[G.R. No. 130423.November 18, 2002]VIRGIE SERONA,petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,respondents.YNARES-SANTIAGO,J.:Facts:Virgie Serano received in trust from Leonida E. Quilatan various pieces of jewelry in the total value of P567,750.00 to be sold on commission basis under the express duty and obligation of remitting the proceeds thereof to Quilantan if sold or returning the same to the latter if unsold.Unknown to Quilatan, Serona entrusted the jewelry to one Marichu Labrador for the latter to sell on commission basis.Serona was not able to collect payment from Labrador, which caused her to likewise fail to pay her obligation to Quilatan.Issue/s:1. W/N THERE WAS AN ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE ON THE PART OF PETITIONER IN ENTRUSTING THE SUBJECT JEWELRIESTO HER SUB-AGENT FOR SALE ON COMMISSION TO PROSPECTIVE BUYERS.2. W/N THERE WAS MISAPPROPRIATION OR CONVERSION ON THE PART OF PETITIONER WHEN SHE FAILED TO RETURN THE SUBJECT JEWELRIESTO PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.Held:Virgie Serona isACQUITTEDof the crime of estafa, but is held civilly liable.Ratio:An agent who is not prohibited from appointing a sub-agent but does so without express authority is responsible for the acts of the sub-agent.1. Serano did notipso factocommit the crime ofestafathrough conversion or misappropriation by delivering the jewelry to a sub-agent for sale on commission basis.The law on agency in our jurisdiction allows the appointment by an agent of a substitute or sub-agent in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary between the agent and the principal. In the case at bar, the appointment of Labrador as petitioners sub-agent was not expressly prohibited by Quilatan, as the acknowledgment receipt does not contain any such limitation. Neither does it appear that petitioner was verbally forbidden by Quilatan from passing on the jewelry to another person before the acknowledgment receipt was executed or at any other time. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioners act of entrusting the jewelry to Labrador is characterized by abuse of confidence because such an act was not proscribed and is, in fact, legally sanctioned.2. It was established that the inability of petitioner as agent to comply with her duty to return either the pieces of jewelry or the proceeds of its sale to her principal Quilatan was due, in turn, to the failure of Labrador to abide by her agreement with petitioner. Notably, Labrador testified that she obligated herself to sell the jewelry in behalf of petitioner also on commission basis or to return the same if not sold. In other words, the pieces of jewelry were given by petitioner to Labrador to achieve the very same end for which they were delivered to her in the first place. Consequently, there is no conversion since the pieces of jewelry were not devoted to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon.Similarly, it cannot be said that petitioner misappropriated the jewelry or delivered them to Labrador without right. Aside from the fact that no condition or limitation was imposed on the mode or manner by which petitioner was to effect the sale, it is also consistent with usual practice for the seller to necessarily part with the valuables in order to find a buyer and allow inspection of the items for sale.

[G.R. No. 129039.September 17, 2002]SIREDY ENTERPRISES, INC.petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and CONRADO DE GUZMAN,respondents.QUISUMBING,J.:Facts:Conrado De Guzman is an architect-contractor doing business under the name and style of Jigscon Construction. Siredy Enterprises, Inc. (hereafter Siredy) is the owner and developer of Ysmael Village, a subdivision in Sta. Cruz, Marilao, Bulacan. The president of Siredy is Ismael E. Yanga.As stated in its Articles of Incorporation,the primary corporate purpose of Siredy is to acquire lands, subdivide and develop them, erect buildings and houses thereon, and sell, lease or otherwise dispose of said properties to interested buyers.Sometime before October 1978, Yanga executed an undated Letter of Authority duly signed by Yanga which constituted Hermogenes Santos as Siredys agent,whose authority included entering into a contract for the building of housing units at Ysmael Village.Thereafter, Santos entered into a Deed of Agreement with De Guzman. From October 1978 to April 1990, De Guzman constructed 26 residential units at Ysmael Village.Thirteen (13) of these were fully paid but the other 13 remained unpaid.The total contractual price of these 13 unpaid houses is P412,154.93 which was verified and confirmed to be correct by Santos, per an Accomplishment Billingthat the latter signed. Yanga is not a signatory to the said contact.De Guzman tried but failed to collect the unpaid account from petitioner.Thus, he instituted the action below for specific performance against Siredy, Yanga, and Santos who all denied liability.During the trial, Santos disappeared and his whereabouts remain unknown.

Issue:W/N Hermogenes B. Santos was a duly constituted agent of Siredy, with authority to enter into contracts for the construction of residential units in Ysmael Village and thus the capacity to bind Siredy to the Deed of Agreement.

Held:Siredy Enterprises, Inc. is ordered to pay Conrado de Guzman actual damages with legal interest.

Ratio:By the relationship of agency, one party called the principal authorizes another called the agent to act for and in his behalf in transactions with third persons. The authority of the agent to act emanates from the powers granted to him by his principal; his act is the act of the principal if done within the scope of the authority. He who acts through another acts himself.On its face, the Letter of Authority executed by Yanga clearly and unequivocally constituted Santos to do and execute, among other things, the act of negotiating and entering into contract or contractsto buildHousing Units on the subdivision lots in Ysmael Village, Sta. Rosa, Marilao, Bulacan.Nothing could be more express than the written stipulations contained therein.It was upon the authority of this document that De Guzman transacted business with Santos that resulted in the construction contract denominated as the Deed of Agreement.