Can I sue my agent for failing to complete what I asked him to do?

Acceptance creates a binding duty

Article 1884 ties the obligation directly to acceptance: “the agent is bound by his acceptance to carry out the agency.” Once your agent has agreed to act on your behalf, that agreement is not a loose commitment he can quietly abandon. The statute treats acceptance itself as the moment the duty to actually perform attaches, which is why an agent who simply stops following through, without more, is already outside what the law expects of him.

Non-performance is what triggers liability

The same sentence spells out the consequence: the agent “is liable for the damages which, through his non-performance, the principal may suffer.” If your agent's failure to carry out the agency caused you a loss — a missed opportunity, money spent relying on the task being done, or some other measurable harm — that loss is what the statute makes him answerable for, not simply the fact that he did not finish.

What you would need to establish

A claim under this article rests on showing that the agent actually accepted the agency, that he failed to carry it out, and that this failure caused you damage you can identify and quantify. The stronger the record of what was agreed, what was expected, and what actually happened instead, the more clearly the claim fits within what Article 1884 addresses — liability for non-performance, not merely dissatisfaction with how something was done.

There is a further duty tied to the principal's death

Article 1884 adds one more obligation beyond ordinary non-performance: the agent “must also finish the business already begun on the death of the principal, should delay entail any danger.” Even after the principal has died, an agent who has already started the task cannot simply drop it if stopping midway would create risk — the duty to see it through can outlast the principal himself where the circumstances call for it.

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.

• International Exchange Bank now Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Sps. Jerome and Quinnie Briones and John Doe, G.R. No. 205657, March 29, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Bank of the Philippine Islands and FGU Insurance Corporation vs. Yolanda Laingo, G.R. No. 205206, March 16, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 1884 — Agent's Duty to Carry Out the Agency