33 Dale Stricland Vs Ernst & Young 8 1 18 G.R. No. 193782

G.R. No.
193782, August 1, 2018

DALE STRICKLAND (Strickland), Petitioner, vs.
ERNST & YOUNG LLP (EYLLP), Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 210695
DALE STRICKLAND, Petitioner, vs.
PUNONGBAYAN & ARAULLO (PA), Respondent.
JARDELEZA, J.:
FACTS:
On March 26, 2002, National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC) and
Punongbayan & Araullo (PA) entered into a Financial Advisory Services Agreement (FASA)
for the liquidation of the NHMFC’s Unified Home Lending Program (UHLP). At the time of
the engagement, PA was the Philippine member of respondent global company, EYLLP. In
the March 26, 2002 letter of PA to NHMFC confirming their engagement as exclusive
Financial Advisor for the UHLP Project, PA is designated as P&A/Ernst & Young.
During this period, Strickland was a partner of EYLLP seconded to respondent Ernst
& Young Asia Pacific Financial Solutions (EYAPFS), who was listed in the FASA as member
of the Engagement Team. Significantly, Strickland played a role in negotiating the FASA
between PA and NHMFC.
By June 6, 2002, EYLLP wrote PA of the termination of its membership in EYLLP.

Despite the termination, the working relationship among the parties continued. In an
assignment letter dated November 15, 2002, EYLLP confirmed Strickland’s assignment to
Manila as a partner and summarized the working arrangement.
In July 2004, the transaction relationship between the parties went awry. In an
exchange of letters, notice was given to NHMFC of PA’s intention to remove Strickland
from the NHMFC Engagement Team as a result of Strickland’s resignation from EYLLP
and/or EYAPFS effective on July 2, 2004.
Since NHMFC was intent on retaining Strickland’s services despite his separation
from EYLLP and/or EYAPFS, the parties entered into negotiations to define Strickland’s
possible continued participation in the UHLP Project. PA, NHMFC, and Strickland
exchanged letters containing proposed amendments to cover the new engagement and
Strickland’s participation within the UHLP Project. No actual written and final agreement
among the parties amending the original engagement letter of March 26, 2002
materialized.
On August 20, 2004, PA wrote a letter, signed by its President/Chairman & CEO to
NHMFC to initiate discussions on a “mutual voluntary termination of the NHMFC
Agreement.” Subsequently, conflict on Strickland’s actual participation and concurrent
designation on the project arose among PA, NHMFC, and Strickland as reflected in the
proposed revisions to the “Draft Financial Advisory Services” initially prepared by PA.
By May 23, 2005, Counsel for Strickland wrote PA asking for “equitable
compensation for professional services” rendered to NHMFC on the UHLP Project from
the time of his separation from EYLLP and/or EYAPFS. Thus, Strickland filed a Complaint,
which included EYAPFS, PA and NHMFC among the defendants. Subsequent to the
complaint, EYLLP and/or EYAPFS filed a Motion to Refer to Arbitration, which was,
however, denied. When brought to the CA, the latter reversed the said order.
ISSUE:
Whether or not PA is an agent of EYLLP.
RULING:
Yes, PA was unequivocally an agent of EYLLP at the time it executed, as Philippine
Member of the EYLLP global company, the FASA with NHMFC for the UHLP Project.
This fact of agency relationship between PA and EYLLP cannot be denied and
avoided by Strickland, given Articles 1868 and 1873 of the Civil Code which provides, thus:
Art. 1868. 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.
Art. 1873. If a person specially informs another or states by public advertisement

that he has given a power of attorney to a third person, the latter thereby becomes
a duly authorized agent, in the former case with respect to the person who received
the special information, and in the latter case with regard to any person.
Clearly, with the foregoing documents, PA is considered an agent of EYLLP. We

quote with favor the analysis of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 120897:
Strickland admitted the following: (1) that he is an employee of Ernst & Young Asia,
assigned to different projects in Korea, Japan, Thailand, China and the Philippines;
and
(2) that xxx P&A is an agent of Ernst & Young Asia. Such agency is also reflected in
the letter addressed to Strickland, dated April 15, 2002, stating that P&A was
representing Ernst & Young Asia, being its member firm located in the Philippines.
P&A, as agent of Ernst & Young Asia, was authorized to act in behalf of the latter
with regard to the liquidation of the UHLP as financial advisor for NHMFC.
Having established the fact of agency, there is no question that P&A derives its
authority for the UHLP liquidation from Ernst & Young Asia. As such agent, P&A cannot
sue and be sued on the contract of employment between Strickland and Ernst & Young
Asia.
As explained by a recognized authority in civil law:
“(a) Normally, the agent has neither rights nor liabilities as against the third party.
He cannot sue or be sued on the contract. Since the contract may be violated only
by the parties thereto against each other, the real party-in-interest, either as
plaintiff or defendant in an action upon that contract must, generally be a party to
said contract.”
In this case, the conflict arose from the terms of Strickland’s employment contract
with Ernst & Young Asia and P&A’s involvement in the same was a mere consequence
that the termination occurred while the UHLP was ongoing. The fact of agency in itself
and the aforequoted discussion of its effects shows that [PA’s] liability is anchored on that
of Ernst & Young Asia, giving rise to a reason why the trial court’s proceedings must be
suspended in the light of the pending arbitration proceedings between [PA’s] principal [,
EYLLP,] and xxx Strickland.

33 Dale Stricland Vs Ernst & Young 8 1 18 G.R. No. 193782

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

33 Dale Stricland Vs Ernst & Young 8 1 18 G.R. No. 193782

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

33 Dale Stricland Vs Ernst & Young 8 1 18 G.R. No. 193782

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

193782, August 1, 2018

By June 6, 2002, EYLLP wrote PA of the termination of its membership in EYLLP.

Art. 1873. If a person specially informs another or states by public advertisement

Clearly, with the foregoing documents, PA is considered an agent of EYLLP. We

As explained by a recognized authority in civil law:

You might also like