BORDADOR V LUZ FACTS:* Petitioners were engaged in the business of purchase and sale of jewelry and respondent Brigida

Lu ! also "nown as Aida Lu ! was their regular custo#er$ * %n se&eral occasions! respondent 'eganos! brother of Lu ! recei&ed se&eral pieces of gold and jewelry fro# petitioners a#ounting to P()*! )+,$ These ite#s and their prices were indicated in se&enteen receipts co&ering the sa#e$ ++ of the receipts stated that they were recei&ed for a certain A-uino! a niece of 'eganos! and the re#aining , receipts indicated that they were recei&ed for Lu $ * 'eganos was supposed to sell the ite#s at a profit and thereafter re#it the proceeds and return the unsold ite#s to Bordador$ 'eganos re#itted only the su# of P.(! */0$ 1e neither paid the balance of the sales proceeds! nor did he return any unsold ite# to petitioners$ * The total of his unpaid account to Bordador! including interest! reached the su# of P0*.! 2,($3)$ Petitioners e&entually filed a co#plaint in the barangay court against 'eganos to reco&er said a#ount$ * 4n the barangay proceedings! Lu ! who was not i#pleaded in the caes! appeared as a witness for 'eganos and ulti#ately! she and her husband! together with 'eganos signed a co#pro#ise agree#ent with petitioners$ *4n that co#pro#ise agree#ent! 'eganos obligated hi#self to pay petitioners! on install#ent basis ! the balance of his account plus interest thereon$ 1owe&er! he failed to co#ply with his aforestated underta"ings$ * Petitioners instituted a co#plaint for reco&ery of su# of #oney and da#ages! with an application for preli#inary attach#ent against 'eganos and Lu $ * 'eganos and Lu was also charged with estafa ) 'uring the trial of the ci&il cae! petitioners clai#ed that 'eganos acted as agent of Lu when recei&ed the subject ite#s of jewelry! and because he failed to pay for the sa#e! Lu ! as principal! and her spouse are solidarily liable with hi# * Trial court ruled that only 'eganos was liable to Bordador for the a#ount and da#ages clai#ed$ 4t held that while Lu did ha&e transactions with petitioners in the past! the ite#s in&ol&ed were already paid for and all that Lu owed Bordador was the su# or P*+! 2)( representing interest on the principal account which she had pre&iously paid for$ * CA affir#ed TC5s decision 4SS67: 89: Lu are liable to petitioners for the latter5s clai# for #oney and da#ages in the su# of P0*.!2,($3)! plus interests and attorney5s fees! despite the fact that the e&idence does not show that they signed any of the subject receipts or authori ed 'eganos to recei&e the ite#s of jewelry on their behalf ;6L4:<: :o 7&idence does not support the theory of Bordador that 'eganos was an agent of Lu and that the latter should conse-uently be held solidarily liable with 'eganos in his obligation to petitioners$ The basis for agency is representation$ 1ere! there is no showing that Lu consented to the acts of 'eganos or authori ed hi# to act on her behalf! #uch less with respect to the particular transactions in&ol&ed$ 4t was grossly and ine=cusably negligent of petitioner to entrust to 'eganos! not once or twice but on at least si= occasions as e&idenced by , receipts! se&eral pieces of jewelry of substantial &alue without re-uiring a written authori ation fro# his alleged principal$ A person dealing with an agent is put upon in-uiry and #ust disco&er upon his peril the authority of the agent$ ;ecords show that neither an e=press nor an i#plied agency was pro&en to ha&e e=isted between 'eganos and Lu $ 7&idently! Bordador who were negligent in their transactions with 'eganos cannot see" relief fro# the effects of their negligence by conjuring a supposed agency relation between the two respondents where no e&idence supports such clai#