Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 views

    G.R. No. 186305. July 22, 2015 (Agency)

    Uploaded by

    Elson Talotalo
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Morning Star Travel in a case filed by V-Gent regarding the refund of unused plane tickets. V-Gent purchased tickets from Morning Star using passengers' money but filed the case itself rather than joining the passengers. The Court determined that V-Gent did not meet the requirements to sue as an agent without joining the principal, as it disclosed the passenger names and did not establish it acted for an undisclosed principal or that the transaction involved its own property. Additionally, filing a suit constitutes an act of strict dominion under the Civil Code that requires a special power of attorney, which V-Gent did not provide evidence of having from the passengers. Therefore, the Court concluded V-

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. 186305. July 22, 2015 (Agency)

    Uploaded by

    Elson Talotalo
    35 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Morning Star Travel in a case filed by V-Gent regarding the refund of unused plane tickets. V-Gent purchased tickets from Morning Star using passengers' money but filed the case itself rather than joining the passengers. The Court determined that V-Gent did not meet the requirements to sue as an agent without joining the principal, as it disclosed the passenger names and did not establish it acted for an undisclosed principal or that the transaction involved its own property. Additionally, filing a suit constitutes an act of strict dominion under the Civil Code that requires a special power of attorney, which V-Gent did not provide evidence of having from the passengers. Therefore, the Court concluded V-

    Original Title

    Legal Opinion_Agency

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Morning Star Travel in a case filed by V-Gent regarding the refund of unused plane tickets. V-Gent purchased tickets from Morning Star using passengers' money but filed the case itself rather than joining the passengers. The Court determined that V-Gent did not meet the requirements to sue as an agent without joining the principal, as it disclosed the passenger names and did not establish it acted for an undisclosed principal or that the transaction involved its own property. Additionally, filing a suit constitutes an act of strict dominion under the Civil Code that requires a special power of attorney, which V-Gent did not provide evidence of having from the passengers. Therefore, the Court concluded V-

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    35 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 186305. July 22, 2015 (Agency)

    Uploaded by

    Elson Talotalo
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Morning Star Travel in a case filed by V-Gent regarding the refund of unused plane tickets. V-Gent purchased tickets from Morning Star using passengers' money but filed the case itself rather than joining the passengers. The Court determined that V-Gent did not meet the requirements to sue as an agent without joining the principal, as it disclosed the passenger names and did not establish it acted for an undisclosed principal or that the transaction involved its own property. Additionally, filing a suit constitutes an act of strict dominion under the Civil Code that requires a special power of attorney, which V-Gent did not provide evidence of having from the passengers. Therefore, the Court concluded V-

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Talotalo, Elson V.

    Legal Opinion in the Case of V-GENT, INC., petitioner, vs. MORNING STAR
    TRAVEL and TOURS, INC., respondent.
    G.R. No. 186305. July 22, 2015
    (Agency)

    In the said case, petitioner V-Gent, Inc. purchase twenty six (26) two-way
    plane tickets (Manila-Europe-Manila) from the respondent Morning Star Travel and
    Tours, Inc. V-Gent returned a total of fifteen (15) unused tickets. Morning Star
    however refunded only six (6) tickets and refused to refund the remaining nine (9)
    unused tickets despite repeated demands. Petitioner filed a money claim against the
    respondent. Morning Star (respondent) opposes that V-Gent was not eligible to a
    refund because the tickets were bought on a buy one take one promo. Respondent
    also questioned V-Gent's personality to file the suit. It asserted that the passengers,
    in whose names the tickets were issued, are the real parties-in-interest.

    In the decision of the Supreme Court, it favored the argument of the


    respondent and enunciated that the requisites that must concur for an agent to sue
    or to be sued in its own name without joining the principal are as follows: (1) the
    agent acted in his own name during the transaction; (2) the agent acted for the
    benefit of an undisclosed principal; and (3) the transaction did not involve the
    property of the principal. When these elements are present, the agent becomes
    bound as if the transaction were its own. One of the requisite is present but petitioner
    failed to show the existence of the second and third requisites for it discloses the
    names of the passengers and the ticket was paid using the passenger’s money.

    V-Gent, Inc. doesn’t have the legal standing to file a suit or complaint. Since
    the power to collect and receive payments on behalf of the principal is an ordinary
    act of an administration covered by the general powers of an agent. Contrastingly,
    the filing of suits is an act of strict dominion. As provided, the following are acts of
    strict dominion. Article 1878 of the New Civil Code requires a special powers of
    attorney granted by the principal to the agent if the latter is:
    (1) To make such payments as are not usually considered as acts of administration;
    (2) To effect novation’s which put an end to obligations already in existence at the
    time the agency was constituted;
    (3) To compromise, to submit questions to arbitration, to renounce the right to appeal
    from a judgment, to waive objections to the venue of an action or to abandon a
    prescription already acquired;
    (4) To waive any obligation gratuitously;
    (5) To enter into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted
    or acquired either gratuitously or for a valuable consideration;
    (6) To make gifts, except customary ones for charity or those made to employees in
    the business managed by the agent;
    (7) To loan or borrow money, unless the latter act be urgent and indispensable for
    the preservation of the things which are under administration;
    (8) To lease any real property to another person for more than one year;
    (9) To bind the principal to render some service without compensation;
    (10) To bind the principal in a contract of partnership;
    (11) To obligate the principal as a guarantor or surety;
    (12) To create or convey real rights over immovable property;
    (13) To accept or repudiate an inheritance;
    (14) To ratify or recognize obligations contracted before the agency;
    (15) Any other act of strict dominion.

    With this regard, V-Gent, Inc. failed to establish evidence/s that they are
    granted such Special Power of Attorney (SPA) on behalf of the said passenger to file
    a suit. If they were able to manifest such Special Power of Attorney, the Court may
    not question their capacity to file a petition and may help them to win the case.

    You might also like