AgencyDPFebruary32014

Before signing the note fidelity surety co

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 28 ISSUE: WON the assignment made by Tan Boon Tiong as attorney­in­fact of the appellant Tan Ong Sze Viuda de Tan Toco, to Attorney Antero Soriano is valid/legal. HELD: Yes. As to whether Tan Boon Tiong as attorney­in­fact of the appellant, was empowered by his principal to make as assignment of credits, rights and interests, in payment of debts for professional services rendered by lawyers, in 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, the assignment made by Tan Boon Tiong, as Attorney­in­fact 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. With regard to the failure of the other attorney­in­fact of the appellant, Tan Montano, 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. Furthermore, the appellant was aware of that assignment and she not only did not repudiate it, but she continued employing Attorney Antero Soriano to represent her in court. For the foregoing considerations, the court is of opinion and so holds: (1) That an agent of attorney­in ­fact empowered to pay the debts of the principal, and to employ lawyers to...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online