Scribd
Upload
57 views1 page

Guzman Vs CA

Joaquin Guzman was a traveling sales agent who was transporting wine and collecting cash sales along the route. He reported losing money and his firearm license. He was later prosecuted for theft of a shortage amount. The Court of Appeals held that Guzman only had physical possession of the merchandise and proceeds, not ownership, as he was an agent of his employer. The Supreme Court ruled that an agent has both physical and legal possession of goods received in agency or proceeds, with a duty to account to the principal until the agency ends. As agent, Guzman was responsible for accounting to his principal for all profits earned in the transaction.

Uploaded by

Pew Icamen
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
57 views1 page

Guzman Vs CA

Joaquin Guzman was a traveling sales agent who was transporting wine and collecting cash sales along the route. He reported losing money and his firearm license. He was later prosecuted for theft of a shortage amount. The Court of Appeals held that Guzman only had physical possession of the merchandise and proceeds, not ownership, as he was an agent of his employer. The Supreme Court ruled that an agent has both physical and legal possession of goods received in agency or proceeds, with a duty to account to the principal until the agency ends. As agent, Guzman was responsible for accounting to his principal for all profits earned in the transaction.

Uploaded by

Pew Icamen
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
You are on page 1/ 1

Guzman v.

Court of Appeal,

99 Phil. 703

FACT
Joaquin Guzman was a traveling sales agent of the New Life Commercial of Aparri, Cagayan.
Guzman left Manila with 45 cases of wine together with the truck driver and 1 helper. Along the
route, Guzman made various cash sales of wine and when they reached Ballesteros, Cagayan, he had
already in his possession the amount of P4,873.62. They retired for the night in Sambrano Station
and in the morning thereafter, Guzman told the driver that he lost the amount of P2,840.50 and his
firearm license. They reported the incident to the Police who gave him a certificate of his loss
firearms license.
Guzman and his companion then proceed to their home journey when they were met by a tax
collector and policeman Mariano David who told the accused to return to Ballesteros and execute
an affidavit regarding the alleged theft. Before the accused returned to Ballesteros, he entrusted to
the driver Buenaventura, the amount of Pl,630 in cash and a check for P403.12 for delivery to the
manager, Enrique Go, of the company of Aparri.
The driver delivered the money and invoices to Enrique Go and informed the latter of the loss. Go
reported the matter to the Philippine Constabulary. Guzman was questioned by the PC at the
barracks.
Thereafter, Guzman then paid the amount of P1,500 to Go, however, he was still prosecuted for theft
for the shortage of P804.70."
The CA held that Guzman had only the material or physical possession of the said merchandise or
its proceeds because he was not the owner thereof; he was simply holding the money for and on
behalf of his employer.
ISSUES
WON Guzman as an agent had only physical possession of the goods/wine.
RULING
An agent has both the physical and juridical possession of the goods received in agency, or the
proceeds thereof.
An agent, unlike a servant or messenger, has both the physical and juridical possession of the goods
received in agency or the proceeds thereof, which takes the place of the goods after their sale by the
agent. His duty to turn over the proceeds of the agency depends upon his discharge, as well as the
result of the accounting between him and the principal; and he may set up his right of possession as
against that of the principal until the agency is terminated.
Therefore, when the agent enters into a contract that should pertain to the principal, but in his own
name, it would be a violation of his duty of loyalty to the principal, and as between the principal and
the agent, the latter must account to the principal for all profit earned from the transaction.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy