AGENCY
AGENCY
AGENCY
Villanueva-Tiansay, 2015)
VIII. AGENCY
7. Generally onerous
4. As to authority conferred 4. The agent acts within the scope of his authority.
a. Couched in general terms – Agency is (Sps. Viloria v. Continental Airlines, Inc., G.R. No.
created in general terms and is deemed 188288, 16 Jan. 2012)
to comprise only acts of administration.
(Art. 1877, NCC) Appointment of an agent
b. Couched in specific terms – Agency
authorizing only the performance of a GR: There are no formal requirements governing the
specific act or acts. (Art. 1876, NCC) appointment of an agent.
5. As to nature and effects XPN: When the law requires a specific form, i.e. when
a. Ostensible or Representative – Agent acts sale of land or any interest therein is through an
in the name and representation of the agent, the authority of the latter must be in writing;
principal. (Art. 1868, NCC) otherwise, the sale shall be void. (Art. 1874, NCC)
b. Simple or Commission – Agent acts in his (2010 BAR)
own name but for the account of the
principal. (De Leon, 2014) Rules on Implied Acceptance of agency
Nature of the relationship between principal and undertaking. (De Leon, 2019)
agent
Theory of imputed knowledge
It is fiduciary in nature that is based on trust and
confidence. The agent is estopped from asserting or The importance of the duty to give information of
acquiring an interest adverse to that of his principal. material facts becomes readily apparent when it is
(De Leon, 2019) borne in mind that knowledge of the agent is
imputed to the principal even though the agent never
Qualifications of a Principal communicated such knowledge to the principal.
(Ibid.)
1. Natural or juridical person; and
2. Must have capacity to enter into contract in his Exceptions to the theory of imputed knowledge
own right. (Ibid.)
1. The agent’s interests are adverse to those of the
NOTE: If a person is capacitated to act for himself or principal;
his own right, he can act through an agent. 2. The agent’s duty is not to disclose the
information, as where he is informed by way of
Insofar as third persons are concerned, it is enough confidential information; and
that the principal is capacitated. But insofar as his 3. The person claiming the benefit of the rule
obligations to his principal are concerned, the agent colludes with the agent to defraud the principal.
must be able to bind himself. (Ibid.)
Rule with regard to the execution of the agency required them to take out an insurance policy on
the vehicle. In the promissory note, the Spouses
GR: The agent is bound by his acceptance to carry out Briones constituted iBank as their attorney-in-
the agency, in accordance with the instruction of the fact with full power and authority for the
principal and is liable for damages which, through purpose of filing claims with the insurance
his non-performance, the principal may suffer. (Arts. company as may be necessary to prove the claim
1884 & 1887, NCC) and to collect from the latter the proceeds of
insurance in case of loss or damage to the
XPN: If its execution could manifestly result in loss vehicle. The mortgaged BMW Z4 Roadster was
or damage to the principal. (Art. 1888, NCC) carnapped in Tandang Sora, Quezon City.
Spouses Briones declared the loss to iBank,
Responsibility of two or more agents appointed which instructed them to continue paying the
simultaneously next three (3) monthly installments “as a sign of
good faith.” When the Spouses Briones finished
GR: They are jointly liable. (Art. 1894, NCC) paying the three (3)-month installment, iBank
sent them a letter demanding full payment of the
XPN: Solidarity has been expressly stipulated. Each lost vehicle. The Spouses Briones submitted a
of the agents becomes solidarily liable for: notice of claim with their insurance company,
1. The non-fulfillment of the agency but the latter denied the claim due to the
2. Fault or negligence of his fellow agent (Art. 1895, delayed reporting of the lost vehicle.
NCC)
Thereafter, iBank filed a complaint for the
XPNs to the XPN: default of the Spouses to pay monthly
2. When one of the other agents acts beyond the amortizations. RTC ruled that as the duly
scope of his authority – innocent agent is not constituted attorney-in-fact of the Spouses
liable. Briones, iBank had the obligation to facilitate
3. When the fault or negligence of his fellow agents the filing of the notice of claim and then to
was done beyond the scope of their authority – pursue the release of the insurance proceeds.
innocent agent is not liable. (Art. 1895, NCC) The CA also dismissed the complaint. Did an
agency relationship exist between the parties
Instances when the agent may incur personal which obligated iBank to facilitate the filing of
liability the claim against the insurance company?
1. Agent expressly bound himself; A: YES. All the elements of agency exist in this case,
2. Agent exceeded his authority; namely (1) there is consent, express or implied, of
3. Acts of the agent prevented the performance on the parties to establish the relationship of agency;
the part of the principal; (2) the object is the execution of a juridical act in
4. When a person acted as agent without authority relation to a third person; (3) the agent acts as a
or without a principal; and representative and not for himself; and (4) the agent
5. When a person acted as an agent of an acts within the scope of his authority.
incapacitated principal unless the third person
was aware of the incapacity at the time of the Under the promissory note with chattel mortgage,
making of the contract. (De Leon, 2019) Spouses Briones appointed iBank as their attorney-
in-fact, authorizing it to file a claim with the
Q: Spouses Briones took out a loan of insurance company if the mortgaged vehicle was
₱3,789,216.00 from iBank to purchase a BMW lost or damaged. iBank was also authorized to
Z4 Roadster. The monthly amortization for two collect the insurance proceeds as the beneficiary of
(2) years was ₱78,942.00. They executed a the insurance policy. Article 1370 of the Civil Code
promissory note with chattel mortgage that is categorical that when “the terms of a contract are
clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the Rule regarding double agency
contracting parties, the literal meaning of its
stipulations shall control. (Union Bank of the GR: Disapproved by law for being against public
Philippines v. Spouses Briones, G.R. No. 205657, 29, policy and sound morality.
Mar. 2017)
XPN: Where the agent acted with full knowledge and
Presumption of contract of agency consent of the principals.
GR: Agency is not presumed. Acts that a principal may delegate to his agent
The relation between principal and agent must exist GR: What a man may do in person, he may do thru
as a fact. Thus, it is held that where the relation of another.
agency is dependent upon the acts of the parties, the
law makes no presumption of agency, and it is always XPNs:
a fact to be proved, with the burden of proof resting 1. Personal acts; and
upon the person alleging the agency to show, not 2. Criminal acts or acts not allowed by law.
only the fact of its existence, but also its nature and (Ibid.)
extent. (Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Consolidated
Sugar Corporation, G.R. No. 117356, 19, June 2000) Q: A granted B the exclusive right to sell his brand
of Maong pants in Isabela, the price for his
XPNs: merchandise payable within 60 days from
1. Operation of law; and delivery, and promising B a commission of 20%
2. To prevent unjust enrichment. (De Leon, on all sales. After the delivery of the merchandise
2010) to B but before he could sell any of them, B’s store
in Isabela was completely burned without his
Agency by necessity fault, together with all of A's pants. Must B pay A
for the lost pants? Why? (1999 BAR)
Agency cannot be created by necessity. What is
created instead is additional authority in an agent A: YES. B must pay A for the lost pants. The contract
appointed and authorized before the emergency between A and B is a sale not an agency to sell
arose. By virtue of the existence of an emergency, the because the price is payable by B upon 60 days from
authority of an agent is correspondingly enlarged in delivery even if B is unable to resell it. If B were an
order to cope with the exigencies or the necessities agent, he is not bound to pay the price if he is unable
of the moment. (De Leon, 2019) to resell it. As a buyer, however, ownership passed to
B upon delivery and, under Art. 1504, the thing
Requisites for the additional authority of agent in perishes for the owner. Hence, B must still pay the
cases of necessity price.
Judicial administrator
AGENCY GUARDIANSHIP Agent is appointed
is appointed by the
by the principal
As to who they represent court
Relationship can be
Generally, relationship
terminated at the will
can be terminated only
of either principal or
at the will of both.
agent.
As to its creation
The alleged owner or
partner takes his Trust may be the
The profits belong to
agreed share of profits, Agency is really a result of a contract; it
all the parties as
not as owner but as an contractual relation. may also be created
common proprietors
agreed measure of by law.
in agreed proportions.
compensation for his
services or the like.
Kinds of agency as to the extent of powers above sugar crop loans nor filed a case to collect
conferred or foreclose the mortgage.
An agency may be couched in: Thus Remedios and Roy filed a Petition before
1. General terms – It is one which is created in the RTC to cancel the liens annotated on the
general terms and is deemed to comprise only titles of the mortgated properties on grounds of
acts of administration. (Art. 1877, NCC) prescription and extinction of their loan
2. Specific terms – It is necessary to perform any act obligation.
of strict ownership. (De Leon, 2019)
The CA ruled that when mortgagors Sian
Scope of authority of an agent Agricultural Corporation, Sebastian and Marina
de la Pena and Spouses Jerome Gonzales and
The agent must act within the scope of his authority. Perla Sian-Gonzales as registered owners of Lots
He may do such acts as may be conducive to the 1, 8, 214, 215,213-B and 96, respectively,
accomplishment of the purpose of the agency. (Art. authorized petitioner-appellee and her son Roy
1881, NCC) Sian Liamsiaco to mortgage their properties,
they allowed a burden to be placed therein
However, the limits of the agent’s authority shall not bearing the risk of losing it if the loans were not
be considered exceeded should it have been paid. It is because of this risk that mortgagors
performed in a manner more advantageous to the should be absolute owners, or, that special
principal than that specified by him. (Art. 1882, NCC) authority from the owners of the properties
must be given before their properties can be
Q: Remedios obtained a P142,500.00 sugar crop encumbered through mortgage.
loan from Maybank which was payable within
one year. Through a Special Power of Attorney Since the lifting of this encumbrance is a benefit
(SPA), Remedios executed a Real Estate that would free the owners of the risk of losing
Mortgage (REM) on the following parcels of their properties, it is only a matter of course that
land: (a) Lot 8, covered by Transfer Certificate of the special power to mortgage includes the
Title No. (TCT) T-74488, which is owned by Sian authority to discharge it from the burden. Does
Agricultural Corporation; (b) Lot 1, covered by the authority to encumber one's land title
TCT No. 55619, which is owned by spouses naturally includes the authority to perform acts
Sebastian and Marina de la Pena. Subsequently to disencumber such title?
in 1982, Remedios and her son Roy Sian-
Limsiaco (Roy) obtained another sugar crop A: YES. Article 1882 of the Civil Code expressly
loan for P307,700.00 which was likewise due provides: The limits of the agent's authority shall
after one year. not be considered exceeded should it have been
performed in a manner more advantageous to the
Through another SPA, Roy executed a REM on principal than that specified by him. Given this and
the following parcels of land owned by Spouses considering that respondent was already given
Jerome Gonzales and Perla Sian-Gonzales:(a) special authority to encumber the mortgagors-
Lot 214, covered by TCT No. T-121539; (b) Lot principals' titles with the subject mortgage
215, covered by TCT No. T-121540; (c) Lot213- contracts, then it is indeed implicit that respondent
B, covered by TCT No. T-121541;(d) Lot 96, is also authorized to do all the necessary acts to
covered by TCT No. T-80515. Likewise, in 1984, release the mortgagors-principals from such
Remedios obtained another sugar crop loan for encumbrance. Thus, the filing of the instant case to
P110,000.00 also secured by a REM on Lot 8 cancel the mortgage liens, which were annotated in
owned by Sian Agricultural Corporation the mortgagor-principals' respective titles through
Maybank never demanded payment of the the special authority granted by them to
respondent, should be considered within the limits
of respondent's authority since disencumbering the Rule as to when the Principal is NOT Bound by
mortagagors-principals' titles of the same mortgage the act of the agent
liens are obviously advantageous to the latter.
Moreover, the registered owners of the mortgaged 1. GR: When the act is without or beyond the
lands (alleged to be the real parties-in-interest) scope of his authority in the principal’s name.
never questioned the authority of respondent all XPNs:
throughout the proceedings nor did they file any a. Where the acts of the principal have
pleading or motion to that effect. In short, the real contributed to deceive a 3rd person in
parties-in-interest effectively ratified the act of good faith;
respondent of filing an action to cancel the b. Where the limitations upon the power
mortgage. (Maybank Ph., Inc. v. Sian-Limsiaco, G.R. created by the principal could not have
No. 196323, 08 Feb. 2021) been known by the 3rd person;
c. Where the principal has placed in the
Instances when the act of an agent is binding to hands of the agent instruments signed
the principal by him in blank; and
d. Where the principal has ratified the acts
1. When the agent acts as such without expressly of the agent.
binding himself or does not exceed the limits of
his authority. (Art. 1897, NCC) 2. GR: When the act is within the scope of the
2. If principal ratifies the act of the agent which agent’s authority but in his own name.
exceeded his authority. (Art. 1898, NCC)
3. Circumstances where the principal himself was, XPN: When the transaction involves things
or ought to have been aware. (Art. 1899, NCC) belonging to the principal. (Art. 1883, NCC)
4. If such act is within the terms of the power of
attorney, as written. (Arts. 1900 & 1902, NCC) NOTE: The limits of the agent’s authority shall not be
5. Principal has ratified, or has signified his considered exceeded should it have been performed
willingness to ratify the agent’s act. (Art. 1901, in a manner more advantageous to the principal than
NCC) that specified by him. (Art. 1882, NCC)
Rule where two persons deal separately with the maintain an action on his own behalf against the
agent and the principal other party for its breach.
If the two contracts are incompatible with each An agent entitled to receive a commission from his
other, the one of prior date shall be preferred. This is principal upon the performance of a contract which
subject however to the rule on double sale under Art. he has made on his principal's account does not, from
1544 of the NCC. (Art. 1916, NCC) this fact alone, have any claim against the other party
for breach of the contract, either in an action on the
NOTE: Rules of preference in double sale contract or otherwise.
1. Personal property – possessor in good faith An agent who is not a promisee cannot maintain an
2. Real property action at law against a purchaser merely because he
a. Registrant in good faith; is entitled to have his compensation or advances paid
b. In the absence of inscription, possessor in out of the purchase price before payment to the
good faith; principal. (Uy v. CA, G.R. No. 120465, 09 Sept. 1999)
c. In the absence of possession, person with the
oldest title in good faith. (Art. 1544, NCC)
It includes not only the actual authorization The existence of apparent authority may be
conferred upon the agent by his principal but also ascertained through:
that which is apparent or impliedly delegated to him. 1. The general manner in which the principal holds
(De Leon, 2019) out an agent as having the power to act, with
which it clothes him; or
Q: When is a third person required to inquire into 2. The acquiescence of the principal in the agent’s
the authority of the agent? acts of a particular nature, with actual or
constructive knowledge thereof, within or
A: beyond the scope of his authorities. (Sargasso
1. Where authority is not in writing – Every person Const. & Dev. Corp. v. Philippine Ports Authority,
dealing with an assumed agent is put upon an G.R. No. 170530, 05 July 2010)
inquiry and must discover upon his peril, if he
would hold the principal liable, not only the fact The principal is liable only as to third persons who
of the agency but the nature and extent of the have been led reasonably to believe by the conduct
authority of the agent. (Safic Alcan & CIE v. of the principal that such actual authority exists,
Imperial Vegetable Oil Co., Inc., G.R. No. 126751, although none has been given. (Banate v. Philippine
28 Mar. 2001) If he does not make an inquiry, he Countryside Rural Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 163825, 13 July
is chargeable with knowledge of the agent’s 2010)
authority, and his ignorance of that authority
will not be an excuse.
2. Where authority is in writing –if authority of an
agent is in writing, such person is not required to
inquire further than the terms of the written
power of attorney. (De Leon, 2019)
Apparent Authority v. Authority by Estoppel Marilyn and Calubad. Should Ricarcen be bound
by the allegedly representative acts of Marilyn?
Apparent Authority Authority by Estoppel
A: YES. Ricarcen should be bound by the acts of
As to the knowledge of the principal of Marilyn, whom it had clothed with apparent
the authority of the agent authority. The doctrine of apparent authority that is
Arises when the based on the principle of estoppel, in accordance
principal, by his with Articles 1431 and 1869 of the New Civil Code,
Though not actually culpable negligence, provides that even if no actual authority has been
granted, the principal permits his agent to conferred on an agent, his or her acts, as long as they
knowingly permits exercise powers not are within his or her apparent scope of authority,
the agent to exercise granted to him, even bind the principal.
or holds him out as though the principal
possessing may have no notice or In the case at bar, it was within Marilyn’s scope of
knowledge of the authority as president to act for and enter into
agent’s conduct contracts in Ricarcen’s behalf. This could be seen
with how the corporate secretary entrusted her
As to the establishment of the authority
with blank yet signed sheets of paper to be used at
Founded on the her discretion, which apparently caused the
Founded in conscious
principal’s negligence in execution of the allegedly falsified secretary
permission of acts
failing properly to certificates. It reasonably appeared that Ricarcen’s
beyond the powers
supervise the affairs of officers knew of the mortgage contracts entered
granted
the agent into by Marilyn in Ricarcen’s behalf as proved by the
checks drawn and issued by Ricarcen as payments
Q: Marilyn R. Soliman (“Marilyn”), allegedly to Calubad for the monthly interest and principal
acting on behalf of Ricarcen Development loans. Calubad, as an innocent third party dealing in
Corporation (“Ricarcen”) of which she was good faith with Marilyn, should not be made to
president, took out a total of P 7,000,000.00 loan suffer because of Ricarcen's negligence in
from Arturo C. Calubad (“Calubad”) at a conducting its own business affairs. If a private
compounded monthly interest rate, which was corporation intentionally or negligently clothes its
secured by a real estate mortgage over officers or agents with apparent power to perform
Ricarcen’s real property in Quezon City. acts for it, the corporation will be estopped to deny
that such apparent authority is real, as to innocent
To prove her authority to execute the three third persons dealing in good faith with such
mortgage contracts on Ricarcen’s behalf, officers or agents. (Calubad v. Ricarcen Dev. Corp.,
Marilyn presented Calubad with a Board G.R. No. 202364, 30 Aug. 2017)
Resolution and Secretary’s Certificates, later
alleged to be falsified. Due to Ricarcen’s failure Q: Performance Forex Corp. is a corporation
to pay its loan, the mortgage was foreclosed, operating as a financial broker/agent between
eventually resulting to the issuance of a market participants in foreign exchange
Certificate of Sale in favour of Calubad as the transactions. Cancio and Pampolina accepted
highest bidder, and thus, the issuance of a the invitation of Performance Forex Corp.’s
certificate of title in his name. agent, Hipol, to open a joint account with
Performance Forex Corp. Hipol was authorized
When Ricarcen discovered these transactions of by Performance Forex Corp. to follow and
Marilyn, it filed before the Regional Trial Court execute the trade orders of Cancio and
(“RTC”) a complaint for Annulment of Real Pampolina.
Estate Mortgage and Extrajudicial Foreclosure
of Mortgage and Sale, with Damages against
However, it was later found out that Hipol did Rules regarding estoppel in agency
not execute the orders of Cancio and Pampolina
and instead made unauthorized transactions 1. Estoppel of agent – One professing to act as agent
resulting into the loss of all of their money. for another may be estopped to deny his agency
Hence, Cancio and Pampolina filed a complaint both as against his asserted principal and the
for damages against both Performance Forex third persons interested in the transaction in
Corp. and its agent, Hipol for what happened. Is which he engaged.
Performance Forex Corp. solidarily liable to
Cancio and Pampolina for Hipol’s acts? 2. Estoppel of principal
a. As to agent – One who knows that another is
A: NO. A principal who gives broad and unbridled acting as his agent and fails to repudiate his
authorization to his or her agent cannot later hold acts, or accepts the benefits, will be estopped
third persons who relied on that authorization to deny the agency as against the other.
liable for damages that may arise from the agent's b. As to sub-agent – To estop the principal from
fraudulent acts. Hipol was not employed with denying his liability to a third person, he
Performance Forex Corp. He was categorized as an must have known or be charged with
independent broker for commission. Cancio and knowledge of the fact of the transaction and
Pampolina conferred trading authority to Hipol and the terms of the agreement between the
thus made him their agent. Performance Forex Corp. agent and sub-agent.
was not privy to how Cancio and Pampolina c. As to third persons – One who knows that
instructed Hipol to carry out their orders. another is acting as his agent or permitted
another to appear as his agent, to the injury
Thus, since the acts of Hipol were the direct cause of of third persons who have dealt with the
the injury, there is no reason to hold Performance apparent agent as such in good faith and in
Forex Corp. liable for actual and moral damages. If the exercise of reasonable prudence, is
there was any fault, the fault remains with Hipol and estopped to deny the agency.
him alone. (Cancio v. Performance Foreign Exchange
Corp., G.R. No. 182307, 06 June 2018) 3. Estoppel of third persons – A third person, having
dealt with one as agent may be estopped to deny
AGENCY BY ESTOPPEL the agency as against the principal, agent, or
third persons in interest.
It is when the principal is bound by the acts of his 4. Estoppel of the government – The government is
agent with the apparent authority which he not estopped by the mistake or error on the part
knowingly permits the agent to assume, ot which he of its agents. (Republic v. Bacas, G.R. No. 182913,
holds the agent out to the public as possessing (AFP 20 Nov. 2013)
Retirement and Separation Benefits System
[AFPRSBS], G.R. No. 207586, 16 Aug. 1969) Q: In an expropriation case between RP and
several property owners in Mandaluyong for
Requisites of Agency by Estoppel construction of the EDSA-Shaw Boulevard
Overpass Project, decision was rendered against
1. The principal manifested a representation of the the RP. The RP through the OSG received the
agent’s authority or knowingly allowed the decision on October 7, 2002 but it was only
agent to assume such authority; October 20, 2003 that RP filed a petition for
2. The third person, in good faith, relied upon such certiorari. It resorted to an independent civil
representation; and action because it failed to file within the 15-day
3. Relying upon such representation, such third reglementary period. Is the Republic bound and
person has changed his position to his put in estoppel by the gross negligence/mistake
detriment. (Country Bankers Ins. Corp. v. Keppel of its agent/former counsel?
Cebu Shipyard, G.R. No. 166044, 18 June 2012)
A: While the Republic or the government is usually this purpose has to be placed in his possession and at
not estopped by the mistake or error on the part of its his disposal. (Jurado, 2019)
officials or agents, the Republic cannot now take
refuge in the rule as it does not afford a blanket or Broker
absolute immunity. The pronouncement in Republic
v. CA (G.R. No. 104678, 20 July 1992) is instructive: the He is a middleman or intermediary who, in behalf of
Solicitor-General may not be excused from its others, and for a commission or fee, negotiates
shortcomings by invoking the doctrine as if it were contracts or transactions relative to real or personal
some magic incantations that could benignly, if property.
arbitrarily, condone and erase its errors.
NOTE: Distinguished from an agent: An agent is
The rule on non-estoppel of the government is not authorized to enter into judicial acts in behalf of the
designed to perpetrate an injustice. In general, the principal but a true broker is merely an intermediary
rules on appeal are created and enforced to ensure between the parties and he has no power to enter
the orderly administration of justice. The judicial into a contract in behalf of any of the parties. (CIR v.
machinery would run aground if late petitions, like Cadwallader Pacific Co., G.R. No. L-20343, 29 Sept.
the present one, are allowed on the flimsy excuse 1976)
that the attending lawyer was grossly lacking in
vigilance. (Leca Realty Corp. v. Republic, G.R. Nos. Rules
155605 & 160179, 27 Sept. 2006)
1. Efficient and procuring cause – a principle in the
Implied Agency v. Agency by Estoppel law on agency whereby the broker, to be entitled
to compensation, must be the efficient agent or
IMPLIED AGENCY AGENCY BY ESTOPPEL procuring cause of the sale;
as broker. (Medrano v. CA, G.R. No. 150678, 18 AGENCY COUCHED IN GENERAL TERMS
Feb. 2005) (1992 BAR)
by evidence. Gozun v. Mercado, G.R. No. 167812, 19 12. To make gifts, except customary ones for charity
Dec. 2006) or those made to employees in the business
managed by the agent;
Intervention of a notary public in the validity of 13. To compromise, to submit questions to
an SPA arbitration, to renounce the right to appeal from
a judgment, to waive objections to the venue of
GR: A power of attorney is valid although no notary an action or to abandon a prescription already
public intervened in its execution. (Angeles v. PNR, acquired;
G.R. No. 150128, 31 Aug. 2006) 14. Any other act of strict dominion; and
15. To waive an obligation gratuitously. (Art. 1878,
XPN: When SPA is executed in a foreign country, it NCC)
must be certified and authenticated in accordance
with Sec. 24, Rule 132, ROC. (Sps. Alcantara v. Nido, Limitations to an SPA
G.R. No. 165133, 19 Apr. 2010)
1. A special power to sell excludes the power to
NOTE: The failure to have the special power of mortgage;
attorney (executed in a foreign country) 2. A special power to mortgage does not include
authenticated is not merely a technicality – it is a the power to sell; (Art. 1879, NCC) and
question of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the person 3. A special power to compromise does not
of the real party-in-interest was never acquired by authorize submission to arbitration. (Art. 1880,
the courts. (Heirs of Medina v. Natividad, G.R. No. NCC)
177505, 27 Nov. 2008)
NOTE: The scope of the agent’s authority is what
An SPA is required: (1992, 2004 BAR) appears in the written terms of the power of
attorney. While third persons are bound to inquire
1. To create or convey real rights over immovable into the extent or scope of the agent’s authority, they
property; are not required to go beyond the terms of the
2. To enter into any contract by which the written power of attorney. Third persons cannot be
ownership of an immovable is transmitted or adversely affected by an understanding between the
acquired either gratuitously or for a valuable principal and his agent as to the limit of the latter’s
consideration; authority. In the same way, third persons need not
3. To loan or borrow money, unless the latter act be concern themselves with instruction given by the
urgent and indispensable for the preservation of principal to his agent outside of the written power of
the things which are under administration; attorney. (Siredy Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No.
4. To lease any real property to another person for 129039, 27 Sept. 2002)
more than one year;
5. To make such payments as are not usually Construction of Powers of Attorney
considered as acts of administration;
6. To obligate principal as guarantor or surety; Powers of attorney are generally construed strictly,
7. To bind the principal to render some service and courts will not infer or presume broad powers
without compensation; from deeds which do not sufficiently include
8. To bind the principal in a contract of property or subject under which the agent is to deal.
partnership; However, the rule is not absolute and should not be
9. To ratify obligations contracted before the applied to the extent of destroying the very purpose
agency; of the power. (De Leon, 2019)
10. To accept or repudiate an inheritance;
11. To effect novation which put an end to Q: X was the owner of an unregistered parcel of
obligations already in existence at the time the land in Cabanatuan City. As she was abroad, she
agency was constituted;
advised her sister Y via overseas call to sell the withdrawal of the agent, it is on the condition that no
land and sign a contract of sale on her behalf. damage results to the principal, and if the agent
desires to be relieved of the obligation of making
Y thus sold the land to B1 on March 31, 2001 and reparation when he withdraws for a just cause, he
executed a deed of absolute sale on behalf of X. B1 must continue to act so that no injury may be caused
fully paid the purchase price. B2, unaware of the to the principal. (De Leon, 2019)
sale of the land to B1, signified to Y his interest to
buy it but asked Y for her authority from X.
principal, such rule does not apply if the contract unauthorized act.
involves a thing belonging to the principal. In such 2. With respect to principal himself – the principal
case, the principal is liable under Article 1883 of the who ratifies thereby assumes responsibility for
Civil Code. The contract is deemed made on his the authorized act as fully as if the agent acted
behalf. (Sy-Juco v. Sy-Juco, G.R. No. L-13471, 12 Jan. under original authority.
