Facts:
On 17 May 1954, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment in
CA-GR No. 11104-R,
Pedro R. Peralta v.
Jesus T. Quiambao, affirming the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (case No. 1783) and transmitting the record of the case to the Supreme Court for whatever action it might deem proper against
Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao for acts
unbecoming a member of the Bar. The controversy arose from a land transaction involving a parcel located in barrio Moriones, Tarlac, Tarlac, with an area of 44 hectares, offered for sale in January 1949 by
Manuel Quiambao, an agent of the
Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Company, to
Pedro R. Peralta for the price of
P15,000. Peralta accepted the offer, opened a checking account with the Tarlac branch of the
Philippines National Bank on 7 February 1949, and deposited
P11,000, after which he and Manuel Quiambao proceeded to Manila and contacted Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao, brother of Manuel, to ask for legal help. On 9 February 1949, Peralta cashed the
P11,000 check at the Escolta branch and went to Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao’s door to hand him the
P11,000; Attorney Quiambao then went inside the office of
Honesto K. Bausa, attorney for the Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Company, stayed about an hour, and returned telling Peralta to wait because “they will place your name in the title.” Later, Attorney Quiambao executed a document (
Exhibit A) acknowledging receipt from Peralta of the sum of
P12,000 to be kept by him as
attorney-in-fact pending issuance of the title to the parcel, with the acknowledgment reflecting that Peralta had given
P1,000 as earnest money. As the title was not issued, Peralta inquired with the Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Company and learned from its bookkeeper that no title had yet been issued in his name. Peralta then demanded the return of
P12,000 from Attorney Quiambao, but the latter failed and did not deny receiving the amount, claiming instead that the money had been returned to him in installments by Manuel Quiambao, who was allegedly Peralta’s friend and with whose household Peralta and his family lived. Attorney Quiambao claimed that he gave Attorney Bausa
P500 as earnest money, that the balance of
P12,000 remained in his custody, and that Peralta was authorized to take possession of the property and make improvements pending actual transfer, after which Manuel Quiambao allegedly withdrew portions:
P3,000 in the first week of March 1949,
P4,000 in April 1949,
P3,000 or P2,000 around 24 May 1949, and the remaining balance sometime in June 1949 with payment made by Attorney Quiambao’s wife. He further claimed that he and his wife did not ask for receipts for the withdrawals, that the sums were spent to build an earth dam, hire a bulldozer, buy seedlings, and construct houses for twenty-eight tenants, except
P4,000 withdrawn by Manuel Quiambao as a loan from Peralta, which Manuel allegedly promised to repay once he secured a loan from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation. Attorney Quiambao also alleged that on 10 March 1950, a document (
Exhibit 1) was signed by Jesus T. Quiambao, Pedro R. Peralta, and Manuel Quiambao, reciting that the
P12,000 in the custody of Attorney Quiambao was periodically withdrawn by Manuel at the behest and/or with the knowledge and consent of Peralta, and that on the same day Peralta executed
Exhibit 2 releasing Attorney Quiambao from liability for the entrusted
P12,000, stating that Peralta would collect the sum of
P12,000 from Manuel from the proceeds of Manuel’s property as satisfaction of the amount receipted by Attorney Quiambao and withdrawn with Peralta’s knowledge and consent, to secure realization of the sum from Manuel exclusively. The Court of Appeals, however, held that Attorney Quiambao engineered the scheme through Manuel to induce Peralta to purchase the parcel, knowing it was not actually for sale because the Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Company was merely a mortgagee and not in a position to sell it, thereby enabling him to take the
P12,000 for his own benefit. It further ruled that Attorney Quiambao fraudulently and maliciously induced Peralta to sign
Exhibit 1 to relieve him from obligation to pay the sum, while causing Peralta to execute
Exhibit 2 undertaking collection from Manuel. In the ensuing administrative matter, Attorney Quiambao was required to answer the charges. He set up the same defenses previously raised and rejected by the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeals, and by those acts the Supreme Court found him
unworthy to continue as a member of the Bar, leading to disbarment.
Issues:
Whether
Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao should be disbarred for
acts unbecoming a member of the Bar arising from his handling of Peralta’s
P12,000 and the execution of
Exhibits 1 and 2.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: