BEDIA v. WHITE G.R. No. 94050.

November 21, 1991

SYLVIA H. BEDIA and HONTIVEROS & ASSOCIATED PRODUCERS PHILS. YIELDS, INC.,
petitioners, vs. EMILY A. WHITE and HOLMAN T. WHITE, respondents.
- PETITION for review from the decision of the Court of Appeals.
- Emily White and Sylvia Bedia, acting on behalf of Hontiveros Assoc, entered into a
Participation Contract. Content:
a. Hontiveros and Assoc Producers Philippines Yields, Inc will reserve a 15 sqm booth space
worth $2,250 for Emily White Enterprises
b. in the 1980 Dallas State Fair (Dallas, Texas) Oct 19, 1980
c. cost includes overall exterior booth decoration and materials but does not include interior
designs
- signed by Bedia (w/o note in behalf of Hontiveros Assoc)
- made DP of $500
- flew to Dallas w/ merchandise  discovered that no booth was paid for or reserved in her
name
- also, Hontiveros and Bedia not authorized by state fair director to recruit participants
- wrote letter to Minister of Trade  local exporter recruited by Hontiveros Assoc to participate
in State Fair of Dallas
RTC – White and husband filed a complaint for damages against Bedia and Hontiveros
Assoc. GROUND: fraudulent violation of agreement
RESPONDENTS:
- No booth in White’s name --> going to share the space leased by Hontiveros Assoc in its
name
- not allowed to display her merchandise because did not pay her balance $1,750 in violation of
contract
- Bedia did not sign in her own, but on behalf of Hontiveros and Associated, she later returned
$500 DP of White
 White moved to dismiss the complaint against Hontiveros Assoc  granted
DECISION: Bedia entered into the contract in her PERSONAL CAPACITY, no authority from
Hontiveros; defense of agent is attempt to escape liability  found Bedia liable for fraud
CA affirmed  Bedia represented herself as authorized by State of Texas to solicit and
assigned booth at the Dallas Fair
ISSUE: W/n Bedia acted on her own behalf- NO
HELD:
1. Bedia acted as an agent of Hontiveros and Assoc and not liable for the acts performed
by her for the principal
a. Letter of respondent White to Minster of Trade - acknowledgment by White that Bedia was
only acting for Hontiveros and the DP to be fortified to Hontiveros in case of cancellation by her
of the agreement
b. the contract was typewritten on the letterhead stationery of Hontiveros supports the
conclusion in the absence of any showing that said stationery had been illegally used by Bedia
c. Hontiveros itself has not repudiated Bedia’s agency  filed an ANSWER JOINTLY w/
Bedia through common counsel and did not deny agency
- If White had any doubt about the capacity in which Bedia was acting, what they should have
done was verify the matter with Hontiveros Assoc. but they did not  Instead, they simply
accepted Bedia’s representation that she was an agent of Hontiveros and dealt with her as such
agent
- Under Article 1910 of the Civil Code, “the principal must comply with all the obligations
which the agent may have contracted within the scope of his authority.”

2. Hontiveros liable for any obligation arising from that agreement w/ White
- HOWEVER, petitioners White virtually disarmed themselves and forfeited whatever claims
they might have proved against principal Hontiveros under the contract signed for it by Bedia 
MOVED TO DISMISS COMPLAINT against Hontiveros
- having waived these claims against the principal, they cannot now assert their claims
against the agent Bedia