EUROTECH INDUSTRIAL HELD: No.

Edwin insists that he was a mere

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. VS CUIZON agent of Impact Systems which is owned by
Erwin and that his status as such is known
FACTS: Eurotech is engaged in the business
even to Eurotech as it is alleged in the
of importation and distribution of various
Complaint that he is being sued in his capacity
European industrial equipment. It has as one
as the sales manager of the said business
of its customers Impact Systems Sales which
venture. Likewise, Edwin points to the Deed
is a sole proprietorship ownedby Erwin
of Assignment which clearly states that he was
Cuizon. Eurotech sold to Impact Systems
acting as a representative of Impact Systems
various products allegedly amounting to P91,
in said transaction. Art. 1897. The agent who
338. 00. Cuizons sought to buy from
acts as such is not personally liable to the
Eurotech 1 unit of sludge pump valued at
party with whom he contracts, unless he
P250, 000. 00 with Cuizons making a down
expressly binds himself or exceeds the limits
payment of P50, 000. 00. When the sludge
of his authority without giving such party
pump arrived from the United Kingdom,
sufficient notice of his powers. In a contract
Eurotech refused to deliver the same to
of agency, a person binds himself to render
Cuizons without their having fully settled their
some service or to do something in
indebtedness to Eurotech. Thus, Edwin
representation or on behalf of another with
Cuizon and Alberto de Jesus, general manager
the latter’s consent. Its purpose is to extend
of Eurotech, executed a Deed of Assignment
the personality of the principal or the party
of receivables in favor of Eurotech Cuizons,
for whom another acts and from whom he or
despite the existence of the Deed of
she derives the authority to act. The basis of
Assignment, proceeded to collect from
agency is representation, that is, the agent acts
Toledo Power Company the amount of
for and on behalf of the principal on matters
P365,135.29. Eurotech made several demands
within the scope of his authority and said acts
upon Cuizons to pay their obligations. As a
have the same legal effect as if they were
result, Cuizons were able to make partial
personally executed by the principal elements
payments to Eurotech. Cuizons’ total
of the contract of agency: (1) consent, express
obligations stood at P295,000.00 excluding
or implied, of the parties to establish the
interests and attorney’s fees. Edwin Cuizon
relationship; (2) the object is the execution of
alleged that he is not a real party in interest in
a juridical act in relation to a third person; (3)
this case. According to him, he was acting as
the agent acts as a representative and not for
mere agent of his principal, which was the
himself; (4) the agent acts within the scope of
Impact Systems, in his transaction with
his authority. An agent, who acts as such, is
Eurotech and the latter was very much aware
not personally liable to the party with whom
of this fact.
he contracts. There are 2instances when an
ISSUE: WON Edwin exceeded his authority agent becomes personally liable to a third
when he signed the Deed of Assignment person. The first is when he expressly binds
thereby binding himself personally to pay the himself to the obligation and the second is
obligations to Eurotech when he exceeds his authority. In the last
instance, the agent can be held liable if he
does not give the third party sufficient notice
of his powers. Edwin does not fall within any
of the exceptions contained in Art. 1897. In
the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a
managing agent may enter into any contracts
that he deems reasonably necessary or
requisite for the protection of the interests of
his principal entrusted to his management.
Edwin Cuizon acted well-within his authority
when he signed the Deed of Assignment.
Eurotech refused to deliver the 1 unit of
sludge pump unless it received, in full, the
payment for Impact Systems’ indebtedness.
Impact Systems desperately needed the sludge
pump for its business sinc eafter it paid the
amount of P50,000.00 as down payment it still
persisted in negotiating with Eurotech which
culminated in the execution of the Deed of
Assignment of its receivables from Toledo
Power Company. The significant amount of
time spent on the negotiation for the sale of
the sludge pump underscores Impact Systems'
perseverance to get hold of the said
equipment. Edwin's participation in the Deed
of Assignment was reasonably necessary or
was required n order for him to protect the
business of his principal.
