APPOINTMENT OF MORE AGENT FOR A COMMON TRANSACTION

MAY PRINCIPAL APPOINT TWO OR MORE AGENT FOR A COMMON TRANSACTION?

February 18, 2026

This article was originally published on June 1, 2022 and has been updated to reflect recent legal developments.

The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.

Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.

AT A GLANCE:

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. Agency may be express, or implied from the acts of the principal, from his silence or lack of action, or his failure to repudiate the agency, knowing that another person is acting on his behalf without authority. Agency may be oral, unless the law required a specific form. (Articles 1868 & 1869 of the Civil Code)

The essence of agency is representation. For a Contract of Agency to exist, it is essential that the principal consents that the agent shall act on the former’s behalf and the agent consents to such act. The agent is bound by his acceptance to carry out the agency, and is liable for the damages which, through his non-performance, the principal may suffer.

However, may a principal appoint two or more agents for a common transaction? What would be the liability of each of the agents?

Under Article 1894 of the Civil Code, the responsibility of two or more agents, even though they have been appointed simultaneously, is not solidary, if solidarity has not been expressly stipulated.

However, if solidarity has been agreed upon, each of the agents is responsible for the non-fulfillment of agency, and for the fault or negligence of his fellow agents, except in the latter case when the fellow agents acted beyond the scope of their authority. (Article 1895)

Accordingly, when two or more agents are appointed by the principal, their obligation is presumed to be joint, unless solidarity has been expressly agreed upon. In a joint obligation, each debtor is liable only for his proportionate share of the obligation.

An agent who exceeds his powers does not act as such agent, and, therefore, the principal assumes no liability to third persons. Since this is so, solidary liability cannot be demanded by the principal.

MAY PRINCIPAL APPOINT TWO OR MORE AGENT FOR A COMMON TRANSACTION?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply