1897)It s sad that the bass of agency s representaton, that s, the agent acts for and onbehaf of the prncpa on matters wthn the scope of hs authorty and sad acts havethe same ega ehect as f they were personay executed by the prncpa. By ths egacton, the actua or rea absence of the prncpa s converted nto hs ega or |urdcapresence qui facit per alium facit per se. Eurotech Industrial Technologies, Inc.v. Cuizon, 521 SCRA 584 (2007)Artce 1897 renforces the famar doctrne that an agent, who acts as such, s notpersonay abe to the party wth whom he contracts. The same provson, however,presents two nstances when an agent becomes personay abe to a thrd person.Therst s when he expressy bnds hmsef to the obgaton and the second s when heexceeds hs authorty.In the ast nstance, the agent can be hed abe f he does notgve the thrd party sumcent notce of hs powers.Eurotech IndustrialTechnologies, Inc. v. Cuizon, 521 SCRA 584 (2007).Notce to the agent shoud aways be construed as notce bndng on the prncpa,evenwhenn facttheprncpa neverbecame aware thereof.AirFrance v.CourtofAppeals, 126 SCRA 448 (1983).e. Personal, Fiduciary and Reoca!leThereatonsofanagenttohsprncpa areducaryandnregardtothepropertyformng the sub|ect matter of the agency, he s estopped from acqurng or assertng a tteadverse to that of the prncpa.Severino v. Severino, 44 Ph. 343 (1923).By reason of the personal, representative and derivative nature of agency, agency sextngushed by the death of the prncpa or agent. Rallos v. Felix Go Chan & Sons RealtyCorp., 81 SCRA 251 (1978).A contract of agency s generay revocabe as t s a persona contract of representatonbased on trust and condence reposed by the prncpa on hs agent. As the power of theagent to act depends on the w and cense of the prncpa he represents, the power oftheagent ceases whenthe w or permsson s wthdrawn by theprncpa. Thus,enerally, the aency may !e revo"ed !y the principal at #ill.Repu!lic v. $vanelista, 466SCRA 544 (2005).In an agency, the prncpas personaty s extended through the facty of the agent-the agent, by ega cton, becomes the prncpa, authorzed to perform a acts whch theatter woud have hm do. Such a reatonshp can ony be ehected wth the consent of theprncpa, whch must not, n any way, becompeedby awor by any court. TheAgreement tsef between the partes states that "ether party may termnate theAgreement wthout cause by gvng the other 30 days notce by etter, teegram or cabe."Orient Air Services v. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA "45 (1991).15. #is$in%uis&ed 'ro( )$&er Si(ilar Con$rac$s*a. Fro( +(,loy(en$ Con$rac$The reatonshp between the corporaton whch owns and operates a theatre, and thendvdua t hres as a securty guard to mantan the peace and order at the entrance of1Litonjua, Jr. v. Eternit Corp., 490 SCRA 204 (2006).the theatre s not that of prncpa and agent, because the prncpe of representaton wasnnoway nvoved.Thesecurty guard wasnot empoyed torepresentthe defendantcorporaton n ts deangs wth thrd partes; he was a mere empoyee hred to perform acertanspeccdutyortask, thatofactngasspeca guardandstayngatthemanentranceof themovehousetostopgatecrashersandtomantanpeaceandorderwthn the premses.%ela Cru& v. 'orthern Theatrical $nterprises, 95 Ph 739 (1954).But to set the record straght, the concept of a snge person havng the dua roe ofagentandempoyeewhedongthesametasksanove onenour|ursprudence,whch must be vewed wth cauton especay when t s deoid o' any -uris,ruden$ialsu,,or$ or ,receden$. A these, read wthout any cear understandng of ne egadstnctons, appear to speak of contro by the nsurance company over ts agents. Theyare, however, contros amed ony at specc resuts n undertakng an nsurance agency,andare, nfact, parameters set by awndenngannsuranceagency andtheattendant dutes and responsbtes an nsurance agent must observe and undertake.They do not reach the eve of contro nto the means and manner of dong an assgnedtask that nvaraby characterzes an empoyment reatonshp as dened by abor aw.Tongko v. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. !hils.", Inc., "40 SCRA .95(2011).!. Fro( Con$rac$ 'or a Piece/o'/0or1Takng nto consderaton the facts that the operator owed hs poston to the companyand the atter coud remove hm or termnate hs servces at w; that the servce statonbeonged to the company and bore ts tradename and the operator sod ony the productsof the company; that the equpment used by the operator beonged to the company andwere|ust oanedtotheoperator andthecompanytookchargeof ther repar andmantenance; that an empoyee of the company supervsed the operator and conductedperodc nspecton of the company's gasone and servce staton; that the prce of theproducts sod by the operator was xed by the company and not by the operator; andthat he was a mere agent, the ndng of the Court of Appeas that the operator was anagent of the company and not an ndependent contractor shoud not be dsturbed. Shellv. Firemen(s )ns. Co., 100 Ph 757 (1957).c. Fro( 2ro1er The queston as to what consttutes a sae so as to entte a rea estate broker to hscommssons s extensvey annotated n the case of *unney vs. +ealey (Nebraska) . . . 44Law Rep. Ann. 593 ., and the ong ne of authortes there cted support the foowngrue: #"Thebusnessof area estatebroker or agent, generay, sonytondapurchaser, andthesettedrueasstatedbythecourtssthat, ntheabsenceof anexpress contract between broker and hs prncpa, the mpcaton generay s that thebroker becomes entted to the usua commssons whenever he brngs to hs prncpa aparty who s abe and wng to take the property and enter nto a vad contract upon theterms then named by the prncpa, athough the partcuars may be arranged and thematter negotatedandcompetedbetweentheprncpa andthepurchaser drecty.",acondray & Co. v. Sellner, 33 Ph. 370 (1916)."Thedutesandabtyofabrokertohsempoyerareessentaythosewhchanagent owes to hs prncpa. Consequenty, the decsve ega provsons on determnngwhether a broker s mandated to gve to the empoyer the propina or gft receved fromthe buyer woud be Artces 1891 and 1909 of the Cv Code." (Yet the facts dd ndcateceary that the rea estate broker was apponted as an excusve agent.) #o$ingo v.#o$ingo, 42 SCRA 1.1 (1971).Where the purported agent was oray gven authorty to "foow up" the purchase ofthe re truck wth the muncpagovernment, there s no authorty to senor has thepurported agent been empowered to make a sae for and n behaf of the seer.Guardexv. '*RC, 191 SCRA 487 (1990).Whenthetermsoftheagencyarrangementstotheehectthatenttementtothecommsson was contngent on the purchase by a customer of a re truck, the mpctcondtonbengthat theagentwoudearnthecommssonf hewasnstrumenta nbrngng the sae about. Snce the agent had nothng to do wth the sae of the re truck,and s not therefore entted to any commsson at a. Guardex v. '*RC, 191 SCRA 487(1990).A !ro"ers one who s engaged,forothers,on a commsson,negotatng contractsreatve to property wth the custody of whch he has no concern; the negotator betweenthe other partes, never actng n hs own name but n the name of those who empoyedhm. Hsoccupatonsto!rinthepartiestoether, nmatterof trade, commerceornavgaton.Sch$id and O%erl&, Inc. v. '(L Martinez, 1"" SCRA 49. (1988).Anaent receves a commsson upon the successfu concuson of a sae. On the other hand,a !ro"erearns hs pay merely !y !rinin the !uyer and the seller toether, even f nosae s eventuay made.Tan v. )ullas, .9. SCRA ..4 (2002).Inreatonthereto, wehavehedthat theterm"procurngcause"ndescrbngabrokers actvty, refers to a cause oriinatin a seres of events whch, wthout break nther contnuty, resut n the accompshment of the prme ob|ectve of the empoymentof the broker-producng a purchaser ready, wng and abe to buy on the owners terms.To be regarded as the "procurng cause" of a sae as to be entted to a commsson, abrokers ehorts must have been the foundaton on whch the negotatons resutng n asae began. Medrano v. Court of Appeals, 452 SCRA 77 (2005).2A reaestate broker s one who negotates the sae of reapropertes. Hs busness,generay speakng, s ony to nd a purchaser who s wng to buy the and upon termsxed by the owner. He has no authorty to bnd the prncpa by sgnng a contract of sae.Indeed, an authorty to nd a purchaser of rea property does not ncude an authorty tose. Liton*ua, (r. v. Eternit Corp., 490 SCRA 204 (200").Snce brokerage reatonshp s necessary a contract for the empoyment of an agent,prncpes of contract aw aso govern the broker-prncpa reatonshp. xA!acus SecuritiesCorp. v. Ampil, 483 SCRA 315 (2006).Contrary tothe appeatecourt's concuson,ths arrangementshowsanagency.Anagent receves a commsson upon the successfu concuson of a sae. On the other hand,a broker earns hs pay merey by brngng the buyer and the seer together, even f nosae s eventuay made. (-!iter . the issue #as #hether it #as an independentdistri!utorof /,0carsinthe1hilippines)x+ahnv. Courtof Appeals, 266SCRA537(1997).d. Fro( Sale2Reiterated in 1hil. +ealth2care 1roviders 3,axicare4 v. $strada, 542 SCRA 616 (2008). When the terms of the agreement compes the purported agent to pay for the productsreceved from the purported prncpa wthn the stpuated perod, even when there hasbeen no sae thereof to the pubc, the underyng reatonshp s not one of contract ofagency to se, but one of actua sae. A rea agent does not assume personaresponsbty for the payment of the prce of the ob|ect of the agency; hs obgaton smerey to turn-over to the prncpa the proceeds of the sae once he receves them fromthe buyer. Consequenty, snce the underyng agreement s not an agency agreement, tcannot be revoked except for cause.5uiroa v. 1arsons, 38 Ph 502 (1918).When under the agreement the purported agent becomes responsbe for any changesn the acquston cost of the ob|ect he has been authorzed to purchase from a supper nthe Unted States, the underyng agreement s not an contract of agency to buy, snce atrue agent does not bear any rsk reatng to the sub|ect matter or the prce. Beng acontract of saeandnot agency, anyprots reazedbythepurportedagent fromdscounts recevedfromtheAmercansupper pertanedtot wthnoobgatontoaccount for t, much ess to turn t over, to the purported prncpa.Gon&alo 1uyat v. Arco,72 Ph. 402 (1941).ThedstnctonsbetweenasaeandanagencyarenotdmcuttodscernandthsCourt, as eary as 1970, had aready formuated the gudenes that woud ad ndherentatng the two (2) contracts. . that the prmorda dherentatng consderatonbetweenthetwo(2) contractssthetransferof ownershportteoverthepropertysub|ect of the contract. In an agency, the prncpa retans ownershp and contro over theproperty and the agent merey acts on the prncpa's behaf and under hs nstructons nfurtherance of the ob|ectves for whch the agency was estabshed. On the other hand,the contract s ceary a sae f the partes ntended that the devery of the property wehect a renqushment of tte, contro and ownershp n such a way that the recpentmay do wth the property as he peases. Spouses 6iloria v. Continental Airlines, )nc., G.R.No. 188288.16 |anuary2012.33. F)R4S A5# 635#S )F A7+5C8 1. 9o: A%ency 4ay 2e Cons$i$u$ed (Ar$. 18"9)Therearesomeprovsonsof awwhchrequrecertanformatesfor partcuarcontracts: therstswhentheformsrequredforthevadtyof thecontract; thesecond s when t s requred to make the contract ehectve as aganst thrd partes; andthe thrd s when the form s requred for the purpose of provng the exstence of thecontract. A contract of agency to se on commsson bass does not beong to any ofthese three categores, hence t s vad and enforceabe n whatever form n may beenterednto. Consequenty, whentheagent sgnsher sgnatureonanyfaceof therecept showng that she receves the |ewery for her to se on commsson, she s boundto the obgatons of an agent. The exact poston of the agents sgnature n the recept(n ths case near the descrpton of the goods and not on top of her prnted name) smmatera. *im v. Court of Appeals, 254 SCRA 170 (1996).a. Fro( Side o' $&e Princi,al (Ar$. 18"9)When the buyers-a2retrofaed for severayears to cear ther tte to the propertypurchased and aowed the seer-a2retroto reman n possesson n spte of theexpratonof theperodof redempton, thentheexecutonof thememorandumofrepurchase by the buyers son-n-aw, whch stood unrepudated for many years,consttuted an mped agency under Artce 1869 of the Cv Code, from ther sence orack of acton, or ther faure to repudate the agency.Conde v. Court of Appeals, 119SCRA 245 (1982).Where the prncpa has acquesced n the act of hs agent for a ong perod of tme,and has receved and approprated to hs own use the benets resut n from the acts ofhs agent, courts shoud be sow n decarng the acts of the agent nu and vod.*inan v.1uno, 31 Ph. 259 (1915).!. Fro( Side o' $&e A%en$ (Ar$s. 1870, 1871 and 1872)c. Fro( Side o' ;&ird Par$iesAtlantic $rectors, )nc. 38oint 6enture4 v. 1hilippine 1orts Authority, 623SCRA 260 (2010).Artce 1881 of the Cv Code provdes that "the agent must act wthn the scopeof hsauthorty." Pursuant totheauthortygvenbytheprncpa, theagent sgranted the rght "to ahect the ega reatons of hs prncpa by the performance ofacts ehectuated n accordance wth the prncpa's manfestaton of consent."!aci9c 'ehouse Corp. v. EI5 Securities, Inc., ".. SCRA 214 (2010).!. Co(,are :i$& Ar$. 1887 A%en$ 4us$ Follo: 3ns$ruc$ions o' $&e Princi,alc.Au$&ori$yo' A%en$5o$#ee(ed+Bceeded3'Per'or(edina4anner4oreAdan$a%eous $o Princi,al (Ar$. 1882)(1)Co(,are*Agent Should /ot Act If It 7ould Manifestl& 'esult in Loss or#a$age to !rincipal (Ar$. 1888).Artce1882oftheCv Codeprovdesthatthemtsofanagentsauthortysha not beconsderedexceededshoudt havebeenperformednamanneradvantageous to the prncpa than that speced by hm. -lauer v. 1uruanan, 8r.,515 SCRA 460 (2007).The admssons obtaned by the agent from the adverse party pror to the formaamendment of the compant that ncuded the prncpa as a party to the sut, canbeavaedof bytheprncpa "snceanagent maydosuchacts as maybeconducve to the accompshment of the purpose of the agency, admssons securedby the agent wthn the scope of the agency ought to favor the prncpa. Ths has tobe the rue, for the act or decaratons of an agent of the party wthn the scope ofthe agency and durng ts exstence are consdered and treated n turn asdecaratons, acts and representatons of hs prncpa and may be gven n evdenceaganst such party" /ay 6ie# +otel v. 7er & Co., 116 SCRA 327 (1982).d. +Cec$s o' 5on/Ra$iKedAc$s #one !y A%en$ in+Bcess o' 9is Au$&ori$y*>nen'orcea!le, 5o$ Foid (Ar$s. 1.17, 140., and 1898)When money s receved as a depost by an agent, and that money s turned over bytheagent totheprncpa, wthnotcethat t sthemoneyof thedepostor, theprncpa s bound to dever to the depostor, even f hs agent was not authorzed toreceve such depost. |There has, n ehect, ratcaton of the unauthorzed act of theagent, thereby bndng the prncpa|. Cason v. Ric"ards, 5 Ph 639 (1906).Whentheadmnstrator entersntoacontract that areoutsdeof thescopeofauthorty, thecontract woudnevertheess not beanabsoutenuty, but smpyvodabe|unenforceabe| at thenstanceof thepartes whohadbeenmproperyrepresented, and ony such partes can assert the nuty of sad contracts as to them.?ayco v. Serra, 49 Ph 985 (1925).Under Artce 1898 of the New Cv Code, the acts of an agent beyond the scope ofhs authorty do not bnd the prncpa, uness the atter rates the same expressy ormpedy.Furthermore,when the thrd person. .. knows that the agent wasactngbeyond hs power or authorty, the prncpa cannot be hed abe for the acts of theagent. If the sad thrd person s aware of the mts of the authorty, he s to bame, andsnot enttedtorecover damagesfromtheagent, unesstheatter undertooktosecure the prncpas ratcaton.Cervantes v. Court of Appeals, .04 SCRA 25(1999); Sa@c Alcan v. )mperial 6eeta!le, 355 SCRA 559 (2001).Even when the agent, n ths case the attorney-at-aw who represented the cent nforgngacompromseagreement, has exceededhs authortynnsertngpenatycause, the status of the sad cause s not vod but merey vodabe,i.e.,capabe ofbeng rated. Indeed, the cents faure to queston the ncuson of the penaty n the|udca compromse despte severa opportuntes to do so and wth the representatonof newcounse, wastantamount toratcaton. Hence, thecent sstoppedfromassang the vadty thereof.5or*a, Sr. v. Sul&ap, Inc., .99 SCRA "01 (200.).Contracts entered nto n the name of another person by one who has been gven noauthorty or ega representaton or who has acted beyond hs powers are cassed asunauthorzedcontractsandareunenforceabe, unesstheyarerated.)ozunv.Mercado 511 SCRA .05 (200").e. ConseGuences 0&en A%en$ Ac$s in 9is ):n 5a(e (Ar$. 188.)(1)!rincipal 1as/o'ightAgainstThird!ersonIfAgentActsin1isO,n/a$eArtce 1717 of the |od| Cv Code provdes that "When an agent acts n hs ownname, the prncpa sha have no acton aganst the persons wth whom the agenthas contracted, nor the sad persons aganst the prncpa." Artce 246 of the Codeof Commerce provdes that "When an agent transacts busness n hs own name, tsha not be necessary for hm to state who s the prncpa, and he sha be drectyabe as f the busness were for hs own account, to the persons wth whom hetransacts the same, sad person not havng any rght of acton aganst the prncpa,nor theatteraganst the former,the abtesof theprncpa andtheagent toeachother aways reserved." It bengestabshedby apreponderanceof theevdence that the agent acted n hs own name n seng the merchandse to thedefendants, and that the defendants fuy beeved that they were deang wth thesadagent, wthout anyknowedgeof thefact that hewas theagent of thepanths, and havng pad hm n fu for the merchandse purchased, they are notabe to the panths, for sad merchandse. Ths s true whether the transacton scovered by the provisions of the Cv Code or by the provsons of the CommercaCode. *im Tiu v. Rui& & Rementeria, 15 Ph. 367, 370 (1910).When an agent acts n hs own name, the prncpa has no rght of acton aganstthepersonswthwhomtheagent hascontracted, or suchpersonsaganst theprncpa. In such case, the agent s drecty abe to the person wth whom he hascontracted, as f the transactons were hs own.Smith /ell v. Sotelo ,atti, 44 Ph.874 (1922).Even when the agent has a speca power of attorney to mortgage the property ofthe prncpa, when such agent nevertheess executed the rea estate mortgage nhsownname, thentsnotvadandbndngontheprncpa pursuanttotheprovsons of Artce 1883 of the Cv Code.1hilippine Suar $states %ev. Corp. v.1oi&at, 48 Ph. 536 (1925); Rural /an" of /om!on v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 25(1992).Under Artce1883of theCv Code, f anagent actsnhsownname, theprncpa hasnorght of actonaganst thepersonswthwhomtheagent hascontracted; nether have such persons aganst the prncpa. In such case the agents the one drecty bound n favor of the person wth whom he has contracted, as fthe transacton were hs own, except when the contract nvoves thngs beongng tothe prncpa. Snce the prncpas have caused ther agent to enter nto a charterparty n hs own name and wthout dscosng that he acts for any prncpa, thensuch prncpas have no standng to sue upon any ssue or cause of acton arsngfrom sad charter party. ,arimperio Compania 'aviera, S.A. v. Court of Appeals, 156SCRA 368 (1987).(2)Agent Is #irectl& 5ound to Third !erson as If the Transaction 7ere 1isO,nWhen the agent executes a contract n hs persona capacty, the fact that he sdescrbed n the contract as the agent of the prncpa and the propertes mortgagedpertan to the prncpa, may not be taken to mean that he enters nto the contractn the name of the prncpa. A mortgage on rea property of the prncpa not madeand sgned n the name of the prncpas not vad as to the prncpa. 