BusOrg (Agency) Part III and IV Full Text_forG2

1

III. OBLIGATIONS OF THE AGENT

E. DUTY OF DILIGENCE

BRITISH AIRWAYS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GOP MAHTANI, and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, respondents. G.R. No. 121824 January 29, 1998

ROMERO, J.:

In this appeal by certiorari, petitioner British Airways (BA) seeks to set aside the decision of respondent Court of Appeals 1 promulgated on September 7, 1995, which affirmed the award of damages and attorney's fees made by the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 17, in favor of private respondent GOP Mahtani as well as the dismissal of its third-party complaint against Philippine Airlines (PAL). 2

The material and relevant facts are as follows:

On April 16, 1989, Mahtani decided to visit his relatives in Bombay, India. In anticipation of his visit, he obtained the services of a certain Mr. Gumar to prepare his travel plans. The latter, in turn, purchased a ticket from BA where the following itinerary was indicated: 3

CARRIER FLIGHT DATE TIME STATUS

MANILA MNL PR 310 Y 16 APR. 1730 OK

HONGKONG HKG BA 20 M 16 APR. 2100 OK

BOMBAY BOM BA 19 M 23 APR. 0840 OK

HONGKONG HKG PR 311 Y

MANILA MNL

Since BA had no direct flights from Manila to Bombay, Mahtani had to take a flight to Hongkong via PAL, and upon arrival in Hongkong he had to take a connecting flight to Bombay on board BA.

Prior to his departure, Mahtani checked in at the PAL counter in Manila his two pieces of luggage containing his clothings and personal effects, confident that upon reaching Hongkong, the same would be transferred to the BA flight bound for Bombay.

Unfortunately, when Mahtani arrived in Bombay he discovered that his luggage was missing and that upon inquiry from the BA representatives, he was told that the same

2

might have been diverted to London. After patiently waiting for his luggage for one week, BA finally advised him to file a claim by accomplishing the "Property Irregularity Report." 4

Back in the Philippines, specifically on June 11, 1990, Mahtani filed his complaint for damages and attorney's fees5 against BA and Mr. Gumar before the trial court, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-9076.

On September 4, 1990, BA filed its answer with counter claim 6 to the complaint raising, as special and affirmative defenses, that Mahtani did not have a cause of action against it. Likewise, on November 9, 1990, BA filed a third-party complaint 7 against PAL alleging that the reason for the non-transfer of the luggage was due to the latter's late arrival in Hongkong, thus leaving hardly any time for the proper transfer of Mahtani's luggage to the BA aircraft bound for Bombay.

On February 25, 1991, PAL filed its answer to the third-party complaint, wherein it disclaimed any liability, arguing that there was, in fact, adequate time to transfer the luggage to BA facilities in Hongkong. Furthermore, the transfer of the luggage to Hongkong authorities should be considered as transfer to BA. 8

After appropriate proceedings and trial, on March 4, 1993, the trial court rendered its decision in favor of Mahtani,9 the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered for the plaintiff and against the defendant for which defendant is ordered to pay plaintiff the sum of Seven Thousand (P7,000.00) Pesos for the value of the two (2) suit cases; Four Hundred U.S. ($400.00) Dollars representing the value of the contents of plaintiff's luggage; Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos for moral and actual damages and twenty percent (20%) of the total amount imposed against the defendant for attorney's fees and costs of this action.

The Third-Party Complaint against third-party defendant Philippine Airlines is DISMISSED for lack of cause of action.

SO ORDERED.

Dissatisfied, BA appealed to the Court of Appeals, which however, affirmed the trial court's findings. Thus:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, finding the Decision appealed from to be in accordance with law and evidence, the same is hereby AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against defendant-appellant.

SO ORDERED. 10

3

BA is now before us seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision.

In essence, BA assails the award of compensatory damages and attorney's fees, as well as the dismissal of its third-party complaint against PAL. 11

Regarding the first assigned issue, BA asserts that the award of compensatory damages in the separate sum of P7,000.00 for the loss of Mahtani's two pieces of luggage was without basis since Mahtani in his complaint 12stated the following as the value of his personal belongings:

8. On the said travel, plaintiff took with him the following items and its corresponding value, to wit:

1. personal belonging P10,000.00

2. gifts for his parents and relatives $5,000.00

Moreover, he failed to declare a higher valuation with respect to his luggage, a condition provided for in the ticket, which reads: 13

Liability for loss, delay, or damage to baggage is limited unless a higher value is declared in advance and additional charges are paid:

1. For most international travel (including domestic corporations of international journeys) the liability limit is approximately U.S. $9.07 per pound (U.S. $20.000) per kilo for checked baggage and U.S. $400 per passenger for unchecked baggage.

Before we resolve the issues raised by BA, it is needful to state that the nature of an airline's contract of carriage partakes of two types, namely: a contract to deliver a cargo or merchandise to its destination and a contract to transport passengers to their destination. A business intended to serve the traveling public primarily, it is imbued with public interest, hence, the law governing common carriers imposes an exacting standard. 14 Neglect or malfeasance by the carrier's employees could predictably furnish bases for an action for damages. 15

In the instant case, it is apparent that the contract of carriage was between Mahtani and BA. Moreover, it is indubitable that his luggage never arrived in Bombay on time. Therefore, as in a number of cases 16 we have assessed the airlines' culpability in the form of damages for breach of contract involving misplaced luggage.

In determining the amount of compensatory damages in this kind of cases, it is vital that the claimant satisfactorily prove during the trial the existence of the factual basis of the damages and its causal connection to defendant's acts. 17

4

In this regard, the trial court granted the following award as compensatory damages:

Since plaintiff did not declare the value of the contents in his luggage and even failed to show receipts of the alleged gifts for the members of his family in Bombay, the most that can be expected for compensation of his lost luggage (2 suit cases) is Twenty U.S. Dollars ($20.00) per kilo, or combined value of Four Hundred ($400.00) U.S. Dollars for Twenty kilos representing the contents plus Seven Thousand (P7,000.00) Pesos representing the purchase price of the two (2) suit cases.

However, as earlier stated, it is the position of BA that there should have been no separate award for the luggage and the contents thereof since Mahtani failed to declare a separate higher valuation for the luggage, 18 and therefore, its liability is limited, at most, only to the amount stated in the ticket.

Considering the facts of the case, we cannot assent to such specious argument.

Admittedly, in a contract of air carriage a declaration by the passenger of a higher value is needed to recover a greater amount. Article 22(1) of the Warsaw Convention, 19 provides as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

(2) In the transportation of checked baggage and goods, the liability of the carrier shall be limited to a sum of 250 francs per kilogram, unless the consignor has made, at time the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of the value at delivery and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless he proves that the sum is greater than the actual value to the consignor at delivery.

American jurisprudence provides that an air carrier is not liable for the loss of baggage in an amount in excess of the limits specified in the tariff which was filed with the proper authorities, such tariff being binding, on the passenger regardless of the passenger's lack of knowledge thereof or assent thereto. 20 This doctrine is recognized in this jurisdiction. 21

Notwithstanding the foregoing, we have, nevertheless, ruled against blind reliance on adhesion contracts where the facts and circumstances justify that they should be disregarded. 22

In addition, we have held that benefits of limited liability are subject to waiver such as when the air carrier failed to raise timely objections during the trial when questions and answers regarding the actual claims and damages sustained by the passenger were asked. 23

5

Given the foregoing postulates, the inescapable conclusion is that BA had waived the defense of limited liability when it allowed Mahtani to testify as to the actual damages he incurred due to the misplacement of his luggage, without any objection. In this regard, we quote the pertinent transcript of stenographic notes of Mahtani's direct testimony: 24

Q How much are you going to ask from this court?

A P100,000.00.

Q What else?

A Exemplary damages.

Q How much?

A P100,000.00.

Q What else?

A The things I lost, $5,000.00 for the gifts I lost and my personal belongings, P10,000.00.

Q What about the filing of this case?

A The court expenses and attorney's fees is 30%.

Indeed, it is a well-settled doctrine that where the proponent offers evidence deemed by counsel of the adverse party to be inadmissible for any reason, the latter has the right to object. However, such right is a mere privilege which can be waived. Necessarily, the objection must be made at the earliest opportunity, lest silence when there is opportunity to speak may operate as a waiver of objections. 25 BA has precisely failed in this regard.

To compound matters for BA, its counsel failed, not only to interpose a timely objection, but even conducted his own cross-examination as well. 26 In the early case of Abrenica v. Gonda, 27 we ruled that:

. . . (I)t has been repeatedly laid down as a rule of evidence that a protest or objection against the admission of any evidence must be made at the proper time, and that if not so made it will be understood to have been waived. The proper time to make a protest or objection is when, from the question addressed to the witness, or from the answer thereto, or from the presentation of proof, the inadmissibility of evidence is, or may be inferred.

