Case Digest: Tan Tek Beng vs David, 126 SCRA 389(1983)

Tan Tek Beng vs David, 126 SCRA 389(1983)

Subject: Basic Legal Ethics

FACTS

Tan Tek Beng, a non-lawyer, has had an agreement with Timoteo David, a lawyer, as documented by a letter made by David with terms and condition that reads: (1) All commission/Attorney’s fees fom the clients supplied by Tan will be divided 50-50 between them; (2) David will not deal directly with their clients without Tan’s consent; (3) Tan will be collecting and keeping the said fees/advances; and, (4) Other clients who are related to Tan and are contacted through him will be his clients.

This agreement was agreed by the parties but their business relationship did not last due to accusation and double-cross. Because of the allege breach of agreement Tan accused David to Pres. Asst. Zamora, Office of Civil Relations and to Supreme Court. This case was sent to Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.

ISSUE

Whether or not a disciplinary action should be taken against David.

RULING

Yes.

Under the canons of professional ethics adopted by the American Bar Association, Division of Fees - No division of fees for legal services is proper, except with another lawyer, based upon a division of service or responsibility; Intermediaries - The professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or exploited by any 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 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; 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 after full disclosure." (Appendix, Malcolm, Legal Ethics).

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).

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.