Scribd
Upload
126 views6 pages

ATP Case Digest

The case involved a dispute over a parcel of land that was mortgaged. The petitioner allegedly borrowed money from the respondent and then sold the land to the respondent through a deed of sale to settle the debt. However, the petitioner refused to cooperate in transferring the title of the land. The Supreme Court ruled that an agency relationship was established between the petitioner and respondent based on their actions and intentions, with the petitioner acting as the agent of her friends who took out the loans.

Uploaded by

Sherwin Francis Mendoza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
126 views6 pages

ATP Case Digest

The case involved a dispute over a parcel of land that was mortgaged. The petitioner allegedly borrowed money from the respondent and then sold the land to the respondent through a deed of sale to settle the debt. However, the petitioner refused to cooperate in transferring the title of the land. The Supreme Court ruled that an agency relationship was established between the petitioner and respondent based on their actions and intentions, with the petitioner acting as the agent of her friends who took out the loans.

Uploaded by

Sherwin Francis Mendoza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Name

Section

General Topic: Agency


Specific Topic: Representation
G. R. No. 149353  
Case Title JOCELYN B. DOLES, vs.MA. AURA TINA ANGELES
Date of Decision June 26, 2006
Ponente AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Party 1: JOCELYN B. DOLES


Party 2: MA. AURA TINA ANGELES
I. FACTS
A. Scenario/Background

Ma. Aura Tina Angeles filed with the RTC a complaint for Specific
Performance with Damages against Jocelyn B. Doles (petitioner)

Respondent alleged that petitioner was indebted to the former in the concept
of a personal loan. By virtue of a "Deed of Absolute Sale", petitioner, as seller,
ceded to respondent, as buyer, a parcel of land. This property was mortgaged
to National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC). Petitioner refused
to cooperate with respondent to execute the necessary documents and other
formalities required by the NHMFC to effect the transfer of the title over the
property.

B. Party 1's Assertion/s

Respondent alleged that petitioner was indebted to the former in the concept
of a personal loan. By virtue of a "Deed of Absolute Sale", petitioner, as seller,
ceded to respondent, as buyer, a parcel of land. This property was mortgaged
to National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC). Petitioner refused
to cooperate with respondent to execute the necessary documents and other
formalities required by the NHMFC to effect the transfer of the title over the
property.

C. Party 2's Assertion/s Etc. (If more than 2 parties - use same format)

Petitioner denied that she borrowed money from respondent, and averred
that, she referred her friends to respondent whom she knew to be engaged in
the business of lending money in exchange for personal checks through her
capitalist Arsenio Pua. She alleged that her friends borrowed money from
respondent and issued personal checks in payment of the loan; that the
checks bounced for insufficiency of funds; that despite her efforts to assist
respondent to collect from the borrowers, she could no longer locate them.
Because of this, she was forced to issue eight checks to answer for the
bounced checks of the borrowers she referred; that prior to the issuance of
the checks she informed respondent that they were not sufficiently funded but
the latter nonetheless deposited the checks and for which reason they were
subsequently dishonored.

D. Lower Court's Decision

Court hereby orders the dismissal of the complaint for insufficiency of


evidence. RTC held that the sale was void for lack of cause or
consideration.

E. Appellate Court's Decision

Decision of the lower court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appelate court
is ordering defendant-appellee to execute all necessary documents to
effect transfer of subject property to plaintiff-appellant with the
arrearages of the former’s loan with the NHMFC, at the latter’s expense.
The CA concluded that petitioner was the borrower and, in turn, would
"re-lend" the amount borrowed from the respondent to her friends.

II. ISSUE/S RESOLVED BY THE SUPREME COURT

A. WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A AGENCY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN


PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT.

III. RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT


A.

Yes, there was an Agency relationship, Under Article 1868 of the Civil Code,
the basis of agency is representation. An agency can be created either by
direct or circumstantial evidence. The question is ultimately one of
intention. Agency may even be implied from the words and conduct of the
parties and the circumstances of the particular case. In this case, petitioner
knew that the financier of respondent is Pua; and respondent knew that
the borrowers are friends of petitioner.

In addition for an agency to arise, it is not necessary that the principal


personally encounter the third person with whom the agent interacts. The
purpose of agency is to extend the personality of the principal through the
facility of the agent. In the case at bar, if their respective principals do not
actually and personally know each other, such ignorance does not affect their
juridical standing as agents.
General Topic: Agency
Specific Topic: Liability of an Agent to Third Party

Case Title EUROTECH INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,


vs. EDWIN CUIZON and ERWIN CUIZON
GR. No. 167552
Date of Decision April 23, 2007
Ponente CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Party 1: EUROTECH INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


Party 2: EDWIN CUIZON
Party 3: ERWIN CUIZON

I. FACTS
A. Scenario/Background

Petitioner is in the importation and distribution of various European industrial


equipment. One of its customers Impact Systems Sales ("Impact Systems")
which is a sole proprietorship owned by respondent ERWIN Cuizon (ERWIN).
Respondent EDWIN is the sales manager of Impact Systems and was
impleaded in the court a quo in said capacity.

Respondents sought to buy from petitioner one unit of sludge pump valued at
₱250,000.00.  When the sludge pump arrived, petitioner refused to deliver the
same to respondents without their having fully settled their indebtedness to
petitioner. Thus, Respondent EDWIN and Alberto de Jesus, general manager
of petitioner, executed a Deed of Assignment of receivables in favor of
petitioner.

Allegedly unknown to petitioner, respondents proceeded to collect the


receivables from the Deed of Assignment. Petitioner made several demands
upon respondents to pay their obligations but were just able to make partial
payments to petitioner.

C. Party 1's Assertion/s

Petitioner points to Article 1897 of the New Civil Code that the agent who acts
in excess of the limits of his authority without giving such party sufficient
notice of his powers as such is personally liable to the party with whom he
contracts. As EDWIN did not sufficiently notify it of the extent of his powers as
an agent, petitioner claims that he should be made personally liable for the
obligations of his principal.

Petitioner also contends that it fell victim to the fraudulent scheme of


respondents who induced it into selling the one unit of sludge pump to Impact
Systems and signing the Deed of Assignment.

C. Party 2's Assertion/s


EDWIN disputed the total amount of Impact Systems’ indebtedness to
petitioner which, according to him, amounted to only ₱220,000.00. EDWIN
alleged that he is not a real party in interest in this case. According to him, he
was acting as mere agent of his principal, which was the Impact Systems, in
his transaction with petitioner and the latter was very much aware of this fact.
D. Lower Court's Decision

The Court directs that defendant Edwin B. Cuizon be dropped as party


defendant.

D. Appellate Court's Decision


Court of Appeals affirmed the Order of the court a quo.
II. ISSUE/S RESOLVED BY THE SUPREME COURT
A. Whether or not Edwin Cuizon, as agent of impact systems sales/Erwin
Cuizon, is personally liable, because he has neither acted beyond the scope
of his agency.

III. RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT


A. Ruling to Issue A
Agent acts for and on behalf of the principal on matters within the scope of his
authority and said acts have the same legal effect as if they were personally
executed by the principal. A managing agent may enter into any contracts that
he deems reasonably necessary or requisite for the protection of the interests
of his principal entrusted to his management. Edwin Cuizon acted well-within
his authority when he signed the Deed of Assignment.
General Topic:
Specific Topic:

Case Title PHILEX MINING CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF


INTERNAL REVENUE, COURT OF APPEALS, and THE COURT OF TAX
APPEALS

G. R. No. 125704
Date of Decision August 28, 1998
Ponente ROMERO, J.
Party 1: PHILEX MINING CORPORATION
Party 2: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, COURT OF
APPEALS, and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS

I. FACTS
A. Scenario/Background

BIR sent a letter to Philex asking it to settle its tax liabilities for the 2nd, 3rd
and 4th quarter of 1991 as well as the 1st and 2nd quarter of 1992 in the total
amount of P123,821.982.52
B. Party 1's Assertion/s
C. Party 2's Assertion/s Etc. (If more than 2 parties - use same
format) D. Lower Court's Decision
E. Appellate Court's Decision
II. ISSUE/S RESOLVED BY THE SUPREME COURT
A.
B.
C. Etc. (If more than 3 issues - use same format)
III. RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT
A. Ruling to Issue A (include and emphasize doctrine, if any) B.
Ruling to Issue B (include and emphasize doctrine, if any) C. Ruling
to Issue C (include and emphasize doctrine, if any) Etc. (If more
than 3 issues - use same format)
General Topic (example: Dissolution)
Specific Topic (example: Manner of winding up) (Note: General and
specific topics are not limited to only one. If the case touched upon
2 or more issues, provide for the multiple general and specific
topics also.)

Case Title PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs.


MANILA SURETY and FIDELITY CO., INC. and THE COURT OF APPEALS
(Second Division)
G.R. No. L-20567
Date of Decision July 30, 1965
Ponente REYES, J.B.L., J.
Party 1:PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK
Party 2: MANILA SURETY and FIDELITY CO., INC. and THE COURT OF
APPEALS (Second Division)

I. FACTS
A. Scenario/Background

B. Party 1's Assertion/s


C. Party 2's Assertion/s Etc. (If more than 2 parties - use same
format) D. Lower Court's Decision
E. Appellate Court's Decision
II. ISSUE/S RESOLVED BY THE SUPREME COURT
A.
B.
D. Etc. (If more than 3 issues - use same format)
III. RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT
A. Ruling to Issue A (include and emphasize doctrine, if any) B.
Ruling to Issue B (include and emphasize doctrine, if any) C. Ruling
to Issue C (include and emphasize doctrine, if any) Etc. (If more
than 3 issues - use same format)

You might also like