ORIENT AIR SERVICES &HOTEL
REPRESENTATIVES VS CA
FACTS: American Airlines, inc, an air carrier
offering passenger and air cargo
transportation in the Phils, and Orient Air
Services and Hotel Representatives entered
into a General Sales Agency Agreement
whereby the former authorized the latter to
act as its exclusive general sales agent within
the Phils for the sale of air passenger
transportation. Some of the pertinent
provisions are: Orient Air Services shall
perform these services: a. solicit and promote
passenger traffic for the services of American
and if necessary, employ staff competent and
sufficient to do so b. provide and maintain a
suitable area in its place of business to be used
exclusively for the transaction of the business
of American c. arrange for distribution of
Americans timetables, tariffs and promotional
material to sales agents and the general public
in the assigned territory d. service and
supervise sales agents in the assigned territory
including if required by American the control
of remittances and commissions retained e.
hold out a passenger reservation facility to
sales agents and general public in the assigned
territory Alleging that Orient Air had reneged
on its obligations under the Agreement by
failing to remit the net proceeds of sale in the
amount of US $ 254,400, American Air by
itself undertook the collection of the proceeds
of tickets sold originally by Orient Air and
terminated forthwith the Agreement
American Air instituted suit against Orient Air
for Accounting with Preliminary Attachment
or Garnishment, Mandatory Injunction and
Restraining Order averring the basis for the
termination of the Agreement as well as
Orient Airs previous record of failures to
promptly settle past outstanding refunds of
which there were available funds in the
possession of the Orient Air to the damage
and prejudice of American Air TC ruled in
favor of Orient Air to which the Intermediate
Appellate Court (now CA) affirmed TCs
decision with modifications with respect to
monetary awards granted.
ISSUE: W/N Orient Air is entitled to the 3%
overriding commission
RULING: Yes It is a well settled principle
that in the interpretation of a contract, the
entirety thereof must be taken into
consideration to ascertain the meaning of its
provisions. The various stipulations in the
contract must be read together to give effect
to all The Agreement, when interpreted in
accordance with the foregoing principles,
entitles Orient Air to the 3% overriding
commission based on total revenue or as
referred to by the parties, total flown
revenues. As the designated General Sales
Agent of American Air, Orient Air was
responsible for the promotion and marketing
of American Airs services for air passenger
transportation and the solicitation of sales
therefor. In return for such efforts and
services, Orient Air was to be paid
commissions of 2 kinds: first, a sales agency
commission, ranging from 7 to 8% of tariff
fares and charges from sales by Orient Air
when made on American Air ticket stock; and
second, an overriding commission of 3% of
tariff fares and charges for all sales of
passenger transportation over American Air
services. The second type of commissions
would accrue for sales of American Air
services made not on its ticket stocket but on
the ticket stock of other air carriers sold by
such carriers or other authorized ticketing
facilities or travel agents. In addition, it is clear
from the records that American Air was the
party responsible for the preparation of the
Agreement. Consequently, any ambiguity in
this contract of adhesion is to be taken contra
proferentem construed against the party who
cause the ambiguity and could have avoided it
by the exercise of a little more care.
Litonjua vs Eternit Corp.
Facts:
The Eternit Corporation (EC) manufactures
roofing materials and pipe products. Ninety
(90%) percent of the shares of stocks of EC
were owned by Eteroutremer S.A.
Corporation (ESAC), a corporation registered
under the laws of Belgium. Glanville was the
General Manager and President of EC, while
Delsaux was the Regional Director for Asia of
ESAC. In 1986, because of the political
situation in the Philippines the management
of ESAC wanted to stop its operations and to
dispose the land in Mandaluyong City. They
engaged the services of realtor/broker Lauro
G. Marquez. Marquez thereafter offered the
land to Eduardo B. Litonjua, Jr.
forP27,000,000.00. Litonjua counter offered
P20,000,000.00 cash. Marquez apprised
Glanville & Delsaux of the offer. Delsaux sent
a telex stating that, based on
the"Belgian/Swiss decision," the final offer
was "US$1,000,000.00 andP2,500,000.00. The
Litonjua brothers deposited US$1,000,000.00
with the Security Bank & Trust Company, and
drafted an Escrow Agreement to expedite the
sale .Meanwhile, with the assumption of
Corazon C. Aquino as President, the political
situation improved. Marquez received a letter
from Delsaux that the ESAC Regional Office
decided not to proceed with the sale. When
informed of this, the Litonjuas, filed a
complaint for specific performance and
payment for damages on account of the
aborted sale. Both the trial court and appellate
court rendered judgment in favor of
defendants and dismissed the complaint. The
lower court declared that since the authority
of the agents/realtors was notin writing, the
sale is void and not merely unenforceable
Issue:Whether or not Marquez, Glanville, and
Delsaux were authorized by respondent EC to
act as its agents relative to the sale of the
properties of respondent EC
Ruling:
NO. A corporation is a juridical person
separate and distinct from its members or
stockholders and is not affected by the
personal rights, obligations and transactions
of the latter. It may act only through its board
of directors or, when authorized either by its
by-laws or by its board resolution, through its
officers or agents in the normal course of
business. The general principles of agency
govern the relation between the corporation
and its officers or agents, subject to the
articles of incorporation, by-laws, or relevant
provisions of law.