'ational/an" v. 1alma Gil, 55 Ph. 639 (1931); 'ational /an" v. Audelo, 58 Ph 655 (1933).Apartywhosgns ab of exchangeas anagent (as thePresdent of thecompany), but faedtodscosehsprncpa becomespersonayabefor thedrafts he accepted, even when he dd so expressy as an agent. Secton 20 of theNegotabe Instruments Law says provdes expressy that when an agent sgns n anrepresentatve capacty, but does not ndcate or dscose hs prncpa woud ncurpersona abty on the b of exchange.1hil. /an" of Commerce v. Arueo, 102SCRA 530 (1981).+LC+P;3)5 *0&en Con$rac$ 3noles ;&in%s 2elon%in% $o Princi,alEven when the agent has wrtten authorty to convey rea property on behaf ofthe prncpa, nevertheess when the deed of sae was executed by the agent n herown name wthout showng the capacty n whch she acted, athough the act wasdoubtess rreguar, the deed operated to bnd the prncpa who had authorzed thesae. 8imene& v. Ra!ot, 38 Ph. 378 (1918).Where the panths apponted the defendant to purchase a vesse and gvng hmmoney for that purpose, but the agent purchased the boat and paced t n hs ownname, he has breached hs ducary obgaton and s obged to transfer the sameto the panths,or the panthshave a rght to be subrogated.Accordngtotheexceptonunder Art. 1717of theodCv Code(whenthngsbeongngtotheprncpa are deat wth)the aent is !ound to the principal althouh he does notassumethecharacter of suchaent andappearsactininhiso#nname. Themoneywthwhchtheaunchwas bought havngcomefromthepanth, theexcepton estabshed n Art. 1717 s appcabe to the nstant case. Sy28uco v. Sy28uco, 40 Ph. 634 (1920).Where a co-owner transfers the entrety of the mnng cam to the buyer, wherethebuyer knewthat tncudedtheone-haf sharepro2indivisoof theother co-owner, thenthetransactonmaybeconsderedasonewherethedsposngco-owner acted as agent of the other co-owner. Consequenty, under Artce 1883 ofthe Cv Code, such other co-owner may sue the person wth whom the agent deatwth n hs (agents) own name, when the transacton nvoves thngs beong to theprncpa. Goldstar v. *im, 25 SCRA 597 (1968).When acommssonagententers nto ashppng contract nhs own name totransport the grans of NFA on a vesse owned by a shppng company, NFA cannotcam t s not abe to the shppng company under Artce 1883 when thngs beongto the prncpa are deat wth, the agent s bound to the prncpa athough he doesnot assume the character of such agent and appears actng n hs own name. Inother words, the agent apparent representaton yeds to the prncpas truerepresentaton and that, n reaty and n ehect, the contract must be consdered asentered nto between the prncpa and the thrd person Coroary, f the prncpacan be obged to perform hs dutes under the contract, then t can aso demand theenforcement of ts rghts arsng from the contract.'ational Food Authority v. )AC,184 SCRA 166 (1990).(.) !rovisions Are 7ithout !re*udice to Actions 5et,een !rincipal and Agent:See discussions %elo, on %reach %& agent of his dut& of lo&alt&I4. S,eciKc )!li%a$ion Rules 'or A%en$sa. 5o )!li%a$ion o' A%en$ $o Adance Funds (Ar$. 188")* It is!rincipal3so%ligationtoadvancethefunds, %ut !rincipal topa&interestonadvances$ade%&Agentfro$da&headvancesthe$one&(Ar$. 1912).+LC+P; * (1) 3' S$i,ula$ed in $&e A%ency A%ree(en$(2) 0&ere ,rinci,alisinsolen$ (SeeAr$.1919H.I* 3nsolencyeB$in%uis&es an a%ency)!.A%en$S&ouldCarry)u$A%ency inAccordance :i$& Princi,alMs3ns$ruc$ions(Ar$. 1887)(1) 3' a%en$ 'ollo:ed ins$ruc$ions, ,rinci,al canno$ se$ u, a%en$Ms i%norance or circu(s$ance :&ic& ,rinci,al :as, or ou%&$ $o &ae !een, a:are o' (Ar$.1899)Pursuant to the nstructons of the prncpas, the agent purchased a pece of and nther names and n the sums gven to hm by the prncpa, and that after the fact ofpurchase the prncpas had rated the transacton and even receved prots arsngfrom the nvestment n the and, but that eventuay a defect n the tte to the andarose, the sad prncpas cannot recover ther ost nvestment from the agent. "There snothngntherecordwhchwoudndcatethat thedefendant faedtoexercsereasonabe care and dgence n the performance of hs duty as such agent, or that heundertooktoguaranteethevendorsttetotheandpurchasedbydrectonofthepanths."'epomuceno v. +eredia, 7 Ph 563, 566 (1907).When an agent n executng the orders and commssons of hs prncpa carres outthenstructonshehasrecevedfromhsprncpa, anddoesnot appear tohaveexceeded hs authorty or to have acted wth neggence, decet or fraud, he cannot behed responsbe for the faure of hs prncpa to accompsh the ob|ect of the agency.Aents, althouh they act in representation of the principal, are not uarantors for thesuccess of the !usiness enterprise they are as"ed to manae.Guiterre& +ermanos v.-ria +ermanos, 30 Ph. 491 (1915).c. )!li%a$ion 5o$ Carry )u$ A%ency 3' +Becu$ion 0ould 4ani'es$ly Resul$ in ?ossor #a(a%e $o Princi,al (Ar$. 1888)Whe t s true that an agent who acts for a reveaed prncpa n the makng of acontract does not become personay bound to the other party n the sense that anacton can ordnary be mantaned upon such contract drecty aganst the agent, yetthat rue does not contro when the agent cannot ntercept and approprate the thngwhchtheprncpa sboundtodever, andtherebymaketheperformanceof theprncpa mpossbe. The agent n any event must be precuded from dong any postveact that coud prevent performance on the part of hs prncpa, otherwse the agentbecomesabeasoonthecontract.'ational /an"v. 0elshFairchild, 44Ph 780(1923).d. #>;8 )F ?)8A?;8 * )!li%a$ion in a ConNic$ o' 3n$eres$ Si$ua$ion (Ar$. 1889) (1) A%en$ s&all !e lia!le $o $&e ,rinci,al 'or da(a%es sus$ained !y $&e la$$er:&ere in case o' conNic$ o' in$eres$ si$ua$ion, and a%en$ ,re'erred &is o:nin$eres$.(2) A%en$ ,ro&i!i$ed 'ro( !uyin% ,ro,er$y en$rus$ed $o &i( 'orad(inis$ra$ion or sale :i$&ou$ ,rinci,alMs consen$ (Ar$. 1491H2I).An agent cannot represent both hmsef and hs prncpa n a transacton nvovngthe shftng to another person of the agents abty for a debt to the prncpa.A!oiti&v. %e Silva, 45 Ph 883 (1924).Thedrector andgenera manager of thestockcorporaton, whoasowas thema|orty stockhoder, and was desgnated to be the man negotator for the companywth the Government for the sae of ts arge tract of and, havng speca knowedge ofcommerca nformaton that woud ncrease the vaue of the shares n reaton to thesae of the parces of and to the Government, can be treated egay as beng an agentof the stockhoders of the company, wth a ducary obgaton to revea to the otherstockhoders such specanformaton before proceedng to purchase from the otherstockhoders ther shares of stock. If such drector obtans the purchase of the sharesof a stockhoder wthout havng dscosed mportant facts or to render the appropratereport on the expected ncrease n vaue of the company, there was fraud commttedfor whch the drector sha be abe for the earnngs earned aganst the stockhoder onthe sae of shares. Stron v. Guiterre& Repide, 41 Ph. 947 (1909).A condentaempoyee who, knowng that hs prncpawas negotatng wth theowner of some and for the purchase thereof, surrepttousy succeeds n buyng t nthenameof hswfe, commtsanact of dsoyatyandndetytohsprncpa,wherebyhebecomesabe, amongother thngs, for thedamagescaused, whchmeant to transfer the property back to the prncpa under the terms and condtonsohered to the orgna owner.Sin 8uco and Sin /enco v. Sunyanton and *lorente,43 Ph 589 (1922).Where an unce who was actng as agent or admnstrator of property beongng to anece had procured a Torrens tte n hs own name to sad property, he s deemed to bea trustee, and he must surrender the property to the nece and transfer tte to her. Thereatons of an agent to hs prncpa are ducary and n regard to the property formngthe sub|ect-matter of the agency, he s estopped from acqurng or assertng a tteadverse to that of the prncpa. Consequenty, an acton in personam w e aganst anagent to compe hm to return or retransfer to hs prncpa, or the atters estate, therea property commtted to hs custody as such agent andaso to executethenecessary documents of conveyance to ehect such retransfer. Severino v. Severino, 44Ph. 343 (1923).e. Rule 3' A%en$ 3s +(,o:ered $o 2orro: