Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 94 views

    V-Gent Inc V Morning Star Travels

    Uploaded by

    Clarence Protacio
    V-Gent Inc filed a money claim against Morning Star Travel after Morning Star refused to refund nine unused airline tickets that were returned. Morning Star argued that V-Gent was not the real party in interest to file the claim since V-Gent merely acted as an agent for the passengers who purchased the tickets. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Morning Star, finding that while V-Gent acted in its own name for the transaction, it disclosed the identities of the passengers and used their money, so it did not qualify as the real party in interest under the rules of court. The court also found that Morning Star refunding some tickets previously did not estop it from challenging V-Gent's legal standing to initiate

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    V-Gent Inc V Morning Star Travels

    Uploaded by

    Clarence Protacio
    94 views2 pages
    V-Gent Inc filed a money claim against Morning Star Travel after Morning Star refused to refund nine unused airline tickets that were returned. Morning Star argued that V-Gent was not the real party in interest to file the claim since V-Gent merely acted as an agent for the passengers who purchased the tickets. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Morning Star, finding that while V-Gent acted in its own name for the transaction, it disclosed the identities of the passengers and used their money, so it did not qualify as the real party in interest under the rules of court. The court also found that Morning Star refunding some tickets previously did not estop it from challenging V-Gent's legal standing to initiate

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    V-Gent Inc v Morning Star Travels

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    V-Gent Inc filed a money claim against Morning Star Travel after Morning Star refused to refund nine unused airline tickets that were returned. Morning Star argued that V-Gent was not the real party in interest to file the claim since V-Gent merely acted as an agent for the passengers who purchased the tickets. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Morning Star, finding that while V-Gent acted in its own name for the transaction, it disclosed the identities of the passengers and used their money, so it did not qualify as the real party in interest under the rules of court. The court also found that Morning Star refunding some tickets previously did not estop it from challenging V-Gent's legal standing to initiate

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    94 views2 pages

    V-Gent Inc V Morning Star Travels

    Uploaded by

    Clarence Protacio
    V-Gent Inc filed a money claim against Morning Star Travel after Morning Star refused to refund nine unused airline tickets that were returned. Morning Star argued that V-Gent was not the real party in interest to file the claim since V-Gent merely acted as an agent for the passengers who purchased the tickets. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Morning Star, finding that while V-Gent acted in its own name for the transaction, it disclosed the identities of the passengers and used their money, so it did not qualify as the real party in interest under the rules of court. The court also found that Morning Star refunding some tickets previously did not estop it from challenging V-Gent's legal standing to initiate

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    V-GENT, INC.

    v MORNING STAR TRAVEL


    G.R. No. 186305 | July 22, 2015
    Brion, J. | Protacio

    Nature of the Case


    Petition for review on certiorari challenging the CA decision

    How did it get to the Supreme Court


    - Morning Star files a money claim before the MeTC of Manila
    o MeTC dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action
    o V-Gent declared agent of the buyers, but that V-Gent failed to prove its
    case
    - RTC reversed the MeTC judgement
    - Morning Star elevated the case to the CA
    o Ruled that V-Gent is not the real party in interest – because it merely
    acted as an agent of the passengers
    o MR denied by CA
    - Hence, this petition.

    Summary of Facts
    After buying 26 two-way plane tickets from Morning Star Travel and Tours, Inc., V-Gent
    Inc returned 15 unused tickets to the respondent, who only refunded six tickets.
    Despite demand, Morning Star refused to refund the nine remaining tickets, so V-Gent
    filed a money claim against Morning Star. Morning Star questions the personality of V-
    Gent to file the action as it is the passengers who bought the tickets, who are the real
    parties in interest.

    Doctrine
    1. Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-
    in-interest (party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the
    suit)
    a. In suits where an agent represents a party, the principal is the real party-
    in-interest; an agent cannot file a suit in his own name
    2. Rule 3, Section 3 Rules of Court provides an exception when an agent may
    sue or be sued without the principal; elements:
    a. Agent acted in his own name during the transaction
    b. Agent acted for the benefit of an undisclosed principal
    c. Transaction did not involve the property of the principal
    3. Only the first element is present
    a. Purchase order and receipt were in the name of V-Gent
    b. But V-gent disclosed the names of the passengers
    c. Transaction paid by passenger’s money
    4. As for claims that by making a partial refund, Morning Star was estopped from
    refusing a full refund on the ground that V-Gent is not a real party-in-interest
    a. Morning Star’s recognition of V-Gent’s authority to collect a refund is not
    equivalent to recognition of V-Gent’s authority to initiate a suit on
    behalf of the passengers
    i. Morning Stasr not estopped from questioning legal standing to
    inititate suit

    You might also like