Posts

Showing posts with the label Partnership and Agency

Deluao v. Casteel, G.R. No. L-21906, December 24, 1968

Summary:   Nicanor Casteel filed a fishpond application for a big tract of swampy land in Sitio of Malalag.   Pending its resolution, several applications were submitted by other persons. One of them was Felipe Deluao who filed his own fishpond application for the area covered by Casteel's application. Upon learning that portions of the area applied for by him were already occupied by rival applicants, Casteel immediately filed the corresponding protests (which became DANR Case 353 and DANR Case 353-B). The Director of Fisheries rejected Casteel's application. Failing to secure a favorable resolution of his MR, Casteel appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Meanwhile, Inocencia Deluao (wife of Felipe Deluao) and Nicanor Casteel executed a contract — denominated a "contract of service" — whereby: - Deluao will finance the sum of P27k for the construction and improvements of a fishpond at Barrio Malalag. - Casteel will be responsible for the...

Aurbach v. Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corp., G.R. Nos. 75875, 75951 & 75975-76, December 15, 1989

Summary:  American Standard Inc (ASI), a foreign corporation in US entered into an Agreement with Saniwares and some Filipino investors whereby ASI and the Filipino investors agreed to participate in the ownership of an enterprise which would engage primarily in the business of manufacturing in the Philippines and selling here and abroad vitreous china and sanitary wares. ASI agreed to accept the role of minority vis-a-vis the Filipino investors, on the condition that the Agreement should contain provisions to protect ASI as the minority. One such provision is: As long as American-Standard shall own at least 30% of the outstanding stock of the Corporation, three of the nine directors shall be designated by American-Standard, and the other six shall be designated by the other stockholders of the Corporation. (Section 5(a) of the Agreement) . The 30% capital stock of ASI was later increased to 40%. On Mar 8, 1983, the election of the members of the board of directors was held. - Th...

Bacaltos Coal Mines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114091, June 29, 1995

Summary:  BACALTOS COAL MINES authorized Savellon to use the Company's coal operating contract for any legitimate purpose it may serve. Savellon then entered into a Trip Charter Party with SMC. Under the contract, 3 round trips to Davao should be made, but only 1 trip was made. SMC filed against BACALTOS COAL MINES, German Bacaltos and Savellon a complaint for specific performance and damages. BACALTOS argued that Savellon was not its COO and that the powers granted to him are only those clearly expressed in the Authorization which do not include the power to enter into any charter contract. RTC ruled in favor of SMC and declared all the defendants jointly and severally liable to SMC. CA affirmed the decision. SC, however, modified the RTC decision and made Savellon alone liable to SMC. SC stated that the Authorization is a special power of attorney. It specifically authorizes the performance of a specific power and of express acts subsumed therein.   SC opined that had SMC ex...

Toyota Shaw, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116650, May 23, 1995

Summary:  Bernardo, a sales representative of Toyota, assured Luna Sosa that a Toyota Lite Ace would be ready for pick up on June 17, 1989.   Bernardo signed the   "Agreements Between Mr. Sosa & Popong Bernardo of Toyota Shaw, Inc.". The Agreement provided that a 100k DP(downpayment) will be paid. For the balance, the parties executed a document which provided that the balance would be paid by credit financing through B.A. Finance. The next day, Luna delivered the DP of P100k. On June 17 1989, no Toyota Lite Ace was delivered. Luna asked that his DP be refunded, and Toyota did so on the very same day. Soon, thereafter, Luna Sosa filed with the RTC Marinduque a complaint against Toyota for damages. Toyota argued that there was no sale entered into between it and Sosa; that Bernardo had no authority to sign the Agreement for and in its behalf. Bernardo signed the Agreement in his personal capacity. RTC ruled in favor of Sosa. It ruled that the "AGREEMENTS BETWEEN MR. S...