G.R. No. 1110. April 22, 1904

In this case the action brought is not the action ex delicto
provided for in section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No attempt has
been made to proceed against the defendants for contempt, nor has any demand
been made that they be imprisoned until they pay over the money unlawfully in
their hands. The action brought is the action eno contractu arising from the
contract of agency which appears in the record. Mr. Mobley, having paid the sum
of 300 pesos into court, one of the defendants, who appeared for Roman Sarmiento
in a criminal case prosecuted against him, asked that the money be delivered ”
to the wife of the accused,” and made this request in the conditional form ”
they being poor people.” Then Sarmiento’s wife expressly authorized Messrs,
Montagne & Dominguez to receive from the clerk the amount so paid into the
court, the judge approved this authorization, and by virtue thereof Messrs.
Montagne & Dominguez received the money in question. Hence the defendants’
title to the possession of this sum of money is the contract of agency referred
to, and not the payment of fees as alleged. An agent does not become the owner
of that which he receives in the name and as the property of his principal.

If the agent believes that such a sum of money in his possession should be
paid to him as a compensation for fees still owing, he should bring the proper
action for that purpose against his client, Sarmiento, and not against his
principal, Angela Cabrera. Whatever action Messrs. Montagne & Dominguez may
believe they can successfully maintain for unpaid fees is open to them, and only
in such action would the evidence introduced by them in the trial of this case
be competent.

For the reasons stated we affirm the judgment below, with the costs of this
instance against the appellants. So ordered.

Torres, Mapa, McDonough, and Johnson, JJ., concur.