AC. No. 944 – 58 SCRA 85 – 157 Phil. 87 – Legal Ethics – Mutual Bickering Between Opposing Counsels
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 Risma’s zeal in protecting his client’s 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 shall collect from De Dios as a result of the labor case. Risma was admonished for this; that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, he’s only allowed to collect a maximum of 10%. He’s advised to keep abreast of said law.
