Figueras v. Jimenez

Figueras and Victoria, Jr. v. Atty. Jimenez A.C. No.
9116, March 12, 2014
Doctrine: A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of

protecting the latters interest with utmost diligence. In failing to file the appellants brief
on behalf of his client, respondent had fallen far short of his duties as counsel.
Facts: Sps. Santander filed a suit for damages against Congressional Village
Homeowners Association for building a concrete wall which abutted their property and
denied them of their right of way. Atty. Jimenez was the counsel of record and handling
lawyer for the Association. After trial, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of the
Spouses. The Association appealed to the CA but such was dismissed on the ground
that the original period to file the appellants brief had expired 95 days even before the
first motion for extension of time to file said brief was filed. The CA also stated that the
grounds adduced for the said motion as well as the six subsequent motions for
extension of time to file brief were not meritorious.
8 years later petitioners, as members of the Association, filed a Complaint for

Disbarment against respondent before the IBP-CBD for violation of the CPR, for his
negligence in handling the appeal. In his answer, respondent claimed that although his
law firm represented the Association, the case was actually handled by an associate
lawyer in his law office. As the partner in charge of the case, he exercised general
supervision over the handling counsel and signed the pleadings prepared by said
handling lawyer. Upon discovery of the omissions of the handling lawyer, sanctions
were imposed on the handling lawyer and he thereafter personally took responsibility
and spent personal funds to negotiate a settlement with Federico Santander at no cost
to the Association. No damage whatsoever was caused to the Association.
Respondent likewise alleged that present case is only an act of retaliation after he
defeated Figueras in the election for President of the Association and the case the
Association filed against the petitioners after the latter refused to pay their association
dues. Respondent added that petitioners have no personality to file the disbarment
complaint as they were not his clients; hence, there was likewise no jurisdiction over the
complaint on the part of the IBP-CBD.
Issue: Whether Atty, Jimeno was negligent in handling the case of the Associaiton
against the Spouses Santander?
Held: Yes. Records show that respondent filed the first motion for extension of time to
file appellants brief 95 days after the expiration of the reglementary period to file said
brief, thus causing the dismissal of the appeal of the Association. To justify his
negligence, respondent alleges that he was merely the supervising lawyer and that the
fault lies with the associate lawyer. His contention, however, is belied by the records for
it is noted that respondent had filed with the CA an Urgent Motion for Extension, which
he himself signed on behalf of the law firm, stating that a previous motion had been filed
but "due to the health condition of the undersigned counselhe was not able to finish
said Appellants Brief within the fifteen (15) day period earlier requested by him." Thus, it
is clear that respondent was personally in charge of the case.
A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting

the latters interest with utmost diligence. In failing to file the appellants brief on behalf
of his client, respondent had fallen far short of his duties as counsel as set forth in Rule
12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which exhorts every
member of the Bar not to unduly delay a case and to exert every effort and consider it
his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Rule 18.03, Canon
18 of the same Code also states that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence
and diligence and shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
The Court finds no merit in respondents contention that complainants have no

personality to file a disbarment case against him as they were not his clients and that
the present suit was merely instituted to harass him. The procedural requirement
observed in ordinary civil proceedings that only the real party-in-interest must initiate the
suit does not apply in disbarment cases. Any interested person or the court motu proprio
may initiate disciplinary proceedings. The right to institute disbarment proceedings is not
confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from
the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and the
only basis for the judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charges. Atty Jimeno is
found administratively liable suspended for 1 month.

Figueras v. Jimenez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Figueras v. Jimenez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Figueras v. Jimenez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Figueras and Victoria, Jr. v. Atty. Jimenez A.C. No.

9116, March 12, 2014

Doctrine: A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of

8 years later petitioners, as members of the Association, filed a Complaint for

A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting

The Court finds no merit in respondents contention that complainants have no

You might also like