G.R. No. 132159 - People vs. Givera y Garote

A complaint was filed on July 10, 2012 by Geronimo J. Jimeno, Jr. (complainant) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD).
The complaint sought the suspension/disbarment of respondent Atty. Flordeliza M. Jimeno for alleged violations including unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct, and for breaching her duty to preserve client confidences as prescribed by the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

The dispute centered on the sale of the Malindang property in Brgy. Gintong Silahis, San Jose, Quezon City, owned by the late Spouses Geronimo P. Jimeno, Sr. and Perla de Jesus Jimeno.
The core document under scrutiny was a Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 8, 2005 (subject deed) executed by the respondent in her capacity as attorney-in-fact of Geronimo Sr.
Complainant alleged multiple irregularities in the subject deed:

The deed bore the signature of Perla, who had died on May 19, 2004—over a year before the document was executed.
It erroneously described Geronimo Sr. as married to Perla, despite him being a widower at the time.
It portrayed Geronimo Sr. as the sole owner of the property when, in fact, the property was co-owned with his ten children.
The residence and postal address of Geronimo Sr. was misstated, conflicting with the address provided in a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated July 9, 2004.

Additional allegations included that the respondent discussed “unnecessary and un-called for matters” regarding the complainant’s family, which was seen as a breach of lawyer-client confidentiality under Canon 21 of the CPR.

The respondent denied responsibility for preparing or causing the preparation of the subject deed and claimed that critical documents were transmitted to her from Canada by her cousin and sister, Lourdes Jimeno-Yaptinchay.
She argued that the sale, including the execution of various documents (such as the Special Power of Attorney and a Deed of Waiver of Rights and Interests), was done with the full consent of all the Jimeno children, including the complainant.
The respondent maintained that her signature was affixed in good faith to endorse the sale to the buyer, Melencio G. Aquino, Jr.
She further contended that portions of her communication with the complainant’s lawyer, particularly an email dated April 24, 2012, were privileged and not a breach of client confidentiality.

The IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner, in a Report and Recommendation dated June 14, 2013, noted that even though the sale appeared to have unanimous consent among the Jimeno children, the respondent had become a party to a document containing clear falsehoods and material inaccuracies.
The Investigating Commissioner held that such actions violated:

The duty to refrain from falsehood.
The obligation to employ only fair and honest means in achieving a client’s lawful objectives.
The duty to not allow a client to dictate legal procedures aberrant from established ethical standards.

Following these findings, the IBP Board of Governors approved a reprimand in Resolution No. XXI-2014-678 dated September 28, 2014.
After a motion for reconsideration by the complainant and subsequent deliberations, the imposed penalty was increased to a suspension from the practice of law for six months as per Resolution No. XXII-2016-278 dated April 29, 2016.
An extended resolution submitted by IBP-CBD Director Ramon S. Esguerra further detailed that the respondent’s actions were flagrant breaches of her professional duties, particularly under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR.

Whether respondent Atty. Flordeliza M. Jimeno should be held administratively liable for her actions in connection with the execution of the subject deed and the handling of pertinent documents.

Did the respondent violate the Lawyer’s Oath and ethical obligations by becoming party to a document containing falsehoods and material inaccuracies?
Is the invocation of good faith and reliance on assurances by the Jimeno children sufficient to absolve her of liability for the alleged irregularities?
Does her conduct also breach her duty related to preserving client confidences, notwithstanding her claim of privileged communication in one of the emails?