Keeler VS Rodriguez

HARRY E. KEELER ELECTRIC CO., INC.
, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
DOMINGO RODRIGUEZ,
FACTS: The plaintiff is a domestic corporation with its principal office in the city of Manila and
engaged in the electrical business, and among other things in the sale of what is known as the
"Matthews" electric plant, and the defendant is a resident of Talisay, Occidental Negros, and A. C.
Montelibano was a resident of Iloilo.
Having this information, Montelibano approached plaintiff at its Manila office, claiming that he was
from Iloilo and lived with Governor Yulo; that he could find purchaser for the "Matthews" plant, and
was told by the plaintiff that for any plant that he could sell or any customer that he could find he
would be paid a commission of 10% for his services, if the sale was consummated. Among other
persons. Montelibano interviews the defendant, and, through his efforts, one of the "Matthews"
plants was sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, and was shipped from Manila to Iloilo, and later
installed on defendant's premises after which, without the knowledge of the plaintiff, the defendant
paid the purchase price to Montelibano. As a result, plaintiff commenced this action against the
defendant, alleging that it sold and delivered to the defendant the electric plant at the agreed price of
P2,513.55 no part of which has been paid, the demands judgment for the amount with interest.
For answer, the defendant admits the corporation of the plaintiff, and denies all other material
allegations of the complaint, and, as an affirmative defense, alleges "that on or about the 18th of
August, 1920, the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant a certain electric plant and that the
defendant paid the plaintiff the value of said electric plant, to wit: P2,513.55."
Upon such issues the testimony was taken, and the lower court rendered judgment for the
defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals, claiming that the court erred in holding that the payment
to A. C. Montelibano would discharge the debt of defendant, and in holding that the bill was given to
Montelibano for collection purposes, and that the plaintiff had held out Montelibano to the defendant
as an agent authorized to collect, and in rendering judgment for the defendant, and in not rendering
judgment for the plaintiff.
ISSUE: WON There is payment.
HELD: None.
There is nothing on the face of this receipt to show that Montelibano was the agent of, or that he was
acting for, the plaintiff. It is his own personal receipt and his own personal signature. Outside of the
fact that Montelibano received the money and signed this receipt, there is no evidence that he had
any authority, real or apparent, to receive or receipt for the money. Neither is there any evidence that
the plaintiff ever delivered the statement to Montelibano, or authorized anyone to deliver it to him,
and it is very apparent that the statement in question is the one which was delivered by the plaintiff
to Cenar, and is the one which Cenar delivered to the defendant at the request of the defendant.
There is no evidence that the plaintiff ever delivered any statements to Montelibano, or that he was
authorized to receive or receipt for the money, and defendant's own telegram shows that the plaintiff
"did not present bill" to defendant. He now claims that at the very time this telegram was sent, he
had the receipt of Montelibano for the money upon the identical statement of account which it is
admitted the plaintiff did render to the defendant.
Article 1162 of the Civil Code provides:

Payment must be made to the persons in whose favor the obligation is constituted, or to
another authorized to receive it in his name.
And article 1727 provides:
The principal shall be liable as to matters with respect to which the agent has exceeded his
authority only when he ratifies the same expressly or by implication.
In the case at bar, This was a single transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. lawph!l.net
Applying the above rules, the testimony is conclusive that the plaintiff never authorized Montelibano
to receive or receipt for money in its behalf, and that the defendant had no right to assume by any
act or deed of the plaintiff that Montelibano was authorized to receive the money, and that the
defendant made the payment at his own risk and on the sole representations of Montelibano that he
was authorized to receipt for the money.
The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and one will be entered here in favor of the plaintiff and
against the defendant for the sum of P2,513.55 with interest at the legal rate from January 10, 1921,
with costs in favor of the appellant. So ordered.

Keeler VS Rodriguez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Keeler VS Rodriguez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Keeler VS Rodriguez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HARRY E. KEELER ELECTRIC CO., INC.

ISSUE: WON There is payment.

Article 1162 of the Civil Code provides:

And article 1727 provides:

You might also like