AGENCY, TRUST AND PARTNERSHIP | YU ENG CHO V. PAN AM 328 SCRA 717

YU ENG CHO V. PAN AM

328 SCRA 717

 

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

The declarations of the agent alone are generally insufficient to establish the fact or extent of his authority.

 

FACTS

Plaintiff Yu Eng Cho is a businessman who travels from time to time to Malaysia, Taipei and Hongkong. On July 10, 1976, plaintiffs bought plane tickets from defendant Claudia Tagunicar who represented herself to be an agent of defendant Tourist World Services, Inc. (TWSI). The destination[s] are Hongkong, Tokyo, San Francisco, U.S.A. On said date, only the passage from Manila to Hongkong, then to Tokyo, were confirmed. [PAA] Flight 002 from Tokyo to San Francisco was on “RQ” status, meaning “on request”. Per instruction of defendant Claudia Tagunicar, plaintiffs returned after a few days for the confirmation of the Tokyo-San Francisco segment of the trip. After calling up Canilao of TWSI, defendant Tagunicar told plaintiffs that their flight is now confirmed all the way.

On July 23, 1978, plaintiffs left for Hongkong and thereafter left for Tokyo. Upon their arrival in Tokyo, they called up Pan-Am office for reconfirmation of their flight to San Francisco. Said office, however, informed them that their names are not in the manifest. Since plaintiffs were supposed to leave on the 29th of July, 1978, and could not remain in Japan for more than 72 hours, they were constrained to agree to accept airline tickets for Taipei instead, per advise of JAL officials. Upon reaching Taipei, there were no flight[s] available for plaintiffs, thus, they were forced to return back to Manila on instead of proceeding to the United States. A complaint for damages was filed by petitioners against private respondents the Regional Trial Court held the defendants jointly and severally liable, except defendant Julieta Canilao. Only respondents Pan Am and Tagunicar appealed to the Court of Appeals. the appellate court rendered judgment modifying the amount of damages awarded, holding private respondent Tagunicar solely liable therefor, and absolving respondents Pan Am and TWSI from all liability.

ISSUE

Is there is an agency relationship between PAN-AM, TWSI and Tagunicar.

 

RULING

No.

The court held that the declarations of the agent alone are generally insufficient to establish the fact or extent of his authority. The affidavit of a person agent where she stated that she is an authorized agent of a particular principal has weak probative value in light of her testimony in court to the contrary. t is a settled rule that persons dealing with an assumed agent are bound at their peril, if they would hold the principal liable, to ascertain not only the fact of agency but also the nature and extent of authority, and in case either is controverted, the burden of proof is upon them to establish it.

Here, the court held that petitioners rely on the affidavit of respondent Tagunicar where she stated that she is an authorized agent of TWSI. Respondent Tagunicar was prevailed upon by petitioners’ son and their lawyer to sign the affidavit despite her objection to the statement therein that she was an agent of TWSI. They assured her that “it is immaterial” and that “if we file a suit against you we cannot get anything from you.” This purported admission of respondent Tagunicar cannot be used by petitioners to prove their agency relationship. This affidavit, however, has weak probative value in light of respondent Tagunicar’s testimony in court to the contrary. Affidavits, being taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestion, or for want of suggestion and inquiries. Their infirmity as a species of evidence is a matter of judicial experience and are thus considered inferior to the testimony given in court. Further, affidavits are not complete reproductions of what the declarant has in mind because they are generally prepared by the administering officer and the affiant simply signs them after the same have been read to her.

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BALA V. MARTINEZ, 181 SCRA 459