Case Digest - Gozun v. Mercado - Agency

JESUS M. GOZUN, Petitioner, vs. JOSE TEOFILO T.
MERCADO
a.k.a. DON PEPITO MERCADO, Respondent. ISSUE: won respondent is liable to petitioner.
FACTS: In the local elections of 1995, respondent vied for the HELD: Yes, but not for Lilian's cash advance.
gubernatorial post in Pampanga. Upon respondents request, petitioner,
owner of JMG Publishing House, a printing shop located in San By the contract of agency a person binds himself to render some
Fernando, Pampanga, submitted to respondent draft samples and service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another,
price quotation of campaign materials. with the consent or authority of the latter. Contracts entered into in the
name of another person by one who has been given no authority or
By petitioners claim, respondents wife had told him that respondent legal representation or who has acted beyond his powers are classified
already approved his price quotation and that he could start printing as unauthorized contracts and are declared unenforceable, unless they
the campaign materials, hence, he did print campaign materials. are ratified.
Given the urgency and limited time to do the job order, petitioner Generally, the agency may be oral, unless the law requires a specific
availed of the services and facilities of Metro Angeles Printing and of form. However, a special power of attorney is necessary for an agent
St. Joseph Printing Press, owned by his daughter Jennifer Gozun and to, as in this case, borrow money, unless it be urgent and
mother Epifania Macalino Gozun, respectively. indispensable for the preservation of the things which are under
administration. Since nothing in this case involves the preservation of
Petitioner delivered the campaign materials to respondents things under administration, a determination of whether Soriano had
headquarters. the special authority to borrow money on behalf of respondent is in
order.
Meanwhile, on March 31, 1995, respondents sisterinlaw, Lilian Soriano
(Lilian) obtained from petitioner cash advance of P253,000 allegedly While petitioner claims that Lilian was authorized by respondent, the
for the allowances of poll watchers who were attending a seminar and statement of account marked as Exhibit A states that the amount was
for other related expenses. received by Lilian in behalf of Mrs. Annie Mercado.
Petitioner later sent respondent a Statement of Account in the total Invoking Article 1873 of the Civil Code, petitioner submits that
amount of P2,177,906 itemized as follows: P640,310 for JMG respondent informed him that he had authorized Lilian to obtain the
Publishing House; P837,696 for Metro Angeles Printing; P446,900 for loan, hence, following Macke v. Camps which holds that one who
St. Joseph Printing Press; and P253,000, the cash advance obtained clothes another with apparent authority as his agent, and holds him out
by Lilian. to the public as such, respondent cannot be permitted to deny the
authority.
On August 11, 1995, respondents wife partially paid P1,000,000 to
petitioner who issued a receipt therefor. It bears noting that Lilian signed in the receipt in her name alone,
without indicating therein that she was acting for and in behalf of
Despite repeated demands and respondents promise to pay, respondent. She thus bound herself in her personal capacity and not
respondent failed to settle the balance of his account to petitioner. as an agent of respondent or anyone for that matter.
Respondent denied having transacted with petitioner or entering into ~oOo~

any contract for the printing of campaign materials. He alleged that the
various campaign materials delivered to him were represented as
donations from his family, friends and political supporters. He added
that all contracts involving his personal expenses were coursed
through and signed by him to ensure compliance with pertinent
election laws.
On petitioners claim that Lilian, on his (respondents) behalf, had

obtained from him a cash advance of P253,000, respondent denied
having given her authority to do so and having received the same. At
the witness stand, respondent, reiterating his allegations in his Answer,
claimed that petitioner was his overall coordinator in charge of the
conduct of seminars for volunteers and the monitoring of other matters
bearing on his candidacy; and that while his campaign manager,
Juanito Johnny Cabalu (Cabalu), who was authorized to approve
details with regard to printing materials, presented him some campaign
materials, those were partly donated.
When confronted with the official receipt issued to his wife

acknowledging her payment to JMG Publishing House of the amount
of P1,000,000, respondent claimed that it was his first time to see the
receipt, albeit he belatedly came to know from his wife and Cabalu that
the P1,000,000 represented compensation [to petitioner] who helped a
lot in the campaign as a gesture of goodwill.
Acknowledging that petitioner is engaged in the printing business,

respondent explained that he sometimes discussed with petitioner
strategies relating to his candidacy, he (petitioner) having actively
volunteered to help in his campaign; that his wife was not authorized to
enter into a contract with petitioner regarding campaign materials as
she knew her limitations; that he no longer questioned the P1,000,000
his wife gave petitioner as he thought that it was just proper to
compensate him for a job well done; and that he came to know about
petitioners claim against him only after receiving a copy of the
complaint, which surprised him because he knew fully well that the
campaign materials were donations.
Finally, respondent, disclaiming knowledge of the Comelec rule that if a

campaign material is donated, it must be so stated on its face,
acknowledged that nothing of that sort was written on all the materials
made by petitioner.

Case Digest - Gozun v. Mercado - Agency

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - Gozun v. Mercado - Agency

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - Gozun v. Mercado - Agency

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JESUS M. GOZUN, Petitioner, vs. JOSE TEOFILO T.

Respondent denied having transacted with petitioner or entering into ~oOo~

On petitioners claim that Lilian, on his (respondents) behalf, had

When confronted with the official receipt issued to his wife

Acknowledging that petitioner is engaged in the printing business,

Finally, respondent, disclaiming knowledge of the Comelec rule that if a

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.