CASE NO.
34 (2) Whether or not that Morning Star is already estopped
G.R. No. 186305               July 22, 2015
V-GENT, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
MORNING STAR TRAVEL and TOURS,
INC., Respondent.
FACTS:
Sometime in June and in September 1998, the petitioner V-
Gent bought twenty-six (26) two-way plane tickets (Manila-
Europe-Manila) from the respondent Morning Star.
On June 24, 1998 and September 28, 1998, V-Gent returned
a total of fifteen (15) unused tickets worth $8,747.50 to the
defendant. Of the 15, Morning Star refunded only six (6)
tickets worth $3,445.62. Morning Star refused to refund the
remaining nine (9) unused tickets despite repeated
demands.
On December 15, 2000, petitioner V-Gent filed a money
claim against Morning Star for payment of the unrefunded
amount plus attorney's fees.
Morning Star countered that V-Gent was not entitled to a
refund because the tickets were bought on the airline
company's "buy one, take one" promo. It alleged that there
were only fourteen (14) unused tickets and only seven (7) of
these were refundable; considering that it had already
refunded six (6) tickets then there was nothing else to
refund.
Morning Star also questioned V-Gent's personality to file the
suit. It asserted that the passengers, in whose names the
tickets were issued, are the real parties-in-interest.
MeTC Ruling:
MeTC dismissed the complaint for lack of a cause of action.
It declared that, as agent of the passengers who paid for the
tickets, V-Gent stood as the real party-in-interest.
Nevertheless, it still dismissed the complaint because V-Gent
failed to prove its claim by a preponderance of evidence.
RTC Ruling:
RTC granted the appeal after finding that V-Gent had
established its claim by a preponderance of evidence. and
ordered Morning Star to pay V-Gent the value of the nine (9)
unrefunded tickets plus attorney's fees.
CA Ruling:
CA granted the petition for review and dismissed V-Gent's
complaint. The CA held that V-Gent is not a real party-in-
interest because it merely acted as an agent of the
passengers who bought the tickets from Morning Star with
their own money. CA denied motion for reconsideration.
ISSUES:
(1) WON V-GENT is the real party-in-interest in filing the
complaint; and
from questioning V-Gent's legal standing to file the
complaint.
RULING
1. NO. An agent may sue or be sued solely in its own name
and without joining the principal when the following
elements concur: (1) the agent acted in his own name
during the transaction; (2) the agent acted for the benefit of
an undisclosed principal; and (3) the transaction did not
involve the property of the principal.
When these elements are present, the agent becomes bound
as if the transaction were its own. This rule is consistent with
Article 1883 of the Civil Code which says:
Art. 1883. If an agent acts in his own name, the principal
has no right of action against the persons with whom the
agent has contracted; neither have such persons against the
principal. In such case, the agent is the one directly bound in
favor of the person with whom he has contracted, as if the
transaction were his own, except when the contract involves
things belonging to the principal.
In the present case, only the · first element is present; the
purchase order and the receipt were in the name of V-Gent.
However, the remaining elements are absent because: (1) V-
Gent disclosed the names of the passengers to Morning Star
- in fact the tickets were in their names; and (2) the
transaction was paid using the passengers' money.
Therefore, Rule 3, Section 3 of the Rules of Court cannot
apply.
To define the actual factual situation, V-Gent, the agent, is
suing to recover the money of its principals - the passengers
- who are the real parties-in-interest because they stand to
be injured or benefited in case Morning Star refuses or
agrees to grant the refund because the money belongs to
them. From this perspective, V-Gent evidently does not have
a legal standing to file the complaint.
2. NO. Morning Star is not estopped from questioning V-
Gent's legal standing to file the complaint.
The power to collect and receive payments on behalf of the
principal is an ordinary act of administration covered by the
general powers of an agent. On the other hand, the filing of
suits is an act of strict dominion.
Under Article 1878 (15) of the Civil Code, a duly appointed
agent has no power to exercise any act of strict dominion on
behalf of the principal unless authorized by a special power
of attorney. An agent's authority to file suit cannot be
inferred from his authority to collect or receive payments;
the grant of special powers cannot be presumed from the
grant of general powers. Moreover, the authority to exercise
special powers must be duly established by evidence, even
though it need not be in writing.
By granting the initial refund, Morning Star recognized V-
Gent's authority to buy the tickets and collect refunds on
behalf of the passengers. However, Morning Star's
recognition of V-Gent's authority to collect a refund for the
passengers is not equivalent to recognition of V-Gent's
authority to initiate a suit on behalf of the passengers.
Morning Star therefore, is not estopped from questioning V-
Gent's legal standing to initiate the suit.
CASE NO. 39
CITY STATE SAVINGS BANK vs. TERESITA TOBIAS
and SHELLIDIE VALDEZG.R. No. 227990; MARCH 7,
2018,
FACTS:
Rolando Robles has been employed with Citystate Savings
Bank as manager of Baliuag, Bulacan branch
He was introduced to respondent Teresita Tobias, a meat
vendor at the Baliuag Public Market with the latter’s son.
Robles persuaded Tobias to open an account with the
petitioner, and thereafter to place her money in some high
interest rate mechanism, to which the latter yielded.
Robles would frequent Tobias public market to deliver the
interest earned by her deposit accounts which amounted to
Php 2,000. Tobias would then turnover the passbook to
Robles for updating. The passbook was returned the
following day with typewritten entries, but without the
corresponding counter signatures.
Robles later offered Tobias to sign-up in CSB’s back-to-back
scheme which is supposedly offered only to the bank’s most
valued clients. Under this scheme, the depositors authorize
the bank to use their bank deposits and invest the same in
different business ventures that yield high interest. Robles
assured Tobias that the interest she previously earned would
be doubled, so the latter signed the pertinent documents
without readings its contents and invested a total of Php
1,800,000.
When Tobias became sickly, she included her daughter
Shellidie Valdez as co-depositor in her accounts with CSB.
Unfortunately, Robles failed to remit to Tobias and Valdez
the interest as scheduled. They tried to reach Robles, but he
cannot be found anymore. The siblings of Robles disclosed
to them that Robles withdrew the money and appropriated
the money for his personal use Robles promised to return
the money by installments, but he failed to comply with his
promise. CSB also refused to make arrangements for the
return of Tobias’ money despite several demands. A
complaint for sum of money was filed against Robles and
CSB alleging that Robles committed fraud in the performance
of duties as branch manager when he lured Tobias in signing
several pieces of blank documents under the assurance, as
bank manager of CSB, that everything was in order.
RTC Ruling:
The RTC ordered Robles to pay Tobias the sum of money
and absolved the bank of any liability.
CA Ruling:
CA reversed the decision of the lower court and ruled that
CSB and Robles are jointly and severally liable to pay Tobias
the sum of money set forth.
CSB denied its liability by arguing that Robles acted in his
personal capacity in dealing with Tobias, who agreed with
full knowledge and consent to the back-to-back loans and it
was not privy to the transactions between them. CSB also
alleged that the doctrine of apparent authority is not
applicable in this case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not CSB should be held liable for the
transactions entered into by Robles
HELD:
YES. CSB is solidarily liable to Tobias and Valdez for the
damages caused by the acts of Robles as its employer.
The bank, in its capacity as principal, may also be adjudged
liable under the doctrine of apparent authority. The
principal's liability in this case however, is solidary with that
of his employee.
The doctrine of apparent authority or what is sometimes
referred to as the "holding out" theory, or the doctrine of
ostensible agency, imposes liability, not "as the result of the
reality of a contractual relationship, but rather because of
the actions of a principal or an employer in somehow
misleading the public into believing that the relationship or
the authority exists.
While it is clear that the proximate cause of respondents'
loss is the misappropriation of Robles, petitioner is still liable
under Article 1911 of the Civil Code which provides that
“Even when the agent has exceeded his authority, the
principal is solidarity liable with the agent if the former
allowed the latter to act as though he had full powers.”
Petitioner is estopped from denying Robles' authority. As the
employer of Robles, petitioner is solidarity liable to the
respondents for damages caused by the acts of the former,
pursuant to Article 1911 of the Civil Code.
Respondents cannot be blamed for believing that Robles has
the authority to transact for and on behalf of the petitioner
and for relying upon the representations made by him. After
all, Robles as branch manager is recognized "within his field
and as to third persons as the general agent and is in
general charge of the corporation, with apparent authority
commensurate with the ordinary business entrusted him and
the usual course and conduct thereof.