Jimenez v. Francisco, A.C. No. 10548, December 10, 2014
A.C.
No. 10548.December 10, 2014
MENDOZA, J.:
Facts: Complainant
was shocked upon reading the allegations in the complaint for estafa filed by
Jimenez against her. She felt even more betrayed when she read the affidavit of
Atty. Francisco, on whom she relied as her personal lawyer and Clarion’s
corporate counsel and secretary of Clarion. This prompted her to file a
disciplinary case against Atty. Francisco for representing conflicting
interests. According to her, she usually conferred with Atty. Francisco
regarding the legal implications of Clarion’s transactions. More significantly,
the principal documents relative to the sale and transfer of Clarion’s property
were all prepared and drafted by Atty. Francisco or the members of his law
office. Atty. Francisco was the one who actively participated in the transactions
involving the sale of the Forbes property. Without admitting the truth of the
allegations in his affidavit, complainant argued that its execution clearly
betrayed the trust and confidence she reposed on him as a lawyer. For this
reason, complainant prayed for the disbarment of Atty. Francisco.
Issue:
whether or not Atty. Francisco violated the rule on conflict of interests.
Ruling: Yes.
First, complainant’s claim of
being Atty. Francisco’s client remains unsubstantiated, considering its
detailed refutation. All that the complaint alleged was that Atty. Francisco
was Clarion’s legal counsel and that complainant sought advice and requested
documentation of several transfers of shares and the sale of the Forbes
property. This was only successful in showing that Atty. Francisco, indeed,
drafted the documents pertaining to the transaction and that he was retained as
legal counsel of Clarion. There was no detailed explanation as to how she
supposedly engaged the services of Atty. Francisco as her personal counsel and
as to what and how she communicated with the latter anent the dealings she had
entered into. With the complaint lacking in this regard, the unrebutted answer
made by Atty. Francisco, accompanied with a detailed narrative of his
engagement as counsel of Jimenez and Clarion, would have to prevail.
Second, there is a stark disparity
inthe amount of narrative details presented by the parties. Atty. Francisco’s
claim thathe was the counsel of Clarion and Jimenez, and not of the
complainant, was clearly established in a sworn statement executed by Jimenez
himself. Complainant’s evidence pales in comparison with her claims of being
the client of Atty. Francisco couched in general terms that lacked
particularity of circumstances.
Third, noteworthy is the fact that
complainant opted not to file a reply to Atty. Francisco’s answer. This could
have given her opportunity to present evidence showing their professional
relationship. She also failed to appear during the mandatory conference with
the IBP-CBD without even updating her residential address on record. Her
participation in the investigation of the case apparently ended at its filing.
In suspension or disbarment
proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence, and the burden of
proof rests upon the complainant to clearly prove the allegations in the
complaint by preponderant evidence. Preponderance of evidence means
that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has
greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence which is more
convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in
opposition thereto. Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or
not there is preponderance of evidence, the court may consider the following: (a)
all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses’ manner
of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the
facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts towhich they
testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the
witnesses’ interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so
far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of witnesses,
although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater
number.
Markedly, Atty. Francisco could have prevented
his entanglement with this fiasco among the members of Jimenez’s family by
taking an upfront and candid stance in dealing with Jimenez’s children and
complainant. He could have been staunch in reminding the latter that his tasks
were performed in his capacity as legal counsel for Clarion and Jimenez. Be
that as it may, Atty. Francisco’s indiscretion does not detract the Court from
finding that the totality of evidence presented by the complainant miserably
failed to discharge the burden of proving that Atty. Francisco was her lawyer.
At most, he served as the legal counsel of Clarion and, based on the
affirmation presented, of Jimenez. Suffice it to say, complainant failed to
establish that Atty. Francisco committed a violation of the rule on conflict of
interests.
Consequently, the rule on lawyer-client
privilege does not apply. In Mercado v. Vitriolo,
In fine, the factors are as follows: 1. (1)
There exists an attorney-client relationship, or a prospective attorney-client
relationship, and it is by reason of this relationship that the client made the
communication; (2) The client made the communication in confidence; and (3) The
legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his professional capacity.
0 Comments