Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    Siasat vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

    Uploaded by

    Jet jet Nueva
    The respondent convinced officials to purchase flags without bidding, earning a 30% commission. After the first delivery by United Flag Industry, petitioner Siasat revoked respondent's authority and paid her only 5% of the amount. Respondent claimed she was owed 30% of both deliveries. The trial court and IAC found in respondent's favor, ruling that a contract of agency existed between the parties since the agreement used general words without restrictions, making respondent a general agent with broad power over negotiations and contract execution.

    Copyright:

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

    Siasat vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

    Uploaded by

    Jet jet Nueva
    23 views1 page
    The respondent convinced officials to purchase flags without bidding, earning a 30% commission. After the first delivery by United Flag Industry, petitioner Siasat revoked respondent's authority and paid her only 5% of the amount. Respondent claimed she was owed 30% of both deliveries. The trial court and IAC found in respondent's favor, ruling that a contract of agency existed between the parties since the agreement used general words without restrictions, making respondent a general agent with broad power over negotiations and contract execution.

    Original Description:

    Agency Digest

    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 respondent convinced officials to purchase flags without bidding, earning a 30% commission. After the first delivery by United Flag Industry, petitioner Siasat revoked respondent's authority and paid her only 5% of the amount. Respondent claimed she was owed 30% of both deliveries. The trial court and IAC found in respondent's favor, ruling that a contract of agency existed between the parties since the agreement used general words without restrictions, making respondent a general agent with broad power over negotiations and contract execution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    23 views1 page

    Siasat vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

    Uploaded by

    Jet jet Nueva
    The respondent convinced officials to purchase flags without bidding, earning a 30% commission. After the first delivery by United Flag Industry, petitioner Siasat revoked respondent's authority and paid her only 5% of the amount. Respondent claimed she was owed 30% of both deliveries. The trial court and IAC found in respondent's favor, ruling that a contract of agency existed between the parties since the agreement used general words without restrictions, making respondent a general agent with broad power over negotiations and contract execution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Siasat vs.

    Intermediate Appellate Court


    GR No. L-67889
    October 10, 1985

    Facts:
    Respondent Teresita Nacianceno succeeded in convincing officials of the then Department of
    Education and Culture, to purchase without public bidding, one million pesos worth of national flags for
    the use of public schools throughout the country. For her service, she was entitled to a commission of
    thirty (30%) percent.
    The first delivery of flags was made by United Flag Industry. Thereafter, the respondent’s
    authority to represent the United Flag Industry was revoked by Petitioner Siasat. Allegedly, after Siasat
    received the payment for the first delivery, he tendered 5% of the amount to respondent, who protested,
    insisting on the 30% commission agreed upon. Later, respondent stated that she learned that petitioner
    received another payment for the second delivery, which was denied by the latter. Petitioner also claimed
    that Respondent had no participation with regard the second delivery and that the contract of agency had
    already been revoked.
    Respondent then filed a case to recover her commissions. The trial court decided in her favor. On
    appeal, the IAC affirmed the decision.

    Issue:
    WON a contract of agency exists between petitioners and respondent.

    Ruling:
    Yes. Respondent is indeed their agent.
    An agent may be (1) universal: (2) general, or (3) special. A universal; agent is one authorized to
    do all acts for his principal which can lawfully be delegated to an agent. So far as such a condition is
    possible, such an agent may be said to have universal authority.
    A general agent is one authorized to do all acts pertaining to a business of a certain kind or at a
    particular place, or all acts pertaining to a business of a particular class or series. He has usually authority
    either expressly conferred in general terms or in effect made general by the usages, customs or nature of
    the business which he is authorized to transact.
    One does not have to undertake a close scrutiny of the document embodying the agreement
    between the petitioners and the respondent to deduce that the 'latter was instituted as a general agent.
    Indeed, it can easily be seen by the way general words were employed in the agreement that no
    restrictions were intended as to the manner the agency was to be carried out or in the place where it was
    to be executed. The power granted to the respondent was so broad that it practically covers the
    negotiations leading to, and the execution of, a contract of sale of petitioners' merchandise with any entity
    or organization.

    You might also like