Municipal Council of Iloilo v.

Evangelista (November 17, 1930)

G.R. No. 32977|Villareal, J.

F: Tan Ong Sze Vda. De Tan Toco sought to recover the value of a strip of land taken by the
Municipality of Iloilo to widen a public street. A judgment was rendered, entitling Tan Ong to
recover the value of the strip of land. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed. After the case was
remanded, Atty. Jose Evangelista, in his own behalf, and as counsel for the administratrix of
Jose Ma. Arroyo’s intestate estate, filed a claim in the same case for prosessional services he
rendered. The court, acting w/ the consent of the widow, fixed at 15% the amount of the
judgment. PNB then appeared, praying the amount of the judgment be turned over to it because
the land taken over had been mortgaged to it. Antero Soriano also appeared, claiming the
amount of the judgment as it had been assigned to him, and by him in turn, assigned to
Mauricio Cruz & Co. The municipal treasurer of Iloilo paid Antero Soriano P6, 000 in partial
payment of the judgment, assigned to him by Tan Boon Tiong, acting as attorney-in-fact of Tan
Ong Sze Vda de Tan Toco. The municipal treasurer then deposited P6,000 w/ the clerk of court
of CFI Iloilo on account of the judgment. On the same date, the clerk of court delivered the P6,
000 to Atty. Jose Evangelista. With these 2 payments of P6k each, the judgment against the
municipality of Iloilo was reduced, which was adjudicated to Mauricio Cruz & Co.

I: WON Tan Boon Tiong, as attorney-in-fact, was empowered by his principal to make an
assignment of credit, rights, and interests in payment of debts for professional services rendered
by lawyers.

H: Yes. Tan Boon Tiong is authorized to employ and contract for the services of lawyers upon
such conditions as he may deme convenient, to take charge of any actions necessary of
expedient for the interests of his principal, and to defend suits brought against her. The power
necessarily implies the authority to pay for the services thus engaged. With regard to the failure
of the other attorney-in-fact of Tan Ong Sze Vda. De Tan Toco to consent to the deed of
assignment, the court held that when a person appoints 2 attorneys-in-fact independently, the
consent of one will not be required to validate the acts of the other unless that appears to have
been the principal’s intention.