ARTICLE 1911 - 1925 Q. What are the Specific Obligations of a Principal to his agent? Ans.

The specific obligations of a principal to his agent are: 1. To Comply with all the obligations which the agent may have contracted within the scope of his authority and in the name of the principal (Art. 1910) 2. To Advance to the agent, should the latter so request, the sums necessary for the execution of the agency (Art. 1912). 3. To Reimburse the agent for what the latter has advanced (plus interest), even if the business was not successful, provided the agent was free from fault (Art. 1912). 4. To Indemnify the agent for all the damages, which the execution of the agency may have caused the latter without fault or negligence on his part (Art. 1913). Note: The agent may retain in pledge the things which are the object of the agency until the principal effects this reimbursement and pays the indemnity (Art. 1914). 5. To Pay the agent the compensation agreed upon, or if no compensation agreed upon, or if no compensation was specified, the reasonable value of the agents services. Note: Even when the agent has exceeded his authority, the principal is solidarily liable with the agent if the former allowed the latter to act as though he had full powers. (Art. 1911)

Article 1911 Q. Article 1911 provides that even when the agent has exceeded his authority, the principal is solidarily liable with the agent if the former allowed the latter to act as though he had full powers. What is the basis of the liability of the principal under this article? Ans. The liability of the principal under this article is based on his failure to adopt the necessary measures to prevent third persons from being deceived by the apparent authority of the agent. The liability, therefore, extends only in favor of third persons who have lawfully supposed the existence of the authority. Q. Who can be estopped to deny agency?

Ans. The following can be stopped to deny agency: 1. Estoppel of Agent - one professing to act as agent estopped to deny his agency both as against his asserted principal and the third persons interested in the transaction in which he is engaged 2. Estoppel by the Principal a. As to agent one knowing another is acting as his agent and fails to repudiate his acts, or accept the benefits of them, will be estopped to deny the agency as against such other b. As to sub-agent for the principal to be estopped from denying his liability to a third person, he must have known or be charged with knowledge of the transaction and the terms of the agreement between the agent and sub-agent c. As to third persons one who knows thatanother is acting as his agent or permitted another to appear as his agent, to the injury of third persons who have dealt with the apparent agent as such in good faith and in the exercise of reasonable prudence, is estopped to deny the agency 3. Estoppel of Third Persons a third person, having dealt with one as an agent may be estopped to deny the agency as against the principal, agent or 3rd persons in interest.

4. Estoppel of the Government- government neither estopped by the mistake/error of its agents; may be estopped through affirmative acts of its officers acting within the scope of their authority

Q. Lustan executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of Parangan providing that it could transact not only for principal loan but also for subsequent commercial, industrial, agricultural loan or credit accommodation that the attorney-in-fact may obtain and until the power of attorney is revoked. Are the loans obtained by Parangan binding upon lustan? Ans. Yes, because apparently, the agent acted within the scope of his functions. As far as third persons are concerned, an act is deemed to have been performed within the scope of the agents authority if such is with in the terms of the power of attorney as written even if the agent has in fact exceeded the limits of his authority according to the understanding between the principal and the agent. (citing Eugenio vs. CA,

57 SCAD510, G.R. No. 103737, Dec. 15, 1994). Even when the agent has exceeded his authority, the principal is solidarily liable with the agent if the former allowed the latter to act as though he had full powers (ART. 1911, NCC; Lustan vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 111924, Jan. 27, 1997). Q. A, Ps agent, authorized to secure saloon-keepers who would sell Ps beer exclusively, guaranteed on Ps behalf, the payment of rent by such a saloon keepre. P, being informed of this, did nothing. Is P answerable for As act? Ans. Yes. In the case at bar, it is possible that the extension of the term of the lease and the reduction of the monthly rent might be regarded as creating an equitable estobble, but however that may be, we rest our decision upon an implied ratification by the defendant (P) of its agents unauthorized assumption of authority, by failing, when fully notified thereof, promptly to deny his power to consummate the agreement. (Depot Realty Syndicate vs. enterprise Brewing Co., 87 Ore. 560, 171, p. 223 [1918].) Q. When T, holder of a note, proposed to enforce it, P (purported maker of the note) had sought and secured additional time from T. When T again took steps to enforce the note, P set up the claim that the note had been made in his name by his brother now dead) without authority. Is P stopped to set up his claim? Ans. Yes. He was fully aware of the facts surrounding the transaction when he accepted from T further indulgence and forbearance. His brother was then living and the note was not barred by the statute of limitations. P made no contention at that time that the note was not genuine. By remaining silent when it was his duty to speak, P has disadvantaged T. He ought not to be heard now in repudiation of his former conduct. (McNelly vs. Walters, 211 N.C. 112, 189 S.E. 114 (1937). Q. W told her husband P that there was no more money from his account in the bank, as it had all been drawn out to pay moneys to Ws sister to enable her to fight a case about a house. W declined to say who had forged Ps name, but she persuaded him not to go to the bank until her sisters case was finished. He consented not to do so. Nothing more happened after eight (8) months when P again raised the question. Doubting the truth about Ws sister, P told W he would go to the bank. W thereupon shot herself. Did P, by his silence, ratify or adopt the forged checks as his own? Was he stopped by his silence from alleging that his signatures were forgeries? Ans. No. all the checks were forged and paid before the silence; no checks were forged after the silence. The silence would not be the proximate cause of the banks mistake. The bank was in no worse position than it was at the time when it was within the power of P to give the information.

But if the silence of P has caused the bank to lose its right of action against the forger, P is stopped from alleging the fact which he ought to have disclosed namely, that the checks were forged. In the present case, while the carelessness of the bank was the proximate cause of the banks loss in paying the forged checks, it was not the proximate cause of the banks losing its right of action against the forger. This was caused by the failure of P to inform the bank of the forgery till his wife was dead and the cause of action was lost. (Greenwood vs. Artins Bank, Ltd., 1 K.B. 371 [1913].) Q. P authorized A to sell Ps land, the purchase price payable to P in 12 monthly installments. A sold the land to T. If P knowingly permits A to collect from T, what kind of authority does A have? Ans. If P if P knowingly permits A to collect from T, a may be said to have apparent authority to receive payment. Apparent authority is that which though not actually granted, the principal knowingly permits the agent to exercise or holds him out as possessing. Apparent authority is not founded in negligence of the principal but in the conscious permission of acts beyond the powers granted. Q. P authorized A to sell Ps land, the purchase price payable to P in 12 monthly installments. A sold the land to T. If A collects from T without informing P but under circumstances as to charge P with knowledge of such collection, what kind of authority does A have? Ans. If A collects from T without informing P but under circumstances as to charge P with knowledge of such collection, as where T has not paid him even a single installment notwithstanding that several months have already passed, there arises in this case authority by estoppels founded on the negligence of P. Authority by estoppels arises in those cases where the principal, by his culpable negligence, permits his agent to exercise powers not granted to him, even though the principal may have no notice or knowledge of the conduct of the agent. The rule of estoppels has its basis in the negligence of tehprincipal in failing properly to supervise the affairs of the agent, allowing him to exercise powers not granted to him, and so justifies others in believing he possess the requisite authority. Q. T came to the hotel of P late at night; one A, who was in fact a lodger but who appeared to be in charge, went behind the counter, had t register, showed him to a room, and received and signed a receipt for certain valuables on behalf of the hotel. A absconded with the valuables during the night. Is P liable to T? Ans. Yes. An agency may be created by estoppels, and that estoppels may be allowed on the ground of negligence or fault on the part of the principal, upon the principle that when one innocent parties must suffer loss, the loss will fall on him whose conduct brought about the situation.

