Case Digest (G.R. No. 10099)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 10099)
Facts:
Teofila del Rosario de Costa and Bernardino Costa v. La Badenia, a Corporation, G.R. No. 10099, January 27, 1916, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carson, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiffs-appellants, Teofila del Rosario de Costa and her husband Bernardino Costa, sued the defendant-appellee La Badenia, a Corporation to recover P1,795.25 alleged to be due Teofila as the defendant’s agent for services and expenses in selling the defendant’s tobacco products; the defendant denied liability and filed a counterclaim for P55.43. Judgment below was for the defendant; the record reached the Court on the plaintiffs’ bill of exceptions.In 1911 La Badenia inaugurated a selling campaign in southern Luzon. The corporation’s general agent for the territory, Celestino Aragon, established a central distributing depot at Legaspi, Albay, with Teofila nominally in charge and Bernardino effectively managing the agency. From February 1, 1911 to March 24, 1912 the Legaspi agency sold wholesale goods exceeding P24,000. Shipments from the Manila factory were charged on the head office books against Aragon; on Aragon’s books the shipments were carried against Teofila’s account. Aragon employed solicitors, paid their salaries, paid internal revenue fees, and paid the rent of the house he occupied with the Costas, using its lower part as the depository.
Aragon’s books and a tabulated statement introduced as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B showed goods received, withdrawals (by Aragon and by the plaintiffs), remittances to Manila, advertising and other expenses, and credits for goods withdrawn for shipment or advertising. On March 24, 1912 Aragon made a settlement with the plaintiffs and signed a statement acknowledging a balance of P1,795.25 in favor of the plaintiffs. La Badenia refused to pay, insisting plaintiffs were independent merchants who bought goods at wholesale and sold on their own account and that certain unpaid accounts of Legaspi purchasers should be charged to plaintiffs, which, if done, would leave P55.43 in favor of the defendant.
Letters from La Badenia’s assistant manager to Bernardino were admitted (Exhibits A and B) acknowledging remittances and shipments addressed to the Legaspi agency; the correspondence and the manner in which the head office treated remittances and acknowledgments tended to show the head office considered the Legaspi transactions part of the agency under Aragon rather than the independent business of the Costas. The trial court concluded the Costas were independent merchants who had in effect paid for the goods and therefore denied their claim; the plaintiffs excepted and brought the matter to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Were the plaintiffs acting as agents or as independent merchants in the Legaspi agency?
- Did Aragon’s settlement and the course of the accounts establish a balance of P1,795.25 due the plaintiffs from La Badenia?
- Could La Badenia repudiate Aragon’s acknowledgment of the balance on the books absent proof that Aragon acted beyond his authority?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)