16. EQUITABLE PCI BANK V. KU, G.R. NO.

142950

FACTS

Equitable PCI Bank filed a motion for an extension of 30 days to file its petition for review as it allegedly
received the CA decision on April 25, 2000 in favor of Rosita. However, Rosita argues that the petition is
defective because Bank actually received CA decision on April 24, 2000 when Joel Rosales, an employee
of Bank’s law firm received it from Post Office and thus Equitable should have filed motion for extension
on May 9, 2000 not May 10. Equitable replied that Joel is not an agent of the bank as expressly mention
in his affidavit.

ISSUE

Whether Joel Rosales can be considered the agent of Bank’s counsel and thus service to him was
considered service to Bank?

HELD

YES. Joel is an agent of Bank Counsel.

Although the affidavit of Joel Rosales states that he is not constituted agent of “Curato-Divina-Mabilog-
Nedo-Magturo Pagaduan Law office”, an agency may be express but it may also be implied from the acts
of the principal, from his silence , or lack of action or his failure to repudiate the agency, knowing that
other person is acting on his behalf without authority.

Likewise acceptance by the agent may also be express, although it may also be implied from his acts
which carry out the agency or from his silence or inaction according to the circumstances of the act.

17 YOSHIZAKI V. JOY TRAINING CENTER OF AURORA, INC., GR. NO. 174978

FACTS

The Spouses Johnson were members of Joy Training’s board of trustees. They sold the real properties in
favor of Spouses Yoshizaki without the requisite authority from the board of directors.

The Joy Training represented by its acting Chairperson filed an action for the cancellation of Sales and
Damages. The RTC ruled in favor of the Spouses Yoshizaki found that Joy Training owned the real
properties, however, the sale was valid because Joy Training authorized the Spouses Johnson to sell the
properties. The CA reversed its ruling with respect to the sell of the real properties.

ISSUE

Whether or not there was a contract of agency to sell the real properties between Joy Training and its
spouses

HELD.
There is no contract of agency between Joy Training and the spouses Johnson to sell the parcel of land
with its improvements. As a general rule, a contract of agency may be oral. However, it must be written
when the law requires a specific form

Article 1874 of the Civil Code provides that the contract of agency must be written for the validity of the
sale of a piece of land or any interest therein. Otherwise, the sale shall be void.

Article 1878 of the Civil Code, states that special powers of attorney are necessary to convey real rights
over immovable properties.

The title does not explicitly confer to the spouses Johnson the authority to sell the parcel of land and the
building thereon.

18. LITONJUA, JR. V. ETERMIT CORP., G.R. No.144805, June 8, 2006

FACTS

The Committee for Asia of ESAC instructed Michael Adams, a member of EC's Board of Directors, to
dispose of the eight parcels of land. Adams engaged the services of realtor/broker Lauro G. Marquez so
that the properties could be offered for sale to prospective buyers. Glanville later showed the properties
to Marquez. Marquez thereafter offered the parcels of land and the improvements thereon to Eduardo
B. Litonjua, Jr. of the Litonjua & Company, Inc.

Sometime later, Marquez and the Litonjua brothers inquired from Glanville when the sale would be
implemented. In a telex dated April 22, 1987, Glanville informed Delsaux that he had met with the
buyer, which had given him the impression that "he is prepared to press for a satisfactory conclusion to
the sale. He also emphasized to Delsaux that the buyers were concerned because they would incur
expenses in bank commitment fees as a consequence of prolonged period of inaction.

Delsaux himself later sent a letter dated May 22, 1987, confirming that the ESAC Regional Office had
decided not to proceed with the sale of the subject land.

The trial court declared that since the authority of the agents/realtors was not in writing, the sale is void
and not merely unenforceable, and as such, could not have been ratified by the principal.

Issues:

Whether or not Marquez, Glanville, and Delsaux were authorized by respondent EC to act as its agents
relative to the sale of the properties of respondent EC, and if so, the boundaries of their authority as
agents, is a question of fact.

HELD

While Glanville was the President and General Manager of respondent EC, and Adams and Delsaux were
members of its Board of Directors, the three acted for and in behalf of respondent ESAC, and not as duly
authorized agents of respondent EC. In the absence of express written terms creating the relationship of
an agency, the existence of an agency is a fact question.
The property of a corporation is not the property of the stockholders or members, and as such, may not
be sold without express authority from the board of directors. An unauthorized act of an officer of the
corporation is not binding on it unless the latter ratifies the same expressly or impliedly by its board of
directors.

Any sale of real property of a corporation by a person purporting to be an agent thereof but without
written authority from the corporation is null and void. The declarations of the agent alone are generally
insufficient to establish the fact or extent of his/her authority.

19. GERMANN & CO. DONALDSON, SIM & CO., G.R. NO.L-439, NOVEMBER 11, 1901

FACTS

Fernando Kammerzel was appointed manager of a business concern under a power of attorney which
confers the authority “ to exact payment” of sums of money by legal means.

ISSUE

Does the authority include the power to file actions in court for the purpose of recovering a sum of
money?

HELD

Yes, the authority includes the power to file suits to recover sums of money due to the business
concern, for it cannot supposed in the absence of very clear language to that effect, that it was the
intention of the principal to withhold from the agent essential to efficient management of the business
entrusted to his control.

20. BORDADOR V. LUZ, G.R. NO. 130148, DECEMBER 15, 1997

FACTS

Petitioners filed a complaint in the barangay court against Deganos to recover a sum of money for not
paying of the sales proceeds and for not returning the unsold items such as several pieces of gold and
jewelry which the latter is supposed to sell the items for profit.

During the trial of the civil case, petitioners claimed that Deganos acted as the agent of Brigida D. Luz
when he received the subject items of jewelry and, because he failed to pay for the same, Brigida, as
principal, and her spouse are solidarily liable with him therefor.

Absent the required memorandum or any written document connecting the respondent Luz spouses
with the subject receipts, or authorizing Deganos to act on their behalf, the alleged agreement between
petitioners and Brigida D. Luz was unenforceable.

Court of Appeals which affirmed said judgment.

ISSUE
whether or not herein respondent spouses are liable to petitioners for the latter's claim for money and
damages

HELD

The evidence does not support the theory of petitioners that Deganos was an agent of Brigida D. Luz.

Brigida Luz never authorized her brother (Deganos) to act for and in her behalf in any transaction with

Petitioners. Therefore, that even assuming arguendo that Deganos acted as an agent of Brigida, the
latter never authorized him to act on her behalf with regard to the transactions subject of this case.

The Civil Code provides: Art. 1868. By the contract of agency a person binds himself to render some
service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of
the latter.

The basis for agency is representation. Here, there is no showing that Brigida consented to the acts of
Deganos or authorized him to act on her behalf, much less with respect to the particular transactions
involved.

It was grossly and inexcusably negligent of petitioners to entrust to Deganos, not once or twice but on at
least six occasions. A person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril
the authority of the agent.