Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Culaba Vs CA
Culaba Vs CA
Culaba Vs CA
*
G.R. No. 125862. April 15, 2004.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
722
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001681b4a7cb355cfa012003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13
1/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001681b4a7cb355cfa012003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/13
1/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427
723
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001681b4a7cb355cfa012003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/13
1/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427
_______________
724
4
No. 42943. Thereafter, the Culaba spouses made a partial
payment of P3,740.00, leaving an unpaid balance of
P24,910.00. As they failed to pay despite repeated
demands, SMC filed an action for collection of a sum of
money against them before the RTC of Makati, Branch 138.
The defendant-spouses denied any liability, claiming
that they had already paid the plaintiff in full on four
separate occasions. To substantiate this claim, the
defendants presented four (4) Temporary Charge Sales
(TCS) Liquidation Receipts, as follows:
5
April 19, 1983 Receipt No. 27331 for P8,000
6
April 22, 1983 Receipt No. 27318 for P9,000
7
April 27, 1983 Receipt No. 27339 for P4,500
8
April 30, 1983 Receipt No. 27346 for P3,410
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001681b4a7cb355cfa012003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/13
1/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427
NOTICE OF LOSS
_______________
725
_______________
10 Ibid.
11 Records, Vol. II, p. 596.
726
II
III
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001681b4a7cb355cfa012003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/13
1/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427
_______________
12 CA Rollo, p. 26-B.
13 Brief for the Defendants-Appellants, CA Rollo, p. 26-P.
727
The appellee, for its part, contended that the primary issue
in the case at bar revolved 14around the basic and
fundamental principles of agency. It was incumbent upon
the defendants-appellants to exercise ordinary prudence
and reasonable diligence to verify and identify the extent of
the alleged agent’s authority. It was their burden to
establish the true identity of the assumed agent, and this
could not be established by mere representation, rumor or
general reputation. As they utterly failed in this regard,
the appellants must suffer the consequences.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial
court, thus:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001681b4a7cb355cfa012003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/13
1/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427
_______________
728
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001681b4a7cb355cfa012003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/13
1/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001681b4a7cb355cfa012003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/13
1/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427
_______________
730
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001681b4a7cb355cfa012003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/13
1/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427
_______________
731
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001681b4a7cb355cfa012003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/13
1/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427
24
lish it. The petitioners in this case failed to discharge this
burden, considering that the private respondent
vehemently denied that the payments were accepted by it
and were made to its authorized representative.
Negligence is the omission to do something which a
reasonable man, guided by those considerations which
ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do,
or the doing of something,
25
which a prudent and reasonable
man would not do. In the case at bar, the most prudent
thing the petitioners should have done was to ascertain the
identity and authority of the person who collected their
payments. Failing this, the petitioners cannot claim that
they acted in good faith when they made such payments.
Their claim therefor is negated by their negligence, and
they are bound by its consequences. Being negligent in this
regard, the petitioners
26
cannot seek relief on the basis of a
supposed agency.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.
The assailed Decision dated April 16, 1996, and the
Resolution dated July 19, 1996 of the Court of Appeals are
AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
_______________
24 Yu Eng Cho v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 328 SCRA 717
(2000).
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001681b4a7cb355cfa012003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/13
1/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 427
732
——o0o——
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001681b4a7cb355cfa012003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/13