Case Digest (A.C. No. 944)
Facts:
In two consolidated administrative cases heard en banc, Flora Narido filed a complaint alleging that Attorney Jaime S. Linsangan submitted a perjured affidavit in a workmen's compensation matter, and Jaime S. Linsangan countercharged that Attorney Rufino B. Risma instigated the filing of the complaint against him. The Court referred the matters to the Solicitor General on September 9, 1971; a report was submitted on May 31, and the Court promulgated this resolution on July 25, 1974.The Solicitor General recommended exculpation of both respondents for lack of proof of bad faith, but recommended admonition of Risma for entering a fifteen percent attorney's fee agreement contrary to the Workmen's Compensation Act; the Court adopted these recommendations, dismissed the complaint against Linsangan, exculpated Risma of instigation, and admonished him while declaring the fee agreement void.
Issues:
- Did Attorney Jaime S. Linsangan violate the attorney's oath by submitting a perjured affidavit?
- Did Attorney Rufino B. Risma instigate the filing of disbarment proceedings against Linsangan with improper motives?
- Was the fifteen percent attorney's fee agreement between Risma and his client enforceable under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Case Digest (A.C. No. 944)
Facts:
Flora Narido filed an administrative complaint against Attorney Jaime S. Linsangan alleging that he violated the attorney's oath by submitting a perjured affidavit of Milagros M. Vergel de Dios in a workmen's compensation case. Atty. Linsangan denied the charge and countered that Atty. Rufino B. Risma, who represented the adverse party, had instigated Narido to file the complaint maliciously, thereby causing embarrassment, humiliation and defamation to a fellow practitioner. The Court referred both matters to the Solicitor General for investigation on September 9, 1971, and received a report and recommendation on May 31, 1974. The Solicitor General found that the affidavit was properly received, that the alleged falsity was not proven and that there was no evidence that Atty. Linsangan knew of any falsity; the Solicitor General also found no direct evidence that Atty. Risma acted with bad faith in advising his impoverished client to file the administrative complaint, but noted that Atty. Risma had entered into a contract with his client for fifteen percent of the award contrary to the explicit provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act limiting recoverable attorney's fees.Issues:
Did Atty. Jaime S. Linsangan violate the attorney's oath by submitting a perjured affidavit in the workmen's compensation proceeding? Did Atty. Rufino B. Risma improperly instigate the filing of Administrative Case No. 944 against Atty. Linsangan with improper motives and without just ground? Was Atty. Risma's agreement to collect fifteen percent of the award from his client contrary to the Workmen's Compensation Act and subject to disciplinary sanction?Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Case Digest (A.C. No. 944)
Facts:
- Background of the dispute
- Flora Narido filed an administrative complaint alleging that Attorney Jaime S. Linsangan violated the attorney's oath by submitting a perjured affidavit in a workmen's compensation case.
- Jaime S. Linsangan countered by denying the allegation and by accusing Attorney Rufino B. Risma of instigating Narido to file a false and malicious complaint, causing "embarrassment, humiliation and defamation" of respondent Linsangan.
- Alleged perjured affidavit and related events
- The affidavit in question was that of Milagros M. Vergel de Dios, which Narido claimed was perjured and urged withdrawal; Linsangan refused to withdraw it despite threats of disbarment from Narido and Atty. Risma.
- The affidavit was nevertheless filed in the proceedings.
- Allegation of instigation and fee arrangement
- Linsangan alleged that Risma, "by virtue of his financial interest in the Award," instigated the filing of Administrative Case No. 944 to obtain a shortcut to winning the case and to intimidate, deprive a party of due process, and defame Linsangan.
- During investigation, it appeared that Risma had entered into a contract with his client for a fifteen percent attorney's fee, contrary to the explicit provision in the Workmen's Compensation Act permitting only a maximum of ten percent and only where the case is appealed.
- Procedural history of investigation
- On September 9, 1971, the Court referred both administrative cases to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation.
- The Solicitor General submitted a report and recommendation on May 31, 1974.
- Investigative findings summarized in the report
- The Solic...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Issues relating to Jaime S. Linsangan
- Whether Linsangan violated the attorney's oath by submitting a perjured affidavit in the workmen's compensation case.
- Whether there was evidence that Linsangan knowingly presented false testimony or intended to mislead any court or judicial body.
- Issues relating to Rufino B. Risma
- Whether Risma instigated the filing of Administrative Case No. 944 with improper motives or without just ground, thereby meriting disciplinary sanction.
- Whether the contract by which Risma purported to charge fifteen percent of the recovery contravened the Workm...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)