A.C. NO. 1261. December 29, 1983
This case was instituted by Tan Tek Beng against David for allegedly not living up to their agreement that lawyer David will give one-half of his professional fees to an intermediary or commission agent but he he also bound himself not to deal directly with the clients.
The business relation between David and Tan Tek Beng did not last. 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 and the cost of office maintenance mounted, David suggested that Tan Tek Beng should also invest some money or shoulder a part of the business expenses but Tan Tek Beng refused.
Issue:
WON the agreement was valid?
Held:
The SC hold 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". That meaning is in consonance with the elementary notion that the practice of law is a profession, not a business.
No comments:
Post a Comment