Adm. Case No. 195 - IN RE: Quiambao

Case Summary (Adm. Case No. 195)

Factual Background of the Alleged Misconduct

Sometime in January nineteen forty-nine, Manuel Quiambao, described as an agent of the Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Company, offered for sale to Pedro R. Peralta a parcel of land located in barrio Moriones, Tarlac, Tarlac, with an area of forty-four hectares for P15,000. Peralta accepted the offer, and on seven February nineteen forty-nine, he opened a checking account with the Tarlac branch of the Philippines National Bank by depositing P11,000. With a check for P11,000 drawn upon the bank in Manila, Peralta and Manuel Quiambao went to Manila and sought the assistance of Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao, who was Manuel’s brother, at his residence.

On nine February, Peralta and the two proceeded to the bank in Escolta, cashed the P11,000 check, and then went to the law office of Honesto K. Bausa, attorney for the insurance company, at the Regina building. Upon reaching the door, Peralta handed Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao P11,000, after which the respondent went inside the office of Attorney Bausa and remained there for about an hour, leaving Peralta waiting at the door. When Attorney Quiambao emerged, he told Peralta to wait because “they will place your name in the title.” The respondent later executed a document (Exhibit A) acknowledging receipt from Peralta of P12,000 to be kept by the respondent “as attorney-in-fact” of Peralta pending issuance of title. The receipt reflected that Peralta had given P1,000 as earnest money.

Peralta’s Demand and the Respondent’s Theory of Return

After days passed without Peralta receiving title, he went to the office of the Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Company to inquire whether the title had already been issued in his name. He learned from the bookkeeper that title had not yet been issued in his name. Peralta then demanded the return of the P12,000 from Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao, but the respondent failed to return it. Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao did not deny receiving P12,000; instead, he asserted that the money had been returned to him by installments through Manuel Quiambao, whom he described as Peralta’s friend and the person whose house Peralta and his family used.

Attorney Quiambao’s account claimed that he had given Attorney Bausa P500 as earnest money when they went to see him, that Peralta was authorized to take possession of the property and make improvements pending actual transfer, and that the remaining balance was left in the respondent’s custody. He further claimed that the balance was withdrawn from him by Manuel Quiambao by authority of Peralta through a series of withdrawals, namely P3,000 in the first week of March nineteen forty-nine, P4,000 in April nineteen forty-nine, either P3,000 or P2,000 on or about twenty-four May nineteen forty-nine, and the last amount paid by his wife sometime in June nineteen forty-nine. He added that he and his wife did not request receipts for the withdrawals. He asserted that these sums were spent to build an earth dam on the parcel of land, to hire a bulldozer, to buy seedlings, and to construct houses for twenty-eight tenants, except the P4,000 withdrawn by Manuel Quiambao, which was allegedly a loan from Peralta that Manuel promised to repay once he could obtain a loan from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation.

Attorney Quiambao also relied on a document (Exhibit 1) signed on ten March nineteen fifty by Jesus T. Quiambao, Pedro R. Peralta, and Manuel Quiambao, which stated that the P12,000 in the respondent’s custody was periodically withdrawn by Manuel at the behest of and/or with the knowledge and consent of Peralta. On the same day, Peralta executed a separate document (Exhibit 2) releasing Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao from liability for the P12,000 entrusted to him. The quoted portion of Exhibit 2 declared that Peralta should collect P12,000 from Manuel Quiambao from the proceeds of Manuel’s property sale, as satisfaction of the money receipted by the respondent and withdrawn with Peralta’s knowledge and consent, and that the certification was made to secure realization of the sum from Manuel exclusively.

Court of Appeals’ Assessment and Referral

After the Court of Appeals rendered its judgment on seventeen May nineteen fifty-four in CA-GR No. 11104-R, it affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (case No. 1783) and transmitted the record to the Court for appropriate action against Attorney Quiambao. The Court of Appeals expressed the opinion that Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao engineered the whole scheme to induce Pedro R. Peralta to buy the parcel of land. It found that the respondent knew that the property was not for sale because the Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Company was merely the mortgagee and therefore was not in a position to sell the land. The Court of Appeals held that, by that means, the respondent succeeded in taking P12,000 from Peralta, which it concluded the respondent appropriated for his own benefit.

The Court of Appeals further found that the respondent fraudulently and maliciously induced Peralta to sign Exhibit 1, thereby relieving him of the obligation to pay Peralta the money and simultaneously causing Peralta to execute Exhibit 2, in which Peralta undertook to collect from Manuel Quiambao the entire P12,000. These determinations supplied the basis for the referral for disciplinary action.

Respondent’s Answer and Prior Defenses

The respondent was required by the Court to answer the charges against him. In his answer, he set up the same defenses he had raised in the case No. 1783 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal and in CA-GR No. 11104-R of the Court of Appeals, which had already been overruled by both courts. The Court treated the respondent’s continued insistence on those defenses, together with the facts as found in the record, as reflective of character unfit for continued membership in the Bar.

Ruling and Disposition

The Court held that the respondent, by his acts, showed that he is unworthy to continue as a member of the Bar. Accordingly, it disbarred Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao from the practice of law. The decision reflected the concurrence of all listed Justices: Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning rested

Case Syllabus (Adm. Case No. 195)

The case arose as an administrative proceeding against Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao, a member of the Bar.
The matter reached the Court following a Court of Appeals decision in CA-GR No. 11104-R, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal in case No. 1783.
The Court of Appeals transmitted the record to the Court for whatever action it deemed proper against the respondent attorney due to acts unbecoming a member of the Bar.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Pedro R. Peralta appeared as plaintiff-appellee in CA-GR No. 11104-R and as the person who had given money to the respondent attorney.
Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao appeared as defendant-appellant in CA-GR No. 11104-R.
The Court of Appeals rendered judgment on 17 May 1954, affirming the Court of First Instance of Rizal (case No. 1783).
After the appellate affirmance, the record was elevated to the Court for administrative action against the respondent.
The Court required the respondent attorney to answer the charges.
The Court resolved the administrative case by disbarring the respondent from the practice of law.

Key Factual Allegations

In January 1949, Manuel Quiambao, described as an agent of the Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Company, offered for sale to Pedro R. Peralta a parcel of land in barrio Moriones, Tarlac, Tarlac.
The offered land was stated to contain forty-four hectares and to be priced at P15,000.
Peralta accepted the offer and on 7 February 1949 opened a checking account with the Tarlac branch of the Philippines National Bank by depositing P11,000.
Peralta and Manuel Quiambao then used a P11,000 check drawn on the Manila bank to travel to Manila and seek legal assistance from Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao, brother of Manuel.
On 9 February, Peralta and the two brothers cashed the check in Escolta and proceeded to the law office of Honesto K. Bausa, attorney for the Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Company.
Upon reaching the office, Peralta handed P11,000 to Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao, who entered the office of Attorney Bausa and stayed for about an hour while Peralta waited.
After leaving the office, Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao told Peralta to wait because “they will place your name in the title,” and later executed Exhibit A, a document acknowledging receipt from Peralta of P12,000 to be kept by the former as attorney-in-fact of the latter pending issuance of the title.
Exhibit A reflected that P1,000 of the total was provided as earnest money by Peralta to the respondent.
Peralta later inquired because the title had not been issued and learned from the company’s bookkeeper that the title had not yet been issued in his name.
Peralta demanded the return of P12,000, but Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao failed to return it.
The respondent did not deny receiving the P12,000, but claimed that it was returned to him by installments through Manuel Quiambao.
The respondent stated that he gave Attorney Bausa P500 as earnest money and that the balance of P12,000 was kept in his custody.
The respondent further claimed that Peralta was authorized to take possession of the property and make improvements pending transfer.
The respondent asserted that Manuel Quiambao withdrew amounts from his custody at Peralta’s behest and with Peralta’s consent, with withdrawals described as: P3,000 in early March 1949, P4,000 in April 1949, P3,000 (or P2,000) on or about 24 May 1949, and the last balance in June 1949.
The respondent claimed that he and his wife did not ask for receipts for the withdrawals.
He alleged that most of the withdrawals were spent for building an earth dam, hiring a bulldozer, buying seedlings, and constructing houses for twenty-eight tenants, except for P4,000 withdrawn by Manuel by way of loan from Peralta.
The respondent alleged that the P4,000 loan was to be paid to Peralta when Manuel secured a loan from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation.
On 10 March 1950, the respondent and Peralta and Manuel signed Exhibit 1, which recited that the P12,000 in the respondent’s