10 NFA V IAC

10. NFA v.
IAC  Superior Shipping wrote again NGA, this time specifically requesting that
184 SCRA 166 the payment for freightage and other charges be made to it and not to
APRIL 5, 1990 defendant Medalla because Superior Shipping was the owner of MV Sea
By: JANINE Runner.
____________________________________________________________________  In reply, NGA informed Superior Shipping that it could not grant its
Topic: OBLIGATIONS OF THE AGENT request because the contract to transport the rice was entered into by
Petitioners: NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY NGA and Medalla who did not disclose that he was acting as a mere agent
Respondents: INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, SUPERIOR (SG) SHIPPING of Superior Shipping.
CORPORATION  NGA paid Medalla the sum of P25,974.90, for freight services in
Ponente: PARAS, J connection with the shipment of 8,550 sacks of rice.
____________________________________________________________________  Superior Shipping then wrote Medalla demanding that he turn over to it
SUMMARY: Gil Medalla as agent of Superior Shipping entered into a contract with the amount of P27,000.00 paid to him by NGA.
NFA for the delivery of rice. Superior Shipping requested NFA that payment be  Medalla ignored the demand.
made to them and not to Medalla. However, NFA informed Superior Shipping that  Superior Shipping filed a complaint.
it could not grant its request because the contract to transport the rice was entered  NFA contends that it is not liable under the exception to the rule (Art.
into by NFA and Medalla who did not disclose that he was acting as a mere agent of 1883) since it had no knowledge of the fact of agency between
Superior Shipping. NFA paid Medalla for freight services. Medalla ignored the respondent Superior Shipping and Medalla at the time when the contract
demand from Superior Shipping that he turn over the amount to them. Superior was entered into between them (NFA and Medalla). Petitioner submits
Shipping filed a complaint. TC and IAC held NFA and Medalla liable. SC ruled that that "(A)n undisclosed principal cannot maintain an action upon a
when things belonging to the principal (in this case, Superior Shipping Corporation) contract made by his agent unless such principal was disclosed in such
are dealt with, the agent is bound to the principal although he does not assume the contract. One who deals with an agent acquires no right against the
character of such agent and appears acting in his own name. Furthermore, if the undisclosed principal."
principal can be obliged to perform his duties under the contract, then it can also  TC ruled in favor of Superior Shipping and ordered Medalla and NFA to
demand the enforcement of its rights arising from the contract. pay Superior Shipping.
____________________________________________________________________  IAC affirmed TC.
DOCTRINE:
If the principal can be obliged to perform his duties under the contract, then it can ISSUE: WON NFA is liable with Medalla for freightage.
also demand the enforcement of its rights arising from the contract.
HELD: YES
FACTS When things belonging to the principal (in this case, Superior Shipping
 Gil Medalla, as commission agent of Superior Shipping Corporation, Corporation) are dealt with, the agent is bound to the principal although he does
entered into a contract for hire of ship known as "MV Sea Runner" with not assume the character of such agent and appears acting in his own name. In
National Grains Authority (now NFA). other words, the agent's apparent representation yields to the principal's true
 Under the said contract, Medalla obligated to transport on the "MV Sea representation and that, in reality and in effect, the contract must be considered as
Runner" 8,550 sacks of rice belonging to NGA from the port of San Jose, entered into between the principal and the third person. Corollarily, if the principal
Occidental Mindoro to Malabon, Metro Manila. can be obliged to perform his duties under the contract, then it can also demand
 Upon completion of the delivery of rice at its destination, Superior the enforcement of its rights arising from the contract.
Shipping wrote a letter requesting NGA that it be allowed to collect the
amount stated in its statement of account. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is hereby DENIED and the
 The statement of account included not only a claim for freightage but appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
also claims for demurrage and stevedoring charges amounting to
P93,538.70.

10 NFA V IAC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 NFA V IAC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 NFA V IAC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10. NFA v.

You might also like