Title
Supreme Court
People vs People's Aircargo and Warehousing Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 117847
Decision Date
Oct 7, 1998
PAIRCARGO's president, with apparent authority, bound the corporation to a valid consultancy contract; SC upheld enforceability, ordering full payment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 117847)

Petitioner

People’s Aircargo and Warehousing Co., Inc., through its president Antonio C. Punsalan Jr., who negotiated and executed two letter-agreements without express board approval.

Respondent

Stefani C. SaAo, who submitted proposals, prepared a feasibility study and operations manual, and conducted a seminar for petitioner’s employees.

Key Dates

• October 17, 1986 – First Contract proposal (P350,000) and confirmation.
• December 4, 1986 – Second Contract proposal (P400,000).
• January 10, 1987 – Delivery of operations manual.
• Third week of January 1987 – Employee seminar conducted.
• February 9, 1988 – Collection suit filed by SaAo.
• October 26, 1990 – Regional Trial Court decision.
• February 28, 1994 – Court of Appeals decision.
• October 7, 1998 – Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution; Corporation Code (BP Blg. 68) Sections 2 and 23; Civil Code Articles 1144(1), 1355, 1345, 1371, 1403–1405; Rules of Court Rule 45; doctrine of apparent authority and estoppel.

Facts of the First and Second Contracts

SaAo’s October 17, 1986 proposal covered a market, technical and financial feasibility study for P350,000, duly confirmed by Punsalan and paid in installments. Petitioner used the study to secure its customs license and completed payment. On December 4, 1986, SaAo offered a P400,000 package—operations manual and seminar—payable in scheduled installments. Punsalan signed the “conforme,” SaAo delivered the manual on January 10, 1987, and conducted the seminar in mid-January. Petitioner submitted the manual to the Bureau of Customs and obtained its bonded-warehouse license.

Trial Court Findings

The RTC declared the Second Contract simulated and unenforceable for lack of board approval, absence of down payment, delayed demand, irregular pencil notations and misspellings. Despite this, it awarded SaAo ₱60,000 under unjust enrichment (Civil Code Article 2142), based on prevailing consultancy rates.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA found the Second Contract valid and binding for ₱400,000. It held that Punsalan possessed apparent authority by virtue of the unobjected First Contract and corporate practice of allowing the president to negotiate necessary contracts without prior board resolution. The CA refused reconsideration.

Issues on Review

  1. Whether the corporate president had apparent authority to bind petitioner to the Second Contract.
  2. Whether the Second Contract was genuine or simulated.

Supreme Court Ruling: Apparent Authority

Under Section 23 of the Corporation Code and established jurisprudence, a corporation may be bound by acts of an officer clothed with apparent authority through custom, acquiescence or prior similar transactions. The unchallenged negotiation, performance and payment of the First Contract vested Punsalan with apparent authority. SaAo, acting in good faith, relied on that authority. Petitioner’s acceptance and use of the manual, conduct of the seminar and ultimate licensing by the Bureau ratifie

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.