Municipal Council of Iloilo v.

Evangelista
G.R. No. 32977, November 17, 1930
J. Villa-Real

Digest Author: June Vincent Ferrer III

Topic: Obligations of the Agent

Plaintiff-appellee: The Municipal Council of Iloilo

Defendants-appellees: Jose Evangelista, et al.
Appellant: Tan Ong Sze Vda. de Tan Toco

Case Summary: Tancoco’s land was made subject to the street widening of the Municipality of
Iloilo. Thus, she filed a complaint against the Municipality of Iloilo before CFI to recover its value.
Atty. Soriano was her lawyer. They won. Later on, Atty. Soriano filed an adverse claim on the
money awarded. CFI declared that the deed of assignment executed by Tancoco’s attorney-in-
fact in favor of Atty. Soriano was valid and the payments should be given to him. Hence, this
appeal by Tancoco.

The Supreme Court ruled that under the Power of Attorney, Tancoco’s attorney-in-fact was
authorized to employ and contract for the services of lawyers upon such conditions as he may
deem convenient and to take charge of any actions necessary or expedient for the interests of his
principal. In this case, the assignment made by Tancoco’s attorney-in-fact in favor of Atty. Soriano
for professional services rendered in other cases, was that amount which she had against the
municipality of Iloilo. Such assignment was equivalent to the payment of Atty. Soriano’s services.

Doctrine: An agent or 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.

Note: Ang gulo ng case na to promise. I’m sorry friends, I tried my best.

FACTS

• Tan Ong Sze Vda. de Tantoco’s land was made subject to the street widening of the
Municipality of Iloilo

• Thus, she filed a complaint against the Municipality of Iloilo before CFI to recover it
o Atty. Soriano was her lawyer

• CFI granted
o Ordered Iloilo to pay Toco P42,996.40, representing the value of the land

• CA affirmed
o Thus, the case was remanded to CFI
o Judgment became final and executory

• However, adverse claimants then appeared

o PNB, Atty. Antero Soriano, Mauricio Cruz & Co, Jose Evangelista and Jose Arroyo
 • The adverse claimants claimed that:
o The amount awarded should be turned over to them
o PNB claims that the land taken over had been mortgaged it
o Atty. Soriano claimed that the award was assigned to him, and he in turn, assigned
it to Mauricio Cruz & Co, Inc.

• Thus, CFI directed the Municipality of Iloilo to file an action of interpleading against the
adverse claimants

• CFI declared that:

o The deed of assignment of the credit executed by Tantoco’s widow, her attorney-
in-fact, in favor of Atty. Soriano was valid
o The assignment executed by Atty. OSoriano in favor of Mauricio Cruz & Co., Inc.
was valid
o Hence, the Municipality of Iloilo must pay Mauricio Cruz & Co., Inc. P30,966.40

• Thus, the Municipality of Iloilo paid Soriano P6,000 on two separate occasions (P12,000)
as partial payment
o Consequently, the judgment of P42,966.44 was reduced to P30,966.40

• Tantoco then filed this appeal

Tantoco contends:

• The assignment was not made in consideration of the professional services of Atty.
Soriano
o They had already been satisfied before the execution of said deed of assignment
o It was to facilitate the collection of the amount of the judgment in favor of Tantoco
who was Chinese, and thus, she had difficulties collecting the amount
• They had already made payments to Atty. Soriano for their professional services
amounting to P2,900 and another P700
 ISSUES AND HELD

1. W/N assignment something something

• If Atty. Soriano’s professional services to Tantoco had already been paid for at the time of
the assignment to him, then there was no reason to wire him money for his services after
the deed of assignment had been executed

• The amounts involved in the cases prosecuted by Atty. Soriano as counsel for Tantoco’s
widow run into the hundreds of thousands of pesos
o Atty. Soriano had won several of those cases for his clients

• Hence, the sum of P10,000 that was paid to him for his professional services is inadequate

• This shows that the assignment of Tantoco’s rights and interests to Atty. Soriano was
made in consideration of the professional services rendered by him

2. W/N Tan Boo Tiong, the attorney-in-fact of Tantoco, was empowered by his principal to make
an assignment of credits, rights, and interests, in payment of the professional services
rendered by their lawyers – YES

• Under Par. 6 of the Power of Attorney, Tan Boon Tiong is authorized to:
o To employ and contract for the services of lawyers upon such conditions as he
may deem convenient
o To take charge of any actions necessary or expedient for the interests of his
principal
o To defend suits brought against her

• This power necessarily implies the authority to pay for the professional services engaged

• In this case, the assignment made by Tan Boon Tiong, as attorney-in-fact for Tantoco, in
favor of Atty. Soriano for professional services rendered in other cases, was that amount
which she had against the municipality of Iloilo
o Such assignment was equivalent to the payment of Atty. Soriano’s services

3. W/N the failure of the other attorney-in-fact, Tan Montano, to consent to the deed of
assignment renders it invalid – NO

• Tan Montano was also authorized to pay, in the name and behalf of the principal, all her
debts and the liens and encumbrances of her property

• The very 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.

• Also, Tancoco was aware of that assignment

o She did not even repudiate it
o She evencontinued employing Atty. Soriano to represent her in court.
CONCLUSION

• An agent or 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
o Unless that appears positively to have been the principal's intention

• 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 Art. 1459,
case 5, of the Civil Code.