TOPIC: Revocation of Agency - Appointment of a New Agent

Municipal Council of Iloilo v Evangelista

No. 32977, November 17, 1930
Villareal J

Plaintiff-appelle:THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF ILOILO

Defendants and appellees : JOSE EVANGELISTA, ANTERO SORIANO ET AL.,
Appellant: TAN ONG SZE VDA. DE TANTOCO

FACTS:
In March 1924, Tan Ong Vda. De Tantoco (Tantoco) won in Civil Case 3154 that she filed against
the Municipality of Iloilo wherein she sought to recover from the latter the value of strip of land
that she owned which was taken by the Municipality of Iloilo to widen a public street.

The judgment entitled Tantoco to recover P42,966.40 from the Municipality of Iloilo . The CA
affirmed the trial courts decision and the case was remanded to the trial court which rendered
judgment as final and executory.

Adverse claimants then appeared: PNB, Antero Soriano, Mauricio Cruz & Co, Jose Evangelista
and Jose Arroyo. They all stated their claim over the judgment money recovered by Tantoco.
(WHERE PROBLEM STARTED)

The court directed the Municipality of Iloilo to file an action of interpleading against the adverse
claimants PNB, Antero Soriano, Mauricio Cruz & Co, Jose Evangelista and Jose Arroyo.

The trial court rendered judgment declaring valid and binding the deed of assignment of the
credit executed by Tantoco, through her attorney-in-fact Tan Boon Tiong, in favour of Antero
Soriano. Also, that the assignment of Soriano during his lifetime in favour of defendant Mauricio
Cruz & Co was declared valid and binding. Tantoco was ordered to pay Mauricio Cruz & Co, the
balance of P30,966.40.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Tan Boon Tiong, as attorney-in-fact of the appellant; was empowered by his principal
to make an assignment of credits, rights, and interests, in payment of debts for professional
services rendered by lawyers.

2. Whether the failure of Tan Montano, the other attorney-in-fact of Tantoco, to consent to the
deed of assignment done by Tan Boon Tiong would invalidate the said assignment.
RULINGS:

1. Yes.
In paragraph VI of the power of attorney, 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, Tantoco had to pay Atty. Soriano for services rendered in other cases, for her
interests and her other co-heirs. Since the judgment money that was recovered in Civil case 3154
belongs to Tantoco, such credit can be used to pay Atty. Soriano by way of assignment.

Being authorized to take charge of any action necessary for the interest of Tantoco, Tan Boon Tiong has
the power to assign Tantocos credits to Atty. Soriano.

2. No.
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 unless that appears positively to have been the principal's
intention.

In the present case, Tantoco gave each of her attorneys-in-fact separate letters of attorney, which
shows that it was not the principal's intention that the two representatives should act jointly in order to
make their acts valid.

Thus, the act of Tan Boon Tiong in assigning credits to Soriano without Tan Montanos consent remains
valid.

Doctrine:
When a person appoints two agents independently, the consent of one will not be required to validate
the acts of the other, unless that appears positively to have been the principal's intention.