Agency Case Doctrines Week 1 Case Doctrines: (a) Orient Air Services v.

. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 645 In determining whether a contract is a contract of agency, in the interpretation of a contract, the entirety thereof must be taken into consideration to ascertain the meaning of its provisions. The various stipulations in the contract must be read together to give effect to all (b) Bordador v. Luz, 283 SCRA 374 The basis for agency is representation. (c) Tuazon v. Heirs of Ramos, 463 SCRA 408 The filing in their own names negate their claim that they acted as mere agents (d) Amon Trading Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 477 SCRA 582 No contract of agency between Tri-realty and Lines & Spaces, but rather a supplier for the latters cement needs. (e) Doles v. Angeles, 492 SCRA 607 Petitoners were represented by Doles in all transactions, hence, she is an agent. (f) Puyat & Sons, Inc. v. Arco Amusement Co., 72 Phil 402 In agency, the agent is exempted from all liability in the discharge of his commission provided that he acts in accordance with the instructions received from his principal and the principal must indemnify the agent for all damages which the latter may incur in carrying out the agency without fault or imprudence on his part. It is out of the ordinary for one to be the agent of both the vendor and the vendee. (g) Chua Ngo v. Universal Trading Co., Inc., 87 Phil 331 The fact that UTC may resell the goods implies that the contract was an outright sale and not an agency. (h) Far Eastern Export & Import, Co. v. Lim Teck Suan, 97 Phil 171 The agents failed or did not expressly indicate or reveal their principals, hence, there was no agency. (i) Pearl Island Commercial Corp. v. Lim Tan Tong, 101 Phil 789 The agreement was partly agency and partly sale based on the intention reflected through the agreement of the parties. (j) Lim v. People, 133 SCRA 333 The fact that she did not receive commissions, therefore, it was not a contract of agency (k) Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 333 SCRA 663 It is clear from Article 1868 that the basis of agency is representation. One factor which most clearly distinguishes agency from other legal concepts is control; one person - the agent - agrees to act under the control or direction of another - the principal. (l) De La Cruz v. Northern Theatrical Enterprises, 95 Phil 739

Plaintiff wasnt hired to represent defendant in its dealings with third persons; he was an employee hired to perform specific duty and not an agent. (m) Tan v. Gullas, 393 SCRA 334 "An agent receives a commission upon the successful conclusion of a sale. On the other hand, a broker earns his pay merely by bringing the buyer and the seller together, even if no sale is eventually made." (n) Hahn v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 537 BMW exercised control over Hahns activities=agent Hahn receives commission upon a successful conclusion of a sale=agent (o) CIR v. Manila Machinery & Supply Co., 135 SCRA 8 The agreement expressly provides that he shall not act as an agent for the company. (p) Collector of Internal Revenue v. Tan Eng Hong, 18 SCRA 431 The essential feature of a broker is that he acts not for himself but for a third person.