she was busy at the time and so, she instructed the petitioner to give the pieces of jewelry to Aurelia Nadera who would in turn give them back to the private complainant. The petitioner did as she was told and gave the two pieces of jewelry to Nadera as evidenced by a handwritten receipt, dated October 12, 1987.[11] Two issues need to be resolved: First, what was the real transaction between Rosa Lim and Vicky Suarez - a contract of agency to sell on commission basis as set out in the receipt or a sale on credit; and, second, was the subject diamond ring returned to Mrs. Suarez through Aurelia Nadera?

Petitioner maintains that she cannot be liable for estafa since she never received the jewelries in trust or on commission basis from Vicky Suarez. The real agreement between her and the private respondent was a sale on credit with Mrs. Suarez as the ownerseller and petitioner as the buyer, as indicated by the fact that petitioner did not sign on the blank space provided for the signature of the person receiving the jewelry but at the upper portion thereof immediately below the description of the items taken.[12] The contention is far from meritorious.

I sign my name this . . . day of. . . 19 . . . at Manila, NILALAGDAAN ko ang kasunduang ito ngayong ika____ ng dito sa Maynila. Signature of Persons who received jewelries (Lagda ng Tumanggap ng mga Alahas) Address: . . . . . . . . . . .

Petitioner insists, however, that the diamond ring had been returned to Vicky Suarez through Aurelia Nadera, thus relieving her of any liability. Rosa Lim testified to this effect on direct examination by her counsel: Q: And when she left the jewelries with you, what did you do thereafter? A: On October 12, I was bound for Cebu. So I called up Vicky through telephone and informed her that I am no longer interested in the bracelet and ring and that 1 will just return it. Q: And what was the reply of Vicky Suarez?

The receipt marked as Exhibit A which establishes a contract of agency to sell on commission basis between Vicky Suarez and Rosa Lim is herein reproduced in order to come to a proper perspective: THIS IS TO CERTIFY, that I received from Vicky Suarez PINATUTUNAYAN KO na aking tinanggap kay _______________ the following jewelries: ang mga alahas na sumusunod: Description Mga Uri 1 ring 3.35 dolo 1 bracelet total Kabuuan Price Halaga P 169,000.00 170.000.00 P 339.000.00

Rosa Lims signature indeed appears on the upper portion of the receipt immediately below the description of the items taken. We find that this fact does not have the effect of altering the terms of the transaction from a contract of agency to sell on commission basis to a contract of sale. Neither does it indicate absence or vitiation of consent thereto on the part of Rosa Lim which would make the contract void or voidable. The moment she affixed her signature thereon, petitioner became bound by all the terms stipulated in the receipt. She, thus, opened herself to all the legal obligations that may arise from their breach. This is clear from Article 1356 of the New Civil Code which provides: Contracts shall be obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present. x x x. However, there are some provisions of the law which require certain formalities for particular contracts. The first is when the form is required for the validity of the contract; the second is when it is required to make the contract effective as against third parties such as those mentioned in Articles 1357 and 1358; and the third is when the form is required for the purpose of proving the existence of the contract, such as those provided in the Statute of Frauds in Article 1403.[13] A contract of agency to sell on commission basis does not belong to any of these three categories, hence it is valid and enforceable in whatever form it may be entered into. Furthermore, there is only one type of legal instrument where the law strictly prescribes the location of the signature of the parties thereto. This is in the case of notarial wills found in Article 805 of the Civil Code, to wit: Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself x x x. The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, except the last, on the left margin x x x. In the case before us, the parties did not execute a notarial will but a simple contract of agency to sell on commission basis, thus making the position of petitioners signature thereto immaterial.

A: She told me that she could not come to the apartelle since she was very busy. So, she asked me if Aurelia was there and when I informed her that Aurelia was there, she instructed me to give the pieces of jewelry to Aurelia who in turn will give it back to Vicky. Q: And you gave the two (2) pieces of jewelry to Aurelia Nadera? A: Yes, Your Honor.[14] This was supported by Aurelia Nadera in her direct examination by petitioners counsel: Q: Do you know if Rosa Lim in fact returned the jewelries ? A: She gave the jewelries to me. Q: Why did Rosa Lim give the jewelries to you? A: Rosa Lim called up Vicky Suarez the following morning and told Vicky Suarez that she was going home to Cebu and asked if she could give the jewelries to me. Q: And when did Rosa Lim give to you the jewelries? A: Before she left for Cebu.[15] On rebuttal, these testimonies were belied by Vicky Suarez herself: Q: It has been testified to here also by both Aurelia Nadera and Rosa Lim that you gave authorization to Rosa Lim to turn over the two (2) pieces of jewelries mentioned in Exhibit A to Aurelia Nadera, what can you say about that? A:. That is not true sir, because at that time Aurelia Nadera is highly indebted to me in the amount of P 140,000.00, so if I gave it to Nadera, I will be exposing myself to a high risk.[16] The issue as to the return of the ring boils down to one of credibility. Weight of evidence is not determined mathematically by the numerical superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact. It depends upon its practical effect in inducing belief on the part of the judge trying the case.[17] In the case at bench, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals gave weight to the testimony

in good condition, to be sold in CASH ONLY within . . .days from date of signing this receipt na nasa mabuting kalagayan upang ipagbili ng KALIWAAN (ALCONTADO) lamang sa loob ng. . . araw mula ng ating pagkalagdaan: if I could not sell, I shall return all the jewelry within the period mentioned above; if I would be able to sell, I shall immediately deliver and account the whole proceeds of sale thereof to the owner of the jewelries at his/her residence; my compensation or commission shall be the over-price on the value of each jewelry quoted above. I am prohibited to sell any jewelry on credit or by installment; deposit, give for safekeeping; lend, pledge or give as security or guaranty under any circumstance or manner, any jewelry to other person or persons. kung hindi ko maipagbili ay isasauli ko ang lahat ng alahas sa loob ng taning na panahong nakatala sa itaas; kung maipagbili ko naman ay dagli kong isusulit at ibibigay ang buong pinagbilhan sa may-ari ng mga alahas sa kanyang bahay tahanan; ang aking gantimpala ay ang mapapahigit na halaga sa nakatakdang halaga sa itaas ng bawat alahas HIND I ko ipinahihintulutang ipa-u-u-tang o ibibigay na hulugan ang alin mang alahas, ilalagak, ipagkakatiwala; ipahihiram; isasangla o ipananagot kahit sa anong paraan ang alin mang alahas sa ibang mga tao o tao.

of Vicky Suarez that she did not authorize Rosa Lim to return the pieces of jewelry to Nadera. The respondent court, in affirming the trial court, said: x x x This claim (that the ring had been returned to Suarez thru Nadera) is disconcerting. It contravenes the very terms of Exhibit A. The instruction by the complaining witness to appellant to deliver the ring to Aurelia Nadera is vehemently denied by the complaining witness, who declared that she did not authorize and/or instruct appellant to do so. And thus, by delivering the ring to Aurelia without the express authority and consent of the complaining witness, appellant assumed the right to dispose of the jewelry as if it were hers, thereby committing conversion, a clear breach of trust, punishable under Article 315, par. 1(b), Revised Penal Code. We shall not disturb this finding of the respondent court. It is well settled that we should not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in determining the credibility of witnesses, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted. The reason is that the trial court is in a better position to determine questions involving credibility having heard the witnesses and having observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[18] Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code provides: ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by: xxx xxx xxx

All the elements of estafa under Article 315, Paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, are present in the case at bench. First, the receipt marked as Exhibit A proves that petitioner Rosa Lim received the pieces of jewelry in trust from Vicky Suarez to be sold on commission basis. Second, petitioner misappropriated or converted the jewelry to her own use; and, third, such misappropriation obviously caused damage and prejudice to the private respondent. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Padilla (Chairman), Bellosillo, and Kapunan, JJ., concur. Vitug, J., In the results.

pump valued at P250,000.00 with respondents making a down payment of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00).4 When the sludge pump arrived from the United Kingdom, petitioner refused to deliver the same to respondents without their having fully settled their indebtedness to petitioner. Thus, on 28 June 1995, respondent EDWIN and Alberto de Jesus, general manager of petitioner, executed a Deed of Assignment of receivables in favor of petitioner, the pertinent part of which states: 1.) That ASSIGNOR5 has an outstanding receivables from Toledo Power Corporation in the amount of THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND (P365,000.00) PESOS as payment for the purchase of one unit of Selwood Spate 100D Sludge Pump; 2.) That said ASSIGNOR does hereby ASSIGN, TRANSFER, and CONVEY unto the ASSIGNEE6 the said receivables from Toledo Power Corporation in the amount of THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND (P365,000.00) PESOS which receivables the ASSIGNOR is the lawful recipient; 3.) That the ASSIGNEE does hereby accept this assignment.7 Following the execution of the Deed of Assignment, petitioner delivered to respondents the sludge pump as shown by Invoice No. 12034 dated 30 June 1995.8 Allegedly unbeknownst to petitioner, respondents, despite the existence of the Deed of Assignment, proceeded to collect from Toledo Power Company the amount of P365,135.29 as evidenced by Check Voucher No. 09339prepared by said power company and an official receipt dated 15 August 1995 issued by Impact Systems.10Alarmed by this development, petitioner made several demands upon respondents to pay their obligations. As a result, respondents were able to make partial payments to petitioner. On 7 October 1996, petitioners counsel sent respondents a final demand letter wherein it was stated that as of 11 June 1996, respondents total obligations stood at P295,000.00 excluding interests and attorneys fees.11 Because of respondents failure to abide by said final demand letter, petitioner instituted a complaint for sum of money, damages, with application for preliminary attachment against herein respondents before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City.12 On 8 January 1997, the trial court granted petitioners prayer for the issuance of writ of preliminary attachment.13 On 25 June 1997, respondent EDWIN filed his Answer14 wherein he admitted petitioners allegations with respect to the sale transactions entered into by Impact Systems and petitioner between January and April 1995.15 He, however, disputed the total amount of Impact Systems indebtedness to petitioner which, according to him, amounted to only P220,000.00.16 By way of special and affirmative defenses, respondent EDWIN alleged that he is not a real party in interest in this case. According to him, he was acting as mere agent of his principal, which was the Impact Systems, in his transaction with petitioner and the latter

G.R. No. 167552

April 23, 2007

EUROTECH INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Petitioner, vs. EDWIN CUIZON and ERWIN CUIZON, Respondents. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Before Us is a petition for review by certiorari assailing the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated 10 August 2004 and its Resolution2 dated 17 March 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 71397 entitled, "Eurotech Industrial Technologies, Inc. v. Hon. Antonio T. Echavez." The assailed Decision and Resolution affirmed the Order3 dated 29 January 2002 rendered by Judge Antonio T. Echavez ordering the dropping of respondent EDWIN Cuizon (EDWIN) as a party defendant in Civil Case No. CEB-19672. The generative facts of the case are as follows:

(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property. xxx xxx xxx

The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence under this subdivision are as follows: (1) That money, goods, or other personal property be received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2) That there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) That there is a demand made by the offended party to the offender (Note: The 4th element is not necessary when there is evidence of misappropriation of the goods by the defendant).[19]

Petitioner is engaged in the business of importation and distribution of various European industrial equipment for customers here in the Philippines. It has as one of its customers Impact Systems Sales ("Impact Systems") which is a sole proprietorship owned by respondent ERWIN Cuizon (ERWIN). Respondent EDWIN is the sales manager of Impact Systems and was impleaded in the court a quo in said capacity. From January to April 1995, petitioner sold to Impact Systems various products allegedly amounting to ninety-one thousand three hundred thirty-eight (P91,338.00) pesos. Subsequently, respondents sought to buy from petitioner one unit of sludge

was very much aware of this fact. In support of this argument, petitioner points to paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 of petitioners Complaint stating 1.2. Defendant Erwin H. Cuizon, is of legal age, married, a resident of Cebu City. He is the proprietor of a single proprietorship business known as Impact Systems Sales ("Impact Systems" for brevity), with office located at 46-A del Rosario Street, Cebu City, where he may be served summons and other processes of the Honorable Court. 1.3. Defendant Edwin B. Cuizon is of legal age, Filipino, married, a resident of Cebu City. He is the Sales Manager of Impact Systems and is sued in this action in such capacity.17 On 26 June 1998, petitioner filed a Motion to Declare Defendant ERWIN in Default with Motion for Summary Judgment. The trial court granted petitioners motion to declare respondent ERWIN in default "for his failure to answer within the prescribed period despite the opportunity granted"18 but it denied petitioners motion for summary judgment in its Order of 31 August 2001 and scheduled the pre-trial of the case on 16 October 2001.19However, the conduct of the pre-trial conference was deferred pending the resolution by the trial court of the special and affirmative defenses raised by respondent EDWIN.20 After the filing of respondent EDWINs Memorandum21 in support of his special and affirmative defenses and petitioners opposition22 thereto, the trial court rendered its assailed Order dated 29 January 2002 dropping respondent EDWIN as a party defendant in this case. According to the trial court A study of Annex "G" to the complaint shows that in the Deed of Assignment, defendant Edwin B. Cuizon acted in behalf of or represented [Impact] Systems Sales; that [Impact] Systems Sale is a single proprietorship entity and the complaint shows that defendant Erwin H. Cuizon is the proprietor; that plaintiff corporation is represented by its general manager Alberto de Jesus in the contract which is dated June 28, 1995. A study of Annex "H" to the complaint reveals that [Impact] Systems Sales which is owned solely by defendant Erwin H. Cuizon, made a down payment of P50,000.00 that Annex "H" is dated June 30, 1995 or two days after the execution of Annex "G", thereby showing that [Impact] Systems Sales ratified the act of Edwin B. Cuizon; the records further show that plaintiff knew that [Impact] Systems Sales, the principal, ratified the act of Edwin B. Cuizon, the agent, when it accepted the down payment of P50,000.00. Plaintiff, therefore, cannot say that it was deceived by defendant Edwin B. Cuizon, since in the instant case the principal has ratified the act of its agent and plaintiff knew about said ratification. Plaintiff could not say that the subject contract was entered into by Edwin B. Cuizon in excess of his powers since [Impact] Systems Sales made a down payment of P50,000.00 two days later. In view of the Foregoing, the Court directs that defendant Edwin B. Cuizon be dropped as party defendant.23

Aggrieved by the adverse ruling of the trial court, petitioner brought the matter to the Court of Appeals which, however, affirmed the 29 January 2002 Order of the court a quo. The dispositive portion of the now assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals states: WHEREFORE, finding no viable legal ground to reverse or modify the conclusions reached by the public respondent in his Order dated January 29, 2002, it is hereby AFFIRMED.24 Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied by the appellate court in its Resolution promulgated on 17 March 2005. Hence, the present petition raising, as sole ground for its allowance, the following: THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT RESPONDENT EDWIN CUIZON, AS AGENT OF IMPACT SYSTEMS SALES/ERWIN CUIZON, IS NOT PERSONALLY LIABLE, BECAUSE HE HAS NEITHER ACTED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF HIS AGENCY NOR DID HE PARTICIPATE IN THE PERPETUATION OF A FRAUD.25 To support its argument, petitioner points to Article 1897 of the New Civil Code which states: 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. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals failed to appreciate the effect of ERWINs act of collecting the receivables from the Toledo Power Corporation notwithstanding the existence of the Deed of Assignment signed by EDWIN on behalf of Impact Systems. While said collection did not revoke the agency relations of respondents, petitioner insists that ERWINs action repudiated EDWINs power to sign the Deed of Assignment. As EDWIN did not sufficiently notify it of the extent of his powers as an agent, petitioner claims that he should be made personally liable for the obligations of his principal.26 Petitioner also contends that it fell victim to the fraudulent scheme of respondents who induced it into selling the one unit of sludge pump to Impact Systems and signing the Deed of Assignment. Petitioner directs the attention of this Court to the fact that respondents are bound not only by their principal and agent relationship but are in fact full-blooded brothers whose successive contravening acts bore the obvious signs of conspiracy to defraud petitioner.27 In his Comment,28 respondent EDWIN again posits the argument that he is not a real party in interest in this case and it was proper for the trial court to have him dropped as a defendant. He 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 petitioner 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,

respondent EDWIN points to the Deed of Assignment which clearly states that he was acting as a representative of Impact Systems in said transaction. We do not find merit in the petition. 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.29 The underlying principle of the contract of agency is to accomplish results by using the services of others to do a great variety of things like selling, buying, manufacturing, and transporting.30 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.31 It is said that 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.32 By this legal fiction, the actual or real absence of the principal is converted into his legal or juridical presence qui facit per alium facit per se.33 The elements of the contract of agency are: (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.34 In this case, the parties do not dispute the existence of the agency relationship between respondents ERWIN as principal and EDWIN as agent. The only cause of the present dispute is whether respondent EDWIN exceeded his authority when he signed the Deed of Assignment thereby binding himself personally to pay the obligations to petitioner. Petitioner firmly believes that respondent EDWIN acted beyond the authority granted by his principal and he should therefore bear the effect of his deed pursuant to Article 1897 of the New Civil Code. We disagree. Article 1897 reinforces the familiar doctrine that an agent, who acts as such, is not personally liable to the party with whom he contracts. The same provision, however, presents two 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. We hold that respondent EDWIN does not fall within any of the exceptions contained in this provision. The Deed of Assignment clearly states that respondent EDWIN signed thereon as the sales manager of Impact Systems. As discussed elsewhere, the position of manager is unique in that it presupposes the grant of broad powers with which to conduct the business of the principal, thus:

The powers of an agent are particularly broad in the case of one acting as a general agent or manager; such a position presupposes a degree of confidence reposed and investiture with liberal powers for the exercise of judgment and discretion in transactions and concerns which are incidental or appurtenant to the business entrusted to his care and management. 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. x x x.35 Applying the foregoing to the present case, we hold that Edwin Cuizon acted well-within his authority when he signed the Deed of Assignment. To recall, petitioner refused to deliver the one unit of sludge pump unless it received, in full, the payment for Impact Systems indebtedness.36 We may very well assume that Impact Systems desperately needed the sludge pump for its business since after it paid the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as down payment on 3 March 1995,37 it still persisted in negotiating with petitioner which culminated in the execution of the Deed of Assignment of its receivables from Toledo Power Company on 28 June 1995.38The 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. There is, therefore, no doubt in our mind that respondent EDWINs participation in the Deed of Assignment was "reasonably necessary" or was required in order for him to protect the business of his principal. Had he not acted in the way he did, the business of his principal would have been adversely affected and he would have violated his fiduciary relation with his principal. We likewise take note of the fact that in this case, petitioner is seeking to recover both from respondents ERWIN, the principal, and EDWIN, the agent. It is well to state here that Article 1897 of the New Civil Code upon which petitioner anchors its claim against respondent EDWIN "does not hold that in case of excess of authority, both the agent and the principal are liable to the other contracting party."39 To reiterate, the first part of Article 1897 declares that the principal is liable in cases when the agent acted within the bounds of his authority. Under this, the agent is completely absolved of any liability. The second part of the said provision presents the situations when the agent himself becomes liable to a third party when he expressly binds himself or he exceeds the limits of his authority without giving notice of his powers to the third person. However, it must be pointed out that in case of excess of authority by the agent, like what petitioner claims exists here, the law does not say that a third person can recover from both the principal and the agent.40 As we declare that respondent EDWIN acted within his authority as an agent, who did not acquire any right nor incur any liability arising from the Deed of Assignment, it follows that he is not a real party in interest who should be impleaded in this case. A real party in interest is one who "stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit."41 In this respect, we sustain his exclusion as a defendant in the suit before the court a quo.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is DENIED and the Decision dated 10 August 2004 and Resolution dated 17 March 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 71397, affirming the Order dated 29 January 2002 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Cebu City, is AFFIRMED. Let the records of this case be remanded to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Cebu City, for the continuation of the proceedings against respondent Erwin Cuizon. SO ORDERED.

Marquez thereafter offered the parcels of land and the improvements thereon to Eduardo B. Litonjua, Jr. of the Litonjua & Company, Inc. In a Letter dated September 12, 1986, Marquez declared that he was authorized to sell the properties for P27,000,000.00 and that the terms of the sale were subject to negotiation.4 Eduardo Litonjua, Jr. responded to the offer. Marquez showed the property to Eduardo Litonjua, Jr., and his brother Antonio K. Litonjua. The Litonjua siblings offered to buy the property for P20,000,000.00 cash. Marquez apprised Glanville of the Litonjua siblings offer and relayed the same to Delsaux in Belgium, but the latter did not respond. On October 28, 1986, Glanville telexed Delsaux in Belgium, inquiring on his position/ counterproposal to the offer of the Litonjua siblings. It was only on February 12, 1987 that Delsaux sent a telex to Glanville stating that, based on the "Belgian/Swiss decision," the final offer was "US$1,000,000.00 and P2,500,000.00 to cover all existing obligations prior to final liquidation."5 Marquez furnished Eduardo Litonjua, Jr. with a copy of the telex sent by Delsaux. Litonjua, Jr. accepted the counterproposal of Delsaux. Marquez conferred with Glanville, and in a Letter dated February 26, 1987, confirmed that the Litonjua siblings had accepted the counter-proposal of Delsaux. He also stated that the Litonjua siblings would confirm full payment within 90 days after execution and preparation of all documents of sale, together with the necessary governmental clearances.6 The Litonjua brothers deposited the amount of US$1,000,000.00 with the Security Bank & Trust Company, Ermita Branch, and drafted an Escrow Agreement to expedite the sale.7 Sometime later, Marquez and the Litonjua brothers inquired from Glanville when the sale would be implemented. In a telex dated April 22, 1987, Glanville informed Delsaux that he had met with the buyer, which had given him the impression that "he is prepared to press for a satisfactory conclusion to the sale."8 He also emphasized to Delsaux that the buyers were concerned because they would incur expenses in bank commitment fees as a consequence of prolonged period of inaction.9 Meanwhile, with the assumption of Corazon C. Aquino as President of the Republic of the Philippines, the political situation in the Philippines had improved. Marquez received a telephone call from Glanville, advising that the sale would no longer proceed. Glanville followed it up with a Letter dated May 7, 1987, confirming that he had been instructed by his principal to inform Marquez that "the decision has been taken at a Board Meeting not to sell the properties on which Eternit Corporation is situated."10 Delsaux himself later sent a letter dated May 22, 1987, confirming that the ESAC Regional Office had decided not to proceed with the sale of the subject land, to wit: May 22, 1987

G.R. No. 144805 June 8, 2006 EDUARDO V. LINTONJUA, JR. and ANTONIO K. LITONJUA, Petitioners, vs. ETERNIT CORPORATION (now ETERTON MULTI-RESOURCES CORPORATION), ETEROUTREMER, S.A. and FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Respondents. DECISION CALLEJO, SR., J.: On appeal via a Petition for Review on Certiorari is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 51022, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, Branch 165, in Civil Case No. 54887, as well as the Resolution2 of the CA denying the motion for reconsideration thereof. The Eternit Corporation (EC) is a corporation duly organized and registered under Philippine laws. Since 1950, it had been engaged in the manufacture of roofing materials and pipe products. Its manufacturing operations were conducted on eight parcels of land with a total area of 47,233 square meters. The properties, located in Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila, were covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 451117, 451118, 451119, 451120, 451121, 451122, 451124 and 451125 under the name of Far East Bank & Trust Company, as trustee. Ninety (90%) percent of the shares of stocks of EC were owned by Eteroutremer S.A. Corporation (ESAC), a corporation organized and registered under the laws of Belgium.3 Jack Glanville, an Australian citizen, was the General Manager and President of EC, while Claude Frederick Delsaux was the Regional Director for Asia of ESAC. Both had their offices in Belgium. In 1986, the management of ESAC grew concerned about the political situation in the Philippines and wanted to stop its operations in the country. The Committee for Asia of ESAC instructed Michael Adams, a member of ECs Board of Directors, to dispose of the eight parcels of land. Adams engaged the services of realtor/broker Lauro G. Marquez so that the properties could be offered for sale to prospective buyers. Glanville later showed the properties to Marquez.

Mr. L.G. Marquez L.G. Marquez, Inc. 334 Makati Stock Exchange Bldg. 6767 Ayala Avenue Makati, Metro Manila Philippines Dear Sir: Re: Land of Eternit Corporation I would like to confirm officially that our Group has decided not to proceed with the sale of the land which was proposed to you. The Committee for Asia of our Group met recently (meeting every six months) and examined the position as far as the Philippines are (sic) concerned. Considering [the] new political situation since the departure of MR. MARCOS and a certain stabilization in the Philippines, the Committee has decided not to stop our operations in Manila. In fact, production has started again last week, and (sic) to recognize the participation in the Corporation. We regret that we could not make a deal with you this time, but in case the policy would change at a later state, we would consult you again. xxx Yours sincerely, (Sgd.) C.F. DELSAUX cc. To: J. GLANVILLE (Eternit Corp.)11 When apprised of this development, the Litonjuas, through counsel, wrote EC, demanding payment for damages they had suffered on account of the aborted sale. EC, however, rejected their demand. The Litonjuas then filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against EC (now the Eterton Multi-Resources Corporation) and the Far East Bank & Trust Company, and ESAC in the RTC of Pasig City. An amended complaint was filed, in which defendant EC was substituted by Eterton Multi-Resources Corporation; Benito C. Tan, Ruperto V. Tan, Stock Ha T. Tan and Deogracias G. Eufemio were impleaded as additional defendants on account of their purchase of ESAC shares of stocks and were the controlling stockholders of EC. In their answer to the complaint, EC and ESAC alleged that since Eteroutremer was not doing business in the Philippines, it cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine courts; the Board and stockholders of EC never approved any resolution to sell subject properties nor authorized Marquez to sell the same; and the telex dated October 28, 1986 of Jack Glanville was his own personal making which did not bind EC.

On July 3, 1995, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed the amended complaint.12The fallo of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, the complaint against Eternit Corporation now Eterton Multi-Resources Corporation and Eteroutremer, S.A. is dismissed on the ground that there is no valid and binding sale between the plaintiffs and said defendants. The complaint as against Far East Bank and Trust Company is likewise dismissed for lack of cause of action. The counterclaim of Eternit Corporation now Eterton MultiResources Corporation and Eteroutremer, S.A. is also dismissed for lack of merit.13 The trial court declared that since the authority of the agents/realtors was not in writing, the sale is void and not merely unenforceable, and as such, could not have been ratified by the principal. In any event, such ratification cannot be given any retroactive effect. Plaintiffs could not assume that defendants had agreed to sell the property without a clear authorization from the corporation concerned, that is, through resolutions of the Board of Directors and stockholders. The trial court also pointed out that the supposed sale involves substantially all the assets of defendant EC which would result in the eventual total cessation of its operation.14 The Litonjuas appealed the decision to the CA, alleging that "(1) the lower court erred in concluding that the real estate broker in the instant case needed a written authority from appellee corporation and/or that said broker had no such written authority; and (2) the lower court committed grave error of law in holding that appellee corporation is not legally bound for specific performance and/or damages in the absence of an enabling resolution of the board of directors."15 They averred that Marquez acted merely as a broker or go-between and not as agent of the corporation; hence, it was not necessary for him to be empowered as such by any written authority. They further claimed that an agency by estoppel was created when the corporation clothed Marquez with apparent authority to negotiate for the sale of the properties. However, since it was a bilateral contract to buy and sell, it was equivalent to a perfected contract of sale, which the corporation was obliged to consummate. In reply, EC alleged that Marquez had no written authority from the Board of Directors to bind it; neither were Glanville and Delsaux authorized by its board of directors to offer the property for sale. Since the sale involved substantially all of the corporations assets, it would necessarily need the authority from the stockholders. On June 16, 2000, the CA rendered judgment affirming the decision of the RTC. 16 The Litonjuas filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied by the appellate court.

The CA ruled that Marquez, who was a real estate broker, was a special agent within the purview of Article 1874 of the New Civil Code. Under Section 23 of the Corporation Code, he needed a special authority from ECs board of directors to bind such corporation to the sale of its properties. Delsaux, who was merely the representative of ESAC (the majority stockholder of EC) had no authority to bind the latter. The CA pointed out that Delsaux was not even a member of the board of directors of EC. Moreover, the Litonjuas failed to prove that an agency by estoppel had been created between the parties. In the instant petition for review, petitioners aver that I THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO PERFECTED CONTRACT OF SALE. II THE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR OF LAW IN HOLDING THAT MARQUEZ NEEDED A WRITTEN AUTHORITY FROM RESPONDENT ETERNIT BEFORE THE SALE CAN BE PERFECTED. III THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT GLANVILLE AND DELSAUX HAVE THE NECESSARY AUTHORITY TO SELL THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES, OR AT THE VERY LEAST, WERE KNOWINGLY PERMITTED BY RESPONDENT ETERNIT TO DO ACTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF AN APPARENT AUTHORITY, AND THUS HELD THEM OUT TO THE PUBLIC AS POSSESSING POWER TO SELL THE SAID PROPERTIES.17 Petitioners maintain that, based on the facts of the case, there was a perfected contract of sale of the parcels of land and the improvements thereon for "US$1,000,000.00 plus P2,500,000.00 to cover obligations prior to final liquidation." Petitioners insist that they had accepted the counter-offer of respondent EC and that before the counter-offer was withdrawn by respondents, the acceptance was made known to them through real estate broker Marquez. Petitioners assert that there was no need for a written authority from the Board of Directors of EC for Marquez to validly act as broker/middleman/intermediary. As broker, Marquez was not an ordinary agent because his authority was of a special and limited character in most respects. His only job as a broker was to look for a buyer and to bring together the parties to the transaction. He was not authorized to sell the properties or to make a binding contract to respondent EC; hence, petitioners argue, Article 1874 of the New Civil Code does not apply. In any event, petitioners aver, what is important and decisive was that Marquez was able to communicate both the offer and counter-offer and their acceptance of respondent ECs counteroffer, resulting in a perfected contract of sale.

Petitioners posit that the testimonial and documentary evidence on record amply shows that Glanville, who was the President and General Manager of respondent EC, and Delsaux, who was the Managing Director for ESAC Asia, had the necessary authority to sell the subject property or, at least, had been allowed by respondent EC to hold themselves out in the public as having the power to sell the subject properties. Petitioners identified such evidence, thus: 1. The testimony of Marquez that he was chosen by Glanville as the then President and General Manager of Eternit, to sell the properties of said corporation to any interested party, which authority, as hereinabove discussed, need not be in writing. 2. The fact that the NEGOTIATIONS for the sale of the subject properties spanned SEVERAL MONTHS, from 1986 to 1987; 3. The COUNTER-OFFER made by Eternit through GLANVILLE to sell its properties to the Petitioners; 4. The GOOD FAITH of Petitioners in believing Eternits offer to sell the properties as evidenced by the Petitioners ACCEPTANCE of the counter-offer; 5. The fact that Petitioners DEPOSITED the price of [US]$1,000,000.00 with the Security Bank and that an ESCROW agreement was drafted over the subject properties; 6. Glanvilles telex to Delsaux inquiring "WHEN WE (Respondents) WILL IMPLEMENT ACTION TO BUY AND SELL"; 7. More importantly, Exhibits "G" and "H" of the Respondents, which evidenced the fact that Petitioners offer was allegedly REJECTED by both Glanville and Delsaux.18 Petitioners insist that it is incongruous for Glanville and Delsaux to make a counter-offer to petitioners offer and thereafter reject such offer unless they were authorized to do so by respondent EC. Petitioners insist that Delsaux confirmed his authority to sell the properties in his letter to Marquez, to wit: Dear Sir, Re: Land of Eternit Corporation I would like to confirm officially that our Group has decided not to proceed with the sale of the land which was proposed to you. The Committee for Asia of our Group met recently (meeting every six months) and examined the position as far as the Philippines are (sic) concerned. Considering the new political situation since the departure of MR. MARCOS and a certain stabilization in the Philippines, the Committee has decided not to stop our operations in Manila[.] [I]n fact production started again last week, and (sic) to reorganize the participation in the Corporation.

We regret that we could not make a deal with you this time, but in case the policy would change at a later stage we would consult you again. In the meantime, I remain Yours sincerely, C.F. DELSAUX19 Petitioners further emphasize that they acted in good faith when Glanville and Delsaux were knowingly permitted by respondent EC to sell the properties within the scope of an apparent authority. Petitioners insist that respondents held themselves to the public as possessing power to sell the subject properties. By way of comment, respondents aver that the issues raised by the petitioners are factual, hence, are proscribed by Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. On the merits of the petition, respondents EC (now EMC) and ESAC reiterate their submissions in the CA. They maintain that Glanville, Delsaux and Marquez had no authority from the stockholders of respondent EC and its Board of Directors to offer the properties for sale to the petitioners, or to any other person or entity for that matter. They assert that the decision and resolution of the CA are in accord with law and the evidence on record, and should be affirmed in toto. Petitioners aver in their subsequent pleadings that respondent EC, through Glanville and Delsaux, conformed to the written authority of Marquez to sell the properties. The authority of Glanville and Delsaux to bind respondent EC is evidenced by the fact that Glanville and Delsaux negotiated for the sale of 90% of stocks of respondent EC to Ruperto Tan on June 1, 1997. Given the significance of their positions and their duties in respondent EC at the time of the transaction, and the fact that respondent ESAC owns 90% of the shares of stock of respondent EC, a formal resolution of the Board of Directors would be a mere ceremonial formality. What is important, petitioners maintain, is that Marquez was able to communicate the offer of respondent EC and the petitioners acceptance thereof. There was no time that they acted without the knowledge of respondents. In fact, respondent EC never repudiated the acts of Glanville, Marquez and Delsaux. The petition has no merit. Anent the first issue, we agree with the contention of respondents that the issues raised by petitioner in this case are factual. Whether or not Marquez, Glanville, and Delsaux were authorized by respondent EC to act as its agents relative to the sale of the properties of respondent EC, and if so, the boundaries of their authority as agents, is a question of fact. In the absence of express written terms creating the relationship of an agency, the existence of an agency is a fact question.20 Whether an agency by estoppel was created or whether a person acted within the bounds of his apparent authority, and whether the principal is estopped to deny the apparent authority of its agent are, likewise, questions of fact to be resolved on the basis of the evidence on record.21 The

findings of the trial court on such issues, as affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on the Court, absent evidence that the trial and appellate courts ignored, misconstrued, or misapplied facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.22 It must be stressed that issues of facts may not be raised in the Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court because the Court is not a trier of facts. It is not to re-examine and assess the evidence on record, whether testimonial and documentary. There are, however, recognized exceptions where the Court may delve into and resolve factual issues, namely: (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.23 We have reviewed the records thoroughly and find that the petitioners failed to establish that the instant case falls under any of the foregoing exceptions. Indeed, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is supported by the evidence on record and the law. It was the duty of the petitioners to prove that respondent EC had decided to sell its properties and that it had empowered Adams, Glanville and Delsaux or Marquez to offer the properties for sale to prospective buyers and to accept any counter-offer. Petitioners likewise failed to prove that their counter-offer had been accepted by respondent EC, through Glanville and Delsaux. It must be stressed that when specific performance is sought of a contract made with an agent, the agency must be established by clear, certain and specific proof.24 Section 23 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 68, otherwise known as the Corporation Code of the Philippines, provides: SEC. 23. The Board of Directors or Trustees. Unless otherwise provided in this Code, the corporate powers of all corporations formed under this Code shall be exercised, all business conducted and all property of such corporations controlled and held by the board of directors or trustees to be elected from among the holders of stocks, or where there is no stock, from among the members of the corporation, who shall hold office for one (1) year and until their successors are elected and qualified.

Indeed, a corporation is a juridical person separate and distinct from its members or stockholders and is not affected by the personal rights, obligations and transactions of the latter.25 It may act only through its board of directors or, when authorized either by its by-laws or by its board resolution, through its officers or agents in the normal course of business. The general principles of agency govern the relation between the corporation and its officers or agents, subject to the articles of incorporation, by-laws, or relevant provisions of law.26 Under Section 36 of the Corporation Code, a corporation may sell or convey its real properties, subject to the limitations prescribed by law and the Constitution, as follows: SEC. 36. Corporate powers and capacity. Every corporation incorporated under this Code has the power and capacity: xxxx 7. To purchase, receive, take or grant, hold, convey, sell, lease, pledge, mortgage and otherwise deal with such real and personal property, including securities and bonds of other corporations, as the transaction of a lawful business of the corporation may reasonably and necessarily require, subject to the limitations prescribed by the law and the Constitution. The property of a corporation, however, is not the property of the stockholders or members, and as such, may not be sold without express authority from the board of directors.27 Physical acts, like the offering of the properties of the corporation for sale, or the acceptance of a counter-offer of prospective buyers of such properties and the execution of the deed of sale covering such property, can be performed by the corporation only by officers or agents duly authorized for the purpose by corporate by-laws or by specific acts of the board of directors.28 Absent such valid delegation/authorization, the rule is that the declarations of an individual director relating to the affairs of the corporation, but not in the course of, or connected with, the performance of authorized duties of such director, are not binding on the corporation.29 While a corporation may appoint agents to negotiate for the sale of its real properties, the final say will have to be with the board of directors through its officers and agents as authorized by a board resolution or by its by-laws.30An unauthorized act of an officer of the corporation is not binding on it unless the latter ratifies the same expressly or impliedly by its board of directors. Any sale of real property of a corporation by a person purporting to be an agent thereof but without written authority from the corporation is null and void. The declarations of the agent alone are generally insufficient to establish the fact or extent of his/her authority.31 By the contract of agency, a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter.32 Consent of both principal and agent is necessary to create an agency. The principal

must intend that the agent shall act for him; the agent must intend to accept the authority and act on it, and the intention of the parties must find expression either in words or conduct between them.33 An agency may be expressed or implied from the act of the principal, from his silence or lack of action, or his failure to repudiate the agency knowing that another person is acting on his behalf without authority. Acceptance by the agent may be expressed, or implied from his acts which carry out the agency, or from his silence or inaction according to the circumstances.34 Agency may be oral unless the law requires a specific form.35 However, to create or convey real rights over immovable property, a special power of attorney is necessary.36 Thus, when a sale of a piece of land or any portion thereof is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in writing, otherwise, the sale shall be void.37 In this case, the petitioners as plaintiffs below, failed to adduce in evidence any resolution of the Board of Directors of respondent EC empowering Marquez, Glanville or Delsaux as its agents, to sell, let alone offer for sale, for and in its behalf, the eight parcels of land owned by respondent EC including the improvements thereon. The bare fact that Delsaux may have been authorized to sell to Ruperto Tan the shares of stock of respondent ESAC, on June 1, 1997, cannot be used as basis for petitioners claim that he had likewise been authorized by respondent EC to sell the parcels of land. Moreover, the evidence of petitioners shows that Adams and Glanville acted on the authority of Delsaux, who, in turn, acted on the authority of respondent ESAC, through its Committee for Asia,38 the Board of Directors of respondent ESAC,39 and the Belgian/Swiss component of the management of respondent ESAC.40 As such, Adams and Glanville engaged the services of Marquez to offer to sell the properties to prospective buyers. Thus, on September 12, 1986, Marquez wrote the petitioner that he was authorized to offer for sale the property forP27,000,000.00 and the other terms of the sale subject to negotiations. When petitioners offered to purchase the property for P20,000,000.00, through Marquez, the latter relayed petitioners offer to Glanville; Glanville had to send a telex to Delsaux to inquire the position of respondent ESAC to petitioners offer. However, as admitted by petitioners in their Memorandum, Delsaux was unable to reply immediately to the telex of Glanville because Delsaux had to wait for confirmation from respondent ESAC.41 When Delsaux finally responded to Glanville on February 12, 1987, he made it clear that, based on the "Belgian/Swiss decision" the final offer of respondent ESAC was US$1,000,000.00 plus P2,500,000.00 to cover all existing obligations prior to final liquidation.42 The offer of Delsaux emanated only from the "Belgian/Swiss decision," and not the entire management or Board of Directors of respondent ESAC. While it is true that petitioners accepted the counter-offer of respondent ESAC, respondent EC was not a party to the transaction between them; hence, EC was not bound by such acceptance.

While Glanville was the President and General Manager of respondent EC, and Adams and Delsaux were members of its Board of Directors, the three acted for and in behalf of respondent ESAC, and not as duly authorized agents of respondent EC; a board resolution evincing the grant of such authority is needed to bind EC to any agreement regarding the sale of the subject properties. Such board resolution is not a mere formality but is a condition sine qua non to bind respondent EC. Admittedly, respondent ESAC owned 90% of the shares of stocks of respondent EC; however, the mere fact that a corporation owns a majority of the shares of stocks of another, or even all of such shares of stocks, taken alone, will not justify their being treated as one corporation.43 It bears stressing that in an agent-principal relationship, the personality of the principal is extended through the facility of the agent. In so doing, the agent, by legal fiction, becomes the principal, authorized to perform all acts which the latter would have him do. Such a relationship can only be effected with the consent of the principal, which must not, in any way, be compelled by law or by any court.44 The petitioners cannot feign ignorance of the absence of any regular and valid authority of respondent EC empowering Adams, Glanville or Delsaux to offer the properties for sale and to sell the said properties to the petitioners. A person dealing with a known agent is not authorized, under any circumstances, blindly to trust the agents; statements as to the extent of his powers; such person must not act negligently but must use reasonable diligence and prudence to ascertain whether the agent acts within the scope of his authority.45 The settled rule is that, persons dealing with an assumed agent are bound at their peril, and if they would hold the principal liable, to 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.46 In this case, the petitioners failed to discharge their burden; hence, petitioners are not entitled to damages from respondent EC. It appears that Marquez acted not only as real estate broker for the petitioners but also as their agent. As gleaned from the letter of Marquez to Glanville, on February 26, 1987, he confirmed, for and in behalf of the petitioners, that the latter had accepted such offer to sell the land and the improvements thereon. However, we agree with the ruling of the appellate court that Marquez had no authority to bind respondent EC to sell the subject properties. A real estate broker is one who negotiates the sale of real properties. His business, generally speaking, is only to find a purchaser who is willing to buy the land upon terms fixed by the owner. He has no authority to bind the principal by signing a contract of sale. Indeed, an authority to find a purchaser of real property does not include an authority to sell.47 Equally barren of merit is petitioners contention that respondent EC is estopped to deny the existence of a principal-agency relationship between it and Glanville or Delsaux. For an agency by estoppel to exist, the following must be established: (1) the principal manifested a representation of the agents authority or knowlingly allowed the agent to assume such authority; (2) the

third person, in good faith, relied upon such representation; (3) relying upon such representation, such third person has changed his position to his detriment.48 An agency by estoppel, which is similar to the doctrine of apparent authority, requires proof of reliance upon the representations, and that, in turn, needs proof that the representations predated the action taken in reliance.49 Such proof is lacking in this case. In their communications to the petitioners, Glanville and Delsaux positively and unequivocally declared that they were acting for and in behalf of respondent ESAC. Neither may respondent EC be deemed to have ratified the transactions between the petitioners and respondent ESAC, through Glanville, Delsaux and Marquez. The transactions and the various communications inter se were never submitted to the Board of Directors of respondent EC for ratification. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners. SO ORDERED.

Private respondent, through Mrs. Sanchez of Lines & Spaces, paid in advance the amount of P592,900.00 through Solidbank Managers Check No. 0011565 payable to Amon Trading Corporation, and the amount ofP588,000.00 payable to Juliana Marketing, through Solidbank Managers Check No. 0011566. A certain Weng Chua signed the check vouchers for Lines & Spaces while Mrs. Sanchez issued receipts for the two managers checks. Private respondent likewise paid to Lines & Spaces an advance fee for the 12,050 cement bags at the rate of P7.00/bag, or a total of P84,350.00, in consideration of the facilitation of the orders and certainty of delivery of the same to the private respondent. Solidbank Managers Check Nos. 0011565 and 0011566 were paid by Sanchez to petitioners. There were deliveries to private respondent from Amon Trading Corporation and Juliana Marketing of 3,850 bags and 3,000 bags, respectively, during the period from April to June 1992. However, the balance of 2,200 bags from Amon Trading Corporation and 3,000 bags from Juliana Marketing, or a total of 5,200 bags, was not delivered. Private respondent, thus, sent petitioners written demands but in reply, petitioners stated that they have already refunded the amount of undelivered bags of cement to Lines and Spaces per written instructions of Eleanor Sanchez. Left high and dry, with news reaching it that Eleanor Sanchez had already fled abroad, private respondent filed this case for sum of money against petitioners and Lines & Spaces. Petitioners plead in defense lack of right or cause of action, alleging that private respondent had no privity of contract with them as it was Lines & Spaces/Tri-Realty, through Mrs. Sanchez, that ordered or purchased several bags of cement and paid the price thereof without informing them of any special arrangement nor disclosing to them that Lines & Spaces and respondent corporation are distinct and separate entities. They added that there were purchases or orders made by Lines & Spaces/Tri-Realty which they were about to deliver, but were cancelled by Mrs. Sanchez and the consideration of the cancelled purchases or orders was later reimbursed to Lines & Spaces. The refund was in the form of a check payable to Lines & Spaces. Lines & Spaces denied in its Answer that it is represented by Eleanor B. Sanchez and pleads in defense lack of cause of action and in the alternative, it raised the defense that it was only an intermediary between the private respondent and petitioners.[2] Soon after, though, counsel for Lines & Spaces moved to withdraw from the case for the reason that its client was beyond contact. On 29 January 1998, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, found Lines & Spaces solely liable to private respondent and absolved petitioners of any liability. The dispositive portion of the trial courts Decision reads: Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant Lines and Spaces Interiors Center as follows: to pay plaintiff on the complaint the amount of

P47,950.00 as refund of the fee for the undelivered 5,200 bags of cement at the rate of P7.00 per bag; the amount of P509,600.00 for the refund of the price of the 5,200 undelivered bags of cement at P98.00 per bag; the amount of P2,000,000.00 for compensatory damages; as well as the amount of P639,387.50 as attorneys fees; and to pay Amon Trading and Juliana Marketing, Inc. on the crossclaim the sum of P200,000.00 as attorneys fees.[3]

Private Respondent Tri-Realty partially appealed from the trial courts decision absolving Amon Trading Corporation and Juliana Marketing of any liability to Tri-Realty. In the presently assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and held petitioners Amon Trading Corporation and Juliana Marketing to be jointly and severally liable with Lines & Spaces for the undelivered bags of cement. The Court of Appeals disposedWHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the court a quo is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE, and another one is entered ordering the following: Defendant-appellee Amon Trading Corporation is held liable jointly and severally with defendant-appellee Lines and Spaces Interiors Center in the amount of P215,600.00 for the refund of the price of 2,200 undelivered bags of cement. Defendant-appellee Juliana Marketing is held liable jointly and severally with defendant-appellee Lines and Spaces Interiors Center in the amount of P294,000.00 for the refund of the price of 3,000 undelivered bags of cement. The defendant-appellee Lines and Spaces Interiors Center is held solely in the amount of P47,950.00 as refund of the fee for the 5,200 undelivered bags of cement to the plaintiff-appellant Tri-Realty Development and Construction Corporation. The awards of compensatory damages and attorneys fees are DELETED. The cross claim of defendants-appellees Amon Trading Corporation and Juliana Marketing is DISMISSED for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs.[4] Pained by the ruling, petitioners elevated the case to this Court via the present petition for review to challenge the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals on the following issues:

AMON TRADING v. CA [G.R. No. 158585; December 13, 2005] CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: This is an appeal by certiorari from the Decision[1] dated 28 November 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60031, reversing the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, and holding petitioners Amon Trading Corporation and Juliana Marketing to be solidarily liable with Lines & Spaces Interiors Center (Lines & Spaces) in refunding private respondent Tri-Realty Development and Construction Corporation (Tri-Realty) the amount corresponding to the value of undelivered bags of cement. The undisputed facts:

Private respondent Tri-Realty is a developer and contractor with projects in Bulacan and Quezon City. Sometime in February 1992, private respondent had difficulty in purchasing cement needed for its projects. Lines & Spaces, represented by Eleanor Bahia Sanchez, informed private respondent that it could obtain cement to its satisfaction from petitioners, Amon Trading Corporation and its sister company, Juliana Marketing. On the strength of such representation, private respondent proceeded to order from Sanchez Six Thousand Fifty (6,050) bags of cement from petitioner Amon Trading Corporation, and from Juliana Marketing, Six Thousand (6,000) bags at P98.00/bag.

I. WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A CONTRACT OF AGENCY BETWEEN LINES AND SPACES INTERIOR CENTER AND RESPONDENT; II. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT HAS PRIVITY OF CONTRACT.[5] At the focus of scrutiny is the issue of whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that petitioners are solidarily liable with Lines & Spaces. The key to unlocking this issue is to determine whether or not Lines & Spaces is the private respondents agent and whether or not there is privity of contract between petitioners and private respondent. We shall consider these issues concurrently as they are interrelated. Petitioners, in their brief, zealously make a case that there was no contract of agency between Lines & Spaces and private respondent.[6] Petitioners strongly assert that they did not have a hint that Lines & Spaces and Tri-Realty are two different and distinct entities inasmuch as Eleanor Sanchez whom they have dealt with just represented herself to be from Lines & Spaces/TriRealty when she placed her order for the delivery of the bags of cement. Hence, no privity of contract can be said to exist between petitioners and private respondent.[7] Private respondent, on the other hand, goes over the top in arguing that contrary to their claim of innocence, petitioners had knowledge that Lines & Spaces, as represented by Eleanor Sanchez, was a separate and distinct entity from TriRealty.[8] Then, too, private respondent stirs up support for its contention that contrary to petitioners' claim, there was privity of contract between private respondent and petitioners.[9] Primarily, there was no written contract entered into between petitioners and private respondent for the delivery of the bags of cement. As gleaned from the records, and as private respondent itself admitted in its Complaint, private respondent agreed with Eleanor Sanchez of Lines & Spaces for the latter to source the cement needs of the former in consideration of P7.00 per bag of cement. It is worthy to note that the payment in managers checks was made to Eleanor Sanchez of Lines & Spaces and was not directly paid to petitioners. While the managers check issued by respondent company was eventually paid to petitioners for the delivery of the bags of cement, there is obviously nothing from the face of said managers check to hint that private respondent was the one making the payments. There was likewise no intimation from Sanchez that the purchase order placed by her was for privaterespondents benefit. The meeting of minds, therefore, was between private respondent and Eleanor Sanchez of Lines & Spaces. This contract is distinct and separate from the contract of sale between petitioners and Eleanor Sanchez who represented herself to be from Lines & Spaces/Tri-Realty, which, per her representation, was a single account or entity.

The records bear out, too, Annex A showing a check voucher payable to Amon Trading Corporation for the 6,050 bags of cement received by a certain Weng Chua for Mrs. Eleanor Sanchez of Lines & Spaces, and Annex B which is a check voucher bearing the name of Juliana Marketing as payee, but was received again by said Weng Chua. Nowhere from the face of the check vouchers is it shown that petitioners or any of their authorized representatives received the payments from respondent company. Also on record are the receipts issued by Lines & Spaces, signed by Eleanor Bahia Sanchez, covering the said managers checks. As Engr. Guido Ganhinhin of respondent Tri-Realty testified, it was Lines & Spaces, not petitioners, which issued to them a receipt for the two (2) managers checks. ThusQ: And what is your proof that Amon and Juliana were paid of the purchases through managers checks? A: Lines & Spaces who represented Amon Trading and Juliana Marketing issued us receipts for the two (2) managers checks we paid to Amon Trading and Juliana Marketing Corporation. Q: I am showing to you check no. 074 issued by Lines & Spaces Interiors Center, what relation has this check to that check you mentioned earlier? A: Official Receipt No. 074 issued by Lines & Spaces Interiors Center was for the P592,900.00 we paid to Amon Trading Corporation for 6,050 bags of cement. Q: Now there appears a signature in that receipt above the printed words authorized signature, whose signature is that? A: The signature of Mrs. Eleanor Bahia Sanchez, the representative of Lines and Spaces. Q: Why do you know that that is her signature?

Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc and De los Angeles v. Home Development Mutual Fund,[12] the term and/or was held to mean that effect shall be given to both the conjunctive and and the disjunctive or; or that one word or the other may be taken accordingly as one or the other will best effectuate the intended purpose. It was accordingly ordinarily held that in using the term "and/or" the word "and" and the word "or" are to be used interchangeably. By analogy, the words Lines & Spaces/Tri-Realty mean that effect shall be given to both Lines & Spaces and Tri-Realty or that Lines & Spaces and Tri-Realty may be used interchangeably. Hence, petitioners were not remiss when they believed Eleanor Sanchezs representation that Lines & Spaces/Tri-Realty refers to just one entity. There was, therefore, no error attributable to petitioners when they refunded the value of the undelivered bags of cement to Lines & Spaces only. There is likewise a dearth of evidence to show that the case at bar is an open-and-shut case of agency between private respondent and Lines & Spaces. Neither Eleanor Sanchez nor Lines & Spaces was an agent for private respondent, but rather a supplier for the latters cement needs. The Civil Code defines a contract of agency as follows: Art. 1868. By the contract of agency a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter. In a bevy of cases such as the avuncular case of Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[13] the Court decreed from Article 1868 that the basis of agency is representation. . . . On the part of the principal, there must be an actual intention to appoint or an intention naturally inferable from his words or actions and on the part of the agent, there must be an intention to accept the appointment and act on it, and in the absence of such intent, there is generally no agency. One factor which most clearly distinguishes agency from other legal concepts is control; one person - the agent - agrees to act under the control or direction of another - the principal. Indeed, the very word "agency" has come to connote control by the principal. The control factor, more than any other, has caused the courts to put contracts between principal and agent in a separate category. Here, the intention of private respondent, as the Executive Officer of respondent corporation testified on, was merely for Lines & Spaces, through Eleanor Sanchez, to supply them with the needed bags of cement. Q: A: Q: Do you know the defendant Lines & Spaces in this case? Yes, sir. How come you know this defendant?

A: She is quite familiar with me and I saw her affix her signature upon issuance of the receipt.[10] (Emphasis supplied.)

Without doubt, no vinculum could be said to exist between petitioners and private respondent. There is likewise nothing meaty about the assertion of private respondent that inasmuch as the delivery receipts as well as the purchase order were for the account of Lines & Spaces/Tri-Realty, then petitioners should have been placed on guard that it was private respondent which is the principal of Sanchez. In China Banking Corp. v. Members of the Board of Trustees, Home Development Mutual Fund[11] and the later case of Romulo,

A: Lines & Spaces represented by Eleanor Bahia Sanchez offered to supply us cement when there was scarcity of cement experienced in our projects.[14] (Emphasis supplied) We cannot go along the Court of Appeals disquisition that Amon Trading Corporation and Juliana Marketing should have required a special power of attorney form when they refunded Eleanor B. Sanchez the cost of the undelivered bags of cement. All the quibbling about whether Lines & Spaces acted as agent of private respondent is inane because as illustrated earlier, petitioners took orders from Eleanor Sanchez who, after all, was the one who paid them the managers checks for the purchase of cement. Sanchez represented herself to be from Lines & Spaces/Tri-Realty, purportedly a single entity. Inasmuch as they have never directly dealt with private respondent and there is no paper trail on record to guide them that the private respondent, in fact, is the beneficiary, petitioners had no reason to doubt the request of Eleanor Sanchez later on to refund the value of the undelivered bags of cement to Lines & Spaces. Moreover, the check refund was payable to Lines & Spaces, not to Sanchez, so there was indeed no cause to suspect the scheme. The fact that the deliveries were made at the construction sites of private respondent does not by itself raise suspicion that petitioners were delivering for private respondent. There was no sufficient showing that petitioners knew that the delivery sites were that of private respondent and for another thing, the deliveries were made by petitioners men who have no business nosing around their clients affairs. Parenthetically, Eleanor Sanchez has absconded to the United States of America and the story of what happened to the check refund may be forever locked with her. Lines & Spaces, in its Answer to the Complaint, washed its hands of the apparent ruse perpetuated by Sanchez, but argues that if at all, it was merely an intermediary between petitioners and private respondent. With no other way out, Lines & Spaces was a no-show at the trial proceedings so that eventually, its counsel had to withdraw his appearance because of his clients vanishing act. Left with an empty bag, so to speak, private respondent now puts the blame on petitioners. But this Court finds plausible the stance of petitioners that they had no inkling of the deception that was forthcoming. Indeed, without any contract or any hard evidence to show any privity of contract between it and petitioners, private respondents claim against petitioners lacks legal foothold. Considering the vagaries of the case, private respondent brought the wrong upon itself. As adeptly surmised by the trial court, between petitioners and private respondent, it is the latter who had made possible the wrong that was perpetuated by Eleanor Sanchez against it so it must bear its own loss. It is in this sense that we must apply the equitable maxim that as between two innocent parties, the one who made it possible for the wrong to be done should be the one to bear the resulting loss.[15] First, private respondent was the one who had reposed too much trust on Eleanor Sanchez for the latter to source its cement needs. Second, it failed to employ safety nets to steer clear of the rip-off. For such

huge sums of money involved in this case, it is surprising that a corporation such as private respondent would pay its construction materials in advance instead of in credit thus opening a window of opportunity for Eleanor Sanchez or Lines & Spaces to pocket the remaining balance of the amount paid corresponding to the undelivered materials. Private respondent likewise paid in advance the commission of Eleanor Sanchez for the materials that have yet to be delivered so it really had no means of control over her. Finally, there is no paper trail linking private respondent to petitioners thereby leaving the latter clueless that private respondent was their true client. Private respondent should have, at the very least, required petitioners to sign the check vouchers or to issue receipts for the advance payments so that it could have a hold on petitioners. In this case, it was the representative of Lines & Spaces who signed the check vouchers. For its failure to establish any of these deterrent measures, private respondent incurred the risk of not being able to recoup the value of the materials it had paid good money for. WHEREFORE, the present petition is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision and the Resolution dated 28 November 2002 and 10 June 2003, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R CV No. 60031, are herebyREVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated 29 January 1998 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, in Civil Case Q-92-14235 is hereby REINSTATED. No costs. SO ORDERED.

Sometime in 1984, Florencia Baluyot offered Atty. Pedro L. Linsangan a lot called Garden State at the Holy Cross Memorial Park owned by petitioner (MMPCI). According to Baluyot, a former owner of a memorial lot under Contract No. 25012 was no longer interested in acquiring the lot and had opted to sell his rights subject to reimbursement of the amounts he already paid. The contract was for P95,000.00. Baluyot reassured Atty. Linsangan that once reimbursement is made to the former buyer, the contract would be transferred to him. Atty. Linsangan agreed and gave Baluyot P35,295.00 representing the amount to be reimbursed to the original buyer and to complete the down payment to MMPCI.3 Baluyot issued handwritten and typewritten receipts for these payments.4 Sometime in March 1985, Baluyot informed Atty. Linsangan that he would be issued Contract No. 28660, a new contract covering the subject lot in the name of the latter instead of old Contract No. 25012. Atty. Linsangan protested, but Baluyot assured him that he would still be paying the old price of P95,000.00 with P19,838.00 credited as full down payment leaving a balance of about P75,000.00.5 Subsequently, on 8 April 1985, Baluyot brought an Offer to Purchase Lot No. A11 (15), Block 83, Garden Estate I denominated as Contract No. 28660 and the Official Receipt No. 118912 dated 6 April 1985 for the amount of P19,838.00. Contract No. 28660 has a listed price of P132,250.00. Atty. Linsangan objected to the new contract price, as the same was not the amount previously agreed upon. To convince Atty. Linsangan, Baluyot executed a document6 confirming that while the contract price is P132,250.00, Atty. Linsangan would pay only the original price of P95,000.00. The document reads in part: The monthly installment will start April 6, 1985; the amount of P1,800.00 and the difference will be issued as discounted to conform to the previous price as previously agreed upon. --P95,000.00 Prepared by: (Signed) (MRS.) FLORENCIA C. BALUYOT Agency Manager Holy Cross Memorial Park 4/18/85

G.R. No. 151319

November 22, 2004

MANILA MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY, INC., petitioner, vs. PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, respondent. DECISION TINGA, J.: For resolution in this case is a classic and interesting texbook question in the law on agency. This is a petition for review assailing the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated 22 June 2001, and its Resolution2 dated 12 December 2001 in CA G.R. CV No. 49802 entitled "Pedro L. Linsangan v. Manila Memorial Cemetery, Inc. et al.," finding Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. (MMPCI) jointly and severally liable with Florencia C. Baluyot to respondent Atty. Pedro L. Linsangan. The facts of the case are as follows:

Dear Atty. Linsangan: This will confirm our agreement that while the offer to purchase under Contract No. 28660 states that the total price of P132,250.00 your undertaking is to pay only the total sum of P95,000.00 under the old price. Further the total sum of P19,838.00 already paid by you under O.R. # 118912 dated April 6, 1985 has been credited in the total purchase price thereby leaving

a balance of P75,162.00 on a monthly installment of P1,800.00 including interests (sic) charges for a period of five (5) years. (Signed) FLORENCIA C. BALUYOT By virtue of this letter, Atty. Linsangan signed Contract No. 28660 and accepted Official Receipt No. 118912. As requested by Baluyot, Atty. Linsangan issued twelve (12) postdated checks of P1,800.00 each in favor of MMPCI. The next year, or on 29 April 1986, Atty. Linsangan again issued twelve (12) postdated checks in favor of MMPCI. On 25 May 1987, Baluyot verbally advised Atty. Linsangan that Contract No. 28660 was cancelled for reasons the latter could not explain, and presented to him another proposal for the purchase of an equivalent property. He refused the new proposal and insisted that Baluyot and MMPCI honor their undertaking. For the alleged failure of MMPCI and Baluyot to conform to their agreement, Atty. Linsangan filed a Complaint7 for Breach of Contract and Damages against the former. Baluyot did not present any evidence. For its part, MMPCI alleged that Contract No. 28660 was cancelled conformably with the terms of the contract8 because of non-payment of arrearages.9 MMPCI stated that Baluyot was not an agent but an independent contractor, and as such was not authorized to represent MMPCI or to use its name except as to the extent expressly stated in the Agency Manager Agreement.10 Moreover, MMPCI was not aware of the arrangements entered into by Atty. Linsangan and Baluyot, as it in fact received a down payment and monthly installments as indicated in the contract.11 Official receipts showing the application of payment were turned over to Baluyot whom Atty. Linsangan had from the beginning allowed to receive the same in his behalf. Furthermore, whatever misimpression that Atty. Linsangan may have had must have been rectified by the Account Updating Arrangement signed by Atty. Linsangan which states that he "expressly admits that Contract No. 28660 'on account of serious delinquencyis now due for cancellation under its terms and conditions.'''12 The trial court held MMPCI and Baluyot jointly and severally liable.13 It found that Baluyot was an agent of MMPCI and that the latter was estopped from denying this agency, having received and enchased the checks issued by Atty. Linsangan and given to it by Baluyot. While MMPCI insisted that Baluyot was authorized to receive only the down payment, it allowed her to continue to receive postdated checks from Atty. Linsangan, which it in turn consistently encashed.14 The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, judgment by preponderance of evidence is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff declaring Contract No. 28660 as valid

and subsisting and ordering defendants to perform their undertakings thereof which covers burial lot No. A11 (15), Block 83, Section Garden I, Holy Cross Memorial Park located at Novaliches, Quezon City. All payments made by plaintiff to defendants should be credited for his accounts. NO DAMAGES, NO ATTORNEY'S FEES but with costs against the defendants. The cross claim of defendant Manila Memorial Cemetery Incorporated as against defendant Baluyot is GRANTED up to the extent of the costs. SO ORDERED.15 MMPCI appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals.16 It claimed that Atty. Linsangan is bound by the written contract with MMPCI, the terms of which were clearly set forth therein and read, understood, and signed by the former.17 It also alleged that Atty. Linsangan, a practicing lawyer for over thirteen (13) years at the time he entered into the contract, is presumed to know his contractual obligations and is fully aware that he cannot belatedly and unilaterally change the terms of the contract without the consent, much less the knowledge of the other contracting party, which was MMPCI. And in this case, MMPCI did not agree to a change in the contract and in fact implemented the same pursuant to its clear terms. In view thereof, because of Atty. Linsangan's delinquency, MMPCI validly cancelled the contract. MMPCI further alleged that it cannot be held jointly and solidarily liable with Baluyot as the latter exceeded the terms of her agency, neither did MMPCI ratify Baluyot's acts. It added that it cannot be charged with making any misrepresentation, nor of having allowed Baluyot to act as though she had full powers as the written contract expressly stated the terms and conditions which Atty. Linsangan accepted and understood. In canceling the contract, MMPCI merely enforced the terms and conditions imposed therein.18 Imputing negligence on the part of Atty. Linsangan, MMPCI claimed that it was the former's obligation, as a party knowingly dealing with an alleged agent, to determine the limitations of such agent's authority, particularly when such alleged agent's actions were patently questionable. According to MMPCI, Atty. Linsangan did not even bother to verify Baluyot's authority or ask copies of official receipts for his payments.19 The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. It upheld the trial court's finding that Baluyot was an agent of MMPCI at the time the disputed contract was entered into, having represented MMPCI's interest and acting on its behalf in the dealings with clients and customers. Hence, MMPCI is considered estopped when it allowed Baluyot to act and represent MMPCI even beyond her authority.20 The appellate court likewise found that the acts of Baluyot bound MMPCI when the latter allowed the former to act for and in its behalf and stead. While Baluyot's authority "may not have been expressly conferred upon her, the same may have been derived impliedly by habit or custom, which may have been an accepted practice in the company for a long

period of time."21 Thus, the Court of Appeals noted, innocent third persons such as Atty. Linsangan should not be prejudiced where the principal failed to adopt the needed measures to prevent misrepresentation. Furthermore, if an agent misrepresents to a purchaser and the principal accepts the benefits of such misrepresentation, he cannot at the same time deny responsibility for such misrepresentation.22 Finally, the Court of Appeals declared: There being absolutely nothing on the record that would show that the court a quo overlooked, disregarded, or misinterpreted facts of weight and significance, its factual findings and conclusions must be given great weight and should not be disturbed by this Court on appeal. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby DENIED and the appealed decision in Civil Case No. 88-1253 of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 57 of Makati, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED.23 MMPCI filed its Motion for Reconsideration,24 but the same was denied for lack of merit.25 In the instant Petition for Review, MMPCI claims that the Court of Appeals seriously erred in disregarding the plain terms of the written contract and Atty. Linsangan's failure to abide by the terms thereof, which justified its cancellation. In addition, even assuming that Baluyot was an agent of MMPCI, she clearly exceeded her authority and Atty. Linsangan knew or should have known about this considering his status as a long-practicing lawyer. MMPCI likewise claims that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to consider that the facts and the applicable law do not support a judgment against Baluyot only "up to the extent of costs."26 Atty. Linsangan argues that he did not violate the terms and conditions of the contract, and in fact faithfully performed his contractual obligations and complied with them in good faith for at least two years.27 He claims that contrary to MMPCI's position, his profession as a lawyer is immaterial to the validity of the subject contract and the case at bar.28 According to him, MMPCI had practically admitted in its Petition that Baluyot was its agent, and thus, the only issue left to be resolved is whether MMPCI allowed Baluyot to act as though she had full powers to be held solidarily liable with the latter.29 We find for the petitioner MMPCI. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not fact, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on misapprehension of facts.30 In BPI Investment Corporation v. D.G. Carreon Commercial Corporation,31 this Court ruled:

There are instances when the findings of fact of the trial court and/or Court of Appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court, such as (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.32 In the case at bar, the Court of Appeals committed several errors in the apprehension of the facts of the case, as well as made conclusions devoid of evidentiary support, hence we review its findings of fact. By the contract of agency, a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter.33 Thus, the elements of agency are (i) 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.34 In an attempt to prove that Baluyot was not its agent, MMPCI pointed out that under its Agency Manager Agreement; an agency manager such as Baluyot is considered an independent contractor and not an agent.35However, in the same contract, Baluyot as agency manager was authorized to solicit and remit to MMPCI offers to purchase interment spaces belonging to and sold by the latter.36 Notwithstanding the claim of MMPCI that Baluyot was an independent contractor, the fact remains that she was authorized to solicit solely for and in behalf of MMPCI. As properly found both by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, Baluyot was an agent of MMPCI, having represented the interest of the latter, and having been allowed by MMPCI to represent it in her dealings with its clients/prospective buyers. Nevertheless, contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeals, MMPCI cannot be bound by the contract procured by Atty. Linsangan and solicited by Baluyot. Baluyot was authorized to solicit and remit to MMPCI offers to purchase interment spaces obtained on forms provided by MMPCI. The terms of the offer to purchase, therefore, are contained in such forms and, when signed by the buyer and an authorized officer of MMPCI, becomes binding on both parties.

The Offer to Purchase duly signed by Atty. Linsangan, and accepted and validated by MMPCI showed a total list price of P132,250.00. Likewise, it was clearly stated therein that "Purchaser agrees that he has read or has had read to him this agreement, that he understands its terms and conditions, and that there are no covenants, conditions, warranties or representations other than those contained herein."37 By signing the Offer to Purchase, Atty. Linsangan signified that he understood its contents. That he and Baluyot had an agreement different from that contained in the Offer to Purchase is of no moment, and should not affect MMPCI, as it was obviously made outside Baluyot's authority. To repeat, Baluyot's authority was limited only to soliciting purchasers. She had no authority to alter the terms of the written contract provided by MMPCI. The document/letter "confirming" the agreement that Atty. Linsangan would have to pay the old price was executed by Baluyot alone. Nowhere is there any indication that the same came from MMPCI or any of its officers. It is a settled rule that persons dealing with an agent are bound at their peril, if they would hold the principal liable, to 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 establish it.38 The basis for agency is representation and a person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent.39 If he does not make such an inquiry, he is chargeable with knowledge of the agent's authority and his ignorance of that authority will not be any excuse.40 As noted by one author, the ignorance of a person dealing with an agent as to the scope of the latter's authority is no excuse to such person and the fault cannot be thrown upon the principal.41 A person dealing with an agent assumes the risk of lack of authority in the agent. He cannot charge the principal by relying upon the agent's assumption of authority that proves to be unfounded. The principal, on the other hand, may act on the presumption that third persons dealing with his agent will not be negligent in failing to ascertain the extent of his authority as well as the existence of his agency.42 In the instant case, it has not been established that Atty. Linsangan even bothered to inquire whether Baluyot was authorized to agree to terms contrary to those indicated in the written contract, much less bind MMPCI by her commitment with respect to such agreements. Even if Baluyot was Atty. Linsangan's friend and known to be an agent of MMPCI, her declarations and actions alone are not sufficient to establish the fact or extent of her authority.43 Atty. Linsangan as a practicing lawyer for a relatively long period of time when he signed the contract should have been put on guard when their agreement was not reflected in the contract. More importantly, Atty. Linsangan should have been alerted by the fact that Baluyot failed to effect the transfer of rights earlier promised, and was unable to make good her written commitment, nor convince MMPCI to assent thereto, as evidenced by several attempts to induce him to enter into other contracts for a higher consideration. As properly pointed out by MMPCI, as a lawyer, a greater degree of caution should be expected of Atty.

Linsangan especially in dealings involving legal documents. He did not even bother to ask for official receipts of his payments, nor inquire from MMPCI directly to ascertain the real status of the contract, blindly relying on the representations of Baluyot. A lawyer by profession, he knew what he was doing when he signed the written contract, knew the meaning and value of every word or phrase used in the contract, and more importantly, knew the legal effects which said document produced. He is bound to accept responsibility for his negligence. The trial and appellate courts found MMPCI liable based on ratification and estoppel. For the trial court, MMPCI's acts of accepting and encashing the checks issued by Atty. Linsangan as well as allowing Baluyot to receive checks drawn in the name of MMPCI confirm and ratify the contract of agency. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals faulted MMPCI in failing to adopt measures to prevent misrepresentation, and declared that in view of MMPCI's acceptance of the benefits of Baluyot's misrepresentation, it can no longer deny responsibility therefor. The Court does not agree. Pertinent to this case are the following provisions of the Civil Code: Art. 1898. If the agent contracts in the name of the principal, exceeding the scope of his authority, and the principal does not ratify the contract, it shall be void if the party with whom the agent contracted is aware of the limits of the powers granted by the principal. In this case, however, the agent is liable if he undertook to secure the principal's ratification. Art. 1910. The principal must comply with all the obligations that the agent may have contracted within the scope of his authority. As for any obligation wherein the agent has exceeded his power, the principal is not bound except when he ratifies it expressly or tacitly. Art. 1911. Even when the agent has exceeded his authority, the principal is solidarily liable with the agent if the former allowed the latter to act as though he had full powers. Thus, the acts of an agent beyond the scope of his authority do not bind the principal, unless he ratifies them, expressly or impliedly. Only the principal can ratify; the agent cannot ratify his own unauthorized acts. Moreover, the principal must have knowledge of the acts he is to ratify.44 Ratification in agency is the adoption or confirmation by one person of an act performed on his behalf by another without authority. The substance of the doctrine is confirmation after conduct, amounting to a substitute for a prior authority. Ordinarily, the principal must have full knowledge at the time of ratification of all the material facts and circumstances relating to the unauthorized act of the person who assumed to act as agent. Thus, if material facts were suppressed or unknown, there can be no valid ratification and this regardless of the purpose or lack thereof in concealing such facts and regardless of the parties between

whom the question of ratification may arise.45Nevertheless, this principle does not apply if the principal's ignorance of the material facts and circumstances was willful, or that the principal chooses to act in ignorance of the facts.46 However, in the absence of circumstances putting a reasonably prudent man on inquiry, ratification cannot be implied as against the principal who is ignorant of the facts.47 No ratification can be implied in the instant case. A perusal of Baluyot's Answer48 reveals that the real arrangement between her and Atty. Linsangan was for the latter to pay a monthly installment of P1,800.00 whereas Baluyot was to shoulder the counterpart amount of P1,455.00 to meet the P3,255.00 monthly installments as indicated in the contract. Thus, every time an installment falls due, payment was to be made through a check from Atty. Linsangan for P1,800.00 and a cash component of P1,455.00 from Baluyot.49 However, it appears that while Atty. Linsangan issued the post-dated checks, Baluyot failed to come up with her part of the bargain. This was supported by Baluyot's statements in her letter50 to Mr. Clyde Williams, Jr., Sales Manager of MMPCI, two days after she received the copy of the Complaint. In the letter, she admitted that she was remiss in her duties when she consented to Atty. Linsangan's proposal that he will pay the old price while the difference will be shouldered by her. She likewise admitted that the contract suffered arrearages because while Atty. Linsangan issued the agreed checks, she was unable to give her share of P1,455.00 due to her own financial difficulties. Baluyot even asked for compassion from MMPCI for the error she committed. Atty. Linsangan failed to show that MMPCI had knowledge of the arrangement. As far as MMPCI is concerned, the contract price was P132,250.00, as stated in the Offer to Purchase signed by Atty. Linsangan and MMPCI's authorized officer. The down payment of P19,838.00 given by Atty. Linsangan was in accordance with the contract as well. Payments of P3,235.00 for at least two installments were likewise in accord with the contract, albeit made through a check and partly in cash. In view of Baluyot's failure to give her share in the payment, MMPCI received only P1,800.00 checks, which were clearly insufficient payment. In fact, Atty. Linsangan would have incurred arrearages that could have caused the earlier cancellation of the contract, if not for MMPCI's application of some of the checks to his account. However, the checks alone were not sufficient to cover his obligations. If MMPCI was aware of the arrangement, it would have refused the latter's check payments for being insufficient. It would not have applied to his account the P1,800.00 checks. Moreover, the fact that Baluyot had to practically explain to MMPCI's Sales Manager the details of her "arrangement" with Atty. Linsangan and admit to having made an error in entering such arrangement confirm that MMCPI had no knowledge of the said agreement. It was only when Baluyot filed her Answer that she claimed that MMCPI was fully aware of the agreement.

Neither is there estoppel in the instant case. The essential elements of estoppel are (i) conduct of a party amounting to false representation or concealment of material facts or at least calculated to convey the impression that the facts are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently attempts to assert; (ii) intent, or at least expectation, that this conduct shall be acted upon by, or at least influence, the other party; and (iii) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts.51 While there is no more question as to the agency relationship between Baluyot and MMPCI, there is no indication that MMPCI let the public, or specifically, Atty. Linsangan to believe that Baluyot had the authority to alter the standard contracts of the company. Neither is there any showing that prior to signing Contract No. 28660, MMPCI had any knowledge of Baluyot's commitment to Atty. Linsangan. One who claims the benefit of an estoppel on the ground that he has been misled by the representations of another must not have been misled through his own want of reasonable care and circumspection.52 Even assuming that Atty. Linsangan was misled by MMPCI's actuations, he still cannot invoke the principle of estoppel, as he was clearly negligent in his dealings with Baluyot, and could have easily determined, had he only been cautious and prudent, whether said agent was clothed with the authority to change the terms of the principal's written contract. Estoppel must be intentional and unequivocal, for when misapplied, it can easily become a most convenient and effective means of injustice.53 In view of the lack of sufficient proof showing estoppel, we refuse to hold MMPCI liable on this score. Likewise, this Court does not find favor in the Court of Appeals' findings that "the authority of defendant Baluyot may not have been expressly conferred upon her; however, the same may have been derived impliedly by habit or custom which may have been an accepted practice in their company in a long period of time." A perusal of the records of the case fails to show any indication that there was such a habit or custom in MMPCI that allows its agents to enter into agreements for lower prices of its interment spaces, nor to assume a portion of the purchase price of the interment spaces sold at such lower price. No evidence was ever presented to this effect. As the Court sees it, there are two obligations in the instant case. One is the Contract No. 28660 between MMPCI and by Atty. Linsangan for the purchase of an interment space in the former's cemetery. The other is the agreement between Baluyot and Atty. Linsangan for the former to shoulder the amount P1,455.00, or the difference between P95,000.00, the original price, and P132,250.00, the actual contract price. To repeat, the acts of the agent beyond the scope of his authority do not bind the principal unless the latter ratifies the same. It also bears emphasis that when the third person knows that the agent was acting beyond his power or authority, the principal cannot be held liable for the acts of the agent. If the said third person was aware of such limits of authority, he is to blame and is not entitled

to recover damages from the agent, unless the latter undertook to secure the principal's ratification.54 This Court finds that Contract No. 28660 was validly entered into both by MMPCI and Atty. Linsangan. By affixing his signature in the contract, Atty. Linsangan assented to the terms and conditions thereof. When Atty. Linsangan incurred delinquencies in payment, MMCPI merely enforced its rights under the said contract by canceling the same. Being aware of the limits of Baluyot's authority, Atty. Linsangan cannot insist on what he claims to be the terms of Contract No. 28660. The agreement, insofar as the P95,000.00 contract price is concerned, is void and cannot be enforced as against MMPCI. Neither can he hold Baluyot liable for damages under the same contract, since there is no evidence showing that Baluyot undertook to secure MMPCI's ratification. At best, the "agreement" between Baluyot and Atty. Linsangan bound only the two of them. As far as MMPCI is concerned, it bound itself to sell its interment space to Atty. Linsangan for P132,250.00 under Contract No. 28660, and had in fact received several payments in accordance with the same contract. If the contract was cancelled due to arrearages, Atty. Linsangan's recourse should only be against Baluyot who personally undertook to pay the difference between the true contract price of P132,250.00 and the original proposed price of P95,000.00. To surmise that Baluyot was acting on behalf of MMPCI when she promised to shoulder the said difference would be to conclude that MMPCI undertook to pay itself the difference, a conclusion that is very illogical, if not antithetical to its business interests. However, this does not preclude Atty. Linsangan from instituting a separate action to recover damages from Baluyot, not as an agent of MMPCI, but in view of the latter's breach of their separate agreement. To review, Baluyot obligated herself to pay P1,455.00 in addition to Atty. Linsangan's P1,800.00 to complete the monthly installment payment under the contract, which, by her own admission, she was unable to do due to personal financial difficulties. It is undisputed that Atty. Linsangan issued the P1,800.00 as agreed upon, and were it not for Baluyot's failure to provide the balance, Contract No. 28660 would not have been cancelled. Thus, Atty. Linsangan has a cause of action against Baluyot, which he can pursue in another case. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 22 June 2001 and its Resolution dated 12 December 2001 in CA- G.R. CV No. 49802, as well as the Decision in Civil Case No. 88-1253 of the Regional Trial Court, Makati City Branch 57, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Complaint in Civil Case No. 88-1253 is DISMISSED for lack of cause of action. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 123560

March 27, 2000

SPOUSES YU ENG CHO and FRANCISCO TAO YU, petitioners, vs. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., TOURIST WORLD SERVICES, INC., JULIETA CANILAO and CLAUDIA TAGUNICAR, respondents. PUNO, J.: This petition for review seeks a reversal of the 31 August 1995 Decision 1 and 11 January 1998 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals holding private respondent Claudia Tagunicar solely liable for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees, and deleting the trial court's award for actual damages. The facts as found by the trial court are as follows: Plaintiff Yu Eng Cho is the owner of Young Hardware Co. and Achilles Marketing. In connection with [this] business, he travels from time to time to Malaysia, Taipei and Hongkong. On July 10, 1976, plaintiffs bought plane tickets (Exhs. A & B) from defendant Claudia Tagunicar who represented herself to be an agent of defendant Tourist World Services, Inc. (TWSI). The destination[s] are Hongkong, Tokyo, San Francisco, U.S.A., for the amount of P25,000.00 per computation of said defendant Claudia Tagunicar (Exhs. C & C-1). The purpose of this trip is to go to Fairfield, New Jersey, U.S.A. to buy to two (2) lines of infrared heating system processing textured plastic article (Exh. K). On said date, only the passage from Manila to Hongkong, then to Tokyo, were confirmed. [PAA] Flight 002 from Tokyo to San Francisco was on "RQ" status, meaning "on request". Per instruction of defendant Claudia Tagunicar, plaintiffs returned after a few days for the confirmation of the Tokyo-San Francisco segment of the trip. After calling up Canilao of TWSI, defendant Tagunicar told plaintiffs that their flight is now confirmed all the way. Thereafter, she attached the confirmation stickers on the plane tickets (Exhs. A & B). A few days before the scheduled flight of plaintiffs, their son, Adrian Yu, called the Pan Am office to verify the status of the flight. According to said Adrian Yu, a personnel of defendant Pan Am told him over the phone that plaintiffs' booking[s] are confirmed. On July 23, 1978, plaintiffs left for Hongkong and stayed there for five (5) days. They left Hongkong for Tokyo on July 28, 1978. Upon their arrival in Tokyo, they called up Pan-Am office for reconfirmation of their flight to San Francisco. Said office, however, informed them that their names are not in the manifest. Since plaintiffs were supposed to leave on the 29th of July, 1978, and could not remain in Japan for more than 72 hours, they were constrained to agree to accept airline tickets for Taipei instead, per advise of JAL officials. This is the only option left to them because Northwest Airlines was then on strike, hence, there was no chance for the plaintiffs to obtain airline seats to the United States within 72 hours. Plaintiffs paid for these tickets.

Upon reaching Taipei, there were no flight[s] available for plaintiffs, thus, they were forced to return back to Manila on August 3, 1978, instead of proceeding to the United States. [Japan] Air Lines (JAL) refunded the plaintiffs the difference of the price for Tokyo-Taipei [and] Tokyo-San Francisco (Exhs. I & J) in the total amount of P2,602.00. In view of their failure to reach Fairfield, New Jersey, Radiant Heat Enterprises, Inc. cancelled Yu Eng Cho's option to buy the two lines of infra-red heating system (Exh. K). The agreement was for him to inspect the equipment and make final arrangement[s] with the said company not later than August 7, 1978. From this business transaction, plaintiff Yu Eng Cho expected to realize a profit of P300,000.00 to P400,000.00. [A] scrutiny of defendants' respective evidence reveals the following: Plaintiffs, who were intending to go to the United States, were referred to defendant Claudia Tagunicar, an independent travel solicitor, for the purchase of their plane tickets. As such travel solicitor, she helps in the processing of travel papers like passport, plane tickets, booking of passengers and some assistance at the airport. She is known to defendants Pan-Am, TWSI/Julieta Canilao, because she has been dealing with them in the past years. Defendant Tagunicar advised plaintiffs to take Pan-Am because Northwest Airlines was then on strike and plaintiffs are passing Hongkong, Tokyo, then San Francisco and Pan-Am has a flight from Tokyo to San Francisco. After verifying from defendant TWSI, thru Julieta Canilao, she informed plaintiffs that the fare would be P25,093.93 giving them a discount of P738.95 (Exhs. C, C-1). Plaintiffs, however, gave her a check in the amount of P25,000.00 only for the two round trip tickets. Out of this transaction, Tagunicar received a 7% commission and 1% commission for defendant TWSI. Defendant Claudia Tagunicar purchased the two round-trip PanAm tickets from defendant Julieta Canilao with the following schedules: Origin Destination Airline Date Time/Travel Manila Hongkong CX900 7-23-78 1135/1325hrs Hongkong Tokyo CS500 7-28-78 1615/2115hrs Tokyo San Francisco PA002 7-29-78 1930/1640hrs The use of another airline, like in this case it is Cathay Pacific out of Manila, is allowed, although the tickets issued are Pan-Am tickets, as long as it is in connection with a Pan-Am flight. When the two (2) tickets (Exhs. A & B) were issued to plaintiffs, the letter "RQ" appears below the printed word "status" for the flights from Tokyo to San Francisco which means "under request," (Exh. 3-A, 4-A PanAm). Before the date of the scheduled departure, defendant Tagunicar received several calls from the plaintiffs inquiring about the status of their bookings. Tagunicar in turn called up

TWSI/Canilao to verify; and if Canilao would answer that the bookings are not yet confirmed, she would relate that to the plaintiffs. Defendant Tagunicar claims that on July 13, 1978, a few days before the scheduled flight, plaintiff Yu Eng Cho personally went to her office, pressing her about their flight. She called up defendant Julieta Canilao, and the latter told her "o sige Claudia, confirm na." She even noted this in her index card (Exh. L), that it was Julieta who confirmed the booking (Exh. L-1). It was then that she allegedly attached the confirmation stickers (Exhs. 2, 2-B TWSI) to the tickets. These stickers came from TWSI. Defendant Tagunicar alleges that it was only in the first week of August, 1978 that she learned from Adrian Yu, son of plaintiffs, that the latter were not able to take the flight from Tokyo to San Francisco, U.S.A. After a few days, said Adrian Yu came over with a gentleman and a lady, who turned out to be a lawyer and his secretary. Defendant Tagunicar claims that plaintiffs were asking for her help so that they could file an action against Pan-Am. Because of plaintiffs' promise she will not be involved, she agreed to sign the affidavit (Exh. M) prepared by the lawyer. Defendants TWSI/Canilao denied having confirmed the Tokyo-San Francisco segment of plaintiffs' flight because flights then were really tight because of the on-going strike at Northwest Airlines. Defendant Claudia Tagunicar is very much aware that [said] particular segment was not confirmed, because on the very day of plaintiffs' departure, Tagunicar called up TWSI from the airport; defendant Canilao asked her why she attached stickers on the tickets when in fact that portion of the flight was not yet confirmed. Neither TWSI nor Pan-Am confirmed the flight and never authorized defendant Tagunicar to attach the confirmation stickers. In fact, the confirmation stickers used by defendant Tagunicar are stickers exclusively for use of Pan-Am only. Furthermore, if it is the travel agency that confirms the booking, the IATA number of said agency should appear on the validation or confirmation stickers. The IATA number that appears on the stickers attached to plaintiffs' tickets (Exhs. A & B) is 2-82-0770 (Exhs. 1, 1-A TWSI), when in fact TWSI's IATA number is 2-83-0770 (Exhs. 5, 5-A TWSI). 3 A complaint for damages was filed by petitioners against private respondents Pan American World Airways, Inc. (Pan Am), Tourist World Services, Inc. (TWSI), Julieta Canilao (Canilao), and Claudia Tagunicar (Tagunicar) for expenses allegedly incurred such as costs of tickets and hotel accommodations when petitioners were compelled to stay in Hongkong and then in Tokyo by reason of the non-confirmation of their booking with Pan-Am. In a Decision dated November 14, 1991, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 3, held the defendants jointly and severally liable, except defendant Julieta Canilao, thus: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered for the plaintiffs and ordering defendants Pan American World Airways, Inc., Tourist World Services, Inc. and Claudia Tagunicar, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiffs the sum of P200,000.00 as actual damages, minus

P2,602.00 already refunded to the plaintiffs; P200,000.00 as moral damages; P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; an amount equivalent to 20% of the award for and as attorney's fees, plus the sum of P30,000.00 as litigation expenses. Defendants' counterclaims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Only respondents Pan Am and Tagunicar appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 11 August 1995, the appellate court rendered judgment modifying the amount of damages awarded, holding private respondent Tagunicar solely liable therefor, and absolving respondents Pan Am and TWSI from any and all liability, thus: PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one entered declaring appellant Tagunicar solely liable for: 1) Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00; 2) Exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00; and 3) Attorney's fees in the amount of P10,000.00 plus costs of suit. The award of actual damages is hereby DELETED. SO ORDERED. In so ruling, respondent court found that Tagunicar is an independent travel solicitor and is not a duly authorized agent or representative of either Pan Am or TWSI. It held that their business transactions are not sufficient to consider Pan Am as the principal, and Tagunicar and TWSI as its agent and sub-agent, respectively. It further held that Tagunicar was not authorized to confirm the bookings of, nor issue validation stickers to, herein petitioners and hence, Pan Am and TWSI cannot be held responsible for her actions. Finally, it deleted the award for actual damages for lack of proof. Hence this petition based on the following assignment of errors: 1. the Court of Appeals, in reversing the decision of the trial court, misapplied the ruling in Nicos Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et. al. [206 SCRA 127]; and 2. the findings of the Court of Appeals that petitioners' ticket reservations in question were not confirmed and that there is no agency relationship among PAN-AM, TWSI and Tagunicar are contrary to the judicial admissions of PAN-AM, TWSI and Tagunicar and likewise contrary to the findings of fact of the trial court. We affirm. I. The first issue deserves scant consideration. Petitioners contend that contrary to the ruling of the Court of Appeals, the decision of the trial court conforms to the standards of an ideal decision set

in Nicos Industrial Corporation, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., 4 as "that which, with welcome economy of words, arrives at the factual findings, reaches the legal conclusions, renders its ruling and, having done so, ends." It is averred that the trial court's decision contains a detailed statement of the relevant facts and evidence adduced by the parties which thereafter became the bases for the court's conclusions. A careful scrutiny of the decision rendered by the trial court will show that after narrating the evidence of the parties, it proceeded to dispose of the case with a one-paragraph generalization, to wit: On the basis of the foregoing facts, the Court is constrained to conclude that defendant Pan-Am is the principal, and defendants TWSI and Tagunicar, its authorized agent and sub-agent, respectively. Consequently, defendants Pan-Am, TWSI and Claudia Tagunicar should be held jointly and severally liable to plaintiffs for damages. Defendant Julieta Canilao, who acted in her official capacity as Office Manager of defendant TWSI should not be held personally liable. 5 The trial court's finding of facts is but a summary of the testimonies of the witnesses and the documentary evidence presented by the parties. It did not distinctly and clearly set forth, nor substantiate, the factual and legal bases for holding respondents TWSI, Pan Am and Tagunicar jointly and severally liable. In Del Mundo vs. CA, et al. 6 where the trial court, after summarizing the conflicting asseverations of the parties, disposed of the kernel issue in just two (2) paragraphs, we held: It is understandable that courts, with their heavy dockets and time constraints, often find themselves with little to spare in the preparation of decisions to the extent most desirable. We have thus pointed out that judges might learn to synthesize and to simplify their pronouncements. Nevertheless, concisely written such as they may be, decisions must still distinctly and clearly express, at least in minimum essence, its factual and legal bases. For failing to explain clearly and well the factual and legal bases of its award of moral damages, we set it aside in said case. Once more, we stress that nothing less than Section 14 of Article VIII of the Constitution requires that "no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based." This is demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution. In the case at bar, the decision of the trial court leaves much to be desired both in form and substance. Even while said decision infringes the Constitution, we will not belabor this infirmity and rather examine the sufficiency of the evidence submitted by the petitioners. II. Petitioners assert that Tagunicar is a sub-agent of TWSI while TWSI is a duly authorized ticketing agent of Pan Am. Proceeding from this premise, they contend that TWSI and Pan Am should be held liable as principals for the acts of Tagunicar. Petitioners stubbornly insist that the existence of the agency relationship has been established by the judicial admissions allegedly made by respondents herein, to wit: (1) the admission made by Pan Am in

its Answer that TWSI is its authorized ticket agent; (2) the affidavit executed by Tagunicar where she admitted that she is a duly authorized agent of TWSI; and (3) the admission made by Canilao that TWSI received commissions from ticket sales made by Tagunicar. We do not agree. By the contract of agency, a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter. 7 The elements of agency are: (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. 8 It is a settled rule that persons dealing with an assumed agent are bound at their peril, if they would hold the principal liable, to 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 establish it. 9 In the case at bar, petitioners rely on the affidavit of respondent Tagunicar where she stated that she is an authorized agent of TWSI. This affidavit, however, has weak probative value in light of respondent Tagunicar's testimony in court to the contrary. Affidavits, being taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestion, or for want of suggestion and inquiries. Their infirmity as a species of evidence is a matter of judicial experience and are thus considered inferior to the testimony given in court. 10Further, affidavits are not complete reproductions of what the declarant has in mind because they are generally prepared by the administering officer and the affiant simply signs them after the same have been read to her. 11Respondent Tagunicar testified that her affidavit was prepared and typewritten by the secretary of petitioners' lawyer, Atty. Acebedo, who both came with Adrian Yu, son of petitioners, when the latter went to see her at her office. This was confirmed by Adrian Yu who testified that Atty. Acebedo brought his notarial seal and notarized the affidavit of the same day. 12 The circumstances under which said affidavit was prepared put in doubt petitioners' claim that it was executed voluntarily by respondent Tagunicar. It appears that the affidavit was prepared and was based on the answers which respondent Tagunicar gave to the questions propounded to her by Atty. Acebedo. 13They never told her that the affidavit would be used in a case to be filed against her. 14 They even assured her that she would not be included as defendant if she agreed to execute the affidavit. 15 Respondent Tagunicar was prevailed upon by petitioners' son and their lawyer to sign the affidavit despite her objection to the statement therein that she was an agent of TWSI. They assured her that "it is immaterial"17 This purported admission of respondent Tagunicar cannot be used by petitioners to prove their agency relationship. At any rate, even if such affidavit is to be given any probative value, the existence of the agency relationship cannot be established on its sole basis. The declarations of the agent alone are generally insufficient to establish the fact or extent of his authority. 18 In addition, as between the negative allegation of respondents Canilao and Tagunicar that neither is an agent nor principal of the other, and the affirmative allegation of petitioners

that an agency relationship exists, it is the latter who have the burden of evidence to prove their allegation, 19 failing in which, their claim must necessarily fail. We stress that respondent Tagunicar categorically denied in open court that she is a duly authorized agent of TWSI, and declared that she is an independent travel agent. 20 We have consistently ruled that in case of conflict between statements in the affidavit and testimonial declarations, the latter command greater weight. 21 As further proofs of agency, petitioners call our attention to TWSI's Exhibits "7", "7-A", and "8" which show that Tagunicar and TWSI received sales commissions from Pan Am. Exhibit "7" 22 is the Ticket Sales Report submitted by TWSI to Pan Am reflecting the commissions received by TWSI as an agent of Pan Am. Exhibit "7A" 23 is a listing of the routes taken by passengers who were audited to TWSI's sales report. Exhibit "8" 24 is a receipt issued by TWSI covering the payment made by Tagunicar for the tickets she bought from TWSI. These documents cannot justify the decision that Tagunicar was paid a commission either by TWSI or Pan Am. On the contrary, Tagunicar testified that when she pays TWSI, she already deducts in advance her commission and merely gives the net amount to TWSI. 25 From all sides of the legal prism, the transaction is simply a contract of sale wherein Tagunicar buys airline tickets from TWSI and then sells it at a premium to her clients. III. Petitioners included respondent Pan Am in the complainant on the supposition that since TWSI is its duly authorized agent, and respondent Tagunicar is an agent of TWSI, then Pan Am should also be held responsible for the acts of respondent Tagunicar. Our disquisitions above show that this contention lacks factual and legal bases. Indeed, there is nothing in the records to show that respondent Tagunicar has been employed by Pan Am as its agent, except the bare allegation of petitioners. The real motive of petitioners in suing Pan Am appears in its Amended Complaint that "[d]efendants TWSI, Canilao and Tagunicar may not be financially capable of paying plaintiffs the amounts herein sought to be recovered, and in such event, defendant Pan Am, being their ultimate principal, is primarily and/or subsidiary liable to pay the said amounts to plaintiffs." 26 This lends credence to respondent Tagunicar's testimony that she was persuaded to execute an affidavit implicating respondents because petitioners knew they would not be able to get anything of value from her. In the past, we have warned that this Court will not tolerate an abuse of judicial process by passengers in order to pry on international airlines for damage awards, like "trophies in a safari." 27 This meritless suit against Pan Am becomes more glaring with petitioner' inaction after they were bumped off in Tokyo. If petitioners were of the honest belief that Pan Am was responsible for the misfortune which beset them, there is no evidence to show that they lodged a protest with Pan Am's Tokyo office immediately after they were refused passage for the flight to San Francisco, or even upon their arrival in Manila. The testimony of petitioner Yu Eng Cho in this regard is of title value, viz:

Atty. Jalandoni: . . . q Upon arrival at the Tokyo airport, what did you do if any in connection with your schedule[d] trip? a I went to the Hotel, Holiday Inn and from there I immediately called up Pan Am office in Tokyo to reconfirm my flight, but they told me that our names were not listed in the manifest, so next morning, very early in the morning I went to the airport, Pan Am office in the airport to verify and they told me the same and we were not allowed to leave. q You were scheduled to be in Tokyo for how long Mr. Yu? a We have to leave the next day 29th. q In other words, what was your status as a passenger? a Transient passengers. We cannot stay for more than 72 hours. xxx xxx xxx q As a consequence of the fact that you claimed that the Pan Am office in Tokyo told you that your names were not in the manifest, what did you do, if any? a I ask[ed] them if I can go anywhere in the State? They told me I can go to LA via Japan Airlines and I accepted it. q Do you have the tickets with you that they issued for Los Angels? a It was taken by the Japanese Airlines instead they issue[d] me a ticket to Taipei. xxx xxx xxx q Were you able to take the trip to Los Angeles via Pan Am tickets that was issued to you in lieu of the tickets to San Francisco? a No, sir. q Why not? a The Japanese Airlines said that there were no more available seats. q And as a consequence of that, what did you do, if any? a I am so much scared and worried, so the Japanese Airlines advised us to go to Taipei and I accepted it. xxx xxx xxx q Why did you accept the Japan Airlines offer for you to go to Taipei?

a Because there is no chance for us to go to the United States within 72 hours because during that time Northwest Airlines [was] on strike so the seats are very scarce. So they advised me better left (sic) before the 72 hours otherwise you will have trouble with the Japanese immigration. q As a consequence of that you were force[d] to take the trip to Taipei? a Yes, sir. 28 (emphasis supplied) It grinds against the grain of human experience that petitioners did not insist that they be allowed to board, considering that it was then doubly difficult to get seats because of the ongoing Northwest Airlines strike. It is also perplexing that petitioners readily accepted whatever the Tokyo office had to offer as an alternative. Inexplicably too, no demand letter was sent to respondents TWSI and Canilao. 29 Nor was a demand letter sent to respondent Pan Am. To say the least, the motive of petitioners in suing Pan Am is suspect. We hasten to add that it is not sufficient to prove that Pan Am did not allow petitioners to board to justify petitioners' claim for damages. Mere refusal to accede to the passenger's wishes does not necessarily translate into damages in the absence of bad faith. 30 The settled rule is that the law presumes good faith such that any person who seeks to be awarded damages due to acts of another has the burden of proving that the latter acted in bad faith or with ill motive. 31 In the case at bar, we find the evidence presented by petitioners insufficient to overcome the presumption of good faith. They have failed to show any wanton, malevolent or reckless misconduct imputable to respondent Pan Am in its refusal to accommodate petitioners in its Tokyo-San Francisco flight. Pan Am could not have acted in bad faith because petitioners did not have confirmed tickets and more importantly, they were not in the passenger manifest. In not a few cases, this Court did not hesitable to hold an airline liable for damages for having acted in bad faith in refusing to accommodate a passenger who had a confirmed ticket and whose name appeared in the passenger manifest. In Ortigas Jr. v. Lufthansa German Airlines Inc., 32 we ruled that there was a valid and binding contract between the airline and its passenger after finding that validating sticker on the passenger's ticket had the letters "O.K." appearing in the "Res. Status" box which means "space confirmed" and that the ticket is confirmed or validated. In Pan American World Airways Inc. v. IAC, et al. 33 where a wouldbe-passenger had the necessary ticket, baggage claim and clearance from immigration all clearly showing that she was a confirmed passenger and included in the passenger manifest and yet was denied accommodation in said flight, we awarded damages. InArmovit, et al. v. CA, et al., 34 we upheld the award of damages made against an airline for gross negligence committed in the issuance of tickets with erroneous entries as to the time of flight. In Alitalia Airways v. CA, et al., 35we held that when airline issues a ticket to a passenger confirmed on a particular flight, on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises, and the passenger has

every right to expect that he would fly on that flight and on that date. If he does not, then the carrier opens itself to a suit for breach of contract of carriage. And finally, an award of damages was held proper in the case of Zalamea, et al. v. CA, et al., 36 where a confirmed passenger included in the manifest was denied accommodation in such flight. On the other hand, the respondent airline in Sarreal, Sr. v. Japan Airlines Co., Ltd., 37 was held not liable for damages where the passenger was not allowed to board the plane because his ticket had not been confirmed. We ruled that "[t]he stub that the lady employee put on the petitioner's ticket showed among other coded items, under the column "status" the letters "RQ" which was understood to mean "Request." Clearly, this does not mean a confirmation but only a request. JAL Traffic Supervisor explained that it would have been different if what was written in the stub were the letter "ok" in which case the petitioner would have been assured of a seat on said flight. But in this case, the petitioner was more of a wait-listed passenger than a regularly booked passenger." In the case at bar, petitioners' ticket were on "RQ" status. They were not confirmed passengers and their names were not listed in the passenger manifest. In other words, this is not a case where Pan Am bound itself to transport petitioners and thereafter reneged on its obligation. Hence, respondent airline cannot be held liable for damages. IV. We hold that respondent Court of Appeals correctly rules that the tickets were never confirmed for good reasons: (1) The persistent calls made by respondent Tagunicar to Canilao, and those made by petitioners at the Manila, Hongkong and Tokyo offices in Pan Am, are eloquent indications that petitioners knew that their tickets have not been confirmed. For, as correctly observed by Pan Am, why would one continually try to have one's ticket confirmed if it had already been confirmed? (2) The validation stickers which respondent Tagunicar attached to petitioners' tickets were those intended for the exclusive use of airline companies. She had no authority to use them. Hence, said validation stickers, wherein the word "OK" appears in the status box, are not valid and binding. (3) The names of petitioners do not appear in the passengers manifest. (4) Respondent Tagunicar's "Exhibit 1" 38shows that the status of the San Francisco-New York segment was "Ok", meaning it was confirmed, but that the status of the Tokyo-San Francisco segment was still "on request". (5) Respondent Canilao testified that on the day that petitioners were to depart for Hongkong, respondent Tagunicar called her from the airport asking for confirmation of the Tokyo-San Francisco flight, and that when she told respondent Tagunicar that she should not have allowed petitioners to leave because their tickets have not been confirmed, respondent Tagunicar merely said "Bahala na." 39 This was never controverted nor refuted by respondent Tagunicar. (6) To prove that it really did not confirm the bookings of petitioners, respondent Canilao pointed out that the validation stickers which respondent Tagunicar attached to the tickets of petitioners had IATA No. 2-82-0770 stamped on it, whereas the IATA number of TWSI is 28-30770. 40

Undoubtedly, respondent Tagunicar should be liable for having acted in bad faith in misrepresenting to petitioners that their tickets have been confirmed. Her culpability, however, was properly mitigated. Petitioner Yu Eng Cho testified that he repeatedly tried to follow up on the confirmation of their tickets with Pan Am because he doubted the confirmation made by respondent Tagunicar. 41 This is clear proof that petitioners knew that they might be bumped off at Tokyo when they decided to proceed with the trip. Aware of this risk, petitioners exerted efforts to confirm their tickets in Manila, then in Hongkong, and finally in Tokyo. Resultantly, we find the modification as to the amount of damages awarded just and equitable under the circumstances. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED. Cost against petitioners.1wphi1.nt SO ORDERED.

withdraw the sugar covered by SLDR No. 1214M. Enclosed in the letter were a copy of SLDR No. 1214M and a letter of authority from STM authorizing CSC "to withdraw for and in our behalf the refined sugar covered by Shipping List/Delivery Receipt-Refined Sugar (SDR) No. 1214 dated October 16, 1989 in the total quantity of 25,000 bags."[4] On October 27, 1989, STM issued 16 checks in the total amount of P31,900,000.00 with petitioner as payee. The latter, in turn, issued Official Receipt No. 33743 dated October 27, 1989 acknowledging receipt of the said checks in payment of 50,000 bags. Aside from SLDR No. 1214M, said checks also covered SLDR No. 1213. Private respondent CSC surrendered SLDR No. 1214M to the petitioner's NAWACO warehouse and was allowed to withdraw sugar. However, after 2,000 bags had been released, petitioner refused to allow further withdrawals of sugar against SLDR No. 1214M. CSC then sent petitioner a letter dated January 23, 1990 informing it that SLDR No. 1214M had been "sold and endorsed" to it but that it had been refused further withdrawals of sugar from petitioner's warehouse despite the fact that only 2,000 bags had been withdrawn.[5] CSC thus inquired when it would be allowed to withdraw the remaining 23,000 bags. On January 31, 1990, petitioner replied that it could not allow any further withdrawals of sugar against SLDR No. 1214M because STM had already dwithdrawn all the sugar covered by the cleared checks.[6] On March 2, 1990, CSC sent petitioner a letter demanding the release of the balance of 23,000 bags. Seven days later, petitioner reiterated that all the sugar corresponding to the amount of STM's cleared checks had been fully withdrawn and hence, there would be no more deliveries of the commodity to STM's account. Petitioner also noted that CSC had represented itself to be STM's agent as it had withdrawn the 2,000 bags against SLDR No. 1214M "for and in behalf" of STM. On April 27, 1990, CSC filed a complaint for specific performance, docketed as Civil Case No. 90-1118. Defendants were Teresita Ng Sy (doing business under the name of St. Therese Merchandising) and herein petitioner. Since the former could not be served with summons, the case proceeded only against the latter. During the trial, it was discovered that Teresita Ng Go who testified for CSC was the same Teresita Ng Sy who could not be reached through summons.[7] CSC, however, did not bother to pursue its case against her, but instead used her as its witness. CSC's complaint alleged that STM had fully paid petitioner for the sugar covered by SLDR No. 1214M. Therefore, the latter had no justification for refusing delivery of the sugar. CSC prayed that petitioner be ordered to deliver the 23,000 bags covered by SLDR No. 1214M and sought the award of P1,104,000.00 in unrealized profits, P3,000,000.00 as exemplary damages, P2,200,000.00 as attorney's fees and litigation expenses.

[G.R. No. 117356. June 19, 2000] VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CONSOLIDATED SUGAR CORPORATION, respondents. DECISION QUISUMBING, J.: Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 24, 1994, in CA-G.R. CV No. 31717, as well as the respondent court's resolution of September 30, 1994 modifying said decision. Both decision and resolution amended the judgment dated February 13, 1991, of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 147, in Civil Case No. 90-118. The facts of this case as found by both the trial and appellate courts are as follows: St. Therese Merchandising (hereafter STM) regularly bought sugar from petitioner Victorias Milling Co., Inc., (VMC). In the course of their dealings, petitioner issued several Shipping List/Delivery Receipts (SLDRs) to STM as proof of purchases. Among these was SLDR No. 1214M, which gave rise to the instant case. Dated October 16, 1989, SLDR No. 1214M covers 25,000 bags of sugar. Each bag contained 50 kilograms and priced at P638.00 per bag as "per sales order VMC Marketing No. 042 dated October 16, 1989."[1] The transaction it covered was a "direct sale."[2] The SLDR also contains an additional note which reads: "subject for (sic) availability of a (sic) stock at NAWACO (warehouse)."[3] On October 25, 1989, STM sold to private respondent Consolidated Sugar Corporation (CSC) its rights in SLDR No. 1214M for P 14,750,000.00. CSC issued one check dated October 25, 1989 and three checks postdated November 13, 1989 in payment. That same day, CSC wrote petitioner that it had been authorized by STM to

Petitioner's primary defense a quo was that it was an unpaid seller for the 23,000 bags.[8] Since STM had already drawn in full all the sugar corresponding to the amount of its cleared checks, it could no longer authorize further delivery of sugar to CSC. Petitioner also contended that it had no privity of contract with CSC. Petitioner explained that the SLDRs, which it had issued, were not documents of title, but mere delivery receipts issued pursuant to a series of transactions entered into between it and STM. The SLDRs prescribed delivery of the sugar to the party specified therein and did not authorize the transfer of said party's rights and interests. Petitioner also alleged that CSC did not pay for the SLDR and was actually STM's co-conspirator to defraud it through a misrepresentation that CSC was an innocent purchaser for value and in good faith. Petitioner then prayed that CSC be ordered to pay it the following sums: P10,000,000.00 as moral damages; P10,000,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P1,500,000.00 as attorney's fees. Petitioner also prayed that cross-defendant STM be ordered to pay it P10,000,000.00 in exemplary damages, and P1,500,000.00 as attorney's fees. Since no settlement was reached at pre-trial, the trial court heard the case on the merits. As earlier stated, the trial court rendered its judgment favoring private respondent CSC, as follows: "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant Victorias Milling Company: "1) Ordering defendant Victorias Milling Company to deliver to the plaintiff 23,000 bags of refined sugar due under SLDR No. 1214; "2) Ordering defendant Victorias Milling Company to pay the amount of P920,000.00 as unrealized profits, the amount of P800,000.00 as exemplary damages and the amount of P1,357,000.00, which is 10% of the acquisition value of the undelivered bags of refined sugar in the amount of P13,570,000.00, as attorney's fees, plus the costs. "SO ORDERED."[9] It made the following observations: "[T]he testimony of plaintiff's witness Teresita Ng Go, that she had fully paid the purchase price of P15,950,000.00 of the 25,000 bags of sugar bought by her covered by SLDR No. 1214 as well as the purchase price of P15,950,000.00 for the 25,000 bags of sugar bought by her covered by SLDR No. 1213 on the same date, October 16, 1989 (date of the two SLDRs) is duly supported by Exhibits C to C-15 inclusive which are post-dated checks dated October 27, 1989 issued by St. Therese Merchandising in favor of Victorias Milling Company at the time it purchased the 50,000 bags of sugar covered by SLDR No. 1213 and 1214. Said checks appear to have been honored and duly credited to the account of Victorias

Milling Company because on October 27, 1989 Victorias Milling Company issued official receipt no. 34734 in favor of St. Therese Merchandising for the amount of P31,900,000.00 (Exhibits B and B1). The testimony of Teresita Ng Go is further supported by Exhibit F, which is a computer printout of defendant Victorias Milling Company showing the quantity and value of the purchases made by St. Therese Merchandising, the SLDR no. issued to cover the purchase, the official reciept no. and the status of payment. It is clear in Exhibit 'F' that with respect to the sugar covered by SLDR No. 1214 the same has been fully paid as indicated by the word 'cleared' appearing under the column of 'status of payment.' "On the other hand, the claim of defendant Victorias Milling Company that the purchase price of the 25,000 bags of sugar purchased by St. Therese Merchandising covered by SLDR No. 1214 has not been fully paid is supported only by the testimony of Arnulfo Caintic, witness for defendant Victorias Milling Company. The Court notes that the testimony of Arnulfo Caintic is merely a sweeping barren assertion that the purchase price has not been fully paid and is not corroborated by any positive evidence. There is an insinuation by Arnulfo Caintic in his testimony that the postdated checks issued by the buyer in payment of the purchased price were dishonored. However, said witness failed to present in Court any dishonored check or any replacement check. Said witness likewise failed to present any bank record showing that the checks issued by the buyer, Teresita Ng Go, in payment of the purchase price of the sugar covered by SLDR No. 1214 were dishonored."[10] Petitioner appealed the trial courts decision to the Court of Appeals. On appeal, petitioner averred that the dealings between it and STM were part of a series of transactions involving only one account or one general contract of sale. Pursuant to this contract, STM or any of its authorized agents could withdraw bags of sugar only against cleared checks of STM. SLDR No. 21214M was only one of 22 SLDRs issued to STM and since the latter had already withdrawn its full quota of sugar under the said SLDR, CSC was already precluded from seeking delivery of the 23,000 bags of sugar. Private respondent CSC countered that the sugar purchases involving SLDR No. 1214M were separate and independent transactions and that the details of the series of purchases were contained in a single statement with a consolidated summary of cleared check payments and sugar stock withdrawals because this a more convenient system than issuing separate statements for each purchase. The appellate court considered the following issues: (a) Whether or not the transaction between petitioner and STM involving SLDR No. 1214M was a separate, independent, and single transaction; (b) Whether or not CSC had the capacity to sue on its own on SLDR No. 1214M; and (c) Whether or not CSC as buyer from STM of the rights to 25,000 bags of sugar covered by SLDR No. 1214M could compel petitioner to deliver 23,000 bags allegedly unwithdrawn.

On February 24, 1994, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision modifying the trial court's judgment, to wit: "WHEREFORE, the Court hereby MODIFIES the assailed judgment and orders defendant-appellant to: "1) Deliver to plaintiff-appellee 12,586 bags of sugar covered by SLDR No. 1214M; " 2) Pay to plaintiff-appellee P792,918.00 which is 10% of the value of the undelivered bags of refined sugar, as attorneys fees; "3) Pay the costs of suit. "SO ORDERED."[11] Both parties then seasonably filed separate motions for reconsideration. In its resolution dated September 30, 1994, the appellate court modified its decision to read: "WHEREFORE, the Court hereby modifies the assailed judgment and orders defendant-appellant to: "(1) Deliver to plaintiff-appellee 23,000 bags of refined sugar under SLDR No. 1214M; "(2) Pay costs of suit. "SO ORDERED."[12] The appellate court explained the rationale for the modification as follows: "There is merit in plaintiff-appellee's position. "Exhibit F' We relied upon in fixing the number of bags of sugar which remained undelivered as 12,586 cannot be made the basis for such a finding. The rule is explicit that courts should consider the evidence only for the purpose for which it was offered. (People v. Abalos, et al, 1 CA Rep 783). The rationale for this is to afford the party against whom the evidence is presented to object thereto if he deems it necessary. Plaintiff-appellee is, therefore, correct in its argument that Exhibit F' which was offered to prove that checks in the total amount of P15,950,000.00 had been cleared. (Formal Offer of Evidence for Plaintiff, Records p. 58) cannot be used to prove the proposition that 12,586 bags of sugar remained undelivered. "Testimonial evidence (Testimonies of Teresita Ng [TSN, 10 October 1990, p. 33] and Marianito L. Santos [TSN, 17 October 1990, pp. 16, 18, and 36]) presented by plaintiff-appellee was to the effect that it had withdrawn only 2,000 bags of sugar from SLDR after which it was not allowed to withdraw anymore. Documentary evidence (Exhibit I, Id., p. 78, Exhibit K, Id., p. 80) show that plaintiff-appellee had sent demand letters to

defendant-appellant asking the latter to allow it to withdraw the remaining 23,000 bags of sugar from SLDR 1214M. Defendantappellant, on the other hand, alleged that sugar delivery to the STM corresponded only to the value of cleared checks; and that all sugar corresponded to cleared checks had been withdrawn. Defendant-appellant did not rebut plaintiff-appellee's assertions. It did not present evidence to show how many bags of sugar had been withdrawn against SLDR No. 1214M, precisely because of its theory that all sales in question were a series of one single transaction and withdrawal of sugar depended on the clearing of checks paid therefor. "After a second look at the evidence, We see no reason to overturn the findings of the trial court on this point."[13] Hence, the instant petition, positing the following errors as grounds for review: "1. The Court of Appeals erred in not holding that STM's and private respondent's specially informing petitioner that respondent was authorized by buyer STM to withdraw sugar against SLDR No. 1214M "for and in our (STM) behalf," (emphasis in the original) private respondent's withdrawing 2,000 bags of sugar for STM, and STM's empowering other persons as its agents to withdraw sugar against the same SLDR No. 1214M, rendered respondent like the other persons, an agent of STM as held in Rallos v. Felix Go Chan & Realty Corp., 81 SCRA 252, and precluded it from subsequently claiming and proving being an assignee of SLDR No. 1214M and from suing by itself for its enforcement because it was conclusively presumed to be an agent (Sec. 2, Rule 131, Rules of Court) and estopped from doing so. (Art. 1431, Civil Code). " 2. The Court of Appeals erred in manifestly and arbitrarily ignoring and disregarding certain relevant and undisputed facts which, had they been considered, would have shown that petitioner was not liable, except for 69 bags of sugar, and which would justify review of its conclusion of facts by this Honorable Court. " 3. The Court of Appeals misapplied the law on compensation under Arts. 1279, 1285 and 1626 of the Civil Code when it ruled that compensation applied only to credits from one SLDR or contract and not to those from two or more distinct contracts between the same parties; and erred in denying petitioner's right to setoff all its credits arising prior to notice of assignment from other sales or SLDRs against private respondent's claim as assignee under SLDR No. 1214M, so as to extinguish or reduce its liability to 69 bags, because the law on compensation applies precisely to two or more distinct contracts between the same parties (emphasis in the original). "4. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the settlement or liquidation of accounts in Exh. F between petitioner and STM, respondent's admission of its balance, and STM's acquiescence thereto by silence for almost one year did not render Exh. `F' an account stated and its balance binding.

"5. The Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the conditions of the assigned SLDR No. 1214, namely, (a) its subject matter being generic, and (b) the sale of sugar being subject to its availability at the Nawaco warehouse, made the sale conditional and prevented STM or private respondent from acquiring title to the sugar; and the non-availability of sugar freed petitioner from further obligation. "6. The Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the "clean hands" doctrine precluded respondent from seeking judicial reliefs (sic) from petitioner, its only remedy being against its assignor."[14] Simply stated, the issues now to be resolved are: (1)....Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling that CSC was an agent of STM and hence, estopped to sue upon SLDR No. 1214M as an assignee. (2)....Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in applying the law on compensation to the transaction under SLDR No. 1214M so as to preclude petitioner from offsetting its credits on the other SLDRs. (3)....Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling that the sale of sugar under SLDR No. 1214M was a conditional sale or a contract to sell and hence freed petitioner from further obligations. (4)....Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed an error of law in not applying the "clean hands doctrine" to preclude CSC from seeking judicial relief. The issues will be discussed in seriatim. Anent the first issue, we find from the records that petitioner raised this issue for the first time on appeal. It is settled that an issue which was not raised during the trial in the court below could not be raised for the first time on appeal as to do so would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process.[15] Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals opted to address this issue, hence, now a matter for our consideration. Petitioner heavily relies upon STM's letter of authority allowing CSC to withdraw sugar against SLDR No. 1214M to show that the latter was STM's agent. The pertinent portion of said letter reads: "This is to authorize Consolidated Sugar Corporation or its representative to withdraw for and in our behalf (stress supplied) the refined sugar covered by Shipping List/Delivery Receipt = Refined Sugar (SDR) No. 1214 dated October 16, 1989 in the total quantity of 25, 000 bags."[16] The Civil Code defines a contract of agency as follows: "Art. 1868. By the contract of agency a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter."

It is clear from Article 1868 that the basis of agency is representation.[17] On the part of the principal, there must be an actual intention to appoint[18] or an intention naturally inferable from his words or actions;[19] and on the part of the agent, there must be an intention to accept the appointment and act on it,[20] and in the absence of such intent, there is generally no agency.[21] One factor which most clearly distinguishes agency from other legal concepts is control; one person - the agent - agrees to act under the control or direction of another - the principal. Indeed, the very word "agency" has come to connote control by the principal.[22] The control factor, more than any other, has caused the courts to put contracts between principal and agent in a separate category.[23] The Court of Appeals, in finding that CSC, was not an agent of STM, opined: "This Court has ruled that where the relation of agency is dependent upon the acts of the parties, the law makes no presumption of agency, and it is always a fact to be proved, with the burden of proof resting upon the persons alleging the agency, to show not only the fact of its existence, but also its nature and extent (Antonio vs. Enriquez [CA], 51 O.G. 3536]. Here, defendantappellant failed to sufficiently establish the existence of an agency relation between plaintiff-appellee and STM. The fact alone that it (STM) had authorized withdrawal of sugar by plaintiff-appellee "for and in our (STM's) behalf" should not be eyed as pointing to the existence of an agency relation ...It should be viewed in the context of all the circumstances obtaining. Although it would seem STM represented plaintiff-appellee as being its agent by the use of the phrase "for and in our (STM's) behalf" the matter was cleared when on 23 January 1990, plaintiff-appellee informed defendantappellant that SLDFR No. 1214M had been "sold and endorsed" to it by STM (Exhibit I, Records, p. 78). Further, plaintiff-appellee has shown that the 25, 000 bags of sugar covered by the SLDR No. 1214M were sold and transferred by STM to it ...A conclusion that there was a valid sale and transfer to plaintiff-appellee may, therefore, be made thus capacitating plaintiff-appellee to sue in its own name, without need of joining its imputed principal STM as co-plaintiff."[24] In the instant case, it appears plain to us that private respondent CSC was a buyer of the SLDFR form, and not an agent of STM. Private respondent CSC was not subject to STM's control. The question of whether a contract is one of sale or agency depends on the intention of the parties as gathered from the whole scope and effect of the language employed.[25] That the authorization given to CSC contained the phrase "for and in our (STM's) behalf" did not establish an agency. Ultimately, what is decisive is the intention of the parties.[26] That no agency was meant to be established by the CSC and STM is clearly shown by CSC's communication to petitioner that SLDR No. 1214M had been "sold and endorsed" to it.[27] The use of the words "sold and endorsed" means that STM and CSC intended a contract of sale, and not an agency. Hence, on this score, no error was committed by the respondent appellate court when it held that CSC was not STM's agent and could independently sue petitioner.

On the second issue, proceeding from the theory that the transactions entered into between petitioner and STM are but serial parts of one account, petitioner insists that its debt has been offset by its claim for STM's unpaid purchases, pursuant to Article 1279 of the Civil Code.[28] However, the trial court found, and the Court of Appeals concurred, that the purchase of sugar covered by SLDR No. 1214M was a separate and independent transaction; it was not a serial part of a single transaction or of one account contrary to petitioner's insistence. Evidence on record shows, without being rebutted, that petitioner had been paid for the sugar purchased under SLDR No. 1214M. Petitioner clearly had the obligation to deliver said commodity to STM or its assignee. Since said sugar had been fully paid for, petitioner and CSC, as assignee of STM, were not mutually creditors and debtors of each other. No reversible error could thereby be imputed to respondent appellate court when, it refused to apply Article 1279 of the Civil Code to the present case. Regarding the third issue, petitioner contends that the sale of sugar under SLDR No. 1214M is a conditional sale or a contract to sell, with title to the sugar still remaining with the vendor. Noteworthy, SLDR No. 1214M contains the following terms and conditions: "It is understood and agreed that by payment by buyer/trader of refined sugar and/or receipt of this document by the buyer/trader personally or through a representative, title to refined sugar is transferred to buyer/trader and delivery to him/it is deemed effected and completed (stress supplied) and buyer/trader assumes full responsibility therefore"[29] The aforequoted terms and conditions clearly show that petitioner transferred title to the sugar to the buyer or his assignee upon payment of the purchase price. Said terms clearly establish a contract of sale, not a contract to sell. Petitioner is now estopped from alleging the contrary. The contract is the law between the contracting parties.[30] And where the terms and conditions so stipulated are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy or public order, the contract is valid and must be upheld.[31] Having transferred title to the sugar in question, petitioner is now obliged to deliver it to the purchaser or its assignee. As to the fourth issue, petitioner submits that STM and private respondent CSC have entered into a conspiracy to defraud it of its sugar. This conspiracy is allegedly evidenced by: (a) the fact that STM's selling price to CSC was below its purchasing price; (b) CSC's refusal to pursue its case against Teresita Ng Go; and (c) the authority given by the latter to other persons to withdraw sugar against SLDR No. 1214M after she had sold her rights under said SLDR to CSC. Petitioner prays that the doctrine of "clean hands" should be applied to preclude CSC from seeking judicial relief. However, despite careful scrutiny, we find here the records bare of convincing evidence whatsoever to support the petitioner's allegations of fraud. We are now constrained to deem this matter purely speculative, bereft of concrete proof.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

the complaint, until fully paid, the sum of P8,000.00 a month starting December 1982, until private respondent fully vacates the premises, and to pay P20,000.00 as and by way of attorney's fees. Private respondent filed a certiorari petition praying for the issuance of a restraining order enjoining the enforcement of said judgment and dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction of the City Court. On September 26, 1984, the then Intermediate Appellate Court[3] (now Court of Appeals) rendered a decision[4] stating that: "x x x, the alleged question of whether petitioner was granted an extension of the option to buy the property; whether such option, if any, extended the lease or whether petitioner actually paid the alleged P300,000.00 to Fidela Dizon, as representative of private respondents in consideration of the option and, whether petitioner thereafter offered to pay the balance of the supposed purchase price, are all merely incidental and do not remove the unlawful detainer case from the jurisdiction of respondent court. In consonance with the ruling in the case of Teodoro, Jr. vs. Mirasol (supra), the above matters may be raised and decided in the unlawful detainer suit as, to rule otherwise, would be a violation of the principle prohibiting multiplicity of suits. (Original Records, pp. 38-39)." The motion for reconsideration was denied. On review, this Court dismissed the petition in a resolution dated June 19, 1985 and likewise denied private respondent's subsequent motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated September 9, 1985.[5] On October 7, 1985, private respondent filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q-45541) an action for Specific Performance and Fixing of Period for Obligation with prayer for the issuance of a restraining order pending hearing on the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. It sought to compel the execution of a deed of sale pursuant to the option to purchase and the receipt of the partial payment, and to fix the period to pay the balance. In an Order dated October 25, 1985, the trial court denied the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction on the ground that the decision of the then City Court for the ejectment of the private respondent, having been affirmed by the then Intermediate Appellate Court and the Supreme Court, has become final and executory. Unable to secure an injunction, private respondent also filed before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 102 (Civil Case No. Q46487) on November 15, 1985 a complaint for Annulment of and Relief from Judgment with injunction and damages. In its decision[6]dated May 12, 1986, the trial court dismissed the complaint for annulment on the ground of res judicata, and the writ of preliminary injunction previously issued was dissolved. It also ordered private respondent to pay P3,000.00 as attorney's fees. As a consequence of private respondent's motion for reconsideration, the preliminary injunction was reinstated, thereby restraining the execution of the City Court's judgment on the ejectment case.

[G.R. No. 122544. January 28, 1999] REGINA P. DIZON, AMPARO D. BARTOLOME, FIDELINA D. BALZA, ESTER ABAD DIZON and JOSEPH ANTHONY DIZON, RAYMUND A. DIZON, GERARD A. DIZON, and JOSE A. DIZON, JR.,petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and OVERLAND EXPRESS LINES, INC., respondents. [G.R. No. 124741. January 28, 1999] REGINA P. DIZON, AMPARO D. BARTOLOME, FIDELINA D. BALZA, ESTER ABAD DIZON and JOSEPH ANTHONY DIZON, RAYMUND A. DIZON, GERARD A. DIZON, and JOSE A. DIZON, JR.,petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, and OVERLAND EXPRESS LINES, INC., respondents. DECISION MARTINEZ, J.: Two consolidated petitions were filed before us seeking to set aside and annul the decisions and resolutions of respondent Court of Appeals. What seemed to be a simple ejectment suit was juxtaposed with procedural intricacies which finally found its way to this Court.
G. R. NO. 122544:

On May 23, 1974, private respondent Overland Express Lines, Inc. (lessee) entered into a Contract of Lease with Option to Buy with petitioners[1] (lessors) involving a 1,755.80 square meter parcel of land situated at corner MacArthur Highway and South "H" Street, Diliman, Quezon City. The term of the lease was for one (1) year commencing from May 16, 1974 up to May 15, 1975. During this period, private respondent was granted an option to purchase for the amount of P3,000.00 per square meter. Thereafter, the lease shall be on a per month basis with a monthly rental of P3,000.00. For failure of private respondent to pay the increased rental of P8,000.00 per month effective June 1976, petitioners filed an action for ejectment (Civil Case No. VIII-29155) on November 10, 1976 before the then City Court (now Metropolitan Trial Court) of Quezon City, Branch VIII. On November 22, 1982, the City Court rendered judgment[2] ordering private respondent to vacate the leased premises and to pay the sum of P624,000.00 representing rentals in arrears and/or as damages in the form of reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises during the period of illegal detainer from June 1976 to November 1982 at the monthly rental of P8,000.00, less payments made, plus 12% interest per annum from November 18, 1976, the date of filing of

The two cases were thereafter consolidated before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 77. On April 28, 1989, a decision[7] was rendered dismissing private respondent's complaint in Civil Case No. Q-45541 (specific performance case) and denying its motion for reconsideration in Civil Case No. 46487 (annulment of the ejectment case). The motion for reconsideration of said decision was likewise denied. On appeal,[8] respondent Court of Appeals rendered a decision[9] upholding the jurisdiction of the City Court of Quezon City in the ejectment case. It also concluded that there was a perfected contract of sale between the parties on the leased premises and that pursuant to the option to buy agreement, private respondent had acquired the rights of a vendee in a contract of sale. It opined that the payment by private respondent of P300,000.00 on June 20, 1975 as partial payment for the leased property, which petitioners accepted (through Alice A. Dizon) and for which an official receipt was issued, was the operative act that gave rise to a perfected contract of sale, and that for failure of petitioners to deny receipt thereof, private respondent can therefore assume that Alice A. Dizon, acting as agent of petitioners, was authorized by them to receive the money in their behalf. The Court of Appeals went further by stating that in fact, what was entered into was a "conditional contract of sale" wherein ownership over the leased property shall not pass to the private respondent until it has fully paid the purchase price. Since private respondent did not consign to the court the balance of the purchase price and continued to occupy the subject premises, it had the obligation to pay the amount of P1,700.00 in monthly rentals until full payment of the purchase price. The dispositive portion of said decision reads: "WHEREFORE, the appealed decision in Case No. 46487 is AFFIRMED. The appealed decision in Case No. 45541 is, on the other hand, ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The defendants-appellees are ordered to execute the deed of absolute sale of the property in question, free from any lien or encumbrance whatsoever, in favor of the plaintiff-appellant, and to deliver to the latter the said deed of sale, as well as the owner's duplicate of the certificate of title to said property upon payment of the balance of the purchase price by the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff-appellant is ordered to pay P1,700.00 per month from June 1976, plus 6% interest per annum, until payment of the balance of the purchase price, as previously agreed upon by the parties. SO ORDERED." Upon denial of the motion for partial reconsideration (Civil Case No. Q-45541) by respondent Court of Appeals,[10] petitioners elevated the case via petition for certiorari questioning the authority of Alice A. Dizon as agent of petitioners in receiving private respondent's partial payment amounting to P300,000.00 pursuant to the Contract of Lease with Option to Buy. Petitioners also assail the propriety of private respondent's exercise of the option when it tendered the said amount on June 20, 1975 which purportedly resulted in a perfected contract of sale.

G. R. NO. 124741:

Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution[16] by the Court of Appeals stating that: "This court in its decision in CA-G.R. CV Nos. 25153-54 declared that the plaintiff-appellant (private respondent herein) acquired the rights of a vendee in a contract of sale, in effect, recognizing the right of the private respondent to possess the subject premises. Considering said decision, we should not allow ejectment; to do so would disturb the status quo of the parties since the petitioners are not in possession of the subject property. It would be unfair and unjust to deprive the private respondent of its possession of the subject property after its rights have been established in a subsequent ruling. WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED."[17] Hence, this instant petition. We find both petitions impressed with merit. First. Petitioners have established a right to evict private respondent from the subject premises for non-payment of rentals. The term of the Contract of Lease with Option to Buy was for a period of one (1) year (May 16, 1974 to May 15, 1975) during which the private respondent was given an option to purchase said property at P3,000.00 per square meter. After the expiration thereof, the lease was for P3,000.00 per month. Admittedly, no definite period beyond the one-year term of lease was agreed upon by petitioners and private respondent. However, since the rent was paid on a monthly basis, the period of lease is considered to be from month to month in accordance with Article 1687 of the New Civil Code.[18] Where the rentals are paid monthly, the lease, even if verbal may be deemed to be on a monthly basis, expiring at the end of every month pursuant to Article 1687, in relation to Article 1673 of the Civil Code.[19] In such case, a demand to vacate is not even necessary for judicial action after the expiration of every month.[20] When private respondent failed to pay the increased rental of P8,000.00 per month in June 1976, the petitioners had a cause of action to institute an ejectment suit against the former with the then City Court. In this regard, the City Court (now MTC) had exclusive jurisdiction over the ejectment suit. The filing by private respondent of a suit with the Regional Trial Court for specific performance to enforce the option to purchase did not divest the then City Court of its jurisdiction to take cognizance over the ejectment case. Of note is the fact that the decision of the City Court was affirmed by both the Intermediate Appellate Court and this Court. Second. Having failed to exercise the option within the stipulated one-year period, private respondent cannot enforce its option to purchase anymore. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the

Petitioners filed with respondent Court of Appeals a motion to remand the records of Civil Case No. 38-29155 (ejectment case) to the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), then City Court of Quezon City, Branch 38, for execution of the judgment[11] dated November 22, 1982 which was granted in a resolution dated June 29, 1992. Private respondent filed a motion to reconsider said resolution which was denied. Aggrieved, private respondent filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition with preliminary injunction and/or restraining order with this Court (G.R. Nos. 106750-51) which was dismissed in a resolution dated September 16, 1992 on the ground that the same was a refiled case previously dismissed for lack of merit. On November 26, 1992, entry of judgment was issued by this Court. On July 14, 1993, petitioners filed an urgent ex-parte motion for execution of the decision in Civil Case No. 38-29155 with the MTC of Quezon City, Branch 38. On September 13, 1993, the trial court ordered the issuance of a third alias writ of execution. In denying private respondent's motion for reconsideration, it ordered the immediate implementation of the third writ of execution without delay. On December 22, 1993, private respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 104 a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction/restraining order (SP. PROC. No. 93-18722) challenging the enforceability and validity of the MTC judgment as well as the order for its execution. On January 11, 1994, RTC of Quezon City, Branch 104 issued an order[12] granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction upon private respondent's posting of an injunction bond of P50,000.00. Assailing the aforequoted order after denial of their motion for partial reconsideration, petitioners filed a petition[13] for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals. In its decision,[14] the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and ruled that: "The avowed purpose of this petition is to enjoin the public respondent from restraining the ejectment of the private respondent. To grant the petition would be to allow the ejectment of the private respondent. We cannot do that now in view of the decision of this Court in CA-G.R. CV Nos. 25153-54. Petitioners' alleged right to eject private respondent has been demonstrated to be without basis in the said civil case. The petitioners have been shown, after all, to have no right to eject private respondents. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED due course and is accordingly DISMISSED. SO ORDERED."[15]

right to exercise the option still subsists at the time private respondent tendered the amount on June 20, 1975, the suit for specific performance to enforce the option to purchase was filed only on October 7, 1985 or more than ten (10) years after accrual of the cause of action as provided under Article 1144 of the New Civil Code.[21] In this case, there was a contract of lease for one (1) year with option to purchase. The contract of lease expired without the private respondent, as lessee, purchasing the property but remained in possession thereof. Hence, there was an implicit renewal of the contract of lease on a monthly basis. The other terms of the original contract of lease which are revived in the implied new lease under Article 1670 of the New Civil Code[22] are only those terms which are germane to the lessees right of continued enjoyment of the property leased.[23] Therefore, an implied new lease does not ipso facto carry with it any implied revival of private respondent's option to purchase (as lessee thereof) the leased premises. The provision entitling the lessee the option to purchase the leased premises is not deemed incorporated in the impliedly renewed contract because it is alien to the possession of the lessee. Private respondents right to exercise the option to purchase expired with the termination of the original contract of lease for one year. The rationale of this Court is that: This is a reasonable construction of the provision, which is based on the presumption that when the lessor allows the lessee to continue enjoying possession of the property for fifteen days after the expiration of the contract he is willing that such enjoyment shall be for the entire period corresponding to the rent which is customarily paid in this case up to the end of the month because the rent was paid monthly. Necessarily, if the presumed will of the parties refers to the enjoyment of possession the presumption covers the other terms of the contract related to such possession, such as the amount of rental, the date when it must be paid, the care of the property, the responsibility for repairs, etc. But no such presumption may be indulged in with respect to special agreements which by nature are foreign to the right of occupancy or enjoyment inherent in a contract of lease.[24] Third. There was no perfected contract of sale between petitioners and private respondent. Private respondent argued that it delivered the check of P300,000.00 to Alice A. Dizon who acted as agent of petitioners pursuant to the supposed authority given by petitioner Fidela Dizon, the payee thereof. Private respondent further contended that petitioners filing of the ejectment case against it based on the contract of lease with option to buy holds petitioners in estoppel to question the authority of petitioner Fidela Dizon. It insisted that the payment of P300,000.00 as partial payment of the purchase price constituted a valid exercise of the option to buy. Under Article 1475 of the New Civil Code, the contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. From that moment, the parties may reciprocally demand performance,

subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts. Thus, the elements of a contract of sale are consent, object, and price in money or its equivalent. It bears stressing that the absence of any of these essential elements negates the existence of a perfected contract of sale. Sale is a consensual contract and he who alleges it must show its existence by competent proof.[25] In an attempt to resurrect the lapsed option, private respondent gave P300,000.00 to petitioners (thru Alice A. Dizon) on the erroneous presumption that the said amount tendered would constitute a perfected contract of sale pursuant to the contract of lease with option to buy. There was no valid consent by the petitioners (as co-owners of the leased premises) on the supposed sale entered into by Alice A. Dizon, as petitioners alleged agent, and private respondent. The basis for agency is representation and a person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent.[26] As provided in Article 1868 of the New Civil Code,[27] there was no showing that petitioners consented to the act of Alice A. Dizon nor authorized her to act on their behalf with regard to her transaction with private respondent. The most prudent thing private respondent should have done was to ascertain the extent of the authority of Alice A. Dizon. Being negligent in this regard, private respondent cannot seek relief on the basis of a supposed agency. In Bacaltos Coal Mines vs. Court of Appeals,[28] we explained the rule in dealing with an agent: Every person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent. If he does not make such inquiry, he is chargeable with knowledge of the agents authority, and his ignorance of that authority will not be any excuse. Persons dealing with an assumed agent, whether the assumed agency be a general or special one, are bound at their peril, if they would hold the principal, to ascertain not only the fact of the agency but also the nature and extent of the authority, and in case either is controverted, the burden of proof is upon them to establish it. For the long years that private respondent was able to thwart the execution of the ejectment suit rendered in favor of petitioners, we now write finis to this controversy and shun further delay so as to ensure that this case would really attain finality. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, both petitions are GRANTED. The decision dated March 29, 1994 and the resolution dated October 19, 1995 in CA-G.R. CV No. 25153-54, as well as the decision dated December 11, 1995 and the resolution dated April 23, 1997 in CA-G.R. SP No. 33113 of the Court of Appeals are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let the records of this case be remanded to the trial court for immediate execution of the judgment dated November 22, 1982 in Civil Case No. VIII-29155 of the then City Court (now Metropolitan Trial Court) of Quezon City, Branch VIII as affirmed in the decision dated September 26, 1984 of the then Intermediate Appellate

Court (now Court of Appeals) and in the resolution dated June 19, 1985 of this Court. However, petitioners are ordered to REFUND to private respondent the amount of P300,000.00 which they received through Alice A. Dizon on June 20, 1975. SO ORDERED.

[G.R. No. 148187, April 16, 2008] PHILEX MINING CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. DECISION YNARES-SATIAGO, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the June 30, 2000 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 49385, which affirmed the Decision[2] of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 5200. Also assailed is the April 3, 2001 Resolution[3]denying the motion for reconsideration. The facts of the case are as follows: On April 16, 1971, petitioner Philex Mining Corporation (Philex Mining), entered into an agreement[4] with Baguio Gold Mining Company ("Baguio Gold") for the former to manage and operate the latter's mining claim, known as the Sto. Nino mine, located in Atok and Tublay, Benguet Province. The parties' agreement was denominated as "Power of Attorney" and provided for the following terms: 4. Within three (3) years from date thereof, the PRINCIPAL (Baguio Gold) shall make available to the MANAGERS (Philex Mining) up to ELEVEN MILLION PESOS (P11,000,000.00), in such amounts as from time to time may be required by the MANAGERS within the said 3-year period, for use in the MANAGEMENT of the STO. NINO MINE. The said ELEVEN MILLION PESOS (P11,000,000.00) shall be deemed, for internal audit purposes, as the owner's account in the Sto. Nino PROJECT. Any part of any income of the PRINCIPAL from the STO. NINO MINE, which is left with the Sto. Nino PROJECT, shall be added to such owner's account. 5. Whenever the MANAGERS shall deem it necessary and convenient in connection with the MANAGEMENT of the STO. NINO MINE, they may transfer their own funds or property to the Sto. Nino PROJECT, in accordance with the following arrangements: (a) The properties shall be appraised and, together with the cash, shall be carried by the Sto. Nino PROJECT as a special fund to be known as the MANAGERS' account.

(b) The total of the MANAGERS' account shall not exceed P11,000,000.00, except with prior approval of the PRINCIPAL; provided, however, that if the compensation of the MANAGERS as herein provided cannot be paid in cash from the Sto. Nino PROJECT, the amount not so paid in cash shall be added to the MANAGERS' account. (c) The cash and property shall not thereafter be withdrawn from the Sto. Nino PROJECT until termination of this Agency. (d) The MANAGERS' account shall not accrue interest. Since it is the desire of the PRINCIPAL to extend to the MANAGERS the benefit of subsequent appreciation of property, upon a projected termination of this Agency, the ratio which the MANAGERS' account has to the owner's account will be determined, and the corresponding proportion of the entire assets of the STO. NINO MINE, excluding the claims, shall be transferred to the MANAGERS, except that such transferred assets shall not include mine development, roads, buildings, and similar property which will be valueless, or of slight value, to the MANAGERS. The MANAGERS can, on the other hand, require at their option that property originally transferred by them to the Sto. Nino PROJECT be retransferred to them. Until such assets are transferred to the MANAGERS, this Agency shall remain subsisting.

x x x x[5] In the course of managing and operating the project, Philex Mining made advances of cash and property in accordance with paragraph 5 of the agreement. However, the mine suffered continuing losses over the years which resulted to petitioner's withdrawal as manager of the mine on January 28, 1982 and in the eventual cessation of mine operations on February 20, 1982.[6] Thereafter, on September 27, 1982, the parties executed a "Compromise with Dation in Payment"[7] wherein Baguio Gold admitted an indebtedness to petitioner in the amount of P179,394,000.00 and agreed to pay the same in three segments by first assigning Baguio Gold's tangible assets to petitioner, transferring to the latter Baguio Gold's equitable title in its Philodrill assets and finally settling the remaining liability through properties that Baguio Gold may acquire in the future. On December 31, 1982, the parties executed an "Amendment to Compromise with Dation in Payment"[8] where the parties determined that Baguio Gold's indebtedness to petitioner actually amounted to P259,137,245.00, which sum included liabilities of Baguio Gold to other creditors that petitioner had assumed as guarantor. These liabilities pertained to long-term loans amounting to US$11,000,000.00 contracted by Baguio Gold from the Bank of America NT & SA and Citibank N.A. This time, Baguio Gold undertook to pay petitioner in two segments by first assigning its tangible assets for P127,838,051.00 and then transferring its equitable title in its Philodrill assets for P16,302,426.00. The parties then ascertained that Baguio Gold had a remaining outstanding indebtedness to petitioner in the amount of P114,996,768.00. Subsequently, petitioner wrote off in its 1982 books of account the remaining outstanding indebtedness of Baguio Gold by charging P112,136,000.00 to allowances and reserves that were set up in 1981 and P2,860,768.00 to the 1982 operations. In its 1982 annual income tax return, petitioner deducted from its gross income the amount of P112,136,000.00 as "loss on settlement of receivables from Baguio Gold against reserves and allowances."[9] However, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) disallowed the amount as deduction for bad debt and assessed petitioner a deficiency income tax of P62,811,161.39. Petitioner protested before the BIR arguing that the deduction must be allowed since all requisites for a bad debt deduction were satisfied, to wit: (a) there was a valid and existing debt; (b) the debt was ascertained to be worthless; and (c) it was charged off within the taxable year when it was determined to be worthless. Petitioner emphasized that the debt arose out of a valid management contract it entered into with Baguio Gold. The bad debt deduction represented advances made by petitioner which, pursuant to the management contract, formed part of Baguio Gold's "pecuniary obligations" to petitioner. It also included

payments made by petitioner as guarantor of Baguio Gold's longterm loans which legally entitled petitioner to be subrogated to the rights of the original creditor. Petitioner also asserted that due to Baguio Gold's irreversible losses, it became evident that it would not be able to recover the advances and payments it had made in behalf of Baguio Gold. For a debt to be considered worthless, petitioner claimed that it was neither required to institute a judicial action for collection against the debtor nor to sell or dispose of collateral assets in satisfaction of the debt. It is enough that a taxpayer exerted diligent efforts to enforce collection and exhausted all reasonable means to collect. On October 28, 1994, the BIR denied petitioner's protest for lack of legal and factual basis. It held that the alleged debt was not ascertained to be worthless since Baguio Gold remained existing and had not filed a petition for bankruptcy; and that the deduction did not consist of a valid and subsisting debt considering that, under the management contract, petitioner was to be paid fifty percent (50%) of the project's net profit.[10] Petitioner appealed before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) which rendered judgment, as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assessment in question, viz: FAS-1-82-88-003067 for deficiency income tax in the amount of P62,811,161.39 is hereby AFFIRMED. ACCORDINGLY, petitioner Philex Mining Corporation is hereby ORDERED to PAY respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue the amount of P62,811,161.39, plus, 20% delinquency interest due computed from February 10, 1995, which is the date after the 20day grace period given by the respondent within which petitioner has to pay the deficiency amount x x x up to actual date of payment. SO ORDERED.[11] The CTA rejected petitioner's assertion that the advances it made for the Sto. Nino mine were in the nature of a loan. It instead characterized the advances as petitioner's investment in a partnership with Baguio Gold for the development and exploitation of the Sto. Nino mine. The CTA held that the "Power of Attorney" executed by petitioner and Baguio Gold was actually a partnership agreement. Since the advanced amount partook of the nature of an investment, it could not be deducted as a bad debt from petitioner's gross income. The CTA likewise held that the amount paid by petitioner for the long-term loan obligations of Baguio Gold could not be allowed as a bad debt deduction. At the time the payments were made, Baguio Gold was not in default since its loans were not yet due and demandable. What petitioner did was to pre-pay the loans as evidenced by the notice sent by Bank of America showing that it was merely demanding payment of the installment and interests due. Moreover, Citibank imposed and collected a "pre-termination

xxxx 12. The compensation of the MANAGER shall be fifty per cent (50%) of the net profit of the Sto. Nino PROJECT before income tax. It is understood that the MANAGERS shall pay income tax on their compensation, while the PRINCIPAL shall pay income tax on the net profit of the Sto. Nino PROJECT after deduction therefrom of the MANAGERS' compensation. xxxx 16. The PRINCIPAL has current pecuniary obligation in favor of the MANAGERS and, in the future, may incur other obligations in favor of the MANAGERS. This Power of Attorney has been executed as security for the payment and satisfaction of all such obligations of the PRINCIPAL in favor of the MANAGERS and as a means to fulfill the same. Therefore, this Agency shall be irrevocable while any obligation of the PRINCIPAL in favor of the MANAGERS is outstanding, inclusive of the MANAGERS' account. After all obligations of the PRINCIPAL in favor of the MANAGERS have been paid and satisfied in full, this Agency shall be revocable by the PRINCIPAL upon 36-month notice to the MANAGERS. 17. Notwithstanding any agreement or understanding between the PRINCIPAL and the MANAGERS to the contrary, the MANAGERS may withdraw from this Agency by giving 6-month notice to the PRINCIPAL. The MANAGERS shall not in any manner be held liable to the PRINCIPAL by reason alone of such withdrawal. Paragraph 5(d) hereof shall be operative in case of the MANAGERS' withdrawal.

penalty" for the pre-payment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the CTA.[12] Hence, upon denial of its motion for reconsideration,[13] petitioner took this recourse under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, alleging that: I. The Court of Appeals erred in construing that the advances made by Philex in the management of the Sto. Nino Mine pursuant to the Power of Attorney partook of the nature of an investment rather than a loan. II. The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the 50%-50% sharing in the net profits of the Sto. Nino Mine indicates that Philex is a partner of Baguio Gold in the development of the Sto. Nino Mine notwithstanding the clear absence of any intent on the part of Philex and Baguio Gold to form a partnership. III. The Court of Appeals erred in relying only on the Power of Attorney and in completely disregarding the Compromise Agreement and the Amended Compromise Agreement when it construed the nature of the advances made by Philex. IV. The Court of Appeals erred in refusing to delve upon the issue of the propriety of the bad debts write-off.[14] Petitioner insists that in determining the nature of its business relationship with Baguio Gold, we should not only rely on the "Power of Attorney", but also on the subsequent "Compromise with Dation in Payment" and "Amended Compromise with Dation in Payment" that the parties executed in 1982. These documents, allegedly evinced the parties' intent to treat the advances and payments as a loan and establish a creditor-debtor relationship between them. The petition lacks merit. The lower courts correctly held that the "Power of Attorney" is the instrument that is material in determining the true nature of the business relationship between petitioner and Baguio Gold. Before resort may be had to the two compromise agreements, the parties' contractual intent must first be discovered from the expressed language of the primary contract under which the parties' business relations were founded. It should be noted that the compromise agreements were mere collateral documents executed by the parties pursuant to the termination of their business relationship created under the "Power of Attorney". On the other hand, it is the latter which established the juridical relation of the parties and defined the parameters of their dealings with one another.

The execution of the two compromise agreements can hardly be considered as a subsequent or contemporaneous act that is reflective of the parties' true intent. The compromise agreements were executed eleven years after the "Power of Attorney" and merely laid out a plan or procedure by which petitioner could recover the advances and payments it made under the "Power of Attorney". The parties entered into the compromise agreements as a consequence of the dissolution of their business relationship. It did not define that relationship or indicate its real character. An examination of the "Power of Attorney" reveals that a partnership or joint venture was indeed intended by the parties. Under a contract of partnership, two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves.[15] While a corporation, like petitioner, cannot generally enter into a contract of partnership unless authorized by law or its charter, it has been held that it may enter into a joint venture which is akin to a particular partnership: The legal concept of a joint venture is of common law origin. It has no precise legal definition, but it has been generally understood to mean an organization formed for some temporary purpose. x x x It is in fact hardly distinguishable from the partnership, since their elements are similar - community of interest in the business, sharing of profits and losses, and a mutual right of control. x x x The main distinction cited by most opinions in common law jurisdictions is that the partnership contemplates a general business with some degree of continuity, while the joint venture is formed for the execution of a single transaction, and is thus of a temporary nature. x x x This observation is not entirely accurate in this jurisdiction, since under the Civil Code, a partnership may be particular or universal, and a particular partnership may have for its object a specific undertaking. x x x It would seem therefore that under Philippine law, a joint venture is a form of partnership and should be governed by the law of partnerships. The Supreme Court has however recognized a distinction between these two business forms, and has held that although a corporation cannot enter into a partnership contract, it may however engage in a joint venture with others. x x x (Citations omitted) [16] Perusal of the agreement denominated as the "Power of Attorney" indicates that the parties had intended to create a partnership and establish a common fund for the purpose. They also had a joint interest in the profits of the business as shown by a 50-50 sharing in the income of the mine. Under the "Power of Attorney", petitioner and Baguio Gold undertook to contribute money, property and industry to the common fund known as the Sto. Nio mine.[17] In this regard, we note that there is a substantive equivalence in the respective contributions of the parties to the development and operation of the mine. Pursuant to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the agreement, petitioner and Baguio Gold were to contribute equally to the joint venture assets under their respective accounts. Baguio Gold would contribute P11M under its owner's account plus any of

its income that is left in the project, in addition to its actual mining claim. Meanwhile, petitioner's contribution would consist of its expertise in the management and operation of mines, as well as the manager's account which is comprised of P11M in funds and property and petitioner's "compensation" as manager that cannot be paid in cash. However, petitioner asserts that it could not have entered into a partnership agreement with Baguio Gold because it did not "bind" itself to contribute money or property to the project; that under paragraph 5 of the agreement, it was only optional for petitioner to transfer funds or property to the Sto. Nio project "(w)henever the MANAGERS shall deem it necessary and convenient in connection with the MANAGEMENT of the STO. NIO MINE."[18] The wording of the parties' agreement as to petitioner's contribution to the common fund does not detract from the fact that petitioner transferred its funds and property to the project as specified in paragraph 5, thus rendering effective the other stipulations of the contract, particularly paragraph 5(c) which prohibits petitioner from withdrawing the advances until termination of the parties' business relations. As can be seen, petitioner became bound by its contributions once the transfers were made. The contributions acquired an obligatory nature as soon as petitioner had chosen to exercise its option under paragraph 5. There is no merit to petitioner's claim that the prohibition in paragraph 5(c) against withdrawal of advances should not be taken as an indication that it had entered into a partnership with Baguio Gold; that the stipulation only showed that what the parties entered into was actually a contract of agency coupled with an interest which is not revocable at will and not a partnership. In an agency coupled with interest, it is the agency that cannot be revoked or withdrawn by the principal due to an interest of a third party that depends upon it, or the mutual interest of both principal and agent.[19] In this case, the non-revocation or non-withdrawal under paragraph 5(c) applies to the advances made by petitioner who is supposedly the agent and not the principal under the contract. Thus, it cannot be inferred from the stipulation that the parties' relation under the agreement is one of agency coupled with an interest and not a partnership. Neither can paragraph 16 of the agreement be taken as an indication that the relationship of the parties was one of agency and not a partnership. Although the said provision states that "this Agency shall be irrevocable while any obligation of the PRINCIPAL in favor of the MANAGERS is outstanding, inclusive of the MANAGERS' account," it does not necessarily follow that the parties entered into an agency contract coupled with an interest that cannot be withdrawn by Baguio Gold. It should be stressed that the main object of the "Power of Attorney" was not to confer a power in favor of petitioner to contract with third persons on behalf of Baguio Gold but to create a business relationship between petitioner and Baguio Gold, in

which the former was to manage and operate the latter's mine through the parties' mutual contribution of material resources and industry. The essence of an agency, even one that is coupled with interest, is the agent's ability to represent his principal and bring about business relations between the latter and third persons.[20] Where representation for and in behalf of the principal is merely incidental or necessary for the proper discharge of one's paramount undertaking under a contract, the latter may not necessarily be a contract of agency, but some other agreement depending on the ultimate undertaking of the parties.[21] In this case, the totality of the circumstances and the stipulations in the parties' agreement indubitably lead to the conclusion that a partnership was formed between petitioner and Baguio Gold. First, it does not appear that Baguio Gold was unconditionally obligated to return the advances made by petitioner under the agreement. Paragraph 5 (d) thereof provides that upon termination of the parties' business relations, "the ratio which the MANAGER'S account has to the owner's account will be determined, and the corresponding proportion of the entire assets of the STO. NINO MINE, excluding the claims" shall be transferred to petitioner.[22] As pointed out by the Court of Tax Appeals, petitioner was merely entitled to a proportionate return of the mine's assets upon dissolution of the parties' business relations. There was nothing in the agreement that would require Baguio Gold to make payments of the advances to petitioner as would be recognized as an item of obligation or "accounts payable" for Baguio Gold. Thus, the tax court correctly concluded that the agreement provided for a distribution of assets of the Sto. Nio mine upon termination, a provision that is more consistent with a partnership than a creditor-debtor relationship. It should be pointed out that in a contract of loan, a person who receives a loan or money or any fungible thing acquires ownership thereof and is bound to pay the creditor an equal amount of the same kind and quality.[23] In this case, however, there was no stipulation for Baguio Gold to actually repay petitioner the cash and property that it had advanced, but only the return of an amount pegged at a ratio which the manager's account had to the owner's account. In this connection, we find no contractual basis for the execution of the two compromise agreements in which Baguio Gold recognized a debt in favor of petitioner, which supposedly arose from the termination of their business relations over the Sto. Nino mine. The "Power of Attorney" clearly provides that petitioner would only be entitled to the return of a proportionate share of the mine assets to be computed at a ratio that the manager's account had to the owner's account. Except to provide a basis for claiming the advances as a bad debt deduction, there is no reason for Baguio Gold to hold itself liable to petitioner under the compromise agreements, for any amount over and above the proportion agreed upon in the "Power of Attorney". Next, the tax court correctly observed that it was unlikely for a business corporation to lend hundreds of millions of pesos to

another corporation with neither security, or collateral, nor a specific deed evidencing the terms and conditions of such loans. The parties also did not provide a specific maturity date for the advances to become due and demandable, and the manner of payment was unclear. All these point to the inevitable conclusion that the advances were not loans but capital contributions to a partnership. The strongest indication that petitioner was a partner in the Sto Nio mine is the fact that it would receive 50% of the net profits as "compensation" under paragraph 12 of the agreement. The entirety of the parties' contractual stipulations simply leads to no other conclusion than that petitioner's "compensation" is actually its share in the income of the joint venture. Article 1769 (4) of the Civil Code explicitly provides that the "receipt by a person of a share in the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business." Petitioner asserts, however, that no such inference can be drawn against it since its share in the profits of the Sto Nio project was in the nature of compensation or "wages of an employee", under the exception provided in Article 1769 (4) (b).[24] On this score, the tax court correctly noted that petitioner was not an employee of Baguio Gold who will be paid "wages" pursuant to an employer-employee relationship. To begin with, petitioner was the manager of the project and had put substantial sums into the venture in order to ensure its viability and profitability. By pegging its compensation to profits, petitioner also stood not to be remunerated in case the mine had no income. It is hard to believe that petitioner would take the risk of not being paid at all for its services, if it were truly just an ordinary employee. Consequently, we find that petitioner's "compensation" under paragraph 12 of the agreement actually constitutes its share in the net profits of the partnership. Indeed, petitioner would not be entitled to an equal share in the income of the mine if it were just an employee of Baguio Gold.[25] It is not surprising that petitioner was to receive a 50% share in the net profits, considering that the "Power of Attorney" also provided for an almost equal contribution of the parties to the St. Nino mine. The "compensation" agreed upon only serves to reinforce the notion that the parties' relations were indeed of partners and not employer-employee. All told, the lower courts did not err in treating petitioner's advances as investments in a partnership known as the Sto. Nino mine. The advances were not "debts" of Baguio Gold to petitioner inasmuch as the latter was under no unconditional obligation to return the same to the former under the "Power of Attorney". As for the amounts that petitioner paid as guarantor to Baguio Gold's creditors, we find no reason to depart from the tax court's factual finding that Baguio Gold's debts were not yet due and demandable at the time that petitioner paid the same. Verily, petitioner prepaid Baguio Gold's outstanding loans to its bank creditors and this conclusion is supported by the evidence on record.[26]

In sum, petitioner cannot claim the advances as a bad debt deduction from its gross income. Deductions for income tax purposes partake of the nature of tax exemptions and are strictly construed against the taxpayer, who must prove by convincing evidence that he is entitled to the deduction claimed.[27] In this case, petitioner failed to substantiate its assertion that the advances were subsisting debts of Baguio Gold that could be deducted from its gross income. Consequently, it could not claim the advances as a valid bad debt deduction. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 49385 dated June 30, 2000, which affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 5200 is AFFIRMED. Petitioner Philex Mining Corporation is ORDERED to PAY the deficiency tax on its 1982 income in the amount of P62,811,161.31, with 20% delinquency interest computed from February 10, 1995, which is the due date given for the payment of the deficiency income tax, up to the actual date of payment. SO ORDERED.

FILIPINAS LIFE v. PEDROSO [G.R. No. 159489; February 4, 2008] QUISUMBING, J.: This petition for review on certiorari seeks the reversal of the Decision[1] and Resolution,[2] dated November 29, 2002 and August 5, 2003, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 33568. The appellate court had affirmed the Decision[3] dated October 10, 1989 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 3, finding petitioner as defendant and the co-defendants below jointly and severally liable to the plaintiffs, now herein respondents. The antecedent facts are as follows: Respondent Teresita O. Pedroso is a policyholder of a 20-year endowment life insurance issued by petitioner Filipinas Life Assurance Company (Filipinas Life). Pedroso claims Renato Valle was her insurance agent since 1972 and Valle collected her monthly premiums. In the first week of January 1977, Valle told her that the Filipinas Life Escolta Office was holding a promotional investment program for policyholders. It was offering 8% prepaid interest a month for certain amounts deposited on a monthly basis. Enticed, she initially invested and issued a post-dated check dated January 7, 1977 for P10,000.[4] In return, Valle issued Pedroso his personal check for P800 for the 8%[5]prepaid interest and a Filipinas Life Agents Receipt No. 807838.[6] Subsequently, she called the Escolta office and talked to Francisco Alcantara, the administrative assistant, who referred her to the branch manager, Angel Apetrior. Pedroso inquired about the promotional investment and Apetrior confirmed that there was such a promotion. She was even told she could push through

with the check she issued. From the records, the check, with the endorsement of Alcantara at the back, was deposited in the account of Filipinas Life with the Commercial Bank and Trust Company (CBTC), Escolta Branch. Relying on the representations made by the petitioners duly authorized representatives Apetrior and Alcantara, as well as having known agent Valle for quite some time, Pedroso waited for the maturity of her initial investment. A month after, her investment of P10,000 was returned to her after she made a written request for its refund. The formal written request, dated February 3, 1977, was written on an inter-office memorandum form of Filipinas Life prepared by Alcantara.[7] To collect the amount, Pedroso personally went to the Escolta branch where Alcantara gave her the P10,000 in cash. After a second investment, she made 7 to 8 more investments in varying amounts, totaling P37,000 but at a lower rate of 5%[8] prepaid interest a month. Upon maturity of Pedrosos subsequent investments, Valle would take back from Pedroso the corresponding yellow-colored agents receipt he issued to the latter. Pedroso told respondent Jennifer N. Palacio, also a Filipinas Life insurance policyholder, about the investment plan. Palacio made a total investment of P49,550[9] but at only 5% prepaid interest. However, when Pedroso tried to withdraw her investment, Valle did not want to return some P17,000 worth of it. Palacio also tried to withdraw hers, but Filipinas Life, despite demands, refused to return her money. With the assistance of their lawyer, they went to Filipinas Life Escolta Office to collect their respective investments, and to inquire why they had not seen Valle for quite some time. But their attempts were futile. Hence, respondents filed an action for the recovery of a sum of money. After trial, the RTC, Branch 3, Manila, held Filipinas Life and its codefendants Valle, Apetrior and Alcantara jointly and solidarily liable to the respondents. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts ruling and subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner now comes before us raising a single issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT HOLDING FLAC [FILIPINAS LIFE] TO BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE WITH ITS CO-DEFENDANTS ON THE CLAIM OF RESPONDENTS INSTEAD OF HOLDING ITS AGENT, RENATO VALLE, SOLELY LIABLE TO THE RESPONDENTS.[10] Simply put, did the Court of Appeals err in holding petitioner and its co-defendants jointly and severally liable to the herein respondents? Filipinas Life does not dispute that Valle was its agent, but claims that it was only a life insurance company and was not engaged in

the business of collecting investment money. It contends that the investment scheme offered to respondents by Valle, Apetrior and Alcantara was outside the scope of their authority as agents of Filipinas Life such that, it cannot be held liable to the respondents.[11] On the other hand, respondents contend that Filipinas Life authorized Valle to solicit investments from them. In fact, Filipinas Lifes official documents and facilities were used in consummating the transactions. These transactions, according to respondents, were confirmed by its officers Apetrior and Alcantara. Respondents assert they exercised all the diligence required of them in ascertaining the authority of petitioners agents; and it is Filipinas Life that failed in its duty to ensure that its agents act within the scope of their authority. Considering the issue raised in the light of the submissions of the parties, we find that the petition lacks merit. The Court of Appeals committed no reversible error nor abused gravely its discretion in rendering the assailed decision and resolution. It appears indisputable that respondents Pedroso and Palacio had invested P47,000 and P49,550, respectively. These were received by Valle and remitted to Filipinas Life, using Filipinas Lifes official receipts, whose authenticity were not disputed. Valles authority to solicit and receive investments was also established by the parties. When respondents sought confirmation, Alcantara, holding a supervisory position, and Apetrior, the branch manager, confirmed that Valle had authority. While it is true that a person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover at his own peril the agents authority, in this case, respondents did exercise due diligence in removing all doubts and in confirming the validity of the representations made by Valle. Filipinas Life, as the principal, is liable for obligations contracted by its agent Valle. By the contract of agency, a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter.[12] The general rule is that the principal is responsible for the acts of its agent done within the scope of its authority, and should bear the damage caused to third persons.[13] When the agent exceeds his authority, the agent becomes personally liable for the damage.[14] But even when the agent exceeds his authority, the principal is still solidarily liable together with the agent if the principal allowed the agent to act as though the agent had full powers.[15] In other words, the acts of an agent beyond the scope of his authority do not bind the principal, unless the principal ratifies them, expressly or impliedly.[16] Ratification in agency is the adoption or confirmation by one person of an act performed on his behalf by another without authority.[17] Filipinas Life cannot profess ignorance of Valles acts. Even if Valles representations were beyond his authority as a debit/insurance agent, Filipinas Life thru Alcantara and Apetrior expressly and knowingly ratified Valles acts. It cannot even be denied that Filipinas Life benefited from the investments deposited by Valle in the account of Filipinas Life. In our considered view,

Filipinas Life had clothed Valle with apparent authority; hence, it is now estopped to deny said authority. Innocent third persons should not be prejudiced if the principal failed to adopt the needed measures to prevent misrepresentation, much more so if the principal ratified his agents acts beyond the latters authority. The act of the agent is considered that of the principal itself. Qui per alium facit per seipsum facere videtur. He who does a thing by an agent is considered as doing it himself.[18] WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision and Resolution, dated November 29, 2002 and August 5, 2003, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 33568 are AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 163720

