Ramos vs. Caoibes, 94 Phil.

440
FACTS: Concepcion Ramos appointed Caoibes through a power of attorney to collect an amount due him from the
Philippine War Damage Commission. Half of that amount will then be given to the sister of Concepcion and half to her
niece and nephew as evidenced by an affidavit. Days after Concepcion died, a Check was issued to Caoibes when he
presented the power of attorney and affidavit and later on encashed it for himself. The administratrix discovered the
collection made by Caoibes. The administratrix filed to the court asking Caoibes to deposit the money to the clerk of court.
Caoibes contended that he will deliver half of the amount to the clerk of court and then said that he had the right to retain
half of the money by virtue of the power of attorney and the Affidavit.
ISSUE: Whether Caoibes is correct with her contention that he had the right to retain the money by virtue of the power of
attorney?
RULING: No. Caoibes as an agent had the obligation to deliver the amount collected by virtue of the power of attorney to
his principla, Concepcion or the administratrix since she died. No where in the in power of attorney did it state that the was
a cession of rights made in favour of Caoibes. And the prevailing provision during the time of the transaction stated that a
contract of agency is deemed gratuitous unless the agent is a professional agent and there was no showing that Caoibes was
such. Lastly, an agency is terminated by death of the principal or of the agent. When Caoibes made use of the power of
attorney, the principal was already dead.
Additional: Verbal donation requires the simultaneous delivery of the gift. In the absence of this requisite the donation shall
produce no effect, unless made in writing and accepted in the same form. The alleged donation was made in writing but it has not
been accepted in the same form, and consequently, has no validity.

EUGENIO VS COURT OF APPEALS 239 SCRA 207

FACTS: Nora Eugenio was a dealer of Pepsi Cola. Her husband used to be a route manager of Pepsi Cola. Pepsi Cola filed
a complaint for a sum of money against the Eugenio couple alleging that on several occasions, the couple purchased and
received on credit various products from two of Pepsi Colas plants and they had an outstanding balance on each plant and
that the couple failed to pay despite oral and written demands. In their defense, the couple presented receipts issued to and
received by them from Pepsi Colas route manager, Estrada. The court rendered decision in favour of Pepsi Cola asking the
couple to pay the company.
ISSUE:
RULING: Pepsi Cola failed to prove that Estrada, who is its duly authorized agent with respect to petitioners, did not
receive those amounts from the latter. As correctly explained by petitioners, in so far as the private respondents customers
are concerned, for as long as they pay their obligations to the sales representative of the private respondent using the latters
official receipt, said payment extinguishes their obligations. [Eugenio vs. Court of Appeals, 239 SCRA 207(1994)]
Payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the obligation has been constituted, or his successor-in-interest or any
person authorized to receive it.39 As far as third persons are concerned, an act is deemed to have been performed within the
scope of the agents authority, if such is within the terms of the power of attorney, as written, even if the agent has in fact
exceeded the limits of his authority according to an understanding between the principal and his agent.40 In fact, Atty.
Rosario, private respondents own witness, admitted that it is the responsibility of the collector to turn over the collection.
[Eugenio vs. Court of Appeals, 239 SCRA 207(1994)]

GREEN VALLEY POULTY VS IAC

FACTS: Squibb Corporation appointed Green Valley as a non exclusive distributor of Squibbs products. In their
agreement, it was stipulated that Green Valley will be entitled to a discount, Green Valley will be advised whenever prices
will be changed, that Green Valley is only allowed to distribute only for North and Central Luzon including areas in
Cagayan Valley. Also it is prohibited to transfer stocks to any other parts of the country. Green Valley is to pay their
purchases within sixty days.
Squib then filed a complaint against Green Valley for failure to pay goods delivered to them. The court rendered judgment
in favour of Squibbs however Green Valley contended that their contract with Squibb was a mere agency to sell and Green
Valley never purchased goods from Squibb. Furthermore, the goods received were on consignment only with the obligation
to turn over the proceeds, less commission and to return the goods if not sold. Lastly, Green Valley contended that the
action was premature since it sold the goods but had not been able to collect from the purchasers thereof.
ISSUE: Whether the contract entered into between Squibbs and Green Valley was a contract to sell and not agency to sell?
RULING: It was a contract to sell. Whether viewed as an agency to sell or as a contract of sale, the liability of Green Valley
is indubitable. Even if the courts would adopt Green Valleys theory that it was an agency to sell, Green Valley can still be
held liable because it sold on credit without authority from its principal.
Art. 1905. The commission agent cannot, without the express or implied consent of the principal, sell on credit. Should he
do so, the principal may demand from him payment in cash, but the commission agent shall be entitled to any interest or
benefit, which may result from such sale. [Green Valley Poultry & Allied Products, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,
133 SCRA 697(1984)]
NOTE: If the commission agent without the express or implied consent of the principal, sells on credit the principal has two
options: (1) require from the agent, payment in cash, in which case the latter is entitled to any interest or benefit resulting
from the sale on credit; or (2) ratify the sale on credit, in which case, all the benefits will belong to the principal as well as
the risk of collection. [Green Valley Poultry & Allied Products, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 133 SCRA
697(1984)]