Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Hidalgo
Facts:
The defendant, as such agent, collected the rents and income from the said properties, amounting to P50,244, which sum,
collected in partial amounts and on different dates, he should have deposited, in accordance with the verbal agreement
between the deceased and himself, the defendant, in the general treasury of the Spanish Government at an interest of 5 per
cent per annum, which interest on accrual was likewise to be deposited in order that it also might bear interest; that the
defendant did not remit or pay to Jose de la Pea y Gomiz, during the latter's lifetime, nor to nay representative of the said
De la Pea y Gomiz, the sum aforestated nor any part thereof, with the sole exception of P1,289.03, nor has he deposited
the unpaid balance of the said sum in the treasury, according to agreement, wherefore he has become liable to his principal
and to the defendant-administrator for the said sum, together with its interest, which amounts to P72,548.24 and that,
whereas the defendant has not paid over all nor any part of the last mentioned sum, he is liable for the same, as well as for
the interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the time of the filing of the complaint, and for the costs of the suit.
By virtue of the powers conferred upon him by Pea y Gomiz, he took charge of the administration of the latter's property
and administered the same until December 31, 1893, when for reasons of health he ceased to discharge the duties of said
position; that during the years 1889, 1890, 1891, and 1892, the defendant continually by letter requested Pea y Gomiz,
his principal, to appoint a person to substitute him in the administration of the latter's property, inasmuch as the defendant,
for reasons of health, was unable to continue in his trust; that, on March 22, 1894, the defendant Federico Hidalgo,
because of serious illness, was absolutely obliged to leave these Islands and embarked on the steamer Isla de Luzon for
Spain, on which date the defendant notified his principal that, for the reason aforestated, he had renounced his powers and
turned over the administration of his property to Antonio Hidalgo, to whom he should transmit a power of attorney for the
fulfillment, in due form, of the trust that the defendant had been discharging since January 1, 1894, or else execute a
power of attorney in favor of such other person as he might deem proper.
Issue:
WON Hidalgo can be liable as an agent/ WON there is implied agency
Held:
From the procedure followed by the agent, Federico Hidalgo, it is logically inferred that he had definitely renounced his
agency was duly terminated, according to the provisions of article 1732 of the Civil Code, because, although in the said
letter of March 22, 1894, the word "renounce" was not employed in connection with the agency or power of attorney
executed in his favor, yet when the agent informs his principal that for reasons of health and by medical advice he is about
to depart from the place where he is exercising his trust and where the property subject to his administration is situated,
abandons the property, turns it over a third party, and asks that a power of attorney in due form in due form be executed
and transmitted to another person who substituted him and took charge of the administration of the principal's property, it
is then reasonable and just to conclude that the said agent expressly and definitely renounced his agency, and it may not
be alleged that the designation of Antonio Hidalgo to take charge of the said administration was that of a mere proceed
lasted for more than fifteen years, for such an allegation would be in conflict with the nature of the agency.
The proof of the tacit consent of the principal, Jose de la Pea y Gomiz, the owner of the property administered a
consent embracing the essential element of a legitimate agency, Federico Hidalgo, his agent, who was giving up his trust,
requested him to send a new power of attorney in favor of the said Antonio Hidalgo, nevertheless he, Jose de la Pea y
Gomiz, saw fit not to execute nor transmit any power of attorney whatever to the new administrator of his property and
remained silent for nearly nine years; Wherefore, in permitting Antonio Hidalgo to administer his property in this city
during such a number of years, it is inferred, from the procedure and silence of the owner thereof, that he consented to
have Antonio Hidalgo administer his property, and in fact created in his favor an implied agency, as the true and legitimate
administrator. The implied agency is founded on the lack of contradiction or opposition, which constitutes simultaneous
agreement on the part of the presumed principal to the execution of the contract, while in the management of another's
business there is no simultaneous consent, either express or implied, but a fiction or presumption of consent because of the
benefit received.
The defendant Federico Hidalgo, having ceased in his administration of the property belonging to Pea y Gomiz, is only
liable for the results and consequences of his administration during the period when the said property was in his charge,
and therefore his liability can not extend beyond the period of his management.