Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1914 > March 1914 Decisions > Special Proceeding March 25, 1914 - IN RE: EMILIANO TRIA TIRONA

027 Phil 323:



[Special Proceeding. March 25, 1914. ]

In the matter of the complaint of Catalina Cebu against Attorney EMILIANO TRIA TIRONA.

Respondent in his own behalf.

Attorney-General Avanceña for the Government.


1. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT; MALPRACTICE; ACTING ON CLIENT’S REPRESENTATIONS. — An attorney’s client represented to him that the administratrix of an estate in which she was interested had improperly disposed of real property and had submitted fictitious accounts of her administration. The attorney prepared a petition to the court embodying these charges, and upon investigation it appeared that the administratrix had not kept her accounts properly, and that she had in fact delivered land to a third person who had tilled it and paid the taxes on it for some time; Held: That the charges of malpractice preferred against the attorney by the administratrix in filing preferred the petition were utterly unfounded.

2. ID.; ID.; FRAUD AS TO THIRD PARTY. — An attorney cannot be charged with securing the signature of his client’s adversary to a document by false representation as to its contents when the facts of the case show that she must have been fully aware of its of its contents when she signed it.



Catalina Cebu, administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Gregorio Paman, preferred charges of unprofessional conduct against Attorney Emiliano Tria Tirona, arising out of his connection with the settlement of the said estate. This court referred these charges and the answer of Attorney Tirona thereto to the Attorney-General for investigation on October 4, 1913, and his report is now before us for consideration.

Catalina Cebu was appointed administratrix of the estate on August 1, 1910, and assumed charge thereof on August 19, 1910. There were four surviving children, Sinforosa, aged 16; Ricardo, aged 13; Trinidad, aged 7; and Ligaya, 1 year old. At the time these charges were preferred, Siforosa was married to one Crispulo Malia.

On January 17, 1913, Judge Gale of the Court of First Instance ordered the administratrix to present to him on or before January 21, 1913: (1) the accounts of her administration; (2) a detailed report of the assets of the estate with their incumbrances, if any; (3) a list of heirs; (4) a liquidation of all the sociedades in which the deceased had participated and of the conjugal partnership; (5) a tentative plan for the partition of the estate. The following day, the administratrix presented her accounts, showing a balance in favor of the estate for the year ending August 18, 1911, of P78.26; for the year ending August 18, 1912, a balance of P395; and for the period August 19 to December 31, 1912, of P66. On January 21, 1913, the court appointed Catalina as the guardian of the minor children. The following day, January 22, a complaint signed by the daughter, Sinforosa, was filed with clerk, in which it is alleged that Catalina had sold and mortgaged some of the property of the estate, and that the income of the estate had been disposed of in some unknown manner. On January 24, the administratrix asked for additional time within which to prepare the tentative plan of partition of the estate. On February 28, according to her own testimony, the administratrix filed a document in the court entitled "Additional Statement of Accounts," in which she shows a total balance in favor of the estate of the period August 18, 1910, to December 31, 1912, of P5,806.55. On February 10, 1913, she filed another statement of accounts in the office of the clerk, materially at variance with both of the former statements, in which a balance is due the estate for the year ending August 18, 1911, of P1,852.56; for the year ending August 18, 1912, P457.04, and for the period August 19 to December 31, 1912, P452.28. With this third statement of her accounts, she filed a motion asking that it be substituted for the other two, and alleging that the second statement filed on February 28 was false and that she had been induced to sign it through the fraud and deceit of the respondent attorney. Further postponements were made, and the case finally culminated in a compromise agreement between the parties, under which the assets of the estate were divided. This compromise agreement is dated March 24, 1913.

Catalina Cebu file her complaint against the respondent attorney on September 27, 1913. This complaint may be said to contain two charges: One that the respondent attorney acted maliciously in preparing the document signed by the daughter Sinforosa, in which she alleged irregularities in her mother’s administration of the estate; and (2) that the respondent attorney induced her, by means of false and fraudulent representations, to sign the "Additional Statement of Accounts" presented by her on February 28, 1913, in which she acknowledges that she has a balance in favor of the estate of something over P5,000.

The first charge is easily disposed of. Sinforosa states that she sought the assistance of Tirona in his professional capacity in relation to her mother’s misconduct in office; that she represented to him that her mother had sold some of the property of the estate; and that her prepared the document is question upon her express solicitation, after she had refused to follow his advise of attempting to settle the matter amicably with her mother. This is all the testimony in the record on this point. As a matter of fact, it appears that there was good reason for filing the complaint, as the administratrix herself admitted, during the course of the present investigation, that she had delivered land to one Vicenta Acosta, who tilled it and paid the taxes, thus indicating that the land was being improperly disposed of. It is also apparent from the conflicting statements of account submitted by her under dates of January 18 and February 10, that she had not kept her accounts during her administration in the proper manner. The conduct of the respondent attorney in preparing the complaint of Sinforosa was perfectly proper.

The second charge is based upon the document entitled "Additional Statement of Accounts" filed by the administratrix on February 28, 1913. It is admitted that this document was prepared by Tirona at his house on the evening of February 27, 1913. Sinforosa and her husband, her mother Catalina, and Andres Villanueva, justice of the peace of the municipality and, up to that time, a trusted personal friend of Catalina, came to his house in connection with the dispute which had arisen between Sinforosa and her mother over the affairs of the estate. It is alleged by the administratrix that she had gone there at the solicitation of Sinforosa and her husband to discuss a plan for the partition of the estate, and that she signed the document in question upon the representations of the respondent attorney, believing it to be a tentative plan for the partition and distribution of the estate. It is asserted by Sinforosa and her husband that they went there at the earnest solicitation of the administratrix to endeavor to arrive at an amicable agreement regarding the charges made by Sinforosa in her complaint to the court above referred to, and that the additional statement of accounts was the result of a compromise agreement between the parties. As Attorney Tirona prepared the document in question, it is clear that if the conference was concerning the partition of the estate, and the administratrix signed the said document believing that it related to that matter, the charges against Tirona are serious. If, on the other hand, the subject of the conference was a compromise agreement concerning the accounts of the administratrix and the latter signed the document knowing that it greatly increased her liabilities to the estate, the charges are false and the respondent attorney was guilty of no professional misconduct whatever.

To show how she had been deceived, the administratrix testified that she sat at one end of the room, away from the other persons present, and that her daughter Sinforosa, the latter’s husband, Tirona, and Villanueva talked in Spanish, a language which she did not understand; that at the conclusion of the conference, Tirona prepared the document and handed it to Sinforosa, who in turn handed it to her (the administratrix), saying that it was all right and that she should sign it; that she stayed at the home of Villanueva that night. She did not ask Villanueva’s house and everyone immediately retired. She did not ask him the next morning because she did not have time to do so before the train left for Cavite, where she went to present the document to the court. Yet she stated later on in her testimony that on the morning following the conference and before train time, she asked Villanueva about the document and he told her it was all right and that she should sign it. More than this, she testified that she went over to the house of her daughter Sinforosa before train time, and asked her and her husband about it, both of whom also told her that the document was all right and that she should sign it. On arriving at the court she was on the stairway when the judge called her name, and the sheriff told her to hurry up. She thereupon went into the clerk’s office where Teofilo Viado was acting as clerk, and asked him to affix her name to the document, which he did, and then she placed her mark on the document and hurried into the courtroom. Viado did not have time to examine the document. She simply told him it was all right and that she wanted to sign it.

On the other hand, it is perfectly clear from the record that the administratrix knew that her daughter was dissatisfied with her administration and the accounts presented by her. The administratrix herself admits that at a conference with her daughter at which Viado was present, she had agreed to render new accounts. This was only a short time before the meeting on February 27 at which the statement of accounts was prepared by Tirona. The administratrix knew that Tirona had prepared the complaint submitted to the court by her daughter in which her administration was seriously attacked; she knew that this document contained nothing relating to the partition of the estate, and that her daughter’s grievance did not relate to that matter at all. There is nothing to show that the daughter changed her position between January 22, the date the complaint was filed, and the night of February 27, when the conference at the house of Tirona took place, and that she was then seeking to partition the estate. On the contrary, the administratrix herself admits, as above stated, that shortly before that conference she had a talk with her daughter, as a result of which she had manifested her desire to submit new accounts. It is highly improbable that she went to Tirona’s house on the night of February 27 with the understanding that they were to discuss the partition of the estate. That her daughter was not at all satisfied with the practically negligible balance in favor of the estate represented by her accounts of January 18, 1913, and that Sinforosa had sought the services of Tirona in securing, though legal channels, a investigation of the affairs of the estate, were facts amply sufficient to put her on her guard in attending the conference in question. She now professes complete ignorance of what the other persons who attended the conference were talking about, and of the contents of the document prepared thereat by Tirona. As administratrix of the estate, at the owner of one-half the assets of the estate, which consisted entirely of conjugal property, it is incredible that she should sit dumb in one end of the room while the other did all the talking in an unknown language and made arrangements for the partition of the assets of the estate. It is also incredible that, after all the trouble she had with these very people over her accounts, that she should leave that conference believing that the partition of the estate was the only matter discussed. She testified that she was endeavoring to ascertain the following morning before she took the train for Cavite what the document related to. She asked Villanueva; she asked her daughter, and the latter’s husband; and received an unvarying reply from each that the document was all right and that she should sign it. Upon the strength of this information, and fully cognizant of all her past troubles with her daughter over the accounts, and knowing that her interests in the property were large, she appeared before Viado in the clerk’s office the following morning, saying to him that the document was all right, and requesting that he affix her name to it. We cannot credit her, a woman in the full possession of her faculties, with such childish simplicity and confidence. Nor can we believe that Viado, accustomed to handle documents and well acquainted with the affairs of the estate, who, in fact, had prepared every documents presented by the administratrix in reference to her administration, who had shortly before endeavored to reconcile mother and daughter in reference to the accounts of the estate, could have signed the administratrix’ name to the document in question without making at least a superficial examination of it, and discovering that it was a most substantial correction of the accounts prepared by him and submitted by the administratrix on January 18, 1913. This document is an exceedingly simple affair and consists of barely two and one-half typewritten pages. On the last page, where Viado affixed the administratrix’ signature, is a heading in capital letters, "An explanation in reference to the accounts already presented ." And a mere glance at any one of the pages of this document would have been sufficient to indicate its character to Viado, who had taken such a large interest in the administration of the estate. The story that Viado did not discover the nature of the document before he affixed the administratrix’ name to it is too improbable to be believed. If she herself knew the nature of this document and if Viado also knew its contents, there is absolutely no basis to her contention that Tirona falsely represented to her that the document related to the partition of the estate.

The voluminous record in that case is excellently discussed in the report of the Attorney-General. We have discussed the main facts of the case. The remainder of the record but serves to strengthen the impression that the administratrix’ charges against the respondent attorney are without merit. We fully concur in the recommendation of the Attorney-General that the charges ought to be dismissed. The respondent, Emiliano Tria Tirona, is therefore absolved from the charges.

Arellano, C.J., Carson, Moreland and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. :
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online :
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man :

March-1914 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9267 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GERVASIO GUMARANG ET AL.,

    027 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 9291 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CAMILA CUNANAN

    027 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. 8254 March 3, 1914 - MARIANO GONZAGA ET AL. v. FELISA GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 8913 March 3, 1914 - NELLIE LOUISE COOK v. J. MCMICKING

    027 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 9201 March 3, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO SUAN

    027 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 8223 March 4, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO PAINAGA

    027 Phil 18


    027 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 8429-27 March 7, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. EVARISTO BATLLE ET AL.

    027 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 8662 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. HERMOGENES BESUÑA

    027 Phil 39


    027 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 8983 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO EDPALINA

    027 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 9066 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO HUDIERES

    027 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 7946 March 9, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. SATURNINA RIZAL

    027 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 8227 March 9, 1914 - ANTONIO M. JIMENEZ v. FIDEL REYES

    027 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 8325 March 10, 1914 - C. B. WILLIAMS v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    027 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. 8927 March 10, 1914 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. MARIA IGNACIA USON ET AT.

    027 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 9147 March 10, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PERFECTO LAMADRID ET AL.

    027 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 8603 March 13, 1914 - SEVERINO CORNISTA v. SEVERA TICSON

    027 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 8984 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LABIAL

    027 Phil 82

  • G.R. Nos. 9471 & 9472 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO VAQUILAR

    027 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 8748 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SANTOS P. PALMA

    027 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 8931 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARQUI

    027 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 8971 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CIRILO BAUA

    027 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 9006 March 14, 1914 - JOSE ANTONIO GASCON ENRIQUEZ v. A.D. GIBBS

    027 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 9059 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SARMIENTO

    027 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 9099 March 14, 1914 - J. MCMICKING v. SPRUNGLI & CO. ET AL.

