A.C. No. 12012 - Jimeno, Jr. vs. Jimeno

Complainant: Geronimo J. Jimeno, Jr.; Respondent: Atty. Flordeliza M. Jimeno (cousin to complainant).
Property: "Malindang property" located in Brgy. Gintong Silahis, San Jose, Quezon City, covered by TCT No. RT-52411.

Complainant filed a Complaint with the IBP-CBD dated July 10, 2012 seeking suspension/disbarment of respondent for: (a) unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01, Canon 1 CPR) — specifically falsifying a public document (a Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 8, 2005); and (b) violation of duty to preserve client confidences (Rule 21.01, Canon 21 CPR).
Grounds of falsification alleged:

The subject Deed of Absolute Sale (dated Sept. 8, 2005) bore the signature of Perla de Jesus Jimeno (wife of the late Geronimo P. Jimeno, Sr.), who died on May 19, 2004 — more than a year before the deed.
The deed erroneously described Geronimo Sr. as married to Perla (when he was a widower), declared him the absolute and registered owner in fee simple despite the property being co-owned by him and his ten children, and misstated Geronimo Sr.'s residence/postal address (stated as "421 (formerly 137) Mayon Street, Quezon City" instead of "10451 Bridgeport Road, Richmond, British Columbia" as shown in the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated July 9, 2004).
SPA (dated July 9, 2004) authorized respondent to administer and sell Geronimo Sr.'s Philippine real properties; documents of sale (including SPA and a Deed of Waiver dated July 4, 2005 executed by the Jimeno children) were alleged to have been prepared in Canada and transmitted to respondent.

Complainant alleged respondent, in correspondence, revealed unnecessary personal matters (e.g., comments about alleged illegitimate children of complainant's father), thus breaching lawyer-client confidentiality.
Alleged purchaser: Melencio G. Aquino, Jr.; respondent signed the subject deed as attorney-in-fact of Geronimo Sr. and endorsed it to the buyer.

Respondent denied preparing the documents; asserted documents were prepared in Canada and merely transmitted to her by sister Lourdes Jimeno‑Yaptinchay.
Claimed sale was with consent of all Jimeno children (including complainant) and that she signed the deed in good faith before forwarding to the buyer.
Argued email communications to complainant's counsel were privileged and that Canon 21 (client confidentiality) is personal and intransmissible; contended communications did not arise from confidences of the late Geronimo Sr.

IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner (Report & Recommendation dated June 14, 2013) found respondent allowed herself to become party to a document containing falsehoods/inaccuracies and recommended reprimand for violations of duties to refrain from falsehood, employ honest means, and avoid letting client dictate improper procedure. IBP Board adopted the recommendation and initially reprimanded respondent (Resolution No. XXI-2014-678, Sept. 28, 2014).
Complainant filed motion for reconsideration (May 1, 2015); Board granted motion and increased penalty to suspension from practice for six (6) months (Resolution No. XXII-2016-278, Apr. 29, 2016) and directed IBP-CBD Director Ramon S. Esguerra to prepare an extended resolution.
Director Esguerra's Extended Resolution found respondent's acts to be blatant transgressions of Rule 1.01 (Canon 1 CPR), rejected reliance on assurances by the Jimeno children, and emphasized lawyer's duty to avoid acts that lessen public trust in the legal profession.
Respondent's reconsideration was denied by the Board (Resolution No. XXII-2017-1135, May 27, 2017). Records were transmitted to the Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 139-B, Rules of Court.

The essential question transmitted to the Court: whether respondent should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of.
Decision rendered by the Supreme Court on July 2, 2018 (A.C. No. 12012), adopting IBP findings and imposing a six‑month suspension.

Whether respondent engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (violating the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR) by allowing and signing a public document (Deed of Absolute Sale) containing falsehoods/inaccuracies.
Whether respondent violated duties under Canon 15 (Rule 15.07) and Canon 19 (Rule 19.01) of the CPR by failing to impress upon her client compliance with law and by not employing fair and honest means in pursuing client objectives.

Whether respondent breached lawyer-client privilege/Canon 21 (Rule 21.01) by divulging confidential matters in email communications.
If misconduct established, what is the appropriate administrative sanction (reprimand, suspension, or disbarment) considering jurisprudential precedents and the gravity of the misconduct.