A.C. No.
12012, July 02, 2018 many unnecessary and un-called for matters
like [his] father having allegedly (sic)
GERONIMO J. JIMENO, illegitimate children" when his lawyer
JR., Complainant, v. ATTY. FLORDELIZA M. requested for copies of the titles and other
JIMENO, Respondent. documents respecting the properties covered
by the SPA, in violation of her duty to keep in
confidence whatever informations were
DECISION revealed to her by the late Geronimo Sr. in the
course of their professional relationship
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: (lawyer-client privilege).8
This case stemmed from a Complaint1 dated In her defense,9 respondent claimed that: (a)
July 10, 2012 filed by complainant Geronimo J. she was not the one who prepared or caused
Jimeno, Jr. (complainant) before the Integrated the preparation of the subject deed and that all
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar the necessary documents for the sale of the
Discipline (CBD), seeking the Malindang property, including the subject SPA
suspension/disbarment of respondent Arty. and the Deed of Waiver of Rights and
Flordeliza M. Jimeno (respondent) for alleged: Interests10 dated July 4, 2005 executed by the
(a) unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful Jimeno children in their parents' favor
conduct, specifically, by falsifying a public (collectively, documents of sale), were merely
document, in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of transmitted by her cousin and respondent's
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR); sister, Lourdes Jimeno-Yaptinchay (Lourdes),
and (b) violation of her duty to preserve her from Canada; (b) the sale of the Malindang
client's confidences in violation of Rule 21.01, property was with the consent of all the Jimeno
Canon 21 of the CPR. children, including complainant; and (c) she
merely signed the subject deed in good faith
before endorsing the same to the buyer,
The Facts
Melencio G. Aquino, Jr. (Aquino), for
disposition.11 Respondent further claimed that
Complainant claimed to have discovered that
the contents of her email dated April 24, 2012
respondent, who is his cousin, sold the
to complainant's lawyer are "privileged
property of his parents, the late Spouses
communication" which are relevant to the
Geronimo P. Jimeno, Sr. (Geronimo Sr.) and
subject of inquiry, and they did not arise from
Perla de Jesus Jimeno (Perla; collectively,
the confidences and secrets of the late
Spouses Jimeno) located at Brgy.
Geronimo Sr. She challenged complainant's
GintongSilahis, San Jose, Quezon City
invocation of Canon 21, contending that the
(Malindang property) covered by Transfer
matter is personal to a client, and is
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-
intransmissible in character. 12
52411,2 through a Deed of Absolute Sale3dated
September 8, 2005 (subject deed) executed by
respondent as attorney-in-fact of Geronimo The Report and Recommendation of the
Sr.4 He claimed that the subject deed was IBP-CBD
falsified considering that: (a) the same bore the
signature of Perla who had already passed In a Report and Recommendation13 dated June
away on May 19, 2004,5 or more than a year 14, 2013, the IBP-CBD Investigating
prior to the execution thereof; (b) Geronimo Sr. Commissioner observed that while the sale of
was erroneously described as married to Perla, the Malindang property appeared to be a
when he was already a widower at the time; (c) unanimous decision of the Jimeno children, and
Geronimo Sr. was made to appear as the the documents of sale which were all prepared
absolute and registered owner in fee simple of in Canada were merely sent to respondent in
the property when the same is co-owned by the Philippines, she allowed herself to become
him and his ten (10) children (Jimeno children); a party to a document which contained
and (d) Geronimo Sr.'s residence and postal falsehood and/or inaccuracies in violation of
address was stated as "421 (formerly 137) her duties as a lawyer, namely: (a) to refrain
Mayon Street, Quezon City," when the same from doing or consenting to any falsehood; (b)
should have been "10451 Bridgeport Road, to employ only fair and honest means to attain
Richmond, British Columbia" as indicated in the the lawful objectives of his client; and (c) to
Special Power of Attorney6 dated July 9, 2004 refrain from allowing his client to dictate the
(subject SPA) he executed, authorizing procedure in handling the case.14Accordingly,
respondent to administer and sell his real he recommended that respondent be
properties in the Philippines.7 Complainant reprimanded for her acts,15 which was adopted
likewise alleged that respondent mentioned "so and approved by the IBP Board of Governors
(Board) in Resolution No. XXI-2014-67816 dated
September 28, 2014. Fundamental is the rule that in his dealings
with his client and with the courts, every
Dissatisfied, complainant filed a motion for lawyer is expected to be honest, imbued with
reconsideration17 dated May 1, 2015. The integrity, and trustworthy. These expectations,
motion was granted by the Board in Resolution though high and demanding, are the
No. XXII-2016-27818 dated April 29, 2016, professional and ethical burdens of every
increasing the imposed penalty to suspension member of the Philippine Bar, for they have
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) been given full expression in the Lawyer's Oath
months. The same Resolution likewise directed that every lawyer of this country has taken
IBP-CBD Director Ramon S. Esguerra (Director upon admission as a bona fide member of the
Esguerra) to prepare an extended resolution to Law Profession,24 thus:
explain the Board's action.19 I,_________________, do solemnly swear that I
will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Director Esguerra thereafter submitted an Philippines; I will support its Constitution and
Extended Resolution20 holding that obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the
respondent's dishonest acts in relation to the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do
subject SPA and the subject deed constitute no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
blatant transgressions of her duties as a lawyer any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly
under Rule 1.01 of the CPR. He noted that promote or sue any groundless, false or
respondent never denied knowledge of Perla's unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the
demise and her own description of her close same. I will delay no man for money or malice,
relationship with the complainant's family and will conduct myself as a lawyer according
bolsters such knowledge. However, instead of to the best of my knowledge and discretion
advising Geronimo Sr. and the Jimeno children with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to
to execute an extrajudicial settlement of the my clients; and I impose upon myself this
estate of Perla to enable the proper registration voluntary obligation without any mental
of the Malindang property in their names reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me
preliminary to the sale to Aquino, she God.25 (Emphasis supplied)
voluntarily signed the subject deed despite the
The Lawyer's Oath enjoins every lawyer not
patent irregularities in its execution. He also
only to obey the laws of the land but also
rejected her reliance on the purported
to refrain from doing any falsehood
assurances made by complainant's siblings,
in or out of court or from consenting to the
holding that her oath as a lawyer mandates her
doing of any in court, and to conduct himself
to be cautious of the consequences of her
according to the best of his knowledge and
action and enjoins her to refrain from any act
discretion with all good fidelity to the courts as
or omission which might lessen the trust and
well as to his clients. Every lawyer is a servant
confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity,
of the law, and has to observe and maintain
honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.21
the rule of law, as well as be an exemplar
worthy of emulation by others.26
Aggrieved, respondent moved for
reconsideration,22 which was denied by the
In line with the letter and spirit of the Lawyer's
Board in Resolution No. XXII-2017-113523 dated
Oath, the Court has adopted and instituted the
May 27, 2017.
Code of Professional Responsibility27 (CPR) to
govern every lawyer's relationship with his
Pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court,
profession, the courts, the society, and his
the records of the case were transmitted to this
clients.28
Court.
Pertinent to this case are Rule 1.01 of Canon 1,
Rule 15.07 of Canon 15, and Rule 19.01 of
The Issue Before the Court Canon 19, which provide:
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the
The essential issue in this case is whether or constitution, obey the laws of the land
not respondent should be held administratively and promote respect for law and legal
liable for the acts complained of. processes.
The Court's Ruling Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
The Court adopts and approves the findings of conduct.
the IBP, as the same were duly substantiated
by the records. x xxx
law, it is imperative that they live by the
CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, law.31
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients. As a lawyer, respondent is fully aware of the
requisites for the legality of a voluntary
x xxx conveyance of property, particularly, the scope
of the rights, interests, and participation of the
Rule 15.07 - A lawyer shall impress upon his parties/signatories to the deed of sale, and the
client compliance with the laws and the consequent transfer of title to the properties
principles of fairness. involved, yet, she chose to disregard the
patent irregularities in the subject deed and
x xxx voluntarily affixed her signature thereon.
Notably, respondent did not specifically admit
CANON 19 - A lawyer shall represent his client nor deny knowledge of the demise of Perla, but
with zeal within the bounds of the law. her claim of such strong ties to complainant's
family bolsters knowledge thereof.32 Besides,
Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair her awareness of Perla's demise even prior to
and honest means to attain the lawful the affixture of her signature on the subject
objectives of his client x xx. (Italics supplied) deed may be sufficiently inferred from her
averments, among others, that: (a) when Perla
After a judicious examination of the records,
got sickly sometime in the early part of 2004,
the Court finds itself in complete agreement
Lourdes began giving her a series of phone
with Director Esguerra's finding that
calls regarding the disposition of Spouses
respondent's acts in relation to the subject SPA
Jimeno's real properties;33 and (b) she was
and the subject deed constitute blatant
never remiss in her duty to inform the Jimeno
transgressions of her duties as a lawyer, as
children, through Lourdes and Teresita Jimeno-
ordained by Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR,
Roan, about the legal repercussions and legal
which engraves an overriding prohibition
complications of pushing through and
against any form of misconduct.29 Additionally,
continuing with the negotiations with the
the Court finds that respondent fell short of her
prospective buyers of the Malindang
duty to impress upon her client compliance
property,34which admittedly continued even
with the pertinent laws in relation to the
after the demise of Perla.35 However, despite
subject transaction. In this case, while
being aware that something was amiss with the
seemingly aware of the demise of Perla that
documents of sale, respondent allowed herself
rendered the Malindang property a co-owned
to become a party to the subject deed which
property of Geronimo Sr. and the Jimeno
contained falsehood and/or inaccuracies in
children, instead of advising the latter to settle
violation of her duties as a lawyer.
the estate of Perla to enable the proper
registration of the property in their names
Respondent's claims that she acted in good
preliminary to the sale to Aquino, she
faith,36 and that she relied on the assurance of
voluntarily signed the subject deed, as
full responsibility from the ten (10) Jimeno
attorney-in-fact of Geronimo Sr., despite the
children37 cannot relieve her of administrative
patent irregularities in its execution. These
liability. As a lawyer, she cannot invoke good
irregularities are: (a) the fact that it bore the
faith and good intentions as justifications to
signature of Perla, who was already deceased;
excuse her from discharging her obligation to
(b) the erroneous description of Geronimo Sr.
be truthful and honest in her professional
as married to Perla despite the latter's demise
actions since her duty and responsibility in
and as being the absolute owner in fee simple
that regard are clear and unambiguous.38
of the Malindang property which is a co-owned
property; and (c) the erroneous statement of
Thus, despite complainant's admission that he
Geronimo Sr.'s residence and postal address.
"agreed in principle for the sale of the
properties of their parents in the Philippines to
That respondent had no hand in the
generate funds for their support and medical
preparation of the documents of sale is of no
attention x x x,"39 the Court cannot turn a blind
moment because as a lawyer, she is
eye on respondent's act of permitting
expected to respect and abide by the laws
untruthful statements to be embodied in public
and the legal processes.30 To say that
documents which she herself signed. To allow
lawyers must at all times uphold and respect
this highly irregular practice for the specious
the law is to state the obvious, but such
reason that lawyers are constrained to obey
statement can never be overemphasized.
their clients' wishes, even if for laudable
Considering that, of all classes and professions,
purposes, would effectively sanction
lawyers are most sacredly bound to uphold the
wrongdoing and falsity which would undermine lawyer was suspended from the practice of law
the role of lawyers as officers of the court. for six (6) months for permitting untruthful
statements to be embodied in public
Time and again, the Court has reminded documents. Similarly, in Bongalonta v.
lawyers that their support for the cause of their Castillo45 the same penalty was imposed on a
clients should never be attained at the expense lawyer who committed falsehood in violation of
of truth and justice. While a lawyer owes the Lawyer's Oath and of the CPR. In view of
absolute fidelity to the cause of his client, full the antecedents in this case, the Court finds it
devotion to his genuine interest, and warm zeal appropriate to sustain the recommended
in the maintenance and defense of his rights, suspension from the practice of law for six (6)
as well as the exertion of his utmost learning months.
and ability, he must do so only within the
bounds of the law. It is worthy to emphasize As a final word, the Court echoes its
that the lawyer's fidelity to his client must not unwavering exhortation in Samonte v.
be pursued at the expense of truth and justice, Abellana:46
and must be held within the bounds of reason Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers
and common sense.40Respondent's are designed to ensure that whoever is
responsibility to protect and advance the granted the privilege to practice law in
interests of her client does not warrant a this country should remain faithful to the
course of action not in accordance with the Lawyer's Oath. Only thereby can lawyers
pertinent laws and legal processeses. preserve their fitness to remain as members of
the Law Profession. Any resort to falsehood or
All told, respondent is found guilty of violating deception x xx evinces an unworthiness to
the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule continue enjoying the privilege to practice law
15.07 of Canon 15, and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 and highlights the unfitness to remain a
of the CPR by allowing herself to become a member of the Law Profession. It deserves for
party to the subject deed which contained the guilty lawyer stern disciplinary
falsehood and/or inaccuracies. sanctions.47 (Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Flordeliza M.
On the other hand, the Court finds no merit in
Jimeno (respondent) is found GUILTY of
the charge of violation of the rule41 on lawyer-
violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01 of Canon
client privilege42 for lack of proper
1, Rule 15.07 of Canon 15, and Rule 19.01 of
substantiation.
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, she
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
is SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the
Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred
practice of law, with a STERN WARNING that
or suspended for any of the following grounds:
any repetition of the same or similar acts will
(1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other gross
be punished more severely.
misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral
conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving
Respondent's suspension from the practice of
moral turpitude; (5) violation of the Lawyer's
law shall take effect immediately upon her
Oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful
receipt of this Decision. She is DIRECTED to
order of a superior court; and (7) willful
immediately file a Manifestation to the Court
appearance as an attorney for a party without
that her suspension has started, copy furnished
authority. A lawyer may be disbarred or
all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where she
suspended for misconduct, whether in his
has entered her appearance as counsel.
professional or private capacity, which shows
him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the
probity and good demeanor, or unworthy to
Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to
continue as an officer of the court. 43
respondent's personal record as an attorney;
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its
Verily, the act of respondent in affixing her
information and guidance; and the Office of the
signature on a deed of sale containing
Court Administrator for circulation to all courts
falsehood and/or inaccuracies constitutes
in the country.
malpractice and gross misconduct in her office
as attorney. Case law provides that in similar
SO ORDERED.
instances where lawyers committed falsehood
or knowingly allowed the commission of
falsehood by their clients, the Court imposed
upon them the penalty of suspension from the
practice of law. In Jimenez v. Francisco,44 a
