G.R. No. 3131

HERRANZ & GARRIZ, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. KER & COMPANY, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The plaintiffs, Herranz & Garriz, provided services of two lorchas, the Oriente and Soledad, to the steamer Pharsalia, which had run aground. These services, including demurrage, were to be paid at a rate of 300 pesos per day, as stipulated in a written contract, amounting to 5,700 pesos. The services were requested by James M. Beattie, the manager of Ker & Co. The central issue the court had to resolve was whether Ker & Co. requested these services for their private account or for the account of others. The court below found that the plaintiffs contracted directly with Ker & Co., believing they were contracting with them as principals, and not as agents for Lloyds and the London Salvage Association. Evidence presented included a telegram from Ker & Co. to Herranz & Garriz stating: “Herranz, Sorsogon, captain of Pharsalia needs lorchas to lighten vessel aground on Capul Point. We would appreciate your furnishing aid. Arrange with captain for account Ker.” Further evidence included a telegram from the captain of the Pharsalia to Ker & Co. asking for approval of the daily rate for the lorchas, a telegram from Herranz & Garriz and Inchausti & Co. to Ker & Co. regarding the discharge of coal and a guarantee against damages, a telegram from Lizarraga to Herranz & Garriz stating Ker & Co. refused to guarantee the risk of the lorchas, a letter from the captain of the Pharsalia to Herranz & Garriz agreeing to the daily rate and guaranteeing damages, and testimony from Beattie stating he acted as a representative of the captain and in the interests of parties interested in the insurance.

ISSUE:
Whether Ker & Co. is liable for the services rendered by the plaintiffs when the services were requested by their manager, Beattie, and whether Ker & Co. acted as principals or agents in securing these services.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, holding Ker & Co. liable for the sum of P5,871. The Court found that the plaintiffs contracted believing they were dealing with Ker & Co. as principals. The evidence, particularly the telegrams and Beattie’s own testimony, revealed that while Beattie claimed to represent the captain, the communication and actions of Ker & Co. indicated they were acting in a capacity that made them directly responsible. The Court invoked Article 247 of the Code of Commerce, which states that even if an agent transacts business, if they cannot prove their agency, the obligation remains with the agent as if they were the principal. Ker & Co. failed to prove their agency for any specific principal, and their statements implied they were acting as advisors rather than agents with no direct obligation. Therefore, Ker & Co. was deemed the sole responsible party. The judgment was affirmed, with legal interest added from the date of the lower court’s judgment until full payment, along with costs.