Short answer. Yes, in the cases the preceding article covers. Under Article 1893, where a substitute was appointed in those circumstances — a substitution the agent was forbidden to make, or one where no substitute was named and the substitute proved notoriously incompetent or insolvent — the principal may bring an action directly against the substitute for the obligations he contracted.
What the law says
In the cases mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2 of the preceding article, the principal may furthermore bring an action against the substitute with respect to the obligations which the latter has contracted under the substitution.
Civil Code, Article 1893 — Action Against the Substitute. Read the full provision →
A direct action against the substitute
When an agent appoints a substitute to do the work in his place, problems the substitute causes normally run up the chain: the agent answers to the principal, and the substitute to the agent. Article 1893 opens a more direct route in particular cases. In the cases mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2 of the preceding article, the principal may furthermore bring an action against the substitute with respect to the obligations which the latter has contracted under the substitution. So in those cases the principal is not confined to suing his own agent; he may proceed against the substitute himself for what the substitute undertook.
Which cases: the two problem substitutions
The direct action is available only in the two situations the preceding article singles out — the ones where the substitution was itself improper. The first is where the agent was prohibited from appointing a substitute but did so anyway; the substitution should never have happened. The second is where the agent was given no power to name a substitute in particular, and the one he chose was notoriously incompetent or insolvent — a plainly bad choice. In both, the agent is answerable to the principal for the substitute's acts, precisely because the substitution was wrongful or careless. Article 1893 adds that in these same two cases the principal may also go straight at the substitute.
What you can claim, and from whom
The direct action reaches the obligations the substitute contracted under the substitution — what he took on and failed to perform properly while standing in the agent's place. So the principal can hold the substitute to those undertakings directly, rather than only through the agent. Importantly, this does not let the agent off. The principal keeps his claim against his own agent, who remains responsible for having made a forbidden or careless substitution; the action against the substitute is an extra target, not a substitute for the agent's liability.
If a substitute caused your loss
If your agent put in a substitute who caused problems, work out first whether the substitution fell into one of the two problem cases — was your agent forbidden to delegate, or did he pick a substitute who was notoriously unfit or insolvent without being given a specific power to name one? If so, you may sue the substitute directly for what he undertook, in addition to holding your agent responsible. Gather the terms of your agency (did it permit substitution?), what the substitute agreed to do, and evidence of his unfitness or insolvency.
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.
- Equatorial Realty, et al. vs. Mayfair Theater, G.R. No. 106063, November 21, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sps. May S. Villaluz and Johnny Villaluz, Jr. vs. Land Bank of the Philippines and the Registrar of Deeds for Davao City, G.R. No. 192602, January 18, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →