Bordador v. Luz G.R. No. 130148 December 15, 1997 petitioners Jose and Lydia ordador
respondents summary
J. Regalado
!"s. rigida and #rnes$o L%&, Narciso Deganos '(e ordadors, )(o )ere r%nning a *e)elry b%siness, en$r%s$ed "ieces o+ *e)elry $o Degnos, )(o )as obliged $o sell $(em. Deganos +ailed $o acco%n$ +or $(em. ci-il and criminal case )ere iled agains$ (im, )(ic( "rayed "rayed $(a$ rigida L%&, )(o )as "%"or$ed $o be (is "rinci"al, be (eld solidarily liable. '(e /o%r$ r%led $(a$ Deganos )as no$ $(e agen$ o+ L%&, as $(ere )as no e-idence $(a$ L%& consen$ed $o, or a%$(ori&ed Deganos $o ac$ on (er be(al+.
facts of the case The Bordador's were in the business of purchase and sale of jewelry, and Brigida Luz was their regular customer. Deganos, the brother of Luz, received pieces of jewelry worth !"#,"$%.&&, covered by seventeen receipts, eleven of them indicating that they were received on behalf a certain velyn ()uino, and si* indicated that they were receive don behalf of Luz. Deganos was supposed to sell the items, remit the proceeds, and return the t he unsold ones to the Bordadors. +owever, he was only able to remit !,#&-.&&, failing to pay the balance of the sales proceeds and returning any unsold items. The Bordadors filed a complaint before the barangay court, where Deganos along with the ps. Luz signed a compromise agreement promising to pay the unpaid account of -%,/%!.0". Deganos, however, failed failed to comply. ( civil case for the recovery of sum of money was instituted against Deganos and Brigida Luz in the 1alolos 2T3. +er husband rnesto was impleaded as well. 4our years later in $00/, a criminal case for estafa was filed, which was still pending when this decision was promulgated. etitioners claimed that Deganos was acting as the agent of Brigida Luz and because he failed to pay for the pieces of jewelry, the ps. ps. Luz, as principals, principals, are solidarily solidarily liable. The respondents countered countered that only Deganos was liable, liable, that Brigida never authorized him to receive jewelry on her behalf, neither did she receive the articles in )uestion. The 2T3 ruled that there was no agency between Brigida Luz and Deganos. 5t was Bordador who indicated that the items were received on behalf of Luz. ven if there was a contract of agency, there was no memorandum to this effect and was therefore unenforceable. unenforceable. 3( affirmed the judgment.
issue 6as there a contract of agency between Luz and Deganos7
NO.
ratio etitioners presented as evidence several letters sent by Luz to the Bordadors to prove that she recognized her liability but the court had pointed out that such letters were for previous obligations and did not include the jewelries involved in the present case. (s for the statement of Brigida Luz that she received pieces of gold jewelry, there was no proof that the said jewelry were the same items in )uestion. )uestion. 6hile it was shown in the findings of fact that Deganos had ostensibly acted as an agent of Luz, there was no showing that Luz authorized him to act on her behalf regarding the transaction )uestioned in this case. The basis for agency is representation, and there is no showing that Luz consented or authorized Deganos to act on her behalf. 5t was ine*cusably negligent of the Bordados to entrust Deganos with several pieces of jewelry without re)uiring a written authorization from the supposed principal. ( person dealing with an agent is put upon in)uiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent. There was no e*press or implied agency between Deganos and Luz. etitioners also assail the validity of the 3('s ruling, as it will be in conflict with the criminal case of estafa. This will not be the case as (rticle !! of the 3ivil 3ode provides that action for damages arising from fraud may proceed independently of the criminal case and will need only a preponderance of evidence. 1