Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

YAO KA SIN TRADING v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 165548 2011-06-13	PHILIPPINE REALTY v. LEY CONSTRUCTION SERENO, J.
In Yao Ka Sin Trading v. Court of Appeals, et al,. [43] this Court discussed the applicable rules on the doctrine of apparent authority, to wit: The rule is of course settled that "[a]lthough an officer or agent acts without, or in excess of, his actual authority if he acts within the scope of an apparent authority with which the corporation has clothed him by holding him out or permitting him to appear as having such authority, the corporation is bound thereby in favor of a person who deals with him in good faith in reliance on such apparent authority, as where an officer is allowed to exercise a particular authority with respect to the business, or a particular branch of it, continuously and publicly, for a considerable time." Also, "if a private corporation intentionally or negligently clothes its officers or agents with apparent power to perform acts for it, the corporation will be estopped to deny that such apparent authority is real, as to innocent third persons dealing in good faith with such officers or agents." [44]
	GR No. 123650 2009-03-23	WESTMONT BANK v. INLAND CONSTRUCTION CARPIO MORALES, J.
Petitioner's simplistic reading of Yao Ka Sin Trading v. Court of Appeals[26] does not impress. In Yao Ka Sin Trading, the therein respondent cement company had shown by clear and convincing evidence that its president was not authorized to undertake a particular transaction. It presented its by-laws stating that only its board of directors has the power to enter into an agreement or contract of any kind. The company's board of directors even forthwith issued a resolution to repudiate the contract. Thus, it was only after the company successfully discharged its burden that the other party, the therein petitioner Yao Ka Sin Trading, had to prove that indeed the cement company had clothed its president with the apparent power to execute the contract by evidence of similar acts executed in its favor or in favor of other parties.
	GR NO. 153057 2006-08-07	MR. v. G.V.T. ENGINEERING SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the last assigned error, respondent quoted portions of this Court's ruling in the case of Yao Ka Sin Trading v. Court of Appeals[10], as cited by the CA in its challenged Decision. In the said case, the Court basically held that no one has been misled by the error in the name of the party plaintiff and to send the case back to the trial court for amendment and new trial for the simple purpose of changing the name of the plaintiff is not justified considering that there would be, on re-trial, the same complaint, answer, defense, interests, witnesses and evidence.
	GR NO. 154630 2005-05-06	BERMAN MEMORIAL PARK v. FRANCISCO CHENG CALLEJO, SR., J.
No one has been misled by the error in the name of the party-plaintiff. If we should, by reason of this error, send this case back for amendment and new trial, there would be on the retrial the same complaint, the same answer, the same defense, the same interests, the same witnesses, and the same evidence. The name of the plaintiff would constitute the only difference between the old trial and the new. In our judgment, there is not enough in a name to justify such action.[41]
	GR No. 160215 2004-11-10	HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORPORATION v. NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
. . . The rule is of course settled that "[a]lthough an officer or agent acts without, or in excess of, his actual authority if he acts within the scope of an apparent authority with which the corporation has clothed him by holding him out or permitting him to appear as having such authority, the corporation is bound thereby in favor of a person who deals with him in good faith in reliance on such apparent authority, as where an officer is allowed to exercise a particular authority with respect to the business, or a particular branch of it, continuously and publicly, for a considerable time.". . .[35]
	GR No. 159352 2004-04-14	PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK v. CA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
If a private corporation intentionally or negligently clothes its officers or agents with apparent power to perform acts for it, the corporation will be estopped to deny that the apparent authority is real as to innocent third persons dealing in good faith with such officers or agents.[17] As testified to by Martillano, after she received a copy of the credit line agreement and affixed her signature in conformity thereto, she forwarded the same to the legal department of the Bank at its Head Office. Despite its knowledge, Premiere Bank failed to disaffirm the contract. When the officers or agents of a corporation exceed their powers in entering into contracts or doing other acts, the corporation, when it has knowledge thereof, must promptly disaffirm the contract or act and allow the other party or third persons to act in the belief that it was authorized or has been ratified. If it acquiesces, with knowledge of the facts, or fails to disaffirm, ratification will be implied or else it will be estopped to deny ratification.[18]