View full case

GERONIMO J. JIMENO v. ATTY. FLORDELIZA M. JIMENO

FACTS:

Complainant, Geronimo J. Jimeno, Jr., filed a complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline seeking the suspension/disbarment of respondent, Arty. Flordeliza M. Jimeno, for alleged unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct. Complainant claimed that respondent, who is his cousin, sold their parents' property through a falsified Deed of Absolute Sale. The subject deed bore the signature of their deceased mother, erroneously described their deceased father's marital status, and made him appear as the sole owner of the property when it is co-owned with their ten (10) siblings. Complainant further alleged that respondent violated lawyer-client privilege by mentioning unnecessary and un-called for matters in violation of her duty to keep confidential information revealed by their deceased father. In her defense, respondent claimed that she did not prepare the subject deed and that all necessary documents were transmitted to her from Canada. She also claimed that the sale was with the consent of all the siblings and that she signed the subject deed in good faith. The IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner recommended reprimanding respondent for her acts, which was approved by the IBP Board of Governors. Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration, and the Board increased the penalty to a six-month suspension. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied by the Board. The case was then forwarded to the Supreme Court for review.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether respondent lawyer's acts in relation to the subject Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and the subject deed constitute misconduct.

  2. Whether respondent lawyer failed to impress upon her client compliance with the pertinent laws in relation to the subject transaction.

  3. Whether the respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by allowing herself to become a party to a deed that contained falsehood and/or inaccuracies.

  4. Whether the respondent's claim of acting in good faith and relying on the assurance of responsibility from the clients can excuse her from administrative liability.

  5. Whether the respondent violated the rule on lawyer-client privilege.

  6. Whether or not the petitioners' non-compliance with the certification requirement under Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court is a ground for dismissing their petition for review.

RULING:

  1. The Court finds that respondent lawyer's acts in relation to the subject SPA and deed constitute blatant transgressions of her duties as a lawyer. It is evident that she fell short of her duty to impress upon her client compliance with the pertinent laws. Respondent voluntarily signed the subject deed, despite the patent irregularities in its execution, including the fact that it bore the signature of a deceased person and contained erroneous information about the property and the owner. Respondent's actions violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 15.07 of Canon 15, and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  2. The respondent is found guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by allowing herself to become a party to a deed that contained falsehood and/or inaccuracies.

  3. The respondent's claim of acting in good faith and relying on the assurance of responsibility from the clients cannot excuse her from administrative liability.

  4. The charge of violation of the rule on lawyer-client privilege lacks proper substantiation.

  5. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. The Court held that while it is true that the petitioners failed to attach the required certification against forum shopping, such failure is merely procedural and can be cured. The Court emphasized that the certification requirement is not jurisdictional in nature and its absence does not automatically result in the dismissal of the petition. To dismiss the petition solely on the ground of non-compliance with the certification requirement would be too harsh and unjust, especially when the petition raises substantial issues that warrant the attention and resolution of the Court.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Every lawyer is expected to be honest, imbued with integrity, and trustworthy in dealings with clients and the courts.

  • Lawyers have an obligation to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for law and legal processes.

  • Lawyers are bound by the Lawyer's Oath, which includes refraining from doing any falsehood in or out of court and conducting oneself with all good fidelity to the courts and clients.

  • The Code of Professional Responsibility governs every lawyer's relationship with the profession, courts, society, and clients.

  • Lawyers must observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all dealings with clients.

  • Lawyers should impress upon their clients compliance with the laws and principles of fairness.

  • Lawyers must represent their clients with zeal within the bounds of the law.

  • Lawyers shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of their clients.

  • Lawyers must be truthful and honest in their professional actions, and good faith and good intentions cannot justify violations of this duty.

  • Lawyers owe absolute fidelity to their clients' cause but must always stay within the bounds of the law, truth, and justice.

  • Lawyers must not pursue the interests of their clients at the expense of truth and justice, and their actions must be held within reason and common sense.

  • The support for a client's cause should never be attained at the expense of truth and justice.

  • Lawyers must adhere to the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  • Lawyers may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in their professional or private capacity, which shows them to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or unworthy to continue as officers of the court.

  • Affixing a lawyer's signature on a deed of sale containing falsehood and/or inaccuracies constitutes malpractice and gross misconduct.

  • Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are designed to ensure that lawyers remain faithful to the Lawyer's Oath and the responsibilities of their profession.

  • Non-compliance with the certification requirement under Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court is a procedural defect that can be cured and does not automatically result in the dismissal of the petition.

  • The certification requirement against forum shopping is not jurisdictional in nature.

  • Dismissing a petition solely based on non-compliance with the certification requirement would be too harsh and unjust, especially when the petition raises substantial issues.