G.R. No. 148376 - Acabal vs. Acabal

In January 1949, Manuel Quiambao, acting as an agent for the Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Company, offered for sale a 44-hectare parcel of land in barrio Moriones, Tarlac for the price of P15,000.
Pedro R. Peralta, accepting the offer, initiated the purchase by depositing P11,000 into a checking account at the Tarlac branch of the Philippines National Bank.

On February 7, 1949, Peralta opened his checking account, and a check for P11,000 drawn on a Manila bank was issued for the transaction.
Accompanied by Manuel Quiambao, Peralta traveled to Manila where they sought the assistance of Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao—Manuel’s brother—by visiting his residence.

On February 9, 1949, after cashing the check at a bank branch in Escolta, Peralta, Manuel, and Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao proceeded to the office of Honesto K. Bausa at the Regina building.
Peralta handed Attorney Quiambao the sum of P11,000, after which the attorney entered Attorney Bausa’s office and spent about an hour there while Peralta waited outside.

Upon emerging from the law office, Attorney Quiambao instructed Peralta to wait, informing him that “they will place your name in the title.”
Subsequently, a document (referred to as Exhibit A) was executed, acknowledging receipt by Quiambao of P12,000 from Peralta.
The amount of P12,000 recognized in the document accounted for an additional P1,000 given by Peralta as earnest money.

As days passed with no delivery of the title to the property, Peralta inquired at the office of the Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Company and learned from its bookkeeper that the title had not been issued in his name.
Peralta demanded the return of the P12,000, but Attorney Quiambao failed to refund the full amount immediately.
Attorney Quiambao asserted that the sum had been returned in installments through his brother Manuel, detailing several withdrawals:

He claimed that these funds were expended on constructing an earth dam on the parcel, hiring a bulldozer, purchasing seedlings, and constructing houses for 28 tenants, except for a P4,000 withdrawal by Manuel Quiambao that was treated as a loan from Peralta.

Exhibit 1: A document signed by Jesus T. Quiambao, Pedro R. Peralta, and Manuel Quiambao which recorded that Manuel periodically withdrew from the P12,000 fund at Peralta’s behest and with his consent.
Exhibit 2: A document in which Peralta released Attorney Quiambao from liability regarding the P12,000, noting that the collection of the amount was to be pursued exclusively from Manuel Quiambao.

The Court of Appeals held that Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao had orchestrated the entire transaction to induce Peralta, through his brother Manuel, to purchase the land—fully aware that the land was not genuinely for sale because the Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Company was merely a mortgagee.
By successfully inducing the transaction, Quiambao obtained P12,000 for his own use and benefit, while fraudulently inducing Peralta to execute documents that effectively released him from repaying the money.
The fraudulent conduct involved not only the misappropriation of funds but also the manipulation of documents (Exhibits 1 and 2) to cover up the offense.

Based on the fraudulent and unethical behavior evidenced in the transaction and related documents, Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao was charged with acts unbecoming a member of the Bar.
Although Quiambao presented defenses similar to those used in previous related cases (i.e., CA-GR No. 11104-R and the case at the Court of First Instance of Rizal), these defenses were rejected by both courts.
The cumulative acts and evidence ultimately led to the conclusion that Quiambao was unworthy to continue practicing law.

Whether Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao engaged in fraudulent and unethical conduct by orchestrating the sale of the land, thereby misleading Pedro R. Peralta.

Was the attorney’s involvement in the transaction, knowing the true status of the land ownership by the Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Company, sufficient to constitute fraud?

Whether the execution of the documents (Exhibit A, Exhibit 1, and Exhibit 2) were obtained through deceit and misrepresentation, ultimately relieving the attorney of his obligation to return the funds.

Whether the series of withdrawals and the manner in which the funds were utilized and documented indicate an abuse of trust and a violation of the ethical standards expected of a member of the Bar.