Scribd
Upload
2K views2 pages

Mod1 - 1 - G.R. No. 41182-3 Sevilla V CA

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1988 regarding a contract dispute between Lina Sevilla and Tourist World Service, Inc. Tourist World leased premises from Segundina Noguera and operated a branch office managed by Sevilla, who was liable for rent. When Tourist World closed the branch, Sevilla sued. The Supreme Court found that Sevilla's agreement to manage the branch office constituted an agency contract, not a partnership, as she solicited business on Tourist World's behalf in exchange for commissions. The Court reversed the lower court decision and ordered Tourist World to pay Sevilla damages.

Uploaded by

Ojie Santillan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views2 pages

Mod1 - 1 - G.R. No. 41182-3 Sevilla V CA

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1988 regarding a contract dispute between Lina Sevilla and Tourist World Service, Inc. Tourist World leased premises from Segundina Noguera and operated a branch office managed by Sevilla, who was liable for rent. When Tourist World closed the branch, Sevilla sued. The Supreme Court found that Sevilla's agreement to manage the branch office constituted an agency contract, not a partnership, as she solicited business on Tourist World's behalf in exchange for commissions. The Court reversed the lower court decision and ordered Tourist World to pay Sevilla damages.

Uploaded by

Ojie Santillan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

G.R. No.

L-41182-3 April 16, 1988

DR. CARLOS L. SEVILLA and LINA O. SEVILLA, petitioners-appellants,


vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, TOURIST WORLD SERVICE, INC., ELISEO S.CANILAO, and
SEGUNDINA NOGUERA, respondents-appellees.

NATURE OF CASE

APPEAL by certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals

FACTS

Noguera and the Tourist World Service, Inc. entered a contract where the latter leased the
premises of the former as a branch office. In the said contract, Sevilla held herself solidarily
liable with Tourist World for monthly rent. She also ran the branch office for which she earned
commissions for her efforts. When Tourist World Service, Inc. was informed that Sevilla was
connected with a rival firm, and since the branch office was anyhow losing, Tourist World
Service decided to close down its office. Because of this, the corporate secretary of Tourist
World went over to the branch office and padlocked the premises. When Sevilla and her
employees could enter the locked premises, she filed a complaint against Tourist World and
Noguera. Both appellees answered with counterclaims. For apparent lack of interest of the
parties therein, the trial court ordered the dismissal of the case without prejudice.

ISSUE

Whether or not Sevilla and Tourist World Service, Inc. were engaged in a partnership (NO)

RULING

The Supreme Court held that when Lina Sevilla agreed to man Tourist World Service, Inc.'s
Ermita office, she must have done so pursuant to a contract of agency.

It is the essence of this contract that the agent renders services "in representation or on behalf of
another.

In the case at bar, Sevilla solicited airline fares, but she did so for and on behalf of her principal,
Tourist World Service, Inc. for which she received compensation in the form of commissions.
The Court is convinced that the ties had contemplated a principal agent relationship, rather
than a joint management or a partnership

DISPOSITION

WHEREFORE, the Decision promulgated on January 23, 1975 as well as the Resolution issued
on July 31,1975, by the respondent Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
private respondent, Tourist World Service, Inc., and Eliseo Canilao, are ORDERED jointly and
severally to indemnify the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, the sum of P25,000.00 as and for moral
damages, the sum of P10,000.00, as and for exemplary damages, and the sum of P5,000.00, as
and for nominal and/or temperate damages. Sevilla vs. Court ofAppeals, 160 SCRA 171, Nos. L-
41182–3 April 15, 1988

You might also like