Short answer. Generally no. An agent who acts as such is not personally liable to the party they contracted with, unless the agent expressly bound themselves, or exceeded their authority without giving that party sufficient notice of what their actual powers were.
What the law says
The agent who acts as such is not personally liable to the party with whom he contracts, unless he expressly binds himself or exceeds the limits of his authority without giving such party sufficient notice of his powers.
Civil Code, Article 1897 — Agent Not Personally Liable. Read the full provision →
The default: the principal answers, not the agent
When an agent signs a contract clearly acting in that capacity, on your behalf, the general rule protects them from personal liability to the person they dealt with. The agent who acts as such is not personally liable to the party with whom he contracts. The whole point of using an agent is that the obligations created belong to you, the principal, not to the person who merely carried out the transaction for you. That protection is the default the other party has to overcome, not something the agent has to prove.
First exception: the agent expressly bound themselves
That protection disappears if the agent chose to give it up. The article's first exception applies where the agent "expressly binds himself" — meaning the agent, in the contract or otherwise, personally committed to the obligation rather than leaving it entirely with the principal. Where that happens, the agent is not merely a conduit for your authority; they have made themselves a party with skin in the transaction, and can be sued accordingly.
Second exception: acting beyond authority without saying so
The second exception is the one that catches agents off guard most often. An agent loses the shield if they "exceed the limits of his authority without giving such party sufficient notice of his powers." Two things have to be true together: the agent went beyond what they were actually authorized to do, and the other party was not adequately told the boundaries of that authority beforehand. An agent who is upfront about the limits of their authority, even if they then exceed it, is treated differently under this article than one who lets the other party assume broader powers than they had.
Why this matters for whoever is on either side of the contract
If you are the principal, whether your agent can be sued personally affects who is actually exposed when a deal your agent signed goes wrong — and by extension, whether you remain the one primarily answerable. If you are the party who contracted with someone claiming to act as an agent, whether you can reach the agent personally, rather than only the principal, depends on these same two exceptions. Either way, the starting point is that the agent is shielded, and the exceptions are what a real dispute will turn on.
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.
- Eurotech Ind'l Technologies, Inc. vs. Edwin Cuizon, et al, G.R. No. 167552, April 23, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Soriamont Steamship Agencies, Inc., et al. vs. Sprint Transport Services, inc. etc, G.R. No. 174610, July 14, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Hadji Mahmud L. Jammang, et al. vs. Takahashi Trading Co., Ltd., et al, G.R. No. 149429, October 9, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →