A.M. No. 944 July 25, 1974
Flora Narido, complainant, vs. Attorney Jaime S. Linsangan, respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a workmen’s compensation claim where two attorneys, Jaime S. Linsangan and Rufino B. Risma, represented adverse parties. Complainant Flora Narido, the claimant and client of Atty. Risma, charged Atty. Linsangan with violating his attorney’s oath by allegedly submitting a perjured affidavit from one Milagros M. Vergel de Dios. When required to answer, Atty. Linsangan denied the charge and filed a counter-complaint against Atty. Risma, accusing him of instigating his client to file a false and malicious complaint to embarrass and defame a brother lawyer, allegedly due to a financial interest in the award.
The Supreme Court referred the matter to the Solicitor General for investigation. The investigation revealed that Atty. Linsangan’s submission of the affidavit was not improper, as its alleged falsity was not proven. There was no evidence showing he was aware of any falsity, assuming it existed. Regarding Atty. Risma, the investigation found no direct evidence of bad faith or improper motive in advising the complaint; it was viewed more as an overzealous effort to aid his destitute client. However, it was uncovered that Atty. Risma had contracted for a 15% attorney’s fee, exceeding the 10% maximum allowed by the Workmen’s Compensation Act for appealed cases.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether Atty. Linsangan violated his oath by submitting a perjured affidavit; (2) whether Atty. Risma instigated an unfounded administrative case with improper motives; and (3) the propriety of Atty. Risma’s contracted attorney’s fee.

RULING

The Court dismissed the complaint against Atty. Linsangan for lack of merit. There was no proof that the affidavit was perjured, and more critically, no evidence that he knowingly presented false evidence. The charge against Atty. Risma for instigating an unfounded suit was also dismissed, as the Solicitor General found his actions were driven by zealous advocacy for his impoverished client rather than proven bad faith. However, the Court admonished Atty. Risma for contracting a 15% attorney’s fee, which contravened the explicit statutory limit of 10% for appealed workmen’s compensation cases. The contract was declared void. The penalty was limited to an admonition because he had not actually collected the fee, had advanced expenses for his client, and had served her faithfully. The Court, citing Javier v. Cornejo, reminded both lawyers that mutual bickering detracts from the profession’s dignity. The resolution was concurred in by the Court en banc.