Here P, the proprietor of the hotel, left a in the office either designedly or negligently, clothed with apparent authority to do what hotel clerks usually do, and one (T) who came in for the purpose of becoming a guest, and did become a guest, must reasonably conclude that he (A) had apparent authority to do what clerks under similar circumstances would have a right to do. (Kanelles vs. Locke, 31 O.C.A. 280 [1919].) Q. After selling his business to A, P took out a license for the business in his own (Ps) name, leaving a in charge of the business conducted under his license, leaving his (Ps) name on the sign over the store, directing t to deliver his goods to A, followed by the conduct of A in receiving the goods shipped and invoiced to P. Upon the facts, is T justified in believing that A was acting as agent of P? Ans. Yes. P, by his conduct, put it in the power of a to hold himself out as his agent, thereby inducing t to sell and ship the goods on Ps credit. The liability of P rests upon the familiar principle that, when one of two innocent persons must sustain a loss, the law will place it upon the one whose conduct, either intentionally or negligently, misleads the other. (Metzger vs. Whitehurst, 60 S.E. 907 [1908].)

Q. When an agency is constituted, what are the obligations of the principal to the agent? Ans. The obligations of the principal to the agent are: (1) to advance to the agent sums necessary for the execution of the agency (Art. 1912, NCC) (2) to indemnify the agent for all damages which the execution of the agency may have caused the agent, without fault or negligence on his part(Art. 1913, NCC)

Article 1912 Q. If the agency is gratuitous, is Article 1912 still applicable? Ans. Yes. Even if the agency be gratuitous, Article 1912 will also apply; hence, the agent will still be entitled to reimbursement and interest. This is so because the reimbursement and interest spoken of in this Article do not refer to compensation or commission. (see Fortis v. Gutierres Hermanos, 6 Phil. 100). Q. Acting on the direction of his principal and having a reasonable ground to believe that the personal property belongs to the principal, the agent took the personal property though it is being claimed adversely by another. Later, the

agent was compelled to pay damages for taking the said personal property. Is the agent entitled to be indemnified? Ans. Yes. Wherever the agent is called upon by his principal to do an act which is not manifestly legal, and which he does not know to be wrong, the law implies a promise on the part of the principal to indemnify the agent for such losses and damages as flowing directly and immediately from the execution of the agency Q. An agent was compelled to pay compensation for professional services rendered by third person in the execution of the agency. What is the responsibility of the principal over his agent?

Ans. The principal must reimburse the agent for amounts the latter may have paid as reasonable compensation for professional services rendered by third persons in the execution of the agency (1 Antokoletz 539, citing Argentine decisions) Article 1913 Q. Under Article 1913, The principal must also indemnify the agent for all the damages which the execution of the agency may have caused the latter, without fault or negligence on his part. what is the basis of this article? When is this article applicable? Ans. Article 1913 is based on equity, and applies even if the agency be gratuitous, as matter of fact even more so. Naturally, this Article can be made use of only if the agency exists, otherwise the Article cannot apply. In such a case, the supposed agent is not acting in behalf of a true principal,a nd the reason for the law would cease. (Albaladejo y Cia v. Phil. Refining Co., 45 Phil. 556). Article 1914 Q. If the principal fails to reimburse or indemnify the agent as required in Articles 1912 and 1913, what is the right of the agent over his principal? Ans. If the principal fails to reimburse or indemnify the agent as required in Articles 1912 and 1913, the agent has the right to retain in pledge the things which are the object of the agency (See. Art. 1914). This is an instance of legal pledge or pledge which is created by operation of law. Article 1915 Q. When two or more person appoints an agent for a common transaction or undertaking, what are their liability against the agent?

Ans. They are solidarily liable to the agent for all the consequences of the agency (Art. 1915) Q. When there are joint principals, who may revoke the agency? A. Any one of them may revoke the agency. Q. What are the requisites for solidary liability under Article 1915? A. There are three requisites for the application of Article 1915: (1) There are two or more principals; (2) The principals have all concurred in the appointment of the same agent; and (3) The agent is appointed for a common transaction or undertaking

Q. If P and O engage the professional services of A, a lawyer, for the recovery of a parcel of land of which they are co-owners, who will be liable for the the payment of As attorneys fees? Ans. The liability of the principals is solidary for all the consequences of the agency; that is, each principal may be sued by the agent for the entire amount due and not just for his proportionate share. Hence, P and O are liable solidarily for the attorneys fees. The principal who made the payment may claim from the other the share which corresponds to him (Art. 1217, par. 2.) Q. W, X and Y employ agent A to sell land owned in common by the three with A receiving a commission of P1,5000,000. If A is successful, from whom should A collect his commission? Ans. If A is successful, A can collect from any of the three the amount of P1,5000,000. Because of their solidary liability. Of course, if X pays the P1,5000,000. , he can recover reimbursement of P500,000 each from Y and W. Q. C, D and E appoint F as their agent to sell their separate houses. What is the liability of C, D, and E against F? Ans. The liability of C, D and E are merely joint and not solidary even if the appointment is made in one instrument. This is because this is NOT a common trasaction or undertaking. Article 1916

Q. X constituted Y as his agent to sell his land on December 9, 1991. X sold the land to A. Such contract was not registered. On January 4, 1992, Y sold the land to B who registered the deed of sale and obtained a title. When A discovered the sale and transfer, he went to court and asked for reconveyance. Will the action prosper? Why? Ans. No. When two persons contract with regard to the same thing, one of them with the agent and the other with the principal, and the two contracts are incompatible with each other, that of prior date shall be preferred, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 1544. (Art. 1916, NCC). Article 1544, NCC, contemplates of a double sale situation. Under said law, whoever registers the document first in good faith, he being a buyer in good faith and for value, hence, the action for reconveyance will not prosper. Q. On January 31, 2000, A who owns apiece of agricultural land, gave a general power of attorney to B. On February 20, 2000, a, without the knowledge of B, executed in favor of C a special power of attorney to sell said piece of land. On February 25, 2000, B as attorney- in fact of A, executed a deed of sale in favor of D. On the same date, February 25, 2000, C, under the special power given by A, sold the same piece of land to E. Assuming that the vendees have not yet registered their respective documents or have taken possession of the land, which of the two sales is valid and enforceable and who is responsible for damages, if any? Reasons. Ans. The sale by C in favor of E is valid and enforceable because C was specifically granted authority to sell. B, who only had a general power of attorney had NO right to sell, since selling ordinarily is not a mere act of administration. Moreover, under Art. 1878, a special power of attorney is needed to effectuate sale. If anyone is liable for damages, it is certainly B who performed an unauthorized thing. Q. A principal authorized his brother as agent to sell certain parcels of land. The sale was made, with both the deed of sale and the authority of the agent being registered in the Registry of Property. Subsequently, the principal sold the same parcels of land to another buyer who managed to have the title given to him. Which buyer must prevail? Ans. The buyer from the agent, in view of the registration in good faith in his name of the sale. Here, Art. 1544 regarding the double sale of property can be applied. Hence, also, if said buyer sues for annulment of the transaction and seeks to recover its value, he will prevail in view of the breach of warranty against eviction. The value of the land must be returned, even if said value be greater or less than the price of the sale.

Q, P authorized A to contract for the construction of his house for a price of not more than P100,000.00. Without the knowledge of A, P contracted with B for the construction of the house for P95,000.00. Later, A enetered into a contract with C for the construction of the same house for P90,000.00 What contract should prevail? Ans. Under Article 1916, the contract with B shall prevail as it is of prior date.

Q. P gave to A a special power of attorney to sell a certain parcel of land. A sold the land to B who did not register the sale. Later, P sold the same land to C who in good faith, registered the sale. To whom should ownership belongs? Ans. The ownership belongs to C. If the sale to B was first recorded, his title would prevail. (see Sta. Romana vs. Imperio, 15 SCRA 625 [1965].)

Q Pedro gave to Andres a special power of attorney to sell a certain parcel of land. Andres sold the land to Jose who did not register the sale. Later, Pedro sold the same to Juan who in good faith but did not also register the sale. To whom should ownership belongs? Ans. If neither sale was registered and Juan took possession of the land in good faith, the ownership shall belong to him. Q. Maria gave to Anna a special power of attorney to sell her land located at Antipolo City. Anna sold the land to Fatima but Fatima did not register it. Later, Maria sold the same land to Candida who failed to register the sale also. Between Fatima and Candida, to whom should the ownership of the land belong? Ans. In the absence of registration and possession by Fatima and Candida, the ownership shall pertain to Fatima, his title being older than that of Candida.

Article 1916 Q. What is the liability to third person of an agent or principal who contracts separately? Ans. Whether the principal or the agent will be the one liable for damages to the third person who has been prejudiced under Article 1916 depends on whether the agent acted in bad faith or not. If the agent acted in good faith and within the scope of his authority, the principal incurs liability. If the agent acted in bad faith, he alone shall be responsible to such a third person Article 1916 governs the rights of third persons as between themselves.

Q. P engaged the services of A to contract for the construction of his house. Without the knowledge of A, P contracted with B for the construction of the house. Later, A entered into a contract with C for the construction of the same house. If the contract with B shall b preferred as it is of prior date, who then should be liable to C? Ans. If A acted in good faith, P shall be liable in damages to C whose contract must be rejected; if A acted in bad faith, he alone shall be responsible to C. Article 1917 Q. What are the Rules on Double Sale by Principal and Agent? Ans. 1. When two persons contract with regard to the same thing, one of them with the agent and the other with the principal, an contracts are incompatible with each other, that of prior date shall be preferred, without prejudice to Art. 1544 (double sale) (Art. 1916) 2. If the agent has acted in good faith, the principal shall be liable in damages to the third person whose contract must be rejected. If the agent is in bad faith, he alone shall be responsible (Art. 1917). Article 1918 Q. X is the principal of Y, the agent. Under what circumstances is X not liable for the expenses of Y? Ans. The principal is not liable for the expenses incurred by the agent in the following cases: (1) If the agent acted in contravention of the principals instructions, unless the latter should wish to avail himself of the benefits derived from the contract;; (2) When the expenses were due to the fault of the agent; (3) When the agent incurred them with the knowledge that an unfavorable result would ensue, if the principal was not aware thereof; (4) When it was stipulated that the expenses would be borne by the agent, or that the latter would be allowed only a certain sum. (Art. 1918, NCC). Q. Number 1 of Art. 1918 provides that if the agent acted in contravention of the principals instruction, unless the latter should wish to avail himself of the

benefits derived from the contract the principal is not liable for the expenses incurred by the agent. What is the reason behind it? Ans. The reason under No. 1 of Article 1918 is evidently to punish the agent; The reason for for the exception Is that the acceptance of benefits is implied ratification. Q. What is the reason behind Number 3 of Art. 1918 which provides that when the agent incurred them with knowledge than an unfavorable result would ensue, if the principal was not aware thereof the principal is not liable for the expenses incurred by the agent? Ans. The reason under No. 3 is that the agent is guilty of bad faith and lack of diligence (Art. 1888). Q. Number 4 of Art. 1918 provides that when it was stipulated that the expenses would be borne by the agent, or that the latter would be allowed only a certain sum the principal is not liable for the expenses incurred by the agent. What is the reason behind it? Ans. Under Number 4 of Article 1918, an express stipulation which is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy is binding between the parties. (see Art. 1306.)

Article 1919 Q. What are the causes for the extinguishment of a contract of agency? Ans. Agency is extinguished: (1) By its revocation; (2) By the withdrawal of the agent; (3) By the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the principal or of the agent; (4) By the dissolution of the firm or corporation which entrusted or accepted the agency; (5) By the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the agency; (6) By the expiration of the period for which the agency was constituted. (Art. 1919, NCC) Q. Cite instances when an agency may be extinguished.

Ans. Agency is extinguished by: a. expiration of the period for which the agency was constituted; b. dissolution of the firm or corporation which entrusted or accepted the agency; c. withdrawal of the agent; d. accomplishment of the object or purpose of the agency; e. revocation; f. death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the principal or of agent. (Art. 1919, NCC). Q. Will the death of an agent end an agency? Ans. Yes. The death of an agent extinguishes the agency, by express provision of par. 3, Art. 1919 of the New Civil Code. Q. Are the modes of extinguishment of an agency provided in Article 1919 exclusive?

Ans. No. Article 1919 gives only those causes of extinction which are peculiar to agency. (see 11 Manresa 570-571.). The list is not exclusive. Thus, Genereally, an agency may also be extinguished by the modes of extinguishment of obligations in general when applicable, like loss of the thing and novation (Art. 1231), upon outbreak of war. , if a change in the law makes the purpose of the agency unlawful, and also, a sub-agents authority terminates with the termination of the principals authority. Q. If an agent sells the land of his principal after the latters death, is the sale still valid? Ans. Yes. The sale will still be valid., if the agent did NOT know at the time of the sale that the principal was already dead (Natividad Herrera, et al. v. Luy Kim Guan, et al. L-17043, Jan 31, 1961) Q. Dayao authorized in 1930 his agent Bayuga to sell a particular parcel of land. This authority to sell was annotated on the original certificate of title of the registered land. Dayao died in 1934, and in 1939, his children sold the land to Buason. This sale was never registered. In 1944, Bayuga, who did not know of the death of Dayao, sold the same land to Panuyas,a n innocent purchaser for value. This 1944 sale was duly registered. Buason now seeks to cancel

the sale to Panuyas. over the land?

Between Bauson and Bayuga, who has the better right

Ans. The sale will not be cancelled as Panuyas has a better right to the land. In case of double sale of land, he who has first recorded the sale in good faith has a better right. While it is true that the death of Dayao in 1934 terminated the agents authority to sell the land, still under Art. 1738 of the old Civil Code, anything done by the agent, without knowledge of the death of the principal or any other cause which extinguishes the agency, is valid and shall be fully effective with respect to third person who may have contracted with him in good faith (Manuel Buason, et al. vs. Mariano Panuyas, 105 Phil. 795) Q. P authorized A to support the formers grandson. P subsequently died. Is A still required to give support? Ans. No, for two reasons. Ps death terminated As authority. Also, Ps obligation to give support, being a personal one, was extinguished on his death. (Hermosa v Longara, L-5267, Oct. 27, 1953) Article 1920 Q. How may a contract of agency be revoked? Ans. A contract of agency may be revoked either expressly or impliedly (Art. 1920). Q. What is the reason behind Article 1920 that the principal may revoke the agency at will? Ans. Agency is generally revocable at the will of the principal because the trust and confidence may have been lost. (See Barretto v. Santa Marina, 26 Phil. 440). Q. When is revocation at will proper? Ans. Revocation at will is proper: 1) even if the agency is onerous; 2) even if the period fixed has not yet expired. (See Barretto v. Santa Marina, 26 Phil. 440). Q. Give instances when the agency cannot be revoked at the principals will ? Ans. The agency cannot be revoked at the will in the following instances: a) When it is coupled with an interest

b) In the case mentioned under Art. 1927 1) when a bilateral contract depends on the agency; 2) when the agency is the means of fulfilling an obligation already contracted; 3) in the case of a partner appointed manager in the contract of partnership and his removal from the management is unjustifiable c) When there has been a WAIVER by the principal d) When the principal is obliged not to revoke e) When the revocation is done in bad faith Q. When revocation is proper, can the agent recover damages? Ans. Under the general rule, when revocation is proper, the agent cannot get damages because the principal is merely exercising a right. Article 1921 Q. What is the distinction between Article 1921 and 1922? A. In Article 1922, as distinguished from art. 1921, the third persons have not been SPECIFIED. Article 1922 Q. Q was granted general powers by Y. Suppose Y revoked the authority, but A and B dealt with X without knowledge of such revocation. Will the contracts bind Y? Why? Ans. Yes. If the agent had general powers, revocation of the agency does not prejudice third persons whoa cted in good faith and without knowledge of the revocation. Notice of the revocation in a newspaper of general circulation is a sufficient warning to third persons. (Art. 1922, NCC). Q. It is not disputed that P (surety company) has not caused to be published any notice of revocation of As authority to issue surety bonds on its behalf, notwithstanding the fact that the powers of A, as its branch manager in Iloilo City, were of a general nature, for she had exclusive authority, in said place, to represent P, not with a particular person, but with the public in general, in all negotiations, transactions, and business wherein the company may lawfully transact or engage in subject only to the restrictions specified in their

agreement. When the surety bond in question was executd in favor of T, P had already withdrawn the authority of A to issue, inter alia, surety bonds. It appeared that some surety bonds issued by A in favor of T after her authority had allegedly been curtailed, on March 15, 1952, were honored by P despite the fact that these were not reported to Ps main office at the time of their issuance. Is Article 1922 applicable? Ans. Yes. The opening of Ps branch office amounted to a publication of the grant of powers to A, as manager of said office. Furtehrmore, by honoring several surety bonds issued in its behalf subsequently to March 15, 1952, P induced the public to believe that A had authority to issue such bonds. As a consequence, P is now stopped from pleading, particularly against a regular customer thereof, like T, the absence of said authority. (Central Surety & Insurance Co. vs. C.N. Hodges, 38 SCRA 159 [1971].) Q. P authorized A to sell the formers land. Subsequently, P also gave authority to B to sell the same land. Is there an implied revocation of the previous agency? Ans. There is no implied revocation of the previous agency. The intention of P may be to authorize both A and B for the same transaction. If B was given an exclusive authority to sell, there is an implied revocation of the previous agency. In either case, the knowledge by A (or B) of the sale or contract for sale of the land by B (or A), terminates the authority of A (or B).

Article 1923, 1924 and 1925 Q. How is Implied revocation be effected? A. Implied revocation may be effected (1)By the act of the principal in appointing another agent for the same business or transaction (Art. 1923, NCC); or (2) By the act of the principal in directly managing the business entrusted to the agent (Art. 1924, NCC); or (3) By the act of the principal in subsequently granting a special power of attorney as regards the same business to another agent, where he had previously granted a general power of attorney to one agent (Art. 1926, NCC) Q. Give examples of an implied revocation of an agency.

Ans. 1. When the principal appoints a new agent for the same business or transaction (Art. 1923) 2. When the principal directly manages the business entrusted to the agent (Art. 1924) 3. When the principal after granting a general power of attorney to an agent, grants a special one to another agent, there is implied revocation of the former as regards the special matter involved in the latter. (Art. 1926) 4. The agents authority may also be revoked impliedly in the same manner as in the case of appointment of an agent (Art. 1869.)

Article 1923 Q. What is the effect of an appointment of a new agent? Ans. a) Appointment of a new agent revokes the first agency only in case of incompatibility . (See Dy Buncio and Co. v. Ong Guan Can, 60 Phil. 696). b) A special power revokes a general one (Artcile 1926); c) If the first agent is not notified of the appointment of the second agent, it is undertood that the firt agency still exists. (Garcia v. De Manzano, 39 Phil. 577).

Article 1924 Q. P authorized A to manage the formers printing press. Every now and then, P takes direct part in the management of the business. Is there a revocation of the agency in this case? Ans. No. There is no implied revocation where the only purpose of P is to help A in the management of the business. Q. P authorized A to collect whatever amounts may be due P from T. Subsequently, P demanded payment from T, telling the latter to remit to him (P) the amount the collection of which he entrusted to A. Is there a revocation of agency in this case?

Ans. Yes. The agency to A is revoked. (New Manila Lumber Co., Inc. vs. Republic, 107 Phil. 824 [1960].) Unless the only desire of the principal is for him and the agent to manage the business together, the effect of the direct management of the principal himself is to revoke the agency for there would no longer be any basis for the representation previously conferred. (11 Manresa 574) Q. P appointed A as its agent for the sale of Ps logs to Japanese firms. During the existence of the contract of agency, P sold its logs directly to several Japanese firms. Is there a revocation of agency in this case? Ans. Yes. This act of P constituted an implied revocation of the contract of agency with A. (CMS Logging, Inc. vs. court of Appeals, 211 SCRA 374 [1992].) Under Art. 1924, the agency is revoked if the principal directly manages the business entrusted to the agent, dealing directly with third persons. Article 1925 Q. X and Y appointed Z as their agent to sell their property. Can X alone revoke the special power of attorney? Why? Ans. Yes, because when two or more principals have granted a power of attorney for a common transaction, any one of them may revoke the same without the consent of the others. (Art. 1925, NCC). The power to revoke is a consequence of the solidary liability of the co-principals.