AgencyDPFebruary32014

Caelevatedtosc issue whether or not warner barnes co

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: le 1724 of the Civil Code, which provides that an agent shall be liable for interest upon any sums he may have applied to his own use, from the day on which he did so, and upon those which he still owes, after the expiration of the agency, from the time of his default. SC: Order affirmed De Borja v. De Borja, 58 Phil 811 (1933) GATCHALIAN DOCTRINE: There being no evidence showing that the agent converted the money entrusted to him to his own use, he is not liable for interest thereon FACTS: The plaintiff herein, in his capacity as judicial administrator of the estate of the deceased Marcelo de Borja, instituted this action to recover from the defendant the sum of P61,376.56 which the defendant owed the aforesaid deceased, for the certain sums of money loaned to and collected by him from other persons with the obligation to render an accounting thereof to the said deceased. The defendant filed several counterclaims. TC: The trial court reached the conclusion and held that, from his various causes of action, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of P33,218.86 from the defendant, and that, by way of counterclaim, the said defendant in turn was entitled to collect the sum of P39,683 from the plaintiff, and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant in the sum of P6,464.14 with legal interest thereon from the date of the counterclaim, with the costs. Both parties appealed therefrom CA: N/A ISSUE: WON the plaintiff is entitled to the interest claimed by him upon the alleged sums loaned to and collected by the defendant from various persons for his deceased father HELD: NO 32 The plaintiff is not entitled to the interest claimed by him upon the alleged sums loaned to and collected by the defendant from various persons for his deceased father. In all the aforementioned transactions, the defendant acted in his capacity as attorney­in­fact of his deceased father, and there being no evidence showing that he converted the money entrusted to him to his own use, he is not li...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online