December 16, 2004

GENEVIEVE LIM, petitioner, vs. FLORENCIO SABAN, respondents. DECISION TINGA, J.: Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision1 dated October 27, 2003 of the Court of Appeals, Seventh Division, in CA-G.R. V No. 60392.2 The late Eduardo Ybaez (Ybaez), the owner of a 1,000-square meter lot in Cebu City (the "lot"), entered into anAgreement and Authority to Negotiate and Sell (Agency Agreement) with respondent Florencio Saban (Saban) on February 8, 1994. Under the Agency Agreement, Ybaez authorized Saban to look for a buyer of the lot for Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) and to mark up the selling price to include the amounts needed for payment of taxes, transfer of title and other expenses incident to the sale, as well as Sabans commission for the sale.3 Through Sabans efforts, Ybaez and his wife were able to sell the lot to the petitioner Genevieve Lim (Lim) and the spouses Benjamin and Lourdes Lim (the Spouses Lim) on March 10, 1994. The price of the lot as indicated in the Deed of Absolute Sale is Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00).4 It appears, however, that the vendees agreed to purchase the lot at the price of Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (P600,000.00), inclusive of taxes and other incidental expenses of the sale. After the sale, Lim remitted to Saban the amounts of One Hundred Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Seven Pesos (P113,257.00) for payment of taxes due on the transaction as well as Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as brokers commission.5 Lim also issued in the name of Saban four postdated checks in the aggregate amount of Two Hundred Thirty

Six Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Three Pesos (P236,743.00). These checks were Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) Check No. 1112645 dated June 12, 1994 for P25,000.00; BPI Check No. 1112647 dated June 19, 1994 for P18,743.00; BPI Check No. 1112646 dated June 26, 1994 for P25,000.00; and Equitable PCI Bank Check No. 021491B dated June 20, 1994 for P168,000.00. Subsequently, Ybaez sent a letter dated June 10, 1994 addressed to Lim. In the letter Ybaez asked Lim to cancel all the checks issued by her in Sabans favor and to "extend another partial payment" for the lot in his (Ybaezs) favor.6 After the four checks in his favor were dishonored upon presentment, Saban filed a Complaint for collection of sum of money and damages against Ybaez and Lim with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City on August 3, 1994.7 The case was assigned to Branch 20 of the RTC. In his Complaint, Saban alleged that Lim and the Spouses Lim agreed to purchase the lot for P600,000.00, i.e.,with a mark-up of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00) from the price set by Ybaez. Of the total purchase price of P600,000.00, P200,000.00 went to Ybaez, P50,000.00 allegedly went to Lims agent, andP113,257.00 was given to Saban to cover taxes and other expenses incidental to the sale. Lim also issued four (4) postdated checks8 in favor of Saban for the remaining P236,743.00.9 Saban alleged that Ybaez told Lim that he (Saban) was not entitled to any commission for the sale since he concealed the actual selling price of the lot from Ybaez and because he was not a licensed real estate broker. Ybaez was able to convince Lim to cancel all four checks. Saban further averred that Ybaez and Lim connived to deprive him of his sales commission by withholding payment of the first three checks. He also claimed that Lim failed to make good the fourth check which was dishonored because the account against which it was drawn was closed. In his Answer, Ybaez claimed that Saban was not entitled to any commission because he concealed the actual selling price from him and because he was not a licensed real estate broker. Lim, for her part, argued that she was not privy to the agreement between Ybaez and Saban, and that she issued stop payment orders for the three checks because Ybaez requested her to pay the purchase price directly to him, instead of coursing it through Saban. She also alleged that she agreed with Ybaez that the purchase price of the lot was only P200,000.00. Ybaez died during the pendency of the case before the RTC. Upon motion of his counsel, the trial court dismissed the case only against him without any objection from the other parties.10 On May 14, 1997, the RTC rendered its Decision11 dismissing Sabans complaint, declaring the four (4) checks issued by Lim as

stale and non-negotiable, and absolving Lim from any liability towards Saban. Saban appealed the trial courts Decision to the Court of Appeals. On October 27, 2003, the appellate court promulgated its Decision12 reversing the trial courts ruling. It held that Saban was entitled to his commission amounting to P236,743.00.13 The Court of Appeals ruled that Ybaezs revocation of his contract of agency with Saban was invalid because the agency was coupled with an interest and Ybaez effected the revocation in bad faith in order to deprive Saban of his commission and to keep the profits for himself.14 The appellate court found that Ybaez and Lim connived to deprive Saban of his commission. It declared that Lim is liable to pay Saban the amount of the purchase price of the lot corresponding to his commission because she issued the four checks knowing that the total amount thereof corresponded to Sabans commission for the sale, as the agent of Ybaez. The appellate court further ruled that, in issuing the checks in payment of Sabans commission, Lim acted as an accommodation party. She signed the checks as drawer, without receiving value therefor, for the purpose of lending her name to a third person. As such, she is liable to pay Saban as the holder for value of the checks.15 Lim filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the appellate courts Decision, but her Motion was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated May 6, 2004.16 Not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeals, Lim filed the present petition. Lim argues that the appellate court ignored the fact that after paying her agent and remitting to Saban the amounts due for taxes and transfer of title, she paid the balance of the purchase price directly to Ybaez.17 She further contends that she is not liable for Ybaezs debt to Saban under the Agency Agreement as she is not privy thereto, and that Saban has no one but himself to blame for consenting to the dismissal of the case against Ybaez and not moving for his substitution by his heirs.18 Lim also assails the findings of the appellate court that she issued the checks as an accommodation party for Ybaez and that she connived with the latter to deprive Saban of his commission.19 Lim prays that should she be found liable to pay Saban the amount of his commission, she should only be held liable to the extent of one-third (1/3) of the amount, since she had two co-vendees (the Spouses Lim) who should share such liability.20 In his Comment, Saban maintains that Lim agreed to purchase the lot for P600,000.00, which consisted of theP200,000.00 which would be paid to Ybaez, the P50,000.00 due to her broker,

the P113,257.00 earmarked for taxes and other expenses incidental to the sale and Sabans commission as broker for Ybaez. According to Saban, Lim assumed the obligation to pay him his commission. He insists that Lim and Ybaez connived to unjustly deprive him of his commission from the negotiation of the sale.21 The issues for the Courts resolution are whether Saban is entitled to receive his commission from the sale; and, assuming that Saban is entitled thereto, whether it is Lim who is liable to pay Saban his sales commission. The Court gives due course to the petition, but agrees with the result reached by the Court of Appeals. The Court affirms the appellate courts finding that the agency was not revoked since Ybaez requested that Lim make stop payment orders for the checks payable to Saban only after the consummation of the sale on March 10, 1994. At that time, Saban had already performed his obligation as Ybaezs agent when, through his (Sabans) efforts, Ybaez executed the Deed of Absolute Sale of the lot with Lim and the Spouses Lim. To deprive Saban of his commission subsequent to the sale which was consummated through his efforts would be a breach of his contract of agency with Ybaez which expressly states that Saban would be entitled to any excess in the purchase price after deducting the P200,000.00 due to Ybaez and the transfer taxes and other incidental expenses of the sale.22 In Macondray & Co. v. Sellner,23 the Court recognized the right of a broker to his commission for finding a suitable buyer for the sellers property even though the seller himself consummated the sale with the buyer.24 The Court held that it would be in the height of injustice to permit the principal to terminate the contract of agency to the prejudice of the broker when he had already reaped the benefits of the brokers efforts. In Infante v. Cunanan, et al.,25 the Court upheld the right of the brokers to their commissions although the seller revoked their authority to act in his behalf after they had found a buyer for his properties and negotiated the sale directly with the buyer whom he met through the brokers efforts. The Court ruled that the sellers withdrawal in bad faith of the brokers authority cannot unjustly deprive the brokers of their commissions as the sellers duly constituted agents. The pronouncements of the Court in the aforecited cases are applicable to the present case, especially considering that Saban had completely performed his obligations under his contract of agency with Ybaez by finding a suitable buyer to preparing the Deed of Absolute Sale between Ybaez and Lim and her covendees. Moreover, the contract of agency very clearly states that Saban is entitled to the excess of the mark-up of the price of the lot after deducting Ybaezs share of P200,000.00 and the taxes and other incidental expenses of the sale.

However, the Court does not agree with the appellate courts pronouncement that Sabans agency was one coupled with an interest. Under Article 1927 of the Civil Code, an agency cannot be revoked if a bilateral contract depends upon it, or if it is the means of fulfilling an obligation already contracted, or if a partner is appointed manager of a partnership in the contract of partnership and his removal from the management is unjustifiable. Stated differently, an agency is deemed as one coupled with an interest where it is established for the mutual benefit of the principal and of the agent, or for the interest of the principal and of third persons, and it cannot be revoked by the principal so long as the interest of the agent or of a third person subsists. In an agency coupled with an interest, the agents interest must be in the subject matter of the power conferred and not merely an interest in the exercise of the power because it entitles him to compensation. When an agents interest is confined to earning his agreed compensation, the agency is not one coupled with an interest, since an agents interest in obtaining his compensation as such agent is an ordinary incident of the agency relationship.26 Sabans entitlement to his commission having been settled, the Court must now determine whether Lim is the proper party against whom Saban should address his claim. Sabans right to receive compensation for negotiating as broker for Ybaez arises from the Agency Agreement between them. Lim is not a party to the contract. However, the record reveals that she had knowledge of the fact that Ybaez set the price of the lot at P200,000.00 and that the P600,000.00the price agreed upon by her and Sabanwas more than the amount set by Ybaez because it included the amount for payment of taxes and for Sabans commission as broker for Ybaez. According to the trial court, Lim made the following payments for the lot: P113,257.00 for taxes, P50,000.00 for her broker, and P400.000.00 directly to Ybaez, or a total of Five Hundred Sixty Three Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Seven Pesos (P563,257.00).27 Lim, on the other hand, claims that on March 10, 1994, the date of execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale, she paid directly to Ybaez the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) only, and gave to Saban P113,257.00 for payment of taxes and P50,000.00 as his commission,28and One Hundred Thirty Thousand Pesos (P130,000.00) on June 28, 1994,29 or a total of Three Hundred Ninety Three Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Seven Pesos (P393,257.00). Ybaez, for his part, acknowledged that Lim and her co-vendees paid him P400,000.00 which he said was the full amount for the sale of the lot.30 It thus appears that he received P100,000.00 on March 10, 1994, acknowledged receipt (through Saban) of the P113,257.00 earmarked for taxes and P50,000.00 for commission, and received the balance of P130,000.00 on June 28, 1994. Thus, a total of P230,000.00 went directly to Ybaez. Apparently, although the amount actually paid by Lim wasP393,257.00, Ybaez rounded off the amount to P400,000.00 and waived the difference. Lims act of issuing the four checks amounting to P236,743.00 in Sabans favor belies her claim that she and her co-vendees did not

agree to purchase the lot at P600,000.00. If she did not agree thereto, there would be no reason for her to issue those checks which is the balance of P600,000.00 less the amounts of P200,000.00 (due to Ybaez), P50,000.00 (commission), and the P113,257.00 (taxes). The only logical conclusion is that Lim changed her mind about agreeing to purchase the lot at P600,000.00 after talking to Ybaez and ultimately realizing that Sabans commission is even more than what Ybaez received as his share of the purchase price as vendor. Obviously, this change of mind resulted to the prejudice of Saban whose efforts led to the completion of the sale between the latter, and Lim and her covendees. This the Court cannot countenance. The ruling of the Court in Infante v. Cunanan, et al., cited earlier, is enlightening for the facts therein are similar to the circumstances of the present case. In that case, Consejo Infante asked Jose Cunanan and Juan Mijares to find a buyer for her two lots and the house built thereon for Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) . She promised to pay them five percent (5%) of the purchase price plus whatever overprice they may obtain for the property. Cunanan and Mijares offered the properties to Pio Noche who in turn expressed willingness to purchase the properties. Cunanan and Mijares thereafter introduced Noche to Infante. However, the latter told Cunanan and Mijares that she was no longer interested in selling the property and asked them to sign a document stating that their written authority to act as her agents for the sale of the properties was already cancelled. Subsequently, Infante sold the properties directly to Noche for Thirty One Thousand Pesos (P31,000.00). The Court upheld the right of Cunanan and Mijares to their commission, explaining that *Infante+ had changed her mind even if respondent had found a buyer who was willing to close the deal, is a matter that would not give rise to a legal consequence if [Cunanan and Mijares] agreed to call off the transaction in deference to the request of [Infante]. But the situation varies if one of the parties takes advantage of the benevolence of the other and acts in a manner that would promote his own selfish interest. This act is unfair as would amount to bad faith. This act cannot be sanctioned without according the party prejudiced the reward which is due him. This is the situation in which [Cunanan and Mijares] were placed by [Infante]. [Infante] took advantage of the services rendered by [Cunanan and Mijares], but believing that she could evade payment of their commission, she made use of a ruse by inducing them to sign the deed of cancellation.This act of subversion cannot be sanctioned and cannot serve as basis for [Infante] to escape payment of the commission agreed upon.31 The appellate court therefore had sufficient basis for concluding that Ybaez and Lim connived to deprive Saban of his commission by dealing with each other directly and reducing the purchase price of the lot and leaving nothing to compensate Saban for his efforts. Considering the circumstances surrounding the case, and the undisputed fact that Lim had not yet paid the balance

of P200,000.00 of the purchase price of P600,000.00, it is just and proper for her to pay Saban the balance of P200,000.00. Furthermore, since Ybaez received a total of P230,000.00 from Lim, or an excess of P30,000.00 from his asking price of P200,000.00, Saban may claim such excess from Ybaezs estate, if that remedy is still available,32 in view of the trial courts dismissal of Sabans complaint as against Ybaez, with Sabans express consent, due to the latters demise on November 11, 1994.33 The appellate court however erred in ruling that Lim is liable on the checks because she issued them as an accommodation party. Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law defines an accommodation party as a person "who has signed the negotiable instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor or indorser, without receiving value therefor, for the purpose of lending his name to some other person." The accommodation party is liable on the instrument to a holder for value even though the holder at the time of taking the instrument knew him or her to be merely an accommodation party. The accommodation party may of course seek reimbursement from the party accommodated.34 As gleaned from the text of Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, the accommodation party is one who meets all these three requisites, viz: (1) he signed the instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser; (2) he did not receive value for the signature; and (3) he signed for the purpose of lending his name to some other person. In the case at bar, while Lim signed as drawer of the checks she did not satisfy the two other remaining requisites. The absence of the second requisite becomes pellucid when it is noted at the outset that Lim issued the checks in question on account of her transaction, along with the other purchasers, with Ybaez which was a sale and, therefore, a reciprocal contract. Specifically, she drew the checks in payment of the balance of the purchase price of the lot subject of the transaction. And she had to pay the agreed purchase price in consideration for the sale of the lot to her and her co-vendees. In other words, the amounts covered by the checks form part of the cause or consideration from Ybaezs end, as vendor, while the lot represented the cause or consideration on the side of Lim, as vendee.35 Ergo, Lim received value for her signature on the checks. Neither is there any indication that Lim issued the checks for the purpose of enabling Ybaez, or any other person for that matter, to obtain credit or to raise money, thereby totally debunking the presence of the third requisite of an accommodation party. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-67889 October 10, 1985 PRIMITIVO SIASAT and MARCELINO SIASAT, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and TERESITA NACIANCENO, respondents. Payawal, Jimenez & Associates for petitioners. Nelson A. Loyola for private respondent. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: This is a petition for review of the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court affirming in toto the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXI, which ordered the petitioner to pay respondent the thirty percent (30%) commission on 15,666 pieces of Philippine flags worth P936,960.00, moral damages, attorney's fees and the costs of the suit. Sometime in 1974, respondent Teresita Nacianceno succeeded in convincing officials of the then Department of Education and Culture, hereinafter called Department, to purchase without public bidding, one million pesos worth of national flags for the use of public schools throughout the country. The respondent was able to expedite the approval of the purchase by hand-carrying the different indorsements from one office to another, so that by the first week of September, 1974, all the legal requirements had been complied with, except the release of the purchase orders. When Nacianceno was informed by the Chief of the Budget Division of the Department that the purchase orders could not be released unless a formal offer to deliver the flags in accordance with the required specifications was first submitted for approval, she contacted the owners of the United Flag Industry on September 17, 1974. The next day, after the transaction was discussed, the following document (Exhibit A) was drawn up: Mrs. Tessie Nacianceno, This is to formalize our agreement for you to represent United Flag Industry to deal with any entity or organization, private or government in connection with the marketing of our productsflags and all its accessories. For your service, you will be entitled to a commission of thirty (30%) percent. Signed Mr. Primitive Siasat Owner and Gen. Manager On October 16, 1974, the first delivery of 7,933 flags was made by the United Flag Industry. The next day, on October 17, 1974, the respondent's authority to represent the United Flag Industry was revoked by petitioner Primitivo Siasat.

According to the findings of the courts below, Siasat, after receiving the payment of P469,980.00 on October 23, 1974 for the first delivery, tendered the amount of P23,900.00 or five percent (5%) of the amount received, to the respondent as payment of her commission. The latter allegedly protested. She refused to accept the said amount insisting on the 30% commission agreed upon. The respondent was prevailed upon to accept the same, however, because of the assurance of the petitioners that they would pay the commission in full after they delivered the other half of the order. The respondent states that she later on learned that petitioner Siasat had already received payment for the second delivery of 7,833 flags. When she confronted the petitioners, they vehemently denied receipt of the payment, at the same time claiming that the respondent had no participation whatsoever with regard to the second delivery of flags and that the agency had already been revoked. The respondent originally filed a complaint with the Complaints and Investigation Office in Malacaang but when nothing came of the complaint, she filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover the following commissions: 25%, as balance on the first delivery and 30%, on the second delivery. The trial court decided in favor of the respondent. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing Primitivo Siasat to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P281,988.00, minus the sum P23,900.00, with legal interest from the date of this decision, and ordering the defendants to pay jointly and solidarily the sum of P25,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as attorney's fees, also with legal interest from the date of this decision, and the costs. The decision was affirmed in toto by the Intermediate Appellate Court. After their motion for reconsideration was denied, the petitioners went to this Court on a petition for review on August 6, 1984. In assailing the appellate court's decision, the petition tenders the following arguments: first, the authorization making the respondent the petitioner's representative merely states that she could deal with any entity in connection with the marketing of their products for a commission of 30%. There was no specific authorization for the sale of 15,666 Philippine flags to the Department; second, there were two transactions involved evidenced by the separate purchase orders and separate delivery receipts, Exhibit 6-C for the purchase and deliver on October 16, 1974, and Exhibits 7 to 7-C, for the purchase and delivery on November 6, 1974. The revocation of agency effected by the parties with mutual consent on October 17, 1974, therefore, forecloses the respondent's claim of 30% commission on the second transaction; and last, there was no basis for the granting of attorney's fees and moral damages because there was no showing of bad faith on the part of the petitioner. It was respondent who showed bad faith in denying having received her commission on

the first delivery. The petitioner's counterclaim, therefore, should have been granted. This petition was initially dismissed for lack of merit in a minute resolution.On a motion for reconsideration, however,this Court give due course to the petition on November 14, 1984. After a careful review of the records, we are constrained to sustain with some modifications the decision of the appellate court. We find respondent's argument regarding respondent's incapacity to represent them in the transaction with the Department untenable. There are several kinds of agents. To quote a commentator on the matter: An agent may be (1) universal: (2) general, or (3) special. A universal; agent is one authorized to do all acts for his principal which can lawfully be delegated to an agent. So far as such a condition is possible, such an agent may be said to have universal authority. (Mec. Sec. 58). A general agent is one authorized to do all acts pertaining to a business of a certain kind or at a particular place, or all acts pertaining to a business of a particular class or series. He has usually authority either expressly conferred in general terms or in effect made general by the usages, customs or nature of the business which he is authorized to transact. An agent, therefore, who is empowered to transact all the business of his principal of a particular kind or in a particular place, would, for this reason, be ordinarily deemed a general agent. (Mec Sec. ,30). A special agent is one authorized to do some particular act or to act upon some particular occasion. lie acts usually in accordance with specific instructions or under limitations necessarily implied from the nature of the act to be done. (Mec. Sec. 61) (Padilla, Civil Law The Civil Code Annotated, Vol. VI, 1969 Edition, p. 204). One does not have to undertake a close scrutiny of the document embodying the agreement between the petitioners and the respondent to deduce that the 'latter was instituted as a general agent. Indeed, it can easily be seen by the way general words were employed in the agreement that no restrictions were intended as to the manner the agency was to be carried out or in the place where it was to be executed. The power granted to the respondent was so broad that it practically covers the negotiations leading to, and the execution of, a contract of sale of petitioners' merchandise with any entity or organization. There is no merit in petitioners' allegations that the contract of agency between the parties was entered into under fraudulent representation because respondent "would not disclose the agency with which she was supposed to transact and made the petitioner believe that she would be dealing with The Visayas", and that "the petitioner had known of the transactions and/or project for the said purchase of the Philippine flags by the Department of

Education and Culture and precisely it was the one being followed up also by the petitioner." If the circumstances were as claimed by the petitioners, they would have exerted efforts to protect their interests by limiting the respondent's authority. There was nothing to prevent the petitioners from stating in the contract of agency that the respondent could represent them only in the Visayas. Or to state that the Department of Education and Culture and the Department of National Defense, which alone would need a million pesos worth of flags, are outside the scope of the agency. As the trial court opined, it is incredible that they could be so careless after being in the business for fifteen years. A cardinal rule of evidence embodied in Section 7 Rule 130 of our Revised Rules of Court states that "when the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is to be considered as containing all such terms, and, therefore, there can be between the parties and their successors-in-interest, no evidence of the terms of the agreement other than the contents of the writing", except in cases specifically mentioned in the same rule. Petitioners have failed to show that their agreement falls under any of these exceptions. The respondent was given ample authority to transact with the Department in behalf of the petitioners. Equally without merit is the petitioners' proposition that the transaction involved two separate contracts because there were two purchase orders and two deliveries. The petitioners' evidence is overcome by other pieces of evidence proving that there was only one transaction. The indorsement of then Assistant Executive Secretary Roberto Reyes to the Budget Commission on September 3, 1974 (Exhibit "C") attests to the fact that out of the total budget of the Department for the fiscal year 1975, "P1,000,000.00 is for the purchase of national flags." This is also reflected in the Financial and Work Plan Request for Allotment (Exhibit "F") submitted by Secretary Juan Manuel for fiscal year 1975 which however, divided the allocation and release of the funds into three, corresponding to the second, third, and fourth quarters of the said year. Later correspondence between the Department and the Budget Commission (Exhibits "D" and "E") show that the first allotment of P500.000.00 was released during the second quarter. However, due to the necessity of furnishing all of the public schools in the country with the Philippine flag, Secretary Manuel requested for the immediate release of the programmed allotments intended for the third and fourth quarters. These circumstances explain why two purchase orders and two deliveries had to be made on one transaction. The petitioners' evidence does not necessarily prove that there were two separate transactions. Exhibit "6" is a general indorsement made by Secretary Manuel for the purchase of the national flags for public schools. It contains no reference to the number of flags to be ordered or the amount of funds to be released. Exhibit "7" is a letter request for a "similar authority" to purchase flags from the United Flag Industry. This was, however, written by Dr. Narciso Albarracin who was appointed Acting

Secretary of the Department after Secretary Manuel's tenure, and who may not have known the real nature of the transaction. If the contracts were separate and distinct from one another, the whole or at least a substantial part of the government's supply procurement process would have been repeated. In this case, what were issued were mere indorsements for the release of funds and authorization for the next purchase. Since only one transaction was involved, we deny the petitioners' contention that respondent Nacianceno is not entitled to the stipulated commission on the second delivery because of the revocation of the agency effected after the first delivery. The revocation of agency could not prevent the respondent from earning her commission because as the trial court opined, it came too late, the contract of sale having been already perfected and partly executed. In Macondray & Co. v. Sellner (33 Phil. 370, 377), a case analogous to this one in principle, this Court held: We do not mean to question the general doctrine as to the power of a principal to revoke the authority of his agent at will, in the absence of a contract fixing the duration of the agency (subject, however, to some well defined exceptions). Our ruling is that at the time fixed by the manager of the plaintiff company for the termination of the negotiations, the defendant real estate agent had already earned the commissions agreed upon, and could not be deprived thereof by the arbitrary action of the plaintiff company in declining to execute the contract of sale for some reason personal to itself. The principal cannot deprive his agent of the commission agreed upon by cancelling the agency and, thereafter, dealing directly with the buyer. (Infante v. Cunanan, 93 Phil. 691). The appellate courts citation of its previous ruling in Heimbrod et al. v. Ledesma (C.A. 49 O.G. 1507) is correct: The appellee is entitled to recovery. No citation is necessary to show that the general law of contracts the equitable principle of estoppel. and the expense of another, uphold payment of compensation for services rendered. There is merit, however, in the petitioners' contention that the agent's commission on the first delivery was fully paid. The evidence does not sustain the respondent's claim that the petitioners paid her only 5% and that their right to collect another 25% commission on the first delivery must be upheld. When respondent Nacianceno asked the Malacanang Complaints and Investigation Office to help her collect her commission, her statement under oath referred exclusively to the 30% commission on the second delivery. The statement was emphatic that "now" her demand was for the 30% commission on the (second) release of P469,980.00. The demand letter of the respondent's lawyer dated November 13, 1984 asked petitioner Siasat only for the 30%

commission due from the second delivery. The fact that the respondent demanded only the commission on the second delivery without reference to the alleged unpaid balance which was only slightly less than the amount claimed can only mean that the commission on the first delivery was already fully paid, Considering the sizeable sum involved, such an omission is too glaringly remiss to be regarded as an oversight. Moreover, the respondent's authorization letter (Exhibit "5") bears her signature with the handwritten words "Fully Paid", inscribed above it. The respondent contested her signature as a forgery, Handwriting experts from two government agencies testified on the matter. The reason given by the trial court in ruling for the respondent is too flimsy to warrant a finding of forgery. The court stated that in thirteen documents presented as exhibits, the private respondent signed her name as "Tessie Nacianceno" while in this particular instance, she signed as "T. Nacianceno." The stated basis is inadequate to sustain the respondent's allegation of forgery. A variance in the manner the respondent signed her name can not be considered as conclusive proof that the questioned signature is a forgery. The mere fact that the respondent signed thirteen documents using her full name does not rule out the possibility of her having signed the notation "Fully Paid", with her initial for the given came and the surname written in full. What she was signing was a mere acknowledgment. This leaves the expert testimony as the sole basis for the verdict of forgery. In support of their allegation of full payment as evidenced by the signed authorization letter (Exhibit "5-A"), the petitioners presented as witness Mr. Francisco Cruz. Jr., a senior document examiner of the Philippine Constabulary Crime laboratory. In rebuttal, the respondent presented Mr. Arcadio Ramos, a junior document examiner of the National Bureau of Investigation. While the experts testified in a civil case, the principles in criminal cases involving forgery are applicable. Forgery cannot be presumed. It must be proved. In Borromeo v. Court of Appeals (131 SCRA 318, 326) we held that: xxx xxx xxx ... Where the evidence, as here, gives rise to two probabilities, one consistent with the defendant's innocence and another indicative of his guilt, that which is favorable to the accused should be considered. The constitutional presumption of innocence continues until overthrown by proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which requires moral certainty which convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it. (People v. Clores, et al., 125 SCRA 67; People v. Bautista, 81 Phil. 78).

We ruled in another case that where the supposed expert's testimony would constitute the sole ground for conviction and there is equally convincing expert testimony to the contrary, the constitutional presumption of innocence must prevail. (Lorenzo Ga. Cesar v. Hon. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, 134 SCRA 105). In the present case, the circumstances earlier mentioned taken with the testimony of the PC senior document examiner lead us to rule against forgery. We also rule against the respondent's allegation that the petitioners acted in bad faith when they revoked the agency given to the respondent. Fraud and bad faith are matters not to be presumed but matters to be alleged with sufficient facts. To support a judgment for damages, facts which justify the inference of a lack or absence of good faith must be alleged and proven. (Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. vs. First Farmers Milling Co., Inc., Etc., 103 SCRA 436). There is no evidence on record from which to conclude that the revocation of the agency was deliberately effected by the petitioners to avoid payment of the respondent's commission. What appears before us is only the petitioner's use in court of such a factual allegation as a defense against the respondent's claim. This alone does not per se make the petitioners guilty of bad faith for that defense should have been fully litigated. Moral damages cannot be awarded in the absence of a wrongful act or omission or of fraud or bad faith. (R & B Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 129 SCRA 736). We therefore, rule that the award of P25,000.00 as moral damages is without basis. The additional award of P25,000.00 damages by way of attorney's fees, was given by the courts below on the basis of Article 2208, Paragraph 2, of the Civil Code, which provides: "When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interests;" attorney's fees may be awarded as damages. (Pirovano et al. v. De la Rama Steamship Co., 96 Phil. 335). The underlying circumstances of this case lead us to rule out any award of attorney's fees. For one thing, the respondent did not come to court with completely clean hands. For another, the petitioners apparently believed they could legally revoke the agency in the manner they did and deal directly with education officials handling the purchase of Philippine flags. They had reason to sincerely believe they did not have to pay a commission for the second delivery of flags. We cannot close this case without commenting adversely on the inexplicably strange procurement policies of the Department of Education and Culture in its purchase of Philippine flags. There is no reason why a shocking 30% of the taxpayers' money should go to an agent or facilitator who had no flags to sell and whose only work was to secure and handcarry the indorsements of education

and budget officials. There are only a few manufacturers of flags in our country with the petitioners claiming to have supplied flags for our public schools on earlier occasions. If public bidding was deemed unnecessary, the Department should have negotiated directly with flag manufacturers. Considering the sad plight of underpaid and overworked classroom teachers whose pitiful salaries and allowances cannot sometimes be paid on time, a P300,000.00 fee for a P1,000,000.00 purchase of flags is not only clearly unnecessary but a scandalous waste of public funds as well. WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent court is hereby MODIFIED. The petitioners are ordered to pay the respondent the amount of ONE HUNDRED FOURTY THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND NINETY FOUR PESOS (P140,994.00) as her commission on the second delivery of flags with legal interest from the date of the trial court's decision. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

two resolutions of the board of directors of Tourist World Service, Inc. dated Dec. 2, 1961 (Exhibits 12 and 13), the first abolishing the office of the manager and vice-president of the Tourist World Service, Inc., Ermita Branch, and the second,authorizing the corporate secretary to receive the properties of the Tourist World Service then located at the said branch office. It further appears that on Jan. 3, 1962, the contract with the appellees for the use of the Branch Office premises was terminated and while the effectivity thereof was Jan. 31, 1962, the appellees no longer used it. As a matter of fact appellants used it since Nov. 1961. Because of this, and to comply with the mandate of the Tourist World Service, the corporate secretary Gabino Canilao went over to the branch office, and, finding the premises locked, and, being unable to contact Lina Sevilla, he padlocked the premises on June 4, 1962 to protect the interests of the Tourist World Service. When neither the appellant Lina Sevilla nor any of her employees could enter the locked premises, a complaint wall filed by the herein appellants against the appellees with a prayer for the issuance of mandatory preliminary injunction. Both appellees answered with counterclaims. For apparent lack of interest of the parties therein, the trial court ordered the dismissal of the case without prejudice. The appellee Segundina Noguera sought reconsideration of the order dismissing her counterclaim which the court a quo, in an order dated June 8, 1963, granted permitting her to present evidence in support of her counterclaim. On June 17,1963, appellant Lina Sevilla refiled her case against the herein appellees and after the issues were joined, the reinstated counterclaim of Segundina Noguera and the new complaint of appellant Lina Sevilla were jointly heard following which the court a quo ordered both cases dismiss for lack of merit, on the basis of which was elevated the instant appeal on the following assignment of errors: I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED EVEN IN APPRECIATING THE NATURE OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT MRS. LINA O. SEVILLA'S COMPLAINT. II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT MRS. LINA 0. SEVILA'S ARRANGEMENT (WITH APPELLEE TOURIST WORLD SERVICE, INC.) WAS ONE MERELY OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATION AND IN FAILING TO HOLD THAT THE SAID ARRANGEMENT WAS ONE OF JOINT BUSINESS VENTURE. III. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT PLAINTIFFAPPELLANT MRS. LINA O. SEVILLA IS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT SHE WAS A MERE EMPLOYEE OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEE TOURIST WORLD SERVICE, INC. EVEN AS AGAINST THE LATTER. IV. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT APPELLEES HAD NO RIGHT TO EVICT APPELLANT MRS. LINA O. SEVILLA FROM THE A. MABINI OFFICE BY TAKING THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS. V. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING AT .ALL APPELLEE NOGUERA'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR APPELLANT LINA O. SEVILLA'S FORCIBLE DISPOSSESSION OF THE A. MABINI PREMISES.

G.R. No. L-41182-3 April 16, 1988 DR. CARLOS L. SEVILLA and LINA O. SEVILLA, petitionersappellants, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, TOURIST WORLD SERVICE, INC., ELISEO S.CANILAO, and SEGUNDINA NOGUERA, respondents-appellees. SARMIENTO , J.: The petitioners invoke the provisions on human relations of the Civil Code in this appeal by certiorari. The facts are beyond dispute: xxx xxx xxx On the strength of a contract (Exhibit A for the appellant Exhibit 2 for the appellees) entered into on Oct. 19, 1960 by and between Mrs. Segundina Noguera, party of the first part; the Tourist World Service, Inc., represented by Mr. Eliseo Canilao as party of the second part, and hereinafter referred to as appellants, the Tourist World Service, Inc. leased the premises belonging to the party of the first part at Mabini St., Manila for the former-s use as a branch office. In the said contract the party of the third part held herself solidarily liable with the party of the part for the prompt payment of the monthly rental agreed on. When the branch office was opened, the same was run by the herein appellant Una 0. Sevilla payable to Tourist World Service Inc. by any airline for any fare brought in on the efforts of Mrs. Lina Sevilla, 4% was to go to Lina Sevilla and 3% was to be withheld by the Tourist World Service, Inc. On or about November 24, 1961 (Exhibit 16) the Tourist World Service, Inc. appears to have been informed that Lina Sevilla was connected with a rival firm, the Philippine Travel Bureau, and, since the branch office was anyhow losing, the Tourist World Service considered closing down its office. This was firmed up by

VI. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT APPELLANT APPELLANT MRS. LINA O. SEVILLA SIGNED MERELY AS GUARANTOR FOR RENTALS. On the foregoing facts and in the light of the errors asigned the issues to be resolved are: 1. Whether the appellee Tourist World Service unilaterally disco the telephone line at the branch office on Ermita; 2. Whether or not the padlocking of the office by the Tourist World Service was actionable or not; and 3. Whether or not the lessee to the office premises belonging to the appellee Noguera was appellees TWS or TWS and the appellant. In this appeal, appealant Lina Sevilla claims that a joint bussiness venture was entered into by and between her and appellee TWS with offices at the Ermita branch office and that she was not an employee of the TWS to the end that her relationship with TWS was one of a joint business venture appellant made declarations showing: 1. Appellant Mrs. Lina 0. Sevilla, a prominent figure and wife of an eminent eye, ear and nose specialist as well as a imediately columnist had been in the travel business prior to the establishment of the joint business venture with appellee Tourist World Service, Inc. and appellee Eliseo Canilao, her compadre, she being the godmother of one of his children, with her own clientele, coming mostly from her own social circle (pp. 3-6 tsn. February 16,1965). 2. Appellant Mrs. Sevilla was signatory to a lease agreement dated 19 October 1960 (Exh. 'A') covering the premises at A. Mabini St., she expressly warranting and holding [sic] herself 'solidarily' liable with appellee Tourist World Service, Inc. for the prompt payment of the monthly rentals thereof to other appellee Mrs. Noguera (pp. 14-15, tsn. Jan. 18,1964). 3. Appellant Mrs. Sevilla did not receive any salary from appellee Tourist World Service, Inc., which had its own, separate office located at the Trade & Commerce Building; nor was she an employee thereof, having no participation in nor connection with said business at the Trade & Commerce Building (pp. 16-18 tsn Id.). 4. Appellant Mrs. Sevilla earned commissions for her own passengers, her own bookings her own business (and not for any of the business of appellee Tourist World Service, Inc.) obtained from the airline companies. She shared the 7% commissions given by the airline companies giving appellee Tourist World Service, Lic. 3% thereof aid retaining 4% for herself (pp. 18 tsn. Id.) 5. Appellant Mrs. Sevilla likewise shared in the expenses of maintaining the A. Mabini St. office, paying for the salary of an office secretary, Miss Obieta, and other sundry expenses, aside from desicion the office furniture and supplying some of fice

furnishings (pp. 15,18 tsn. April 6,1965), appellee Tourist World Service, Inc. shouldering the rental and other expenses in consideration for the 3% split in the co procured by appellant Mrs. Sevilla (p. 35 tsn Feb. 16,1965). 6. It was the understanding between them that appellant Mrs. Sevilla would be given the title of branch manager for appearance's sake only (p. 31 tsn. Id.), appellee Eliseo Canilao admit that it was just a title for dignity (p. 36 tsn. June 18, 1965testimony of appellee Eliseo Canilao pp. 38-39 tsn April 61965testimony of corporate secretary Gabino Canilao (pp- 2-5, Appellants' Reply Brief) Upon the other hand, appellee TWS contend that the appellant was an employee of the appellee Tourist World Service, Inc. and as such was designated manager. 1 xxx xxx xxx The trial court 2 held for the private respondent on the premise that the private respondent, Tourist World Service, Inc., being the true lessee, it was within its prerogative to terminate the lease and padlock the premises. 3 It likewise found the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, to be a mere employee of said Tourist World Service, Inc. and as such, she was bound by the acts of her employer. 4 The respondent Court of Appeal 5 rendered an affirmance. The petitioners now claim that the respondent Court, in sustaining the lower court, erred. Specifically, they state: I THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT "THE PADLOCKING OF THE PREMISES BY TOURIST WORLD SERVICE INC. WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT OF THE APPELLANT LINA SEVILLA ... WITHOUT NOTIFYING MRS. LINA O. SEVILLA OR ANY OF HER EMPLOYEES AND WITHOUT INFORMING COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT (SEVILIA), WHO IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE PADLOCKING INCIDENT, WAS IN CONFERENCE WITH THE CORPORATE SECRETARY OF TOURIST WORLD SERVICE (ADMITTEDLY THE PERSON WHO PADLOCKED THE SAID OFFICE), IN THEIR ATTEMP AMICABLY SETTLE THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE APPELLANT (SEVILLA) AND THE TOURIST WORLD SERVICE ... (DID NOT) ENTITLE THE LATTER TO THE RELIEF OF DAMAGES" (ANNEX "A" PP. 7,8 AND ANNEX "B" P. 2) DECISION AGAINST DUE PROCESS WHICH ADHERES TO THE RULE OF LAW. II THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING APPELLANT SEVILLA RELIEF BECAUSE SHE HAD "OFFERED TO WITHDRAW HER COMP PROVIDED THAT ALL CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS LODGED BY BOTH APPELLEES WERE WITHDRAWN." (ANNEX "A" P. 8) III

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING-IN FACT NOT PASSING AND RESOLVING-APPELLANT SEVILLAS CAUSE OF ACTION FOUNDED ON ARTICLES 19, 20 AND 21 OF THE CIVIL CODE ON RELATIONS. IV THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING APPEAL APPELLANT SEVILLA RELIEF YET NOT RESOLVING HER CLAIM THAT SHE WAS IN JOINT VENTURE WITH TOURIST WORLD SERVICE INC. OR AT LEAST ITS AGENT COUPLED WITH AN INTEREST WHICH COULD NOT BE TERMINATED OR REVOKED UNILATERALLY BY TOURIST WORLD SERVICE INC. 6 As a preliminary inquiry, the Court is asked to declare the true nature of the relation between Lina Sevilla and Tourist World Service, Inc. The respondent Court of see fit to rule on the question, the crucial issue, in its opinion being "whether or not the padlocking of the premises by the Tourist World Service, Inc. without the knowledge and consent of the appellant Lina Sevilla entitled the latter to the relief of damages prayed for and whether or not the evidence for the said appellant supports the contention that the appellee Tourist World Service, Inc. unilaterally and without the consent of the appellant disconnected the telephone lines of the Ermita branch office of the appellee Tourist World Service, Inc. 7 Tourist World Service, Inc., insists, on the other hand, that Lina SEVILLA was a mere employee, being "branch manager" of its Ermita "branch" office and that inferentially, she had no say on the lease executed with the private respondent, Segundina Noguera. The petitioners contend, however, that relation between the between parties was one of joint venture, but concede that "whatever might have been the true relationship between Sevilla and Tourist World Service," the Rule of Law enjoined Tourist World Service and Canilao from taking the law into their own hands, 8 in reference to the padlocking now questioned. The Court finds the resolution of the issue material, for if, as the private respondent, Tourist World Service, Inc., maintains, that the relation between the parties was in the character of employer and employee, the courts would have been without jurisdiction to try the case, labor disputes being the exclusive domain of the Court of Industrial Relations, later, the Bureau Of Labor Relations, pursuant to statutes then in force. 9 In this jurisdiction, there has been no uniform test to determine the evidence of an employer-employee relation. In general, we have relied on the so-called right of control test, "where the person for whom the services are performed reserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end." 10 Subsequently, however, we have considered, in addition to the standard of right-of control, the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties, like the inclusion of the employee in the payrolls, in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. 11

The records will show that the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, was not subject to control by the private respondent Tourist World Service, Inc., either as to the result of the enterprise or as to the means used in connection therewith. In the first place, under the contract of lease covering the Tourist Worlds Ermita office, she had bound herself in solidumas and for rental payments, an arrangement that would be like claims of a master-servant relationship. True the respondent Court would later minimize her participation in the lease as one of mere guaranty, 12 that does not make her an employee of Tourist World, since in any case, a true employee cannot be made to part with his own money in pursuance of his employer's business, or otherwise, assume any liability thereof. In that event, the parties must be bound by some other relation, but certainly not employment. In the second place, and as found by the Appellate Court, '[w]hen the branch office was opened, the same was run by the herein appellant Lina O. Sevilla payable to Tourist World Service, Inc. by any airline for any fare brought in on the effort of Mrs. Lina Sevilla. 13 Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that Sevilla was under the control of Tourist World Service, Inc. "as to the means used." Sevilla in pursuing the business, obviously relied on her own gifts and capabilities. It is further admitted that Sevilla was not in the company's payroll. For her efforts, she retained 4% in commissions from airline bookings, the remaining 3% going to Tourist World. Unlike an employee then, who earns a fixed salary usually, she earned compensation in fluctuating amounts depending on her booking successes. The fact that Sevilla had been designated 'branch manager" does not make her, ergo, Tourist World's employee. As we said, employment is determined by the right-of-control test and certain economic parameters. But titles are weak indicators. In rejecting Tourist World Service, Inc.'s arguments however, we are not, as a consequence, accepting Lina Sevilla's own, that is, that the parties had embarked on a joint venture or otherwise, a partnership. And apparently, Sevilla herself did not recognize the existence of such a relation. In her letter of November 28, 1961, she expressly 'concedes your [Tourist World Service, Inc.'s] right to stop the operation of your branch office 14 in effect, accepting Tourist World Service, Inc.'s control over the manner in which the business was run. A joint venture, including a partnership, presupposes generally a of standing between the joint coventurers or partners, in which each party has an equal proprietary interest in the capital or property contributed 15 and where each party exercises equal rights in the conduct of the business. 16 furthermore, the parties did not hold themselves out as partners, and the building itself was embellished with the electric sign "Tourist World Service, Inc. 17in lieu of a distinct partnership name. It is the Court's considered opinion, that when the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, agreed to (wo)man the private respondent, Tourist World Service, Inc.'s Ermita office, she must have done so pursuant to a

contract of agency. It is the essence of this contract that the agent renders services "in representation or on behalf of another. 18 In the case at bar, Sevilla solicited airline fares, but she did so for and on behalf of her principal, Tourist World Service, Inc. As compensation, she received 4% of the proceeds in the concept of commissions. And as we said, Sevilla herself based on her letter of November 28, 1961, pre-assumed her principal's authority as owner of the business undertaking. We are convinced, considering the circumstances and from the respondent Court's recital of facts, that the ties had contemplated a principal agent relationship, rather than a joint managament or a partnership.. But unlike simple grants of a power of attorney, the agency that we hereby declare to be compatible with the intent of the parties, cannot be revoked at will. The reason is that it is one coupled with an interest, the agency having been created for mutual interest, of the agent and the principal. 19 It appears that Lina Sevilla is a bona fide travel agent herself, and as such, she had acquired an interest in the business entrusted to her. Moreover, she had assumed a personal obligation for the operation thereof, holding herself solidarily liable for the payment of rentals. She continued the business, using her own name, after Tourist World had stopped further operations. Her interest, obviously, is not to the commissions she earned as a result of her business transactions, but one that extends to the very subject matter of the power of management delegated to her. It is an agency that, as we said, cannot be revoked at the pleasure of the principal. Accordingly, the revocation complained of should entitle the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, to damages. As we have stated, the respondent Court avoided this issue, confining itself to the telephone disconnection and padlocking incidents. Anent the disconnection issue, it is the holding of the Court of Appeals that there is 'no evidence showing that the Tourist World Service, Inc. disconnected the telephone lines at the branch office. 20Yet, what cannot be denied is the fact that Tourist World Service, Inc. did not take pains to have them reconnected. Assuming, therefore, that it had no hand in the disconnection now complained of, it had clearly condoned it, and as owner of the telephone lines, it must shoulder responsibility therefor. The Court of Appeals must likewise be held to be in error with respect to the padlocking incident. For the fact that Tourist World Service, Inc. was the lessee named in the lease con-tract did not accord it any authority to terminate that contract without notice to its actual occupant, and to padlock the premises in such fashion. As this Court has ruled, the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, had acquired a personal stake in the business itself, and necessarily, in the equipment pertaining thereto. Furthermore, Sevilla was not a stranger to that contract having been explicitly named therein as a third party in charge of rental payments (solidarily with Tourist World, Inc.). She could not be ousted from possession as summarily as one would eject an interloper. The Court is satisfied that from the chronicle of events, there was indeed some malevolent design to put the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, in a bad light following disclosures that she had worked for a rival

firm. To be sure, the respondent court speaks of alleged business losses to justify the closure '21 but there is no clear showing that Tourist World Ermita Branch had in fact sustained such reverses, let alone, the fact that Sevilla had moonlit for another company. What the evidence discloses, on the other hand, is that following such an information (that Sevilla was working for another company), Tourist World's board of directors adopted two resolutions abolishing the office of 'manager" and authorizing the corporate secretary, the respondent Eliseo Canilao, to effect the takeover of its branch office properties. On January 3, 1962, the private respondents ended the lease over the branch office premises, incidentally, without notice to her. It was only on June 4, 1962, and after office hours significantly, that the Ermita office was padlocked, personally by the respondent Canilao, on the pretext that it was necessary to Protect the interests of the Tourist World Service. "22 It is strange indeed that Tourist World Service, Inc. did not find such a need when it cancelled the lease five months earlier. While Tourist World Service, Inc. would not pretend that it sought to locate Sevilla to inform her of the closure, but surely, it was aware that after office hours, she could not have been anywhere near the premises. Capping these series of "offensives," it cut the office's telephone lines, paralyzing completely its business operations, and in the process, depriving Sevilla articipation therein. This conduct on the part of Tourist World Service, Inc. betrays a sinister effort to punish Sevillsa it had perceived to be disloyalty on her part. It is offensive, in any event, to elementary norms of justice and fair play. We rule therefore, that for its unwarranted revocation of the contract of agency, the private respondent, Tourist World Service, Inc., should be sentenced to pay damages. Under the Civil Code, moral damages may be awarded for "breaches of contract where the defendant acted ... in bad faith. 23 We likewise condemn Tourist World Service, Inc. to pay further damages for the moral injury done to Lina Sevilla from its brazen conduct subsequent to the cancellation of the power of attorney granted to her on the authority of Article 21 of the Civil Code, in relation to Article 2219 (10) thereof ART. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. 24 ART. 2219. Moral damages 25 may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: xxx xxx xxx (10) Acts and actions refered into article 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

The respondent, Eliseo Canilao, as a joint tortfeasor is likewise hereby ordered to respond for the same damages in a solidary capacity. Insofar, however, as the private respondent, Segundina Noguera is concerned, no evidence has been shown that she had connived with Tourist World Service, Inc. in the disconnection and padlocking incidents. She cannot therefore be held liable as a cotortfeasor. The Court considers the sums of P25,000.00 as and for moral damages,24 P10,000.00 as exemplary damages, 25and P5,000.00 as nominal 26 and/or temperate 27 damages, to be just, fair, and reasonable under the circumstances. WHEREFORE, the Decision promulgated on January 23, 1975 as well as the Resolution issued on July 31, 1975, by the respondent Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The private respondent, Tourist World Service, Inc., and Eliseo Canilao, are ORDERED jointly and severally to indemnify the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, the sum of 25,00.00 as and for moral damages, the sum of P10,000.00, as and for exemplary damages, and the sum of P5,000.00, as and for nominal and/or temperate damages. Costs against said private respondents. SO ORDERED.

the decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch IV, which dismissed the complaint and granted therein defendant's counterclaim for agent's overriding commission and damages. The antecedent facts are as follows:

Services may sell air passenger transportation to be performed within the United States by other scheduled air carriers provided American does not provide substantially equivalent schedules between the points involved. xxx xxx xxx

On 15 January 1977, American Airlines, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as American Air), an air carrier offering passenger and air cargo transportation in the Philippines, and Orient Air Services and Hotel Representatives (hereinafter referred to as Orient Air), entered into a General Sales Agency Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement), whereby the former authorized the latter to act as its exclusive general sales agent within the Philippines for the sale of air passenger transportation. Pertinent provisions of the agreement are reproduced, to wit: WITNESSETH In consideration of the mutual convenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Representation of American by Orient Air Services

4. Remittances Orient Air Services shall remit in United States dollars to American the ticket stock or exchange orders, less commissions to which Orient Air Services is entitled hereunder, not less frequently than semi-monthly, on the 15th and last days of each month for sales made during the preceding half month. All monies collected by Orient Air Services for transportation sold hereunder on American's ticket stock or on exchange orders, less applicable commissions to which Orient Air Services is entitled hereunder, are the property of American and shall be held in trust by Orient Air Services until satisfactorily accounted for to American. 5. Commissions

Orient Air Services will act on American's behalf as its exclusive General Sales Agent within the Philippines, including any United States military installation therein which are not serviced by an Air Carrier Representation Office (ACRO), for the sale of air passenger transportation. The services to be performed by Orient Air Services shall include: (a) soliciting and promoting passenger traffic for the services of American and, if necessary, employing staff competent and sufficient to do so; (b) providing and maintaining a suitable area in its place of business to be used exclusively for the transaction of the business of American; (c) arranging for distribution of American's timetables, tariffs and promotional material to sales agents and the general public in the assigned territory; (d) servicing and supervising of sales agents (including such subagents as may be appointed by Orient Air Services with the prior written consent of American) in the assigned territory including if required by American the control of remittances and commissions retained; and (e) holding out a passenger reservation facility to sales agents and the general public in the assigned territory.

American will pay Orient Air Services commission on transportation sold hereunder by Orient Air Services or its subagents as follows: (a) Sales agency commission American will pay Orient Air Services a sales agency commission for all sales of transportation by Orient Air Services or its subagents over American's services and any connecting through air transportation, when made on American's ticket stock, equal to the following percentages of the tariff fares and charges: (i) For transportation solely between points within the United States and between such points and Canada: 7% or such other rate(s) as may be prescribed by the Air Traffic Conference of America. (ii) For transportation included in a through ticket covering transportation between points other than those described above: 8% or such other rate(s) as may be prescribed by the International Air Transport Association. (b) Overriding commission In addition to the above commission American will pay Orient Air Services an overriding commission of 3% of the tariff fares and charges for all sales of transportation over American's service by Orient Air Service or its sub-agents. xxx xxx xxx 10. Default

G.R. No. 76931 May 29, 1991 ORIENT AIR SERVICES & HOTEL REPRESENTATIVES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and AMERICAN AIR-LINES INCORPORATED, respondents. G.R. No. 76933 May 29, 1991 AMERICAN AIRLINES, INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ORIENT AIR SERVICES & HOTEL REPRESENTATIVES, INCORPORATED,respondents. Francisco A. Lava, Jr. and Andresito X. Fornier for Orient Air Service and Hotel Representatives, Inc. Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez & Gatmaitan for American Airlines, Inc.

PADILLA, J.:p This case is a consolidation of two (2) petitions for review on certiorari of a decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. CV-04294, entitled "American Airlines, Inc. vs. Orient Air Services and Hotel Representatives, Inc." which affirmed, with modification,

In connection with scheduled or non-scheduled air passenger transportation within the United States, neither Orient Air Services nor its sub-agents will perform services for any other air carrier similar to those to be performed hereunder for American without the prior written consent of American. Subject to periodic instructions and continued consent from American, Orient Air

If Orient Air Services shall at any time default in observing or performing any of the provisions of this Agreement or shall become bankrupt or make any assignment for the benefit of or enter into any agreement or promise with its creditors or go into liquidation, or suffer any of its goods to be taken in execution, or if it ceases to be in business, this Agreement may, at the option of American, be terminated forthwith and American may, without prejudice to any of its rights under this Agreement, take possession of any ticket forms, exchange orders, traffic material or other property or funds belonging to American. 11. IATA and ATC Rules The provisions of this Agreement are subject to any applicable rules or resolutions of the International Air Transport Association and the Air Traffic Conference of America, and such rules or resolutions shall control in the event of any conflict with the provisions hereof. xxx xxx xxx 13. Termination American may terminate the Agreement on two days' notice in the event Orient Air Services is unable to transfer to the United States the funds payable by Orient Air Services to American under this Agreement. Either party may terminate the Agreement without cause by giving the other 30 days' notice by letter, telegram or cable. xxx xxx xxx
3

untenable, Orient Air claiming that American Air's precipitous conduct had occasioned prejudice to its business interests. Finding that the record and the evidence substantiated the allegations of the defendant, the trial court ruled in its favor, rendering a decision dated 16 July 1984, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff dismissing the complaint and holding the termination made by the latter as affecting the GSA agreement illegal and improper and order the plaintiff to reinstate defendant as its general sales agent for passenger tranportation in the Philippines in accordance with said GSA agreement; plaintiff is ordered to pay defendant the balance of the overriding commission on total flown revenue covering the period from March 16, 1977 to December 31, 1980 in the amount of US$84,821.31 plus the additional amount of US$8,000.00 by way of proper 3% overriding commission per month commencing from January 1, 1981 until such reinstatement or said amounts in its Philippine peso equivalent legally prevailing at the time of payment plus legal interest to commence from the filing of the counterclaim up to the time of payment. Further, plaintiff is directed to pay defendant the amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand (Pl,500,000.00) pesos as and for exemplary damages; and the amount of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) pesos as and by way of attorney's fees. Costs against plaintiff. 7 On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) in a decision promulgated on 27 January 1986, affirmed the findings of the court a quo on their material points but with some modifications with respect to the monetary awards granted. The dispositive portion of the appellate court's decision is as follows: WHEREFORE, with the following modifications 1) American is ordered to pay Orient the sum of US$53,491.11 representing the balance of the latter's overriding commission covering the period March 16, 1977 to December 31, 1980, or its Philippine peso equivalent in accordance with the official rate of exchange legally prevailing on July 10, 1981, the date the counterclaim was filed; 2) American is ordered to pay Orient the sum of US$7,440.00 as the latter's overriding commission per month starting January 1, 1981 until date of termination, May 9, 1981 or its Philippine peso equivalent in accordance with the official rate of exchange legally prevailing on July 10, 1981, the date the counterclaim was filed 3) American is ordered to pay interest of 12% on said amounts from July 10, 1981 the date the answer with counterclaim was filed, until full payment;

4) American is ordered to pay Orient exemplary damages of P200,000.00; 5) American is ordered to pay Orient the sum of P25,000.00 as attorney's fees. the rest of the appealed decision is affirmed. Costs against American. 8 American Air moved for reconsideration of the aforementioned decision, assailing the substance thereof and arguing for its reversal. The appellate court's decision was also the subject of a Motion for Partial Reconsideration by Orient Air which prayed for the restoration of the trial court's ruling with respect to the monetary awards. The Court of Appeals, by resolution promulgated on 17 December 1986, denied American Air's motion and with respect to that of Orient Air, ruled thus: Orient's motion for partial reconsideration is denied insofar as it prays for affirmance of the trial court's award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees, but granted insofar as the rate of exchange is concerned. The decision of January 27, 1986 is modified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the dispositive part so that the payment of the sums mentioned therein shall be at their Philippine peso equivalent in accordance with the official rate of exchange legally prevailing on the date of actual payment. 9 Both parties appealed the aforesaid resolution and decision of the respondent court, Orient Air as petitioner in G.R. No. 76931 and American Air as petitioner in G.R. No. 76933. By resolution 10 of this Court dated 25 March 1987 both petitions were consolidated, hence, the case at bar. The principal issue for resolution by the Court is the extent of Orient Air's right to the 3% overriding commission. It is the stand of American Air that such commission is based only on sales of its services actually negotiated or transacted by Orient Air, otherwise referred to as "ticketed sales." As basis thereof, primary reliance is placed upon paragraph 5(b) of the Agreement which, in reiteration, is quoted as follows: 5. Commissions a) . . . b) Overriding Commission In addition to the above commission, American will pay Orient Air Services an overriding commission of 3% of the tariff fees and charges for all sales of transportation over American's services by Orient Air Services or its sub-agents. (Emphasis supplied) Since Orient Air was allowed to carry only the ticket stocks of American Air, and the former not having opted to appoint any subagents, it is American Air's contention that Orient Air can claim entitlement to the disputed overriding commission based only

On 11 May 1981, alleging that Orient Air had reneged on its obligations under the Agreement by failing to promptly remit the net proceeds of sales for the months of January to March 1981 in the amount of US $254,400.40, American Air by itself undertook the collection of the proceeds of tickets sold originally by Orient Air and terminated forthwith the Agreement in accordance with Paragraph 13 thereof (Termination). Four (4) days later, or on 15 May 1981, American Air instituted suit against Orient Air with the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch 24, for Accounting with Preliminary Attachment or Garnishment, Mandatory Injunction and Restraining Order 4 averring the aforesaid basis for the termination of the Agreement as well as therein defendant's previous record of failures "to promptly settle past outstanding refunds of which there were available funds in the possession of the defendant, . . . to the damage and prejudice of plaintiff." 5 In its Answer with counterclaim dated 9 July 1981, defendant Orient Air denied the material allegations of the complaint with respect to plaintiff's entitlement to alleged unremitted amounts, contending that after application thereof to the commissions due it under the Agreement, plaintiff in fact still owed Orient Air a balance in unpaid overriding commissions. Further, the defendant contended that the actions taken by American Air in the course of terminating the Agreement as well as the termination itself were
6

on ticketed sales. This is supposed to be the clear meaning of the underscored portion of the above provision. Thus, to be entitled to the 3% overriding commission, the sale must be made by Orient Air and the sale must be done with the use of American Air's ticket stocks. On the other hand, Orient Air contends that the contractual stipulation of a 3% overriding commission covers the total revenue of American Air and not merely that derived from ticketed sales undertaken by Orient Air. The latter, in justification of its submission, invokes its designation as the exclusive General Sales Agent of American Air, with the corresponding obligations arising from such agency, such as, the promotion and solicitation for the services of its principal. In effect, by virtue of such exclusivity, "all sales of transportation over American Air's services are necessarily by Orient Air." 11 It is a well settled legal principle that in the interpretation of a contract, the entirety thereof must be taken into consideration to ascertain the meaning of its provisions. 12 The various stipulations in the contract must be read together to give effect to all. 13 After a careful examination of the records, the Court finds merit in the contention of Orient Air that the Agreement, when interpreted in accordance with the foregoing principles, entitles it to the 3% overriding commission based on total revenue, or as referred to by the parties, "total flown revenue." As the designated exclusive General Sales Agent of American Air, Orient Air was responsible for the promotion and marketing of American Air's services for air passenger transportation, and the solicitation of sales therefor. In return for such efforts and services, Orient Air was to be paid commissions of two (2) kinds: first, a sales agency commission, ranging from 7-8% of tariff fares and charges from sales by Orient Air when made on American Air ticket stock; and second, an overriding commission of 3% of tariff fares and charges for all sales of passenger transportation over American Air services. It is immediately observed that the precondition attached to the first type of commission does not obtain for the second type of commissions. The latter type of commissions would accrue for sales of American Air services made not on its ticket stock but on the ticket stock of other air carriers sold by such carriers or other authorized ticketing facilities or travel agents. To rule otherwise, i.e., to limit the basis of such overriding commissions to sales from American Air ticket stock would erase any distinction between the two (2) types of commissions and would lead to the absurd conclusion that the parties had entered into a contract with meaningless provisions. Such an interpretation must at all times be avoided with every effort exerted to harmonize the entire Agreement. An additional point before finally disposing of this issue. It is clear from the records that American Air was the party responsible for the preparation of the Agreement. Consequently, any ambiguity in this "contract of adhesion" is to be taken "contra proferentem", i.e., construed against the party who caused the ambiguity and could have avoided it by the exercise of a little more care. Thus, Article 1377 of the Civil Code provides that the

interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity. 14 To put it differently, when several interpretations of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that interpretation or construction is to be adopted which is most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made and who did not cause the ambiguity. 15 We therefore agree with the respondent appellate court's declaration that: Any ambiguity in a contract, whose terms are susceptible of different interpretations, must be read against the party who drafted it. 16 We now turn to the propriety of American Air's termination of the Agreement. The respondent appellate court, on this issue, ruled thus: It is not denied that Orient withheld remittances but such action finds justification from paragraph 4 of the Agreement, Exh. F, which provides for remittances to American less commissions to which Orient is entitled, and from paragraph 5(d) which specifically allows Orient to retain the full amount of its commissions. Since, as stated ante, Orient is entitled to the 3% override. American's premise, therefore, for the cancellation of the Agreement did not exist. . . ." We agree with the findings of the respondent appellate court. As earlier established, Orient Air was entitled to an overriding commission based on total flown revenue. American Air's perception that Orient Air was remiss or in default of its obligations under the Agreement was, in fact, a situation where the latter acted in accordance with the Agreementthat of retaining from the sales proceeds its accrued commissions before remitting the balance to American Air. Since the latter was still obligated to Orient Air by way of such commissions. Orient Air was clearly justified in retaining and refusing to remit the sums claimed by American Air. The latter's termination of the Agreement was, therefore, without cause and basis, for which it should be held liable to Orient Air. On the matter of damages, the respondent appellate court modified by reduction the trial court's award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees. This Court sees no error in such modification and, thus, affirms the same. It is believed, however, that respondent appellate court erred in affirming the rest of the decision of the trial court. We refer particularly to the lower court's decision ordering American Air to "reinstate defendant as its general sales agent for passenger transportation in the Philippines in accordance with said GSA Agreement." By affirming this ruling of the trial court, respondent appellate court, in effect, compels American Air to extend its personality to Orient Air. Such would be violative of the principles and essence of agency, defined by law as a contract whereby "a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in

representation or on behalf of another, WITH THE CONSENT OR AUTHORITY OF THE LATTER . 17 (emphasis supplied) In an agentprincipal relationship, the personality of the principal is extended through the facility of the agent. In so doing, the agent, by legal fiction, becomes the principal, authorized to perform all acts which the latter would have him do. Such a relationship can only be effected with the consent of the principal, which must not, in any way, be compelled by law or by any court. The Agreement itself between the parties states that "either party may terminate the Agreement without cause by giving the other 30 days' notice by letter, telegram or cable." (emphasis supplied) We, therefore, set aside the portion of the ruling of the respondent appellate court reinstating Orient Air as general sales agent of American Air. WHEREFORE, with the foregoing modification, the Court AFFIRMS the decision and resolution of the respondent Court of Appeals, dated 27 January 1986 and 17 December 1986, respectively. Costs against petitioner American Air. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-41420 July 10, 1992 CMS LOGGING, INC., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and D.R. AGUINALDO CORPORATION, respondents.