6

Needless to say, factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to great respect. 28 Since the actual value of the luggage involved appreciation of evidence, a task within the competence of the Court of Appeals, its ruling regarding the amount is assuredly a question of fact, thus, a finding not reviewable by this Court.29

As to the issue of the dismissal of BA's third-party complaint against PAL, the Court of Appeals justified its ruling in this wise, and we quote: 30

Lastly, we sustain the trial court's ruling dismissing appellant's third-party complaint against PAL.

The contract of air transportation in this case pursuant to the ticket issued by appellant to plaintiff-appellee was exclusively between the plaintiff Mahtani and defendant-appellant BA. When plaintiff boarded the PAL plane from Manila to Hongkong, PAL was merely acting as a subcontractor or agent of BA. This is shown by the fact that in the ticket issued by appellant to plaintiff-appellee, it is specifically provided on the "Conditions of Contract," paragraph 4 thereof that:

4. . . . carriage to be performed hereunder by several successive carriers is regarded as a single operation.

The rule that carriage by plane although performed by successive carriers is regarded as a single operation and that the carrier issuing the passenger's ticket is considered the principal party and the other carrier merely subcontractors or agent, is a settled issue.

We cannot agree with the dismissal of the third-complaint.

In Firestone Tire and Rubber Company of the Philippines v. Tempengko, 31 we expounded on the nature of a third-party complaint thus:

The third-party complaint is, therefore, a procedural device whereby a "third party" who is neither a party nor privy to the act or deed complained of by the plaintiff, may be brought into the case with leave of court, by the defendant, who acts, as third-party plaintiff to enforce against such third-party defendant a right for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of the plaintiff's claim. The third-party complaint is actually independent of and separate and distinct from the plaintiff's complaint. Were it not for this provision of the Rules of Court, it would have to be filed independently and separately from the original complaint by the defendant against the third-party. But the Rules permit defendant to bring in a third-party defendant or so to speak, to litigate his separate cause of action in respect of plaintiff's claim against a third-party in the original and principal case with the object of avoiding circuitry of

7

action and unnecessary proliferation of law suits and of disposing expeditiously in one litigation the entire subject matter arising from one particular set of facts.

Undeniably, for the loss of his luggage, Mahtani is entitled to damages from BA, in view of their contract of carriage. Yet, BA adamantly disclaimed its liability and instead imputed it to PAL which the latter naturally denies. In other words, BA and PAL are blaming each other for the incident.

In resolving this issue, it is worth observing that the contract of air transportation was exclusively between Mahtani and BA, the latter merely endorsing the Manila to Hongkong leg of the former's journey to PAL, as its subcontractor or agent. In fact, the fourth paragraph of the "Conditions of Contracts" of the ticket 32 issued by BA to Mahtani confirms that the contract was one of continuous air transportation from Manila to Bombay.

4. . . . carriage to be performed hereunder by several successive carriers is regarded as a single operation.

Prescinding from the above discussion, it is undisputed that PAL, in transporting Mahtani from Manila to Hongkong acted as the agent of BA.

Parenthetically, the Court of Appeals should have been cognizant of the well-settled rule that an agent is also responsible for any negligence in the performance of its function. 33 and is liable for damages which the principal may suffer by reason of its negligent act. 34 Hence, the Court of Appeals erred when it opined that BA, being the principal, had no cause of action against PAL, its agent or sub-contractor.

Also, it is worth mentioning that both BA and PAL are members of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), wherein member airlines are regarded as agents of each other in the issuance of the tickets and other matters pertaining to their relationship. 35 Therefore, in the instant case, the contractual relationship between BA and PAL is one of agency, the former being the principal, since it was the one which issued the confirmed ticket, and the latter the agent.

Our pronouncement that BA is the principal is consistent with our ruling in Lufthansa German Airlines v. Court of Appeals. 36 In that case, Lufthansa issued a confirmed ticket to Tirso Antiporda covering five-leg trip aboard different airlines. Unfortunately, Air Kenya, one of the airlines which was to carry Antiporda to a specific destination "bumped" him off.

An action for damages was filed against Lufthansa which, however, denied any liability, contending that its responsibility towards its passenger is limited to the occurrence of a mishap on its own line. Consequently, when Antiporda transferred to Air Kenya, its obligation as a principal in the contract of carriage ceased; from there on, it merely acted as a ticketing agent for Air Kenya.

8

In rejecting Lufthansa's argument, we ruled:

In the very nature of their contract, Lufthansa is clearly the principal in the contract of carriage with Antiporda and remains to be so, regardless of those instances when actual carriage was to be performed by various carriers. The issuance of confirmed Lufthansa ticket in favor of Antiporda covering his entire five-leg trip abroad successive carriers concretely attest to this.

Since the instant petition was based on breach of contract of carriage, Mahtani can only sue BA alone, and not PAL, since the latter was not a party to the contract. However, this is not to say that PAL is relieved from any liability due to any of its negligent acts. In China Air Lines, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 37 while not exactly in point, the case, however, illustrates the principle which governs this particular situation. In that case, we recognized that a carrier (PAL), acting as an agent of another carrier, is also liable for its own negligent acts or omission in the performance of its duties.

Accordingly, to deny BA the procedural remedy of filing a third-party complaint against PAL for the purpose of ultimately determining who was primarily at fault as between them, is without legal basis. After all, such proceeding is in accord with the doctrine against multiplicity of cases which would entail receiving the same or similar evidence for both cases and enforcing separate judgments therefor. It must be borne in mind that the purpose of a third-party complaint is precisely to avoid delay and circuitry of action and to enable the controversy to be disposed of in one suit. 38 It is but logical, fair and equitable to allow BA to sue PAL for indemnification, if it is proven that the latter's negligence was the proximate cause of Mahtani's unfortunate experience, instead of totally absolving PAL from any liability.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 43309 dated September 7, 1995 is hereby MODIFIED, reinstating the third-party complaint filed by British Airways dated November 9, 1990 against Philippine Airlines. No costs. SO ORDERED.

VICENTE M. DOMINGO, represented by his heirs, ANTONINA RAYMUNDO VDA. DE DOMINGO, RICARDO, CESAR, AMELIA, VICENTE JR., SALVADOR, IRENE and JOSELITO, all surnamed DOMINGO, petitioners-appellants, vs. GREGORIO M. DOMINGO, respondent-appellee, TEOFILO P. PURISIMA, intervenor-respondent. G.R. No. L-30573 October 29, 1971

MAKASIAR, J.:

Petitioner-appellant Vicente M. Domingo, now deceased and represented by his heirs, Antonina Raymundo vda. de Domingo, Ricardo, Cesar, Amelia, Vicente Jr., Salvacion, Irene and Joselito, all surnamed Domingo, sought the reversal of the majority decision

9

dated, March 12, 1969 of the Special Division of Five of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court, which sentenced the said Vicente M. Domingo to pay Gregorio M. Domingo P2,307.50 and the intervenor Teofilo P. Purisima P2,607.50 with interest on both amounts from the date of the filing of the complaint, to pay Gregorio Domingo P1,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages and P500.00 as attorney's fees plus costs.

The following facts were found to be established by the majority of the Special Division of Five of the Court of Appeals:

In a document Exhibit "A" executed on June 2, 1956, Vicente M. Domingo granted Gregorio Domingo, a real estate broker, the exclusive agency to sell his lot No. 883 of Piedad Estate with an area of about 88,477 square meters at the rate of P2.00 per square meter (or for P176,954.00) with a commission of 5% on the total price, if the property is sold by Vicente or by anyone else during the 30-day duration of the agency or if the property is sold by Vicente within three months from the termination of the agency to apurchaser to whom it was submitted by Gregorio during the continuance of the agency with notice to Vicente. The said agency contract was in triplicate, one copy was given to Vicente, while the original and another copy were retained by Gregorio.

On June 3, 1956, Gregorio authorized the intervenor Teofilo P. Purisima to look for a buyer, promising him one-half of the 5% commission.

Thereafter, Teofilo Purisima introduced Oscar de Leon to Gregorio as a prospective buyer.

