G.R. No. 159130. April 27, 2007. ATTY. GEORGE C. BRIONES, Complainant, vs. ATTY. JACINTO D. JIMENEZ, Respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Atty. George Briones was the Special Administrator of the Estate of Luz J. Henson. Respondent Atty. Jacinto Jimenez was the counsel for the heirs. An RTC Order dated April 3, 2002, directed, among other things, the payment of complainant’s commission and the delivery of the estate residue to the heirs. Respondent, for the heirs, filed a notice of appeal questioning the commission and later a petition before the CA assailing related orders. Complainant alleged these constituted forum shopping.
Subsequently, respondent assisted the heirs in filing a criminal complaint against complainant for allegedly resisting the RTC’s order to deliver the estate residue. Complainant then filed this disbarment case, accusing respondent of forum shopping and violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically Rule 19.01 (prohibiting unfounded criminal charges to gain improper advantage) and Rule 12.08 (regulating a lawyer testifying for a client), by initiating the criminal case to coerce compliance while the estate proceedings were ongoing.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Jacinto Jimenez is administratively liable for forum shopping and for violating Rules 19.01 and 12.08 of the CPR.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the charges for forum shopping and violation of Rule 12.08 but found respondent guilty of violating Rule 19.01. On forum shopping, the Court found no identity of causes of action or reliefs prayed for between the appeal on the administrator’s commission and the petition challenging the audit order; thus, the element of forum shopping was absent. Regarding Rule 12.08, the act of executing an affidavit in support of a criminal complaint, by itself, does not constitute the “testifying” contemplated by the rule, which pertains to giving testimony in court.
However, the Court found a violation of Rule 19.01. While a lawyer must represent a client with zeal, this duty must be exercised within the bounds of law and fairness. By initiating a criminal complaint for disobedience of a court order to pressure the administrator for delivery of estate funds—despite the absence of a final executory order or a writ of execution—respondent employed an unfair and improper means to advance his clients’ interests. This tactic prematurely subjected complainant to criminal prosecution to gain leverage in the civil case. The Court emphasized that lawyers are officers of the court tasked with promoting the efficient administration of justice. Considering the absence of proven malice or bad faith, and since disbarment is a severe penalty reserved for the gravest misconduct, the Court imposed the penalty of reprimand.