Article 1921.

If the agency has been entrusted for the purpose of contracting

with specified persons, its revocation shall not prejudice the latter if they were
not given notice thereof.

Article 1922. If the agent had general powers, revocation of the agency
does not prejudice third persons who acted in good faith and without
knowledge of the revocation. Notice of the revocation in a newspaper of
general circulation is a sufficient warning to third persons.
Effect of revocation in relation to third persons.

1. Agency to contract with specific persons.- If the agency is created for the purpose of contracting
with specific persons, its revocation will not prejudice such third person until notice thereof is given
them. (Art.1921.) The reason for the law is obvious. Since the third persons have been made to
believe by the principal that the agent is authorized to deal with them, they have a right to
presume that the representation continues to exist in the absence of notification by the principal.
2. Agency to contract with general public.- In case the agent has general powers, innocent third
persons dealing with the agent will not be prejudiced by the revocation before they had knowledge
thereof. In this case however, the fact that the revocation was advertised in a newspaper of general
circulation would be sufficient warning to third persons (Art. 1922.) for the publication constitutes
notice upon everybody and this is true whether or not such third persons have read newspaper
concerned.

Under Article 1921, the notice of revocation must be personal; under Article 1922, it may be
personal.
 Article 1923. The appointment of a new agent for the same business or
transaction revokes the previous agency from the day on which notice
thereof was given to the former agency, without prejudice to the
provisions of the two preceding articles.

Revocation by appointment of new agent.

There is implied revocation of the previous agency when the principal appoints new
agent for the same business or transaction provided there is incompatibility.

1. In such case, the revocation does not become effective as between the principal and the
agent until it is in same way communicated to the latter.
2. Again, the rights of third persons who acted in good faith and without knowledge of the
revocation will not be prejudiced hereby. (Arts, 1921,192)
Article 1924. The agency is revoked if the principal directly manages the business
entrusted to the agent, dealing directly with third persons.

Revocation by direct management of business by principal himself.

The above article provides for another case of implied revocation.

1. Unless the only desire of the principal is for him and the agent to manage the business together, the
effect of the direct management of the business by the principal himself is to revoke the agency for
there would no longer be any basis for the representation previously conferred. (11 Manresa 574.)
2. If the purpose of the principal in dealing directly with the purchaser and himself effecting the sale,
for example, is to avoid payment of his agent’s commission, the implied revocation is deemed made
in bad faith and cannot be sanctioned without, according to the agent, the commission which is due
him. (Infante vs. Cunanan, 93 Phil.693.)
Article 1925. When two or more principals have granted a power of attorney
for a common transaction, any one of them may revoke the same without the
consent of the others.

The appointment of an agent by two or more principals for a common transaction or

undertaking makes them solidarily liable to the agent for all the consequences of the agency.
(Art. 1915.) Consequently, one of the principals is granted under this article the right to revoke the
power of attorney without the consent of the others.

In a solidary obligation, the act is considered by law as the act of all.

Article 1926. A general power of attorney is revoked by a special one granted to
another agent, as regards the special matter involved in the latter.

Partial revocation of general power.

In this article, two agents are involved: one to whom a general power is previously granted
and the other, to whom a special power is subsequently conferred. A specific power naturally
prevails over a general power.