Tan Tek Beng vs Atty.

Timoteo David

26 SCRA 389 – Legal Ethics – Malpractice – Solicitation of Cases

In 1970, Atty. David and Tan Tek Beng, a non-lawyer, entered into an agreement whereby Tan Tek
Beng will supply clients to Atty. David and in exchange thereof, Atty. David shall give Tan Tek Beng 50% of
the attorney’s fees collected as the latter’s commission. Atty. David also agreed not to deal with clients supplied
by Tan Tek Beng directly without the latter’s consent. The agreement went sour due to allegations of double-
cross from both sides. Tan Tek Beng denounced Atty. David before the Supreme Court but did not seek the
enforcement of their agreement.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. David is guilty of Malpractice.

HELD: Yes. The agreement between Atty. David and Tan Tek Beng 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. “The lawyer may not seek or obtain employment by himself or through others for to do so would be
unprofessional”.
On the agreement to divide the attorney’s fees, the Supreme Court noted: No division of fees for legal services
is proper, except with another lawyer, based upon a division of service or responsibility.
On the agreement that Atty. David shall not deal with clients supplied by Beng directly: 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. . . .”