Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Pat Final Case Assignment

    Uploaded by

    MariaHannahKristenRamirez
    Partnership Case

    Copyright:

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

    Pat Final Case Assignment

    Uploaded by

    MariaHannahKristenRamirez
    9 views2 pages
    Partnership Case

    Original Title

    PAT FINAL CASE ASSIGNMENT

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Partnership Case

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    9 views2 pages

    Pat Final Case Assignment

    Uploaded by

    MariaHannahKristenRamirez
    Partnership Case

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    12. Manila Memorial Park Cemetery Inc. v.

    Linsangan

    443 SCRA 377, 2004

    FACTS:

    ISSUE:

    1. Whether there is contract of agency between Baluyot and MMPCI.

    2. Whether the acts of Baluyot as an agent beyond the scope of her authority
    bind the MMPCI as the principal.

    RULING:

    1. Yes. There is a Contract of Agency between Baluyot and MMPCI.

    By the contract of agency, a person binds himself to render some service or


    to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or
    authority of the latter. Thus, the elements of agency are (i) consent, express or
    implied, of the parties to establish the relationship; (ii) the object is the execution
    of a juridical act in relation to a third person; (iii) the agent acts as a representative
    and not for himself; and (iv) the agent acts within the scope of his authority.

    In an attempt to prove that Baluyot was not its agent, MMPCI pointed out that
    under its Agency Manager Agreement; an agency manager such as Baluyot is
    considered an independent contractor and not an agent. However, in the same
    contract, Baluyot as agency manager was authorized to solicit and remit to MMPCI
    offers to purchase interment spaces belonging to and sold by the
    latter. Notwithstanding the claim of MMPCI that Baluyot was an independent
    contractor, the fact remains that she was authorized to solicit solely for and in
    behalf of MMPCI. As properly found both by the trial court and the Court of Appeals,
    Baluyot was an agent of MMPCI, having represented the interest of the latter, and
    having been allowed by MMPCI to represent it in her dealings with its
    clients/prospective buyers.

    Nevertheless, contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeals, MMPCI cannot be


    bound by the contract procured by Atty. Linsangan and solicited by Baluyot.
    Baluyot was authorized to solicit and remit to MMPCI offers to purchase interment
    spaces obtained on forms provided by MMPCI. The terms of the offer to purchase,
    therefore, are contained in such forms and, when signed by the buyer and an
    authorized officer of MMPCI, becomes binding on both parties.

    2. No, the acts of Baluyot as an agent beyond the scope of her authority does
    not bind the MMPCI as the principal.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

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

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy