Dela Pena vs. 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 steamerIsla de Luzonfor 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.

1.AGENCY; ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY; IMPLIED AGENCY.When the agent and administrator of property informs his principal by letter that for reasons of health and medical treatment he is about to depart from the place where he is executing his trust and wherein the said property is situated, and abandons the property, turns it over to a third party, renders accounts of its revenues up to the date on which he ceases to hold his position and transmits to his principal a general statement which summarizes and embraces all the balances of his accounts since he began the administration to the date of the termination of his trust, and, without stating when he may return to take charge of the administration of the said property, asks his principal to execute a power of attorney in due form in favor of and transmit the same to another person who took charge of the administration of the said property, it is but reasonable and just to conclude that the said agent had expressly and definitely renounced his agency and that such agency was duly terminated, in accordance with the provisions of article 1732 of the Civil Code, and, although the agent in his aforementioned letter did not use the words "renouncing the agency," yet such words were undoubtedly so understood and accepted by the principal, because of the lapse of nearly nine years up to the time of the latter's death, without his having interrogated either the renouncing agent, disapproving what he had done, or the person who substituted the latter.

2.ID. ; ID. ; ID.The person who took charge of the administration of property without express authorization and without a power of attorney executed by the owner thereof, and performed the duties of his office without opposition or absolute prohibition on the owner's part, expressly communicated to the said person, is concluded to have administered the said property by virtueof an 'implied agency, in acordance with the provisions of article 1710 of the Civil Code, since the said owner of the property, knowing perfectly well that the said person took charge of the administration of the same, through designation by such owner's former agent who had to absent himself from the place for well-founded reasons, remained silent for nearly nine years. Although he did not send a new power of attorney to the said person who took charge of his property, the fact remains that, during the .period stated, he neither opposed nor prohibited the new agent with respect to the administration, nor did he appoint another person in his confidence; wherefore it must be concluded that this new agent acted by virtue of an implied agency, equivalent to a legitimate agency, tacitly conferred by the owner of the property administered.

3.ID. ; ID. ; ID.It is improper to compare the case where the owner of the property is unaware of the officious management of a third party in the former's interests, with the case where, having perfect knowledge that his interests and property were so being managed and administered, he did not object, but in fact consented to such management and administration for many years; for the reason that an administration by virtue of an implied agency derives its origin from a contract, and the management of another's business without the knowledge of the owner thereof, is based solely on a quasi-contracta distinction sanctioned by the jurisprudence established by the supreme court of Spain in its decision of July 7, 1881.

4.ID. ; ID. ; ID.The agent and administrator who was obliged to leave his charge for a legitimate cause and who duly informed his principal, is thenceforward released and freed from the results and consequences of the management of the person who substituted him with the consent, even tacit though it be, of his principal. For this reason, the latter has no right to claim damages against his former agent whose conduct was in accordance with the provisions of article 1736 of the Civil Code, for the care of the property and interests of another can not require that the agent make the sacrifice of his health, of his life, and of his own interests, it having been shown that it was impossible for the latter to continue in the discharge of his duties.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; LIABILITY OF ADMINISTRATOR.The administrator is only responsible for the result and consequences of his administration during the period when he had charge of his principal's property. His responsibility can not be held to extend beyond the period of his administration, especially as the representative of the testate succession of the deceased owner of the property ad issued in his favor an instrument whereby he acknowledges that the said administration was satisfactorily terminated. [De la Pea vs. Hidalgo., 16 Phil. 450(1910)]