567 Phil. 514
This petition for review on certiorari seeks the reversal of the Decision
[1] and Resolution,
[2]
dated November 29, 2002 and August 5, 2003, respectively, of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 33568. The appellate court had affirmed
the Decision
[3] dated October
10, 1989 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 3, finding
petitioner as defendant and the co-defendants below jointly and
severally liable to the plaintiffs, now herein respondents.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Respondent Teresita O. Pedroso is a policyholder of a 20-year endowment
life insurance issued by petitioner Filipinas Life Assurance Company
(Filipinas Life). Pedroso claims Renato Valle was her insurance agent
since 1972 and Valle collected her monthly premiums. In the first week
of January 1977, Valle told her that the Filipinas Life Escolta Office
was holding a promotional investment program for policyholders. It was
offering 8% prepaid interest a month for certain amounts deposited on a
monthly basis. Enticed, she initially invested and issued a post-dated
check dated January 7, 1977 for P10,000.
[4] In return, Valle issued Pedroso his personal check for P800 for the 8%
[5] prepaid interest and a Filipinas Life “Agent’s Receipt” No. 807838.
[6]
Subsequently, she called the Escolta office and talked to Francisco
Alcantara, the administrative assistant, who referred her to the branch
manager, Angel Apetrior. Pedroso inquired about the promotional
investment and Apetrior confirmed that there was such a promotion. She
was even told she could “push through with the check” she issued. From
the records, the check, with the endorsement of Alcantara at the back,
was deposited in the account of Filipinas Life with the Commercial Bank
and Trust Company (CBTC), Escolta Branch.
Relying on the representations made by the petitioner’s duly authorized
representatives Apetrior and Alcantara, as well as having known agent
Valle for quite some time, Pedroso waited for the maturity of her
initial investment. A month after, her investment of P10,000 was
returned to her after she made a written request for its refund. The
formal written request, dated February 3, 1977, was written on an
inter-office memorandum form of Filipinas Life prepared by Alcantara.
[7]
To collect the amount, Pedroso personally went to the Escolta branch
where Alcantara gave her the P10,000 in cash. After a second
investment, she made 7 to 8 more investments in varying amounts,
totaling P37,000 but at a lower rate of 5%
[8]
prepaid interest a month. Upon maturity of Pedroso’s subsequent
investments, Valle would take back from Pedroso the corresponding
yellow-colored agent’s receipt he issued to the latter.
Pedroso told respondent Jennifer N. Palacio, also a Filipinas Life
insurance policyholder, about the investment plan. Palacio made a total
investment of P49,550
[9]
but at only 5% prepaid interest. However, when Pedroso tried to
withdraw her investment, Valle did not want to return some P17,000
worth of it. Palacio also tried to withdraw hers, but Filipinas Life,
despite demands, refused to return her money. With the assistance of
their lawyer, they went to Filipinas Life Escolta Office to collect
their respective investments, and to inquire why they had not seen
Valle for quite some time. But their attempts were futile. Hence,
respondents filed an action for the recovery of a sum of money.
After trial, the RTC, Branch 3, Manila, held Filipinas Life and its
co-defendants Valle, Apetrior and Alcantara jointly and solidarily
liable to the respondents.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling and subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner now comes before us raising a single issue:
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE
ERROR AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF
THE LOWER COURT HOLDING FLAC [FILIPINAS LIFE] TO BE JOINTLY AND
SEVERALLY LIABLE WITH ITS CO-DEFENDANTS ON THE CLAIM OF RESPONDENTS INSTEAD OF HOLDING ITS AGENT, RENATO VALLE, SOLELY LIABLE TO THE RESPONDENTS.[10]
Simply put, did the Court of Appeals err in holding petitioner and its
co-defendants jointly and severally liable to the herein respondents?
Filipinas Life does not dispute that Valle was its agent, but claims
that it was only a life insurance company and was not engaged in the
business of collecting investment money. It contends that the
investment scheme offered to respondents by Valle, Apetrior and
Alcantara was outside the scope of their authority as agents of
Filipinas Life such that, it cannot be held liable to the respondents.
