Short answer. Yes. Article 1928 of the Civil Code makes clear that if the principal suffers damage because of your withdrawal, you must indemnify him for that loss — and there is no excuse available to you if the withdrawal was not based on the impossibility of continuing without grave personal detriment to yourself.
What the law says
If the latter should suffer any damage by reason of the withdrawal, the agent must indemnify him therefor, unless the agent should base his withdrawal upon the impossibility of continuing the performance of the agency without grave detriment to himself.
Civil Code, Article 1928 — Agent's Withdrawal. Read the full provision →
The indemnity rule under Article 1928
Article 1928 permits an agent to exit an agency by giving due notice to the principal. The right to withdraw, however, is not cost-free. If the principal suffers damage as a result of the withdrawal, the agent must indemnify the principal for that damage. This obligation applies in all cases unless the agent can show that the withdrawal was made because it was impossible to continue without grave detriment to the agent. An agent who simply loses interest, finds the work inconvenient, or leaves without any reason at all cannot avoid indemnity.
Why the absence of a valid reason matters
The Civil Code recognizes only one exception to the agent's duty to compensate the principal for withdrawal losses: the impossibility of continuing without grave personal detriment. No other grounds — personal preference, a better offer elsewhere, a falling-out with the principal, or simply failing to give a reason — activate that exception. An agent who withdraws without a valid excuse and causes the principal financial loss stands in the same position as a party who breaches a contract: the damages flow directly from the failure to perform.
What losses the principal may recover
The damages recoverable are those that flow directly from the withdrawal itself. These may include lost business opportunities that the agent was managing, costs of engaging a replacement agent on short notice, and any harm to ongoing transactions that were disrupted. Losses that existed independently of the withdrawal, or that the principal could have avoided with reasonable diligence after receiving notice, may be reduced. The measure is compensatory — the principal should be placed in the position he would have occupied had the agent performed.
The requirement of due notice
Article 1928 also requires the withdrawing agent to give due notice to the principal before stepping away. Even an agent who has a valid reason to withdraw must still communicate that intent. An agent who departs abruptly without notice compounds the harm: the damages caused by the suddenness of the exit may be added to whatever losses arose from the withdrawal itself. Proper notice gives the principal a window to react, which is also what Article 1929 reinforces by requiring the agent to continue acting until the principal has had reasonable opportunity to take over.