    027 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 9169 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PANTELEON MARIANO ET AL.

    027 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 9348 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ELEUTERO MANTE

    027 Phil 134


    027 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 8140 March 16, 1914 - FORTUNATO GASPAR v. ANACLETO QUINADARA

    027 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 8851 March 16, 1914 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK ET AL.,

    027 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 8200 March 17, 1914 - LEONARDO LUCIDO v. GELASIO CALUPITAN ET AL.

    027 Phil 148

  • Special proceeding March 17, 1914 - IN RE: EUGENIO DE LARA

    027 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 7333 March 18, 1914 - DEMETRIO ARCENAS v. ESTANISLAO LASERNA

    027 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 7790 March 19, 1914 - EL BANCO ESPANOL-FILIPINO v. MCKAY & ZOELLER

    027 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 8235 March 19, 1914 - ISIDORO SANTOS v. LEANDRA MANARANG

    027 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 8414 March 19,1914


    027 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 8998 March 19, 1914 - JOSE FLORENDO v. EUSTAQUIO P. FOZ

    027 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 9307 March 19, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 9098 March 20, 1914 - JOSE M. GONZALEZ v. PERCY M. MOIR

    027 Phil 256

  • Special proceeding March 21, 1914 - IN RE: LUICIANO DE LA ROSA

    027 Phil 258


    027 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 9302 March 21, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON DUNGCA

    027 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 6960 March 23, 1914 - VICENTE GUASH v. JUANA ESPIRITU

    027 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 7909 March 24, 1914 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ISABEL RAMIREZ

    027 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 8385 March 24, 1914 - LUCIO ALGARRA v. SIXTO SANDEJAS

    027 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. 8314 March 25, 1914 - M. A. CLARKE v. MANILA CANDY COMPANY

    027 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 8461 March 25, 1914 - RAMON MEDINA ONG-QUINGCO v. CECILIO IMAZ

    027 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. 9124 March 25, 1914 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    027 Phil 319

  • Special Proceeding March 25, 1914 - IN RE: EMILIANO TRIA TIRONA

    027 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 7721 March 25, 1914 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. GREGORIO YULO

    034 Phil 978

  • G.R. No. 7420 March 25, 1914 - NAZARIO CABALLO ET AL. v. CIPRIANO DANDOY ET. AL.

    027 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 7762 March 25, 1914 - BEHN v. JOSE MCMICKING

    027 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 7593 March 27, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE M. IGPUARA

    027 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 7647 March 27, 1914 - DOMINGO CALUYA v. LUCIA DOMINGO

    027 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 7670 March 28, 1914 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 8051 March 28, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MADRIGAL ET AL.

    027 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. 9010 March 28, 1914 - J. H. CHAPMAN v. JAMES M. UNDERWOOD

    027 Phil 374

  • G.R. Nos. 9619 & 9620 March 28, 1914 - NGO YAO TIT EL AL. v. SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 7270 March 29, 1914 - GREGORIO JIMENEZ ET AL. v. PASCUALA LOZADA ET AL.

    027 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 7287 & 7288 March 29, 1914 - PEDRO MONTIERO v. VIRGINIA SALGADO Y ACUÑA

    027 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 7896 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MCMICKING v. CRISANTO LICHAUGO ET AL.

    027 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 8313 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MA. Y. DE ALDECOA v. JOSE FORTIS ET AL.

    027 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 8362 March 30, 1914 - JOSE PEREZ PASTOR v. PEDRO NOEL ET AL.

    027 Phil 393


    027 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 8478 March 30, 1914 - LUIS ESPERANZA v. ANDREA CATINDING

    027 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 8527 March 30, 1914 - WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. GEO. N. HURD

    027 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 8579 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. RUPERTO T. SANTIAGO

    027 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 8654 March 30, 1914 - EUGENIO RESOLME ET AL. v. ROMAN LAZO

    027 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 8689 March 30, 1914 - LIBRADO MANAS ET AL. v. MARIA RAFAEL

    027 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 8781 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO JAVIER DICHAO

    027 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 8785 March 30, 1914 - UY ALOC ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING ET AL.

    027 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 9178 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE LASTIMOSA

    027 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 9217 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO MARTINEZ

    027 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 9294 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO SANCHEZ

    027 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 9329 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO AGUAS

    027 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 9397 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE VAYSON

    027 Phil 447