You are on page 1of 1




Mario Crespo (Mark Jimenez) filed a complaint for estafa against

complainant Caroline Jimenez, He alleged that he was the
true and beneficial owner of the shares in the Clarion
Corporation incorporated for purchase of Forbes property.

The stockholders of Clarion, except to Myla, executed a deed of

assignment in favour of Caroline Jimenez, who was then the
common-law partner of Mark Jimenez.

Clarion simulated a loan from Caroline. Clarion then purchased

the Forbes property from Gerardo Contreras. To effect the
undervalued sale, Myla handed a check funded by Mark
Jimenez. Further, the money used as the purchase price was
not reflected in the books of Clarion.

Later on, Mark Jimenez transferred on his shares to Caroline by

another deed of assignment.

While Mark was in prison in US, he learned from Atty. Francisco

that his son Marcel Crespo approached Caroline and threatened
her and succeeded in transferring her nominal shares in Clarion
to Antonio, through another deed of assignment. All transactions
were reflected in the GIS.

Mark was informed by Atty. Francisco that through fraudulent

means, complainant and her co-respondents in estafa case, put
the Forbes property for sale, which was eventually sold the
same to Philmetro without Mark’s knowledge, but the same was

Mark alleged that through fraud, Caroline was able to sell the
Forbes property using his own money and failed to remit the
proceeds thereof to him.

Respondent executed an affidavit in support of Mark Jimenez’s

alleged participation. He alleged that when he asked Caroline if
she obtained Mark’s consent with regard the sale, she answered
in the affirmative.

On the other hand, Caroline alleged that she was shocked and
felt betrayed in the affidavit executed by Atty. Francisco as the
latter actively participated in the transactions and was asked by
the former for legal consequences of the sale. Atty. Francisco
also acted as the personal lawyer, corporate lawyer and
secretary of Clarion. Hence, she filed a disbarment complaint
against Atty. Francisco.

In his reply, Atty. Francisco his services was initially engaged by

Mark Jimenez and hence was only acting pursuant to the latter’s
orders. He argued that he violated neither privileged
communication nor represented conflicting interests. He also
denied being the legal counsel of Caroline but merely assisted
her in some matters and that he only acted as a lawyer of Mark
and as a legal counsel of Clarion.

The IBP found Atty. Francisco guilty of violating the Canons 1

and 10 of CPR and the Lawyer’s Oath and suspended him for 1
year from practice of law,

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Francisco is guilty for violation of CPR and

Lawyer’s Oath.