{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

But there is no proof that as agents they exceeded

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: no further necessity of delving further into the other less important points raised by BENGUET in connection with the first question. On the second question, it suffices to consider, in answer thereto, that the rule of vicarious liability has, since the passage of Republic Act 875, been expressly legislated out. The standing rule now is that for a labor union and/or its officials and members to be liable, there must be clear proof of actual participation in, 41 or authorization or ratification of the illegal acts. While the lower court found that some strikers and picketers resorted to intimidation and actual violence, it also found that defendants presented uncontradicted evidence that before and during the strike, the strike leaders had time and again warned the strikers not to resort to violence but to conduct peaceful picketing only. Assuming that the strikers did not heed these admonitions coming from their leaders, the failure of the union officials to go against the erring union members pursuant to the UNION and PAFLU constitutions and by­laws exposes, at the most, only a flaw or weakness in the defense which, however, cannot be the basis for plaintiff BENGUET to recover. Since defendants were not contractually bound by the no­strike clause in the CONTRACT, for the simple reason that they were not parties thereto, they could not be liable for breach of contract to plaintiff. The lower court therefore correctly absolved them from liability. WHEREFORE, the judgment of the lower court appealed from is hereby affirmed. No costs. So ordered. 1äwphï1.ñët Phil. Products v. Primatera, 15 SCRA 392 (1965) RANESES DOCTRINE: The law does not hold that in case of excess authority, both the agent and the principal are liable to the other contracting party. In the absence of express legislation, the liability of the agent of a foreign corporation doing business, but not licensed in the PH, is premised on the inability to sue the principal or non­liability thereof. FACTS: This is an action to recover from defendants, the sum of P33,009.71 with interest and attorney's fees of P8,000.00. Defendant Primateri...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online