7/29/2019 Aranet v de Joya

1/1

araneta vs de joya

Facts:Respondent De Joya, general manager, proposed to the board of Ace

Advser t is ing Corp., to se nd Ricardo Taylor to the US to take up special studies in

television. The Board did not act upon the proposal.Neverthe less , sent Taylor to theUS. Respondent assured Antonio Araneta, a compny director , t hat expenses willbe handled by other parties which later was confirmed through a memorandum.Whileabroad, Taylor continued to receive his salaries. The items corresponding to his salariesappearedin vouchers prepared upon orders of, and approved by, the respondent. PetitionerLuis Araneta, signedthree of the vouchers, others signed by either respondent or Vicente

Araneta, the company treasurer. Alltold, Ace Advertising disbursed P5,043.20 on account ofTaylors travel and studies.Then a year after, Ace Advertising filed a complaint beforethe CFI against respondent for the recovery of the to ta l sum disbursed to Tayloralleging that the trip was made without its knowledge, authorityor ratification.The respondent in his answer denied the charge and claimed that the trip wasnonetheless ratified by thecompanys board and at any event he had the discretion as

general manager to authorize the trip whichwas for the companys benefit.A third partycomplaint was file by respondent against, Vicente and Luis and Taylor. Respondentprovedthat some of the checks to cover the expenses of Taylor were signed by Vicente andLu is . In the i r de fense , Lu is and V icen te c la imed tha t they s igned thec h e ck s i n g o o d f a i t h as t h e y we r e approved by respondent.The CFI rendered

judgement ordering the respondent to pay Ace for the amount disbursed with interest atalegal rate until full payment and dismissed the third party complaint.Respondent appealed toCA. CA affirmed the decision of trial court with regard to its decision in favor of Ace butreversed the dismissal of the 3rdparty complaint. CA found as a factthat Taylors trip had neitherbeen authorized norratif ied by Ace. It held that Luis and Vicente were also privy to the

authorizeddisbursement of corporate monies with the respondent. That when theyapproved signed the checks, theyhave given their stamp of approval. As it is establishedthat corporate funds were disbursed unauthorized,the case is of a simple quasi-delictcommitted by them against the corporation.Hence, this appeal.Issue:Whether or not petitioner is guilty of quasi-delict, notwithstanding that he wasoccupying a contractualposition at Ace? Otherwise stated, whether or notquasi-del ict ( tort) may be commit ted a par ty in acontract?Held:Yes. The existence of a contract between the parties constitutes no bar to the commissionof a tort by oneagainst the other and the consequent recovery of damages. His guilt ismanifest on account of, in spite of his being a v ice-pre sident and director of Ace ,

petitioner remained passive, through out the period of Taylors trip and to thepayment of the latters salary. As such he neglected to perform his duties properlyto thedamage of the firm of which he was an officer