A.C. No. 9116 - Figueras vs. Jimenez

Congressional Village Homeowneras Association, Inc. managed the affairs of homeowners in Congressional Village, Quezon City.
On January 7, 1993, Spouses Federico and Victoria Santander initiated a civil suit for damages against the Association and Ely Mabanag before Branch 104 of the RTC of Quezon City.
The complaint pertained to the construction of a concrete wall that abutted the Santanders’ property, allegedly denying them the right-of-way and violating a local ordinance (Quezon City Ordinance No. 8633, S-71) which regulates access to subdivision or community streets.

The Law Firm of Gonzalez Sinense Jimenez and Associates represented the Association, with Atty. Diosdado B. Jimenez acting as the counsel of record and handling lawyer.
Following the trial, on October 4, 1996, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of the Santanders.
The Association appealed the RTC decision, and on February 5, 1999, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution dismissing the appeal due to the late filing of the appellantas brief—filed 95 days past the deadline—and denying several subsequent motions for extension of time. The CA resolution became final.

On April 11, 2007, complainants Nestor Figueras and Bienvenido Victoria, Jr., who were members of the Association, filed a Complaint for Disbarment against respondent Atty. Diosdado B. Jimenez before the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD).
The charges against respondent included negligence in handling the appeal case against the homeowneras association and a willful violation of his duties as an officer of the court. Specifically, he was charged with breaching Rule 12.03, Canon 12; Canon 17; and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In his Verified Answer with Counter Complaint, respondent denied administrative liability, attributing the errors to an associate lawyer in his office, despite being the supervising lawyer and having signed pleadings himself.

On October 3, 2008, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-CBD found respondent liable for the alleged violations, recommending a suspension of three to six months along with a warning regarding future similar offenses.
Subsequently, on February 19, 2009, the IBP Board of Governors adopted a resolution suspending respondent from the practice of law for six months, after modifying the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, which the IBP Board of Governors denied on June 26, 2011, characterizing the motion as a reiteration of matters already considered.

Respondent contended that complainants lacked the requisite personality to instigate disbarment proceedings, arguing that they were not his clients, and further claimed that the case was vengefully filed after losing an election for the Association’s presidency in 1996.
Respondent claimed that his negligence was overstated, alleging personal remedial actions (such as funding a settlement with Federico Santander) that negated any damage to the Association.
He additionally sought, as a counterclaim, the dismissal of the disbarment case along with sanctions against complainants for filing a baseless complaint.

Whether complainants, despite not being his actual clients, had the requisite legal standing to file a disbarment complaint against respondent.
Whether the procedural rules applicable in disbarment cases allowed for the filing of a complaint by any interested party without the necessity of being the direct client.

Whether the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) correctly determined administrative liability against respondent for his failure to file the appellantas brief within the reglementary period.
Whether the imposed penalty of suspension (initially recommended for six months by the IBP Board) was appropriate given the nature and extent of the alleged misconduct.

Whether respondent’s claim that he merely exercised general supervision over his law firm and that the error was attributable to a subordinate lawyer held merit.
Whether the records demonstrated that respondent was personally involved in filing the motion for extension and thus should bear full responsibility for the ensuing dismissal of the appeal.