G.R. No. 6530, Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas v. Diaba, 20 Phil. 32 CASE DIGEST: Facts:
The defendant, defendant, in his special answer, admitted admitted that he had purchased from the agent of the plainti (Gutierrez) goods, wares, and merchandise amounting to the sum of P692, and that he had sold to the agent of o f the plainti (Gutierrez) (Gutierrez) abaca and other eects amounting to P,!"#$#", lea%ing a balance due him (the defendant) of P66$#"$ The &ourt of 'irst 'irst nstance found that the plainti was was indebted to to the defendant in the sum of P66$#", and rendered a udgment against the plainti for said sum$ The agent of the plainti (Gutierrez) (Gutierrez) had been selling selling goods, wares, wares, and merchandise to the defendant, and bu*ing abaca and other agricultural products of the defendant for a period co%ering more than eight *ears+ that the particular transactions to which the present action related too place, the plainti attempted to show that it had suspended its agent (Gutierrez), (Gutierrez), as its agent, and that he (Gutierrez) (Gutierr ez) had no further authorit* to repr represent esent it (the plainti)$
Issue: -hether or not, the acts of Gutierrez as .gent will bind the /efendant as Principal$
Held: 0 0es$ es$ There is no con%incing proof proof in the record record that the orders gi%en b* the plainti to its agent (Gutierrez) (Gutierrez) had e%er been communicated to the defendant$ The defendant had a perfect right to belie%e, until otherwise informed, that the agent of the plainti, in
his purchase of abaca and other eects was still representing the plainti in said transactions$
FULL TEXT:
1epublic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT anila 34 5.4& ctober 6, 9 G$1$ 4o$ 67!"
LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, plainti8 appellant, %s$ DIABA, defendant8appellee$ Orense and Gonzales diez, for appellant. No appearance for appellee. JOHNSON, J.: n the 9th of ul*, 9"9, the plainti commenced an action against the defendant in the &ourt of 'irst nstance of the Pro%ince of :e*te, for the purpose of reco%ering the sum of P;;2, for goods sold and deli%ered b* the plainti, through its agent (Gutierrez) to the defendant, between the th of anuar*, 9"9, and the st of .pril, 9"9$ To this complaint the defendant, in his special answer, admitted that he had purchased from the agent of the plainti (Gutierrez) goods, wares, and merchandise, between the 2th of anuar*, 9"9, and the 7th of arch, 9"9, amounting to the sum of P692, and that he had sold to the agent of the plainti (Gutierrez) abaca and other
eects, between the 27th of anuar*, 9"9, and the 6th of 'ebruar*, 9"9, amounting to P,!"#$#", lea%ing a balance due him (the defendant) of P66$#"$ .fter hearing the e%idence, the ed that the abaca which was purchased of the defendant was purchased b* him a agent of the plainti and that said abaca was actuall* deli%ered to the plainti$ The plainti, it appears, was perfectl* willing to ratif* the acts of its agent in selling goods to the defendant, but seemed to be unwilling to ratif* said agent?s acts in purchasing goods from the defendant$
@nder all of the facts of record, we see no reason for modif*ing the udgment of the lower court+ the same is, therefore, hereb* aArmed with costs$ Torres, Mapa, Carson and Moreland, JJ., concur.
