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

G.R. No. 167552, April 23, 2007 Eurotech Industrial Technologies, Inc., Petitioner, vs. EDWIN CUIZON and ERWIN CUIZON, Respondents Facts

The Supreme Court ruled that Edwin Cuizon did not exceed his authority as the sales manager of Impact Systems when he signed the Deed of Assignment transferring receivables to Eurotech in payment for a sludge pump. The court found that Edwin was acting as an agent of Impact Systems to protect its business interests by ensuring delivery of the needed sludge pump. Signing the Deed of Assignment was within the broad authority implied by his position as sales manager. The court also noted that Edwin could not be held personally liable for any excess of authority since the law does not allow recovery from both the principal and agent in such cases. Therefore, the petition by Eurotech to hold Edwin personally liable was denied.

Uploaded by

Mila Movida
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
62 views2 pages

G.R. No. 167552, April 23, 2007 Eurotech Industrial Technologies, Inc., Petitioner, vs. EDWIN CUIZON and ERWIN CUIZON, Respondents Facts

The Supreme Court ruled that Edwin Cuizon did not exceed his authority as the sales manager of Impact Systems when he signed the Deed of Assignment transferring receivables to Eurotech in payment for a sludge pump. The court found that Edwin was acting as an agent of Impact Systems to protect its business interests by ensuring delivery of the needed sludge pump. Signing the Deed of Assignment was within the broad authority implied by his position as sales manager. The court also noted that Edwin could not be held personally liable for any excess of authority since the law does not allow recovery from both the principal and agent in such cases. Therefore, the petition by Eurotech to hold Edwin personally liable was denied.

Uploaded by

Mila Movida
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

G.R. No.

167552, April 23, 2007


EUROTECH INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Petitioner,
vs. EDWIN CUIZON and ERWIN CUIZON, Respondents

FACTS:

• Petitioner EUROTECH is in the business of importing industrial equipment for clients in the Philippines.
Respondent ERWIN Cuizon is the sole proprietor of IMPACT Systems, while his brother, co-respondent
EDWIN, is the company’s sales manager.

• The CA ordered the dropping of EDWIN as a defendant in the civil case. It is that order which
EUROTECH is assailing.

• IMPACT bought a sludge pump from EUROTECH valued at P250,000. When the unit arrived,
EUROTECH demanded the balance of the price before delivery.

• EDWIN executed a Deed of Assignment whereby it assigned P365,000 worth of receivables to


EUROTECH in payment of the balance. The sludge pump was subsequently delivered to IMPACT.

• However, afterwards, ERWIN still proceeded to collect debts covered by the said Deed.

• EUROTECH made several demands upon IMPACT for payment. The latter made only partial payments.

• When EUROTECH eventually sued in court, EDWIN was impleaded separately in the suit.

• EUROTECH argues that ERWIN’s subsequent act of collecting the debt repudiated EDWIN’s agency
insofar as signing the Deed of Assignment was concerned. Thus, because EDWIN did not sufficiently
notify EUROTECH of the extent of his powers as an agent, he should be made personally liable for the
obligations of his principal, pursuant to Art. 1897 of the Civil Code.

• EDWIN answers that he was a mere agent of Impact Systems, and that EUROTECH knew this, proof
being that he was sued in his capacity as sales manager.

ISSUES: Whether or not EDWIN exceed his authority when he signed the Deed of Assignment? – NO

RULING:

• It is said that the basis of agency is representation, that is, the agent acts for and on behalf of the
principal on matters within the scope of his authority and said acts have the same legal effect as if they
were personally executed by the principal.

• The actual or real absence of the principal is converted into his legal or juridical presence— qui facit
per alium facit per se.

• Elements: Consent, express or implied, Object is the execution of a juridical act in relation to a third
person, Agent acts as a representative, not for himself, Agent acts within the scope of his authority

• EDWIN does not fall under any of the exceptions of Art. 1897.
• EDWIN signed the Deed as sales manager. Jurisprudence says that the position of manager is unique
because it presupposes the grant of broad powers with which to conduct the business of the principal.

• The facts show that IMPACT desperately needed the sludge pump for its business because it spent a
significant amount of time negotiating the terms of the sale.

• Thus, EDWIN’s participation in the Deed of Assignment was required in order for him to protect the
business of his principal. Had he not acted in the way that he did, IMPACT’s business would have been
adversely affected and he would have violated his fiduciary relation.

• Also, in case of excess of authority, the law does not authorize a plaintiff to recover from both
principal and agent.

EDWIN was acting within his authority as agent.

Petition is DENIED.

You might also like