Short answer. Possibly, yes. Civil Code Article 1911 makes a principal solidarily liable with an agent who has exceeded his authority if the principal allowed the agent to act as though he still had full powers. A revocation nobody outside you knows about can leave that appearance of authority standing.
What the law says
Even when the agent has exceeded his authority, the principal is solidarily liable with the agent if the former allowed the latter to act as though he had full powers.
Civil Code, Article 1911 — Principal Solidarily Liable for Apparent Authority. Read the full provision →
The rule this turns on
Article 1911 states: even when the agent has exceeded his authority, the principal is solidarily liable with the agent if the former allowed the latter to act as though he had full powers. Once your agent's authority has been withdrawn, anything the agent does afterward is, in a real sense, acting beyond authority. This article says that exceeding authority alone does not automatically shield you; if you allowed the agent to keep acting as though nothing had changed, you can remain solidarily liable for what follows.
Why an undisclosed revocation matters here
The article turns on whether the principal allowed the agent to appear fully empowered. A revocation that exists only in your own records, with nobody outside told about it, does nothing to change how the agent appears to a third party dealing with him. The person on the other side of the deal is still seeing the same agent acting the same way they always did — nothing has visibly changed for them, because nothing was done to change it.
What this article does not spell out
Article 1911 does not itself list what steps a principal must take to cut off an agent's apparent authority, or say that silence alone always counts as "allowing" the appearance to continue. Whether your particular conduct, or lack of it, amounts to allowing the agent to act as though empowered is a fact-specific question this text leaves open rather than answers directly. It states the consequence once that allowance is found; it does not itself define the line.
What to pull together
Gather the document or act that revoked the agent's authority and its date, and anything showing whether — and when — the counterparty or the public was actually told about it. If you did nothing to alert anyone who might still deal with the agent, that gap is likely to be central to how this plays out. Bring the revocation, the disputed transaction, and whatever communication exists between you, the agent and the third party to a lawyer to assess.
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.
- Country Bankers Insurance Corporation vs. Keppel Cebu Shipyard, Inc., et al, G.R. No. 166044, June 18, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- San Miguel Corporation vs. Leonara Francisco Vda. De Trinidad, et al, G.R. No. 237506, July 28, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Citystate Savings Bank vs. Teresita Tobias and Shellidie Valdez, G.R. No. 227990, March 7, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Buenavista Properties, Inc. and/or Josephine Conde vs. Ramon G. Mariño, G.R. No. 212980, October 10, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →