Eugenio v CA

DOCTRINE: As far as third persons are concerned, an act is deemed to have been performed within the
scope of the agents authority, if such is within the terms of the power of attorney, as written, even if the
agent has in fact exceeded the limits of his authority according to the understanding between the principal
and his agent.
FACTS
Petitioner Nora S. Eugenio was a dealer of the soft drink products of private respondent
corporation.
Private respondent filed a complaint for a sum of money against petitioners alleging that on
several occasions in 1979 and 1980, petitioners purchased and received on credit various
products.
o Altogether, petitioners had an outstanding account of P94, 651.00 which they failed to pay
despite oral and written demands.
o In their defense, petitioners presented four trade provisional receipts (TPRs) allegedly
issued to and received by them from private respondents Route Manager Jovencio
Estrada showing payments in the total sum of P80,500.00.
o Petitioners contended that had the amounts in the TPRs been credited in their favor, they
would not be indebted to Pepsi-Cola.
Petitioners maintain that the signature purporting to be that of petitioner Nora S. Eugenio in Sales
Invoice No. 85366 amounting to P5,631.00 is a falsification.
In sum, petitioners argue that if the aforementioned amounts were credited in their favor, it would
be respondent corporation which would be indebted to them in the sum of P3,546.02 representing
overpayment.
RTC and CA ruled in favor of respondent.
ISSUE + RULING
Should the amounts in the aforementioned trade provisional receipts be credited in favor of petitioner
spouses?
Eugenio submitted the TPR's to Atty. Rosario (Pepsi's lawyer).
o Thereafter, Rosario ordered Daniel Azurin (asst.personnel manager) to conduct an
investigation to verify the claim of the petitioners. According to Azurin, Estrada denied
that he issued and signed the TPR's.
o Azurin testified to this in Court (However, Estrada never did. He failed to appear and was
never found.
o Therefore, his testimony- as told by Azurin- is barred by the Hearsay Evidence Rule).
Furthermore, the investigation conducted was really more of an interview without any
safeguards and did not give Eugenio opportunity to object or cross-examine Estrada.
The other points of Estrada (and Pepsi) were all invalid since Estrada was nowhere to be found
and Pepsi failed to comply with the pertinent rules for the admission of the evidence by which it
sought to prove its contentions.
Pepsi therefore was unable to rebut the aforestated presumptions in favor of valid payment by
petitioners
Assuming in this case that Pepsi never received the amounts reflected in the TPR's, Pepsi still
failed to prove that Estrada (its duly authorized agent) did not receive the amounts.
o In so far as Eugenio is concerned, their obligation is extinguished when they paid Estrada
using Pepsi's official receipt.
o The substantive law is that payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the
obligation has been constituted, or his successor in interest, or any person authorized to
receive it.