XXX CASES
Q: What was his position, the one who has misappropriated
2. Sedia vs. White
C: the Supreme Court said that by filing of the answer jointly with Sedia through their common counsel, Hontiveros affirmed the allegation that Sedia is his agent.
3. Prudential Bank vs. CA No comment here.
4. De Castro vs. CA
C: But the co-owners are deemed indispensable parties. So the Supreme Court took the exception to the said rule that they should be joint. So the applicable provision is Article 1915 which provides that‖ If two or more persons have appointed an agent for a common transaction or undertaking, they shall be solidarily liable to the agent for all the consequences of the agency.‖ So the general rule is solidary unless expressly agreed otherwise. SO the exception is provided in this case of De Castro.
5. Dominion Insurance vs. CA
C: So before we go to modes of extinguishment of agency, I will lecture on the liability of the principal to third persons for torts of an agent. The applicable principle or rule here is the vicarious liability rule or respondeat superior. Halimbawa, you are confronted with that question, ―when is the principal liable for the torts committed by an agent? Okay. Principal is liable for the torts committed by his agent if two things are existing:
First, you have to determine the existence of the Principal-Agent (P-A relationship); and Second, the tort was committed by the agent within the scope of the relationship.
As a review, how do you determine the existence of the P-A relationship? (Nemonics ABC)
1. Assent. There must be assent or agreement between the P and A. Take note that this agreement may be formal (in writing) or informal (istorya-istoryalang);
2. Benefit. The agent‘s conduct must be always for the benefit of the principal;and
3. Control. The P must have therightr to control the acts of the A by having the power to supervise the manner of the agent‘s performance.
Next. How do you determine that the tort was committed by the agent within the scope of the relationship? So three-factor analysis.
Three questions must be asked.
1. Was the conduct of the agent he was hired to perform?
2. Did the tort occurred during the job?
3. Did the agent intend to benefit the principal?
It is sufficient that the agent intended even a partial benefit to the principal. Take note, we are talking about torts, vicarious liability.
Next. How about the liability of the principal for the contracts entered into by the agent? 2-part test:
1. If there exists a P-A relationship; and 2. P authorized the A to enter the contract.
When you say authority, there are 4 types of authority. First is the actual express authority. There is the actual express authority if the Pin writing or through words spoken or some other manifestation, the P wishes or intends to grant the A the authority to enter into the contract. Take note that SC said that actual authority is narrowly construed such that the A must act within the scope of his authority to bind the P.
Second is the actual implied authority. It is actual implied authority if it is based on the conduct or the circumstance, the principal intends to authorize the agent. So anoyungmga factors nasinasabinilang may actual implied authority? First, by necessity. So there is an implied authority to do all tasks which are necessary to accomplish an expressed task. Second, by custom. Here there is an implied authority to do all tasks which are customarily performed by persons with the agent‘s title or position. And third, prior dealing
between the P and A. Here there is an implied authority on the part of the agent to do all tasks to which the agent believes to have been authorized from prior acquiescence of the principal.
Next we have apparent authority. So how do we know that A has an apparent authority? You have to question:
1. Whether or not the P cloth the A with appearance of authority; and 2. The 3rd party reasonable relies on the appearance of the said authority.
Under apparent authority, what is this lingering authority? When you say lingering authority, it means that A had actual authority at one point but has been terminated. So take note, you have to cut off that apparent authority in order for P not to be liable? How?
First, the P should give a timely and proper notice of termination to 3rd party. What is proper notice? It is a personal notice to all 3rd parties that the P knows the A dealt with AND publication. Take note personal notice and publication. What if the agent has the lingering authority and he has the possession of the goods? What should the P do? It is a must for P to remove the goods from his possession.
Class, what is this ratification? Ratification is that authority that can be granted after the contract has been entered provided that:
a. The P has knowledge of all material facts regarding the contract; and b. The P must accept the benefits under the said contract.
Take note that in ratification, you cannot alter the terms of the contract because the P must accept all the benefits from the contract without modification of the terms of the said contract for ratification to be effective. Last, regarding liability. Third party vs. P. 3rd party sues P. Take note that under the 1st circumstance, the P is liable only when there is a valid authority (4 types of authority). Next, 3rd party sues the A. Here the liability depends on whether or not the P was disclosed. So if the P is disclosed and his identity is known to 3rd party, then only P is liable. What if P is undisclosed or partially disclosed? Then P and A are liable. What if intentional torts committed by A? Halimbawanagcommitng crime ang agent. Can you sue the P? Example, if A during the course of business nakabarilsi A. Can you sue the P? Take note, if unintentional torts, vicarious liability applies.
BusOrg
September 10, 2013 TSN by Sonny
What are the modes of extinguishing a contract of agency?
Article 1919. Agency is extinguished:
(1) By its revocation;
(2) By the withdrawal of the agent;
(3) By the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the principal or of the agent;
(4) By the dissolution of the firm or corporation which entrusted or accepted the agency;
(5) By the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the agency;
(6) By the expiration of the period for which the agency was constituted.
Is there a presumption of continuance of agency? YES. Once shown to have existed, an agency relation will be presumed to have continued in the absence of anything to show its termination.
What are the necessary characteristics of the parties for the continuance of the agency?
1. Present 2. Capacitated 3. Solvent
Are the grounds under Article 1919 exclusive? NO.
What are the GENERAL modes of extinguishing an agency?
1. Agreement
2. Subsequent acts of the parties which may be either:
a. By the act of both parties or by mutual consent b. By the unilateral act of one of them
3. By operation of law
The general rule is that death of either the agent or the principal extinguished the agency. What are the exceptions?
1. If the agency is coupled with an interest
2. If the act of the agent was executed without the knowledge of the death of the principal ant the 3rd person who contracted with the agent acted in good faith
Why is dissolution or the firm/corporation a ground for extinguishment? Because it is tantamount to death of a juridical person. The juridical existence is also extinguished.
What happens if the subject matter of the agency is lost or destroyed?