Actual intention to appoint agent; no presumption of agency

The Civil Code defines a contract of agency as follows:

"Art. 1868. By the contract of agency a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter."

It is clear from Article 1868 that the basis of agency is representation. On the part of the principal, there must be an actual intention to appoint or an intention naturally inferable from his words or actions; and on the part of the agent, there must be an intention to accept the appointment and act on it, and in the absence of such intent, there is generally no agency. One factor which most clearly distinguishes agency from other legal concepts is control; one person - the agent - agrees to act under the control or direction of another - the principal. Indeed, the very word "agency" has come to connote control by the principal. The control factor, more than any other, has caused the courts to put contracts between principal and agent in a separate category. The Court of Appeals, in finding that CSC, was not an agent of STM, opined:

"This Court has ruled that where the relation of agency is dependent upon the acts of the parties, the law makes no presumption of agency, and it is always a fact to be proved, with the burden of proof resting upon the persons alleging the agency, to show not only the fact of its existence, but also its nature and extent (Antonio vs. Enriquez [CA], 51 O.G. 3536]. Here, defendant-appellant failed to sufficiently establish the existence of an agency relation between plaintiff-appellee and STM. The fact alone that it (STM) had authorized withdrawal of sugar by plaintiff-appellee "for and in our (STM's) behalf" should not be eyed as pointing to the existence of an agency relation ...It should be viewed in the context of all the circumstances obtaining. Although it would seem STM represented plaintiff-appellee as being its agent by the use of the phrase "for and in our (STM's) behalf" the matter was cleared when on 23 January 1990, plaintiff-appellee informed defendant-appellant that SLDFR No. 1214M had been "sold and endorsed" to it by STM (Exhibit I, Records, p. 78). Further, plaintiff-appellee has shown that the 25, 000 bags of sugar covered by the SLDR No. 1214M were sold and transferred by STM to it ...A conclusion that there was a valid sale and transfer to plaintiff-appellee may, therefore, be made thus capacitating plaintiff-appellee to sue in its own name, without need of joining its imputed principal STM as co-plaintiff." (G.R. No. 117356. June 19, 2000)