FILIPINAS LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY (now AYALA LIFE ASSURANCE, INC.), petitioner,
vs.
CLEMENTE N. PEDROSO, TERESITA O. PEDROSO and JENNIFER N. PALACIO thru her Attorney-in-Fact PONCIANO C. MARQUEZ, respondents.
G.R. No. 159489 | February 4, 2008
FILIPINAS LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY (now AYALA LIFE ASSURANCE, INC.), petitioner,
vs.
CLEMENTE N. PEDROSO, TERESITA O. PEDROSO and JENNIFER N. PALACIO thru her Attorney-in-Fact PONCIANO C. MARQUEZ, respondents.
Doctrines
Agency; 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; The acts of an agent beyond the scope of his authority do not bind the principal, unless the principal ratifies them, expressly or impliedly.
Same;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.
FACTS:
Teresita Pedroso is a policy holder of a 20-year endowment life insurance issued by Filipinas Life Assurance Co. Pedroso claims Renato Valle was her insurance agent since 1972 and Valle collected her monthly premiums.
In the first week of January 1977, Renato 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 for P10,000. In return, Valle issued Pedroso his personal check for P800 for the 8% prepaid interest and a Filipinas Life Agent receipt.
Pedroso called the Escolta office and talked to Francisco Alcantara, the administrative assistant, who referred her to the branch manager, named 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, Escolta Branch.
Relying on the representations made by Filipinas Life’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. 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% prepaid interest a month. Upon maturity of Pedroso’s subsequent investments, Valle would take back from Pedroso the corresponding agent’s receipt he issued to the latter.
Pedroso told respondent Jennifer Palacio, also a Filipinas Life insurance policyholder, about the investment plan. Palacio made a total investment of P49,550 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.
Issue
Whether or not Filipinas Life is jointly and severally liable with Apetrior and Alcantara on the claim of Pedroso and Palacio.
Held:
Yes. 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, Pedroso and Palacio 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. 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. When the agent exceeds his authority, the agent becomes personally liable for the damage. 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. The acts of an agent beyond the scope of his authority do not bind the principal, unless the principal ratifies them, expressly or impliedly.
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.”
Filipinas Life Assurance Company vs. Pedroso, 543 SCRA 542, G.R. No. 159489 February 4, 2008
Read Full Cases
