Short answer. No, unless you stipulated it. Under Article 1894, the responsibility of two or more agents is not solidary — even when they were appointed simultaneously — if solidarity has not been expressly stipulated. So each of your agents answers for his own acts, not automatically for the others', unless the appointment expressly made them solidarily liable.
What the law says
The responsibility of two or more agents, even though they have been appointed simultaneously, is not solidary, if solidarity has not been expressly stipulated.
Civil Code, Article 1894 — Liability of Several Agents Not Solidary. Read the full provision →
Joint appointment does not mean joint liability
Appointing two or more agents together does not, by itself, make each answerable for the others. Article 1894 states the default: the responsibility of two or more agents, even though they have been appointed simultaneously, is not solidary, if solidarity has not been expressly stipulated. So the mere fact that the agents were named in the same instrument, at the same time, for the same business does not pool their liability. Each is responsible for his own conduct — his own acts, omissions and breaches — and not for what a co-agent does wrong.
What 'not solidary' means for recovery
The distinction is practical. If liability were solidary, the principal could demand the whole of a loss from any one of the agents, leaving that agent to sort out contribution from the others. Because it is not solidary by default, the principal cannot do that: he can hold each agent only for that agent's own share of responsibility. If two agents were jointly appointed and one causes a loss, the principal recovers from the one at fault; he cannot make the other pay for a wrong he had no part in.
How to make them solidarily liable
If a principal does want each agent to answer for the whole — including for a co-agent's default — he can, but he must say so expressly. The article makes solidarity available only if solidarity has been expressly stipulated. So a clause in the appointment providing that the agents shall be solidarily liable will achieve it; silence will not. This is worth considering when the task is one where the principal wants a single, sure target and does not want to have to prove which of several agents caused a loss. Stipulating solidarity shifts that risk onto the agents, who then answer jointly and severally and settle contribution among themselves.
When you appoint more than one agent
If you are appointing several agents, decide up front whether you want each liable only for himself or all of them solidarily, and put it in the appointment either way. If you say nothing, the default applies — each answers for his own acts only, and you will have to identify the one at fault to recover. If you want the security of being able to look to any of them for the whole, stipulate solidarity in clear words. And whichever you choose, define each agent's role, because clear roles make it far easier to tell whose conduct caused a problem when responsibility is not shared.
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.
- Edwin Alacon Atienza vs. TKC Heavy Industries Corporation and Leon Tio, G.R. No. 217782, June 23, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →