Narido v. Linsangan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Flora Narido filed an administrative complaint against respondent Attorney Jaime S. Linsangan, alleging that he violated his attorney's oath by submitting a perjured statement in a workmen's compensation case. Respondent Linsangan, in turn, accused respondent Attorney Rufino B. Risma of instigating his client, Flora Narido, to file a false and malicious complaint against him, causing him embarrassment, humiliation, and defamation. Procedural History: The Supreme Court referred the administrative cases against both respondents to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Solicitor General submitted the report on May 31, 1974. The Petition: The administrative complaint was filed by Flora Narido against Attorney Jaime S. Linsangan. Attorney Linsangan filed a counter-accusation against Attorney Rufino B. Risma. The core of the complaint against Linsangan was the alleged submission of a perjured statement. The core of the counter-accusation against Risma was the alleged instigation of a false and malicious complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Attorney Jaime S. Linsangan violated his attorney's oath by submitting a perjured statement. Whether respondent Attorney Rufino B. Risma instigated the filing of a false and malicious complaint against Attorney Linsangan. Whether respondent Attorney Rufino B. Risma's contract for attorney's fees was valid.
Ruling
The complaint against Attorney Jaime S. Linsangan was dismissed for lack of merit. Respondent Attorney Rufino B. Risma was exculpated from the charge of instigating an unfounded suit but was admonished to exercise greater care in ascertaining lawful attorney's fees. The contract for fifteen percent (15%) of the award was declared to be of no force and effect.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Attorney Jaime S. Linsangan violated his attorney's oath by submitting a perjured statement: The complaint against Attorney Jaime S. Linsangan was dismissed for lack of merit. The investigation did not yield sufficient evidence to substantiate the charge that he violated his attorney's oath by submitting a perjured statement. In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to establish the charges with the requisite degree of evidence. Without such proof, the complaint must necessarily fail, and the respondent attorney is entitled to be exculpated from the accusation. On Whether respondent Attorney Rufino B. Risma instigated the filing of a false and malicious complaint against Attorney Linsangan: Respondent Attorney Rufino B. Risma was exculpated from the charge of instigating the filing of an unfounded suit. The Solicitor General's report indicated that it was more likely the plight of his destitute client, Mrs. Narido, who needed every centavo of the award, that compelled Attorney Risma to advise his client to file the case. There was no direct evidence presented to show alleged bad faith or improper motive on the part of Attorney Risma. Consequently, the benefit of the doubt was resolved in his favor, leading to the dismissal of this charge. On Whether respondent Attorney Rufino B. Risma's contract for attorney's fees was valid: While Attorney Risma was exculpated from instigating an unfounded suit, the investigation revealed that he sought to collect fifteen percent (15%) of the recovery obtained by his client. This percentage exceeded the ten percent (10%) maximum allowed by the Workmen's Compensation Act, especially when the case was not appealed. Although the contract for attorney's fees was declared to be of no force and effect, Attorney Risma was only admonished. This leniency was due to the fact that he had not collected any amount from his client, had faithfully served her, and had even advanced necessary expenses for her case, demonstrating his dedication despite the improper fee arrangement.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court dismissed the disbarment complaint against respondent Attorney Jaime S. Linsangan for lack of merit, finding no evidence of him submitting a perjured statement. Concurrently, respondent Attorney Rufino B. Risma was exculpated from the charge of instigating an unfounded suit but was admonished for entering into a contract for attorney's fees exceeding the statutory limit, despite not attempting to collect and having advanced expenses for his impoverished client. The Court declared the contract for fifteen percent (15%) of the award to be of no force and effect.