AgencyDPFebruary32014

13 issue whether or not the power of attorney

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: iprocal current account between both firms, without opposition or protest on the part of Oria Hermanos & Co. In the absence of a written agreement defendant’s procedure raises the presumption that such were the stipulations verbally made between the interested parties, and the verbal agreement was constantly maintained and confirmed without protest or objection whatever on the part of the managers of Oria Hermanos & Co. ­­ ABSOLVED PNB v. Manila Surety, 122 Phil. 106, 14 SCRA 776 (1965) GAUDIEL DOCTRINE: An agent is required to act with the care of a good father of a family and becomes liable for the damages which the principal may suffer through his non­performance. FACTS: The Philippine National Bank had opened a letter of credit and advanced thereon $120,000.00 to Edgington Oil Refinery for 8,000 tons of hot asphalt. Of this amount, 2,000 tons worth P279, 000.00 were released and delivered to Adams & Taguba Corporation (known as ATACO) under a trust receipt guaranteed by Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. up to the amount of P75,000.00.. To pay for the asphalt, ATACO constituted the Bank its assignee and attorney­in­fact to receive and collect from the Bureau of Public Works the amount aforesaid out of funds payable to the assignor under Purchase Order No. 71947. PNB was negligent in its duty under the power of attorney to collect sums due to debtor from the latter’s debtor, thereby allowing such funds to be exhausted by other creditors. TC: The Court ordered defendants, Adams & Taguba Corporation and Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc., to pay plaintiff, Philippines National Bank, the sum of P174,462.34 as of February 24, 1956, minus the amount of P8,000 which defendant, Manila Surety Co., Inc. paid from March, 1956 to October, 1956 with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from February 25, 1956, until fully paid provided that the total amount that should be paid by defendant Manila Surety Co., Inc., on account of this case shall not exceed P75,000.00, and to pay the costs; CA: Court of Appeals rendered an adverse decision and modified the jud...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online