AgencyDPFebruary32014

The defendant corporation however refused to pay over

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: t payment or return the pieces of jewelry if not sold to Quilatan, both within 30 days from receipt of the items. Petitoner failed to pay. Quilatan required her to execute an acknowledgment receipt indicating their agreement and the total amount due. Unknown to Quilatan, petitioner had earlier entrusted the jewelry to one Marichu Labrador for the latter to sell on commission basis. Petitioner was not able to collect payment from Labrador, which caused her to likewise fail to pay her obligation to Quilatan. For failure to settle her obligation, Quilatan executed a complaint affidavit against petitioner. Eventually an information for estafa was filed against her. Private Respondent: ­ Petitioner was able to remit P100,000.00 and returned P43,000.00 worth of jewelriy ­ At the start, petitioner was prompt in settling her obligation ­ However, subsequent payments were remitted late Petitioner: ­ She received several pieces of jewelry from Quilatan ­ She indeed failed to pay for the same ­ She entrusted the pieces of jewelry to Marichu Labrador who failed to pay for the same, thereby causing her to default in paying Quilatan Marichu Labrador: ­ Confirmed that she received pieces of jewelry from petitioner ­ She sold the jewelry to a person who absconded without paying her ­ In the past, she directly transacted with Quilatan for the sale of jewelry on commission basis, but due to her outstanding account with her, she got jewelry from petitioner instead RTC DECISION Petitioner guilty of estafa CA DECISION Affirmed the trial court ISSUE WON there was abuse of confidence on petitioner’s part in entrusting the jewelries to her sub­agent HELD NO It must be pointed out that the law on agency in our jurisdiction allows the appointment by an agent of a substitute or sub­agent in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary between the agent and the principalIn the case at bar, the appointment of Labrador as petitioner’s sub­agent was not expressly 24 prohibited by Quilatan,...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online