This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-07-28 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In finding that the assignments of the TCCs in favor of Petron were fraudulent, we find that the CTA En Banc reversibly erred in relying on the abovementioned affidavits executed by the grantees' former general managers/officers who, after disavowing knowledge of the assignment of the subject TCCs and Petron's delivery of bunker fuel oil in consideration thereof, requested the cancellation of the TCCs.[55] Without said erstwhile general managers/officers being presented on the witness stand to affirm the truth and veracity of their statements, the affidavits they executed are, however, correctly impugned by Petitioner as hearsay for lack of opportunity to cross-examine said affiants. Almost always incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestion, or for want of suggestion and inquiries,[56] the infirmity of affidavits as species of evidence is a matter of judicial experience and are thus considered inferior to the testimony given in open court.[57] Unless the affiant is placed on the witness stand to testify thereon, the rule is settled that affidavits are inadmissible as evidence under the hearsay rule.[58] | |||||
|
2007-04-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The elements of the contract of agency are: (1) consent, express or implied, of the parties to establish the relationship; (2) the object is the execution of a juridical act in relation to a third person; (3) the agent acts as a representative and not for himself; (4) the agent acts within the scope of his authority.[34] | |||||
|
2006-06-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Condition number 6 categorically states that the permit shall be for the exclusive use and benefit of MMC or its duly authorized agents. While it may be true that SEM, the assignee of EP 133, is a 100% subsidiary corporation of MMC, records are bereft of any evidence showing that the former is the duly authorized agent of the latter. For a contract of agency to exist, it is essential that the principal consents that the other party, the agent, shall act on its behalf, and the agent consents so as to act.[29] In the case of Yu Eng Cho v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.,[30] this Court had the occasion to set forth the elements of agency, viz: (1) consent, express or implied, of the parties to establish the relationship; | |||||
|
2004-11-22 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| 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.[38] The basis for agency is representation and a person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent.[39] If he does not make such an inquiry, he is chargeable with knowledge of the agent's authority and his ignorance of that authority will not be any excuse.[40] | |||||