Case Digest (A.C. No. 6691)
Facts:
The case involves an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Atty. George C. Briones against Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez, dated August 12, 2004. The complaint arose from a series of legal proceedings concerning the estate of the late Luz J. Henson. Atty. Briones was appointed as the Special Administrator of the estate, while Atty. Jimenez represented the heirs of the deceased. On April 3, 2002, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila issued an order in SP Proc. No. 99-92870, which mandated an audit of the estate's administration by the accounting firm Alba, Romeo & Co. and fixed Atty. Briones' commission at 1.8% of the estate's value. Following this, on April 9, 2002, Atty. Jimenez filed a notice of appeal against the April 3 order, questioning the commission payment to Atty. Briones. Subsequently, he filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA) on April 29, 2002, challenging the appointment of the auditing f...
Case Digest (A.C. No. 6691)
Facts:
Background of the Case
- The administrative complaint for disbarment was filed by Atty. George C. Briones against Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez for alleged violations of Revised Circular No. 28-91 on forum-shopping and Rules 19.01 and 12.08 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- The case originated from the April 3, 2002 Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila in SP Proc. No. 99-92870, involving the estate of the late Luz J. Henson.
- Atty. Briones was the Special Administrator of the Estate of Luz J. Henson, while Atty. Jimenez represented the heirs of the deceased.
Key Events
RTC Order of April 3, 2002:
- The RTC ordered an audit of Atty. Briones' administration of the estate.
- The court suspended the approval of Atty. Briones' report as Special Administrator but fixed his commission at 1.8% of the estate's value.
- Atty. Briones was directed to deliver the residue of the estate to the heirs, with deductions from the share of Lilia J. Henson-Cruz for advances made to her.
Atty. Jimenez's Actions:
- On April 9, 2002, Atty. Jimenez filed a notice of appeal with the RTC, questioning the commission paid to Atty. Briones.
- On April 29, 2002, he filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 70349, challenging the appointment of the auditing firm and the denial of their motion for reconsideration.
- On July 26, 2002, he filed another Petition for Mandamus, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 71844, alleging that the RTC judge unlawfully refused to approve their timely appeal.
Forum Shopping Allegation:
- Atty. Briones accused Atty. Jimenez and the heirs of forum shopping, claiming that the filing of multiple petitions constituted a violation of Revised Circular No. 28-91.
Criminal Complaint:
- Atty. Jimenez assisted the heirs in filing a criminal complaint against Atty. Briones for allegedly resisting and disobeying the RTC Order dated April 3, 2002.
- Atty. Briones argued that this was an unfounded criminal charge intended to coerce him into delivering the estate residue without a writ of execution.
Court of Appeals Decision:
- On February 11, 2003, the CA granted the petition and ordered the RTC judge to give due course to the appeal regarding the commission paid to Atty. Briones.
Supreme Court Proceedings:
- Atty. Briones filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 159130.
- The Court referred the administrative complaint against Atty. Jimenez to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for evaluation.
OBC Recommendation:
- The OBC recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint, finding no merit in the allegations of forum shopping or violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Issue:
- Whether Atty. Jimenez is guilty of forum shopping for filing multiple petitions in different courts.
- Whether Atty. Jimenez violated Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing an unfounded criminal complaint against Atty. Briones.
- Whether Atty. Jimenez violated Rule 12.08 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by testifying in support of the criminal complaint.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
- Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez was found guilty of violating Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and was reprimanded by the Supreme Court. The Court dismissed the other charges for lack of merit.