[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
215 views2 pages

Soriamont Steamship Agencies Inc. (Puertos)

Soriamont Steamship Agencies Inc. vs Sprint Transport Services was a case regarding a lease agreement between Soriamont and Sprint for equipment. Sprint alleged that Soriamont failed to pay rental fees for chassis units after they were withdrawn by Ronas on behalf of Soriamont and PAPA TRUCKING SERVICES (PTS) and subsequently lost. The issue was whether PTS was an agent of Soriamont. The court held that based on the evidence, PTS was an agent of Soriamont as the lease agreement authorized Soriamont to appoint representatives to withdraw and return the leased units, which was PTS. Soriamont failed to prove that PTS acted beyond the

Uploaded by

Tim Puertos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
215 views2 pages

Soriamont Steamship Agencies Inc. (Puertos)

Soriamont Steamship Agencies Inc. vs Sprint Transport Services was a case regarding a lease agreement between Soriamont and Sprint for equipment. Sprint alleged that Soriamont failed to pay rental fees for chassis units after they were withdrawn by Ronas on behalf of Soriamont and PAPA TRUCKING SERVICES (PTS) and subsequently lost. The issue was whether PTS was an agent of Soriamont. The court held that based on the evidence, PTS was an agent of Soriamont as the lease agreement authorized Soriamont to appoint representatives to withdraw and return the leased units, which was PTS. Soriamont failed to prove that PTS acted beyond the

Uploaded by

Tim Puertos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Soriamont Steamship Agencies Inc.

vs Sprint Transport Services


G.R. 174610
July 14, 2009

Facts:

Sprint filed for a complaint for a sum of money against Soriamont and Ronas. Sprint alleges that
it entered into a lease agreement for Equipment with Soriamont. Sprint agreed to lease chassis
units for the transport of container vans. Thru authorization letters, Ronas (on behalf of
Soriamont and PAPA TRUCKING SERVICES [PTS]) were able to withdraw 2 chassis units from the
container yard of Sprint. Soriamont and Ronas failed to pay rental fees. Sprint was subsequently
informed that the equipment was lost. Despite demands, Soriamont and Ronas failed to pay
rental fees and failed to replace equipment.

Soriamont and Ronas alleges that it was PTS who withdrew the equipment. Soriamont and Ronas
filed a Third Party Complaint against [PTS], who failed to answer and thus was declared in default.

Issue: WON PTS is an agent of Soriamont

Held:

Yes, evidence shows that the preponderance of evidence supports the existence of an agency
relationship between Soriamont and PTS. The ELA explicitly authorized Soriamont to appoint a
representative who shall withdraw and return the leased chassis units (which is PTS).

Since the ELA was not shown to be terminated, its AUTOMATIC RENEWAL CLAUSE took effect
pursuant to their contract.
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. Sprint has successfully discharged this burden.
Alternatively, if PTS is found to be its agent, Soriamont argues that PTS is liable for the
loss of the subject equipment, since PTS acted beyond its authority as agent. Soriamont cites
Article 1897 of the Civil Code, which provides:
Art. 1897. The agent who acts as such is not personally liable to the party
with whom he contracts, unless he expressly binds himself or exceeds the limits
of his authority without giving such party sufficient notice of his powers.

The burden falls upon Soriamont to prove its affirmative allegation that PTS acted in any
manner in excess of its authority as agent, thus, resulting in the loss of the subject equipment.
To recall, the subject equipment was withdrawn and used by PTS with the authority of Soriamont.
And for PTS to be personally liable, as agent, it is vital that Soriamont be able to prove that PTS
damaged or lost the said equipment because it acted contrary to or in excess of the authority
granted to it by Soriamont. As the Court of Appeals and the RTC found, however, Soriamont did
not adduce any evidence at all to prove said allegation.

You might also like