4B[d.] JIMENEZ vs. FRANCISCO First, all that the complaint alleged was that Atty.

First, all that the complaint alleged was that Atty. Francisco was Clarion's
A.C. No. 10548. December 10, 2014. legal counsel and that complainant sought advice and requested
documentation of several transfers of shares and the sale of the Forbes
FACTS: property. There was no detailed explanation as to how she supposedly
engaged the services of Atty. Francisco as her personal counsel and as to
Mario Crespo (aka Mark Jimenez) filed a complaint for estafa against Caroline what and how she communicated with the latter anent the dealings she had
Jimenez (complainant in the disbarment case) and several others with the Office of entered into.
the City Prosecutor of Makati City. Jimenez claimed to be the true and beneficial
owner of the shares of stock in Clarion Realty and Development Corporation (Clarion) Second, Atty. Francisco's claim that he was the counsel of Clarion and
which was incorporated for the purpose of purchasing a residential house located in Jimenez, and not of Caroline, was clearly established in a sworn statement
Forbes Park, Makati City. The Forbes house was purchased for P117 million but it was executed by Jimenez himself. Complainant's evidence pales in comparison
undervalued to make it appear that it was sold for only P78 million. Later on, Jimenez with her claims of being the client of Atty. Francisco couched in general terms
was informed by his lawyer, Atty. Edgar Francisco, that Caroline fraudulently sold the that lacked particularity of circumstances.
Forbes property to Philmetro Southwest Enterprise for P118 million. This sale was Third, complainant opted not to file a reply to Atty. Francisco's answer. This
again undervalued at P78 million. Thereafter, Jimenez, with the assistance of Atty. could have given her opportunity to present evidence showing their
Francisco, sued them for estafa. professional relationship. She also failed to appear during the mandatory
Caroline was shocked and felt betrayed especially by Atty. Francisco as he conference with the IBP-CBD. Her participation in the investigation of the
was the one who assisted her with the transactions. Atty. Francisco also happened to case apparently ended at its filing.
be the legal counsel of Clarion. Hence, she filed a complaint against him with the IBP- Also, the rule on lawyer-client privilege requires the following factors: (1)
CBD, seeking his disbarment, on the basis of the affidavit executed by Atty. Francisco Attorney-client relationship; (2) The client made the communication in
in the estafa case. confidence; and (3) The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his
professional capacity.
On his part, Atty. Francisco argued that he did not violate the rule on
disclosures of privileged communication nor the proscription against representing In this case, Caroline failed to establish the professional relationship between
conflicting interests, on the ground that he was the personal counsel of Jimenez and her and Atty. Francisco. The records are further bereft of any indication that
not of Caroline. the "advice" regarding the sale of the Forbes property was given by Atty.
Francisco in confidence. Neither was there a demonstration of what she had
The IBP-CBD found that Atty. Francisco violated the rules on privileged
communicated to Atty. Francisco nor a recital of circumstances under which
communication and conflict of interest, and that he participated in unlawful
the confidential communication was relayed. Considering that complainant
transactions. It was recommended that he be suspended for one year from the practice
failed to attend the hearings at the IBP, there was no testimony as to the
of law. The IBP Board of Governors affirmed.
specific confidential information allegedly divulged by Atty. Francisco
ISSUES: without her consent. It is, therefore, difficult, if not impossible, to determine if
there was any violation of the rule on privileged communication.
1. WON Atty. Francisco violated the rules on privileged communication and
conflict of interest. (NO) 2. Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR provide:
2. WON Atty. Francisco is guilty of violating the CPR. (YES)
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY
RULING: THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND
LEGAL PROCESSES.
1. The rule on conflict of interests presupposes a lawyer-client relationship.
Here, Caroline failed to establish that she was a client of Atty. Francisco. Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
 Meanwhile, upon admission to the Bar, every lawyer takes an oath to "obey
the laws," "do no falsehood," and conduct himself as a lawyer according to the
best of his knowledge and discretion.
Here, Atty. Francisco clearly violated the canons and his sworn duty. He is
guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct when he admitted to
having allowed his corporate client, Clarion, to actively misrepresent to the
SEC, the significant matters regarding its corporate purpose and
subsequently, its corporate shareholdings. In the documents submitted to the
SEC, Atty. Francisco, in his professional capacity, feigned the validity of the
transfers of shares, making it appear that they were done for consideration
when, in fact, the said transactions were fictitious, albeit upon the alleged
orders of Jimenez. As corporate secretary of Clarion, it was his duty and
obligation to register valid transfers of stocks. Nonetheless, he chose to
advance the interests of his clientele with patent disregard of his duties as a
lawyer. Worse, Atty. Francisco admitted to have simulated the loan entered
into by Clarion and to have undervalued the consideration of the effected sale
of the Forbes property. He permitted this fraudulent ruse to cheat the
government of taxes. Unquestionably, therefore, Atty. Francisco participated
in a series of grave legal infractions and was content to have granted the
requests of the persons involved.
Despite assertions that these were in accordance to Jimenez's wishes, or
pursuant to complainant's misrepresentations, the Court cannot turn a blind
eye on Atty. Francisco's act of drafting, or at the very least, permitting
untruthful statements to be embodied in public documents. Time and again,
the Court has reminded lawyers that their support for the cause of their
clients should never be attained at the expense of truth and justice.
In the same vein, Atty. Francisco's admissions show that he lacks candor
regarding his dealings. Canon 10 of the CPR provides that, "[a] lawyer owes
candor, fairness and good faith to the court." Corollary thereto, Rule 10.01 of
the CPR provides that "a lawyer shall do no falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court, nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by
an artifice."

Atty. Edgar B. Francisco is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months
with a STERN WARNING that a commission of the same or similar offense in the
future will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty.