1.) U.S. vs. Domingo Reyes (GR.

L-12743, August 25, 1917)

Facts:
R.B. Blackman is a surveyor in Pangasinan. He employed Domingo Reyes to collect
certain amounts due from 12 persons for Blackmans work in connection with the survey
of their lands. Reyes must collect P860, he only collected P540, but only delivered to
Blackman P368. He retained the balance of P172. There was only an oral agreement
between both parties. Blackman agreed to pay Reyes 10 percent of the commission
while Reyes claimed it should be 20 percent. The trial court ruled in favour of Blackman
and convicted Reyes guilty for estafa. Reyes appealed.

Issue:
Whether or not there was a contract of agency between parties?

Held:
Yes. There was a contract of agency through an oral agreement. Under Article 1891 of
the New Civil Code, Reyes was an agent who was bound to pay Blackman all that he
had received by virtue of the agency. Reyes is under obligation to turn over to Blackman
the amount collected minus his commission. But Reyes, having unlawfully retained
more than his commission, is guilty of estafa.

2.) Angela Ojinaga vs. Estate of Perez (GR. L-3754, November 15, 1907)

Facts:
Domingo Perez died and left his estate to Manuel Achondo to administer which was
later on administered by Tomas Perez, one of the heirs. A partition of the estate of the
deceased happened and Tomas continued his role as administratix and guardian for all
the persons except Eladio Ojinaga, who for him, Tomas acted only as an agent. Tomas
filed an account of his administration in the lower court showing the net profits of the
business. Other brothers refused and claimed that the profits derived by Tomas were
greater than what was shown. A final settlement was made, Tomas agreed to pay all the
other heirs except Ojinaga. Ojinaga died, his heirs wanted the accounting set aside on
the ground of fraud.

Issue:
Whether or not the claim of the heirs of Ojinaga is correct?

Held:
No. Tomas rendered to Ojinaga an account of his administration in which Ojinaga stated
in writing his consent to this account and left the administration of his property to Tomas.
The agreement of Ojinaga constitutes a contract between them, a contract which any
other contract can be annulled. Under the New Civil Code, In the management of
property, where a principal receives from an agent periodical statements of account
and, knowing all the facts in the case, repeatedly agrees to the correctness thereof and
approves the same, the result is a species of contract between the parties which can
only be set aside upon grounds similar to those upon which any other contract may be
annulled or rescinded.

3.) Quintin De Borja vs. Francisco De Borja (GR. L-38479, November 20, 1933)

Facts:
Quintin De Borja, administrator of the estate of deceased Marcelo De Borja filed suit for
the recovery of sum of P61,376.56 against Francisco De Borja. Said amount was owed
by Francisco to the deceased which was loaned and collected by Francisco from other
persons with an obligation to render an accounting. The lower court ruled that Quintin
was entitled to recover P33,218.86 from Francisco and by way of counterclaim,
Francisco was entitled to collect P39,683 from Quintin, lower court also favoured
Francisco in the amount of P6,464.14 with legal interest. Both parties appealed.

Issue:
Whether or not Quintin is entitled to recovery?

Held:
No. Neither is Quintin and Francisco is entitled to the recovery. Francisco acted only in
his capacity as attorney-in-fact of the deceased father, and there being no evidence
showing that Francisco converted the money entrusted to him, is not liable for interest.
Under Article 1896 of the New Civil Code, there is no liability for interest on sums which
have not been converted for the agents own use.

4.) PNB vs. Welch, Fairland & Co., Inc. (GR. L-19689, April 04, 1923)

Facts:

Welch, Fairland & Co., Inc., a corporation and a shareholder of La Compania Naviera,
Inc., another corporation and engaged in the business of marine shipping. They applied
to PNB a loan of $125,000 to purchase a boat called Benito Juarez found in the US
market. Welch acting as an agent of La Compania sent a cablegram from USA to PNB
in the Philippines asking for release of the loan of $125,000 as purchase price for the
boat. In preparation for the boats arrival, Welch took an insurance policy of $150,000.
While the boat is on its voyage to the Philippines, it was capsized due to a storm. Welch
collected the insurance with consent of La Compania.PNB is claiming from Welch the
$125,000 with interest. Lower court absolved Welch Co. PNB appealed.

Issue:
Whether or not Welch Co. Should turnover the collected proceeds from the insurance
policy to PNB?

Held:
Yes. Welch Co. indeed acted only as agent in writing and sending the cablegram,
however, has intervened in the making of a contract in the character of agent cannot be
permitted to intercept and appropriate the thing which the principal is bound to deliver,
and thereby make performance by the principal impossible. The agent in any event
must be precluded from doing any positive act that could prevent performance on the
part of his principal. Despite the promise held out jointly by principal and agent in the
letters, the two have conspired to make an application of the proceeds of the insurance
entirely contrary to the tenor of said letters. Under the New Civil Code, An agent who
obligates his principal to deliver specific property to a third party may not thereafter, to
the prejudice of such third party, appropriate and apply the same property, or its
proceeds, to the payment of debts owing by the principal to the agent; and the
circumstance that the principal assents to such application of the property does not alter
the case.