FLORA NARIDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTORNEY JAIME S. LINSANGAN, RESPONDENT.

Narido versus Linsangan

The Case

This is an administrative matter involving two members of the Bar, Flora Narido as complainant against Attorney Jaime S. Linsangan, and by counter-charge Attorney Linsangan against Attorney Rufino B. Risma. The complaint against Attorney Linsangan was that he violated his attorney's oath by submitting a perjured statement, while his counter-complaint held Attorney Risma accountable for instigating the filing of a false and malicious complaint. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats charges of professional misconduct between brother attorneys, how it weighs the defense of a client's cause against the rules on attorney's fees, and how it reminds the Bar that bickering between counsel detracts from the dignity of the profession.

Procedural History

The complaint and the counter-complaint were filed directly with the Supreme Court as administrative cases against the two attorneys. On September 9, 1971, the Court referred the administrative cases to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Solicitor General submitted his report and recommendation on May 31 of the year the case was decided. The Court then resolved the matter on the basis of that report, exculpating both respondents on the charges of misconduct but admonishing Attorney Risma on the matter of his attorney's fees.

Facts

Attorneys Linsangan and Risma represented adverse parties in a workmen's compensation case. Attorney Risma's client was Flora Narido, whom the report described as a destitute woman who needed every centavo of the award granted her. In the course of the compensation proceedings, Attorney Linsangan offered in evidence an affidavit of a certain Milagros M. Vergel de Dios. Narido claimed that this affidavit was perjured, and she and Attorney Risma threatened Attorney Linsangan with disbarment should he insist on offering it. He insisted, and the affidavit was filed.

Flora Narido then filed the administrative complaint against Attorney Linsangan, charging that he violated the attorney's oath by submitting a perjured statement. Attorney Linsangan answered, denying the complaint, and in turn blamed Attorney Risma for having instigated his client to file a false and malicious complaint, which he said caused embarrassment, humiliation, and defamation to a brother in the profession. He believed that Attorney Risma acted by virtue of a financial interest in the award.

The investigation found that there was nothing improper in presenting the affidavit, its alleged falsity not having been proven, and that there was no evidence showing Attorney Linsangan's awareness of any falsity. As to Attorney Risma, the investigation found no direct evidence of bad faith in advising his client to file the complaint, and it appeared that he had agreed to collect fifteen per cent of the recovery obtained by his client, contrary to the explicit provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act allowing only a maximum of ten per cent, and that only where the case is appealed. He had not, however, received a single centavo from his client, and had even advanced some of the necessary expenses.

Issues

• Whether or not Attorney Linsangan violated his attorney's oath by submitting an allegedly perjured affidavit in the workmen's compensation case.
• Whether or not Attorney Risma should be held liable for instigating the filing of an unfounded and malicious disbarment complaint against a brother attorney.
• Whether or not Attorney Risma may be held accountable for stipulating a fifteen per cent share of his client's award as attorney's fees.

Applicable Provisions

The Workmen's Compensation Act, as discussed in the decision, limits attorney's fees in workmen's compensation cases, and the Court states the rule as follows:

It being shown in the investigation, however, although it was not one of the charges in the counter-complaint filed against him that respondent Risma would seek to collect fifteen per cent of the recovery obtained by his client, contrary to the explicit provision in the Workmen's Compensation Act allowing only a maximum of ten per cent and that only where the case is appealed, there was likewise a recommendation for admonition or reprimand.

This provision bears on the case because it fixes the ceiling on what counsel may recover from a workmen's compensation award, and it is the standard against which Attorney Risma's fifteen per cent stipulation was measured.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court dismissed the complaint against Attorney Linsangan for lack of merit. The investigation found as a fact that there was nothing improper in presenting the affidavit, its alleged falsity not having been proven. Even if it were otherwise, there was no showing that he had violated his attorney's oath, for there was no evidence that he was aware of any falsity, assuming the statements were indeed false, and he testified that he had no intention of misleading any court or judicial body or of violating his oath.

On the second issue, the Court exculpated Attorney Risma from the charge of having instigated the filing of an unfounded suit. There being no direct evidence of bad faith, the benefit of the doubt was resolved in his favor. The Court preferred to attribute the complaint not to financial interest but to his zeal in championing the cause of a poor client, and it held that the charge of instigating disbarment proceedings against a brother attorney with improper motives and without just ground necessarily fails.

On the third issue, the Court held that the contract for a fifteen per cent share was contrary to law. It declared the contract of no force and effect, and admonished Attorney Risma to exercise greater care in ascertaining how much under our law he could recover by way of attorney's fees. The penalty was admonition only because he had made no effort to collect on the contract and had even advanced expenses for a poor client.

Doctrine

A charge of violating the attorney's oath by submitting a perjured affidavit cannot prosper without proof that counsel knew the affidavit was false or intended to mislead the court. Good faith in the presentation of evidence is presumed, and the mere filing of a statement later alleged to be false does not by itself constitute professional misconduct.

A complaint for disbarment filed by one attorney against another will not be attributed to improper motives absent direct evidence of bad faith. Where the circumstances equally support a counsel's dedication to a poor client's cause, the benefit of the doubt is resolved in his favor.

Attorney's fees in workmen's compensation cases are governed by the statutory ceiling, which allows a maximum of ten per cent and only where the case is appealed. A stipulation for a higher percentage is of no force and effect, and counsel is admonished to exercise greater care in ascertaining the lawful amount of his fees.

Finally, mutual bickerings and unjustifiable recriminations between brother attorneys detract from the dignity of the legal profession and will not receive the sympathy of the Court.

Disposition

The complaint against Attorney Linsangan was dismissed for lack of merit, Attorney Risma was exculpated from the charge of instigating an unfounded suit but admonished to exercise greater care as to his attorney's fees, and the contract for fifteen per cent of the award was declared of no force and effect.

Remember This

Remember that a lawyer may present evidence he believes to be true without violating his oath, but he may never stipulate attorney's fees beyond the statutory ceiling in workmen's compensation cases. Examiners use this case to test the limits of attorney's fees under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Court's disapproval of bickering and recrimination between brother attorneys.