Title
Palencia vs. Linsangan
Case
A.C. No. 10557
Decision Date
Jul 10, 2018
An OFW injured at sea hired lawyers through paralegals; disputed excessive fees and improper deductions. Lawyers suspended for unethical solicitation and fiduciary breaches.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 10557)

Singapore Tort Action and Settlement Distribution

Respondents and Gurbani & Co. filed a tort claim in the Singapore High Court, retaining foreign and expert advisers at additional cost. Negotiations produced a US$95,000 settlement; Gurbani & Co. remitted US$59,608.40 to respondents. Respondents then deducted US$5,000 for expert fees, their own 35% share, and other expenses, yielding US$18,132.43—tendered as US$20,756.05—to complainant, who refused to accept it.

Domestic Civil Proceedings on Accounting

Respondents filed a preliminary injunction case to compel complainant’s acceptance, which was dismissed by the RTC and this Court (July 7, 2008). Complainant’s accounting suit in Ligao City RTC (June 16, 2011) ordered respondents to render full accounting and refund excess fees; the Court of Appeals affirmed but reduced legal fees to 10%. The Supreme Court affirmed on February 20, 2013, and issued final Entry of Judgment August 8, 2013.

IBP Disciplinary Proceedings

Complainant’s IBP complaint alleged (1) refusal to remit settlement funds, (2) depositing client money into respondents’ account, (3) ambulance-chasing. The CBD found violations of CPR Canons 2, 3, 16, 17, 18: unauthorized solicitation by agents, failure to account and deliver client funds, and engaging foreign counsel without client’s informed consent. It recommended one-year suspension and compliance with the accounting decision. The IBP Board, after motions, increased suspension to two years and directed return of 5% of assessed fees.

Supreme Court’s Ethical Analysis

The Court affirmed that the practice of law is a public trust under the 1987 Constitution. It upheld findings of:
• Ambulance-chasing via paid paralegals in the hospital (Rule 1.03; Rule 2.03; Canon 3)
• Fiduciary breach in failing to account accurately and promptly remit collected funds (Canon 16; Rules 16.01, 16.03)
• Improper commingling and safekee

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.