CRISANTA JIMENEZ, A.C.
No. 6712
Panganiban, C.J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Ynares-Santiago,
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and
Chico-Nazario, JJ.
ATTY.
JOEL JIMENEZ,
Respondent. Promulgated:
February 6, 2006
x ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
On
September 20, 2002, petitioner Crisanta Jimenez filed
a complaint[1] before
the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
against respondent Atty. Joel Jimenez for allegedly engaging in dishonest,
immoral, or deceitful conduct; failing to account property received from a
client; and failing to deliver property upon demand of a client.
Petitioner alleged that on September
11, 2001, respondent received in trust several documents for the purpose of
transferring the registration thereof in her name. Due to a misunderstanding between
petitioner’s husband and respondent’s father, petitioner demanded on October
17, 2001 the return of the documents but respondent failed and refused to turn
over the same. Petitioner also claimed
that on September 17, 2001, respondent surreptitiously took from her residence
a black bag containing important documents. She thus instituted cases for
qualified theft and estafa against the respondent and
his father. In addition, she filed the
instant administrative case for respondent’s disbarment.
In his answer, respondent admitted
that he received on September 11, 2001 certain documents from Aurora Realon, an agent of petitioner’s husband, Antonio Jimenez,
his uncle, the latter being a brother of his father, with instructions to
deliver the same to his father. On
October 17, 2001, petitioner demanded the return of the documents but his
father refused pending an accounting of his share in the business venture with
Antonio and in pursuance with the agency agreement between the two. Respondent also disclaimed any responsibility
to account or deliver property to petitioner due to the absence of any
lawyer-client relationship between them. He alleged that petitioner and her
husband are persecuting him to collaterally attack his father, with whom they
have a serious misunderstanding regarding their agency agreement.
He also averred that on January 14,
2002, the Makati Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the
complaint for estafa for lack of merit and
insufficiency of evidence.[2] Petitioner’s appeal to the Department of
Justice was denied on August 5, 2003.[3] As regards the case for qualified theft, the
Justice Secretary reversed and set aside the resolution of the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Parañaque City finding probable
cause and directed the latter to move for the withdrawal of the complaint
pending before the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque
City, Branch 274.[4]
It appears, however, that the trial
court denied the motion to withdraw information for qualified theft thus,
respondent and his father filed a petition for certiorari before the appellate
court docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 75138.
On March 13, 2003, the Court of Appeals ordered the trial judge to grant
the motion to withdraw information and to dismiss the criminal complaint for
qualified theft against respondent and his father.[5]
In the report[6] dated
September 30, 2004, the Investigating Commissioner[7]
concluded that respondent could not be held administratively liable for the
charges against him and thus recommended the dismissal of the complaint, which
report and recommendation was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of
Governors on November 4, 2004.
On April 28, 2005, petitioner filed a
petition for review[8] before
this Court assailing the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors adopting and
approving the recommendation of the investigating commissioner to dismiss the
administrative case. She argued that the
IBP erred in finding that there was insufficient evidence to hold respondent
administratively liable.
In his comment,[9]
respondent alleged that on June 30, 2005, this Court rendered a decision in Jimenez v.
Jimenez[10] which upheld the decision of the
Court of Appeals to grant the motion to withdraw the information in the
criminal case of qualified theft against him and his father.
We agree with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
The factual milieu of the present
case lacks evidence of any dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct committed
by respondent. Petitioner anchors this
administrative complaint on the alleged crimes committed by respondent. However, the complaints for qualified theft
and estafa were both ordered dismissed for lack of
merit and insufficiency of evidence.
The documents received by respondent
from Realon were not held by him in trust for the
petitioner. What was delivered to respondent was the material or physical
possession of the documents and not the juridical possession thereof. Juridical possession of said documents
pertains to the receipt by respondent’s father being the attorney-in-fact of
the petitioner and Antonio by virtue of a special power of attorney.
As held in Jimenez v. Jimenez:[11]
Contrary to petitioner’s
claim in said Complaint-Affidavit that respondent Jose Jimenez admitted to
real-estate agent Aurora Realon that his
son-co-respondent Joel Jimenez got hold of the documents and turned them over
to him, no such claim appears in Aurora’s affidavit submitted by petitioner in
support of her complaint.
Even in the Joint Affidavit
of Carlos and Eduardo Jimenez also submitted by petitioner in support of her
complaint, there is no showing that respondent Joel took the documents and
turned them over to respondent Jose, as the affiants merely stated having
suggested to respondent Jose Jimenez “to return all the documents that were
taken by his son . . . from the house of Antonio Jimenez, together with the
documents that were entrusted to him by Aurora Realon
. . . ,” which alleged taking by Joel Jimenez was a mere conclusion of the
affiants, hence, cannot serve to prove actual taking of the documents by
respondent Joel Jimenez.
What is gathered through
from petitioner’s evidence is that some of the documents were entrusted to
respondent Jose Jimenez in his capacity as attorney-in-fact and the others were
turned over by Aurora Realon to said respondent through
his son co-respondent Joel Jimenez. Parenthetically,
if the documents have remained in the possession of respondent Jose Jimenez,
any question bearing thereon could be raised in the Complaint, as amended,
filed by respondent Jose Jimenez before the RTC of Pampanga,
against petitioner and her spouse, for “Collection of Sum of Money, Accounting
and Damages x x x.
The long-settled rule is that the
dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence against
an accused who is also a respondent in an administrative case does not necessarily
foreclose the administrative proceeding against him or carry with it the relief
from administrative liability.[12]
The quantum of evidence needed in a criminal case is different from that
required in an administrative case. In
the former, proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed;[13]
while the latter, substantial evidence,[14]
defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion,[15]
is enough. However, if the complainant
fails to meet the required standard or to establish his/her case by clear,
convincing, and satisfactory evidence[16]
as in this case, this Court shall not hesitate to dismiss any disbarment
proceedings against any lawyer. After all, the power to disbar must be
exercised with great caution, and may be imposed only in a clear case of
misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as
an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar.[17]
In the instant case, no sufficient evidence was presented to prove that respondent engaged in dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. There was no factual or legal basis, much less substantial ground to hold respondent administratively liable.
Likewise, we find no merit in the allegations of petitioner that respondent failed to account and deliver property she demanded from him. As correctly pointed out by respondent, he has no duty to account anything to the petitioner as there is no attorney-client relationship between them. The only relationship between them is that of an estranged aunt and a nephew-in-law; whereby the former once asked the latter to act as a courier between her and his father. Besides, with or without any of these relations, the respondent has nothing to account or deliver to petitioner as the documents in question were never within his juridical possession nor were they unlawfully taken by him.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED. The Resolution of the Board of
Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines dated November 4, 2004 in
CBD Case No. 02-1012 is AFFIRMED. The administrative complaint for disbarment
of respondent Atty. Joel Jimenez is DISMISSED
for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
Chairperson
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, pp.
1-5.
[2]
[3] Id. at 139-144.
[4] Id. at 38-39.
[5]
[6] Id. at 285-298.
[7] Wilfredo E. J. E. Reyes.
[8] Rollo, pp. 300-313.
[9] Id. at 347-366.
[10] G.R. No. 158148, June 30, 2005, 462 SCRA 516. Penned by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales and concurred in by Associate Justice (now Chief Justice) Artemio V. Panganiban and Associate Justices Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Renato C. Corona and Cancio C. Garcia.
[11]
[12] Office of the Court Administrator v. Cañete,
A.M. No. P-91-621,
[13] Rules of Court, Rule 133, Sec. 2.
[14] Id., Sec. 5.
[15] Mollaneda v. Umacob, 411 Phil. 159, 176 (2001).
[16] Urban Bank, Inc. v. Peña, 417 Phil. 70, 78 (2001).
[17] Alitagtag v. Garcia, 451 Phil. 420, 426 (2003).