araneta vs de joya

Facts: Respondent De Joya, general manager, proposed to the board of Ace Advsertising Corp., to send Ricardo Taylor to the US to take up special studies in television. The Board did not act upon the proposal.Nevertheless, sent Taylor to the US. Respondent assured Antonio Araneta, a compny director, that expenses will be handled by other parties which later was confirmed through a memorandum.While abroad, Taylor continued to receive his salaries. The items corresponding to his salaries appearedin vouchers prepared upon orders of, and approved by, the respondent. Petitioner Luis Araneta, signedthree of the vouchers, others signed by either respondent or Vicente Araneta, the company treasurer. Alltold, Ace Advertising disbursed P5,043.20 on account of Taylors travel and studies.Then a year after, Ace Advertising filed a complaint before the CFI against respondent for the recovery of the total sum disbursed to Taylor alleging that the trip was made without its knowledge, authority or ratification.The respondent in his answer denied the charge and claimed that the trip was nonetheless ratified by thecompanys board and at any event he had the discretion as general manager to authorize the trip whichwas for the companys benefit.A third party complaint was file by respondent against, Vicente and Luis and Taylor. Respondent provedthat some of the checks to cover the expenses of Taylor were signed by Vicente and Luis.I n t h e i r d e f e n s e , L u i s a n d V i c e n t e c l a i m e d t h a t t h e y s i g n e d t h e c h e c k s i n g o o d f a i t h a s t h e y w e r e approved by respondent.The CFI rendered judgement ordering the respondent to pay Ace for the amount disbursed with interest ata legal rate until full payment and dismissed the third party complaint.Respondent appealed to CA. CA affirmed the decision of trial court with regard to its decision in favor of Ace but reversed the dismissal of the 3 rd party complaint. CA found as a factthat Taylors trip had neither been authorized nor ratified by Ace. It held that Luis and Vicente were also privy to the authorizeddisbursement of corporate monies with the respondent. That when they approved signed the checks, theyhave given their stamp of approval. As it is established that corporate funds were disbursed unauthorized,the case is of a simple quasi-delict committed by them against the corporation.Hence, this appeal. Issue: Whether or not petitioner is guilty of quasi -delict, notwithstanding that he was occupying a contractualposition at Ace? Otherwise stated, whether or not quasi-delict (tort) may be committed a party in acontract? Held: Yes. The existence of a contract between the parties constitutes no bar to the commission of a tort by oneagainst the other and the consequent recovery of damages. His guilt is manifest on account of, in spite of his being a vice-president and director of Ace, petitioner remained passive, through out the period of Taylors trip and to the payment of the latters salary. As such he neglected to perform his duties properlyto the damage of the firm of which he was an officer