Short answer. Yes. Article 1875 of the Civil Code states that agency is presumed to be for a compensation, unless there is proof to the contrary. The absence of an express agreement on payment does not mean you agreed to work for free — the burden falls on the principal to prove otherwise.
What the law says
Agency is presumed to be for a compensation, unless there is proof to the contrary.
Civil Code, Article 1875 — Agency Presumed for Compensation. Read the full provision →
The presumption and who must rebut it
Article 1875 tilts the starting position in favor of the agent. Silence on compensation does not mean the parties agreed there would be none — it means the law fills the gap with a presumption that compensation was expected. The principal who wants to claim that you worked gratuitously must prove it. That is a heavier burden than it sounds: a mere showing that you never discussed money is not enough, because the presumption already accounts for that. The principal needs affirmative evidence that you agreed to forego payment — a prior understanding, conduct showing gratuitous intent, or some other proof that overrides the legal default.
How the amount of compensation is determined
Article 1875 establishes that compensation is owed, but it does not fix the amount when no rate was agreed. The amount would typically be determined by the reasonable value of the services rendered, having regard to the nature of the tasks, the time spent, and the customary rates for similar work. If you are in a professional field with established fee structures, those provide a reference point. If the parties dispute the amount, a court will assess what is fair in the circumstances. Documenting your work — time spent, tasks performed, results achieved — strengthens your ability to show what the services were worth.
Proof that can rebut the presumption
The principal can rebut the presumption with concrete evidence. Common examples include: a written agreement that the agency was gratuitous, a clear prior understanding that you were doing a favor as a friend or family member with no expectation of payment, or conduct over time that is inconsistent with a compensation expectation. The strength of the rebuttal depends on how clear and consistent that evidence is. Vague assertions that "of course there was no pay" are unlikely to be enough on their own.
When the presumption matters most
This presumption becomes most important when the principal refuses to pay after the agency is over, claiming no fee was ever agreed. At that point, you do not need to prove that payment was promised — you start from the position that it was. The dispute then shifts to what amount is owed and whether the principal can produce proof that changes the default. If you are in this situation and the principal is disputing your entitlement, gathering evidence of what work you performed and when is the practical first step.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Araceli J. Cabrera, et al. vs. Angela G. Francisco, et al, G.R. No. 172293, August 28, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Pablito Murao, et al. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 141485, June 30, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →