ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.

com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > December 1983 Decisions > A.C. No. 1261 December 29,
1983 - TAN TEK BENG v. TIMOTEO A. DAVID

211 Phil. 547:

Custom Search
Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 1261. December 29, 1983.]

TAN TEK BENG, Complainant, v. TIMOTEO A. DAVID, Respondent.

Basilio Lanoria for complainant.

Timoteo A. David for and in his own behalf.

SYLLABUS

1. LEGAL ETHICS; MEMBER OF THE BAR; SOLICITING CASES AT LAW FOR THE PURPOSE OF GAIN;
CONSTITUTES MALPRACTICE. — Where in the agreement lawyer David not only agreed to give one-half
of his professional fees to an intermediary or commission agent but he also bound himself not to deal
directly with the clients, the Court held that the said agreement is void because it was tantamount to
malpractice which is "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers" (Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court). Malpractice ordinarily refers to any
malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed by a lawyer. Section 27 gives a special and technical
meaning to the term "malpractice" (Act No. 2828, amending Sec. 21 of Act No. 190). That meaning is in
consonance with the elementary notion that the practice of law is a profession, not a business. "The
lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or through others for to do so would be
unprofessional" (2 R.C.L. 1097 cited in In re Tagorda, 33 Phil. 37, 42).
DebtKollect Company, Inc. 2. ID.; ID.; ID.; UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT; CAUSE FOR CENSURE. — The commercialization of law
practice is condemned in certain canons of professional ethics adopted by the American Bar Association.
"Unprofessional conduct in an attorney is that which violates the rules or ethical code of his profession or
which is unbecoming a member of that profession" (Note 14, 7 C.J.S. 743). We censure lawyer David for
having entered and acted upon such void and unethical agreement. We discountenance his conduct, not
because of the complaint of Tan Tek Beng (who did not know legal ethics) but because David should have
known better.

DECISION

AQUINO, J.:

The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against lawyer Timoteo A. David
(admitted to the bar in 1945) for not giving Tan Tek Beng, a nonlawyer (alleged missionary of the
Seventh Day Adventists), one-half of the attorney’s fees received by David from the clients supplied by
Tan Tek Beng. Their agreement reads: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"December 3, 1970
ChanRobles Intellectual Property "Mr. Tan Tek Beng

Division "Manila

"Dear Mr. Tan: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In compliance with your request, I am now putting into writing our agreement which must be followed in
connection with the accounts that you will entrust to me for collection. Our terms and conditions shall be
as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. On all commission or attorney’s fees that we shall receive from our clients by virtue of the collection
that we shall be able to effect on their accounts, we shall divide fifty-fifty. Likewise you are entitled to
commission, 50/50 from domestic, inheritance and commercial from our said clients or in any criminal
cases where they are involved.

"2. I shall not deal directly with our clients without your consent.

"3. You shall take care of collecting our fees as well as advances for expenses for the cases referred to us
by our clients and careful in safeguarding our interest.

"4. It is understood that legal expenses that we shall recover from the debtors shall be turned over to our
clients. Other clients who directly or indirectly have been approached or related (sic) to you as a result of
your labor are your clients.

"I hereby pledge in the name of God, our Heavenly Father, that I will be sincere, honest and fair with you
in connection with our transactions with our clients. Likewise you must be sincere, honest and fair with
me.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) Illegible

TIMOTEO A. DAVID

"P.S.

I will be responsible for all documents entrusted me by our clients.

(Sgd.) Initial

December-1983 Jurisprudence "CONFORME to the above and likewise will reciprocate my sincerity to Atty. David as stated in the last
paragraph of this letter.

(Sgd.) Tan Tek Beng

G.R. No. L-65695 December 19, 1983 - HECTOR S.
RUIZ v. RICHARD GORDON MR. TAN TEK BENG"
211 Phil. 411
The foregoing was a reiteration of an agreement dated August 5, 1969. Note that in said agreement
G.R. No. L-33906 December 21, 1983 - VICTORIA lawyer David not only agreed to give one-half of his professional fees to an intermediary or commission
ABLAZA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL. agent but he also bound himself not to deal directly with the clients.

211 Phil. 425 The business relationship between David and Tan Tek Beng did not last. There were mutual accusations
of doublecross. For allegedly not living up to the agreement, Tan Tek Beng in 1973 denounced David to
G.R. No. L-36347 December 21, 1983 - PEOPLE OF Presidential Assistant Ronaldo B. Zamora, to the Office of Civil Relations at Camp Crame and to this
THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO SEE Court. He did not file any civil action to enforce the agreement.

211 Phil. 437 In his 1974 comment, David clarified that the partnership was composed of himself as manager, Tan Tek
Beng as assistant manager and lawyer Pedro Jacinto as president and financier. When Jacinto became ill
G.R. No. L-48731 December 21, 1983 - PEOPLE OF and the costs of office maintenance mounted, David suggested that Tan Tek Beng should also invest
THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO TORIO, ET AL.
some money or shoulder a part of the business expenses but Tan Tek Beng refused. chanrobles.com : virtual law library

211 Phil. 442

This case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. Hearings
G.R. No. L-51183 December 21, 1983 - CARMEN L. were scheduled from 1974 to 1981. It was proposed that respondent should submit a stipulation of facts
MADEJA v. FELIX T. CARO, ET AL. but that did not materialize because the scheduled hearings were not held due to the nonavailability of
Tan Tek Beng and his counsel.
211 Phil. 469
On September 16, 1977 Tan Tek Beng died at the Philippine Union Colleges Compound, Baesa, Caloocan
G.R. No. L-54136 December 21, 1983 - PHILIPPINE City but it was only in the manifestation of his counsel dated August 10, 1981 that the Solicitor General’s
JAI-ALAI & AMUSEMENT CORPORATION v. JACOBO C. Office was informed of that fact. A report on this case dated March 21, 1983 was submitted by the
CLAVE, ET AL. Solicitor General to this Court.
211 Phil. 474
We hold that the said agreement is void because it was tantamount to malpractice which is "the practice
G.R. No. L-55487 December 21, 1983 - PEOPLE OF
of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers"
THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BANASEN Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court). Malpractice ordinarily refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty
committed by a lawyer. Section 27 gives a special and technical meaning to the term "malpractice" (Act
211 Phil. 481 No. 2828, amending sec. 21 of Act No. 190).

G.R. Nos. L-58807-08 December 21, 1983 - That meaning is in consonance with the elementary notion that the practice of law is a profession, not a
TEODORO F. VALENCIA v. EMMANUEL M. PELAEZ, ET business. "The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or through others for to do so
AL. would be unprofessional" (2 R.C.L. 1097 cited in In re Tagorda, 53 Phil. 37, 42; Malcolm, J., Jayme v.
Bualan, 58 Phil. 422; Arce v. Philippine National Bank, 62 Phil. 569). The commercialization of law
211 Phil. 490 practice is condemned in certain canons of professional ethics adopted by the American Bar
Association:
G.R. Nos. L-61572-73 December 21, 1983 - PEOPLE
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

OF THE PHIL. v. BENITO MACAYAN, ET AL.

"34. Division of Fees. — No division of fees for legal services is proper, except with another lawyer, based
211 Phil. 494 upon a division of service or responsibility." cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. L-61946 December 21, 1983 - TEOFILO "35. Intermediaries. — The professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or exploited by any
REGATCHO v. EMMANUEL G. CLETO, ET AL. law agency, personal or corporate, which intervenes between client and lawyer. A lawyer’s responsibilities
and qualifications are individual. He should avoid all relations which direct the performance of his duties
211 Phil. 512 by or in the interest of such intermediary. A lawyer’s relation to his client should be personal, and the
responsibility should be direct to the client. . . ." cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. L-62547 December 21, 1983 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. FELICITO TAWAT, ET AL. "38. Compensation, Commissions and Rebates. — A lawyer should accept no compensation,
commissions, rebates or other advantages from others without the knowledge and consent of his client
211 Phil. 522
after full disclosure." (Appendix, Malcolm, Legal Ethics).
G.R. No. L-39498 December 23, 1983 - BIBIANO M.
VIÑA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. We censure lawyer David for having entered and acted upon such void and unethical agreement. We
discountenance his conduct, not because of the complaint of Tan Tek Beng (who did not know legal
211 Phil. 530 ethics) but because David should have known better. chanrobles law library

A.C. No. 1089 December 29, 1983 - WILSON "Unprofessional conduct in an attorney is that which violates the rules or ethical code of his profession or
JESENA v. VICENTE G. OÑASA which is unbecoming a member of that profession" (Note 14, 7 C.J.S. 743).
 211 Phil. 543 WHEREFORE, respondent is reprimanded for being guilty of malpractice. A copy of this decision should be
attached to his record in the Bar Confidant’s office.
A.C. No. 1261 December 29, 1983 - TAN TEK BENG
v. TIMOTEO A. DAVID SO ORDERED.
211 Phil. 547
Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. L-32490 December 29, 1983 - NATIONAL
ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION v. COURT OF Makasiar (Chairman), J., took no part.
APPEALS, ET AL.

211 Phil. 551

G.R. No. L-37599 December 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO COPRO Back to Home | Back to Main

211 Phil. 558

G.R. No. L-39899 December 29, 1983 - ARSENIO QUICK SEARCH

DELA CRUZ, ET AL. v. VIRGILIO D. POBRE YÑIGO, ET
AL.

211 Phil. 567

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
G.R. Nos. L-49693-94 December 29, 1983 - PEOPLE 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO C. ALCANTARA, ET AL.
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
211 Phil. 579 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932

G.R. No. L-52765 December 29, 1983 - EDITO 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
GOBOY v. COMELEC, ET AL. 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948

211 Phil. 594 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
G.R. No. L-57339 December 29, 1983 - AIR FRANCE
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
211 Phil. 601
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
G.R. No. L-57895 December 29, 1983 - J. WALTER 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
THOMPSON CO. (PHIL.), ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL. 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
211 Phil. 610
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
G.R. Nos. L-60349-62 December 29, 1983 - CITY
FISCAL NESTORIO PLACER, ET AL. v. HON. JUDGE
NAPOLEON VILLANUEVA

G.R. No. L-60601 December 29, 1983 - CESAR

NEPOMUCENO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, ET AL.
Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

211 Phil. 623

G.R. Nos. L-61232-33 December 29, 1983 - SAN

MIGUEL CORPORATION v. DEPUTY MINISTER OF
LABOR and EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

211 Phil. 633

G.R. No. L-61308 December 29, 1983 - VALLACAR

TRANSIT, INC., ET AL. v. CELESTINO YAP, ET AL.

211 Phil. 640

G.R. No. L-62324 December 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. CARMELITO LINTAG

211 Phil. 644

G.R. Nos. L-63251-52 December 29, 1983 - PEOPLE

OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDER M. DE LA FUENTE

211 Phil. 650

G.R. No. L-64152 December 29, 1983 - PANTRANCO

NORTH EXPRESS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

211 Phil. 657

Copyright © 1998 - 2020 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED