Scribd
Upload
148 views1 page

Africa v. Caltex Phil., Inc., 16 SCRA 448 - Case Digest

1) In 1948, a fire broke out at a Caltex gas station in Manila while gasoline was being transferred from a tank truck into underground storage, burning nearby houses. 2) The owners of the burned houses sued Caltex and Mateo Boquiren, who was in charge of operating the station, for negligence. 3) Boquiren claimed he was merely an agent of Caltex and not personally liable, while Caltex admitted owning the station but claimed Boquiren owned and operated the business. The court ruled that Boquiren was an agent of Caltex based on factors showing Caltex's control over the station and its operator.

Uploaded by

Michelle Lim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
148 views1 page

Africa v. Caltex Phil., Inc., 16 SCRA 448 - Case Digest

1) In 1948, a fire broke out at a Caltex gas station in Manila while gasoline was being transferred from a tank truck into underground storage, burning nearby houses. 2) The owners of the burned houses sued Caltex and Mateo Boquiren, who was in charge of operating the station, for negligence. 3) Boquiren claimed he was merely an agent of Caltex and not personally liable, while Caltex admitted owning the station but claimed Boquiren owned and operated the business. The court ruled that Boquiren was an agent of Caltex based on factors showing Caltex's control over the station and its operator.

Uploaded by

Michelle Lim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

THE SPOUSES BERNABE AFRICA and SOLEDAD C. AFRICA, and the HEIRS OF DOMINGA ONG vs.

CALTEX (PHIL.), INC., MATEO BOQUIREN and THE COURT OF APPEALS


AGENCY

March 31, 1966 G.R. No. L-12986 MAKALINTAL., J.

FACTS

In the afternoon of March 18, 1948, a fire broke out at the Caltex service station at the corner of Antipolo street
and Rizal Avenue, Manila. It started while gasoline was being hosed from a tank truck into the underground
storage. The fire spread to and burned several neighboring houses. Their owners, among them petitioners here,
sued respondents Caltex (Phil.), Inc. and Mateo Boquiren, the first as alleged owner of the station and the second
as its agent in charge of operation. Negligence on the part of both of them was attributed as the cause of the fire.

In his motion, Boquiren claimed that he was merely acting as agent of Caltex, such that he could not have
incurred personal liability. On the other hand, Caltex admits that it owned the gasoline station as well as the
equipment therein, but claims that the business conducted at the service station in question was owned and
operated by Boquiren.

ISSUE

Whether or not Boquiren is a mere agent of Caltex?

RULING

Yes, Boquiren is only an agent of Caltex. Taking into consideration the fact that the operator owed his position to
the company and the latter could remove him or terminate his services at will; that the service station belonged to
the company and bore its tradename and the operator sold only the products of the company; that the equipment
used by the operator belonged to the company and were just loaned to the operator and the company took charge
of their repair and maintenance; that an employee of the company supervised the operator and conducted periodic
inspection of the company's gasoline and service station; that the price of the products sold by the operator was
fixed by the company and not by the operator; and that the receipts signed by the operator indicated that he was a
mere agent, the finding of the Court of Appeals that the operator was an agent of the company and not an
independent contractor should not be disturbed.

To determine the nature of a contract courts do not have or are not bound to rely upon the name or title given it by
the contracting parties, should thereby a controversy as to what they really had intended to enter into, but the way
the contracting parties do or perform their respective obligations stipulated or agreed upon may be shown and
inquired into, and should such performance conflict with the name or title given the contract by the parties, the
former must prevail over the latter.

FALLO

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed and respondents-appellees are held liable solidarily to
appellants, and ordered to pay them the aforesaid sum of P9,005.80 and P10,000.00, respectively, with interest
from the filing of the complaint, and costs.

You might also like