Bordador v. Luz

BORDADOR v.
LUZ (1997)
Topic: Contract of agency
PARTIES:
 Petitioners: Jose Bordador and Lydia Bordador
 Respondents: Brigida Luz, Ernesto Luz, Narciso Deganos
FACTS:
 Petitioners Bordador were engaged in the business of purchase and sale of jewelry and
respondent Brigida Luz was their regular customer.
 Respondent Narciso Deganos (Brigida’s brother) received several pieces of gold and jewelry
from petitioners amounting to P383K. These items and their prices were indicated in 17
receipts covering the same. 11 of the receipts stated that they were received for a cetain
Evelyn Aquino, a niece of Deganos and the 6 indicated that they were received for Bridiga.
 Deganos was supposed to sell the items at a profit and then remit and return the unsold
items to petitioners Bordador. Deganos remitted only the sum of P53K. He neither paid the
balance of the sales proceeds nor did he return any unsold item to the petitioners. The total
of his unpaid account to petitioners, including interest reached the sum of P725K.
 Petitioners filed a complaint in the barangay court against Deganos to recover the said
amount.
 In the barangay proceedsings, the parties entered into a compromise agreement where
Deganos obligated himself to pay petitioners, on installment basis, the balance of his
account plus interests. However, he failed to comply with his undertakings.
 Petitioners filed a civil case against Deganos and Brigida for Recovery of Sum of Money and
Damages. Four years later, Deganos and Luz were charged with estafa.
 During the trial of the civil case, petitioners claim that Deganos acted as the agent of Brigida
when he received the subject items of jewelry and because he failed to pay the same,
Brigida, as principal, and her spouse, are solidarily liable with him.
 Deganos admitted that he had an unpaid obligation to petitioners, but that the same was
only P382K and not P725K. He further asserted that it was he alone who was involved in the
transaction with petitioners; that he neither acted as agent for nor was he authorized to act
as an agent by Brigida notwithstanding the fact that the 6 of the receipts indicated that the
items were received by him for Brigida. He claimed that he never delivered the items to
Brigida.
 Brigida denied that she had anything to do with the transactions between petitioners and
Deganos. She claimed that she never authorized Deganos to receive any item of jewelry in
her behalf.
 The trial court found that only Deganos was liable to petitioners; that while Brigida did have
transactions with petitioners in the past, the items involved were already paid for; that it
was petitioner Lydia Bordador who indicated that the items were received by Deganos for
Aquino and Brigida. Deganos was ordered to pay petitioners the amount of P725K.
 Petitioners appealed to the CA which affirmed the decision. Petitioners maintain that
Deganos acted as the agent of his sister Brigida, and in support of this contention, quoted
several letters sent to them by Brigida wherein she acknowledged her obligation to
petitioners and requested for more time to fulfill the same.
 Petitioners insis that Deganos was the agent of Brigida as she clothed him with apparent
authority as her agent and held him out to the public as such, hence Brigida cannot be
permitted to deny said authority to innocent third parties who dealt with Deganos under
such belief.
ISSUES/HELD:
 W/N herein respondent spouses (Luz) are liable to petitioners for the latter’s claim for
money and damages in the sum of P725K, despite the fact that the evidence does not
show that they signed any of the subject receipts or authorized Deganos to receive the
items of jewelry on their behalf.
o NO.
o While the quoted statement in the findings of fact of the assailed CA decision
mentioned that Deganos ostensibly acted as an agent of Brigida, the actual
conclusion and ruling of the CA categorically stated that “Brigida never authorized
her brother to act for and in her behalf in any transaction with petitioners.”
o It is clear that even assuming that Deganos acted as an agent of Brigida, the latter
never authorized him to act on her behalf with regard to the transactions subject of
this case.
o The basis of agency is representation. Here, there is no showing that Brigida
consented to the acts of Deganos or authorized him to act on her behalf, much less
with respect to the particular transaction involved.
o It was grossly and inexcusably negligent of petitioners to entrust to Deganos, not
once or twice but at least 6 occasions as evidenced by the receipts, several pieces of
jewelry of substantial value without requiring a written authorization from his
alleged principal. A person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must
discover upon his peril the authority of the agent.
o The records show that neither an express nor implied agency was proven to have
existed between Deganos and Brigida. Petitioners were negligent in their
transactions with Deganos. They cannot seek relief from the effects of their
negligence by conjuring a supposed agency relation between the two respondents
where no evidence supports such claim.
o Lastly, the petitioners fault the trial court’s holding that whatever contract of agency
was established between Brigida and Deganos is unenforceable under the Statute of
Frauds as the aspect of this case is not covered thereby. They proceed on the
premise that the Statute of Frauds applies only to executory contracts and not to
executed or partially executed ones. From there, they move on to claim that the
contract involved in this case was an executed contract as the item had already been
delivered by petitioners to Brigida, hence, such delivery resulted in the execution of
the contract and removed the same from the coverage of the Statute of Frauds. This
claim is unmeritorious.
o Neither the trial court nor the appellate court categorically stated that there was
such a contractual relation between the two respondent. The trial court merely said
that if there was such an agency existing between them, the same is unenforceable
as the contract would fall under the Statute of Frauds which requires the
presentation of a note or memorandum thereof in order to be enforceable in court.
That was merely a preparatory statement principle of law. What was finally proven
as a matter of fact is that there WAS NO SUCH CONTRACT between Brigida and
Deganos, executed or partially executed, and no delivery of any of the items subject
of this case was ever made to the former.
JUDGMENT: Petition is DENIED. Challenged decisions are AFFIRMED.

Bordador v. Luz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bordador v. Luz

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bordador v. Luz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BORDADOR v.

JUDGMENT: Petition is DENIED. Challenged decisions are AFFIRMED.

You might also like