Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Agency Case Digests - Art. 1899-1918 - Atty. Obieta - 2D 2012
Agency Case Digests - Art. 1899-1918 - Atty. Obieta - 2D 2012
OBIETA | 2D 2012
(1) CASON V. RICKARDS AND SMITH BELL
When money is received as a deposit by an agent, and
that money is by the agent turned over to his principal,
with notice that it is the money of the depositor, the
principal is bound to deliver it to the depositor, even if
his agent was not authorized to received such deposits.
FACTS: Rickards was the agent in Dagupan of Smith Bell
and Co. He received from Cason as a deposit P2,000.xx.
When he left the employ of Smith Bell and Co., the
money was delivered to another agent of Smith Bell and
Co. in the area. Furthermore, he notified Smith Bell that
it was the money of Cason.
During trial, Rickards testified that a few days after he
received the P2,000.xx he received from her an order or
warrant upon the Spanish treasury for the sum of
P4,200.xx. He then wrote Smith Bell asking if it could be
collected. It was sent to Manila and collected through
Hongkong and Shanghai Bank and paid all of it out in the
business of Smith Bell and Co. P4,200.xx less 5%
commision for collection, of which commission, Smith
Bell and Co. received the benefit. The books which were
then produced in court by Smith Bell and Co. contained
an entry or entries of the receipt by Smith Bell of this
P4,200.xx. Rickards testified that he received express
directions in regard to this particular transaction.
Smith Bell and Co. did not present as witness any of
their employees or agents. They also did present their
books which according to Rickards would corroborate his
testimony. Their lone witness was a bookkeeper of
Hongkong and Shanghai Bank. The witness could not
testify to whom the cash was paid but said that based on
the books of the bank, Rickards received P4,200.xx. .
The lower court found in favor of Smith Bell and Co.,
relieving it from its responsibility of P4,200.xx.
ISSUE:
1.
2.
(2) EUGENIO V. CA
As far as third persons are concerned, an act is deemed
to have been performed within the scope of the agents
authority, if such is within the terms of the power of
attorney, as written, even if the agent has in fact
exceeded the limits of his authority according to the
understanding between the principal and his agent.