The Bordador's were in the business of purchase and sale of jewelry, and Brigida Luz was their

regular customer. Deganos, the brother of Luz, received pieces of jewelry worth P382,816.00, covered by
seventeen receipts, eleven of them indicating that they were received on behalf a certain Evelyn Aquino,
and six indicated that they were receive don behalf of Luz.

Deganos was supposed to sell the items, remit the proceeds, and return the unsold ones to the
Bordadors. However, he was only able to remit P53,207.00, failing to pay the balance of the sales proceeds
and returning any unsold items. The Bordadors filed a complaint before the barangay court, where
Deganos along with the Sps. Luz signed a compromise agreement promising to pay the unpaid account
of P765,463.98. Deganos, however, failed to comply.

A civil case for the recovery of sum of money was instituted against Deganos and Brigida Luz in the
Malolos RTC. Her husband Ernesto was impleaded as well. Four years later in 1994, a criminal case for
estafa was filed, which was still pending when this decision was promulgated.

Petitioners claimed that Deganos was acting as the agent of Brigida Luz and because he failed to pay
for the pieces of jewelry, the Sps. Luz, as principals, are solidarily liable. The respondents countered that
only Deganos was liable, that Brigida never authorized him to receive jewelry on her behalf, neither did
she receive the articles in question.

The RTC ruled that there was no agency between Brigida Luz and Deganos. It was Bordador who
indicated that the items were received on behalf of Luz. Even if there was a contract of agency, there was
no memorandum to this effect and was therefore unenforceable.

CA affirmed the judgment.

issue
Was there a contract of agency between