This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-06-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| This principle was also reiterated in the case of Gozun v. Mercado,[10] where this court held: Petitioner submits that his following testimony suffices to establish that respondent had authorized Lilian to obtain a loan from him. | |||||
|
2010-01-25 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In the fairly recent case of Gozun v. Mercado,[20] respondent Mercado denied having authorized his sister-in-law (Lilian) to borrow money from petitioner who gave her "cash advance" of P253,000.00 allegedly for allowances of poll watchers. Petitioner sued respondent to collect on various sums due from the latter including the "cash advance" obtained by Lilian. The trial court found for the petitioner and ordered the respondent to pay all amounts being claimed by the petitioner. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action. When the case reached this Court, petitioner argued that respondent had informed him that he had authorized Lilian to obtain the loan and hence, following Macke v. Camps which held that one who clothes another with apparent authority as his agent, and holds him out to the public as such, respondent cannot be permitted to deny the authority. We sustained the Court of Appeals' ruling on the matter and held that respondent was not liable for the "cash advance" given by petitioner to Lilian who signed the receipt in her name alone, without indicating therein that she was acting for and in behalf of respondent. She thus bound herself in her personal capacity and not as an agent of respondent or anyone for that matter.[21] | |||||