[11]
On the other hand, respondents contend that Filipinas Life authorized
Valle to solicit investments from them. In fact, Filipinas Life’s
official documents and facilities were used in consummating the
transactions. These transactions, according to respondents, were
confirmed by its officers Apetrior and Alcantara. Respondents assert
they exercised all the diligence required of them in ascertaining the
authority of petitioner’s agents; and it is Filipinas Life that failed
in its duty to ensure that its agents act within the scope of their
authority.
Considering the issue raised in the light of the submissions of the
parties, we find that the petition lacks merit. The Court of Appeals
committed no reversible error nor abused gravely its discretion in
rendering the assailed decision and resolution.
It appears indisputable that respondents Pedroso and Palacio had
invested P47,000 and P49,550, respectively. These were received by
Valle and remitted to Filipinas Life, using Filipinas Life’s official
receipts, whose authenticity were not disputed. Valle’s authority to
solicit and receive investments was also established by the parties.
When respondents sought confirmation, Alcantara, holding a supervisory
position, and Apetrior, the branch manager, confirmed that Valle had
authority. While it is true that a person dealing with an agent is put
upon inquiry and must discover at his own peril the agent’s authority,
in this case, respondents did exercise due diligence in removing all
doubts and in confirming the validity of the representations made by
Valle.
Filipinas Life, as the principal, is liable for obligations contracted
by its agent Valle. By the contract of agency, a person binds himself
to render some service or to do something in representation or on
behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter.
[12]
The general rule is that the principal is responsible for the acts of
its agent done within the scope of its authority, and should bear the
damage caused to third persons.
[13] When the agent exceeds his authority, the agent becomes personally liable for the damage.
[14]
But even when the agent exceeds his authority, the principal is still
solidarily liable together with the agent if the principal allowed the
agent to act as though the agent had full powers.
[15]
In other words, the acts of an agent beyond the scope of his authority
do not bind the principal, unless the principal ratifies them,
expressly or impliedly.
[16]
Ratification in agency is the adoption or confirmation by one person of
an act performed on his behalf by another without authority.
[17]
Filipinas Life cannot profess ignorance of Valle’s acts. Even if
Valle’s representations were beyond his authority as a debit/insurance
agent, Filipinas Life thru Alcantara and Apetrior expressly and
knowingly ratified Valle’s acts. It cannot even be denied that
Filipinas Life benefited from the investments deposited by Valle in the
account of Filipinas Life. In our considered view, Filipinas Life had
clothed Valle with apparent authority; hence, it is now estopped to
deny said authority. Innocent third persons should not be prejudiced if
the principal failed to adopt the needed measures to prevent
misrepresentation, much more so if the principal ratified his agent’s
acts beyond the latter’s authority. The act of the agent is considered
that of the principal itself.
Qui per alium facit per seipsum facere videtur. “He who does a thing by an agent is considered as doing it himself.”
[18]
WHEREFORE, the petition is
DENIED for lack of merit. The
Decision and Resolution, dated November 29, 2002 and August 5, 2003,
respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 33568 are
AFFIRMED.
Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Tinga, and
Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 43-55.
Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, with Associate Justices
Eugenio S. Labitoria and Danilo B. Pine concurring.
[2] Id. at 56.
[3] Id. at 57-63. Penned by Judge Clemente M. Soriano.
[4] Records, p. 246.
[5] TSN, October 7, 1983, pp. 9-10.
[6] Records, p. 248.
[7] Id. at 247.
[8] Supra note 5.
[9] Records, pp. 253-264.
[10] Rollo, p. 108.
[11] Id. at 109.
[12] CIVIL CODE, Art. 1868.
[13] Lopez, et al. v. Hon. Alvendia, et al., 120 Phil. 1424, 1431-1432 (1964).
[14] BA Finance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94566, July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA 112, 118.
[15] CIVIL CODE, Art. 1911.
[16] Id., Art. 1910. The
principal must comply with all the obligations which the agent may have
contracted within the scope of his authority.
As for any obligation wherein the agent has exceeded his power, the
principal is not bound except when he ratifies it expressly or tacitly.
[17] Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. v. Linsangan, G.R. No. 151319, November 22, 2004, 443 SCRA 377, 394.
[18] Prudential Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108957, June 14, 1993, 223 SCRA 350, 357.