Key Takeaway: Corporate Conduct Can Establish Binding Agreements Even Without Formal Authorization

Agro Food and Processing Corp. v. Vitarich Corporation, G.R. No. 217454, January 11, 2021

Imagine a business deal where a handshake agreement turns into a multi-million peso dispute. This is precisely what happened between Agro Food and Processing Corp. and Vitarich Corporation, leading to a landmark ruling by the Philippine Supreme Court on the doctrine of apparent authority. The crux of the case revolved around whether verbal amendments to a contract, made without formal board approval, could still bind the corporation. This case not only highlights the importance of clear corporate governance but also underscores how actions taken by a corporation can imply authority to third parties.

In this dispute, Agro and Vitarich had entered into agreements involving the sale and processing of chickens. However, amendments to the toll fees were made verbally and implemented over time, leading to disagreements over the amounts owed. The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold these amendments under the doctrine of apparent authority has far-reaching implications for how businesses operate and manage their contracts in the Philippines.

Legal Context: The Doctrine of Apparent Authority in Corporate Law

The doctrine of apparent authority is a principle in agency law where a principal (in this case, a corporation) can be bound by the acts of its agent (an officer or employee) if it has knowingly permitted the agent to act within the scope of an apparent authority. This concept is crucial in corporate settings where officers often enter into agreements on behalf of the company.

In the Philippines, this doctrine is recognized and applied in various cases. The Supreme Court has stated that “a corporation [is] estopped from denying the [officer’s] authority if it knowingly permits [such officer] to act within the scope of an apparent authority, and it holds him out to the public as possessing the power to do those acts.” This means that if a corporation’s actions suggest that an officer has the authority to make certain decisions, it cannot later deny this authority when dealing with third parties who have acted in good faith.

Key to this doctrine is the idea that the corporation’s conduct, rather than the agent’s assertions, determines the existence of apparent authority. For example, if a company consistently allows its finance manager to negotiate and amend contract terms without objection, it may be estopped from later claiming those amendments are invalid due to lack of formal board approval.

The relevant legal text from the Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 1868, states: “By the contract of agency, a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter.” This provision underpins the legal foundation for the doctrine of apparent authority.

Case Breakdown: From Handshake to Supreme Court

The journey of this case began with two agreements signed between Agro and Vitarich on October 5, 1995. The first was a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the potential sale of Agro’s chicken dressing plant, and the second was a Toll Agreement for processing chickens supplied by Vitarich.

Under the MOA, Vitarich paid a P20 million deposit to evaluate the plant. When the evaluation period ended and Agro did not accept Vitarich’s offer to purchase, the parties agreed to return the deposit through deductions from toll fees. However, verbal amendments to the toll fees were made over the next two years, leading to disputes over the final amounts owed.

Vitarich filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking payment of the remaining deposit and amounts for the sale of live broiler chickens. The RTC initially ruled in favor of Agro, rejecting the verbal amendments due to lack of formal board approval. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, applying the doctrine of apparent authority based on Agro’s conduct over the two-year period.

The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, emphasizing that Agro’s actions, including the preparation of over 89 weekly billings reflecting the amendments and the acceptance of benefits from these changes, established apparent authority. The Court stated, “When a corporation intentionally or negligently clothes its officer with apparent authority to act in its behalf, it is estopped from denying its officer’s apparent authority as to innocent third parties who dealt with this officer in good faith.”

The procedural steps included:

• Initial agreement and amendments made between 1995 and 1997
• Vitarich’s complaint filed in the RTC in 1998
• RTC’s decision in favor of Agro in 2005
• CA’s reversal of the RTC’s decision in 2014
• Supreme Court’s affirmation of the CA’s decision in 2021

Practical Implications: Navigating Corporate Agreements

This ruling underscores the importance of clear corporate governance and communication. Businesses must be vigilant about how their actions may imply authority to third parties. For corporations, it is crucial to establish clear protocols for contract amendments and to ensure that all officers understand their authority limits.

Individuals and businesses dealing with corporations should also be aware of the doctrine of apparent authority. When entering into agreements, it is advisable to verify the authority of the person representing the corporation and to document any amendments clearly.

Key Lessons:

• Corporate actions can imply authority to third parties, even without formal board approval.
• Regularly review and document any amendments to contracts to avoid disputes.
• Ensure all officers understand their authority limits to prevent unintended binding agreements.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is apparent authority?
Apparent authority is a legal doctrine where a corporation can be bound by the acts of its agent if it has knowingly permitted the agent to act within the scope of an apparent authority.

How can a corporation avoid being bound by apparent authority?
A corporation can avoid being bound by ensuring clear communication of authority limits, regularly reviewing and documenting contract amendments, and training officers on their authority.

Can verbal amendments to a contract be binding?
Yes, verbal amendments can be binding if the corporation’s conduct suggests that the officer making the amendments had the authority to do so.

What should businesses do to protect themselves in contract negotiations?
Businesses should verify the authority of the person they are dealing with, document all amendments, and seek legal advice when in doubt about the validity of an agreement.

How does this ruling affect future business dealings?
This ruling highlights the need for businesses to be cautious about implied authority and to ensure all contract amendments are clearly documented and approved.

ASG Law specializes in corporate and commercial law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.