Oscar de Leon submitted a written offer which was very much lower than the price of P2.00 per square meter (Exhibit "B"). Vicente directed Gregorio to tell Oscar de Leon to raise his offer. After several conferences between Gregorio and Oscar de Leon, the latter raised his offer to P109,000.00 on June 20, 1956 as evidenced by Exhibit "C", to which Vicente agreed by signing Exhibit "C". Upon demand of Vicente, Oscar de Leon issued to him a check in the amount of P1,000.00 as earnest money, after which Vicente advanced to Gregorio the sum of P300.00. Oscar de Leon confirmed his former offer to pay for the property at P1.20 per square meter in another letter, Exhibit "D". Subsequently, Vicente asked for an additional amount of P1,000.00 as earnest money, which Oscar de Leon promised to deliver to him. Thereafter, Exhibit "C" was amended to the effect that Oscar de Leon will vacate on or about September 15, 1956 his house and lot at Denver Street, Quezon City which is part of the purchase price. It was again amended to the effect that Oscar will vacate his house and lot on December 1, 1956, because his wife was on the family way and Vicente could stay in lot No. 883 of Piedad Estate until June 1, 1957, in a document dated June 30, 1956 (the year 1957 therein is a mere typographical error) and marked Exhibit "D". Pursuant to his promise to Gregorio, Oscar gave him as a gift or propina the sum of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) for succeeding in persuading Vicente to sell his lot at P1.20 per square

10

meter or a total in round figure of One Hundred Nine Thousand Pesos (P109,000.00). This gift of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) was not disclosed by Gregorio to Vicente. Neither did Oscar pay Vicente the additional amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) by way of earnest money. In the deed of sale was not executed on August 1, 1956 as stipulated in Exhibit "C" nor on August 15, 1956 as extended by Vicente, Oscar told Gregorio that he did not receive his money from his brother in the United States, for which reason he was giving up the negotiation including the amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) given as earnest money to Vicente and the One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) given to Gregorio as propina or gift. When Oscar did not see him after several weeks, Gregorio sensed something fishy. So, he went to Vicente and read a portion of Exhibit "A" marked habit "A-1" to the effect that Vicente was still committed to pay him 5% commission, if the sale is consummated within three months after the expiration of the 30-day period of the exclusive agency in his favor from the execution of the agency contract on June 2, 1956 to a purchaser brought by Gregorio to Vicente during the said 30-day period. Vicente grabbed the original of Exhibit "A" and tore it to pieces. Gregorio held his peace, not wanting to antagonize Vicente further, because he had still duplicate of Exhibit "A". From his meeting with Vicente, Gregorio proceeded to the office of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, where he discovered Exhibit "G' deed of sale executed on September 17, 1956 by Amparo Diaz, wife of Oscar de Leon, over their house and lot No. 40 Denver Street, Cubao, Quezon City, in favor Vicente as down payment by Oscar de Leon on the purchase price of Vicente's lot No. 883 of Piedad Estate. Upon thus learning that Vicente sold his property to the same buyer, Oscar de Leon and his wife, he demanded in writting payment of his commission on the sale price of One Hundred Nine Thousand Pesos (P109,000.00), Exhibit "H". He also conferred with Oscar de Leon, who told him that Vicente went to him and asked him to eliminate Gregorio in the transaction and that he would sell his property to him for One Hundred Four Thousand Pesos (P104,000.0 In Vicente's reply to Gregorio's letter, Exhibit "H", Vicente stated that Gregorio is not entitled to the 5% commission because he sold the property not to Gregorio's buyer, Oscar de Leon, but to another buyer, Amparo Diaz, wife of Oscar de Leon.

The Court of Appeals found from the evidence that Exhibit "A", the exclusive agency contract, is genuine; that Amparo Diaz, the vendee, being the wife of Oscar de Leon the sale by Vicente of his property is practically a sale to Oscar de Leon since husband and wife have common or identical interests; that Gregorio and intervenor Teofilo Purisima were the efficient cause in the consummation of the sale in favor of the spouses Oscar de Leon and Amparo Diaz; that Oscar de Leon paid Gregorio the sum of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) as "propina" or gift and not as additional earnest money to be given to the plaintiff, because Exhibit "66", Vicente's letter addressed to Oscar de Leon with respect to the additional earnest money, does not appear to have been answered by Oscar de Leon and therefore there is no writing or document supporting Oscar de Leon's testimony that he paid an additional earnest money of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) to Gregorio for delivery to Vicente, unlike the first amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) paid by Oscar de Leon to Vicente as earnest money,

11

evidenced by the letter Exhibit "4"; and that Vicente did not even mention such additional earnest money in his two replies Exhibits "I" and "J" to Gregorio's letter of demand of the 5% commission.

The three issues in this appeal are (1) whether the failure on the part of Gregorio to disclose to Vicente the payment to him by Oscar de Leon of the amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) as gift or "propina" for having persuaded Vicente to reduce the purchase price from P2.00 to P1.20 per square meter, so constitutes fraud as to cause a forfeiture of his commission on the sale price; (2) whether Vicente or Gregorio should be liable directly to the intervenor Teofilo Purisima for the latter's share in the expected commission of Gregorio by reason of the sale; and (3) whether the award of legal interest, moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs, was proper.

Unfortunately, the majority opinion penned by Justice Edilberto Soriano and concurred in by Justice Juan Enriquez did not touch on these issues which were extensively discussed by Justice Magno Gatmaitan in his dissenting opinion. However, Justice Esguerra, in his concurring opinion, affirmed that it does not constitute breach of trust or fraud on the part of the broker and regarded same as merely part of the whole process of bringing about the meeting of the minds of the seller and the purchaser and that the commitment from the prospect buyer that he would give a reward to Gregorio if he could effect better terms for him from the seller, independent of his legitimate commission, is not fraudulent, because the principal can reject the terms offered by the prospective buyer if he believes that such terms are onerous disadvantageous to him. On the other hand, Justice Gatmaitan, with whom Justice Antonio Cafizares corner held the view that such an act on the part of Gregorio was fraudulent and constituted a breach of trust, which should deprive him of his right to the commission.

The duties and liabilities of a broker to his employer are essentially those which an agent owes to his principal. 1

Consequently, the decisive legal provisions are in found Articles 1891 and 1909 of the New Civil Code.

Art. 1891. Every agent is bound to render an account of his transactions and to deliver to the principal whatever he may have received by virtue of the agency, even though it may not be owing to the principal.

Every stipulation exempting the agent from the obligation to render an account shall be void.

xxx xxx xxx

12

Art. 1909. The agent is responsible not only for fraud but also for negligence, which shall be judged with more less rigor by the courts, according to whether the agency was or was not for a compensation.

Article 1891 of the New Civil Code amends Article 17 of the old Spanish Civil Code which provides that:

Art. 1720. Every agent is bound to give an account of his transaction and to pay to the principal whatever he may have received by virtue of the agency, even though what he has received is not due to the principal.

The modification contained in the first paragraph Article 1891 consists in changing the phrase "to pay" to "to deliver", which latter term is more comprehensive than the former.

Paragraph 2 of Article 1891 is a new addition designed to stress the highest loyalty that is required to an agent condemning as void any stipulation exempting the agent from the duty and liability imposed on him in paragraph one thereof.

Article 1909 of the New Civil Code is essentially a reinstatement of Article 1726 of the old Spanish Civil Code which reads thus:

Art. 1726. The agent is liable not only for fraud, but also for negligence, which shall be judged with more or less severity by the courts, according to whether the agency was gratuitous or for a price or reward.

The aforecited provisions demand the utmost good faith, fidelity, honesty, candor and fairness on the part of the agent, the real estate broker in this case, to his principal, the vendor. The law imposes upon the agent the absolute obligation to make a full disclosure or complete account to his principal of all his transactions and other material facts relevant to the agency, so much so that the law as amended does not countenance any stipulation exempting the agent from such an obligation and considers such an exemption as void. The duty of an agent is likened to that of a trustee. This is not a technical or arbitrary rule but a rule founded on the highest and truest principle of morality as well as of the strictest justice. 2

Hence, an agent who takes a secret profit in the nature of a bonus, gratuity or personal benefit from the vendee, without revealing the same to his principal, the vendor, is guilty of a breach of his loyalty to the principal and forfeits his right to collect the commission from his principal, even if the principal does not suffer any injury by reason of such breach of fidelity, or that he obtained better results or that the agency is a gratuitous one, or that usage or custom allows it; because the rule is to prevent the possibility of any wrong, not to remedy or repair an actual damage. 3 By taking such profit or bonus or gift or propina from the vendee, the agent thereby assumes a position wholly inconsistent with that of being an agent for hisprincipal, who has a right

13

to treat him, insofar as his commission is concerned, as if no agency had existed. The fact that the principal may have been benefited by the valuable services of the said agent does not exculpate the agent who has only himself to blame for such a result by reason of his treachery or perfidy.

This Court has been consistent in the rigorous application of Article 1720 of the old Spanish Civil Code. Thus, for failure to deliver sums of money paid to him as an insurance agent for the account of his employer as required by said Article 1720, said insurance agent was convicted estafa. 4 An administrator of an estate was likewise under the same Article 1720 for failure to render an account of his administration to the heirs unless the heirs consented thereto or are estopped by having accepted the correctness of his account previously rendered. 5

Because of his responsibility under the aforecited article 1720, an agent is likewise liable for estafa for failure to deliver to his principal the total amount collected by him in behalf of his principal and cannot retain the commission pertaining to him by subtracting the same from his collections. 6

A lawyer is equally liable unnder said Article 1720 if he fails to deliver to his client all the money and property received by him for his client despite his attorney's lien. 7 The duty of a commission agent to render a full account his operations to his principal was reiterated in Duhart, etc. vs. Macias. 8

The American jurisprudence on this score is well-nigh unanimous.

Where a principal has paid an agent or broker a commission while ignorant of the fact that the latter has been unfaithful, the principal may recover back the commission paid, since an agent or broker who has been unfaithful is not entitled to any compensation.

xxx xxx xxx

In discussing the right of the principal to recover commissions retained by an unfaithful agent, the court in Little vs. Phipps (1911) 208 Mass. 331, 94 NE 260, 34 LRA (NS) 1046, said: "It is well settled that the agent is bound to exercise the utmost good faith in his dealings with his principal. As Lord Cairns said, this rule "is not a technical or arbitrary rule. It is a rule founded on the highest and truest principles, of morality." Parker vs. McKenna (1874) LR 10,Ch(Eng) 96,118 ... If the agent does not conduct himself with entire fidelity towards his principal, but is guilty of taking a secret profit or commission in regard the matter in which he is employed, he loses his right to compensation on the ground that he has taken a position wholly inconsistent with that of agent for his employer, and which gives his employer, upon discovering it, the right to treat him so far as

14

compensation, at least, is concerned as if no agency had existed. This may operate to give to the principal the benefit of valuable services rendered by the agent, but the agent has only himself to blame for that result."

xxx xxx xxx

The intent with which the agent took a secret profit has been held immaterial where the agent has in fact entered into a relationship inconsistent with his agency, since the law condemns the corrupting tendency of the inconsistent relationship. Little vs. Phipps (1911) 94 NE 260. 9

As a general rule, it is a breach of good faith and loyalty to his principal for an agent, while the agency exists, so to deal with the subject matter thereof, or with information acquired during the course of the agency, as to make a profit out of it for himself in excess of his lawful compensation; and if he does so he may be held as a trustee and may be compelled to account to his principal for all profits, advantages, rights, or privileges acquired by him in such dealings, whether in performance or in violation of his duties, and be required to transfer them to his principal upon being reimbursed for his expenditures for the same, unless the principal has consented to or ratified the transaction knowing that benefit or profit would accrue or had accrued, to the agent, or unless with such knowledge he has allowed the agent so as to change his condition that he cannot be put in status quo. The application of this rule is not affected by the fact that the principal did not suffer any injury by reason of the agent's dealings or that he in fact obtained better results; nor is it affected by the fact that there is a usage or custom to the contrary or that the agency is a gratuitous one. (Emphasis applied.) 10

In the case at bar, defendant-appellee Gregorio Domingo as the broker, received a gift or propina in the amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) from the prospective buyer Oscar de Leon, without the knowledge and consent of his principal, herein petitioner-appellant Vicente Domingo. His acceptance of said substantial monetary gift corrupted his duty to serve the interests only of his principal and undermined his loyalty to his principal, who gave him partial advance of Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00) on his commission. As a consequence, instead of exerting his best to persuade his prospective buyer to purchase the property on the most advantageous terms desired by his principal, the broker, herein defendant-appellee Gregorio Domingo, succeeded in persuading his principal to accept the counter-offer of the prospective buyer to purchase the property at P1.20 per square meter or One Hundred Nine Thousand Pesos (P109,000.00) in round figure for the lot of 88,477 square meters, which is very much lower the the price of P2.00 per square meter or One Hundred Seventy-Six Thousand

15

Nine Hundred Fifty-Four Pesos (P176,954.00) for said lot originally offered by his principal.

The duty embodied in Article 1891 of the New Civil Code will not apply if the agent or broker acted only as a middleman with the task of merely bringing together the vendor and vendee, who themselves thereafter will negotiate on the terms and conditions of the transaction. Neither would the rule apply if the agent or broker had informed the principal of the gift or bonus or profit he received from the purchaser and his principal did not object therto. 11 Herein defendant-appellee Gregorio Domingo was not merely a middleman of the petitioner-appellant Vicente Domingo and the buyer Oscar de Leon. He was the broker and agent of said petitioner-appellant only. And therein petitioner-appellant was not aware of the gift of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) received by Gregorio Domingo from the prospective buyer; much less did he consent to his agent's accepting such a gift.

The fact that the buyer appearing in the deed of sale is Amparo Diaz, the wife of Oscar de Leon, does not materially alter the situation; because the transaction, to be valid, must necessarily be with the consent of the husband Oscar de Leon, who is the administrator of their conjugal assets including their house and lot at No. 40 Denver Street, Cubao, Quezon City, which were given as part of and constituted the down payment on, the purchase price of herein petitioner-appellant's lot No. 883 of Piedad Estate. Hence, both in law and in fact, it was still Oscar de Leon who was the buyer.

As a necessary consequence of such breach of trust, defendant-appellee Gregorio Domingo must forfeit his right to the commission and must return the part of the commission he received from his principal.

Teofilo Purisima, the sub-agent of Gregorio Domingo, can only recover from Gregorio Domingo his one-half share of whatever amounts Gregorio Domingo received by virtue of the transaction as his sub-agency contract was with Gregorio Domingo alone and not with Vicente Domingo, who was not even aware of such sub-agency. Since Gregorio Domingo received from Vicente Domingo and Oscar de Leon respectively the amounts of Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00) and One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) or a total of One Thousand Three Hundred Pesos (P1,300.00), one-half of the same, which is Six Hundred Fifty Pesos (P650.00), should be paid by Gregorio Domingo to Teofilo Purisima.

Because Gregorio Domingo's clearly unfounded complaint caused Vicente Domingo mental anguish and serious anxiety as well as wounded feelings, petitioner-appellant Vicente Domingo should be awarded moral damages in the reasonable amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) attorney's fees in the reasonable amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00), considering that this case has been pending for the last fifteen (15) years from its filing on October 3, 1956.

16

WHEREFORE, the judgment is hereby rendered, reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals and directing defendant-appellee Gregorio Domingo: (1) to pay to the heirs of Vicente Domingo the sum of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) as moral damages and One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) as attorney's fees; (2) to pay Teofilo Purisima the sum of Six Hundred Fifty Pesos (P650.00); and (3) to pay the costs.

I. POWER OF AGENT TO APPOINT A SUBSTITUTE

CORAZON L. ESCUETA, assisted by her husband EDGAR ESCUETA, IGNACIO E. RUBIO, THE HEIRS OF LUZ R. BALOLOY, namely, ALEJANDRINO R. BALOLOY and BAYANI R. BALOLOY, Petitioners, vs. RUFINA LIM, Respondent. G.R. No. 137162 January 24, 2007

D E C I S I O N

AZCUNA, J.:

This is an appeal by certiorari1 to annul and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated October 26, 1998 and January 11, 1999, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 48282, entitled "Rufina Lim v. Corazon L. Escueta, etc., et. al."

The facts2 appear as follows:

Respondent Rufina Lim filed an action to remove cloud on, or quiet title to, real property, with preliminary injunction and issuance of [a hold-departure order] from the Philippines against Ignacio E. Rubio. Respondent amended her complaint to include specific performance and damages.

In her amended complaint, respondent averred inter alia that she bought the hereditary shares (consisting of 10 lots) of Ignacio Rubio [and] the heirs of Luz Baloloy, namely: Alejandrino, Bayani, and other co-heirs; that said vendors executed a contract of sale dated April 10, 1990 in her favor; that Ignacio Rubio and the heirs of Luz Baloloy received [a down payment] or earnest money in the amount of P102,169.86 and P450,000, respectively; that it was agreed in the contract of sale that the vendors would secure certificates of title covering their respective hereditary shares; that the balance of the purchase price would be paid to each heir upon presentation of their individual certificate[s] of [title]; that Ignacio Rubio refused to receive the other half of the down payment which isP[100,000]; that Ignacio Rubio refused and still refuses to deliver to [respondent] the certificates of title covering his share on the two lots; that with respect to the heirs of Luz Baloloy, they also refused and still refuse to perform the delivery of the two certificates of title covering their share in the disputed lots; that respondent was and is ready and willing to pay Ignacio Rubio and the heirs of Luz

17

Baloloy upon presentation of their individual certificates of title, free from whatever lien and encumbrance;

As to petitioner Corazon Escueta, in spite of her knowledge that the disputed lots have already been sold by Ignacio Rubio to respondent, it is alleged that a simulated deed of sale involving said lots was effected by Ignacio Rubio in her favor; and that the simulated deed of sale by Rubio to Escueta has raised doubts and clouds over respondents title.

In their separate amended answers, petitioners denied the material allegations of the complaint and alleged inter alia the following:

For the heirs of Luz Baloloy (Baloloys for brevity):

Respondent has no cause of action, because the subject contract of sale has no more force and effect as far as the Baloloys are concerned, since they have withdrawn their offer to sell for the reason that respondent failed to pay the balance of the purchase price as orally promised on or before May 1, 1990.

For petitioners Ignacio Rubio (Rubio for brevity) and Corazon Escueta (Escueta for brevity):

Respondent has no cause of action, because Rubio has not entered into a contract of sale with her; that he has appointed his daughter Patricia Llamas to be his attorney-in-fact and not in favor of Virginia Rubio Laygo Lim (Lim for brevity) who was the one who represented him in the sale of the disputed lots in favor of respondent; that theP100,000 respondent claimed he received as down payment for the lots is a simple transaction by way of a loan with Lim.

The Baloloys failed to appear at the pre-trial. Upon motion of respondent, the trial court declared the Baloloys in default. They then filed a motion to lift the order declaring them in default, which was denied by the trial court in an order dated November 27, 1991. Consequently, respondent was allowed to adduce evidence ex parte. Thereafter, the trial court rendered a partial decision dated July 23, 1993 against the Baloloys, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [respondent] and against [petitioners, heirs] of Luz R. Balolo[y], namely: Alejandrino Baloloy and Bayani Baloloy. The [petitioners] Alejandrino Baloloy and Bayani Baloloy are ordered to immediately execute an [Absolute] Deed of Sale over their hereditary share in the properties covered by TCT No. 74392 and TCT No. 74394, after payment to them by [respondent] the amount of P[1,050,000] or consignation of said amount in Court. [For] failure of [petitioners] Alejandrino Baloloy and Bayani Baloloy to execute the Absolute Deed of Sale over their hereditary share in the property covered by TCT No. T-74392 and TCT No. T-74394 in favor of [respondent], the Clerk of Court is ordered to execute

18

the necessary Absolute Deed of Sale in behalf of the Baloloys in favor of [respondent,] with a consideration ofP[1,500,000]. Further[,] [petitioners] Alejandrino Baloloy and Bayani Baloloy are ordered to jointly and severally pay [respondent] moral damages in the amount of P[50,000] and P[20,000] for attorneys fees. The adverse claim annotated at the back of TCT No. T-74392 and TCT No. T-74394[,] insofar as the shares of Alejandrino Baloloy and Bayani Baloloy are concerned[,] [is] ordered cancelled.

With costs against [petitioners] Alejandrino Baloloy and Bayani Baloloy.

SO ORDERED.3

The Baloloys filed a petition for relief from judgment and order dated July 4, 1994 and supplemental petition dated July 7, 1994. This was denied by the trial court in an order dated September 16, 1994. Hence, appeal to the Court of Appeals was taken challenging the order denying the petition for relief.

Trial on the merits ensued between respondent and Rubio and Escueta. After trial, the trial court rendered its assailed Decision, as follows:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the complaint [and] amended complaint are dismissed against [petitioners] Corazon L. Escueta, Ignacio E. Rubio[,] and the Register of Deeds. The counterclaim of [petitioners] [is] also dismissed. However, [petitioner] Ignacio E. Rubio is ordered to return to the [respondent], Rufina Lim[,] the amount of P102,169.80[,] with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from April 10, [1990] until the same is fully paid. Without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.4

On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial courts order and partial decision, but reversed the later decision. The dispositive portion of its assailed Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, upon all the foregoing premises considered, this Court rules:

1. the appeal of the Baloloys from the Order denying the Petition for Relief from Judgment and Orders dated July 4, 1994 and Supplemental Petition dated July 7, 1994 is DISMISSED. The Order appealed from is AFFIRMED.

2. the Decision dismissing [respondents] complaint is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is entered. Accordingly,

a. the validity of the subject contract of sale in favor of [respondent] is upheld.

19

b. Rubio is directed to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale conditioned upon the payment of the balance of the purchase price by [respondent] within 30 days from the receipt of the entry of judgment of this Decision.

c. the contracts of sale between Rubio and Escueta involving Rubios share in the disputed properties is declared NULL and VOID.

d. Rubio and Escueta are ordered to pay jointly and severally the [respondent] the amount ofP[20,000] as moral damages and P[20,000] as attorneys fees.

3. the appeal of Rubio and Escueta on the denial of their counterclaim is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.5

Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Decision was denied. Hence, this petition.

The issues are:

I

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING THE PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT FILED BY THE BALOLOYS.

II

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REINSTATING THE COMPLAINT AND IN AWARDING MORAL DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS FEES IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT RUFINA L. LIM CONSIDERING THAT:

A. IGNACIO E. RUBIO IS NOT BOUND BY THE CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN VIRGINIA LAYGO-LIM AND RUFINA LIM.

B. THE CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN RUFINA LIM AND VIRGINIA LAYGO-LIM IS A CONTRACT TO SELL AND NOT A CONTRACT OF SALE.

C. RUFINA LIM FAILED TO FAITHFULLY COMPLY WITH HER OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT TO SELL THEREBY WARRANTING THE CANCELLATION THEREOF.

D. CORAZON L. ESCUETA ACTED IN UTMOST GOOD FAITH IN ENTERING INTO THE CONTRACT OF SALE WITH IGNACIO E. RUBIO.

20

III

THE CONTRACT OF SALE EXECUTED BETWEEN IGNACIO E. RUBIO AND CORAZON L. ESCUETA IS VALID.

IV

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING PETITIONERS COUNTERCLAIMS.

Briefly, the issue is whether the contract of sale between petitioners and respondent is valid.

Petitioners argue, as follows:

First, the CA did not consider the circumstances surrounding petitioners failure to appear at the pre-trial and to file the petition for relief on time.

As to the failure to appear at the pre-trial, there was fraud, accident and/or excusable neglect, because petitioner Bayani was in the United States. There was no service of the notice of pre-trial or order. Neither did the former counsel of record inform him. Consequently, the order declaring him in default is void, and all subsequent proceedings, orders, or decision are void.

Furthermore, petitioner Alejandrino was not clothed with a power of attorney to appear on behalf of Bayani at the pre-trial conference.

Second, the sale by Virginia to respondent is not binding. Petitioner Rubio did not authorize Virginia to transact business in his behalf pertaining to the property. The Special Power of Attorney was constituted in favor of Llamas, and the latter was not empowered to designate a substitute attorney-in-fact. Llamas even disowned her signature appearing on the "Joint Special Power of Attorney," which constituted Virginia as her true and lawful attorney-in-fact in selling Rubios properties.

Dealing with an assumed agent, respondent should ascertain not only the fact of agency, but also the nature and extent of the formers authority. Besides, Virginia exceeded the authority for failing to comply with her obligations under the "Joint Special Power of Attorney."

The amount encashed by Rubio represented not the down payment, but the payment of respondents debt. His acceptance and encashment of the check was not a ratification of the contract of sale.

Third, the contract between respondent and Virginia is a contract to sell, not a contract of sale. The real character of the contract is not the title given, but the intention of the

21

parties. They intended to reserve ownership of the property to petitioners pending full payment of the purchase price. Together with taxes and other fees due on the properties, these are conditions precedent for the perfection of the sale. Even assuming that the contract is ambiguous, the same must be resolved against respondent, the party who caused the same.

Fourth, Respondent failed to faithfully fulfill her part of the obligation. Thus, Rubio had the right to sell his properties to Escueta who exercised due diligence in ascertaining ownership of the properties sold to her. Besides, a purchaser need not inquire beyond what appears in a Torrens title.

The petition lacks merit. The contract of sale between petitioners and respondent is valid.lawphil.net

Bayani Baloloy was represented by his attorney-in-fact, Alejandrino Baloloy. In the Baloloys answer to the original complaint and amended complaint, the allegations relating to the personal circumstances of the Baloloys are clearly admitted.

"An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof."6 The "factual admission in the pleadings on record [dispenses] with the need x x x to present evidence to prove the admitted fact."7 It cannot, therefore, "be controverted by the party making such admission, and [is] conclusive"8 as to them. All proofs submitted by them "contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored whether objection is interposed by a party or not."9 Besides, there is no showing that a palpable mistake has been committed in their admission or that no admission has been made by them.

Pre-trial is mandatory.10 The notices of pre-trial had been sent to both the Baloloys and their former counsel of record. Being served with notice, he is "charged with the duty of notifying the party represented by him."11 He must "see to it that his client receives such notice and attends the pre-trial."12 What the Baloloys and their former counsel have alleged instead in their Motion to Lift Order of As In Default dated December 11, 1991 is the belated receipt of Bayani Baloloys special power of attorney in favor of their former counsel, not that they have not received the notice or been informed of the scheduled pre-trial. Not having raised the ground of lack of a special power of attorney in their motion, they are now deemed to have waived it. Certainly, they cannot raise it at this late stage of the proceedings. For lack of representation, Bayani Baloloy was properly declared in default.

Section 3 of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court states:

SEC. 3. Time for filing petition; contents and verification. A petition provided for in either of the preceding sections of this Rule must be verified, filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set

22

aside, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding was taken; and must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioners good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be.

There is no reason for the Baloloys to ignore the effects of the above-cited rule. "The 60-day period is reckoned from the time the party acquired knowledge of the order, judgment or proceedings and not from the date he actually read the same."13 As aptly put by the appellate court:

The evidence on record as far as this issue is concerned shows that Atty. Arsenio Villalon, Jr., the former counsel of record of the Baloloys received a copy of the partial decision dated June 23, 1993 on April 5, 1994. At that time, said former counsel is still their counsel of record. The reckoning of the 60 day period therefore is the date when the said counsel of record received a copy of the partial decision which was on April 5, 1994. The petition for relief was filed by the new counsel on July 4, 1994 which means that 90 days have already lapsed or 30 days beyond the 60 day period. Moreover, the records further show that the Baloloys received the partial decision on September 13, 1993 as evidenced by Registry return cards which bear the numbers 02597 and 02598 signed by Mr. Alejandrino Baloloy.

The Baloloys[,] apparently in an attempt to cure the lapse of the aforesaid reglementary period to file a petition for relief from judgment[,] included in its petition the two Orders dated May 6, 1994 and June 29, 1994. The first Order denied Baloloys motion to fix the period within which plaintiffs-appellants pay the balance of the purchase price. The second Order refers to the grant of partial execution, i.e. on the aspect of damages. These Orders are only consequences of the partial decision subject of the petition for relief, and thus, cannot be considered in the determination of the reglementary period within which to file the said petition for relief.

Furthermore, no fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence exists in order that the petition for relief may be granted.14 There is no proof of extrinsic fraud that "prevents a party from having a trial x x x or from presenting all of his case to the court"15 or an "accident x x x which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against, and by reason of which the party applying has probably been impaired in his rights."16 There is also no proof of either a "mistake x x x of law"17 or an excusable negligence "caused by failure to receive notice of x x x the trial x x x that it would not be necessary for him to take an active part in the case x x x by relying on another person to attend to the case for him, when such other person x x x was chargeable with that duty x x x, or by other circumstances not involving fault of the moving party."18

Article 1892 of the Civil Code provides:

23

Art. 1892. The agent may appoint a substitute if the principal has not prohibited him from doing so; but he shall be responsible for the acts of the substitute:

(1) When he was not given the power to appoint one x x x.

Applying the above-quoted provision to the special power of attorney executed by Ignacio Rubio in favor of his daughter Patricia Llamas, it is clear that she is not prohibited from appointing a substitute. By authorizing Virginia Lim to sell the subject properties, Patricia merely acted within the limits of the authority given by her father, but she will have to be "responsible for the acts of the sub-agent,"19 among which is precisely the sale of the subject properties in favor of respondent.

Even assuming that Virginia Lim has no authority to sell the subject properties, the contract she executed in favor of respondent is not void, but simply unenforceable, under the second paragraph of Article 1317 of the Civil Code which reads:

Art. 1317. x x x

A contract entered into in the name of another by one who has no authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers, shall be unenforceable, unless it is ratified, expressly or impliedly, by the person on whose behalf it has been executed, before it is revoked by the other contracting party.

Ignacio Rubio merely denies the contract of sale. He claims, without substantiation, that what he received was a loan, not the down payment for the sale of the subject properties. His acceptance and encashment of the check, however, constitute ratification of the contract of sale and "produce the effects of an express power of agency."20 "[H]is action necessarily implies that he waived his right of action to avoid the contract, and, consequently, it also implies the tacit, if not express, confirmation of the said sale effected" by Virginia Lim in favor of respondent.

Similarly, the Baloloys have ratified the contract of sale when they accepted and enjoyed its benefits. "The doctrine of estoppel applicable to petitioners here is not only that which prohibits a party from assuming inconsistent positions, based on the principle of election, but that which precludes him from repudiating an obligation voluntarily assumed after having accepted benefits therefrom. To countenance such repudiation would be contrary to equity, and would put a premium on fraud or misrepresentation."21

Indeed, Virginia Lim and respondent have entered into a contract of sale. Not only has the title to the subject properties passed to the latter upon delivery of the thing sold, but there is also no stipulation in the contract that states the ownership is to be reserved in or "retained by the vendor until full payment of the price."22

24

Applying Article 1544 of the Civil Code, a second buyer of the property who may have had actual or constructive knowledge of such defect in the sellers title, or at least was charged with the obligation to discover such defect, cannot be a registrant in good faith. Such second buyer cannot defeat the first buyers title. In case a title is issued to the second buyer, the first buyer may seek reconveyance of the property subject of the sale.23 Even the argument that a purchaser need not inquire beyond what appears in a Torrens title does not hold water. A perusal of the certificates of title alone will reveal that the subject properties are registered in common, not in the individual names of the heirs.

Nothing in the contract "prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from becoming effective"24 or gives "the vendor the right to unilaterally resolve the contract the moment the buyer fails to pay within a fixed period."25Petitioners themselves have failed to deliver their individual certificates of title, for which reason it is obvious that respondent cannot be expected to pay the stipulated taxes, fees, and expenses.

"[A]ll the elements of a valid contract of sale under Article 1458 of the Civil Code are present, such as: (1) consent or meeting of the minds; (2) determinate subject matter; and (3) price certain in money or its equivalent."26 Ignacio Rubio, the Baloloys, and their co-heirs sold their hereditary shares for a price certain to which respondent agreed to buy and pay for the subject properties. "The offer and the acceptance are concurrent, since the minds of the contracting parties meet in the terms of the agreement."27

In fact, earnest money has been given by respondent. "[I]t shall be considered as part of the price and as proof of the perfection of the contract.28 It constitutes an advance payment to "be deducted from the total price."29

Article 1477 of the same Code also states that "[t]he ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon actual or constructive delivery thereof."30 In the present case, there is actual delivery as manifested by acts simultaneous with and subsequent to the contract of sale when respondent not only took possession of the subject properties but also allowed their use as parking terminal for jeepneys and buses. Moreover, the execution itself of the contract of sale is constructive delivery.

Consequently, Ignacio Rubio could no longer sell the subject properties to Corazon Escueta, after having sold them to respondent. "[I]n a contract of sale, the vendor loses ownership over the property and cannot recover it until and unless the contract is resolved or rescinded x x x."31 The records do not show that Ignacio Rubio asked for a rescission of the contract. What he adduced was a belated revocation of the special power of attorney he executed in favor of Patricia Llamas. "In the sale of immovable property, even though it may have been stipulated that upon failure to pay the price at the time agreed upon the rescission of the contract shall of right take place, the vendee

25

may pay, even after the expiration of the period, as long as no demand for rescission of the contract has been made upon him either judicially or by a notarial act."32

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 48282, dated

October 26, 1998 and January 11, 1999, respectively, are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.

J. FIDUCIARY DUTIES OF AGENTS TO THIRD PARTIES

LAUREANO T. ANGELES, Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS (PNR) AND RODOLFO FLORES, 1Respondents. G.R. No. 150128 August 31, 2006

D E C I S I O N

GARCIA, J.:

Under consideration is this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing and seeking to set aside the following issuances of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 54062, to wit:

1. Decision 2 dated June 4, 2001, affirming an earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 79, which dismissed the complaint for specific performance and damages thereat commenced by the petitioner against the herein respondents; and

2. Resolution 3 dated September 17, 2001, denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

26

The facts:

On May 5, 1980, the respondent Philippine National Railways (PNR) informed a certain Gaudencio Romualdez (Romualdez, hereinafter) that it has accepted the latters offer to buy, on an "AS IS, WHERE IS" basis, the PNRs scrap/unserviceable rails located in Del Carmen and Lubao, Pampanga at P1,300.00 and P2,100.00 per metric ton, respectively, for the total amount of P96,600.00. After paying the stated purchase price, Romualdez addressed a letter to Atty. Cipriano Dizon, PNRs Acting Purchasing Agent. Bearing date May 26, 1980, the letter reads:

Dear Atty. Dizon:

This is to inform you as President of San Juanico Enterprises, that I have authorized the bearer, LIZETTE R. WIJANCO of No. 1606 Aragon St., Sta. Cruz, Manila, to be my lawful representative in the withdrawal of the scrap/unserviceable rails awarded to me.

For this reason, I have given her the original copy of the award, dated May 5, 1980 and O.R. No. 8706855 dated May 20, 1980 which will indicate my waiver of rights, interests and participation in favor of LIZETTE R. WIJANCO.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) Gaudencio Romualdez

The Lizette R. Wijanco mentioned in the letter was Lizette Wijanco- Angeles, petitioner's now deceased wife. That very same day May 26, 1980 Lizette requested the PNR to transfer the location of withdrawal for the reason that the scrap/unserviceable rails located in Del Carmen and Lubao, Pampanga were not ready for hauling. The PNR granted said request and allowed Lizette to withdraw scrap/unserviceable rails in Murcia, Capas and San Miguel, Tarlac instead. However, the PNR subsequently suspended the withdrawal in view of what it considered as documentary discrepancies coupled by reported pilferages of over P500,000.00 worth of PNR scrap properties in Tarlac.

Consequently, the spouses Angeles demanded the refund of the amount of P96,000.00. The PNR, however, refused to pay, alleging that as per delivery receipt duly signed by Lizette, 54.658 metric tons of unserviceable rails had already been withdrawn which, at P2,100.00 per metric ton, were worth P114,781.80, an amount that exceeds the claim for refund.

On August 10, 1988, the spouses Angeles filed suit against the PNR and its corporate secretary, Rodolfo Flores, among others, for specific performance and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. In it, they prayed that PNR be directed to

27

deliver 46 metric tons of scrap/unserviceable rails and to pay them damages and attorney's fees.

Issues having been joined following the filing by PNR, et al., of their answer, trial ensued. Meanwhile, Lizette W. Angeles passed away and was substituted by her heirs, among whom is her husband, herein petitioner Laureno T. Angeles.

On April 16, 1996, the trial court, on the postulate that the spouses Angeles are not the real parties-in-interest, rendered judgment dismissing their complaint for lack of cause of action. As held by the court, Lizette was merely a representative of Romualdez in the withdrawal of scrap or unserviceable rails awarded to him and not an assignee to the latter's rights with respect to the award.

Aggrieved, the petitioner interposed an appeal with the CA, which, as stated at the threshold hereof, in its decision of June 4, 2001, dismissed the appeal and affirmed that of the trial court. The affirmatory decision was reiterated by the CA in its resolution of September 17, 2001, denying the petitioners motion for reconsideration.

Hence, the petitioners present recourse on the submission that the CA erred in affirming the trial court's holding that petitioner and his spouse, as plaintiffs a quo, had no cause of action as they were not the real parties-in-interest in this case.

We DENY the petition.

At the crux of the issue is the matter of how the aforequoted May 26, 1980 letter of Romualdez to Atty. Dizon of the PNR should be taken: was it meant to designate, or has it the effect of designating, Lizette W. Angeles as a mere agent or as an assignee of his (Romualdez's) interest in the scrap rails awarded to San Juanico Enterprises? The CAs conclusion, affirmatory of that of the trial court, is that Lizette was not an assignee, but merely an agent whose authority was limited to the withdrawal of the scrap rails, hence, without personality to sue.

Where agency exists, the third party's (in this case, PNR's) liability on a contract is to the principal and not to the agent and the relationship of the third party to the principal is the same as that in a contract in which there is no agent. Normally, the agent has neither rights nor liabilities as against the third party. He cannot thus sue or be sued on the contract. Since a contract may be violated only by the parties thereto as against each other, the real party-in-interest, either as plaintiff or defendant in an action upon that contract must, generally, be a contracting party.

The legal situation is, however, different where an agent is constituted as an assignee. In such a case, the agent may, in his own behalf, sue on a contract made for his principal, as an assignee of such contract. The rule

28

requiring every action to be prosecuted in the name of the real party-in-interest recognizes the assignment of rights of action and also recognizes

that when one has a right assigned to him, he is then the real party-in-interest and may maintain an action upon such claim or right. 4

Upon scrutiny of the subject Romualdez's letter to Atty. Cipriano Dizon dated May 26, 1980, it is at once apparent that Lizette was to act just as a "representative" of Romualdez in the "withdrawal of rails," and not an assignee. For perspective, we reproduce the contents of said letter:

This is to inform you as President of San Juanico Enterprises, that I have authorized the bearer, LIZETTE R. WIJANCO x x x to be my lawful representative in the withdrawal of the scrap/unserviceable rails awarded to me.

For this reason, I have given her the original copy of the award, dated May 5, 1980 and O.R. No. 8706855 dated May 20, 1980 which will indicate my waiver of rights, interests and participation in favor of LIZETTE R. WIJANCO. (Emphasis added)

If Lizette was without legal standing to sue and appear in this case, there is more reason to hold that her petitioner husband, either as her conjugal partner or her heir, is also without such standing.

Petitioner makes much of the fact that the terms "agent" or "attorney-in-fact" were not used in the Romualdez letter aforestated. It bears to stress, however, that the words "principal" and "agent," are not the only terms used to designate the parties in an agency relation. The agent may also be called an attorney, proxy, delegate or, as here, representative.

It cannot be over emphasized that Romualdez's use of the active verb "authorized," instead of "assigned," indicated an intent on his part to keep and retain his interest in the subject matter. Stated a bit differently, he intended to limit Lizettes role in the scrap transaction to being the representative of his interest therein.

Petitioner submits that the second paragraph of the Romualdez letter, stating - "I have given [Lizette] the original copy of the award x x x which will indicate my waiver of rights, interests and participation in favor of Lizette R. Wijanco" - clarifies that Lizette was intended to be an assignee, and not a mere agent.

We are not persuaded. As it were, the petitioner conveniently omitted an important phrase preceding the paragraph which would have put the whole matter in context. The phrase is "For this reason," and the antecedent thereof is his (Romualdez) having appointed Lizette as his representative in the matter of the withdrawal of the scrap items. In fine, the key phrase clearly conveys the idea that Lizette was given the

29

original copy of the contract award to enable her to withdraw the rails as Romualdezs authorized representative.

Article 1374 of the Civil Code provides that the various stipulations of a contract shall be read and interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly. In fine, the real intention of the parties is primarily to be determined from the language used and gathered from the whole instrument. When put into the context of the letter as a whole, it is abundantly clear that the rights which Romualdez waived or ceded in favor of Lizette were those in furtherance of the agency relation that he had established for the withdrawal of the rails.

At any rate, any doubt as to the intent of Romualdez generated by the way his letter was couched could be clarified by the acts of the main players themselves. Article 1371 of the Civil Code provides that to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered. In other words, in case of doubt, resort may be made to the situation, surroundings, and relations of the parties.

The fact of agency was, as the trial court aptly observed, 5 confirmed in subsequent letters from the Angeles spouses in which they themselves refer to Lizette as "authorized representative" of San Juanico Enterprises. Mention may also be made that the withdrawal receipt which Lizette had signed indicated that she was doing so in a representative capacity. One professing to act as agent for another is estopped to deny his agency both as against his asserted principal and third persons interested in the transaction which he engaged in.

Whether or not an agency has been created is a question to be determined by the fact that one represents and is acting for another. The appellate court, and before it, the trial court, had peremptorily determined that Lizette, with respect to the withdrawal of the scrap in question, was acting for Romualdez. And with the view we take of this case, there were substantial pieces of evidence adduced to support this determination. The desired reversal urged by the petitioner cannot, accordingly, be granted. For, factual findings of the trial court, adopted and confirmed by the CA, are, as a rule, final and conclusive and may not be disturbed on appeal. 6 So it must be here.

Petitioner maintains that the Romualdez letter in question was not in the form of a special power of attorney, implying that the latter had not intended to merely authorize his wife, Lizette, to perform an act for him (Romualdez). The contention is specious. In the absence of statute, no form or method of execution is required for a valid power of attorney; it may be in any form clearly showing on its face the agents authority. 7

A power of attorney is only but an instrument in writing by which a person, as principal, appoints another as his agent and confers upon him the authority to perform certain specified acts on behalf of the principal. The written authorization itself is the power of

30

attorney, and this is clearly indicated by the fact that it has also been called a "letter of attorney." Its primary purpose is not to define the authority of the agent as between himself and his principal but to evidence the authority of the agent to third parties with whom the agent deals. 8 The letter under consideration is sufficient to constitute a power of attorney. Except as may be required by statute, a power of attorney is valid although no notary public intervened in its execution. 9

A power of attorney must be strictly construed and pursued. The instrument will be held to grant only those powers which are specified therein, and the agent may neither go beyond nor deviate from the power of attorney. 10Contextually, all that Lizette was authorized to do was to withdraw the unserviceable/scrap railings. Allowing her authority to sue therefor, especially in her own name, would be to read something not intended, let alone written in the Romualdez letter.

Finally, the petitioner's claim that Lizette paid the amount of P96,000.00 to the PNR appears to be a mere afterthought; it ought to be dismissed outright under the estoppel principle. In earlier proceedings, petitioner himself admitted in his complaint that it was Romualdez who paid this amount.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed decision of the CA is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.

NICHOLAS Y. CERVANTES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC.,respondent. [G.R. No. 125138. March 2, 1999]

D E C I S I O N

PURISIMA, J.:

This Petition for Review on certiorari assails the 25 July 1995 decision of the Court of Appeals[1] in CA GR CV No. 41407, entitled Nicholas Y. Cervantes vs. Philippine Air Lines Inc., affirming in toto the judgment of the trial court dismissing petitioners complaint for damages.

On March 27, 1989, the private respondent, Philippines Air Lines, Inc. (PAL), issued to the herein petitioner, Nicholas Cervantes (Cervantes), a round trip plane ticket for Manila-Honolulu-Los Angeles-Honolulu-Manila, which ticket expressly provided an expiry of date of one year from issuance, i.e., until March 27, 1990. The issuance of the said plane ticket was in compliance with a Compromise Agreement entered into between the contending parties in two previous suits, docketed as Civil Case Nos. 3392 and 3451 before the Regional Trial Court in Surigao City.[2]

On March 23, 1990, four days before the expiry date of subject ticket, the petitioner used it. Upon his arrival in Los Angeles on the same day, he immediately booked his

31

Los Angeles-Manila return ticket with the PAL office, and it was confirmed for the April 2, 1990 flight.

Upon learning that the same PAL plane would make a stop-over in San Francisco, and considering that he would be there on April 2, 1990, petitioner made arrangements with PAL for him to board the flight in San Francisco instead of boarding in Los Angeles.

On April 2, 1990, when the petitioner checked in at the PAL counter in San Francisco, he was not allowed to board. The PAL personnel concerned marked the following notation on his ticket: TICKET NOT ACCEPTED DUE EXPIRATION OF VALIDITY.

Aggrieved, petitioner Cervantes filed a Complaint for Damages, for breach of contract of carriage docketed as Civil Case No. 3807 before Branch 32 of the Regional Trial Court of Surigao del Norte in Surigao City. But the said complaint was dismissed for lack of merit.[3]

On September 20, 1993, petitioner interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, which came out with a Decision, on July 25, 1995, upholding the dismissal of the case.

On May 22, 1996, petitioner came to this Court via the Petition for Review under consideration.

The issues raised for resolution are: (1) Whether or not the act of the PAL agents in confirming subject ticket extended the period of validity of petitioners ticket; (2) Whether or not the defense of lack of authority was correctly ruled upon; and (3) Whether or not the denial of the award for damages was proper.

To rule on the first issue, there is a need to quote the findings below. As a rule, conclusions and findings of fact arrived at by the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons.[4]

The facts of the case as found by the lower court[5] are, as follows:

The plane ticket itself (Exhibit A for plaintiff; Exhibit 1 for defendant) provides that it is not valid after March 27, 1990. (Exhibit 1-F). It is also stipulated in paragraph 8 of the Conditions of Contract (Exhibit 1, page 2) as follows:

"8. This ticket is good for carriage for one year from date of issue, except as otherwise provided in this ticket, in carriers tariffs, conditions of carriage, or related regulations. The fare for carriage hereunder is subject to change prior to commencement of carriage. Carrier may refuse transportation if the applicable fare has not been paid.[6]

The question on the validity of subject ticket can be resolved in light of the ruling in the case of Lufthansa vs. Court of Appeals[7]. In the said case, the Tolentinos were issued first class tickets on April 3, 1982, which will be valid until April 10,1983. On June 10, 1982, they changed their accommodations to economy class but the

32

replacement tickets still contained the same restriction. On May 7, 1983, Tolentino requested that subject tickets be extended, which request was refused by the petitioner on the ground that the said tickets had already expired. The non-extension of their tickets prompted the Tolentinos to bring a complaint for breach of contract of carriage against the petitioner. In ruling against the award of damages, the Court held that the ticket constitute the contract between the parties. It is axiomatic that when the terms are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, contracts are to be interpreted according to their literal meaning.

In his effort to evade this inevitable conclusion, petitioner theorized that the confirmation by the PALs agents in Los Angeles and San Francisco changed the compromise agreement between the parties.

As aptly ruled by the appellate court:

xxx on March 23, 1990, he was aware of the risk that his ticket could expire, as it did, before he returned to the Philippines. (pp. 320-321, Original Records)[8]

The question is: Did these two (2) employees, in effect , extend the validity or lifetime of the ticket in question? The answer is in the negative. Both had no authority to do so. Appellant knew this from the very start when he called up the Legal Department of appellee in the Philippines before he left for the United States of America. He had first hand knowledge that the ticket in question would expire on March 27,1990 and that to secure an extension, he would have to file a written request for extension at the PALs office in the Philippines (TSN, Testimony of Nicholas Cervantes, August 2, 1991, pp 20-23). Despite this knowledge, appellant persisted to use the ticket in question.[9]

From the aforestated facts, it can be gleaned that the petitioner was fully aware that there was a need to send a letter to the legal counsel of PAL for the extension of the period of validity of his ticket.

Since the PAL agents are not privy to the said Agreement and petitioner knew that a written request to the legal counsel of PAL was necessary, he cannot use what the PAL agents did to his advantage. The said agents, according to the Court of Appeals,[10] acted without authority when they confirmed the flights of the petitioner.

Under Article 1898[11] of the New Civil Code, the acts of an agent beyond the scope of his authority do not bind the principal, unless the latter ratifies the same expressly or impliedly. Furthermore, when the third person (herein petitioner) knows that the agent was acting beyond his power or authority, the principal cannot be held liable for the acts of the agent. If the said third person is aware of such limits of authority, he is to blame, and is not entitled to recover damages from the agent, unless the latter undertook to secure the principals ratification.[12]

Anent the second issue, petitioners stance that the defense of lack of authority on the part of the PAL employees was deemed waived under Rule 9, Section 2 of the

33

Revised Rules of Court, is unsustainable. Thereunder, failure of a party to put up defenses in their answer or in a motion to dismiss is a waiver thereof.

Petitioner stresses that the alleged lack of authority of the PAL employees was neither raised in the answer nor in the motion to dismiss. But records show that the question of whether there was authority on the part of the PAL employees was acted upon by the trial court when Nicholas Cervantes was presented as a witness and the depositions of the PAL employees, Georgina M. Reyes and Ruth Villanueva, were presented.

The admission by Cervantes that he was told by PALs legal counsel that he had to submit a letter requesting for an extension of the validity of subject tickets was tantamount to knowledge on his part that the PAL employees had no authority to extend the validity of subject tickets and only PALs legal counsel was authorized to do so.

However, notwithstanding PALs failure to raise the defense of lack of authority of the said PAL agents in its answer or in a motion to dismiss, the omission was cured since the said issue was litigated upon, as shown by the testimony of the petitioner in the course of trial. Rule 10, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Sec. 5. Amendment to conform or authorize presentation of evidence. - When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with express or implied consent of the parties, as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. xxx

Thus, when evidence is presented by one party, with the express or implied consent of the adverse party, as to issues not alleged in the pleadings, judgment may be rendered validly as regards the said issue, which shall be treated as if they have been raised in the pleadings. There is implied consent to the evidence thus presented when the adverse party fails to object thereto.[13]

Re: the third issue, an award of damages is improper because petitioner failed to show that PAL acted in bad faith in refusing to allow him to board its plane in San Francisco.

In awarding moral damages for breach of contract of carriage, the breach must be wanton and deliberately injurious or the one responsible acted fraudulently or with malice or bad faith.[14] Petitioner knew there was a strong possibility that he could not use the subject ticket, so much so that he bought a back-up ticket to ensure his departure. Should there be a finding of bad faith, we are of the opinion that it should be on the petitioner. What the employees of PAL did was one of simple negligence. No injury resulted on the part of petitioner because he had a back-up ticket should PAL refuse to accommodate him with the use of subject ticket.

34

Neither can the claim for exemplary damages be upheld. Such kind of damages is imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, and the existence of bad faith is established. The wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith, and an award of damages would be allowed only if the guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless or malevolent manner.[15] Here, there is no showing that PAL acted in such a manner. An award for attorneys fees is also improper.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 25, 1995 AFFIRMED in toto. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

MONICA CASON,Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FRANCISCO WALTERIO RICKARDS, ET AL.,Defendants-Appellees. G.R. No. L-2437 February 13, 1906

WILLARD, J.:

From the 1st day of November, 1895, until the 31st day of October, 1896, the defendant Rickards was the agent at Dagupan, in the Province of Pangasinan, of the other defendant, Smith, Bell & Co. While he was such agent he received from the plaintiff, as a deposit, the sum of 2,000 pesos. When he left the employ of the defendant company the 2,000 pesos were, by his orders, delivered to another agent of Smith, Bell & Co. in that province, and Smith, Bell & Co. received ad used the same. This money was not mingled with other money belonging either to Richards or to Smith, Bell & Co., and at the time of its delivery by Rickards to the other agent he notified Smith, Bell & Co. that it was not the money of Smith, Bell & Co., but was the money of the plaintiff. The judgment of the court below holding Smith, Bell & Co., responsible for this amount was clearly right. The question as to whether Rickards was authorized by Smith, Bell & Co. to receive deposits of this character for third persons is a matter of no consequence. The