Sec. 29. Admission by co-partner
or agent. – The act or declaration of a partner or agent of
the party within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the
partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the
partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.
The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor,
or other person jointly interested with the party.
Agency
An
agent performs some service in representation or on behalf of his principal (Art. 1868, Civil Code of the Philippines). The
agent therefore, is in legal contemplation, a mere extension of the personality
of the principal and unless the agent acts in his own name, the principal must
comply with all the obligations which the agent may have contracted within the
scope of his authority (Art. 1883; Art.
1910, Civil Code of the Philippines). Hence, whatever is said by an agent
to a third person, during the course of the agency and within the scope of his
actual or apparent authority, relative to the business contemplated by the
agency, is for legal purposes also the statement of the principal and is
therefore, admissible against said principal (29A Am Jur 29 Evidence § 815 citing Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v.
Mitchell, 245 US 229, 62 L Ed 260, 38 S Ct 65).
Partnership
The
relationship among partners is on the same footing with the relationship of an
agent to his principal. Both the contracts of agency and partnership involve
fiduciary relationships. Under the law
(Art. 1818, Civil Code of the Philippines), every partner is an agent of
the partnership for the purpose of its business and the act of the partner in
carrying out the usual course of business binds the partnership as a rule.
Hence, under the same principle governing an agency, the declarations of a
partner may be admissible against the other partners or the partnership.
Requisites for
admissibility
Not
every declaration or act made or done by a partner or agent is admissible
against the other partners or the principal. For the admission of a co-partners
or agent to be admissible, the following requisites must concur:
(a) The declaration or act of the
partner and agent must have been made or done within the scope of his
authority;
(b) The declaration or act of the
partner and agent must have been made or done during the existence of
the partnership or agency, and the person making the declaration is still a
partner or an agent; and
(c) The existence of the partnership or
agency is proven by evidence other than the declaration or act of the
partner and agent.
●
Any declaration made before the partnership or agency existed or those made
after are not admissible against the other partners or the principal but
remains admissible against the partner or agent making the declaration. It is
also necessary for the application of the exception that the proof of the
agency or partnership be from a source independent of the declaration made by
the partner or agent.
● As a rule, statements made after a
partnership has been dissolved does not fall within this exception, but where
the admission are made in connection with the winding up of the partnership
affairs, said admissions are still admissible as the partner is acting as an
agent of his co-partners in winding up. (Florenz Regalado, Remedial Law
Compendium, Vol. 2, 2004 ed., p. 720)
Rule also applies
to
The
above rules apply to the declarations or acts of a joint owner, joint debtor,
or other persons jointly interested with the party (Sec. 29, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
Cases
Jaucian vs. Querol, 88 Phil 707. The phrase joint
debtor does not refer to a mere community of interest but should be understood
according to its meaning in the common law system from which the provision was
taken, that is, in solidum, and not mancomunada.
Ormachea v. Trillana, 13 Phil 194 (1909)
Discharge of a debt given by a managing partner, 2 years after the partnership
had been dissolved does not qualify as a partner’s admission and can not
prejudice or bind the other partners.
Kiel v. Estate of Sabert, 46 Phil 193
(1924)
Facts: After a partner died, the remaining partner
sought to recover his share in the partnership. Held: The declarations of one
partner, not made in the presence of his co-partner, are not competent to prove
the existence of a partnership, between them as against such other partner. The
existence of a partnership cannot be established by general reputation, rumor,
or hearsay.
Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival, 588 F.2d 626
(8th Cir. 198) – the jurisdiction in which this case is decided has
a law which explicitly declared that an act of a party or his agent is not
hearsay; agent need not have personal knowledge of his statement as long as it
is within the scope of his authority, may be used against him and his
principal
Note:
Word omission in Section 28 doesn't appear here. Because if it was, can
become vague (same as with Section 30)
It only appears in Section 31: admission by privies
What predecessors didn't do is binding on you = this is the rationale in
including the word omission in Section 31
GR: admission of someone else shouldn't be taken against you. But Section 29 is
an exception: admission of another can be taken against you – fair?
0
Comments
