Here are select February 2012 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on civil law:
Agency; Accounting. Article 1891 of the Civil Code contains a few of the obligations owed by an agent to his principal – 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.
It is evident that the reason behind the failure of petitioner to render an accounting to respondent is immaterial. What is important is that the former fulfill her duty to render an account of the relevant transactions she entered into as respondent’s agent. Caridad Segarra Sazon vs. Letecia Vasquez-Menancio, G.R. No. 192085. February 22, 2012.
Agency; Fruits. Every agent is bound to deliver to the principal whatever the former may have received by virtue of the agency, even though that amount may not be owed to the principal. Caridad Segarra Sazon vs. Letecia Vasquez-Menancio, G.R. No. 192085. February 22, 2012.
Attorney’s fees; When payable. With respect to attorney’s fees, it is proper on the ground that petitioner’s act of denying respondent and its employees access to the leased premises has compelled respondent to litigate and incur expenses to protect its interest. Also, under the circumstances prevailing in the present case, attorney’s fees may be granted on grounds of justice and equity. Manila International Airport vs. Avia Filipinas International, Inc., G.R. No. 180168. February 27, 2012
Here are select October 2011 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on civil law:
Contracts; consequences of breach. Having breached the contract it entered with petitioner, respondent ABB is liable for damages pursuant to Articles 1167, 1170, and 2201 of the Civil Code. Accordingly, a repairman who fails to perform his obligation is liable to pay for the cost of the execution of the obligation plus damages. Though entitled, petitioner in this case is not claiming reimbursement for the repair allegedly done by Newton Contractor, but is instead asking for damages for the delay caused by respondent ABB.
As per Purchase Order Nos. 17136-37, petitioner is entitled to penalties in the amount of P987.25 per day from the time of delay, August 30, 1990, up to the time the Kiln Drive Motor was finally returned to petitioner. Records show that although the testing of Kiln Drive Motor was done on March 13, 1991, the said motor was actually delivered to petitioner as early as January 7, 1991. The installation and testing was done only on March 13, 1991 upon the request of petitioner because the Kiln was under repair at the time the motor was delivered; hence, the load testing had to be postponed.
Under Article 1226 of the Civil Code, the penalty clause takes the place of indemnity for damages and the payment of interests in case of non-compliance with the obligation, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary. In this case, since there is no stipulation to the contrary, the penalty in the amount of P987.25 per day of delay covers all other damages (i.e. production loss, labor cost, and rental of the crane) claimed by petitioner.
Here are selected January 2011 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on civil law:
Common carriers; standard of diligence. Under Article 1732 of the Civil Code, common carriers are persons, corporations, firms, or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passenger or goods, or both by land, water or air for compensation, offering their services to the public. A common carrier is distinguished from a private carrier wherein the carriage is generally undertaken by special agreement and it does not hold itself out to carry goods for the general public. The distinction is significant in the sense that the rights and obligations of the parties to a contract of private carriage are governed principally by their stipulations, not by the law on common carriers.
Loadmasters and Glodel, being both common carriers, are mandated from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, to observe the extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them according to all the circumstances of such case, as required by Article 1733 of the Civil Code. When the Court speaks of extraordinary diligence, it is that extreme measure of care and caution which persons of unusual prudence and circumspection observe for securing and preserving their own property or rights. This exacting standard imposed on common carriers in a contract of carriage of goods is intended to tilt the scales in favor of the shipper who is at the mercy of the common carrier once the goods have been lodged for shipment. Thus, in case of loss of the goods, the common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. This presumption of fault or negligence, however, may be rebutted by proof that the common carrier has observed extraordinary diligence over the goods.
Here are selected July 2010 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on civil law:
Agency; doctrine of apparent authority. The doctrine of apparent authority in respect of government contracts, has been restated to mean that the government is NOT bound by unauthorized acts of its agents, even though within the apparent scope of their authority. Under the law on agency, however, “apparent authority” is defined as the power to affect the legal relations of another person by transactions with third persons arising from the other’s manifestations to such third person such that the liability of the principal for the acts and contracts of his agent extends to those which are within the apparent scope of the authority conferred on him, although no actual authority to do such acts or to make such contracts has been conferred.
Apparent authority, or what is sometimes referred to as the “holding out” theory, or doctrine of ostensible agency, imposes liability, not as the result of the reality of a contractual relationship, but rather because of the actions of a principal or an employer in somehow misleading the public into believing that the relationship or the authority exists. The existence of apparent authority may be ascertained through (1) the general manner in which the corporation holds out an officer or agent as having the power to act or, in other words, the apparent authority to act in general, with which it clothes him; or (2) the acquiescence in his acts of a particular nature, with actual or constructive knowledge thereof, whether within or beyond the scope of his ordinary powers. It requires presentation of evidence of similar act(s) executed either in its favor or in favor of other parties.
Easily discernible from the foregoing is that apparent authority is determined only by the acts of the principal and not by the acts of the agent. The principal is, therefore, not responsible where the agent’s own conduct and statements have created the apparent authority.
In this case, not a single act of respondent, acting through its Board of Directors, was cited as having clothed its general manager with apparent authority to execute the contract with it. Sargasso Construction & Development Corporation / Pick & Shovel, Inc./Atlantic Erectors, Inc./ Joint Venture vs. Philippine Ports Authority, G.R. No. 170530, July 5, 2010.
Contracts; agency. It is true that a person dealing with an agent is not authorized, under any circumstances, to trust blindly the agent’s statements as to the extent of his powers. Such person must not act negligently but must use reasonable diligence and prudence to ascertain whether the agent acts within the scope of his authority. The settled rule is that persons dealing with an assumed agent are bound at their peril; and if they would hold the principal liable, they must ascertain not only the fact of agency, but also the nature and extent of authority, and in case either is controverted, the burden of proof is upon them to prove it. Soriamont Steamship Agencies, Inc., et al. vs. Sprint Transport Services, Inc. etc., G.R. No. 174610, July 14, 2009.
Contracts; compromise agreement. Compromise agreements are contracts, whereby the parties undertake reciprocal obligations to resolve their differences, thus, avoiding litigation, or put an end to one already commenced. As a contract, when the terms of the agreement are clear and explicit that they do not justify an attempt to read into it any alleged intention of the parties; the terms are to be understood literally, just as they appear on the face of the contract. Considering that Caruff never intended to transfer the subject property to PMO, burdened by the generating set and sump pumps, respondent should remove them from the subject property. Privatization Management Office vs. Legaspi Towers 300, Inc., G.R. No. 147957, July 22, 2009.