Jimenez vs Francisco, AC no.

10548, December 10, 2014

Facts:

Mark Jimenez filed a complaint for estafa against petitioner Caroline Castaneda Jimenez, all of this
escalated since the respondent, Atty. Edgar Francisco, corporate counsel and secretary of Clarion and
legal counsel of Mark Jimenez, gave a personal affidavit that the petitioner clearly manifested the selling
of Forbes property and misappropriated and converted the funds for their personal use and benefit.
Surprised by the complaint, petitioner filed a disciplinary case against the respondent for representing
conflicting interests. According to the petitioner, Francisco is usually conferred by the petitioner
regarding the legal implications of Clarion’s transactions. Moreover, it was the respondent who
participated in the transactions involving the sale of the Forbes property. Petitioner claims that she was
clearly betrayed the trust and confidence she reposed on the respondent as a lawyer. Petitioner prays
for disbarment of Atty. Francisco.

Issue

Whether or Not the rule on privileged communication was violated

Ruling

No, the court ruled that there was no clear relationship between the Jimenez and Atty. Francisco. As
stated, the petitioner failed to establish a professional link between her and Atty. Francisco. Moreover,
there was no breach of lawyer-client privilege since Atty. Francisco is a corporate counsel of Clarion who
Jimenez only seek a legal advice and not as a client. Elements of lawyer-client privilege are:

1. There must be an attorney-client relationship, or a prospective attorney-client

relationship, and it is by reason of this relationship that the client made the
communication
2. The client made the communication in confidence.
3. The legal advice must be sought from attorney in his professional capacity