NOCON, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari from the decision dated July 31, 1975 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 47763-R which affirmed in toto the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VII, in Civil Case No. 56355 dismissing the complaint filed by petitioner CMS Logging, Inc. (CMS, for brevity) against private respondent D.R. Aguinaldo Corporation (DRACOR, for brevity) and ordering the former to pay the latter attorney's fees in the amount of P1,000.00 and the costs. The facts of the case are as follows: Petitioner CMS is a forest concessionaire engaged in the logging business, while private respondent DRACOR is engaged in the business of exporting and selling logs and lumber. On August 28, 1957, CMS and DRACOR entered into a contract of agency 1 whereby the former appointed the latter as its exclusive export and sales agent for all logs that the former may produce, for a period of five (5) years. The pertinent portions of the agreement, which was drawn up by DRACOR, 2 are as follows: 1. SISON [CMS] hereby appoints DRACOR as his sole and exclusive export sales agent with full authority, subject to the conditions and limitations hereinafter set forth, to sell and export under a firm sales contract acceptable to SISON, all logs produced by SISON for

a period of five (5) years commencing upon the execution of the agreement and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter provided and DRACOR hereby accepts such appointment; xxx xxx xxx 3. It is expressly agreed that DRACOR shall handle exclusively all negotiations of all export sales of SISON with the buyers and arrange the procurement and schedules of the vessel or vessels for the shipment of SISON's logs in accordance with SISON's written requests, but DRACOR shall not in anyway [sic] be liable or responsible for any delay, default or failure of the vessel or vessels to comply with the schedules agreed upon; xxx xxx xxx 9. It is expressly agreed by the parties hereto that DRACOR shall receive five (5%) per cent commission of the gross sales of logs of SISON based on F.O.B. invoice value which commission shall be deducted from the proceeds of any and/or all moneys received by DRACOR for and in behalf and for the account of SISON; By virtue of the aforesaid agreement, CMS was able to sell through DRACOR a total of 77,264,672 board feet of logs in Japan, from September 20, 1957 to April 4, 1962. About six months prior to the expiration of the agreement, while on a trip to Tokyo, Japan, CMS's president, Atty. Carlos Moran Sison, and general manager and legal counsel, Atty. Teodoro R. Dominguez, discovered that DRACOR had used Shinko Trading Co., Ltd. (Shinko for brevity) as agent, representative or liaison officer in selling CMS's logs in Japan for which Shinko earned a commission of U.S. $1.00 per 1,000 board feet from the buyer of the logs. Under this arrangement, Shinko was able to collect a total of U.S. $77,264.67. 3 CMS claimed that this commission paid to Shinko was in violation of the agreement and that it (CMS) is entitled to this amount as part of the proceeds of the sale of the logs. CMS contended that since DRACOR had been paid the 5% commission under the agreement, it is no longer entitled to the additional commission paid to Shinko as this tantamount to DRACOR receiving double compensation for the services it rendered. After this discovery, CMS sold and shipped logs valued at U.S. $739,321.13 or P2,883,351.90, 4 directly to several firms in Japan without the aid or intervention of DRACOR. CMS sued DRACOR for the commission received by Shinko and for moral and exemplary damages, while DRACOR counterclaimed for its commission, amounting to P144,167.59, from the sales made by CMS of logs to Japanese firms. In its reply, CMS averred as a defense to the counterclaim that DRACOR had retained the sum of P101,167.59 as part of its commission for the sales made by CMS. 5 Thus, as its counterclaim to DRACOR's counterclaim, CMS demanded DRACOR return the amount it unlawfully retained. DRACOR later filed an amended counterclaim, alleging that the

balance of its commission on the sales made by CMS was P42,630.82, 6 thus impliedly admitting that it retained the amount alleged by CMS. In dismissing the complaint, the trial court ruled that no evidence was presented to show that Shinko received the commission of U.S. $77,264.67 arising from the sale of CMS's logs in Japan, though the trial court stated that "Shinko was able to collect the total amount of $77,264.67 US Dollars (Exhs. M and M-1)." 7 The counterclaim was likewise dismissed, as it was shown that DRACOR had waived its rights to the balance of its commission in a letter dated February 2, 1963 to Atty. Carlos Moran Sison, president of CMS. 8 From said decision, only CMS appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in a 3 to 2 decision, 9 affirmed the dismissal of the complaint since "[t]he trial court could not have made a categorical finding that Shinko collected commissions from the buyers of Sison's logs in Japan, and could not have held that Sison is entitled to recover from Dracor the amount collected by Shinko as commissions, plaintiff-appellant having failed to prove by competent evidence its claims." 10 Moreover, the appellate court held: There is reason to believe that Shinko Trading Co. Ltd., was paid by defendant-appellee out of its own commission of 5%, as indicated in the letter of its president to the president of Sison, dated February 2, 1963 (Exhibit "N"), and in the Agreement between Aguinaldo Development Corporation (ADECOR) and Shinko Trading Co., Ltd. (Exhibit "9"). Daniel R. Aguinaldo stated in his said letter: . . . , I informed you that if you wanted to pay me for the service, then it would be no more than at the standard rate of 5% commission because in our own case, we pay our Japanese agents 2-1/2%. Accordingly, we would only add a similar amount of 21/2% for the service which we would render you in the Philippines. 11 Aggrieved, CMS appealed to this Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari, alleging (1) that the Court of Appeals erred in not making a complete findings of fact; (2) that the testimony of Atty. Teodoro R. Dominguez, regarding the admission by Shinko's president and director that it collected a commission of U.S. $1.00 per 1,000 board feet of logs from the Japanese buyers, is admissible against DRACOR; (3) that the statement of DRACOR's chief legal counsel in his memorandum dated May 31, 1965, Exhibit "K", is an admission that Shinko was able to collect the commission in question; (4) that the fact that Shinko received the questioned commissions is deemed admitted by DRACOR by its silence under Section 23, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court when it failed to reply to Atty. Carlos Moran Sison's letter dated February 6, 1962; (5) that DRACOR is not entitled to its 5% commission arising from the direct sales made by CMS to buyers in Japan; and (6) that DRACOR is guilty of fraud and bad faith in its dealings with CMS.

With regard to CMS's arguments concerning whether or not Shinko received the commission in question, We find the same unmeritorious. To begin with, these arguments question the findings of fact made by the Court of Appeals, which are final and conclusive and can not be reviewed on appeal to the Supreme Court. 12 Moreover, while it is true that the evidence adduced establishes the fact that Shinko is DRACOR's agent or liaison in Japan, 13 there is no evidence which established the fact that Shinko did receive the amount of U.S. $77,264.67 as commission arising from the sale of CMS's logs to various Japanese firms. The fact that Shinko received the commissions in question was not established by the testimony of Atty. Teodoro R. Dominguez to the effect that Shinko's president and director told him that Shinko received a commission of U.S. $1.00 for every 1,000 board feet of logs sold, since the same is hearsay. Similarly, the letter of Mr. K. Shibata of Toyo Menka Kaisha, Ltd. 14 is also hearsay since Mr. Shibata was not presented to testify on his letter. CMS's other evidence have little or no probative value at all. The statements made in the memorandum of Atty. Simplicio R. Ciocon to DRACOR dated May 31, 1965, 15 the letter dated February 2, 1963 of Daniel R. Aguinaldo, 16 president of DRACOR, and the reply-letter dated January 9, 1964 17 by DRACOR's counsel Atty. V. E. Del Rosario to CMS's demand letter dated September 25, 1963 can not be categorized as admissions that Shinko did receive the commissions in question. The alleged admission made by Atty. Ciocon, to wit Furthermore, as per our records, our shipment of logs to Toyo Menka Kaisha, Ltd., is only for a net volume of 67,747,732 board feet which should enable Shinko to collect a commission of US $67,747.73 only can not be considered as such since the statement was made in the context of questioning CMS's tally of logs delivered to various Japanese firms. Similarly, the statement of Daniel R. Aguinaldo, to wit . . . Knowing as we do that Toyo Menka is a large and reputable company, it is obvious that they paid Shinko for certain services which Shinko must have satisfactorily performed for them in Japan otherwise they would not have paid Shinko and that of Atty. V. E. Del Rosario, . . . It does not seem proper, therefore, for CMS Logging, Inc., as principal, to concern itself with, much less question, the right of Shinko Trading Co., Ltd. with which our client debt directly, to whatever benefits it might have derived form the ultimate consumer/buyer of these logs, Toyo Menka Kaisha, Ltd. There

appears to be no justification for your client's contention that these benefits, whether they can be considered as commissions paid by Toyo Menka Kaisha to Shinko Trading, are to be regarded part of the gross sales. can not be considered admissions that Shinko received the questioned commissions since neither statements declared categorically that Shinko did in fact receive the commissions and that these arose from the sale of CMS's logs. As correctly stated by the appellate court: It is a rule that "a statement is not competent as an admission where it does not, under a reasonable construction, appear to admit or acknowledge the fact which is sought to be proved by it". An admission or declaration to be competent must have been expressed in definite, certain and unequivocal language (Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Fidelity & Surety Co., 51 Phil. 57, 64). 18 CMS's contention that DRACOR had admitted by its silence the allegation that Shinko received the commissions in question when it failed to respond to Atty. Carlos Moran Sison's letter dated February 6, 1963, is not supported by the evidence. DRACOR did in fact reply to the letter of Atty. Sison, through the letter dated March 5, 1963 of F.A. Novenario, 19 which stated: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 6, 1963, and addressed to Mr. D. R. Aguinaldo, who is at present out of the country. xxx xxx xxx We have no record or knowledge of any such payment of commission made by Toyo Menka to Shinko. If the payment was made by Toyo Menka to Shinko, as stated in your letter, we knew nothing about it and had nothing to do with it. The finding of fact made by the trial court, i.e., that "Shinko was able to collect the total amount of $77,264.67 US Dollars," can not be given weight since this was based on the summary prepared by CMS itself, Exhibits "M" and "M-1". Moreover, even if it was shown that Shinko did in fact receive the commissions in question, CMS is not entitled thereto since these were apparently paid by the buyers to Shinko for arranging the sale. This is therefore not part of the gross sales of CMS's logs. However, We find merit in CMS's contention that the appellate court erred in holding that DRACOR was entitled to its commission from the sales made by CMS to Japanese firms. The principal may revoke a contract of agency at will, and such revocation may be express, or implied, 20 and may be availed of even if the period fixed in the contract of agency as not yet expired. 21 As the principal has this absolute right to revoke the agency, the agent can not object thereto; neither may he claim damages arising from such revocation, 22 unless it is shown that

such was done in order to evade the payment of agent's commission.23 In the case at bar, CMS appointed DRACOR as its agent for the sale of its logs to Japanese firms. Yet, during the existence of the contract of agency, DRACOR admitted that CMS sold its logs directly to several Japanese firms. This act constituted an implied revocation of the contract of agency under Article 1924 of the Civil Code, which provides: Art. 1924 The agency is revoked if the principal directly manages the business entrusted to the agent, dealing directly with third persons. In New Manila Lumber Company, Inc. vs. Republic of the Philippines, 24 this Court ruled that the act of a contractor, who, after executing powers of attorney in favor of another empowering the latter to collect whatever amounts may be due to him from the Government, and thereafter demanded and collected from the government the money the collection of which he entrusted to his attorney-in-fact, constituted revocation of the agency in favor of the attorney-in-fact. Since the contract of agency was revoked by CMS when it sold its logs to Japanese firms without the intervention of DRACOR, the latter is no longer entitled to its commission from the proceeds of such sale and is not entitled to retain whatever moneys it may have received as its commission for said transactions. Neither would DRACOR be entitled to collect damages from CMS, since damages are generally not awarded to the agent for the revocation of the agency, and the case at bar is not one falling under the exception mentioned, which is to evade the payment of the agent's commission. Regarding CMS's contention that the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that DRACOR had committed acts of fraud and bad faith, We find the same unmeritorious. Like the contention involving Shinko and the questioned commissions, the findings of the Court of Appeals on the matter were based on its appreciation of the evidence, and these findings are binding on this Court. In fine, We affirm the ruling of the Court of Appeals that there is no evidence to support CMS's contention that Shinko earned a separate commission of U.S. $1.00 for every 1,000 board feet of logs from the buyer of CMS's logs. However, We reverse the ruling of the Court of Appeals with regard to DRACOR's right to retain the amount of P101,536.77 as part of its commission from the sale of logs by CMS, and hold that DRACOR has no right to its commission. Consequently, DRACOR is hereby ordered to remit to CMS the amount of P101,536.77. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED as stated in the preceding paragraph. Costs de officio. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 114091 June 29, 1995

BACALTOS COAL MINES and GERMAN A. BACALTOS, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.: Petitioners seek the reversal of the decision of 30 September 1993 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 35180, 1 entitled "San Miguel Corporation vs. Bacaltos Coal Mines, German A. Bacaltos and Rene R. Savellon," which affirmed the decision of 19 August 1991 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu, Branch 9, in Civil Case No. CEB-8187 2 holding petitioners Bacaltos Coal Mines and German A. Bacaltos and their co-defendant Rene R. Savellon jointly and severally liable to private respondent San Miguel Corporation under a Trip Charter Party. The paramount issue raised is whether Savellon was duly authorized by the petitioners to enter into the Trip Charter Party (Exhibit "A") 3 under and by virtue of an Authorization (Exhibit "C" and Exhibit "1"), 4 dated 1 March 1988, the pertinent portions of which read as follows: I. GERMAN A. BACALTOS, of legal age, Filipino, widower, and residing at second street, Espina Village, Cebu City, province of Cebu, Philippines, do hereby authorize RENE R. SAVELLON, of legal age, Filipino and residing at 376-R Osmea Blvd., Cebu City, Province of Cebu, Philippines, to use the coal operating contract of BACALTOS COAL MINES of which I am the proprietor, for any legitimate purpose that it may serve. Namely, but not by way of limitation, as follows: (1) To acquire purchase orders for and in behalf of BACALTOS COAL MINES; (2) To engage in trading under the style of BACALTOS COAL MINES/RENE SAVELLON; (3) To collect all receivables due or in arrears from people or companies having dealings under BACALTOS COAL MINES/RENE SAVELLON; (4) To extend to any person or company by substitution the same extent of authority that is granted to Rene Savellon; (5) In connection with the preceeding paragraphs to execute and sign documents, contracts, and other pertinent papers. Further, I hereby give and grant to RENE SAVELLON full authority to do and perform all and every lawful act requisite or necessary to carry into effect the foregoing stipulations as fully to all intents and purposes as I might or would lawfully do if personally present, with full power of substitution and revocation.

The Trip Charter Party was executed on 19 October 1988 "by and between BACALTOS COAL MINES, represented by its Chief Operating Officer, RENE ROSEL SAVELLON" and private respondent San Miguel Corporation (hereinafter SMC), represented by Francisco B. Manzon, Jr., its "SAVP and Director, Plant OperationsMandaue" Thereunder, Savellon claims that Bacaltos Coal Mines is the owner of the vessel M/V Premship II and that for P650,000.00 to be paid within seven days after the execution of the contract, it "lets, demises" the vessel to charterer SMC "for three round trips to Davao." As payment of the aforesaid consideration, SMC issued a check (Exhibit "B") 5 payable to "RENE SAVELLON IN TRUST FOR BACALTOS COAL MINES" for which Savellon issued a receipt under the heading of BACALTOS COAL MINES with the address at No 376R Osmea Blvd., Cebu City (Exhibit "B-1"). 6 The vessel was able to make only one trip. Its demands to comply with the contract having been unheeded, SMC filed against the petitioners and Rene Savellon the complaint in Civil Case No. CEB8187 for specific performance and damages. In their Answer, 7 the petitioners alleged that Savellon was not their Chief Operating Officer and that the powers granted to him are only those clearly expressed in the Authorization which do not include the power to enter into any contract with SMC. They further claimed that if it is true that SMC entered into a contract with them, it should have issued the check in their favor. They setup counterclaims for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. Savellon did not file his Answer and was declared in default on 17 July 1990. 8 At the pre-trial conference on 1 February 1991, the petitioners and SMC agreed to submit the following issues for resolution: Plaintiff 1. Whether or not defendants are jointly liable to plaintiff for damages on account of breach of contract; 2. Whether or not the defendants acted in good faith in its representations to the plaintiff; 3. Whether or not defendant Bacaltos was duly enriched on the payment made by the plaintiff for the use of the vessel; 4. Whether or not defendant Bacaltos is estopped to deny the authorization given to defendant Savellon; Defendants 1. Whether or not the plaintiff should have first investigated the ownership of vessel M/V PREM [SHIP] II before entering into any contract with defendant Savellon; 2. Whether or not defendant Savellon was authorized to enter into a shipping contract with the [plaintiff] corporation;

3. Whether or not the plaintiff was correct and not mistaken in issuing the checks in payment of the contract in the name of defendant Savellon and not in the name of defendant Bacaltos Coal Mines; 4. Whether or not the plaintiff is liable on defendants' counterclaim. 9 After trial, the lower court rendered the assailed decision in favor of SMC and against the petitioners and Savellon as follows: WHEREFORE, by preponderance of evidence, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, ordering defendants Rene Savellon, Bacaltos Coal Mines and German A. Bacaltos, jointly and severally, to pay to plaintiff: 1. The amount of P433,000.00 by way of reimbursement of the consideration paid by plaintiff, plus 12% interest to start from date of written demand, which is June 14, 1989; 2. The amount of P20,000.00 by way of exemplary damages; 3. The amount of P20,000.00 as attorney's fees and P5,000.00 as Litigation expenses. Plus costs. 10 It ruled that the Authorization given by German Bacaltos to Savellon necessarily included the power to enter into the Trip Charter Party. It did not give credence to the petitioners' claim that the authorization refers only to coal or coal mining and not to shipping because, according to it, "the business of coal mining may also involve the shipping of products" and "a company such as a coal mining company is not prohibited to engage in entering into a Trip Charter Party contract." It further reasoned out that even assuming that the petitioners did not intend to authorize Savellon to enter into the Trip Charter Party, they are still liable because: (a) SMC appears to be an innocent party which has no knowledge of the real intent of the parties to the Authorization and has reason to rely on the written Authorization submitted by Savellon pursuant to Articles 1900 and 1902 of the Civil Code; (b) Savellon issued an official receipt of Bacaltos Coal Mines (Exhibit "B-1") for the consideration of the Trip Charter Party, and the petitioners denial that they caused the printing of such official receipt is "lame" because they submitted only a cash voucher and not their official receipt; (c) the "Notice of Readiness" (Exhibit "A-1") is written on a paper with the letterhead "Bacaltos Coal Mines" and the logo therein is the same as that appearing in their voucher; (d) the petitioners were benefited by the payment because the real payee in the check is actually Bacaltos Coal Mines and since in the Authorization they authorized Savellon to collect receivables due or in arrears, the check was then properly delivered to Savellon; and, (e) if indeed Savellon had not been authorized or if indeed he exceeded his authority or if the Trip Charter Party was personal to him and the petitioners have nothing to do with it, then Savellon should have "bother[ed] to answer" the complaint and the petitioners should have filed "a cross-claim" against him.

In their appeal to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 35180, the petitioners asserted that the trial court erred in: (a) not holding that SMC was negligent in (1) not verifying the credentials of Savellon and the ownership of the vessel, (2) issuing the check in the name of Savellon in trust for Bacaltos Coal Mines thereby allowing Savellon to encash the check, and, (3) making full payment of P650,000.00 after the vessel made only one trip and before it completed three trips as required in the Trip Charter Party; (b) holding that under the authority given to him Savellon was authorized to enter into the Trip Charter Party; and, (c) holding German Bacaltos jointly and severally liable with Savellon and Bacaltos Coal Mines. 11 As stated at the beginning, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the judgment of the trial court. It held that: (a) the credentials of Savellon is not an issue since the petitioners impliedly admitted the agency while the ownership of the vessel was warranted on the face of the Trip Charter Party; (b) SMC was not negligent when it issued the check in the name of Savellon in trust for Bacaltos Coal Mines since the Authorization clearly provides that collectibles of the petitioners can be coursed through Savellon as the agent; (c) the Authorization includes the power to enter into the Trip Charter Party because the "five prerogatives" enumerated in the former is prefaced by the phrase "but not by way of limitation"; (d) the petitioners' statement that the check should have been issued in the name of Bacaltos Coal Mines is another implicit admission that the Trip Charter Party is part and parcel of the petitioners' business notwithstanding German Bacaltos's contrary interpretation when he testified, and in any event, the construction of obscure words should not favor him since he prepared the Authorization in favor of Savellon; and, (e) German Bacaltos admitted in the Answer that he is the proprietor of Bacaltos Coal Mines and he likewise represented himself to be so in the Authorization itself, hence he should not now be permitted to disavow what he initially stated to be true and to interpose the defense that Bacaltos Coal Mines has a distinct legal personality. Their motion for a reconsideration of the above decision having been denied, the petitioners filed the instant petition wherein they raise the following errors: I. THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RENE SAVELLON WAS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO A TRIP CHARTER PARTY CONTRACT WITH PRIVATE RESPONDENT INSPITE OF ITS FINDING THAT SUCH AUTHORITY CANNOT BE FOUND IN THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE AUTHORIZATION; II. THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT BY ISSUING THE CHECK IN THE NAME OF RENE SAVELLON IN TRUST FOR BACALTOS COAL MINES, THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS THE AUTHOR OF ITS OWN DAMAGE; AND III. THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING PETITIONER GERMAN BACALTOS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE WITH RENE SAVELLON AND CO-PETITIONER BACALTOS COAL MINES IN SPITE OF THE FINDING OF THE COURT A QUO THAT PETITIONER

BACALTOS COAL MINES AND PETITIONER BACALTOS ARE TWO DISTINCT AND SEPARATE LEGAL PERSONALITIES. 12 After due deliberations on the allegations, issues raised, and arguments adduced in the petition, and the comment thereto and reply to the comment, the Court resolved to give due course to the petition. Every person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent. If he does not make such inquiry, he is chargeable with knowledge of the agent's authority, and his ignorance of that authority will not be any excuse. Persons dealing with an assumed agent, whether the assumed agency be a general or special one, are bound at their peril, if they would hold the principal, to ascertain not only the fact of the agency but also the nature and extent of the authority, and in case either is controverted, the burden of proof is upon them to establish it. 13 American jurisprudence 14 summarizes the rule in dealing with an agent as follows: A third person dealing with a known agent may not act negligently with regard to the extent of the agent's authority or blindly trust the agent's statements in such respect. Rather, he must use reasonable diligence and prudence to ascertain whether the agent is acting and dealing with him within the scope of his powers. The mere opinion of an agent as to the extent of his powers, or his mere assumption of authority without foundation, will not bind the principal; and a third person dealing with a known agent must bear the burden of determining for himself, by the exercise of reasonable diligence and prudence, the existence or nonexistence of the agent's authority to act in the premises. In other words, whether the agency is general or special, the third person is bound to ascertain not only the fact of agency, but the nature and extent of the authority. The principal, on the other hand, may act on the presumption that third persons dealing with his agent will not be negligent in failing to ascertain the extent of his authority as well as the existence of his agency. Or, as stated in Harry E. Keller Electric Co. vs. Rodriguez, 15 quoting Mechem on Agency: The person dealing with the agent must also act with ordinary prudence and reasonable diligence. Obviously, if he knows or has good reason to believe that the agent is exceeding his authority, he cannot claim protection. So if the suggestions of probable limitations be of such a clear and reasonable quality, or if the character assumed by the agent is of such a suspicious or unreasonable nature, or if the authority which he seeks to exercise is of such an unusual or improbable character, as would suffice to put an ordinarily prudent man upon his guard, the party dealing with him may not shut his eyes to the real estate of the case, but should either refuse to deal with the agent at all, or should ascertain from the principal the true condition of affairs. [emphasis supplied]. In the instant case, since the agency of Savellon is based on a written document, the Authorization of 1 March 1988 (Exhibits "C"

and "1"), the extent and scope of his powers must be determined on the basis thereof. The language of the Authorization is clear. It pertinently states as follows: I. GERMAN A. BACALTOS do hereby authorize RENE R. SAVELLON . . . to use the coal operating contract of BACALTOS COAL MINES, of which I am the proprietor, for any legitimate purpose that it may serve. Namely, but not by way of limitation, as follows . . . [emphasis supplied]. There is only one express power granted to Savellon, viz., to use the coal operating contract for anylegitimate purpose it may serve. The enumerated "five prerogatives" to employ the term used by the Court of Appeals are nothing but the specific prerogatives subsumed under or classified as part of or as examples of the power to use the coal operating contract. The clause "but not by way of limitation" which precedes the enumeration could only refer to or contemplate other prerogatives which must exclusively pertain or relate or be germane to the power to use the coal operating contract. The conclusion then of the Court of Appeals that the Authorization includes the power to enter into the Trip Chapter Party because the "five prerogatives" are prefaced by such clause, is seriously flawed. It fails to note that the broadest scope of Savellon's authority is limited to the use of the coal operating contract and the clause cannot contemplate any other power not included in the enumeration or which are unrelated either to the power to use the coal operating contract or to those already enumerated. In short, while the clause allows some room for flexibility, it can comprehend only additional prerogatives falling within the primary power and within the same class as those enumerated. The trial court, however, went further by hastily making a sweeping conclusion that "a company such as a coal mining company is not prohibited to engage in entering into a Trip Charter Party contract." 16 But what the trial court failed to consider was that there is no evidence at all that Bacaltos Coal Mines as a coal mining company owns and operates vessels, and even if it owned any such vessels, that it was allowed to charter or lease them. The trial court also failed to note that the Authorization is not a general power of attorney. It is a special power of attorney for it refers to a clear mandate specifically authorizing the performance of a specific power and of express acts subsumed therein. 17 In short, both courts below unreasonably expanded the express terms of or otherwise gave unrestricted meaning to a clause which was precisely intended to prevent unwarranted and unlimited expansion of the powers entrusted to Savellon. The suggestion of the Court of Appeals that there is obscurity in the Authorization which must be construed against German Bacaltos because he prepared the Authorization has no leg to stand on inasmuch as there is no obscurity or ambiguity in the instrument. If any obscurity or ambiguity indeed existed, then there will be more reason to place SMC on guard and for it to exercise due diligence in seeking clarification or enlightenment thereon, for that was part of its duty to discover upon its peril the nature and extent of Savellon's written agency. Unfortunately, it did not.

Howsoever viewed, the foregoing conclusions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are tenuous and farfetched, bringing to unreasonable limits the clear parameters of the powers granted in the Authorization. Furthermore, had SMC exercised due diligence and prudence, it should have known in no time that there is absolutely nothing on the face of the Authorization that confers upon Savellon the authority to enter into any Trip Charter Party. Its conclusion to the contrary is based solely on the second prerogative under the Authorization, to wit: (2) To engage in trading under the style of BACALTOS COAL MINES/RENE SAVELLON; unmindful that such is but a part of the primary authority to use the coal operating contract which it did not even require Savellon to produce. Its principal witness, Mr. Valdescona, expressly so admitted on cross-examination, thus: Atty. Zosa (to witness ON CROSS) Q You said that in your office Mr. Rene Savellon presented to you this authorization marked Exhibit "C" and Exhibit "1" for the defendant? A Yes, sir. Q Did you read in the first part[y] of this authorization Mr. Valdescona that Mr. Rene Savellon was authorized as the coal operating contract of Bacaltos Coal Mines? A Yes, sir. Q Did it not occur to you that you should have examined further the authorization of Mr. Rene Savellon, whether or not this coal operating contract allows Mr. Savellon to enter into a trip charter party? A Yes, sir. We discussed about the extent of his authorization and he referred us to the number 2 provision of this authorization which is to engage in trading under the style of Bacaltos Coal Mines/Rene Savellon, which we followed up to the check preparation because it is part of the authority. Q In other words, you examined this and you found out that Mr. Savellon is authorized to use the coal operating contract of Bacaltos Coal Mines? A Yes, sir. Q You doubted his authority but you found out in paragraph 2 that he is authorized that's why you agreed and entered into that trip charter party? A We did not doubt his authority but we were questioning as to the extent of his operating contract.

Q Did you not require Mr. Savellon to produce that coal operating contract of Bacaltos Coal Mines? A No sir. We did not. 18 Since the principal subject of the Authorization is the coal operating contract, SMC should have required its presentation to determine what it is and how it may be used by Savellon. Such a determination is indispensable to an inquiry into the extent or scope of his authority. For this reason, we now deem it necessary to examine the nature of a coal operating contract. A coal operating contract is governed by P.D. No. 972 (The Coal Development Act of 1976), as amended by P.D. No. 1174. It is one of the authorized ways of active exploration, development, and production of coal resources 19in a specified contract area. 20 Section 9 of the decree prescribes the obligation of the contractor, thus: Sec. 9. Obligations of Operator in Coal Operating Contract. The operator under a coal operating contract shall undertake, manage and execute the coal operations which shall include: (a) The examination and investigation of lands supposed to contain coal, by detailed surface geologic mapping, core drilling, trenching, test pitting and other appropriate means, for the purpose of probing the presence of coal deposits and the extent thereof; (b) Steps necessary to reach the coal deposit so that it can be mined, including but not limited to shaft sinking and tunneling; and (c) The extraction and utilization of coal deposits. The Government shall oversee the management of the operation contemplated in a coal operating contract and in this connection, shall require the operator to: (a) Provide all the necessary service and technology; (b) Provide the requisite financing;

(g) Conform to regulations regarding, among others, safety demarcation of agreement acreage and work areas, noninterference with the rights of the other petroleum, mineral and natural resources operators; (h) Maintain all necessary equipment in good order and allow access to these as well as to the exploration, development and production sites and operations to inspectors authorized by the Energy Development Board; (i) Allow representatives authorized by the Energy Development Board full access to their accounts, books and records for tax and other fiscal purposes. Section 11 thereof provides for the minimum terms and conditions of a coal operating contract. From the foregoing, it is obvious that a scrutiny of the coal operating contract of Bacaltos Coal Mines would have provided SMC knowledge of the activities which are germane, related, or incident to the power to use it. But it did not even require Savellon to produce the same. SMC's negligence was further compounded by its failure to verify if Bacaltos Coal Mines owned a vessel. A party desiring to charter a vessel must satisfy itself that the other party is the owner of the vessel or is at least entitled to its possession with power to lease or charter the vessel. In the instant case, SMC made no such attempt. It merely satisfied itself with the claim of Savellon that the vessel it was leasing is owned by Bacaltos Coal Mines and relied on the presentation of the Authorization as well as its test on the sea worthiness of the vessel. Valdescona thus declared on direct examination as follows: A In October, a certain Rene Savellon called our office offering us shipping services. So I told him to give us a formal proposal and also for him to come to our office so that we can go over his proposal and formally discuss his offer. Q Did Mr. Rene Savellon go to your office?

A On the strength of that authorization we initially asked him for us to check the vessel to see its sea worthiness, and we assigned our in-house surveyor to check the sea worthiness of the vessel which was on dry dock that time in Danao. Q What was the result of your inspection? A We found out the vessel's sea worthiness to be our cargo carrier. Q After that what did you do? A After that we were discussing the condition of the contract. Q Were you able to execute that contract? A Yes, sir . 21 He further declared as follows: Q When you entered into a trip charter contract did you check the ownership of M/V Premship? A The representation made by Mr. Rene Savellon was that Bacaltos Coal Mines operates the vessel and on the strength of the authorization he showed us we were made to believe that it was Bacaltos Coal Mines that owned it. COURT: (to witness) Q In other words, you just believed Rene Savellon? A Yes, sir. COURT: (to witness) Q You did not check with Bacaltos Coal Mines? A That is the representation he made. Q Did he show you document regarding this M/V Premship II? A No document shown. 22 The Authorization itself does not state that Bacaltos Coal Mines owns any vessel, and since it is clear therefrom that it is not engaged in shipping but in coal mining or in coal business, SMC should have required the presentation of pertinent documentary proof of ownership of the vessel to be chartered. Its in-house surveyor who saw the vessel while drydocked in Danao and thereafter conducted a sea worthiness test could not have failed to ascertain the registered owner of the vessel. The petitioners themselves declared in open court that they have not leased any vessel for they do not need it in their coal operations 23 thereby implying that they do not even own one. The Court of Appeals' asseveration that there was no need to verify the ownership of the vessel because such ownership is

(c) Perform the work obligations and program prescribed in the coal operating contract which shall not be less than those prescribed in this Decree; (d) Operate the area on behalf of the Government in accordance with good coal mining practices using modern methods appropriate for the geological conditions of the area to enable maximum economic production of coal, avoiding hazards to life, health and property, avoiding pollution of air, lands and waters, and pursuant to an efficient and economic program of operation; (e) Furnish the Energy Development Board promptly with all information, data and reports which it may require;. (f) Maintain detailed technical records and account of its expenditures;

A Few days later he came to our office and gave us his proposal verbally offering a vessel for us to use for our cargo. Q Did he mention the owner of that vessel? A Yes, sir. That it is Bacaltos. Q Did he present a document to you? A Yes, sir. He presented to us the authorization. Q When Mr. Rene Savellon presented to you the authorization what did you do?.

warranted on the face of the trip charter party begs the question since Savellon's authority to enter into that contract is the very heart of the controversy. We are not prepared to accept SMC's contention that the petitioners' claim that they are not engaged in shipping and do not own any ship is belied by the fact that they maintained a preprinted business form known as a "Notice of Readiness" (Exhibit "A-1"). 24 This paper is only a photocopy and, despite its reservation to present the original for purposes of comparison at the next hearing, 25 SMC failed to produce the latter. This "Notice of Readiness" is not, therefore, the best evidence, hence inadmissible under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. It is true that when SMC made a formal offer of its exhibits, the petitioners did not object to the admission of Exhibit "A-1," the "Notice of Readiness," under the best evidence rule but on the ground that Savellon was not authorized to enter into the Trip Charter Party and that the party who signed it, one Elmer Baliquig, is not the petitioners' employee but of Premier Shipping Lines, the owner of the vessel in question. 26 The petitioners raised the issue of inadmissibility under the best evidence rule only belatedly in this petition. But although Exhibit "A-1" remains admissible for not having been timely objected to, it has no probative value as to the ownership of the vessel. There is likewise no proof that the petitioners received the consideration of the Trip Charter Party. The petitioners denied having received it. 27 The evidence for SMC established beyond doubt that it was Savellon who requested in writing on 19 October 1988 that the check in payment therefor be drawn in favor of BACALTOS COAL MINES/RENE SAVELLON (Exhibit "B-3") and that SMC drew the check in favor of RENE SAVELLON IN TRUST FOR BACALTOS COALMINES (Exhibit "B") and delivered it to Savellon who there upon issued a receipt (Exhibit "B-1"). We agree with the petitioners that SMC committed negligence in drawing the check in the manner aforestated. It even disregarded the request of Savellon that it be drawn in favor of BACALTOS COAL MINES/RENE SAVELLON. Furthermore, assuming that the transaction was permitted in the Authorization, the check should still have been drawn in favor of the principal. SMC then made possible the wrong done. There is an equitable maxim that between two innocent parties, the one who made it possible for the wrong to be done should be the one to bear the resulting loss. 28 For this rule to apply, the condition precedent is that both parties must be innocent. In the present case, however, SMC is guilty of not ascertaining the extent and limits of the authority of Savellon. In not doing so, SMC dealt with Savellon at its own peril. Having thus found that SMC was the author of its own damage and that the petitioners are, therefore, free from any liability, it has become unnecessary to discuss the issue of whether Bacaltos Coal Mines is a corporation with a personality distinct and separate from German Bacaltos. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED and the challenged decision of 30 September 1993 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.

CV No. 35180 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another judgment is hereby rendered MODIFYING the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 9, in Civil Case No. CEB-8187 by setting aside the declaration of solidary liability, holding defendant RENE R. SAVELLON solely liable for the amounts adjudged, and ordering the dismissal of the case as against herein petitioners. SO ORDERED.