Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    1720 of The Civil Code Impose Upon An Agent The Obligation To Deliver To His Principal All Funds Collected On His Account

    Uploaded by

    Yvette Soon
    The defendant, an insurance agent, was convicted of estafa for failing to turn over 1,539.20 pesos that he collected on behalf of his employer, the China Mutual Life Insurance Company. On appeal, the defendant argued that the prosecution failed to establish his duty to turn over the funds. The court found that under Article 1720 of the Civil Code, an agent has an obligation to deliver all funds collected on behalf of the principal. Therefore, as an insurance agent, the defendant had a duty to turn over the funds he collected for the China Mutual Life Insurance Company. The court reversed the lower court's sentence and imposed its own sentence of one year and eight months imprisonment, along with accessory penalties and payment

    Copyright:

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

    1720 of The Civil Code Impose Upon An Agent The Obligation To Deliver To His Principal All Funds Collected On His Account

    Uploaded by

    Yvette Soon
    32 views3 pages
    The defendant, an insurance agent, was convicted of estafa for failing to turn over 1,539.20 pesos that he collected on behalf of his employer, the China Mutual Life Insurance Company. On appeal, the defendant argued that the prosecution failed to establish his duty to turn over the funds. The court found that under Article 1720 of the Civil Code, an agent has an obligation to deliver all funds collected on behalf of the principal. Therefore, as an insurance agent, the defendant had a duty to turn over the funds he collected for the China Mutual Life Insurance Company. The court reversed the lower court's sentence and imposed its own sentence of one year and eight months imprisonment, along with accessory penalties and payment

    Original Description:

    Case

    Original Title

    US vs Kiene

    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 defendant, an insurance agent, was convicted of estafa for failing to turn over 1,539.20 pesos that he collected on behalf of his employer, the China Mutual Life Insurance Company. On appeal, the defendant argued that the prosecution failed to establish his duty to turn over the funds. The court found that under Article 1720 of the Civil Code, an agent has an obligation to deliver all funds collected on behalf of the principal. Therefore, as an insurance agent, the defendant had a duty to turn over the funds he collected for the China Mutual Life Insurance Company. The court reversed the lower court's sentence and imposed its own sentence of one year and eight months imprisonment, along with accessory penalties and payment

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    32 views3 pages

    1720 of The Civil Code Impose Upon An Agent The Obligation To Deliver To His Principal All Funds Collected On His Account

    Uploaded by

    Yvette Soon
    The defendant, an insurance agent, was convicted of estafa for failing to turn over 1,539.20 pesos that he collected on behalf of his employer, the China Mutual Life Insurance Company. On appeal, the defendant argued that the prosecution failed to establish his duty to turn over the funds. The court found that under Article 1720 of the Civil Code, an agent has an obligation to deliver all funds collected on behalf of the principal. Therefore, as an insurance agent, the defendant had a duty to turn over the funds he collected for the China Mutual Life Insurance Company. The court reversed the lower court's sentence and imposed its own sentence of one year and eight months imprisonment, along with accessory penalties and payment

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    [G.R. No. L-3188. March 12, 1907.

    THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALEC KIENE, Defendant-Appellant.

    Hartigan, Marple, Rohde & Gutierrez, for Appellant.

    Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS

    1. AGENCY; OBLIGATION. Where nothing to the contrary appears, the provisions of article
    1720 of the Civil Code impose upon an agent the obligation to deliver to his principal all funds
    collected on his account.

    DECISION

    CARSON, J. :

    The defendant was an insurance agent. As such agent there was paid over to him for the
    account of his employers, the China Mutual Life Insurance Company, the sum of 1,539.20
    pesos, Philippine currency, which he failed and refused to turn over to them. For his failure and
    refusal so to do, he was convicted of the crime of estafa in the Court of First Instance of the city
    Manila in sentenced to be imprisoned for one year and six months in Bilibid, and to pay the
    costs of the trial.

    The facts as stated above were fully established at the trial of the case; the accused offered no
    evidence on his own behalf and rest his appeal substantially upon the alleged failure of the
    prosecution to establish the existence of a duty or obligation imposed on the defendant to turn
    over his principal the funds which he is charged with appropriating to his own use.

    Counsel for the defendant contends that the trial court erroneously admitted in evidence a
    certain document purporting to be a contract of agency signed by the defendant. The name of
    the accused is attached to this document, and one of the witnesses, the district agent of the
    China Mutual Life Insurance Company, stated that it was the contract of agency it purported to
    be, but failed to state specifically that the signature attached thereto was the signature of the
    defendant, though he declared that he knew his signature and had seen him write it on
    various occasions.

    An examination of the record seems to indicate that the failure of the witness to expressly
    identify the signature of the defendant attached to the document was due to an oversight, but
    however this may be, it is contented that the execution of the document was not formally
    established, and the trial court erred in taking into consideration one of its provisions whereby
    the defendant appears to have expressly obligated himself to deliver to the China Mutual Life
    Insurance Company the funds collected on its account, without deduction for any purpose
    whatever.

    We do not deem it necessary to review the action of the court in admitting this document in
    evidence, because we are of opinion that the obligation of the defendant to deliver the funds in
    question to his employers is determined by the provision of article 1720 of the Civil Code, which
    is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Every agent is bound to give an account of his transactions and to pay to the principal all that
    he may have received by virtue of the agency, even though what has been received is not owed
    to the principal."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Nothing to the contrary appearing in the record, and the existence of the agency and the
    collection of the funds on account of the principal having been established, the obligation to
    deliver these funds to the principal must be held to have been imposed upon the agent by
    virtue of the contract of agency.

    Counsel for the appellant further contented that the court erred in admitting in evidence a
    certain letter written by the defendant wherein he admitted the collection of certain funds on
    account of his principal, but we think that the execution of this letter was conclusively
    established, and that it was properly admitted, being pertinent and material to the issue in the
    case.

    There were other objections to the admission of certain testimony at the trial of the case, but
    we find no error in the proceedings prejudicial to the real rights of the accused, and it is
    unnecessary to discuss the assignments of error based on these objections.

    The crime of which the accused was convicted is defined and penalized in paragraph 5 of article
    535, read together with paragraph 3 of article 534, of the Penal Code, and the penalty
    prescribed is that of presidio correccional in its minimum and medium degrees. There being no
    aggravating or extenuating circumstance to be taken into consideration, this penalty should be
    imposed in its medium degree ,which, in accordance with the provisions of article 82 of the
    said code, is from one year eight months and twenty-one days to two years eleven months and
    ten days of presidio correccional. The trial court imposed the penalty of one year and six
    months of imprisonment in Bilibid, and failed to impose the accessory penalties prescribed by
    law, and this sentence should therefore be reversed, and is hereby reversed, and instead
    thereof we impose the penalty of one year eight months and twenty-one days imprisonment
    (presidio correccional), together with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and the
    payment to the agents of the China Mutual Life Insurance Company, Limited, of the sum of
    1,550.30 pesos, Philippine currency, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and
    the costs in both instances. After the expiration of ten days let judgment be entered in
    accordance herewith, and ten days thereafter let the case be remanded to the lower court for
    proper action. So ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.

    You might also like