1920) 3. With respect to third persons – where a third
person is liable to a principal under an
Ratification unauthorized act of his agent, the third person
shall not be relieved of his liability on the theory
In agency, ratification is the adoption or that the principal ratified that agent’s acts.
confirmation by one person of an act performed on (Ibid.)
his behalf by another without authority. The
substance of ratification is the confirmation after the Retroactive effect of ratification
act, amounting to a substitute for a prior authority.
(Prieto v. CA, G.R. No. 158597, 18 June 2012) GR: Ratification operates upon an unauthorized act
to have retroactive effect.
Conditions for Ratification
XPNs:
1. The principal must have the capacity and power 1. Where to do so would defeat the rights of third
to ratify; parties which have accrued between the time of
2. He must have had knowledge or had reason to the making of the unauthorized contract and the
know of material or essential facts about the time of the ratification;
transaction; 2. Where to do so would render wrongful an
3. He must ratify the acts in its entirety; otherwise rightful act or omission;
4. The act must be capable of ratification; and 3. Where to do so would allow the circumvention
5. The act must be done in behalf of the principal. of a rule of law formulated in the interest of
(De Leon, 2019) public policy; and
4. If the third party has withdrawn from the
Acts that May be Ratified contract. (Ibid.)
1. Valid/Void acts
2. Voidable acts
3. Unrevoked acts – a principal must ratify his
agent’s unauthorized contact before it is revoked
by the other contracting party
4. Criminal acts
5. Tortious acts (Ibid.)
involved in the latter. (Art. 1926, NCC) conferred. But the principal must act in good faith
and not merely to avoid his obligation to the agent.
NOTE: A special power of attorney is not revoked by
a subsequent general power of attorney given to XPN: The only desire of the principal is for him and
another agent, unless that the latter refers also to the the agent to manage the business together. (Ibid.)
act authorized under the special power. (Tolentino,
1992) Q: Richard sold a large parcel of land in Cebu to
Leo for P100 million payable in annual
Revocation of agency when the agent is installments over a period of ten years, but title
appointed by two or more principals will remain with Richard until the purchase price
is fully paid. To enable Leo to pay the price,
When two or more principals have granted a power Richard gave him a power-of-attorney
of attorney for a common transaction, any one of authorizing him to subdivide the land, sell the
them may revoke the same without the consent of individual lots, and deliver the proceeds to
the others. (Art. 1925, NCC) Richard, to be applied to the purchase price. Five
years later, Richard revoked the power of
Necessity of notice of revocation attorney and took over the sale of the subdivision
lots himself. Is the revocation valid or not? Why?
1. As to the agent– Express notice is not always (2001 BAR)
necessary; sufficient notice if the party to be
notified actually knows, or has reason to know, A: The revocation is not valid. The power of attorney
a fact indicating that his authority has been given to the buyer is irrevocable because it is coupled
terminated or suspended. Revocation without with an interest – the agency is the means of fulfilling
notice to the agent will not render invalid an act the obligation of the buyer to pay the price of the
done in pursuance of the authority. (De Leon, land. (Art. 1927, NCC) In other words, a bilateral
2019) contract, which is a contract to buy and sell the land,
is dependent on the agency.
2. As to third persons– Express notice is
necessary. Q: Eduardo executed a SPA authorizing Zenaida
a. As to former customers – Actual notice to participate in the pre-qualification and
must be given to them because they bidding of a NIA project and to represent him in
always assume the continuance of the all transactions related thereto. It was granted to
agency relationship. (Art. 1873, NCC) them. Zenaida leased Manuel’s heavy equipment
b. As to other persons – Notice by to be used for the NIA project. Manuel interposed
publication is enough. (Art. 1922, NCC) no objection to Zenaida’s actuations. Eduardo
later revoked the SPA alleging that Zenaida acted
NOTE: There is implied revocation of the previous beyond her authority in contracting with Manuel
agency when the principal appoints a new agent for under the SPA. Records show that Eduardo and
the same business or transaction, provided there is Zenaida entered into a partnership in regard to
incompatibility. But the revocation does not become the NIA project. Decide.
effective as between the principal and the agent until
it is in some way communicated to the latter. (De A: Under Art. 1818 of the NCC, every partner is an
Leon, 2019) agent of the partnership for the purpose of its
business and each one may separately execute all
Effect of direct management by principal acts of administration, unless, under Art. 1801, a
specification of their respective duties has been
GR: The agency is revoked for there would no longer agreed upon, or else it is stipulated that any one of
be any basis for the representation previously them shall not act without the consent of all the
others. As such, even granting that Zenaida exceeded
the authority granted by the SPA, being a partner in Effect of Death of Principal to the contract of
the constituted partnership between her and agency
Eduardo, she can still execute acts of administration
absent any agreement that one cannot act without GR: The agency is terminated by the death of the
the consent of all others. (Mendoza v. Paule, G.R. No. principal even if the agency is for a definite period.
175885, 13 Feb. 2009) (Lopez v. CA, G.R. No. 163959, 01 Aug. 2018; Art. 1919,
NCC)
WITHDRAWAL OR RENUNCIATION
OF THE AGENCY BY THE AGENT XPNs:
1. If it has been constituted in common interest of
When the agent can withdraw from the agency the principal and the agent.
The agent may renounce or withdraw from the 2. If it has been constituted in the interest of a third
agency at any time, by giving due notice to the person who accepted the stipulation in his favor.
principal. (Art. 1928, NCC; De Leon, 2019) (Arts. 1911 and 1930, NCC).
Duties and responsibilities of the withdrawing 3. Anything done by the agent, without the
agent: knowledge of the death of the principal or on any
other cause which extinguishes the agency is
1. If the principal should suffer any damage by valid and shall be fully effective with respect to
reason of the withdrawal by the agent, the latter third persons who may have contracted with him
must indemnify the principal therefor, unless in good faith. (Art. 1931, NCC)
the agent should base his withdrawal upon the
impossibility of continuing the performance of NOTE: The death of the principal extinguishes the
the agency without grave detriment to himself. agency; but in the same way that revocation of the
(Art. 1928, NCC) agency does not prejudice third persons who
have dealt with the agent in good faith without
2. The agent must continue to act until the principal notice of the revocation. (Arts. 1921 and 1922,
has had reasonable opportunity to take the NCC) The death of the principal does not render
necessary steps to meet the situation, even if he the act of an agent unenforceable, where the
should withdraw from the agency. (Art. 1929, latter had no knowledge of such extinguishment
NCC) of the agency. (Hererra v. Luy Kim Guan, G.R. No.
L-17043, 31 Jan. 1961)
Kinds of Withdrawal by the Agent
4. The agent is bound by his acceptance to carry out
1. Without just cause– The law imposes upon the the agency and is liable for the damages which,
agent the duty to give due notice to the principal through his non-performance, the principal may
and to indemnify the principal should the latter suffer. He must also finish the business already
suffer damage by reason of such withdrawal. began on the death of the principal, should delay
(Art. 1928, NCC) entail any danger. (Art. 1884, NCC)
2. With just cause– If the agent withdraws from the Duty of Agent’s Heirs Upon the Death of Agent
agency for a valid reason (Art. 1929. NCC) as
when the withdrawal is based on the If the agent dies, his heirs must notify the principal
impossibility of continuing with the agency thereof, and in the meantime adopt such measures as
without grave detriment to himself (Art. 1928, the circumstances may demand in the interest of the
NCC) or is due to a fortuitous event (Art. 1174, latter. (Art. 1932, NCC)
NCC), the agent cannot be held liable. (De Leon,
2019)
Reason: The agency calls for personal services on the Change of circumstance surrounding the
part of the agent since it is founded on a fiduciary transaction
relationship.
GR: The authority of the agent is terminated where
XPNs: there is a basic change in the circumstances
1. Agency by operation of law, or a presumed or surrounding the transaction which was not
tacit agency; and contemplated by the parties and would reasonably
2. Agency is coupled with an interest in the subject lead the agent to believe that the principal would not
matter of the agency (e.g., power of sale in a desire him to act.
mortgage). (De Leon, 2019)
XPNs:
Q: Is the sale of the land by the agent after the 1. If the original circumstances are restored within
death of the principal valid? a reasonable period of time, the agent's
authority may be revived;
A: Art. 1931 provides that an act done by the agent 2. Where the agent has reasonable doubts as to
after the death of the principal is valid and effective whether the principal would desire him to act,
if these two requisites concur: his authority will not be terminated if he acts
1. That the agent acted without the knowledge of reasonably; or
the death of the principal; and 3. Where the principal and agent are in close daily
2. That the third person who contracted with the contact, the agent's authority to act will not
agent himself acted in good faith. terminate upon a change of circumstances if the
agent knows the principal is aware of the change
Good faith here means that the third person was not and does not give him new instructions. (De
aware of the death of the principal at the time that he Leon, 2019)
contracted with said agent. These two requisites must
concur: the absence of one will render the act of the agent
invalid unenforceable. (Rallos v. Felix Go Chan, G.R. No.
L-24332, 31 Jan. 1978)
OTHER MODES OF
EXTINGUISHING AN AGENCY
War