Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 862 views

    Intl Exchange Bank V Sps Briones

    Uploaded by

    moniquehadjirul
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Spouses Briones' direct filing of an insurance claim for their lost vehicle did not revoke the agency relationship between them and the International Exchange Bank. While an agency is generally revocable, this one was made irrevocable by the bilateral contract in the promissory note that depended on the bank's authority to claim insurance proceeds. Filing the claim was not a revocation but a necessary action since the bank failed to promptly facilitate the claim as the Spouses' attorney-in-fact under the agreement. The petition contesting revocation of the agency was denied.

    Copyright:

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

    Intl Exchange Bank V Sps Briones

    Uploaded by

    moniquehadjirul
    862 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Spouses Briones' direct filing of an insurance claim for their lost vehicle did not revoke the agency relationship between them and the International Exchange Bank. While an agency is generally revocable, this one was made irrevocable by the bilateral contract in the promissory note that depended on the bank's authority to claim insurance proceeds. Filing the claim was not a revocation but a necessary action since the bank failed to promptly facilitate the claim as the Spouses' attorney-in-fact under the agreement. The petition contesting revocation of the agency was denied.

    Original Title

    2. Intl Exchange Bank v Sps Briones

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Spouses Briones' direct filing of an insurance claim for their lost vehicle did not revoke the agency relationship between them and the International Exchange Bank. While an agency is generally revocable, this one was made irrevocable by the bilateral contract in the promissory note that depended on the bank's authority to claim insurance proceeds. Filing the claim was not a revocation but a necessary action since the bank failed to promptly facilitate the claim as the Spouses' attorney-in-fact under the agreement. The petition contesting revocation of the agency was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    862 views1 page

    Intl Exchange Bank V Sps Briones

    Uploaded by

    moniquehadjirul
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Spouses Briones' direct filing of an insurance claim for their lost vehicle did not revoke the agency relationship between them and the International Exchange Bank. While an agency is generally revocable, this one was made irrevocable by the bilateral contract in the promissory note that depended on the bank's authority to claim insurance proceeds. Filing the claim was not a revocation but a necessary action since the bank failed to promptly facilitate the claim as the Spouses' attorney-in-fact under the agreement. The petition contesting revocation of the agency was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    2.

    Intl Exchange Bank v Sps Briones


    GR No. 205657 Issue: W/N respondent Jerome's direct dealing with the insurance company was a
    March 29, 2017 revocation of the agency relationship between iBank and the Sps Briones

    Topic: Extinguishment of Agency Ruling: NO. (see doctrine)


    Petitioner: INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK NOW UNION BANK OF THE  The Spouses Briones' claim for loss cannot be seen as an implied revocation of
    PHILIPPINES the agency or their way of excluding petitioner. They did not disregard or bypass
    Respondents: SPOUSES JEROME AND QUINNIE BRIONES, AND JOHN DOE petitioner when they made an insurance claim; rather, they had no choice but to
    Ponente: LEONEN, J personally do it because of their agent's negligence. This is not the implied
    Doctrine: Revocation, as a form of extinguishing an agency under Article 1924 of termination or revocation of an agency provided for under Article 1924 of the
    the Civil Code, only applies in cases of incompatibility, such as when the principal Civil Code.
    disregards or bypasses the agent in order to deal with a third person in a way the  While a contract of agency is generally revocable at will as it is primarily based
    excludes the agent. on trust and confidence, Article 1927 of the Civil Code provides the instances
    when an agency becomes irrevocable:
    Facts: o Article 1927. An agency cannot be revoked if a bilateral contract depends
     Sps Briones took out a loan of P3,789,216.00 from iBank to purchase a BMW Z4 upon it, or if it is the means of fulfilling an obligation already contracted,
    Roadster. The monthly amortization for 2 years was P78,942.00. or if a partner is appointed manager of a partnership in the contract of
     Spouses Briones executed a promissory note with chattel mortgage that required partnership and his removal from the management is unjustifiable.
    them to take out an insurance policy on the vehicle.  A bilateral contract that depends upon the agency is considered an agency
     The promissory note also gave iBank, as the Spouses Briones' attorney-in-fact, coupled with an interest, making it an exception to the general rule of
    irrevocable authority to file an insurance claim in case of loss or damage to the revocability at will. Lim v. Saban emphasizes that when an agency is established
    vehicle. The insurance proceeds were to be made payable to iBank. for both the principal and the agent, an agency coupled with an interest is
     The mortgaged BMW Z4 Roadster was carnapped by 3 armed men. Jerome created and the principal cannot revoke the agency at will.
    Briones (Jerome) immediately reported the incident to the Philippine National  In the promissory note with chattel mortgage, the Spouses Briones authorized
    Police Traffic Management Group. petitioner to claim, collect, and apply the insurance proceeds towards the full
     Spouses Briones declared the loss to iBank, which instructed them to continue satisfaction of their loan if the mortgaged vehicle were lost or damaged.
    paying the next three (3) monthly installments "as a sign of good faith," a  Clearly, a bilateral contract existed between the parties, making the agency
    directive they complied with. irrevocable. Petitioner was also aware of the bilateral contract; thus, it included
     After the Spouses Briones finished paying the 3-month installment, iBank sent the designation of an irrevocable agency in the promissory note with chattel
    them a letter demanding full payment of the lost vehicle. mortgage that it prepared for the Spouses Briones to sign.
     Spouses Briones submitted a notice of claim with their insurance company, Petition: DENIED.
    which denied the claim due to the delayed reporting of the lost vehicle.
     iBank filed a complaint for replevin and/or sum of money against the Spouses
    Briones and a person named John Doe. The Complaint alleged that the Spouses
    Briones defaulted in paying the monthly amortizations of the mortgaged vehicle.
     RTC dismissed the complaint. It ruled that as the duly constituted attorney-in-
    fact of the Spouses Briones, iBank had the obligation to facilitate the filing of the
    notice of claim and then to pursue the release of the insurance proceeds.
     CA affirmed RTC.
     Petitioner’s contention: Spouses Briones effectively revoked the agency granted
    under the promissory note when they filed a claim with the insurance company.

    You might also like