MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF ILOILO vs. JOSE EVANGELISTA & TAN ONG SZE VDA.

DE TAN TOCO credit which Tan Toco had against the Municipality of Iloilo, and such assignment was
Obligations and Liabilities of Agents to their Principal | November 17, 1930 | Villareal, J.
Nature of Case: Appeal from CFI of Iloilo
SUMMARY: Atty. Soriano, counsel for Vda. de Tan Toco in an earlier and separate case, filed
a claim over the judgment rendered in favor of the latter by CFI in an expropriation
proceeding vs the Municipality of Iloilo. He alleged that Tan Toco’s credits right, and interests
in that expropriation case were assigned by her atty-in-fact, Boon Tiong, to Atty. Soriano as
payment for professional services he previously rendered to Tan Toco and her co-heirs. Later
on, Atty. Soriano himself assigned his rights and interests to Mauricio Cruz & Co. Anent the
issue of the legality of the assignment made by Boon Tiong, as agent of Tan Toco, to Atty.
Soriano, Court ruled that it was valid, holding that the power granted to the agent to employ
and contract for the services of lawyers in order to protect the principal’s interests
necessarily implies the authority to pay for the professional services thus engaged.
DOCTRINE: An agent or atty-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.
equivalent to the payment of the amount of credit owed to Atty. Soriano for his
professional services.
b) As regards the allegation that the assignment made by Buntiong was without the consent of
the other atty-in-fact: The fact that different letters of attorney were given to each of these
two representatives shows that it was not the principal's intention that they should act
jointly in order to make their acts valid. When a person appoints two attys-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 intention.
i. Here, Tan Toco was also aware of the assignment yet did not repudiate it.
c) As regards the allegation of violation of the prohibition against lawyers under Art. 1459: 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, also does not contravene the prohibition of Art. 1459
(5).
RULING: Judgment AFFIRMED IN TOTO.

FACTS:
 Vda. de Tan Toco obtained a favorable judgment in a case she filed for the recovery of the
value of land expropriated by the Municipality of Iloilo to widen a public street.
o Her counsel in this expropriation proceeding was Atty. Jose Evangelista.
 Upon finality of decision, Atty. Evangelista, in his own behalf and as counsel for the
administratrix of Jose Ma. Arroyo's1 intestate estate, filed a claim for his professional
services, which the Court fixed at 15% of the amount of judgment.
 Both PNB and Atty. Soriano claimed the amount of judgment.
o PNB claimed the land taken was mortgaged to it while Atty. Soriano claimed the
amount had been assigned to him by Boon Tiong (Tan Toco’s atty-in-fact) and by
him to Mauricio Cruz & Co (MCC) as payment for his professional services in an
earlier and separate case where he represented Vda. de Tan Toco.
 Eventually, court held valid the assignment of credit by Boon Tiong to Atty. Soriano and
then by Atty. Soriano to MCC and ordered Tan Toco to deposit the sum to a bank at the
disposal of MCC.

ISSUE & RATIO: W/N the assignment made by Boon Tiong, as atty-in-fact of Tan Toco, to Atty.
Soriano of all the credits, rights, and interests of Tan Toco is valid – YES.
a) [IMPORTANT] Par. 6 of the Power of Atty authorized Boon Tiong to employ and contract
for the services of lawyers upon such conditions as he may deem convenient; to take
charge of any actions necessary or expedient for the interests of his principal; and to
defend suits brought against her.
i. This power necessarily implies the authority to pay for the professional services thus
engaged.
ii. Here, the assignment made by Boon Tiong, as agent of Tan Toco, in favor Atty. Soriano
for professional services rendered in other cases in the interests of Tan Toco was that

1 Case did not mention but probably Tan Toco’s late husband.