Short answer. No. Article 1873 draws a sharp line between the two ways of announcing an agency: private special information given to one person creates authority good only toward that person, while a public advertisement creates authority good toward any person. Telling one supplier does not extend the agent's authority to your other suppliers who were never told.
What the law says
in the former case with respect to the person who received the special information, and in the latter case with regard to any person
Civil Code, Article 1873 — Notice of Agency to Third Persons. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The power shall continue to be in full force until the notice is rescinded in the same manner in which it was given.
Civil Code, Article 1873 — Notice of Agency to Third Persons. Read the full provision →
Two ways to announce an agent's authority, two different reaches
Article 1873 recognizes that a principal can hold someone out as an agent in two distinct ways: privately informing a specific person, or publicly advertising it. The law is explicit that these have different scopes — private notice binds the principal only toward the particular person who received it, while public advertisement binds him toward anyone at all who relied on it.
What this means for your other suppliers
If you privately told only one supplier that a particular person now holds your power of attorney, that supplier can safely deal with the agent and rely on the authority you described. But a different supplier who received no such notice and saw no public announcement is not bound by that private communication, and dealings your agent claims to have with that unnotified supplier rest on a different footing entirely.
The same rule governs how the authority can be withdrawn
The article carries this logic through to revocation: the authority created this way "shall continue to be in full force until the notice is rescinded in the same manner in which it was given." A privately announced agency must be privately rescinded to that same person; a publicly advertised one generally needs an equally public retraction to be effective against third persons who relied on the original announcement.
Why this matters in practice
Business owners sometimes assume that informing one trusted contact about an agent's authority is enough to put the world on notice, but Article 1873 does not work that way. Anyone who wants an agent's authority to bind dealings with the general public needs to actually make it public — a scattered handful of private conversations, even many of them, will not have the same legal reach as one properly made public advertisement covering everyone the principal might later deal with.
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.
- Dale Strickland vs. Ernst & Young LLP/Dale Strickland vs. Punongbayan & Araullo, G.R. No. 193782 / G.R. No. 210695, August 1, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Celestina T. Naguiat vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 118375, October 3, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1873 — Notice of Agency to Third Persons
- Civil Code, Article 1872 — Implied Acceptance (Absent Parties)