2 | Page
3 | Page
75. Far Eastern Export & Import Co. vs. Lim Teck Suan (Art 1868)
Where a foreign company has an agent in the Philippines selling
its goods and merchandise, it was held that the same agent could
not very well act as agent for local buyers, because the interest
of his foreign principal and those of the buyers would be in
direct confl ict. He could not serve two masters at the same
time.
76. Nielson & Co., Inc. vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co.
77. Shell Co., of the Phil. Ltd. vs. Firemens Ins. of Newark
78. Sevilla vs. Court of Appeals
79. Lim vs. People
80. San Diego, Sr. vs. Nombre
81. De la Pea vs. Hidalgo
82. Conde vs. Court of Appeals
83. Harry E. Keller Elec. Co. vs. Rodriguez
84. Rallos vs. Yangco
85. Macke vs. Camps, 7 Phil. 553 86. Jimenez vs. Rabot
87. Lian vs. Puno, 31 Phil. 259 88. Katigbak vs. Tai Hing Co.
89. Danon vs. Brimo & Co.
90. Infante vs. Cunanan
91. Manotok Brothers, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 221 SCRA 224
92. Domingo vs. Domingo, 42 SCRA 131 [1971]
93. Siasat vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 139 SCRA 238
94. German & Co. vs. Donaldson, Sim & Co., 1 Phil. 63
95. Municipal Council of Iloilo vs. Evangelista, 55 Phil. 290
96. Caballero vs. Deiparine, 60 SCRA 136
4 | Page
the
Phil.
vs.
Republic