Bacaltos Coal Mines, German A. Bacaltos and Rene R. Bacaltos and their co-defendant Rene R.
Bacaltos Coal Mines, German A. Bacaltos and Rene R.
Bacaltos and their co-defendant Rene R. The paramount issue raised is whether Savellon was duly authorized by the petitioners to enter into the Trip Charter Party Exhibit "A" 3 under and by virtue of an Authorization Exhibit "C" and Exhibit "1"4 dated 1 Marchthe pertinent portions of which read as follows: Namely, but not by way of limitation, as follows: Further, I hereby give and grant to RENE SAVELLON full authority to do and perform all and every lawful act requisite or necessary to carry into effect the foregoing stipulations as fully to all intents and purposes as I might or would lawfully do if personally present, with full power of substitution and revocation.
CEB for specific performance and damages. In their Answer, 7 the petitioners alleged that Savellon was not their Chief Operating Officer 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 contract with SMC.
They further claimed that if it is true that SMC entered into a contract with them, it should have issued the check in their favor. Savellon did not file his Answer and was declared in default on 17 July Whether or not defendants are jointly liable to plaintiff for damages on account of breach of contract; 2.
Whether or not the defendants acted in good faith in its representations to the plaintiff; 3. Whether or not defendant Bacaltos was duly enriched on the payment made by the plaintiff for the use of the vessel; 4.
Whether or not defendant Bacaltos is estopped to deny the authorization given to defendant Savellon; Defendants — 1. Whether or not defendant Savellon was authorized to enter into a shipping contract with the [plaintiff] corporation; 3.
Whether or not the plaintiff was correct and not mistaken in issuing the checks in payment of the contract in the name of defendant Savellon and not in the name of defendant Bacaltos Coal Mines; 4.
Bacaltos, jointly and severally, to pay to plaintiff: The amount of P, The amount of P20, Their motion for a reconsideration of the above decision having been denied, the petitioners filed the instant petition wherein they raise the following errors: Every person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent.
Persons dealing with an assumed agent, whether the assumed agency be a general or special one, are bound at their peril, if they would hold the principal, to ascertain not only the fact of the agency but also the nature and extent of the authority, and in case either is controverted, the burden of proof is upon them to establish it.
Rather, he must use reasonable diligence and prudence to ascertain whether the agent is acting and dealing with him within the scope of his powers. In other words, whether the agency is general or special, the third person is bound to ascertain not only the fact of agency, but the nature and extent of the authority.
The principal, on the other hand, may act on the presumption that third persons dealing with his agent will not be negligent in failing to ascertain the extent of his authority as well as the existence of his agency.
Or, as stated in Harry E. Rodriguez, 15 quoting Mechem on Agency: The person dealing with the agent must also act with ordinary prudence and reasonable diligence.the respondent court erred in holding petitioner german bacaltos jointly and severally liable with rene savellon and co-petitioner bacaltos coal mines in spite of the finding of the court a quo that petitioner bacaltos coal mines and petitioner bacaltos are two distinct and separate legal personalities.
Duty Of A Person Dealing With An Agent. It is a settled rule that persons dealing with an agent are bound at their peril, if they would hold the principal liable, to ascertain not only the fact of agency but also the nature and extent of authority, and in case either is controverted, the burden of proof is upon them to establish it.
Thus, he invokes the case of Singson vs. Isabela Sawmill, 88 SCRA , , where the Court said that where one or two innocent persons must suffer, that person who gave occasion for the damages to be caused must bear consequences. Nov 20, · America VS Spain: Coal Spain's plan to ditch coal is so brilliant, even the miners are happy.
Bacaltos Coal Mines v. CA G.R. No. June 29, FACTS: In an “Authorization,” petitioner Bacaltos authorized Savellon, to use the coal operating contract of Bacaltos Coal Mine of which he is the proprietor, “For any legitimate purpose that it may serve” and particularly: (1) to acquire.
Bacaltos Coal Mines grupobittia.com and SMC Doctrine: Every person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover at his own.