Short answer. Likely yes. Article 1923 fixes revocation's effective date as the day the former agent actually received notice of the new appointment, not the day the principal signed it. Until notice reaches him, the old agent's authority to bind the principal toward third persons generally remains intact, so a deal closed in that gap can still bind you.
What the law says
revokes the previous agency from the day on which notice thereof was given to the former agent
Civil Code, Article 1923 — Appointment of a New Agent. Read the full provision →
Appointment alone isn't enough
It's a common assumption that hiring someone new for the same task automatically and instantly cuts off the old agent's power, but Article 1923 ties the revocation's effective date to notice, not to the act of appointing a successor. A principal who quietly signs a new power of attorney but never informs the original agent has not yet revoked anything as far as that agent — and often third parties dealing with him — are concerned.
Why the timing matters
The gap between appointment and notice can matter a great deal in practice. If the former agent enters into a transaction with a third person during that window, before he was told a replacement had been named, the principal may still be bound by that transaction, since the old agency had not yet been legally revoked with respect to him. This exposure does not depend on the third person knowing anything about the new appointment; the old agent's apparent authority toward outsiders survives independently of what the principal privately decided.
This ties into the broader rules on revocation
Article 1923 expressly operates "without prejudice" to the two articles immediately before it, which deal with how revocation must be communicated to third persons the agent was known to be dealing with. Notice to the agent himself and notice to the outside world are treated as separate steps, and both may be needed before the principal is fully protected from the old agent's continuing acts. A principal who wants full protection typically needs to satisfy both requirements together, since notifying only the old agent, without also warning third parties who dealt with him, can leave the principal still bound to those outsiders.
What counts as adequate notice
The law does not prescribe a rigid form for the notice to the former agent, but it must be clear and actually communicated to him — a private, unannounced decision by the principal to use someone else is not, by itself, notice. Practically, principals who replace an agent are well advised to inform the outgoing agent promptly and in a way they can later prove, precisely because his authority lingers until that happens. A principal who skips this step and simply lets the old agent find out secondhand bears the consequences of any deal the old agent strikes in the meantime, since the burden of proving notice was given falls on the principal, not the agent.
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1923 — Appointment of a New Agent
- Civil Code, Article 1921 — Revocation and Specified Third Persons
- Civil Code, Article 1922 — Revocation of a General Agency