While a corporation may appoint agents to
negotiate for the sale of its real properties, the
final say will have to be with the board of
directors through its officers and agents as
authorized by a board resolution or by its by-
laws. An unauthorized act of an officer of the
corporation is not binding on it unless the
latter ratifies the same expressly or impliedly
by its board of directors. Any sale of real
property of a corporation by a person
purporting to be an agent thereof but without
written authority from the corporation is null
and void. The declarations of the agent alone
are generally insufficient to establish the fact
or extent of his/her authority.
DOLES V ANGELES | 492 SCRA 607 |
June 26, 2006 |
Facts:
Petitioner executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale ceding a parcel of land in favor
of respondent to satisfy the alleged
indebtedness of the former in the amount of
P405,430.00. Since the said land was
mortgaged to the National Home Mortgage
Finance Corporation, they further agreed that
respondent assume the remaining balance of
the loan. Learning that the petitioner still has
arrearages, respondent demanded that the
arrearages be paid first. Petitioner did not
heed, thus a case was filed by the respondent.
In answer, the petitioner alleged that
sale was void for lack of consideration and
that she was not indebted to the respondent
as she only referred her friends to respondent
whom she knew to be engaged in the
business of lending money in exchange for
personal checks through her capitalist Arsenio
Pua. Further petitioner contended that since
the respondent is also an agent, she does not
have the capacity to sue her.
It is an admitted fact by both
petitioner and defendant, based on their
testimonies, that respondent knew that the
money will be used by the friends of the
petitioner; that the respondent was merely
representing Arsenio Pua; and that before the
supposed friends of the petitioner defaulted in
payment, each issued their personal checks in
the name of Arsenio Pua for the payment of
their debt.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner and
respondent were acting on their personal
capacity or as mere agents.
Ruling:
The question of whether an agency has been
created is ordinarily a question which may be
established in the same way as any other fact,
either by direct or circumstantial evidence.
Though that fact or extent of authority of the
agents may not, as a general rule, be
established from the declarations of the agents
alone, if one professes to act as agent for
another, she may be estopped to deny her
agency both as against the asserted principal
and the third persons interested in the
transaction in which he or she is engaged. In
this case, petitioner knew that the financier of
respondent is Pua and respondent knew that
the borrowers are friends of petitioner. It is
sufficient that petitioner disclosed to
respondent that the former was acting in
behalf of her principals, her friends whom she
referred to respondent. For an agency to arise,
it is not necessary that the principal personally
encounter the third person with whom the
agent interacts. The law in fact contemplates,
and to a great degree, impersonal dealings
where the principal need not personally know
or meet the third person with whom her agent
transacts: precisely, the purpose of agency is
to extend the personality of the principal
through the facility of the agent. If the
principals do not actually and personally know
each other, such ignorance does not affect
their juridical standing as agents.
AIR FRANCE VS. COURT OF
APPEALS, 126 SCRA 448 (1983)
Facts:
Sometime in, February 1970, the late
Jose Gana and Family purchased from
petitioner through Imperial Travels 9 “open
dated” passage tickets for the
Manila/Osaka/Tokyo/ Manila route. On,
April 1970, petitioner exchanged or
substituted the tickets with other tickets for
the same route. The aforesaid tickets were
valid until May 8, 1971.
Jose Gana sought for extension of the
validity of the tickets which were due to
expire on May 1971 to the Office Manager of
petitioner. The tickets were returned and was
informed that the extension is impossible.
The Ganas departed on May 7,
notwithstanding that the tickets will no longer
be valid on May 8, 1971.
On May 17, Japan Airlines refused to
honor their tickets because they had expired
and the Ganas had to purchase new tickets, at
their return trip to Manila petitioner likewise
refuse their tickets. They were only able to
return after repayment in Manila by their
relatives.
The Ganas commenced before the
court of Manila Civil case for damage arising
from breach of contract; petitioner alleged
that the Ganas brought upon themselves the
predicament and assume the consequential
risks and petitioner was not guilty of bad faith
or any fraudaulent act. On appeal Jose Ganas,
died The CA ruled in favor of the Ganas with
moral damages amounting to Php 90,000.
Hence this petition.
Issue: Whether or not, under the
environmental milieu the GANAS have made
out a case for breach of contract of carriage
entitling them to an award of damages.
Ruling: No, the CA erred in ruling. Pursuant
to tariff rules and regulations of the
International Air Transportation Association
(IATA),
"The passenger must undertake the
final portion of his journey by departing from
the last point at which he has made a
voluntary stop before the expiry of this limit
(parag. 3.1.2. ) ... That is the time allowed a
passenger to begin and to complete his trip
(parags. 3.2 and 3.3.). ... A ticket can no longer
be used for travel if its validity has expired
before the passenger completes his trip
(parag. 3.5.1.) ... To complete the trip, the
passenger must purchase a new ticket for the
remaining portion of the journey"
The conclusion is inevitable that the
GANAS brought upon themselves the
predicament they were in for having insisted
on using tickets that were due to expire in an
effort, perhaps, to beat the deadline and in the
thought that by commencing the trip the day
before the expiry date, they could complete
the trip even thereafter. It should be recalled
that AIR FRANCE was even unaware of the
validating SAS and JAL. stickers that Ella had
affixed spuriously. Consequently, Japan Air
Lines and AIR FRANCE merely acted within
their contractual rights when they dishonored
the tickets on the remaining segments of the
trip and when AIR FRANCE demanded
payment of the adjusted fare rates and travel
taxes for the Tokyo/Manila flight.
INLAND REALTY V. CA, G.R. No.
76969, June 9, 1997
FACTS: Petitioner Inland Realty Investment
Service, Inc. (Inland Realty) is a corporation
engaged in the real estate business and
brokerages. Respondent Gregorio Araneta
Inc. granted Inland Realty the authority to sell
on a first come first serve basis the total
holdings of Gregorio Araneta Inc. equivalent
to 98% or 9,800 shares of stock at P1, 500 per
share for 30 days.
Inland Realty finally sold the 9,800 shares of
stock in Architects’ Bldg., Inc. to Stanford
Microsystems, Inc. for P13.5M. Thereafter,
Inland Realty sent a demand letter to
Gregorio Araneta Inc., for the payment of
their 5% broker’s commission (P675,000),
which was declined by respondent, claiming
that after their authority to sell expired thirty
(30) days from December 2, 1975, petitioners
were no longer privy to the consummation of
the sale.
ISSUE: Whether or not Inland Realty is
entitled for the 5% broker’s commission.
RULING: NO. The Court ruled that since
Inland Realty was not the efficient procuring
cause in bringing about the sale on July 8,
1977, therefore it is not entitled to the 5%
broker’s commission. During the subsistence
of its authority to sell, Inland hand nothing to
show the they performed substantial acts that
proximately and causatively led to the
consummation of the sale to Stanford of
Araneta, Inc.’s 9,800 shares in Architect’s
Inland Realty failed in selling said shares
under the terms and conditions set out by
Araneta, Inc.; it did nothing but submit
Stanford’s name as prospective buyer.
The lapse of more than one year and five
months between the expiration of the
petitioner’s authority to sell and the
consummation of the sale to Stanford shows
the petitioner’s non-participation in the crucial
events leading to the consummation of said
sale, i.e., the negotiations to convince
Stanford to sell at Araneta, Inc.’s asking price,
the finalization of the terms and conditions of
the sale, the drafting of the deed of sale, the
processing of the pertinent documents and
the delivery of the shares of stock to Stanford.
MANOTOK BROTHERS, INC. v CA,
GR 94753, 7 Apr 1993
FACTS: The petitioner is the owner of a
parcel of land and building. The petitioner
authorized Salvador Saligumba within 180
days to negotiate with the City of Manila the
sale of the aforementioned property for
410,000.00, and that Saligumba would receive
a 5% commission in the event the sale is
finally consummated and paid. An Ordinance
was approved on 26 April 1968 and was
signed by the City Mayor appropriating
P410.816.00 to purchase the property 183
days after the authorization of Saligumba.
Notwithstanding the realization of the sale,
private respondent never received any
commission, which should have amounted to
P20,554.50. This was due to the refusal of
petitioner to pay private respondent said
amount as the former does not recognize the
latter's role as agent in the transaction.
ISSUE: Is Saligumba entitled to his
commission?
RULING: In an earlier case, this Court ruled
that when there is a close, proximate and
causal connection between the agent's efforts
and labor and the principal's sale of his
property, the agent is entitled to a
commission. We agree with respondent Court
that the City of Manila ultimately became the
purchaser of petitioner's property mainly
through the efforts of private respondent.
Without discounting the fact that when
Municipal Ordinance No. 6603 was signed by
the City Mayor on May 17, 1968, private
respondent's authority had already expired, it
is to be noted that the ordinance was
approved on April 26, 1968 when private
respondent's authorization was still in force.
Moreover, the approval by the City Mayor
came only three days after the expiration of
private respondent's authority. It is also worth
emphasizing that from the records, the only
party given a written authority by petitioner to
negotiate the sale from July 5, 1966 to May 14,
1968 was private respondent.
AMON TRADING CORP. VS. COURT
OF APPEALS, 477 SCRA 552 (2005)
Facts:
Respondent Tri-realty a developer and
contractor had difficulty purchasing cements
needed for its project, as represented by
Sanchez of Lines and Spaces, respondent was
able to purchase 6.050 bags of cement from
petitioner and 6,000 from Juliana marketing,
the former’s sister company.
Respondents, through Sanchez paid
through 2 Manager’s checks payable to Amon
Trading and Juliana marketing. Respondent
also paid to Lines & Spaces in consideration
of the facilitation of the orders and certainty
of delivery of the same to the private
respondent in consideration of the facilitation
of the orders and certainty of delivery of the
same to the private respondent.
During the period of 1992 a total of
5,200 bags from Amon and Juliana weren’t
delivered. Respondent sent petitioners written
demands but in reply, petitioners stated that
they have already refunded the amount of
undelivered bags of cement to Lines and
Spaces per written instructions of Eleanor
Sanchez. News reached that Sanchez had
already fled abroad.
Petitioners plead in defense lack of
right or cause of action, alleging that private
respondent had no privity of contract with
them as it was Lines & Spaces/Tri-Realty,
through Mrs. Sanchez, that ordered or
purchased several bags of cement and paid the
price thereof without informing them of any
special arrangement nor disclosing to them
that Lines & Spaces and respondent
corporation are distinct and separate entities.
Lines and Spaces in its defense raised that
Sanchez was only an intermediary.
RTC found Line & Spaces solely liable
and absolved petitioners. Private Respondent
Tri-Realty partially appealed from the trial
court’s decision absolving Amon Trading
Corporation and Juliana Marketing of any
liability to Tri-Realty.
Issue: Whether or not there was a contract of
agency between lines and spaces interior
center and respondent (Tri-Realty).
Ruling: No. There is a dearth of evidence to
show that the case at bar is an open-and-shut
case of agency between private respondent
and Lines & Spaces. Neither Eleanor Sanchez
nor Lines & Spaces was an agent for private
respondent, but rather a supplier for the
latter’s cement needs. The Civil Code defines
a contract of agency as follows:
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.
In a bevy of cases such as the avuncular case
of Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, the Court decreed from Article 1868
that the basis of agency is representation.
. . . On the part of the principal, there must be
an actual intention to appoint or an intention
naturally inferable from his words or actions
and on the part of the agent, there must be an
intention to accept the appointment and act
on it, and in the absence of such intent, there
is generally no agency. One factor which most
clearly distinguishes agency from other legal
concepts is control; one person - the agent -
agrees to act under the control or direction of
another - the principal. Indeed, the very word
"agency" has come to connote control by the
principal. The control factor, more than any
other, has caused the courts to put contracts
between principal and agent in a separate
category.
The fact that the deliveries were made
at the construction sites of private respondent
does not by itself raise suspicion that
petitioners were delivering for private
respondent. There was no sufficient showing
that petitioners knew that the delivery sites
were that of private respondent and for
another thing, the deliveries were made by
petitioners’ men who have no business nosing
around their client’s affairs.
REPUBLIC VS. EVANGELISTA, 466
SCRA 544 (2005)
FACTS:
Legaspi is the owner of a land. Calimlim as
then head of the Intelligence Service of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
Presidential Security Group, entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with one
Ciriaco Reyes; the MOA granted Reyes a
permit to hunt for treasure in a land in
Bulacan. Legaspi executed a special power of
attorney (SPA) appointing his nephew, private
respondent Gutierrez, as his attorney-in-fact.
Gutierrez was given the power to deal with
the treasure hunting activities on Legaspi’s
land and to file charges against those who may
enter it without the latter’s authority.
Gutierrez filed a case for damages and
injunction against petitioners for illegally
entering Legaspi’s land.
Legaspi agreed to give Gutierrez 40% of the
treasure that may be found in the land.
Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss
contending: that there is no real party-in-
interest as the SPA of Gutierrez to bring the
suit was already revoked as evidenced by a
Deed of Revocation, among others.
ISSUE:
Whether the contract of agency between
Legaspi and private respondent Gutierrez has
been effectively revoked by Legaspi.
HELD:
Gutierrez was correct in contending that the
unilateral revocation is invalid as his agency is
coupled with interest.
A contract of agency is generally revocable as
it is a personal contract of representation
based on trust and confidence reposed by the
principal on his agent. As the power of the
agent to act depends on the will and license of
the principal he represents, the power of the
agent ceases when the will or permission is
withdrawn by the principal. Thus, generally,
the agency may be revoked by the principal at
will.
However, an exception to the revocability of a
contract of agency is when it is coupled with
interest, i.e., if a bilateral contract depends
upon the agency. The reason for its
irrevocability is because the agency becomes
part of another obligation or agreement. It is
not solely the rights of the principal but also
that of the agent and third persons which are
affected. Hence, the law provides that in such
cases, the agency cannot be revoked at the
sole will of the principal.
In the case at bar, we agree with the finding of
the trial and appellate courts that the agency
granted by Legaspi to Gutierrez is coupled
with interest as a bilateral contract depends on
it. It is clear from the records that Gutierrez
was given by Legaspi, inter alia, the power to
manage the treasure hunting activities in the
subject land; to file any case against anyone
who enters the land without authority from
Legaspi; to engage the services of lawyers to
carry out the agency; and, to dig for any
treasure within the land and enter into
agreements relative thereto. It was likewise
agreed upon that Gutierrez shall be entitled to
40% of whatever treasure may be found in the
land.
EQUITABLE PCI-BANK VS. KU, 355 HELD:
SCRA 309 (2001)
NO. An agency may be express but it may
FACTS: also be implied from the acts of the principal,
Petitioner instituted an action for against from his silence, or lack of action, or his
respondents father Ku Giok Heng. Petitioner failure to repudiate the agency, knowing that
alleged that it allowed Ku Giok Heng to another person is acting on his behalf without
remain in the property on the condition that authority. Likewise, acceptance by the agent
the latter pay rent. Ku Giok Hengs failure to may also be express, although it may also be
pay rent prompted the MeTC to seek his implied from his acts which carry out the
ejectment. agency, or from his silence or inaction
according to the circumstances. In this case,
Equitable Bank filed its petition, contending
Joel Rosales averred that [o]n occasions when
that there was no need to name respondent
I receive mail matters for said law office, it is
Rosita Ku as a party in the action for
only to help them receive their letters
ejectment since she was not a resident of the
promptly, implying that counsel had allowed
premises nor was she in possession of the
the practice of Rosales receiving mail in behalf
property. CA agrees.
of the former. There is no showing that
Respondent nevertheless claims that the counsel had objected to this practice or took
petition is defective. The bank alleged in its steps to put a stop to it. The facts are,
petition that it received a copy of the CA therefore, inadequate for the Court to make a
decision.A Certification issued by the Manila ruling in petitioners favor.
Central Post Office reveals, however, that the
copy was duly delivered to and received by Nothing Follows
Joel Rosales (Authorized Representative).
Petitioners motion for extension to file this
petition was filed sixteen (16) days from the
petitioners receipt of the CA decision and one
(1) day beyond the reglementary period for
filing the petition for review.
Petitioner however maintains its honest
representation of having received [a copy of
the decision]. Appended as Annex A to
petitioners Reply is an Affidavit and executed
by Joel Rosales, who was mentioned in the
Certification as having received the decision.

ISSUE:
Was Joel Rosales the constituted agent of of
Curato Divina Mabilog Nedo Magturo
Pagaduan Law Office?