FLORA NARIDO, complainant, vs. ATTORNEY JAIME S. LINSANGAN, respondent, A.C. No.

944, July 25, 1974

FACTS:
This case arose from a labor dispute where Atty. Rufino Risma represented Flora Narido, an indigent client against her employer
Vergel De Dios, the client of Atty. Jaime Linsangan. During the proceedings in the trial court, Atty. Risma vehemently opposed
the submission of a certain affidavit executed by De Dios because, in the belief of Risma, said affidavit is perjured. He
threatened Atty. Linsangan that if said affidavit is submitted in court, they shall file a disbarment case against him. The affidavit
was filed and so Risma and Narido filed an administrative case against Linsangan.
Linsangan on the other hand filed a separate administrative case against Risma where he accused Risma of instigating his client
to file an administrative case against him; that said administrative case is groundless; that it was only filed to spite him and is
just a mere scheme to threaten him and to ensure that Risma and Narido has an edge over the labor case.

ISSUE: Whether or not both administrative cases should prosper.

HELD: No. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Solicitor General where it was recommended that both
administrative cases are not well merited.
In the administrative case against Linsangan, it was found out that there is no sufficient evidence to prove that De Dios affidavit
is perjured. Or if even so, there is no showing that Linsangan was in bad faith for it was not proven that he has the intention of
misleading the court.
In the administrative case against Risma, it was not proven that he instigated Narido. It was Rismas zeal in protecting his
clients interest that made him to convince Narido to file an administrative case against Linsangan. There was no bad faith on
the part of Risma. He even advanced the expenses because Narido is indigent.
HOWEVER, it was found that Risma made an arrangement with Narido that he shall collect 15% from whatever amount they
shallcollect from De Dios as a result of the labor case. Risma was admonished for this; that under the
Workmens Compensation Act, hes only allowed to collect a maximum of 10%. Hes advised to keep abreast of said law.

LEGAL PROVISION (s):



LAPUT vs. REMOTIGUE, 6 SCRA 45, Sept. 29, 1962

FACTS: Petitioner ATTY. CASIANO U. LAPUT charge respondents ATTY. FRANCISCO E.F.REMOTIGUE and ATTY. FORTUNATO P.
PATALINGHUG with unprofessional and unethical conduct in soliciting cases and intriguing against a brother lawyer. In May
1952, Nieves Rillas Vda de Barrera retained petitioner Atty. Laput to handle her "Testate Estate of Macario Barrera" case in CFI-
Cebu. By Jan. 1955, petitioner had prepared two pleadings: (1) closing of administration proceedings, and (2) rendering of final
accounting and partition of said estate. Mrs. Barrera did not countersign both pleadings. Petitioner found out later that
respondent Atty. Patalinghug had filed on 11 Jan. 1955 a written appearance as the new counsel for Mrs.Barrera. On 5 Feb.
1955, petitioner voluntarily asked the court to be relieved as Mrs. Barrera s counsel. Petitioner alleged that:
(1) respondents appearances were unethical and improper;
(2) they made Mrs. Barrera sign documents revoking the petitioners Power of Attorney" purportedly to unauthorised him
from further collecting and receiving dividends of the estate from Mr. Macario Barreras corporations, and make him appear as
a dishonest lawyer and no longer trusted by his client;
(3) Atty. Patalinghug entered his appearance without notice to petitioner.
Respondent Atty. Patalinghug answered that when he entered his appearance on 11 Jan.
1955Mrs. Barrera had already lost confidence in her lawyer, and had already filed a pleading discharging his services. The
other respondent Atty. Remotigue answered that when he filed his appearance on 7 Feb. 1955, the petitioner had
already withdrawn as counsel. The SC referred the case to the SolGen for investigation, report and recommendation. The latter
recommended the complete exoneration of respondents.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Remotigue and Atty Patalinghug are guilty of unprofessional and unethical conduct in soliciting
cases.
RULING: No. The SC found no irregularity in the appearance of Atty. Patalinghug as counsel for Mrs. Barrera; and there was no
actual grabbing of a case from petitioner because Atty.Patalinghug's professional services were contracted by the
widow. Besides, the petitioner's voluntary withdrawal on 5 Feb. 1955, and his filing almost simultaneously of a motion for the
payment of his attorney's fees, amounted to consent to the appearance of Atty. Patalinghug as counsel for the widow.
The SC also held that respondent Atty. Remotigue was also not guilty of unprofessionalconduct in as much as he entered his
appearance, dated 5 Feb. 1955, only on 7 February 1955, after Mrs Barrera had dispensed with petitioner's professional
services, and after petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn his appearance. As to Atty. Patalinghugs preparation of documents
revoking the petitioners power of attorney, the SolGen found that the same does not appear to be prompted by malice or
intended to hurt petitioners feelings, but purely to safeguard the interest of the administratrix. Case dismissed and closed for
no sufficient evidence submitted to sustain the charges.


BLANZA V ARCANGEL, 21 SCRA 7, September 5, 1967

FACTS
On April, 1955, Atty. Arcangel volunteered to help them in their respective pension claims in connection with the death of their
husbands, both P.C. soldiers. They handed Arcangel pertinent documents and also affixed their signatures on blank papers.
After which, they noticed that respondent lost interest and no progress was made. After 6 years they finally asked
respondentto return the said documents but the latter refused. Uponquestioning by Fiscal Rana to whom the case was referred
by theSolicitor General respondent admitted having received thedocuments but explained that it was for photo stating
purposesonly. His failure to immediately return them was due tocomplainants refusal to handin money to pay for thephotostat
ing costs which prevented him from withdrawing the documents. Anyway, he had already advanced the expenses himself and
turned over the documents to the fiscal. - Fiscal found respondents explanation satisfactory andrecommended the
respondents exoneration. However, Sol Gen feels that respondent deserves at least a severe reprimand considering
1) his failure to attend to complainants pension claims
for 6 years; 2) his failure to immediately return thedocuments despite repeated demands upon him, and 3) his failure
to return to complainant Pasion, allegedly all of her documents.
ISSUE
WON Atty. Arcangel is guilty of professional non-feasance
HELD
No. Respondents explanation for the delay in filing the claims
inreturning the documents has not been controverted bycomplainants. On the contrary, they admitted that respondent asked
them to shoulder the photo stating expenses but they did not give him any money. Hence, complainants are partly
toblame. Moreover, the documents and their photo stats were actually returned by respondent during the fiscals investigation
with him paying for the photo stating costs himself. As for the alleged failure of the respondent to all her documents to
complainant Pasion, the former denies this. The affidavit of
Mrs.Blanza pardoning respondent cannot prejudice complainantPasion because res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet.
Complainant Pasion had another opportunity to substantiate her charges in a hearing but she let it go. Neither she nor her
counsel of record appeared. Thus, the Curt refused
to takedisciplinary action against respondent due to lack of clearpreponderance of evidence substantiating the accusationsagai
nst him. - Nevertheless the Court also stated that we cannot but counsel against his actuations as a member of the bar. A
lawyer has a more dynamic and positive role in the community than merely complying with the minimal technicalities of the
statute. As a man of law, he is necessarily a leader of the community looked up to as a model citizen. His conduct must,
perforce, be par excellence, especially so when, as in this case, he volunteers his professional services. Respondent here has not
lived up to that ideal standard. It was unnecessary to have complainants wait and hope, for 6 long years in their pension claims.
Upon theirrefusal to co-operate, he should have terminated theirprofessional relationship rather than keep them hanging. And
although we voted that he not be reprimanded, in a legal sense,
let this be a reminder to Atty. Arcangel of what the highstandards of his chosen profession require of him.


OPERAL VS ABARIA, 40 SCRA 128
Facts: This administrative proceeding was started by Pedro Oparel, Sr., who identified himself as a pauper in his complaint filed
with this Court on August 27, 1970 against respondent Dominador Abaria, a member of the Philippine Bar. The charge was that
respondent, whose services were retained to assist complainant recover damages from his employer for injuries suffered, acted
dishonestly. Apparently ,a settlement was reached, complainant having been made to sign a receipt in the sum of P500.00 for
his claim, out of which was deducted P55.00 as attorney's fees, when the truth, according to the complaint, was that
respondent did receive the much larger amount of P5,000.00. He accounted for the alleged sum of P5,000.00 by stating that
P3,500 was spent by the employer for plaintiff's operation and medical bills, another P1,000.00 given to complainant's family
during his confinement in the hospital, and then the P500.00received in cash by way of additional settlement. He prayed that
the complaint be dismissed. However, when investigated, Operal admitted that the administrative charge arose out of a
misunderstanding between him and respondent.
Issue: WON the respondent can be held liable.
Held: No. While it would appear that under the circumstances no case lies against respondent Dominador Abaria, it is not amiss
to impress on members of the Bar that the utmost care be taken to minimize occasions for any misunderstanding between
them and their clients. The relationship being one of confidence, there is ever present he need for the latter being adequately
and fully informed of the mode and manner in which their interest is defended. They should not be left in the dark. They are
entitled to the fullest disclosure of why certain steps are taken and why certain matters are either included or excluded from
the documents they are made to sign. It is only thus that their faith in counsel may remain unimpaired. x x x the same zeal
should characterize a lawyer's efforts as when he is defending the rights of property. As it is, there is even the fear that a lawyer
works harder when he appears for men of substance. To show how unfounded is such a suspicion, he must exert his utmost,
whoever be his client. At any rate, with complainant having been satisfied with the explanation of respondent, he could not be
justly charged of being recreant to his trust for personal gain. The dismissal of this case is therefore warranted. Petition is
dismissed.