100%(3)3 out of 3 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 18 pages.
11.Seronavs Court of appealsDoctrineThe law on agency in our jurisdiction allows the appointment by an agent of a substitute or sub-agentin the absence of an express agreement to the contrary between the agent and the principaFacts:Quilitan,complainant, delivered pieces of jewelry to Serona,petitioner, to be sold on commission basis.It was agreed that within 30 days she will give the payment and any unsold jewelry. Upon petitionersfailure to pay, both parties executed an acknowledgement receipt of the jewelries.Unknown to Quilatan,before the signing of the acknowledgement receipt, petitioner had entrusted thejewelries to Labrador,sub agent, also to be sold on commission basis. Petitioner wasn’t able to collectpayment from Labrador.Labrador said that she gave the jewelry to a prospective buyer who abscondedwithout paying. Because of this, petitioner failed to remit the payment nor the unsold jewelry toQuilatan.Quilatan file a case of estafa against petitioner.RTC and CA: there was estafaIssue: w/n the elements of estafa thru misappropriation or conversion [article 315 par 1(b)] arepresent.Held- no. the element of misappropriation or conversion is lacking.Ratio:Petitioner didn’t ipso facto commit the crime of estafa by delivering the jewelry to the sub agent forsale on a commission basis.The law on agency in our jurisdiction allows the appointment by an agentof a substitute or sub-agent in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary between theagent and the principal.In the case at bar, the appointment of Labrador as petitioner’s sub-agent wasnot expressly prohibited by Quilatan, as the acknowledgment receipt, Exhibit B, does not contain anysuch limitation.Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner’s act of entrusting the jewelry to Labrador ischaracterized by abuse of confidence because such an act was legally sanctioned.The essence of estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) is the appropriation or conversion of money. Thewords convert or misappropriate connote a devoting to a purpose or use different from that agreedupon. It is an attempt to dispose of the property of another without right.21there is no conversion since the pieces of jewelry were not devoted to a purpose or use different fromthat agreed upon.it was established that the inability of petitioner as agent to comply with her dutyisthe failure of Labrador to abide by her agreement with petitioner. the pieces of jewelry were given bypetitioner to Labrador to achieve the very same end for which they were delivered to her in the firstplace. There was no deviation from the purposeIt cannot be said that petitioner misappropriated the jewelry or delivered them to Labrador "withoutright." No limitation was imposed on how petitioner was to effect the sale, it is also consistent withusual practice for the seller to necessarily part with the valuables in order to find a buyer and allowinspection of the items for sale.