Case Summary (A.C. No. 944)
Factual Background
Two members of the bar, Attorneys Jaime S. Linsangan and Rufino B. Risma, represented adverse parties in a workmen's compensation case. Flora Narido filed an administrative complaint alleging that Attorney Linsangan violated the attorney's oath by submitting a perjured affidavit of Milagros M. Vergel de Dios. Attorney Linsangan denied the allegation and counteraccused Attorney Risma of instigating the complainant to file a false and malicious complaint, thereby causing embarrassment, humiliation, and defamation. During the investigation, it also emerged that Attorney Risma had entered into a contract with his client for attorney's fees of fifteen percent of the recovery, a rate challenged as contrary to the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Procedural History
On September 9, 1971, the Court referred the administrative complaints to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Solicitor General submitted a report dated May 31, 1974. The Court, through a resolution by Fernando, J., considered the Solicitor General's findings and recommendations and rendered its disposition on July 25, 1974.
Issues Presented
The proceeding raised three principal issues: whether Attorney Linsangan violated his attorney's oath by presenting an allegedly perjured affidavit; whether Attorney Risma improperly instigated the filing of administrative proceedings against a brother attorney with improper motive; and whether Attorney Risma's agreement to receive fifteen percent of the award violated the Workmen's Compensation Act and warranted disciplinary sanction.
The Parties' Contentions
Complainant Flora Narido asserted that the affidavit offered by Attorney Linsangan was perjured and that its submission breached the attorney's oath. Attorney Linsangan denied knowledge of any falsity and contended that he did not intend to mislead any judicial body. He further accused Attorney Rufino B. Risma of instigating Narido to file the complaint to intimidate and harm him professionally. Attorney Risma responded that his actions sprang from zealous representation of a destitute client and denied any bad faith or financial motive to instigate administrative proceedings. The fee arrangement for fifteen percent was not a pleaded charge against Risma but arose in the investigation.
Findings of the Solicitor General
The Solicitor General reported that there was nothing improper in filing the affidavit of Milagros M. Vergel de Dios and that the alleged falsity was not proven. The report found no evidence that Attorney Linsangan was aware of any falsity and accepted his testimony denying any intent to mislead. With respect to Attorney Risma, the report rejected imputations of evil motive. It observed that Risma's zeal in championing a poor client's rights plausibly explained his conduct and that no direct evidence established bad faith in advising the client to file Administrative Case No. 944. The Solicitor General therefore recommended exculpation on the charge of instigating a disbarment proceeding. The report, however, recommended a private admonition regarding Risma's fifteen percent fee agreement because that term conflicted with the fee limitations embodied in the Workmen's Compensation Act; mitigation was suggested because Risma had not collected the fee and had advanced expenses for the client.
Ruling of the Court
The Court adopted the Solicitor General's recommendations. It dismissed the complaint in Administrative Case No. 944 against Attorney Jaime S. Linsangan for lack of merit. It exculpated Attorney Rufino B. Risma from the charge of instigating an unfounded administrative complaint. The Court admonished Attorney Risma to exercise greater care in ascertaining the allowable attorney's fees under the Workmen's Compensation Act, declared the contract for fifteen percent of the award to be of no force and effect, and imposed only an admonition because Risma had neither collected the fee nor sought enforcement and had advanced expenses for a poor client. The resolution ordered that a copy be spread on the records of both respondents.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that presenting an affidavit is not improper in the absence of proof that the affidavit is false. The Court emphasized that even if averments in an affidavit proved false, disciplinary liability requires evidence that the attorney was aware of the falsity and intended to mislead a tribunal; such awareness and intent were not shown as to Attorney Linsangan. As to Attorney Risma, the Court foun
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 944)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Flora Narido filed Administrative Case No. 944 as complainant against Attorney Jaime S. Linsangan for alleged violation of the attorney's oath by submitting a perjured affidavit.
- Jaime S. Linsangan filed Administrative Case No. 1025 as complainant against Attorney Rufino B. Risma charging that Risma instigated Narido to file a false and malicious complaint.
- Both respondents represented adverse parties in a workmen's compensation action that gave rise to the administrative complaints.
- The Court referred both administrative cases to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation on September 9, 1971.
- The Solicitor General submitted a report and recommendation on May 31, 1974, which the Court considered in resolving the cases.
Key Factual Allegations
- Complainant Narido relied chiefly on Attorney Linsangan's refusal to withdraw the affidavit of Milagros M. Vergel de Dios, which Narido alleged to be perjured.
- Narido and Atty. Risma allegedly threatened Atty. Linsangan with disbarment if he persisted in offering the challenged affidavit.
- Atty. Linsangan maintained that Atty. Risma instigated his client, Narido, to file the administrative complaint with improper motives, causing embarrassment and defamation.
- The investigation revealed, without being part of the formal counter-complaint, an allegation that Atty. Risma contracted for a fifteen percent attorney's fee contrary to the limits under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Investigation and Report
- The Solicitor General found nothing improper in presenting the affidavit of Milagros M. Vergel de Dios because its alleged falsity was not proved.
- The report concluded that there was no evidence showing Atty. Linsangan had awareness of any falsity in the affidavit, assuming arguendo that parts of it were false.
- The Solicitor General found no direct evidence of bad faith by Atty. Risma in advising his client to file Administrative Case No. 944.
- The Solicitor General recommended exculpation of both respondents on the principal charges and recommended admonition or reprimand for Atty. Risma concerning the improper fee agreement.
Issues Presented
- Whether Atty. Linsangan violated the attorney's oath by submitting an allegedly perjured affidavit.
- Whether Atty. Risma instigated the filing of administrative proceedings against a fellow attorney with improper motives and without just ground.
- Whether a contract for a fifteen percent attorney's fee in a workmen's compen