Verify Authority First: Agency Agreements and Contract Validity in the Philippines

TLDR: This case highlights the crucial importance of verifying an agent’s authority before entering into contracts. Philippine law requires clear authorization, especially for borrowing money. Failure to confirm authority can lead to unenforceable agreements, as seen when a political candidate was not held liable for a loan taken by his sister-in-law without explicit authorization, despite campaign-related benefits.

G.R. NO. 167812, December 19, 2006: JESUS M. GOZUN, PETITIONER, VS JOSE TEOFILO T. MERCADO A.K.A. ‘DON PEPITO MERCADO, RESPONDENT

INTRODUCTION

In the bustling world of commerce and even in the high-stakes arena of political campaigns, agreements are the lifeblood of progress. But what happens when someone acts on behalf of another? Can you assume they have the power to bind that person to a contract? This question is at the heart of agency law, a critical aspect of Philippine jurisprudence. The Supreme Court case of Gozun v. Mercado provides a stark reminder: always verify authority. In this case, a printing shop owner sought to collect payment for campaign materials and a cash advance, only to find that assumptions about agency can crumble under legal scrutiny. The central legal question revolved around whether a political candidate could be held liable for debts incurred by individuals associated with his campaign, specifically his sister-in-law, without explicit authorization.

LEGAL CONTEXT: AGENCY AND CONTRACTS IN THE PHILIPPINES

Philippine law defines agency through Article 1868 of the Civil Code: “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.” This definition underscores that agency is about representation and authority. Crucially, contracts entered into by an unauthorized agent are generally unenforceable under Article 1317, which states that “No one may contract in the name of another without being authorized by the latter, or unless he has by law a right to represent him.”

The law distinguishes between general and special agency. While general agency might arise from implied actions or broad roles, certain acts, like borrowing money, require a special power of attorney. Article 1878(7) of the Civil Code explicitly mandates a special power of attorney “to borrow or lend money, unless the latter act be urgent and indispensable for the preservation of the things which are under administration.” This requirement emphasizes the need for explicit and specific authorization when it comes to financial obligations.

However, the Supreme Court in Lim Pin v. Liao Tian, et al. clarified that the special power of attorney requirement is about the nature of authorization, not strictly the form. As the Court stated, “The requirements are met if there is a clear mandate from the principal specifically authorizing the performance of the act.” This mandate, while ideally written, can be oral but must be “duly established by evidence.” The burden of proving agency rests on the party claiming it.

Further complicating matters is the concept of apparent authority, sometimes referred to as agency by estoppel. The principle, rooted in cases like Macke v. Camps, suggests that if a principal creates the impression that someone is their agent, they might be bound by that agent’s actions, even without formal authorization. This is particularly relevant when the principal’s conduct leads a third party to reasonably believe in the agency. However, apparent authority is not a substitute for actual authority and is carefully scrutinized by courts.

CASE BREAKDOWN: GOZUN VS. MERCADO

The dispute in Gozun v. Mercado unfolded during the 1995 gubernatorial elections in Pampanga. Jesus Gozun, owner of JMG Publishing House, printed campaign materials for Jose Teofilo Mercado, who was running for governor. Gozun claimed he was authorized to print the materials and extend a cash advance based on representations from Mercado’s wife and sister-in-law. After the elections, Gozun sought to collect over P2 million from Mercado for printing services and the cash advance.

Here’s a chronological breakdown of the key events:

1. Pre-Election Arrangements: Gozun provided campaign material samples and price quotes to Mercado. Gozun alleged Mercado’s wife authorized the printing to begin.
2. Printing and Delivery: Gozun printed posters, leaflets, sample ballots, and other materials, even subcontracting some work to meet deadlines. These were delivered to Mercado’s campaign headquarters.
3. Cash Advance: Mercado’s sister-in-law, Lilian Soriano, obtained a P253,000 “cash advance” from Gozun, supposedly for poll watcher allowances.
4. Partial Payment: Mercado’s wife paid P1,000,000 to Gozun.
5. Demand for Balance: Gozun demanded the remaining balance of P1,177,906. Mercado refused to pay, claiming the materials were donations and Lilian’s cash advance was unauthorized.
6. Trial Court: The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Gozun, ordering Mercado to pay the balance plus interest and attorney’s fees.
7. Court of Appeals: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, dismissing Gozun’s complaint. The CA found insufficient evidence of Lilian’s authority to borrow money and that Gozun was not the real party in interest for the subcontracted printing costs.
8. Supreme Court: Gozun appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Gozun, but not entirely. Justice Carpio Morales, writing for the Third Division, emphasized the lack of evidence proving Lilian Soriano’s authority to obtain the cash advance on Mercado’s behalf. The Court noted that the receipt for the cash advance did not indicate Lilian was acting as Mercado’s agent. The Court quoted Article 1317, reiterating that unauthorized contracts are unenforceable unless ratified.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals regarding the printing costs. It found that Gozun, as the original contracting party with Mercado, was indeed the real party in interest, even for the work subcontracted to his daughter and mother’s printing presses. The Court stated, “In light thereof, petitioner is the real party in interest in this case. The trial court’s findings on the matter were affirmed by the appellate court. It erred, however, in not declaring petitioner as a real party in interest insofar as recovery of the cost of campaign materials made by petitioner’s mother and sister are concerned, upon the wrong notion that they should have been, but were not, impleaded as plaintiffs.”

In the end, the Supreme Court partially granted Gozun’s petition, ordering Mercado to pay for the printing services, but not the cash advance. The final amount due was reduced to P924,906 after deducting the partial payment and the disallowed cash advance.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PROTECTING YOUR BUSINESS AND AGREEMENTS

Gozun v. Mercado offers vital lessons for businesses and individuals alike. It underscores that verbal assurances of authority are insufficient, especially for significant financial transactions. The case serves as a cautionary tale about the perils of assuming agency without proper verification.

For businesses, especially those dealing with large contracts or extending credit, the ruling emphasizes the need for due diligence in verifying the authority of individuals acting on behalf of organizations or persons. This is particularly true when dealing with intermediaries or individuals who are not the principals themselves.

For political campaigns and similar ventures involving numerous volunteers and staff, clear lines of authority and documented agency agreements are essential to avoid disputes over financial obligations. Campaign managers and treasurers should have clearly defined roles and authorization limits, and these should be communicated to vendors and suppliers.

Key Lessons from Gozun v. Mercado:

• Verify Authority: Always confirm an agent’s authority to act on behalf of a principal, especially for financial transactions. Don’t rely solely on verbal assurances.
• Document Everything: Ensure agency agreements are documented in writing, clearly outlining the scope of authority. For special powers, like borrowing money, written authorization is crucial.
• Direct Dealings Preferred: Whenever possible, transact directly with the principal party to avoid agency-related complications.
• Receipts Matter: Ensure receipts clearly identify who is receiving funds and in what capacity. Ambiguous receipts can weaken your claim.
• Real Party in Interest: Understand who the real party in interest is in a contract. Subcontracting doesn’t necessarily remove the original contractor’s right to sue for the full contract amount.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: What is agency in Philippine law?

A: Agency is a legal relationship where one person (the agent) is authorized to act on behalf of another (the principal), binding the principal to contracts and obligations within the scope of that authority.

Q: What is a special power of attorney? When is it required?

A: A special power of attorney is a written document specifically authorizing an agent to perform certain acts, such as borrowing money or selling property. It is required for acts where explicit and formal authorization is deemed necessary by law, like borrowing money as highlighted in this case.

Q: What happens if someone enters into a contract without authority?

A: The contract is generally unenforceable against the principal unless the principal ratifies or approves the unauthorized act. The unauthorized agent may be held personally liable.

Q: What is ratification in contract law?

A: Ratification is the act of approving an unauthorized contract, making it valid and binding as if it were originally authorized. Ratification can be express (stated clearly) or implied (through actions indicating approval).

Q: How can I verify if someone is authorized to act as an agent?

A: Ask for written proof of agency, such as a power of attorney or board resolution. Contact the principal directly to confirm the agent’s authority, especially for significant transactions.

Q: Is a verbal agreement of agency valid?

A: Yes, agency can be created verbally, but proving its existence and scope can be challenging. Certain types of agency, like selling land, require written authorization. For important transactions, written agreements are always recommended.

Q: What is apparent authority? Is it the same as actual authority?

A: Apparent authority arises when a principal’s conduct leads a third party to reasonably believe that someone is their agent, even if they lack actual authority. It’s different from actual authority, which is the real power granted to an agent. Apparent authority can sometimes bind a principal, but it’s a complex legal concept.

Q: Who is the real party in interest in a contract?

A: The real party in interest is the person or entity who directly benefits from and is bound by the contract. Generally, it’s the contracting parties themselves. In Gozun v. Mercado, Gozun was deemed the real party in interest because he directly contracted with Mercado, even though he subcontracted some of the work.

ASG Law specializes in Contract Law and Commercial Litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.