Case Digest (G.R. No. 129039)
Facts:
Siredy Enterprises, Inc. v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Conrado De Guzman, G.R. No. 129039, September 17, 2002, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Siredy Enterprises, Inc. (Siredy) is the developer and owner of Ysmael Village subdivision; its president was Ismael E. Yanga. Private respondent Conrado De Guzman is an architect-contractor doing business as Jigscon Construction. A certain Hermogenes B. Santos purportedly acted as Siredy’s representative pursuant to an undated Letter of Authority signed by Yanga which authorized Santos, among other things, “to negotiate and enter into contract or contracts to build Housing Units on our subdivision lots in Ysmael Village.”
On October 15, 1978 Santos (as purported representative of Siredy) entered into a Deed of Agreement with De Guzman to construct housing units at Ysmael Village. The Deed specified unit prices and a total contract price of P4,842,000.00 and required the contractor to supply labor and materials and to complete units within stated periods. From October 1978 to April 1990 De Guzman constructed 26 units; 13 were fully paid and 13 remained unpaid, the unpaid portion totaling P412,154.93 as shown in an Accomplishment Billing signed by Santos.
De Guzman sued for specific performance and collection of the unpaid amount against Santos, Siredy and Yanga. At trial the Regional Trial Court of Malolos dismissed claims against Siredy and Yanga on the ground of privity of contract and lack of their signatory status, and rendered judgment only against Santos for P412,154.93 plus attorney’s fees. On appeal the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 30374 reversed: it found the Letter of Authority constituted Santos as Siredy’s agent with authority to bind Siredy, and ordered Siredy to pay De Guzman P412,154.93 with inter...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was Hermogenes B. Santos a duly constituted agent of Siredy Enterprises, Inc. with authority to bind Siredy under the Deed of Agreement?
- May petitioner raise, for the first time on appeal to the Supreme Court, contractual defenses (including alleged violation of paragraph 8 regarding SSS payments and alleged defects or revocation of the Letter o...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)