Bureau of Customs vs. Kue Cuison Case Summary
Uploaded by
ScribdTranslationsBureau of Customs vs. Kue Cuison Case Summary
Uploaded by
ScribdTranslationsBureau of Customs vs.
Sherman
G.R. No. 190487
PETITIONER: Bureau of Customs
RESPONDENT: Peter Sherman, Michael Whelan, Teodoro Lingan, Atty. Ofelia Cajigal, and the
Court of Tax Appeals
Cuison vs. CA
G.R. No. 88539 October 26, 1993 Bidin
KUE CUISON, doing business under the firm name and style 'KUE CUISON'
PAPER SUPPLY
RESPONDENT: THE COURT OF APPEALS, VALIANT INVESTMENT
Kue Cuison’s Binondo branch Manager Tiu Huy Tiac ordered various kinds of paper.
products amounting to P297,486.30 from Valiant and had it delivered to Lilian Tan of LT Trading.
Upon delivery, Lilian Tan paid for the merchandise and Tiu Huy Tiac issued 9 postdated checks to
Valiant as payment for the paper products but the checks bounced. Upon demand by Valiant, Kue
Cuison denies having any involvement with Tiu Huy Tiac’s business with Valiant.
FACTS:
Petitioner Kue Cuison is a sole proprietorship engaged in the purchase and sale of newsprint, bond
paper and scrap, under the name of 'Kue Cuison Paper Supply' with places of business at Baesa
Quezon City, and Sto. Cristo, Binondo, Manila. Private respondent Valiant Investment Associates,
on the other hand, is a partnership with business address at Kalookan City.
From December 4, 1979 to February 15, 1980, Valiant delivered various kinds of paper products.
amounting to P297,487.30 to a certain Lilian Tan of LT Trading. The deliveries were made by
Valiant pursuant to orders allegedly placed by Tiu Huy Tiac who was then employed in the Binondo
office of Kue Cuison. It was likewise pursuant to Tiac's instructions that the merchandise was
delivered to Lilian Tan. Upon delivery, Lilian Tan paid for the merchandise by issuing several
checks payable to cash at the specific request of Tiu Huy Tiac. In turn, Tiac issued 9 postdated
checks to Valiant as payment for the paper products. Unfortunately, said checks were later
dishonored by the drawee bank.
Thereafter, Valiant made several demands upon Kue Cuison to pay for the merchandise in question,
claiming that Tiu Huy Tiac was duly authorized by Cuison as the manager of his Binondo office, to
enter into the questioned transactions with Valiant and Lilian Tan. Cuison denied any involvement in
the transaction entered into by Tiu Huy Tiac and refused to pay Valiant the amount of P297,487.30
for the selling price of the subject merchandise.
Valiant then went to court to recover the sum of money but the trial court dismissed the complaint.
against Cuison for lack of merit. On appeal, however, the decision of the trial court was reversed by
the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Tiu Huy Tiac possessed the required authority from the petitioner sufficient to hold the
latter liable for the disputed transaction?
HELD:
YES. Tiu Huy Tiac possessed the authority because he is an agent of Kue Cuison. As to the merits of
the case, it is a well-established rule that one who clothes another with apparent authority as his
An agent who represents someone to the public cannot be allowed to deny the authority of that representation.
person to act as his agent, to the prejudice of innocent third parties dealing with such person in good faith
faith and in the honest belief that he is what he appears to be.
It is evident from the records that by his own acts and admission, petitioner held out Tiu Huy Tiac to
the public as the manager of his store in Sto. Cristo, Binondo, Manila. More particularly, petitioner
explicitly introduced Tiu Huy Tiac to Bernardino Villanueva, respondent's manager, as his
(petitioner’s) branch manager as testified to by Bernardino Villanueva. Secondly, Lilian Tan, who
has been doing business with Cuison for quite a while, also testified that she knew Tiu Huy Tiac to
be the manager of petitioner's Sto. Cristo, Binondo branch. This general perception of Tiu Huy Tiac
as the manager of petitioner's Sto. Cristo store is even made manifest by the fact that Tiu Huy Tiac is
known in the community to be the 'kinakapatid' (godbrother) of the petitioner. In fact, even the petitioner
admitted his close relationship with Tiu Huy Tiac when he said that they are 'like brothers'. There
there was thus no reason for anybody especially those transacting business with the petitioner to even doubt
the authority of Tiu Huy Tiac as his manager in the Sto. Cristo Binondo branch.
By his representations, petitioner is now estopped from disclaiming liability for the transaction.
entered by Tiu Huy Tiac on his behalf. It matters not whether the representations are intentional or
merely negligent so long as innocent third parties relied upon such representations in good faith
and for value.
Moreover, Article 1911 of the Civil Code provides:
Even when the agent has exceeded his authority, the principal is solidarily liable with the agent if
the former allowed the latter to act as though he had full powers.
