Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Filipina Life Vs Pedroso
Filipina Life Vs Pedroso
Finally, although it may appear that Tiac defrauded ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint merits
his principal (petitioner) in not turning over the dismissal for failure to implead other co-owners as
proceeds of the transaction to the latter, such fact indispensable parties
cannot in any way relieve nor exonerate petitioner of
his liability to private respondent. For it is an equitable HELD:No. The De Castros contentions are devoid of
maxim that as between two innocent parties, the one legal basis. The CA explained that it is not necessary
who made it possible for the wrong to be done should to implead the co-owners since the action is
be the one to bear the resulting loss exclusively based on a contract of agency between
Artigo and Constante. The rule on mandatory joinder
of indispensable parties is not applicable to the instant
case. Constante signed the note as owner and as
De Castro vs CA representative of the other co-owners. Under this
note, a contract of agency was clearly constituted
FACTS: Private respondent Artigo sued petitioners
between Constante and Artigo. Whether Constante
Constante and Amor De Castro to collect the unpaid
appointed Artigo as agent, in Constantes individual or
balance of his brokers commission from the De
representative capacity, or both, the De Castros
Castros.
cannot seek the dismissal of the case for failure to
The appellants, De Castros, were co-owners of 4 lots implead the other co-owners as indispensable parties.
in Cubao, Quezon City. The appellee, Artigo, was The De Castros admit that the other co-owners are
authorized by appellants to act as real estate broker solidarily liable under the contract of agency, citing
in the sale of these properties for the amount of Article 1915 of the Civil Code, which reads: Art. 1915.
P23,000,000.00, 5% of which will be given to the If two or more persons have appointed an agent for a
agent as commission. Appellee first found the Times common transaction or undertaking, they shall be
Transit Corporation and 2 lots were sold. In return, he solidarily liable to the agent for all the consequences
received P48,893.76 as commission. Appellee of the agency. The solidary liability of the four co-
apparently felt short changed because according to owners, however, militates against the De Castros
him, his total commission should be P352,500.00 theory that the other co-owners should be impleaded
which is 5% of the agreed price of P7,050,000.00 paid as indispensable parties.
by Times Transit Corporation to appellants for the 2
lots and that it was he who introduced the buyer to
appellants and unceasingly facilitated the negotiation When the law expressly provides for solidarity of the
which ultimately led to the consummation of the sale. obligation, as in the liability of co-principals in a
Hence, he sued to collect the balance of P303,606.24 contract of agency, each obligor may be compelled to
after having received P48,893.76 in advance. pay the entire obligation. The agent may recover the
Appellants argued that appellee is selfishly asking for whole compensation from any one of the co-
more than what he truly deserved as commission to principals, as in this case. Indeed, Article 1216 of the
the prejudice of other agents who were more Civil Code provides that a creditor may sue any of the
instrumental to the consummation of the sale and that solidary debtors. This article reads: Art. 1216. The
there were more or less 18 others who took active creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary
efforts. debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. The
demand made against one of them shall not be an
The De Castros argued that Artigos complaint should
obstacle to those which may subsequently be directed
have been dismissed for failure to implead
against the others, so long as the debt has not been
fully collected
83. Harry E. Keeler Electric Co. vs. Rodriguez Rodriguez paid Montelibano (the purchase price of
P2,513.55), after the installation of the plant and
November 11,1922, Johns, J.***This case involves an without the knowledge ofKeeler Electric,
action for the payment of purchase price by plaintiff
Keeler Electric against defendant Rodriguez
for his services, if the sale was consummated. August 18, 1920
o
Issues:
o Held/Ratio:
o
Persons dealing with an assumed agent, whether the renew said insurance coverage themselves. Under
assumed agency be a general or special one, are the terms and conditions of the said insurance
bound attheir peril, if they would hold the principal, to coverage, any loss under the policy shall be payable
to the B.A. Finance Corporation.
ascertain not only the fact of the agency but the
The motor vehicle figured in an accident and was
nature and extent of theauthority, and in case either is badly damaged. The unfortunate happening was
controverted, the burden of proof is upon them to reported to the B.A. Finance Corporation and to the
establish it. insurer, Zenith Insurance Corporation. The Cuadys
asked the B.A. Finance Corporation to consider the
o same as a total loss, and to claim from the insurer the
face value of the car insurance policy and apply the
same to the payment of their remaining account and
give them the surplus thereof, if any. But instead of
The person dealing with the agent must act with heeding the request of the Cuadys, B.A. Finance
ordinary prudence and reasonable diligence. Corporation prevailed upon the former to just have the
car repaired. Not long thereafter, however, the car
bogged down. The Cuadys wrote B.A. Finance
Obviously, if heknows or has good reason to believe
Corporation requesting the latter to pursue their prior
that the agent is exceeding his authority, he cannot instruction of enforcing the total loss provision in the
claim protection. So if thesuggestions of probable insurance coverage. When B.A. Finance Corporation
limitations be of such a clear and reasonable quality, did not respond favorably to their request, the Cuadys
or if the character assumed by theagent is of such a stopped paying their monthly installments on the
suspicious or unreasonable nature, or if the authority promissory note. In view of the failure of the Cuadys
which he seeks to exercise is of such anunusual or to pay the remaining installments on the note, B.A.
Finance Corporation sued them.
improbable character, the party dealing with him may
not shut his eyes to the real state of the case,
butshould either refuse to deal with the agent at all, or B.A. Finance Corporation contended that even if it
should ascertain from the principal the true condition failed to enforce the total loss provision in the
of affairs.Judgment of the lower court is REVERSED. insurance policy of the motor vehicle subject of the
chattel mortgage, said failure does not operate to
Rodriguez should pay Keeler Electric the purchase extinguish the unpaid balance on the promissory note,
price of the plant. considering that the circumstances obtaining in the
case at bar do not fall under Article 1231 of the Civil
BA Finance vs CA Code relative to the modes of extinguishment of
obligations.
Under the deed of chattel mortgage, B.A. Finance
Corporation was constituted attorney-in-fact with
full power and authority to file, follow-up, Issue: Whether or not BA Finance ca still collect on
prosecute, compromise or settle insurance the deficiency of the Chattel Mortgage.
claims; to sign execute and deliver the
corresponding papers, receipts and documents to
Held: In granting B.A. Finance Corporation the
the Insurance Company as may be necessary to
aforementioned powers and prerogatives, the Cuady
prove the claim, and to collect from the latter the
spouses created in the formers favor an agency.
proceeds of insurance to the extent of its
Thus, under Article 1884 of the Civil Code of the
interests, in the event that the mortgaged car
Philippines, B.A. Finance Corporation is bound by its
suffers any loss or damage.
acceptance to carry out the agency, and is liable for
Facts: Spouses Manuel and Lilia Cuady obtained
damages which, through its non-performance, the
from Supercars, Inc. bought a Ford Escort 1300, four-
Cuadys, the principal in the case at bar, may suffer; in
door sedan in installments. To secure the faithful and
such case, the assignee of the mortgage agreement
prompt compliance of the obligation under the said
is bound by the same stipulation and if the assignee
promissory note, the Cuady spouses constituted a
failed to file and prosecute the insurance claim when
chattel mortgage on the aforementioned motor
the car was damaged totally, the mortgagor is
vehicle. Supercars, Inc. assigned the promissory
relieved from his obligation to pay as he suffered a
note, together with the chattel mortgage, to B.A.
loss because of the failure of the mortgagee to file the
Finance Corporation. The Cuadys made partial
claim.
payment leaving an un paid balance.In addition
thereto, the Cuadys owe B.A. Finance .B.A. Finance
Corporation, as the assignee of the mortgage lien
obtained the renewal of the insurance coverage over
the aforementioned motor vehicle for the with Zenith
Insurance Corporation, when the Cuadys failed to
Under the deed of chattel mortgage, B.A. Finance Japan for more than 72 hours, they were constrained
Corporation was constituted attorney-in-fact with full toagree to accept airline tickets for Taipei instead, per
power and authority to file, follow-up, prosecute, advice of Japan Air Lines officials. This is theonly
compromise or settle insurance claims; to sign
option left to them because Northwest Airlines was
execute and deliver the corresponding papers,
receipts and documents to the Insurance Company as then on strike, hence, there was no chancefor the
may be necessary to prove the claim, and to collect petitioners to obtain airline seats to the United States
from the latter the proceeds of insurance to the extent within 72 hours. Petitioners paid forthese tickets.
of its interests, in the event that the mortgaged car
suffers any loss or damage.
FACTS:
Plaintiff-appellant National Power Corporation (NPC) It is being enforced against the agent because article
and defendant- appellant National Merchandising 1897 implies that the agent who acts in excess of his
Corporation (NAMERCO), the Philippine authority is personally liable to the party with whom he
representative of New York-based International contracted.
Commodities Corporation, executed a contract of sale
of sulfur with a stipulation for liquidated damages in Moreover, the rule is complemented by article 1898 of
case of breach. the Civil Code which provides that "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 In favor of the plaintiffs (Bartolome) and against
granted by the principal". the defendants (Tuazon), ordering the defendants
to pay the plaintiffs as follows:
o 1,750,050.00 + interest; 50,000.00
Namerco never disclosed to the Napocor the cabled attorneys fees; 20,000.00 moral
or written instructions of its principal. For that reason damages; and pay the cost of suit.
and because Namerco exceeded the limits of its
CA Ruling:
authority, it virtually acted in its own name and not as
agent and it is, therefore, bound by the contract of Appeal is DISMISSED and the decision is
sale which, however, is not enforceable against its AFFIRMED.
principal ISSUES: