Sei sulla pagina 1di 1

Central Insurance v. C.N. Hodges Central Surety v. C.N. Hodges 1955 â​​ 1971 The Facts C.

N
Hodges Parcel of land Vicente Layson P43,000.00 (on installment) Central Surety Absolute
Deed of Sale Promissory Note + Bond Signed by Rosita Mesa, Iloilo Branch Manager P15,000
+ 1% interest January 23, 1954 The Bond Layson DEFAULTED. Hodges then demanded
payment from Central Surety. The Problem Mesaâ​​s authority to issue bonds had already been
withdrawn in 1952. Granting that she had authority, she cannot issue surety bonds in excess of
P8,000. Central Wonâ​​t Pay Central Surety is liable, but only for P8,000. CFI and CA Whether
Central Surety is liable on a bond issued by an agent whose authority had long been revoked. If
liable, for how much? The Issue YES. Supreme Court. ART. 1922 of the Civil Code â​​If the agent
had general powers, revocation of the agency does not prejudice third persons who acted in
good faith and without knowledge of the revocation. Notice of the revocation in a newspaper of
general circulation is a sufficient warning to third persons. No showing that the revocation of
authority of Mesa was made known to the public in general by publication. Even Hodges who
was a regular customer was not notified thereof. Mesaâ​​s authority to issue bonds in behalf of
Central Surety was of a general nature. Central Surety honored other bonds issued by Mesa
even after her authority was revoked. Supreme Court BUT: Central Suretyâ​​s liability is only
P8,000. Supreme Court Rule 9, Sec. 8 of RoC â​​When an action or defense is founded upon a
written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the
preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed
admitted unless the adverse party, under oath specifically denies them, and sets forth what he
claims to be the facts x x xâ​​ Supreme Court Supreme Court â​​the parties acted in complete
disregard of or wholly overlooked the rule above-quoted. Hodges had neither objected to the
evidence introduced by petitioner herein in order to prove that Mrs. Mesa had no authority to
issue a surety bond, much less one in excess of P8,000.00, and took no exception to the
admission of said evidence. Hence, Hodges must be deemed to have waived the benefits of
said rule and petitioner herein cannot be held liable in excess of the sum of P8,000.00.

Potrebbero piacerti anche