1. FLORA NARIDO,complainant,vs.ATTORNEY JAIME S. LINSANGAN,respondent, A.C. No.944, July 25, 1974

FACTS:This case arose from alabor disputewhere Atty. Rufino Risma representedFloraNarido, an indigent client against her employer Vergel DeDios, 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 anadministrativecase against Linsangan.Linsangan onthe other handfiled a separateadministrativecase against Risma where he accused Risma of instigating his client to file anadministrativecase against him; that saidadministrativecase 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 bothadministrativecases should prosper.

HELD:No.The Supreme Courtadopted the findings of theSolicitor Generalwhere it was recommended that both administrative cases are not well merited.In theadministrativecase 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 theadministrativecase 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 anadministrativecase against Linsangan. There was no bad faith on the part of Risma. He even advanced theexpensesbecause Narido is indigent.HOWEVER, it was found that Risma made an arrangement with Narido that he shallcollect15% from whatever amount they shallcollectfrom De Dios as a result of the labor case. Risma was admonished for this; that under the WorkmensCompensationAct, hes only allowed tocollecta maximum of 10%. Hes advised to keep abreast of said law.

LEGAL PROVISION (s):

1. 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 VdadeBarreraretainedpetitionerAtty.Laputtohandleher "TestateEstateofMacario Barrera" case in CFI-Cebu.By Jan. 1955, petitioner had prepared two pleadings: (1) closing ofadministration 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 allegedthat:(1)respondentsappearances wereunethicalandimproper;(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. Patalinghugentered his appearance without notice topetitioner. Respondent Atty. Patalinghug answered that when he entered his appearance on 11 Jan. 1955Mrs.Barrerahadalreadylostconfidenceinherlawyer,andhad alreadyfiledapleading discharginghis services.The otherrespondent Atty. Remotigue answeredthat whenhefiled his appearance on 7 Feb.1955, the petitioner had alreadywithdrawn 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'sprofessionalserviceswerecontractedbythe 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 SCalsoheldthatrespondentAtty.Remotiguewasalsonotguiltyofunprofessionalconduct 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 theinterest of the administratrix. Case dismissed and closed for no sufficientevidence submitted to sustain the charges.

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

FACTSOn 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 handedArcangel pertinent documentsand alsoaffixedtheirsignaturesonblankpapers. After which, they noticed that respondent lost interest and no progress was made. After 6 years they finally asked respondenttoreturnthesaiddocumentsbutthelatterrefused.Uponquestioning by Fiscal Rana to whom the case was referred by theSolicitorGeneralrespondentadmittedhavingreceivedthedocuments but explained that it was for photo stating purposesonly.Hisfailuretoimmediatelyreturnthemwasduetocomplainantsrefusaltohandinmoneytopayforthephotostating costs which prevented him from withdrawing the documents.Anyway,hehadalreadyadvanced theexpenses himself and turned over the documents to the fiscal. -Fiscalfoundrespondentsexplanationsatisfactoryandrecommended the respondents exoneration. However, Sol Gen feelsthat respondent deservesatleastaseverereprimand considering 1)hisfailuretoattendtocomplainants pension claims for6years;2)hisfailuretoimmediatelyreturnthedocumentsdespiterepeated demandsuponhim, and3)his failure toreturntocomplainant Pasion, allegedly allofher documents.ISSUEWON Atty. Arcangel is guilty of professional non-feasanceHELDNo. Respondents explanation for thedelay in filing theclaims inreturningthedocumentshasnotbeencontrovertedbycomplainants. On the contrary, they admitted that respondent asked them to shoulder the photo stating expenses but they did not givehim anymoney.Hence, complainantsare partly toblame.Moreover,thedocumentsandtheirphoto statswere actually returned by respondent during the fiscals investigation with him paying for the photo stating costs himself. As for the allegedfailureoftherespondenttoall herdocumentsto complainant Pasion, the former denies this. The affidavit of Mrs.BlanzapardoningrespondentcannotprejudicecomplainantPasionbecause resinteraliosacta alteri nocerenon debet. Complainant Pasion hadanother opportunity to substantiate her chargesinahearingbutshe letit go.Neither shenorher counsel ofrecordappeared.Thus,the Curtrefused totakedisciplinaryactionagainstrespondentduetolackofclearpreponderanceofevidencesubstantiatingtheaccusationsagainst him. - Nevertheless the Court also stated that wecannot 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 thiscase, 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 theirrefusaltoco-operate,heshouldhaveterminatedtheirprofessional relationship rather than keepthem hanging. And although we voted that he not be reprimanded, in a legal sense, letthisbearemindertoAtty.Arcangelofwhatthehighstandards of his chosen profession require of him.

1. OPERAL VS ABARIA, 40 SCRA 128Facts: 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 ofwhich 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 heldliable.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 beingadequately and fully informed ofthe 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 alawyer's efforts as whenhe 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 ofrespondent, 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.