A.M. No. 840 - JUNE 1969 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.M. No. 840June 30, 1969 Joaquin M. Garrido, et al. vs. Norberto Quisumbing G.R. No. L-29589June 30, 1969 Lim Chi vs. Gregorio N. Garcia, et al. G.R. No. L-29328June 30, 1969 Sy Oh vs. Gregorio N. Garcia, et al. G.R. No. L-27441June 30, 1969 German E. Villanueva vs. National Marketing Corporation, et al. G.R. No. L-27346June 30, 1969 Anatolio Valencia vs. Manila Yacht Club, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-27232June 30, 1969 Belen Cruz vs. Exequiel Castillo, et al. G.R. No. L-26776June 30, 1969 Daniel Manalo, et al. vs. Pampanga Sugar Development Company, Inc. G.R. No. L-26706June 30, 1969 In re: Yu Chuan Macario Yu Chuan vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-26601June 30, 1969 In re:Lim Siong Lim Siong vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-26397June 30, 1969 Tomasa Bulos vda. de Tecson vs. Vicente Tecson, et al. G.R. No. L-26340June 30, 1969 Jesus Ganchero vs. Anacleto Bellosillo, et al. G.R. No. L-26255June 30, 1969 Pablo Basbas vs. Rufino Entena, et al. G.R. No. L-25951June 30, 1969 Filipinas Investment & Finance Corporation vs. Julian R. Vitug, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-25401June 30, 1969 In re: Jose Ma. C.T.B. Zabaleta Jose Ma. C.T.B. Zabaleta vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-24877June 30, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Gaudencio Mongado, et al. G.R. No. L-24440June 30, 1969 Province of Zamboanga del Norte vs. City of Zamboanga, et al. G.R. No. L-23922June 30, 1969 Raymundo V. Adle vs. Municipality of La Castellana, et al. G.R. No. L-23153June 30, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Julio Crisologo, et al. G.R. No. L-22988June 30, 1969 Fermin Sare vs. Commissioner of Customs G.R. No. L-22608June 30, 1969 Mackay Radio & Telegraph Company, Inc. vs. John W. Rich G.R. No. L-22481June 30, 1969 Republic of the Philippines vs. Philippine Air Lines, Inc. G.R. No. L-22402June 30, 1969 Clemente Alviar vs. Cesareo Alviar, et al. G.R. No. L-23675June 27, 1969 Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-28949June 23, 1969 Jibin Arula vs. Romeo C. Espino, et al. G.R. No. L-30306June 20, 1969 Jose C. Luciano vs. Provincial Governor, et al. A.C. No. 69-28June 14, 1969 Praxedes Limalima vs. Alfredo Sanjurlo, et al. G.R. No. L-22337June 14, 1969 Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying Corporation vs. Commission of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-21025June 14, 1969 Lianga Bay Logging Company, Inc. vs. Narciso Lansang, et al. G.R. No. L-30317June 9, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Ro Cupin, et al. G.R. No. L-26462June 9, 1969 Teresita C. Yaptinchay vs. Guillermo E. Torres, et al. G.R. No. L-23215June 9, 1969 Susana Gala de Enriquez, et al. vs. El Hogar Filipino G.R. No. L-22970June 9, 1969 Surigao Consolidated Mining Company, Inc. vs. Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union (PLASLU), et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Joaquin M. Garrido, et al. vs. Norberto Quisumbing Lim Chi vs. Gregorio N. Garcia, et al. Sy Oh vs. Gregorio N. Garcia, et al. German E. Villanueva vs. National Marketing Corporation, et al. Anatolio Valencia vs. Manila Yacht Club, Inc., et al. Belen Cruz vs. Exequiel Castillo, et al. Daniel Manalo, et al. vs. Pampanga Sugar Development Company, Inc. In re: Yu Chuan Macario Yu Chuan vs. Republic of the Philippines In re:Lim Siong Lim Siong vs. Republic of the Philippines Tomasa Bulos vda. de Tecson vs. Vicente Tecson, et al. Jesus Ganchero vs. Anacleto Bellosillo, et al. Pablo Basbas vs. Rufino Entena, et al. Filipinas Investment & Finance Corporation vs. Julian R. Vitug, Jr., et al. In re: Jose Ma. C.T.B. Zabaleta Jose Ma. C.T.B. Zabaleta vs. Republic of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Gaudencio Mongado, et al. Province of Zamboanga del Norte vs. City of Zamboanga, et al. Raymundo V. Adle vs. Municipality of La Castellana, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Julio Crisologo, et al. Fermin Sare vs. Commissioner of Customs Mackay Radio & Telegraph Company, Inc. vs. John W. Rich Republic of the Philippines vs. Philippine Air Lines, Inc. Clemente Alviar vs. Cesareo Alviar, et al. Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. Jibin Arula vs. Romeo C. Espino, et al. Jose C. Luciano vs. Provincial Governor, et al. Praxedes Limalima vs. Alfredo Sanjurlo, et al. Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying Corporation vs. Commission of Internal Revenue Lianga Bay Logging Company, Inc. vs. Narciso Lansang, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Ro Cupin, et al. Teresita C. Yaptinchay vs. Guillermo E. Torres, et al. Susana Gala de Enriquez, et al. vs. El Hogar Filipino Surigao Consolidated Mining Company, Inc. vs. Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union (PLASLU), et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

A.M. No. L-840             June 30, 1969

JOAQUIN G. GARRIDO, CARLOS UY, JR., and, FRANCISCO R. ACHACOSO,petitioners,
vs.
NORBERTO QUISUMBING,respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

CONCEPCION,C.J.:

Petitioners Joaquin G. Garrido, Carlos Uy, Jr. and Francisco R. Achacoso seek either the disbarment or the suspension of respondent Attorney Norberto Quisumbing, upon the ground that he filed Civil Case No. 73668 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, as counsel for the plaintiffs therein, including among them one L. Garcia Pastor, who had not, in fact, authorized respondent to institute said action on his (Garcia Pastor's) behalf. Copy of an alleged affidavit of Garcia Pastor to this effect was annexed to the complaint of petitioners herein, which was filed on September 30, 1968.

In his answer thereto, respondent alleged that he filed the complaint in said case No. 73668 at the request of one of the plaintiffs therein, namely, Julio Muñoz, who claimed to have authority to act on behalf of L. Garcia Pastor in connection therewith. In support of this allegation, respondent submitted a photostatic copy of an affidavit of said Muñoz, dated July 12, 1968, which had allegedly been submitted in Civil Case No. 73091 of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Subsequently, or on December 4, 1968, respondent filed a "manifestation" annexing thereto another affidavit of Muñoz, made in Barcelona, Spain, on November 11, 1968, in further support of said allegation. Thereafter, petitioners filed their reply, which was the object of a rejoinder on the part of respondent. The aforementioned pleadings and the annexes thereto sufficiently establish the facts necessary for the determination of this administrative case.

It is the contention of Muñoz, a Spanish citizen, residing in Barcelona, Spain, that he is the controlling shareholder or the representative of the controlling shareholder of Carmun Trading (N.Y.), Inc., Carmun Trading (Philippines), Inc., Safintex, S.A. and Sociedad Europea de Financiacion, S.A. — hereafter referred to, respectively, as Carmun (N.Y.), Carmun (Phil.), Safintex and SEF; that Carmun (N.Y.) gave Antonio V. Rocha, a businessman in the Philippines, the sum of $400,000, with which, in 1949, he constituted and funded the Capital Insurance and Surety Co., Inc., hereafter referred to as Capital; that in 1958, Rocha, who successfully managed the Capital, as its president, and held the shares therein in trust for Carmun (N.Y.), transferred said shares to Carmun (Phil.); that thereafter Rocha was replaced, as president of Capital, by petitioner Garrido, who had only 16 out of the 10,000 shares of Capital; that L. Garcia Pastor and Jaime Amat, both Spanish citizens and residents, the former of Madrid, Spain, and the latter of Pasay City, Philippines, hold 10 shares each of Capital, which Muñoz caused to be assigned to them to qualify them as members of the Board of Directors of Capital, of which he (Muñoz) is the Chairman; that Carmun (Phil.) transferred its shares in Capital to Safintex, which, in turn, transferred the shares to SEF; that between 1964 and 1966, there had been an impairment in the financial condition of Capital owing to alleged mismanagement by petitioner Garrido, involving the juggling of accounts, the falsification of records and other irregularities, committed in connivance or with the cooperation of herein petitioners Achacoso and Uy, Vice-President and Accountant General, respectively, of Capital; that, as a consequence, substantial assets of Capital were fraudulently transferred by the petitioners to the Property and Liability Insurance Corporation, which was organized and is owned by petitioners Garrido and Achacoso; and that, accordingly, he (Muñoz) asked respondent herein to file, on his behalf and that of Capital, SEF, Garcia Pastor and Amat, said Civil Case No. 73668 against petitioners herein, to oust them as president, vice-president and accountant, respectively, of Capital, and to recover damages.

Although Garcia Pastor had not personally authorized respondent herein to file said case on his (Garcia Pastor's) behalf, as one of the plaintiffs therein, respondent had no reason to doubt the veracity of the information furnished by Muñoz regarding his power to grant such authority, in representation of Garcia Pastor. Indeed, the latter seemingly claims to have returned his shares in Capital to Muñoz, thus impliedly admitting that he (Garcia Pastor) held the shares on behalf of Muñoz. At any rate, Muñoz knew nothing about said alleged return, he being in Japan, at the time of the filing of Case No. 73668, whereas Garcia Pastor was then in Barcelona. Moreover, the records of Capital were in the possession of petitioners herein, and respondent felt that the Complaint in Case No. 73668 should be filed without delay, owing to the urgency of the relief prayed for.

In other words, when respondent's services were engaged in connection with said case, Muñoz informed him that he (Muñoz) was the controlling stockholder of Capital and that Garcia Pastor was his alter ego in its board of directors. Accordingly, Muñoz authorized respondent to file the action, not only in his (Muñoz) name, but, also, in that of Garcia Pastor. Under the circumstances, it is clear that respondent has not committed any act of malpractice. In fact, Garcia Pastor has not complained against respondent for having acted as he did. The present administrative proceeding has been instituted, not by Garcia Pastor, but by the defendants in the aforementioned civil case.1awphil.nêt

WHEREFORE, the complaint herein is hereby dismissed. It is so ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.
Dizon and Fernando, JJ., took no part.