Briones v. Jimenez
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the administration of the estate of the late Luz J. Henson. Atty. George C. Briones served as the Special Administrator, while Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez represented the Heirs of Luz J. Henson. A key point of contention arose from an April 3, 2002 Order by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, which, among other directives, ordered the accounting firm of Messrs. Alba, Romeo & Co. to conduct an audit of the estate's administration by Atty. Briones and fixed his commission at 1.8% of the estate's value, while also directing him to deliver the residue of the estate to the heirs. 2. Procedural History: Following the RTC's April 3, 2002 Order, Atty. Jimenez filed a notice of appeal on April 9, 2002, challenging the payment of commission to Atty. Briones. Subsequently, on April 29, 2002, Atty. Jimenez filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the orders appointing the auditing firm and denying their motion for recommendation. On July 26, 2002, Atty. Jimenez filed another Petition for Mandamus with the CA, alleging the respondent judge's refusal to approve his appeal. Atty. Briones contended that these actions constituted forum shopping. The CA, on February 11, 2003, ordered the respondent judge to give due course to Atty. Jimenez's appeal regarding the commission payment, without addressing the forum shopping issue. 3. The Petition: Atty. Briones filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 159130, seeking the dismissal of the appeal concerning his commission. Concurrently, Atty. Briones filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Jimenez, alleging violations of Revised Circular No. 28-91 on forum shopping and Rules 19.01 and 12.08 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint specifically cited Atty. Jimenez's actions in filing a criminal complaint and executing an affidavit against Atty. Briones for allegedly resisting the RTC Order, which Atty. Briones argued was an unfounded criminal charge intended to gain an improper advantage and constituted a violation of professional ethics. The Supreme Court, after referring the administrative complaint to the Office of the Bar Confidant, ultimately found Atty. Jimenez not guilty of forum shopping but reprimanded him for violating Rule 19.01 by prematurely filing a criminal complaint instead of seeking execution of the RTC order.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez is guilty of forum shopping. Whether respondent Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez violated Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing a criminal complaint and executing an affidavit against the complainant. Whether respondent Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez violated Rule 12.08 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by testifying in behalf of his client.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez not guilty of forum shopping and not guilty of violating Rule 12.08. However, the Court found sufficient ground to hold respondent guilty of violating Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and reprimanded him.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum shopping: The Court held that respondent was not guilty of forum shopping. The records showed that respondent filed a special civil action assailing the order appointing the auditor and a regular appeal assailing the order directing the payment of commission. The Court found that while there was an identity of parties, there were different causes of action and reliefs sought in these proceedings. Therefore, the essential elements of forum shopping were not present. On the issue of violating Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court found respondent guilty of violating Rule 19.01. The Court noted that respondent sent demand letters to the complainant to comply with the RTC Order to deliver the residue of the estate. When the complainant did not reply, respondent filed a criminal complaint for refusal to obey a lawful order. However, the Court pointed out that the RTC Order directing the delivery of the residue was part of a larger order where the approval of the special administrator's report was suspended pending an audit. Consequently, the residue had not yet been definitively determined. The Court held that respondent should have first filed a motion for execution with the RTC instead of immediately resorting to a criminal complaint, making the prosecution premature. The Court emphasized that fair play requires filing the proper motion for execution rather than subjecting the complainant to a premature criminal prosecution. While the Court acknowledged that lawyers must represent clients zealously, this must be within the bounds of the law and employing only fair and honest means. The Court found no evidence of malice or bad faith, but deemed the act as unfair dealing. On the issue of violating Rule 12.08 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court found no fault on the part of respondent in executing an affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, citing the case of Santiago v. Rafanan. This implies that the execution of the affidavit did not constitute improper testimony in behalf of his client under the circumstances presented, as it was likely in defense of his clients' interests during a preliminary investigation.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer violates Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing a criminal complaint against a special administrator for failure to deliver the residue of an estate without first seeking a writ of execution from the court, as such action is considered premature and an unfair means to attain the client's objective.