A.C. No. 72 - MAY 1953 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.C. No. 72May 30, 1953 Placido Manalo vs. Pedro N. Gan G.R. No. L-4758May 30, 1953 Caltex (Phil.) Inc. vs. Philippine Labor Organizations, et al. G.R. No. L-4887May 30, 1953 Uy Matiao & Co., Inc. vs. City of Cebu, et al. G.R. No. L-5301May 30, 1953 Lourdes T. Paguio vs. Maria Rozado de Ruiz G.R. No. L-6121May 30, 1953 Manuel S. Gamalinda vs. Jose V. Yap G.R. No. L-4177May 29, 1953 In re: Yap Chin Yap Chin vs. Republic G.R. No. L-4433May 29, 1953 Salud Patente vs. Roman Omega G.R. No. L-4629May 29, 1953 Juan D. Salvador, et al. vs. Guillermo Locsin G.R. No. L-4645May 29, 1953 Lorenzo Gauiran vs. Rufino Sahagun G.R. No. L-5184May 29, 1953 Macondray & Co. vs. Connecticut Fire Insurance Company of Hartford G.R. No. L-5282May 29, 1953 Geronimo de los Reyes vs. Artemio Elepaño G.R. No. L-5296May 29, 1953 Gregorio Enriquez vs. Donato Perez G.R. No. L-5345May 29, 1953 Community Investment Finance Corporation vs. Eutiquiano Garcia G.R. No. L-5406May 29, 1953 Talisay-Silay Milling Co. vs. Talisay Employees and Laborers' Union G.R. No. L-5426May 29, 1953 Ramon Joaquin vs. Antonio C. Navarro G.R. No. L-5535May 29, 1953 U. S. Commercial Co. vs. Fortunato F. Halili G.R. No. L-5567May 29, 1953 Juan Evangelista vs. Guillermo Montaño, et al. G.R. No. L-5601May 29, 1953 Leon Velez vs. Vicente Varela, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-5640May 29, 1953 Esteban G. Lapid vs. Guillermo Cabrera, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-5783May 29, 1953 Manila Trading & Supply Company vs. Manila Trading Labor Association G.R. No. L-4478May 27, 1953 Vicente Dy Sun vs. Ricardo Brillantes, et al. G.R. No. L-5127May 27, 1953 Pedro Batungbakal vs. National Development Company, et al. G.R. No. L-5145May 27, 1953 Francisco Bastida, et al. vs. Dy Buncio & Co., Inc. G.R. Nos. L-5363 and 5364May 27, 1953 People of the Philippines vs. Daiwan Lucas G.R. No. L-5554May 27, 1953 Benito Chua Kuy vs. Everrett Steamship Corporation G.R. Nos. L-4517-20May 25, 1953 People of the Philippines vs. Godofredo Romero G.R. No. L-4628May 25, 1953 Vicente M. Joven, et al. vs. Director of Land G.R. No. L-4641May 25, 1953 People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Rivera, et al. G.R. No. L-4888May 25, 1953 Jose Merza vs. Pedro Lopez Porras G.R. No. L-5086May 25, 1953 People of the Philippines vs. Ventura Lanas, et al. G.R. No. L-5236May 25, 1953 In re: Luis Morales Jose Torres vs. Hermenegilda Sicat vda. de Morales G.R. No. L-5677May 25, 1953 La Campana Factory, Inc., et al. vs. Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Campana, et al. G.R. No. L-6108May 25, 1953 Francisco de Borja, et al. vs. Bienvenido Tan, et al. G.R. No. L-6528May 25, 1953 Municipality of Bocaue, et al. vs. Severino Manotok, et al. G.R. No. L-4376May 22, 1953 Association of Customs Brokers, Inc., et al. vs. Municipality Board of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-4572May 22, 1953 Dolorito M. Feliciano, et al. vs. Director of Patent G.R. No. L-5029May 22, 1953 In re: Chua Tiong Chia Chua Tiong Chia vs. Republic G.R. No. L-5829May 22, 1953 Jose Nono vs. Ruperto Nequia, et al. G.R. No. L-4565May 20, 1953 People of the Philippines vs. Apolonio Raiz G.R. No. L-5963May 20, 1953 Leyte-Samar Sales Co. vs. Sulpicio V. Cea, et al. G.R. No. L-3708May 18, 1953 Royal L. Rutter vs. Placido J. Esteban G.R. No. L-4880May 18, 1953 People of the Philippines vs. Eutiquiano de los Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-4258May 15, 1953 People of the Philippines vs. Dionisio Francisco, et al. G.R. No. L-4847May 15, 1953 People of the Philippines vs. Moro Ansang, et al. G.R. No. L-5089May 15, 1953 Juan Mortos vs. Victor Ello, et al. G.R. No. L-5117May 15, 1953 In re: Francisco Ang Veloso vs. Republic of the Phil. G.R. No. L-5529May 15, 1953 Fortunata Ramento, et al. vs. Guadalupe Cosuangco G.R. No. L-5594May 15, 1953 Atok-Big Wedge Mining Co. vs. Atok-Big Wedge Mutual Benefit Association G.R. No. L-6165May 15, 1953 Isabelo Centeno vs. Dolores Gallardo, et al. G.R. No. L-3772May 13, 1953 People of the Philippines vs. Mauti Lingcuan, et al. G.R. No. L-5217May 13, 1953 Intestate Estate of Carlos Veloria Vicente Viloria vs. Isidro Viloria G.R. No. L-5292May 13, 1953 Pelagia Arante, etc. vs. Arcadio Rosel, et al. G.R. No. L-5331May 13, 1953 Ng Young vs. Ana Villa, et al. G.R. No. L-5078May 4, 1953 Luis Francisco vs. Maxima vda. de Blas, et al. G.R. No. L-5195May 4, 1953 People of the Philippines vs. Napoleon Libre, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Placido Manalo vs. Pedro N. Gan Caltex (Phil.) Inc. vs. Philippine Labor Organizations, et al. Uy Matiao & Co., Inc. vs. City of Cebu, et al. Lourdes T. Paguio vs. Maria Rozado de Ruiz Manuel S. Gamalinda vs. Jose V. Yap In re: Yap Chin Yap Chin vs. Republic Salud Patente vs. Roman Omega Juan D. Salvador, et al. vs. Guillermo Locsin Lorenzo Gauiran vs. Rufino Sahagun Macondray & Co. vs. Connecticut Fire Insurance Company of Hartford Geronimo de los Reyes vs. Artemio Elepaño Gregorio Enriquez vs. Donato Perez Community Investment Finance Corporation vs. Eutiquiano Garcia Talisay-Silay Milling Co. vs. Talisay Employees and Laborers' Union Ramon Joaquin vs. Antonio C. Navarro U. S. Commercial Co. vs. Fortunato F. Halili Juan Evangelista vs. Guillermo Montaño, et al. Leon Velez vs. Vicente Varela, etc., et al. Esteban G. Lapid vs. Guillermo Cabrera, etc., et al. Manila Trading & Supply Company vs. Manila Trading Labor Association Vicente Dy Sun vs. Ricardo Brillantes, et al. Pedro Batungbakal vs. National Development Company, et al. Francisco Bastida, et al. vs. Dy Buncio & Co., Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Daiwan Lucas Benito Chua Kuy vs. Everrett Steamship Corporation People of the Philippines vs. Godofredo Romero Vicente M. Joven, et al. vs. Director of Land People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Rivera, et al. Jose Merza vs. Pedro Lopez Porras People of the Philippines vs. Ventura Lanas, et al. In re: Luis Morales Jose Torres vs. Hermenegilda Sicat vda. de Morales La Campana Factory, Inc., et al. vs. Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Campana, et al. Francisco de Borja, et al. vs. Bienvenido Tan, et al. Municipality of Bocaue, et al. vs. Severino Manotok, et al. Association of Customs Brokers, Inc., et al. vs. Municipality Board of Manila, et al. Dolorito M. Feliciano, et al. vs. Director of Patent In re: Chua Tiong Chia Chua Tiong Chia vs. Republic Jose Nono vs. Ruperto Nequia, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Apolonio Raiz Leyte-Samar Sales Co. vs. Sulpicio V. Cea, et al. Royal L. Rutter vs. Placido J. Esteban People of the Philippines vs. Eutiquiano de los Santos, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Dionisio Francisco, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Moro Ansang, et al. Juan Mortos vs. Victor Ello, et al. In re: Francisco Ang Veloso vs. Republic of the Phil. Fortunata Ramento, et al. vs. Guadalupe Cosuangco Atok-Big Wedge Mining Co. vs. Atok-Big Wedge Mutual Benefit Association Isabelo Centeno vs. Dolores Gallardo, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Mauti Lingcuan, et al. Intestate Estate of Carlos Veloria Vicente Viloria vs. Isidro Viloria Pelagia Arante, etc. vs. Arcadio Rosel, et al. Ng Young vs. Ana Villa, et al. Luis Francisco vs. Maxima vda. de Blas, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Napoleon Libre, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.C. No. 72 May 30, 1953
Petition for disbarment. PLACIDO MANALO,petitioner,
vs.
PEDRO N. GAN,respondent.
Gineno & Mangubat for petitioner.
Gregorio Hipolito for respondent.
Office of the Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Solicitor Felixberto Milambiling for the government.
PARAS, C.J.,J.:
In 1948 the respondent was the manager and the legal adviser of the real estate department of the R. P Halili Realty, a Manila real estate broker. On March 23, 1948, Benita Lahos of Zamboanga City, through her counsel Dr. B. M. Gancy, asked the respondent to sell her participation in the residential lot of 520 square meters, situated in Data Street, Sta. Mesa Heights Subdivision, Quezon City. This lot appears to have been the conjugal property of Manuel Lahoz who died in Manila on February 17, 1945, and Benita Lahoz. On April 15, 1948, the respondent informed Benita Lahoz that he was interested in the whole property, inquired whether her deceased husband had other heirs and whether there was any estate or intestate proceeding, and told her that he was willing to give a loan on condition that he be furnished the owner's certificate of title, a power of attorney and other pertinent papers. By way of answer, Benita Lahoz sent to the respondent her petition for letters of administration in which it was alleged that Jose Lahoz, father of her deceased husband, was the surviving heir, at the same time requesting the' respondent to file said petition in court and act as her attorney. On May 11, 1948, the respondent set another letter for Benita Lahoz, informing that he had already found a buyer for her share in the lot and would remit to her a loan of P1,000 if she would immediately send by air mail the title, the deed of partition of affidavit of heirship, and the power of attorney in favor of respondent. On May 12, 1948, Benita Lahoz executed the necessary special power appointing the respondent as her attorney-in-fact and counsel in the administration proceedings. the respondent accordingly sent to Benita Lahoz the sum of P1,000 as earnest money at the rate of P15 per square meter. On May 17, 1948, the respondent prepared the draft of an affidavit to be signed by Benita Lahoz, adjudicating to her the entire property as sole heirs of her deceased husband, and caused her to sign it before a notary public. As the property was advertised for sale by the respondent in Manila Times, the herein complaint, Placido Manalo, went to see the respondent on June 10, 1948. the latter exhibit the title and his power of attorney, assured the complaint that the deceased husband of Benita Lahoz had no other heir, and also showed the affidavit of adjudication executed by Benita Lahoz. After an ocular inspection, the complainant offered to buy the lot for P9,000. Accordingly, on June 12, 1948, the deed of sale was executed by the respondent, as attorney-in-fact of Benita Lahoz, vendor, and by the complainant, vendee. Utilizing the affidavit of adjudication signed by Benita Lahoz, the respondent obtained from the Register of Deeds of Quezon City a transfer Certificate of title in her name. Subsequently a transfer certificate was issued in favor of the complainant who proceeded to occupy the property until October, 1949, when he received a complained filed against him and Banita Lahoz by Jose Lahoz, father of the deceased Manuel Lahoz, claiming ownership over one-half of the lot. The fact gave rise to the present proceeding for disbarment filed against the respondent by complaint.
The respondent alleges that he had no knowledge of the existence of the other co-owner Jose Lahoz, that he acted in good faith, that he was not responsible of the acts of Benita Lahoz, and that he acted as a real estate broker and not as a lawyer. Respondent's knowledge of the ownership by Benita Lahoz of only one-half of the lot in question is conclusively proved by the fact that Benita Lahoz had sent to him a petition for the issuance of letters of administration in her favor in which he stated that there was a surviving heir, named Jose Lahoz, father of her deceased husband, and by the very letter of the respondent dated May 11, 1948 where in he showed such knowledge and spoke about the difficulty of selling the entire property. The act of the respondent in preparing the affidavit of adjudication to be signed by Benita Lahoz, with a view to consolidation in her self sole ownership, is inconsistent with any pretension of good faith. The extension of the loan of P1,000 to Benita Lahoz even before the prospect of a sale, was obviously intended to prevent her from backing out; and respondent's subsequent acts which led the complainant to believe that Benita Lahoz owned the entire property, coupled with the circumstance that the respondent was able to obtain a title in her name by representing to the Register of Deeds that the affidavit of adjudication which the respondent herself prepared, knowing that subdivision of lots in the Data section of Quezon City was not permitted, all were undoubtedly motivated by his desire to sell the property and thereby collecting not only the loan of P1,000, but also what he claimed to be for expenses, charges, attorney's fees and commission of five percent.
The respondent is thus guilty of deceit mentioned in section 25 of rule 127 of the Rule of court, as a ground for a lawyers removal of suspension. The re- broker and not as an attorney in the transaction at bar, deserve title or no consideration, since his knowledge of the law and skill as an attorney were evidently employed to his advantage, and Benita Lahoz in one of her letters expressly asked the respondent to act as her counsel in connection with her petition for the issuance of letters of administration. Indeed, she was charged P500,00 for attorney's fees; and in the power-of-attorney the authorized the respondent to present her before any court, tribunal, department and office of the Government.
Wherefore all things considered, the respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years from the date of this decision. So ordered.
Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuazon, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ.,concur.