AGENCY:

Manila Memorial Cemetery v. Linsangan

39 []
[Docket No.] Nov. 22, 2004 Tinga, J. Dan
Petitioners: Respondents:
Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. Atty. Pedro Linsangan
Recit Ready Summary

[Summary in your own words; ideally, broken into short paragraphs; justified]

Facts

1. Florencia Baluyot offered Atty. Linsangan a lot at the Holy Cross Memorial Park owned by petitioner
MMPCI. Baluyot claimed that a former owner no longer wished to purchase the said lot. She claimed
that once reimbursement was made to the former buyer, the contract would be transferred to him (Atty.
Baluyot). Linsangan agreed and paid money representing the downpayment, and the amount to be
reimbursed to the original buyer.

2. The problem arose when Baluyot informed Linsangan that he would be issued a new contract, which
supposedly was still covering the same lot. Baluyot convinced Linsangan to push through by assuring
him that he would still be paying the same price. Sometime after, Baluyot informed Linsangan that the
contract was cancelled for reasons she could not explain.

3. Linsangan then filed a complaint for breach of Contract and Damages against the former. MMPCI
claims that the cancellation was due to Linsangan’s failure to pay arrearages. It also stated that Baluyot
was not its agent but rather an independent contractor and was not authorized to represent MMPCI
except to the extent stated in the Agency Management Agreement. Official receipts show that the
payments only went to Baluyot. Finally, whatever misimpression Linsangan may have had must have
been rectified by the Account Updating Arrangement signed by Linsangan himself which states that
he expressly admits that the new contract on account of serious delinquencies was now subject to
cancellation.

4. The RTC ruled in favor of Linsangan, and so MMPCI appealed to the CA. Petitioner argued that since
Linsangan is a lawyer who has been in the practice for a long time, he is deemed to have read and
understood the contract as evidenced by his signature. He should not be allowed to unilaterally change
the terms of the contract without the consent, much less knowledge of MMPCI.

5. Petitioner argues that if a person wishes to transact with an agent of a principal, it is the duty of the 3rd
party to determine the extent of the agent’s powers. MMPCI argues that Linsangan was negligent in
determining such extent, and as such, MMPCI should not be held liable for the actions of its agent
which clearly exceed the powers given to her.

Issues Ruling
1. Whether OSG filed the appeal on time 1. Yes
2. Next Issue 2. Yes/No
3. Next Issue 3. Yes/No
Rationale
1. Whether OSG filed the appeal on time – YES

[Discussion]

2. Next Issue – YES/NO

[Discussion]

1
 3. Next Issue – YES/NO

[Discussion]

Disposition

[Include a description of what happened in the end]

Petition granted. Dismissal of OSG’s appeal was reversed and the case was remanded to the RTC for
further trial.
Separate Opinions

[Delete this entire section if there are none]

1. J. Carpio, dissenting

[Summary of Opinion]

2. [Justice], [dissenting/concurring]

[Summary of Opinion]