Art.

1922

SONZA, Richelle May S.

G.R. No. 85494 Rammani vs. CA

FACTS:

Ishwar, Choithram and Navalrai were brothers. Since Ishwar and his wife were based in New Yor , Ishwar a!!ointed Choithram as attorney"in"fact in !#rchasin$ !arcels of land owned by Orti$as % Com!any, &td. 'artnershi!. Ishwar e(ec#ted a $eneral !ower of attorney on )an#ary *+, ,-.. a!!ointin$ Navalrai and Choithram as attorneys"in"fact, em!owerin$ them to mana$e and cond#ct their b#siness concern in the 'hili!!ines. Actin$ in his ca!acity, Choitram transacted the !#rchase of the land with Orti$as thro#$h installments. /e !aid the down!ayment and installments thro#$h his !ersonal chec s. &ater on, when Ishwar as ed Choithram to acco#nt for the income and e(!enses relative to these !ro!erties d#rin$ the !eriod ,-.0 to ,-01. Choithram failed and ref#sed to render s#ch acco#ntin$. As a conse2#ence, on 3ebr#ary +, ,-0,, Ishwar revo ed the $eneral !ower of attorney. Choithram and Orti$as were d#ly notified of s#ch revocation on A!ril ,, ,-0, and May *+, ,-0,, res!ectively. Said notice was also re$istered with the Sec#rities and 4(chan$e Commission on March *-, ,-0, and was !#blished in the A!ril *, ,-0, iss#e of The Manila Timesfor the information of the $eneral !#blic.

ISSUE: 5ON the notice was valid.

RULING:

6he !roblem is com!o#nded in that res!ondent Orti$as is ca#$ht in the web of this bitter fi$ht. It had all the time been dealin$ with Choithram as attorney"in" fact of Ishwar. /owever, evidence had been add#ced that notice in writin$ had been served not only on Choithram, b#t also on Orti$as, of the revocation of Choithram7s !ower of attorney by Ishwar7s lawyer, on May *+, ,-0,. A !#blication of said notice was made in the A!ril *, ,-0, iss#e of The Manila Times for the information of the $eneral !#blic. S#ch notice of revocation in a news!a!er of $eneral circ#lation is s#fficient warnin$ to third !ersons incl#din$ Orti$as. A notice of revocation was also re$istered with the Sec#rities and 4(chan$e Commission on March *-, , -0,.

Indeed in the letter of Choithram to Ishwar of )#ne *8, ,-0,, Choithram was !leadin$ that Ishwar e(ec#te another !ower of attorney to be shown to Orti$as who a!!arently learned of the revocation of Choithram7s !ower of attorney. 9es!ite said notices, Orti$as nevertheless acceded to the re!resentation of Choithram, as alle$ed attorney"in"fact of Ishwar, to assi$n the ri$hts of !etitioner Ishwar to Nirmla. 5hile the !rimary blame sho#ld be laid at the doorste! of Choithram, Orti$as is not entirely witho#t fa#lt. It sho#ld have re2#ired Choithram to sec#re another !ower of attorney from Ishwar. 3or rec lessly believin$ the !retension of Choithram that his !ower of attorney was still $ood, it m#st, therefore, share in the latter7s liability to Ishwar.