Agency, Rule on Liability When Two or More Agents Appointed by the Same Principal

Municipal Council of Iloilo v. Evangelista

G.R. No. L-32977 November 17, 1930

Facts:

March 20, 1924: Court of First Instance of Iloilo rendered judgment in civil case No. 3514 thereof,
wherein the appellant herein, Tan Ong Sze Vda. de Tan Toco was the plaintiff, and the municipality
of Iloilo the defendant, and the former sought to recover of the latter the value of a strip of land
belonging to said plaintiff taken by the defendant to widen a public street
The judgment entitled the plaintiff to recover Php 42,966.40 representing the value of said
strip of land from the municipality of Iloilo. On appeal to the SC, judgment was affirmed
After the case was remanded to the court of origin and the judgment rendered therein had
become final and executory. Attorney Jose Evangelista in his own behalf and as counsel for
the administratix of Jose Ma. Arroyos intestate estate filed a claim in the said case for
professional services rendered by him, which the court acting with the consent of the
appellant widow, fixed at 15% of the amount of the judgment

At the hearing on said claim, the claimants appeared, as did also the Philippine National Bank,
which prayed that 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., Inc

After hearing, all the adverse claims on the amount of the judgment, the court ordered that the
attorneys lien in the amount of 15% of the judgment be recorded in favor of Attorney Evangelista
in his own behalf and counsel for the administratix of the deceased Jose Ma. Arroyo and directed
the Municipality of Iloilo to file an action of interpleading against the adverse claimants: the PNB,
Antero Soriano, Mauricio Cruz & Co., Jose Evangelista and Jose Arroyo

March 29, 1928: with the approval of the auditor of the provincial treasurer of Iloilo and with the
Executive Bureau paid the late Antero Soriano the amount of Php 6,000.00 in part payment of the
judgment mentioned above assigned to him by Tan Boon Tiong acting as attorney-in-fact of the
appellant herein, Tan Ong Sze Vda. de Tan Toco

December 18, 1928: the municipal treasurer of Iloilo deposited with the clerk of the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo the amount of Php 6,000.00 on account of the judgment rendered in said civil case
no. 3514

In pursuance of the resolution of the court below ordering that the attorneys lien in the amount of
15% of the judgment be recorded in favor of Attorney Jose Evangelista.In his own behalf and as a
counsel for the late Jose Ma. Arroyo, the said clerk of court delivered on the same date to said
Attorney Evangelista the said amount of Php 6,000.00

With these 2 payments of Php 6,000.00 each making a total of Php 12,000.00 , the judgment for
Php 42,966.44 against the Municipality of Iloilo was reduced to Php 30,966.40 which was
adjudicated by said court to Maurice Cruz & Co. This appeal, then is confined to the claim of
Mauricio Cruz & Co. as alleged assignee of the rights of the late Soriano by virtue of the said
judgment in payment of professional services rendered by him to the said widow and her co-heirs

Issue:
1. Whether or not the assignment made by Tan Buntiong, as attorney-in-fact of Tan Ong Sze Vda. de
Tan Toco to Atty. Soriano, of all the credits, rights and interests belonging to Tan Ong Sze Vda. de Tan
Toco in the amount of P42,966.40, plus the costs of court against municipal council of Iloilo, in
consideration of the professional services rendered by Soriano to the widow is valid

2. Whether or not the other attorney-in-facts, Tan Montanos, consent is required to validate the acts
of the other attorney-in-fact, Tan Butiong, who assigned the amount as payment to Soriano

Held:
1. VALID. Tan Boon Tiong is authorized 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. This power necessarily implies the
authority to pay for the professional services thus engaged. In the present case, the assignment made
by Tan Boon Tiong, as Attorney-in-fact for the appellant, in favor of Attorney Antero Soriano for
professional services rendered in other cases in the interests of the appellant and her coheirs, was that
credit which she had against the municipality of Iloilo, and such assignment was equivalent to the
payment of the amount of said credit to Antero Soriano for professional services

2. No. With regard to the failure of the other attorney-in-fact of the appellant, Tan Montano,
authorized by Tan Toco, to consent to the deed of assignment, the latter being also authorized to pay, in
the name and behalf of the principal, all her debts and the liens and encumbrances 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.

From the syllabus:
When two letters of attorney are issued simultaneously to two different attorneys-in-fact, but covering
the same powers shows that it was not the principals intention that they should act jointly in order to
make their acts valid; the separate act of one of the attorney-in-fact, even when not consented to by the
other attorney-in-fact, isa valid and binding on the principal, especially the principal did not only
repudiate the act done, but continued to retain the said attorney-in-fact.

By virtue whereof, and finding no error in the judgment appealed from, the same is affirmed in its entirety,
with costs against the appellant. So ordered.