Yangco invited Rallos to do business through Collantes as Yangco's agent. Rallos sent 218 bundles of tobacco to Collantes, who sold it but did not remit the proceeds to Rallos. Yangco claimed no liability as he had terminated his relationship with Collantes without notifying Rallos. The Court ruled that as Yangco held Collantes out as his agent and invited Rallos to do business with him, Yangco had a duty to notify Rallos when ending the agency relationship. By failing to provide such notice, Yangco was liable for goods sent by Rallos to Collantes in good faith reliance on the agency. The Supreme Court affirmed the
Yangco invited Rallos to do business through Collantes as Yangco's agent. Rallos sent 218 bundles of tobacco to Collantes, who sold it but did not remit the proceeds to Rallos. Yangco claimed no liability as he had terminated his relationship with Collantes without notifying Rallos. The Court ruled that as Yangco held Collantes out as his agent and invited Rallos to do business with him, Yangco had a duty to notify Rallos when ending the agency relationship. By failing to provide such notice, Yangco was liable for goods sent by Rallos to Collantes in good faith reliance on the agency. The Supreme Court affirmed the
Yangco invited Rallos to do business through Collantes as Yangco's agent. Rallos sent 218 bundles of tobacco to Collantes, who sold it but did not remit the proceeds to Rallos. Yangco claimed no liability as he had terminated his relationship with Collantes without notifying Rallos. The Court ruled that as Yangco held Collantes out as his agent and invited Rallos to do business with him, Yangco had a duty to notify Rallos when ending the agency relationship. By failing to provide such notice, Yangco was liable for goods sent by Rallos to Collantes in good faith reliance on the agency. The Supreme Court affirmed the
Yangco invited Rallos to do business through Collantes as Yangco's agent. Rallos sent 218 bundles of tobacco to Collantes, who sold it but did not remit the proceeds to Rallos. Yangco claimed no liability as he had terminated his relationship with Collantes without notifying Rallos. The Court ruled that as Yangco held Collantes out as his agent and invited Rallos to do business with him, Yangco had a duty to notify Rallos when ending the agency relationship. By failing to provide such notice, Yangco was liable for goods sent by Rallos to Collantes in good faith reliance on the agency. The Supreme Court affirmed the
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
TERMINATION OF THE AGENCY; DUTY OF PRINCIPAL TO Accepting the invitation, Rallos proceeded to do a considerable
GIVE DUE NOTICE business withYangco through the said Collantes, as his factor, - The general rule is that, when the relationship of principal and sending to him as agent forYangco a good deal of produce to be sold agent is established, and the principal gives notice of the agency and on commission. holds out the agent as his authorized representative, upon the termination of the agency it is the duty of the principal to give due Rallos sent to the said Collantes, as agent for Yangco, 218 bundles and timely notice thereof, otherwise, he will be held liable to third of tobacco in the leaf to be sold on commission, as had been other parties acting in good faith and properly relying upon such agency. produce previously.
RALLOS VS. YANGO The said Collantes received said tobacco and sold it for the sum of P1,744.The charges for such sale were P206.96, leaving in the hands FLORENTINO RALLOS, ET AL., plaintiff-appellee, of said Collantes thesum of 1,537.08 belonging to Rallos. This sum vs. was, apparently, converted to hisown use by said agent. TEODORO R. YANGCO, defendant-appellant. It appears, however, that prior to the sending of said tobacco Yangco G.R. No. 6906 hadsevered his relations with Collantes and that the latter was no September 27, 1911 longer acting as hisfactor. This fact was not known to Rallos; and it Potente: MORELAND, J.: is conceded in the case that nonotice of any kind was given by Yangco of the termination of the relations betweenYangco and his agent, Collantes. NATURE OF CASE Yangco thus refused to pay the said sum upon demand of Rallos, This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of placingsuch refusal upon the ground that at the time the said tobacco the Province of Cebu was received andsold by Collantes, he was acting personally and not as agent of Yangco.
FACTS ISSUE/s of the CASE
Yangco sent Rallos a letter inviting the latter to be the consignor in Whether or not Yangco as principal is liable brought by the sale of buyingand selling leaf tobacco and other native products. Terms and the produce conditions were alsocontained in the letter. ACTION OF THE COURT
Court of First Instance of the Province of Cebu: in favor of the
plaintiffs, in the sum of P1,537.08, with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the month of July, 1909, with costs.
SC: Affirmed.
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE
Yes. Yangco, as principal is liable. Having advertised the fact that
Collanteswas his agent and having given special notice to Rallos of that fact, and having given them a special invitation to deal with such agent, it was the duty of Yangcoon the termination of the relationship of the principal and agent to give due andtimely notice thereof to Rallos. Failing to do so, he is responsible to them forwhatever goods may have been in good faith and without negligence sent to theagent without knowledge, actual or constructive, of the termination of such relationship.
SUPREME COURT RULING
For these reasons the judgment appealed from is confirmed,
Law School Survival Guide (Volume I of II) - Outlines and Case Summaries for Torts, Civil Procedure, Property, Contracts & Sales: Law School Survival Guides
