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: e, refutes UNION's allegation that it has subsequently abandoned its stand against Bobok Lumber Jack Ass'n., in said case. The mere appearance of such motion in the record on appeal is but a compliance with the procedural requirement of Rule 41, Sec. 6, of the Rules of Court, that all matters necessary for a proper understanding of the issues involved be included in the record on appeal. This therefore cannot be taken as a rebuttal of the UNION's explanation. There is nothing then, in law as well as in fact, to support plaintiff BENGUET's contention that defendants are contractually bound by the CONTRACT. And the stand taken by the trial court all the more becomes unassailable in the light of Art. 1704 of the Civil Code providing that: In the collective bargaining, the labor union or members of the board or committee signing the contract shall be liable for non­fulfillment thereof. (Emphasis supplied) There is no question, defendants were not signatories nor participants in the CONTRACT. Lastly, BENGUET contends, citing Clause II in connection with Clause XVIII of the CONTRACT, that since all the employees, as principals, continue being bound by the no­strike stipulation until the CONTRACT's expiration, UNION, as their agent, must necessarily be bound also pursuant to the Law on Agency. This is untenable. The way We understand it, everything binding on a duly authorized agent, acting as such, is binding on the principal; not vice­versa, unless there is a mutual agency, or unless the agent expressly binds himself to the party with whom he contracts. As the Civil Code decrees it: The agent who acts as such is not personally liable to the party with whom he contracts, unless he expressly binds himself or exceeds the limits of his authority without giving such party sufficient notice of his powers. (Emphasis supplied) 1äwphï1.ñët Here, it was the previous agent who expressly bound itself to the other party, BENGUET. UNION, the new agent, did not assume this undertaking of BBWU. In view of all the foregoing, We see...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online