DISCUSSIONS based on Laws and Jurisprudence 19.

Defendant presents its claim based on Article 2179 of New Civil Code which provides: Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

20. As can be gleaned from the allegation of plaintiff specifically paragraphs 2 and 4, it only mentioned of a representative from defendant Culligan Company that led plaintiff to believe of such offer. Nowhere in the complaint indicated that such representative was indeed authorized upon commands from the Principal company. 21. An Agent as defined in our New Civil Code provides: 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. 22. Plaintiff merely relied on the representation, hence by virtue of Article 1897: 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

23. Plaintiff did not even bother to ask for identification card, the authority granted by the principal company, and much more did not doubt the receipt considering there was no control number and even the name of the company. 24. In Francisco vs Chemical Bulk Carriers Inc, Gr 193577: We note that Francisco, despite being blind, had been managing and operating the Caltex station for 15 years and this was not a hindrance for him to transact business until this time. In this instance, however, we rule that Francisco failed to exercise the standard of conduct expected of a reasonable person who is blind. First, Francisco merely relied on the identification card of Bacsa to determine if he was authorized by CBCI. Francisco did not do any other background check on the identity and authority of Bacsa. Second, Francisco already expressed his misgivings about the diesel fuel, fearing that they might be stolen property yet he did not verify with CBCI the authority of Bacsa to sell the diesel fuel. Third, Francisco relied on the receipts issued by Bacsa which were typewritten on a half sheet of plain bond paper. If Francisco exercised reasonable diligence, he should have asked for an official receipt issued by CBCI. . . 25. Plaintiff has not acted the required standard of conduct which is a good father of a family or by such prudent person would do as required by the nature and corresponding circumstances, insofar as what is involved here is purchasing of water bottles for the benefit not only of himself but also for his family.

26. In N.T. Deen v. Commercial Co., GR 17066, Feb 7, 1922, in Mechem on Agency, 2d ed., vol. 1, section 797, it is said:: It follows from the above rules that as a general rule every person who undertakes to deal with an alleged agent is, by the mere fact of the agency, put upon inquiry, and must discover at his peril that it is in its nature and extent sufficient to permit the agent to do the proposed act, and that its source can be traced to the will of the alleged principal . . . ". . . If such person makes no inquiry but chooses to rely on the agent's statements he is charged able with knowledge of the agent's authority, and his ignorance of its extent will be no excuse to him, and the fault cannot be thrown upon the principal who never authorized the act or contract. . ." 27. It is basic knowledge that a person dealing with an agent is put into inquiry whether the latter has power or authority. Failure of such would not create liability on part of the principal. 28. Moreover, in National Power Corporation v. National Merchandising Corporation and Domestic Insurance Company of the Philippines, Gr L-33819 and L-33897, Oct 23, 1982 it provides: agree with the trial court that Namerco is liable for damages because under article 1897 of the Civil Code the agent who exceeds the limits of his authority without giving the party with whom he contracts sufficient notice of his powers is personally liable to such party. . .
We

. . . The rule relied upon by the defendants-appellants that every person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent would apply in this case if the principal is sought to be held liable on the contract entered into by the agent. 29. Plaintiff wants the honourable court to believe that the claim is based on contractual obligation, however plaintiff fails to prove that the representative is indeed an authorized agent.