2 Bordador v.

Luz
Facts:
Spouses Bordador are in the business of purchase and selling of jewelry
Brigida Luz was their regular customer
Several occasions in 1987, Narciso Deganos, the brother of Luz received several
pieces of gold and jewelry from Bordadors amounting to Php 382K, including 6
receipts for Luz
Deganos was supposed to sell for profit and remit proceeds to Bordador - he did not
1990 - Unpaid reached Php 725K
Petitioners filed in RTC Bulacan a civil case for money and damages
1994 - Deganos and Luz were charged with estafa
Petitioners claim Deganos acted as an agent for Luz, claiming Luz should be held
liable
Deganos claimed he was not acting as agent even if receipts indicated Luz as recipient
RTC found only Deganos liable
CA armed
Issues:
W.O.N. Deganos was an agent of Luz
No - Luz never authorized her brother to act for and in her behalf in any
transaction with petitioners
Assuming arguendo that he was an agent, he was never authorized to act
on her behalf with regard to the transactions subject of this case
Art. 1868 - 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
No showing Luz consented to his acts
Neither express nor an implied agency was proven to have existed
Bordadors found negligent in their transactions
W.O.N. Civil case can proceed despite case for estafa
Yes - Art. 33 of the Civil code - independent civil action
W.O.N. contract of agency is unenforceable under the statute of frauds
No - no such contract between Luz and Deganos, no evidence of memo or note
to be enforceable in court