Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jimenez Vs Francisco
Jimenez Vs Francisco
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
216
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178d92468f8e34ae7fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/23
4/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
should never be attained at the expense of truth and justice. While a lawyer
owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client, full devotion to his genuine
interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, as well
as the exertion of his utmost learning and ability, he must do so only within
the bounds of the law. It needs to be emphasized that the lawyer’s fidelity to
his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and justice, and must
be held within the bounds of reason and common sense. His responsibility
to protect and advance the interests of his client does not warrant a course of
action propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions.
Same; Same; Lawyers are expected to act with honesty in all their
dealings, especially with the court.—Canon 10 of the CPR provides that,
“[a] lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.” Corollary
thereto, Rule 10.0 of the CPR provides that “a lawyer shall do no falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of any in
217
218
cence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to clearly
prove the allegations in the complaint by preponderant evidence.
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is,
as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. It means
evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that
which is offered in opposition thereto. Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in
determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the court
may consider the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case;
(b) the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and
opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of
the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their
testimony; (c) the witnesses’ interest or want of interest, and also their
personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and
(d) the number of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance
is necessarily with the greater number.
Same; Same; Same; Grounds by which a Lawyer may be Suspended or
Disbarred.—A member of the Bar may be penalized, even disbarred or
suspended from his office as an attorney, for violating of the lawyer’s oath
and/or for breaching the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the
CPR, for the practice of law is a profession, a form of public trust, the
performance of which is entrusted to those who are qualified and who
possess good moral character. The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer
depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the
surrounding facts. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended on any of the
following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other gross misconduct in
office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (6) willful disobedience
of any lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willful appearance as an
attorney for a party without authority. A lawyer may be disbarred or
suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178d92468f8e34ae7fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/23
4/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
219
MENDOZA, J.:
This refers to the Resolutions of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, Board of Governors (IBP-BOG), dated January 3, 20131
and March 22, 2014,2 adopting and approving the findings of the
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) which found Atty. Edgar B.
Francisco (Atty. Francisco) administratively liable for multiple
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and
recommended the penalty of suspension of one (1) year from the
practice of law.
On September 6, 2007, the CBD received a complaint, dated July
14, 2007,3 filed by Caroline Castañeda Jimenez (complainant)
against Atty. Francisco for multiple violations of the CPR. On
October 24, 2007, Atty. Francisco filed his Answer.4 On June 26,
2009, the mandatory conference was held and terminated. Only the
counsel for Atty. Francisco appeared. The notice of the said
conference addressed to complainant was returned with the notation
“unknown at the given address.” No new address was provided by
the complainant. Both parties were required to submit their
respective position papers. For this purpose, Atty. Francisco adopted
his Answer.
The Antecedents
Mario Crespo, otherwise known as Mark Jimenez (Jimenez), filed
a complaint for estafa against complainant, her sister Rosemarie
Flaminiano, Marcel Crespo, Geraldine Antonio,
_______________
1 Rollo, p. 278.
2 Id., at p. 309.
3 Id., at pp. 2-7.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178d92468f8e34ae7fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/23
4/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
220
_______________
221
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178d92468f8e34ae7fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/23
4/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
222
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178d92468f8e34ae7fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/23
4/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
_______________
223
The proceeds of the sale had already been farmed out to different
corporations established by complainant and her sister.
6. The frequent changes in stockholdings were premeditated in
order to steal the money of Mark Jimenez.
The Complaint
Complainant was shocked upon reading the allegations in the
complaint for estafa filed by Jimenez against her. She felt even more
betrayed when she read the affidavit of Atty. Francisco, on whom
she relied as her personal lawyer and Clarion’s corporate counsel
and secretary of Clarion. This prompted her to file a disciplinary
case against Atty. Francisco for representing conflicting interests.
According to her, she usually conferred with Atty. Francisco
regarding the legal implications of Clarion’s transactions. More
significantly, the principal documents relative to the sale and transfer
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178d92468f8e34ae7fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/23
4/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
_______________
224
_______________
225
226
Arguing that the execution of his affidavit in the estafa case was
but a truthful narration of facts by a witness, Atty. Francisco cited
Gonzaga v. Cañete,9 where the Court ruled that “the fact that one of
the witnesses for the defendant had been formerly the lawyer for the
defendant in this suit was no ground for rejecting his testimony.” In
this case, he merely attested to the fraudulent acts of complainant, in
the course of which, he defended and served Jimenez as a client.
This was likewise pursuant to the rule that unlawful and illegal
motives and purposes were not covered by the privilege. It was just
unfortunate that he fell for the ploy of complainant.
The Findings of the Investigating Commissioner
In the Commissioner’s Report,10 dated November 7, 2011, the
Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Jose I. Dela Rama, Jr.
(Investigating Commissioner), found Atty. Francisco guilty of
violations of the CPR and recommended that he be suspended for
one (1) year from the practice of law.
Initially, the Investigating Commissioner noted that the
subsequent affidavit of desistance executed by Jimenez in the estafa
case did not affect the investigation conducted by the CBD as it was
not an ordinary court which accepted compromises or withdrawals
of cases. After weighing on the claims of the parties, the
Investigating Commissioner concluded that nothing in the records
would show that a lawyer-client relationship existed between Atty.
Francisco and Jimenez.11 The circumstances would show that Atty.
Francisco was an original incorporator and shareholder of Clarion.
He was also the legal counsel and corporate secretary of the said
corporation, the articles of incorporation of which did not include
Jimenez as an original incorporator. He became a stockholder only
in
_______________
227
_______________
11 Jimenez was represented by the Law Office of Chavez Miranda Aseoche in the
estafa case he filed against the complainant.
12 Rollo, p. 278.
13 Id., at pp. 289-304.
228
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178d92468f8e34ae7fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/23
4/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
_______________
14 Id., at p. 294.
229
Canon 1 clearly mandates the obedience of every lawyer to laws
and legal processes. To the best of his ability, a lawyer is expected to
respect and abide by the law and, thus, avoid any act or omission
that is contrary thereto. A lawyer’s personal deference to the law not
only speaks of his character but it also inspires respect and
obedience to the law, on the part of the public. Rule 1.0, on the other
hand, states the norm of conduct to be observed by all lawyers.
Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or
unauthorized by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the
law is “unlawful.” “Unlawful” conduct does not necessarily imply
the element of criminality although the concept is broad
_______________
15 Id., at p. 309.
230
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178d92468f8e34ae7fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/23
4/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the law is to state the
obvious, but such statement can never be overemphasized.
Considering that, of all classes and professions, [lawyers are] most
sacredly bound to uphold the law, it is imperative that they live by
the law.”20
When Atty. Francisco was admitted to the Bar, he also took an
oath to “obey the laws,” “do no falsehood,” and conduct himself as a
lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion.21
_______________
231
In the facts obtaining in this case, 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,
such as the deeds of assignment and the GIS, Atty. Francisco, in his
professional capacity, feigned the validity of these transfers of
shares, making it appear that these were done for consideration
when, in fact, the said transactions were fictitious, albeit upon the
alleged orders of Jimenez. The Investigating Commissioner was
correct in pointing out that this ran counter to the deeds of
assignment which he executed as corporate counsel. In his long
practice as corporate counsel, it is indeed safe to assume that Atty.
Francisco is knowledgeable in the law on contracts, corporation law
and the rules enforced by the SEC. 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
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178d92468f8e34ae7fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/23
4/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
_______________
the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a
lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good
fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself these
voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help
me God.
232
tations, 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. If the Court allows this highly
irregular practice for the specious reason that lawyers are
constrained to obey their clients’ flawed scheming and
machinations, the Court would, in effect, sanction wrongdoing and
falsity. This would undermine the role of lawyers as officers of the
court.
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. While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to
the cause of his client, full devotion to his genuine interest, and
warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, as well as
the exertion of his utmost learning and ability, he must do so only
within the bounds of the law. It needs to be emphasized that the
lawyer’s fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of
truth and justice, and must be held within the bounds of reason and
common sense. His responsibility to protect and advance the
interests of his client does not warrant a course of action propelled
by ill motives and malicious intentions.22
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 10.0 of the CPR provides that “a lawyer
shall do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court, nor
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178d92468f8e34ae7fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/23
4/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
_______________
22 Plus Builders, Inc. v. Revilla, Jr., 533 Phil. 250, 261; 501 SCRA 615, 626
(2006), citing Choa v. Chiongson, 329 Phil. 270; 260 SCRA 477 (1996).
233
and the rule of law. They are expected to act with honesty in all
their dealings, especially with the court.23
From the foregoing, Atty. Francisco clearly violated his duties as
a lawyer embodied in the CPR, namely, to avoid dishonest and
deceitful conduct, (Rule 1.01, Canon 1) and to act with candor,
fairness and good faith (Rule 10.01, Canon 10). Also, Atty. Franciso
desecrated his solemn oath not to do any falsehood nor consent to
the doing of the same.
Rule on Conflicting Interests and Disclosure of Privileged
Communication
With respect to Atty. Francisco’s alleged representation of
conflicting interests and disclosure of privileged communication, the
Court deviates from the findings of the IBP-BOG.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR provides that, “[a] lawyer shall
not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.”24 “The
relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be
imbued with the highest level of trust and confidence. This is the
standard of confidentiality that must prevail to promote a full
disclosure of the client’s most confidential information to his/her
lawyer for an unhampered exchange of information between them.
Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential information
to his/her lawyer based on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost
secrecy and discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound
_______________
23 Id., citing Ting-Dumali v. Torres, 471 Phil. 1, 9; 427 SCRA 108, 115 (2004);
Radjaie v. Alovera, 392 Phil. 1, 17; 337 SCRA 244, 255-256 (2000); Ziga v. Arejola,
486 Phil. 37, 49; 443 SCRA 435, 445 (2004); Berbano v. Barcelona, 457 Phil. 331,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178d92468f8e34ae7fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/23
4/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
345; 410 SCRA 258, 264 (2003); Busiños v. Ricafort, 347 Phil. 687, 692; 283 SCRA
407, 414 (1997).
24 Aniñon v. Sabitsana, Jr., A.C. No. 5098, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 76, 81.
234
_______________
235
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178d92468f8e34ae7fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/23
4/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
would not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer
has to oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion to use
the confidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the
other as the two actions are wholly unrelated. It is enough that the opposing
parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and
the nature or conditions of the lawyer’s respective retainers with each of
them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both
clients.
From the foregoing, it is obvious that the rule on conflict of
interests presupposes a lawyer-client relationship. The purpose of
the rule is precisely to protect the fiduciary nature of the ties
between an attorney and his client. Conversely, a lawyer may not be
precluded from accepting and representing other clients on the
ground of conflict of interests, if the lawyer-client relationship does
not exist in favor of a party in the first place.
In determining whether or not Atty. Francisco violated the rule
on conflict of interests, a scrutiny of the parties’ submissions with
the IBP reveals that the complainant failed to establish that she was
a client of Atty. Francisco.
First, complainant’s claim of being Atty. Francisco’s client
remains unsubstantiated, considering its detailed refutation. All that
the complaint alleged was that Atty. Francisco was Clarion’s legal
counsel and that complainant sought advice and requested
documentation of several transfers of shares and the sale of the
Forbes property. This was only successful in showing that Atty.
Francisco, indeed, drafted the documents pertaining to the
transaction and that he was retained as legal counsel of Clarion.
There was no detailed explanation as to how she supposedly
engaged the services of Atty. Francisco as her personal counsel and
as to what and how she communicated with the latter anent the
dealings she had entered into. With the complaint lacking in this
regard, the unrebutted answer made by Atty. Francisco,
accompanied
236
237
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178d92468f8e34ae7fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/23
4/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
_______________
27 Rodica v. Lazaro, A.C. No. 9259, August 23, 2012, 679 SCRA 1, 9-10, citing
Aba Siao v. De Guzman, Jr., A.C. No. 7649, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 361, 372.
28 498 Phil. 49, 58-60; 459 SCRA 1, 9 (2005).
238
fear that what he tells the lawyer will be divulged or used against him,
and for the lawyer to be equally free to obtain information from the
prospective client.
x x x
(2) The client made the communication in confidence.
The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a
presumption of confidentiality. The client must intend the
communication to be confidential.
A confidential communication refers to information transmitted by
voluntary act of disclosure between attorney and client in confidence and by
means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no
third person other than one reasonably necessary for the transmission of the
information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was given.
Our jurisprudence on the matter rests on quiescent ground. Thus, a
compromise agreement prepared by a lawyer pursuant to the instruction of
his client and delivered to the opposing party, an offer and counter-offer for
settlement, or a document given by a client to his counsel not in his
professional capacity, are not privileged communications, the element of
confidentiality not being present.
(3) The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his
professional capacity.
The communication made by a client to his attorney must not be
intended for mere information, but for the purpose of seeking legal advice
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178d92468f8e34ae7fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/23
4/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
239
_______________
29 Rollo, p. 3.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178d92468f8e34ae7fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/23
4/16/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 744
240
_______________
241
Bar of the Philippines, and all courts in the Philippines, for their
information and guidance.
Atty. Francisco is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the date of
his receipt of this Decision so that the Court can determine the
reckoning point when his suspension shall take effect.
SO ORDERED.
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178d92468f8e34ae7fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/23