Short answer. Yes, if they serve the purpose. Article 1881 requires the agent to act within the scope of his authority, but adds that he may do such acts as may be conducive to accomplishing the purpose of the agency. So he is not confined to what you literally listed — reasonable steps that further the assigned task are within his authority.
What the law says
The agent must act within the scope of his authority. He may do such acts as may be conducive to the accomplishment of the purpose of the agency.
Civil Code, Article 1881 — Agent Must Act Within Authority. Read the full provision →
Authority includes what serves its purpose
An agent is bound by the scope of what he was given, but that scope is read purposively, not word-for-word. Article 1881 states both halves: the agent must act within the scope of his authority. He may do such acts as may be conducive to the accomplishment of the purpose of the agency. So authority is not limited to the exact acts the principal spelled out. It extends to the reasonable, incidental steps needed to carry the task through — the things that must be done to accomplish the purpose, even if the principal did not think to list them.
But it does not enlarge the authority itself
The incidental-powers idea has a firm limit. It lets the agent do what furthers the task he was given; it does not let him do a different or bigger thing than he was authorised to do. An act is only conducive to the purpose of the agency if it stays in service of that purpose — it cannot be the vehicle for the agent to exceed his mandate. So an agent authorised only to manage a property cannot sell it on the theory that selling would 'accomplish' something; selling is a different act, needing its own authority.
Judged by what a reasonable agent would do
How does one tell a proper incidental act from an over-reach? The touchstone is what the assigned purpose reasonably requires. If the act is a normal, expected step in getting the job done — the kind of thing any competent agent would do to carry out that task — it is conducive to the purpose and within authority. If it goes beyond what the job needs, serves the agent's own ends, or commits the principal to something outside the assignment, it is not. Context matters: what is incidental to running a business is broader than what is incidental to a single, narrow errand.
For principal and agent
For a principal, the lesson is that you cannot foresee every step, and the law does not make you: state the purpose clearly, and your agent may take the reasonable steps that purpose requires. But if there are things you do not want done even in service of the task, say so, and remember the big acts need a special power spelled out. For an agent, the freedom to do what is conducive to the purpose is not licence to improvise beyond it — stay within the assignment, and where an act would go past what the job needs or requires a special power, get authority first.
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.
- Dra. Mercedes Oliver vs. Philippine Savings Bank and Lilia Castro, G.R. No. 214567, April 4, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Pacific Rehouse Corporation, et al. vs. EIB Securities, Inc, G.R. No. 184036, October 13, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sargasso Construction & Development Corporation / Pick & Shovel, Inc./Atlantic Erectors, Inc./ Joint Venture vs. Philippine Ports Authority, G.R. No. 170530, July 5, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →