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.