TAN TEK BENG, COMPLAINANT, VS. TIMOTEO A. DAVID, RESPONDENT.

The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be
taken against lawyer Timoteo A. David (admitted to
the bar in 1945) for not giving Tan Tek Beng, a nonlawyer (alleged
missionary of the Seventh Day Adventists), one-half of the attorney’s fees
received by David from the clients supplied by Tan Tek
Beng.  Their
agreement reads:

“December 3, 1970

“Mr. Tan Tek
Beng

“M
a n i l a

“Dear Mr. Tan:

In compliance with your request, I am now putting into writing our
agreement which must be followed in connection with the accounts that you will
entrust to me for collection.  Our terms
and conditions shall be as
follows:

“1. On all
commission or attorney’s fees that we shall receive from
our clients by virtue of the collection that we shall be able to effect on
their accounts, we shall divide fifty-fifty. 
Likewise you are entitled to commission, 50/50 from domestic,
inheritance and commercial from our said clients or in any criminal cases where
they are involved.

“2. I shall not deal directly with our clients
without your consent.

“3. You shall take
care of collecting our fees as well as advances for expenses for the cases referred to us by our clients and careful in safeguarding
our interest.

“4. It is understood that legal
expenses that we shall recover from the debtors shall be turned over to our
clients.  Other clients who directly or
indirectly have been approached or related (sic) to you as a result of your
labor are your clients.

“I hereby pledge in the name of God, our Heavenly Father, that
I will be sincere, honest and fair with you in connection with our transactions
with our clients.  Likewise you must be
sincere, honest and fair with me.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) Illegible

TIMEOTEO A. DAVID

P.S.

I will be responsible for all documents
entrusted me by our clients.

(Sgd.) Initial

“CONFORME to the above and likewise will reciprocate my sincerity
to Atty. David as stated in the last paragraph of this letter.

(Sgd.) Tan Tek Beng

MR. TAN TEK
BENG”

The foregoing was a reiteration of an agreement dated August 5, 1969.  Note that in said 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 business relationship between David and Tan Tek Beng did not last.  There were mutual accusations of doublecross.  For
allegedly not living up to the agreement, Tan Tek Beng in 1973 denounced David to Presidential Assistant Ronaldo B. Zamora, to the Office of Civil Relations at Camp
Crame and
to this Court.  He did not file any civil
action to enforce the agreement.

In his 1974 comment, 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 costs 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.

This case was referred to the Solicitor General for
investigation, report and recommendation. 
Hearings were scheduled from 1974 to 1981.  It was proposed that respondent should submit
a stipulation of facts but that did not materialize because the scheduled
hearings were not held due to the nonavailability of
Tan Tek Beng and his
counsel.

On September 16, 1977
Tan Tek Beng died at the
Philippine Union Colleges Compound, Baesa, Caloocan City
but it was only in the manifestation of his counsel dated August 10, 1981 that the Solicitor General’s Office was
informed of that fact.  A report on this
case dated March 21, 1983 was submitted by the Solicitor General to
this Court.

We 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” (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, 53 Phil. 37, 42; Malcolm, J., Jayme vs. Bualan, 58 Phil. 422; Arce vs. Philippine National Bank, 62 Phil. 569).  The commercialization of law practice is
condemned in certain canons of professional ethics adopted by the American Bar
Association:

“34.  Division of Fees.  – No division of fees
for legal services is proper, except with another lawyer, based upon a
division of service or responsibility.”

“35.  Intermediaries.  – The professional services of a lawyer
should not be controlled or
exploited by any lay 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.  x x x“

“38.  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).

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.

“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).

WHEREFORE, respondent is reprimanded for being
guilty of malpractice.  A copy of this
decision should be attached to his record in the Bar Confidant’s office.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and
Escolin, JJ., concur.

Makasiar, (Chairman), J., no part.