Short answer. Yes, on these facts. An agent is not personally liable to the party he contracts with, but that protection has an exception: unless he expressly binds himself or exceeds the limits of his authority without giving such party sufficient notice of his powers — which is exactly what you describe happening.
What the law says
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 general rule protects an agent acting properly
The starting principle favors the agent: the agent who acts as such is not personally liable to the party with whom he contracts. When an agent stays within the authority given and deals openly as an agent, the resulting obligations generally run to the principal, not to the agent personally, even though the agent was the one who actually negotiated the terms and signed the paperwork on the deal.
Two situations remove that protection
The rule carves out two exceptions where personal liability attaches instead: when the agent expressly binds himself to the deal, or when he exceeds the limits of his authority without giving such party sufficient notice of his powers. Your facts point to the second — the agent went beyond what he was authorized to do, and you were never told what those limits actually were.
Why notice of the agent's authority matters so much
This exception exists to protect someone dealing with an agent in good faith. If the agent had disclosed the boundaries of his authority and you dealt with him anyway, you would have known the deal might exceed what he could bind the principal to. Because that notice was withheld, the rule shifts personal responsibility onto the agent instead of leaving you without any recourse at all against the person you actually negotiated with.
This does not necessarily rule out the principal too
This provision addresses when the agent becomes personally answerable to you; it does not by itself resolve whether the principal remains bound or liable on the same transaction. Whether you also have a claim against the principal depends on separate rules governing agency, and is a distinct question from whether the agent himself can be sued personally under this specific provision.
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 →