AgencyDPFebruary32014

Contained an entry or entries of the receipt by

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: previous transaction between Safic and IVO where IVO was represented by Monteverde. This is because the 1985 contract and the 1986 contracts are very different. The 1985 contract is not speculative while the 1986 contracts are speculative hence, Safic should have secured the confirmation by IVO’s Board that Monteverde is indeed authorized to enter into such agreements. Further, Monteverde did not even present the said 1986 agreements before the Board of Directors so there was, in fact, no occasion at all for ratification. The contracts were not even reported in IVO’s export sales book and turn­out book. Neither were they reflected in other books and records of the corporation. It must be pointed out that the Board of Directors, not Monteverde, exercises corporate power. Clearly, Monteverde’s speculative contracts with Safic never bound IVO and Safic cannot therefore enforce those contracts against IVO. SC: Petition denied. Borja v. Sulyap, 399 SCRA 601 (2003) GATCHALIAN DOCTRINE: Even if a party’s counsel exceeded his authority in inserting the penalty clause, the status of the said clause is not void but merely voidable, i.e., capable of being ratified. FACTS: Petitioner Basilio Borja, Sr., as lessor, and private respondent Sulyap Inc., as lessee, entered into a contract of lease involving a one­storey office building owned by the petitioner located at Quezon City. Pursuant to the lease, private respondent paid, among others, advance rentals, association dues and 57 deposit for electrical and telephone expenses. Upon the expiration of their lease contract, private respondent demanded the return of the said advance rentals, dues and deposit but the petitioner refused to do so., Thus, Private Respondent filed with the RTC Quezon a complaint for sum of money against the petitioner.3 Subsequently, the parties entered into and submitted to the trial court a "Compromise Agreement" which was approved. Below is the penalty clause of the Compromise Agreement: 7. That it is expressly agreed that the parties shall comply in good faith to the terms of the herein compromise agreement and that any amount due not paid within the period stated in this agreement shall earn 2% interest per month until fully paid plus twenty five 25% attorney’s fees of the amount collectibl...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online