This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-08-06 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In People's Aircargo and Warehousing Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[63] we held that under Section 23 of the Corporation Code, the power and responsibility to decide whether a corporation can enter into a binding contract is lodged with the board of directors, subject to the articles of incorporation, by-laws, or relevant provisions of law. As we have clearly explained in another case: A corporate officer or agent may represent and bind the corporation in transactions with third persons to the extent that [the] authority to do so has been conferred upon him, and this includes powers which have been intentionally conferred, and also such powers as, in the usual course of the particular business, are incidental to, or may be implied from, the powers intentionally conferred, powers added by custom and usage, as usually pertaining to the particular officer or agent, and such apparent powers as the corporation has caused persons dealing with the officer or agent to believe that it has conferred.[64] [emphasis ours] | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The doctrine of apparent authority provides that a corporation will be estopped from denying the agent's authority if it knowingly permits one of its officers or any other agent to act within the scope of an apparent authority, and it holds him out to the public as possessing the power to do those acts.[76] The doctrine of apparent authority does not apply if the principal did not commit any acts or conduct which a third party knew and relied upon in good faith as a result of the exercise of reasonable prudence. Moreover, the agent's acts or conduct must have produced a change of position to the third party's detriment.[77] | |||||
|
2010-03-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In People's Aircargo and Warehousing Co., Inc. v. CA,[17] we held that in the absence of a charter or bylaw provision to the contrary, the president of a corporation is presumed to have the authority to act within the domain of the general objectives of its business and within the scope of his or her usual duties. Moreover, even if a certain contract or undertaking is outside the usual powers of the president, the corporation's ratification of the contract or undertaking and the acceptance of benefits therefrom make the corporate president's actions binding on the corporation. | |||||
|
2008-02-11 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The legal presumption is always on the validity of contracts.[12] In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered.[13] When respondent accepted delivery of all three units of heavy equipment under the deed of assignment, there could be no doubt that it intended to be bound under the agreement. | |||||
|
2006-08-18 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| requisite quantum of proof that Halican was in fact authorized by the respondent to represent and bind it in the questioned transaction. Unfortunately for the petitioner, she failed to discharge her burden. As it is, the evidence adduced by her is bereft of any proof of authority on the part of Halican and Estremera, either by way a provision on the respondent's by-laws or a board resolution, to contract the alleged loan and to execute relative thereto the promissory note in dispute. This being so, Halican's act of executing and signing the subject promissory note cannot bind the respondent credit union. So it is that in People's Aircargo and Warehousing Co., Inc. v. CA,[14]the Court made it clear that in the absence of authority from the board of directors, no person, not even its officers, can validly bind a corporation. We thus lend concurrence to the CA's apt observations in the decision under review, thus: Indeed, the evidence submitted by the [petitioner] to prove her claim is insufficient to establish the fact that [respondent] is indebted to it for x x x it has been held that the power to borrow money is one of those cases where even a special power of attorney is required. | |||||