Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE BORDADOR v. BRIGIDA D. LUZ

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 163553 2009-12-11	YUN KWAN BYUNG v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT CARPIO, J.
Petitioner's argument is clearly misplaced. The basis for agency is representation,[58] that is, the agent acts for and on behalf of the principal on matters within the scope of his authority and said acts have the same legal effect as if they were personally executed by the principal.[59] On the part of the principal, there must be an actual intention to appoint or an intention naturally inferable from his words or actions, while on the part of the agent, there must be an intention to accept the appointment and act on it.[60] Absent such mutual intent, there is generally no agency.[61]
	GR NO. 143044 2005-08-14	WILLIAM MADARANG v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Fourth. Section 4, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court explicitly recognizes that "a final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the defendant from civil liability is no bar to a criminal action." [26]
	GR No. 143044 2005-07-14	WILLIAM MADARANG v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Fourth. Section 4, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court explicitly recognizes that "a final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the defendant from civil liability is no bar to a criminal action." [26]
	GR No. 129919 2002-02-06	DOMINION INSURANCE CORPORATION v. CA PARDO, J.
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.[10] The basis for agency is representation.[11] On the part of the principal, there must be an actual intention to appoint[12] or an intention naturally inferrable from his words or actions;[13] and on the part of the agent, there must be an intention to accept the appointment and act on it,[14] and in the absence of such intent, there is generally no agency.[15]