2.jimenez vs. Francisco

A.C. No.
10548 December 10, 2014CAROLINE CASTANEDA JIMENEZ, Complainant, vs.

ATTY. EDGAR B. FRANCISCO, Respondent.
 Atty. Francisco was the lawyer of Jimenez and the legal counsel of Clarion Realty & Dev’t
Corp (CRDC), a corporation where Mark Jimenez owned a substantial number of shares of
stock.
 On two separate occasions, some of the shares of stock were transferred to Caroline Jimenez,
making her the largest shareholder of CRDC.
 CRDC with a capitalization of only P5M, then simulated a loan of P81M in order to purchase
the Forbes property.
 CRDC purchased the Forbes property in the amount of ₱117M but the deed of sale only
reflected the selling price of ₱78M. Further, the money used as the purchase price was not
reflected in the books of Clarion.
 The said property was eventually sold by Caroline to Philmetro for the amount of ₱118M
without Jimenez’s knowledge. This sale was again undervalued at ₱78Mper the deed of sale.
 Jimenez filed a complaint of estafa against Caroline, supported with Atty Francisco’s affidavit
averring the above facts.
 Caroline on the other hand filed a disbarment case against Atty Francisco for representing
conflicting interests alleging that 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.
Issue: Whether or not Atty Francisco violated Canon 1 and the lawyer’s oath
Held: Yes. Atty. Francisco clearly violated his duties as a lawyer embodied in the CPR, namely, to
avoid dishonest and deceitful conduct, (Rule 1.01, Canon 1). Also, Atty. Franciso desecrated his
solemn oath not to do any falsehood nor consent to the doing of the same.
Membership in the legal profession is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in
law, but also known to possess good moral character. Lawyers should act and comport themselves
with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the public’s faith in the
legal profession. When Atty. Francisco was admitted to the Bar, he also took an oath to "obey the
laws," "do no falsehood," and conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and
discretion.
In the facts obtained in this case, he is guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct
when he admitted to having allowed his corporate client, CRDC, to actively misrepresent to the SEC,
the significant matters regarding its corporate purpose and subsequently, its corporate shareholdings.
In the documents submitted to the SEC, such as the deeds of assignment and the GIS.
Atty. Francisco, in his professional capacity, feigned the validity of these transfers of shares,
making it appear that these were done for consideration when, in fact, the said transactions were
fictitious, albeit upon the alleged orders of Jimenez. As corporate secretary of Clarion, it was his duty
and obligation to register valid transfers of stocks. Nonetheless, he chose to advance the interests of
his clientele with patent disregard of his duties as a lawyer. Worse, Atty. Francisco admitted to have
simulated the loan entered into by Clarion and to have undervalued the consideration of the effected
sale of the Forbes property. He permitted this fraudulent ruse to cheat the government of taxes.
Unquestionably, therefore, Atty. Francisco participated in a series of grave legal infractions and was
content to have granted the requests of the persons involved.
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, effective upon receipt of
this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that a commission of the same or similar offense in the
future will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty.
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR provide:
CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT
FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.0 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Canon 1 clearly mandates the obedience of every lawyer to laws and legal processes. To the best of his ability, a lawyer is expected to
respect and abide by the law and, thus, avoid any act or omission that is contrary thereto. A lawyer’s personal deference to the law not
only speaks of his character but it also inspires respect and obedience tothe law, on the part of the public.
Rule 1.0, on the other hand, states the norm of conduct to be observed by all lawyers.
Any act or omission that is contraryto, or prohibited or unauthorized by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law is
"unlawful." "Unlawful" conduct does not necessarily imply the element of criminality although the concept is broad enough to include
such element. To be "dishonest" means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or betray; be unworthy; lacking in integrity,
16
honesty, probity, integrity in principle, fairness and straight forwardness while conduct that is "deceitful" means the proclivity for
17
fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice or device that is used upon another who is ignorant of the true facts, to the
prejudice and damage of the party imposed upon. 18

2.jimenez vs. Francisco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2.jimenez vs. Francisco

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2.jimenez vs. Francisco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.C. No.

10548 December 10, 2014CAROLINE CASTANEDA JIMENEZ, Complainant, vs.

Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR provide:

You might also like