Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUE:
Whether the assignment made by Tan BoonTiong to Atty. S of all
the credits and rights of belonging to Tan Toco (from the “strip of
land case”) is valid as payment for the professional services
rendered by Atty. S to Tan Toco
HELD:
YES. VALID.
Tan Toco (widow) contended the following:
1. That the said assignment was not in consideration of the professional services by Atty. S, since:
a. The payment was already satisfied even before the execution of the deed of assignment
b. They only “hired” Atty. S to collect the amount of judgment, since Tan Toco is Chinese, she cannot make transactions properly (HAHA)
c. She already paid Atty. S for professional services rendered by the firm of “Soriano & Arroyo”, evidenced by receipts
2. That the deed of assignment was drawn up in contravention of the prohibition that lawyers cannot acquire even by assignment
(Article 1491 (5))
BUT THE COURT SAID THAT TAN TOCO’S CONTENTIONS ARE UNTENABLE:
1. Tan Toco still wired Atty. S money for his services in 1928 after the deed of assignment was executed
2. Atty. S appeared as counsel for Tan Toco many times and won several times too for them. The payment he received for his services is inadequate (10K)
3. INDIRECTLY: the assignment made to Atty. S and determined in the previous judgment was made in consideration of the professional services rendered by Atty. S to
Tan Toco
4. Atty. S was NOT counsel for Tan Toco in the case regarding the recovery of value of the strip of land
5. The lawyers who represented her were Arroyo and Evangelista who filed a claim for professional fees!!
6. When the assignment was made to Atty. S – this was already decided! Because the rights, credit, etc., in that “strip of land case” was payment for his professional
services rendered in connection with the other cases (client still Tan Toco)—so the only thing left to do is to COLLECT!
7. Atty. BoonTiong is authorized to employ and contract for the services of lawyers upon such conditions as he may deem convenient AND take charge of any actions
necessary or expedient for the interests of his principal and defend suits brought against her
[AGENCY!]
Implied power: authority to pay for professional services thus engaged by the principal
The assignment made by Atty. BoonTiong was VALID as payment for professional services rendered by Atty. S. 8
DOCTRINES:
An agent of attorney-in -fact empowered to pay the debts of the principal, and to employ lawyers to defend the latter's interests, is impliedly empowered to pay the
lawyer's fees for services rendered in the interests of said principal, and may satisfy them by an assignment of a judgment rendered in favor of said principal
When a person appoints two attorneys-in-fact independently, the consent of the one will not be required to validate the acts of the other unless that appears positively
to have been the principal's attention
Apparently, 2 ang attorney-in-fact ni Tan Toco. Atty. Montano did not consent to the assignment. But they had different and separate letters of attorney, so it was not
the principal’s intention that they should act jointly in order to make their acts valid.
The assignment of the amount of a judgment made by a person to his attorney, who has not taken any part in the case wherein said judgment was rendered, made
in payment of professional services in other cases, does not contravene the prohibition of article 1491, case 5, of the Civil Code.