108 Extinguishment of Agency: Withdrawal

FEDERICO VALERA VS. MIGUEL VELASCO

No. 28050. March 13, 1928
P = Valera, A = Velasco, Alleged 3P = Velasco (no longer as agent)

FACTS:
 By virtue of the powers of attorney, Exhibits X and Z, executed by the plaintiff, the
defendant was appointed attorney-in-fact with authority to manage plaintiff’s
property in the Philippines, consisting of the usufruct of a real property
 Defendant presented a final account of his administration for March, wherein it
appears that there is a balance of P3,058.33 in favor of the plaintiff.
 The liquidation of accounts revealed that the plaintiff owed the defendant P1,100,
and as a misunderstanding arose between them, the defendant brought suit
against the plaintiff, civil case No. 23447 of this court which was ruled against the
plaintiff
 Subsequently, the plaintiff sold his right of redemption to one Eduardo Hernandez,
for the sum of P200 but the purchaser subsequently conveyed the same right of
redemption to the plaintiff
 After such recovery, one Salvador Vallejo, who had an execution upon a judgment
against the plaintiff rendered in a civil case against the latter, levied upon said right
of redemption, which was sold by the sheriff at public auction to Salvador Vallejo
for P250
 Later, he transferred said right of redemption to the defendant Velasco. This is how
the title of usufruct over the property was vested in the defendant
 Valera filed a complaint against Velasco alleging that as his representative,
Velasco has for the right over the land, however, this was dismissed
 In this appeal, Valera argues that the lower court erred in holding that the institution
of a civil action and the execution of the judgment obtained by the agent against
his principal is but a renunciation of the powers conferred on the agent

ISSUE: Whether at the time the right of redemption was acquired by Valera, he was still
an agent of Velasco.

RULING: No. The filing of a complaint by an agent against his principal for the
collection of a balance in his favor resulting from a liquidation of the agency
accounts between them, and his rendering of a final account of his operations, are
equivalent to an express renunciation of the agency and terminate the juridical
relation between them. 
 When the agent filed a complaint against his principal for the
recovery of a sum of money arising from the liquidation of the accounts between them in
connection with the agency, Federico Valera could not have understood otherwise than
that Miguel Velasco renounced the agency; because his act was more expressive than
words and could not have caused any doubt. The purchase at public auction by the agent
after having renounced and thus terminated the agency, of the property involved in the
agency sold at said auction for the purpose of satisfying a judgment rendered against the
principal in favor of the agent, is valid