NARIDO vs.

LINSANGAN

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 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.

In Re: Clemente Soriano

Facts:

Atty. Clemente Soriano entered his appearance in the case People’s Homesite vs
Mencias and Tiburcio et al. He sought to represent Marcelino Tiburcio. The odd thing is
that, when he entered his appearance before the Supreme Court, the case has long
been decided by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then directed Atty. Soriano to
show cause why he should not be subjected to disciplinary actions.
Atty. Soriano, in his defense, stated that he merely relied on the assurance made by
one Atty. Dalangpan who assured him that the case is still pending with the Supreme
Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Soriano should be suspended.

HELD: No. But he is severely censured. The only reason why he’s not suspended is
that he exhibited candor before the Supreme Court in acknowledging his mistake. He
has been negligent in his duty and this violates his duty to be diligent on his
responsibility to his client. He should have checked with the former lawyer of Tiburcio as
to the status of the case. If not, he could have simply checked with the Clerk of Court of
the Supreme Court instead of relying upon the assurances of Atty. Dalangpan (who
even denied before the Supreme Court that he made such assurances).

LIKONG vs. LIM

Facts:

Cerina B. Likong filed this administrative case against Atty. Alexander H. Lim, seeking the latter's
disbarment for alleged malpractice and grave misconduct. Petitioner filed a complaint for disbarment,
based on the following allegations: complainant was prevented from seeking assistance, advise and
signature of any of her two (2) lawyers; no copy thereof was furnished to either of them or at least to
complainant herself despite the latter's pleas to be furnished copies of the same. Complainant had been
prevented from exhibiting fully her case by means of fraud, deception and some other form of mend a
city practiced on her by respondent; finally, respondent fraudulently or without authority assumed to
represent complainant and connived in her defeat;

ISSUE :

Whether or not respondent is guilty of misconduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD :

The Supreme Court held that YES, the respondent was guilty of MISCONDUCT under the Code of
Professional Responsibility particularly Canon 9 which states that “Negotiations with opposite party. A
lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by
counsel; much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should
deal only with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that
may tend to mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as
to the law”, and Canon 1.01, 8.02 and 15.03. Such acts of the respondent constituting malpractice and
grave misconduct cannot be left unpunished for not only do they erode confidence and trust in the legal
profession, they likewise prevent justice from being attained. Respondent was suspended from the
practice of law for 1 year.

Galicinao v. Castro (2005)

Facts:

Atty. Castro was a private practitioner and Vice-President of IBP-Nueva Vizcaya Chapter. He went to
complainant’s office to inquire whether the complete records of Civil Case No. 784, had already been
remanded to the court of origin, MCTC in Nueva Vizcaya.

It must be noted that respondent was not the counsel of record of either party.

Complainant informed respondent that the record had not yet been transmitted since a certified true
copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals should first be presented to serve as basis for the
transmittal of the records to the court of origin.

Eventually, complainant filed a Manifestation expressing her desire not to appear on the next hearing
date in view of respondent”s public apology, adding that respondent personally and humbly asked for
forgiveness which she accepted.

Issue:

W/N Atty. Castro violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

Held/Ratio:

Yes. It should be noted that respondent was not the counsel of record of Civil
Case No. 784. Had he been counsel of record, it would have been easy for him to present the required
certified true copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals. He need not have gone to Manila to procure
a certified true copy of the decision since the Court of Appeals furnishes the parties and their counsel of
record a duplicate original or certified true copy of its decision.
Not being the counsel of record and there being no authorization from either the parties to represent
them, respondent had no right to impose his will on the clerk of court.

Through his acts of constantly checking the transmittal of the records of Civil Case No. 784, respondent
deliberately encroached upon the legal functions of the counsel of record of that case.

It does not matter whether he did so in good faith.

 NG v. ALAR

FACTS:

Ng is one of the respondents in a labor case, Alar is the counsel for the complainant in the labor case.
When the NLRC dismissed the appeal, Alar filed an MR with a Motion to Inhibit, where Alar used
scandalous, offensive and menacing language to support the complaint. He called the labor arbiter
crossed-eyed in making his findings of fact and that the NLRC commissioner acted with malice in ruling
that the labor arbiter decided correctly. He also alleged that NLRC retiring commissioners circumvent
the law when the money claims involved in the cases are large.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Alar violated the CPR.

HELD:
Yes. The motion he filed contained insults attacking the NLRC, casting doubt on its moral and intellectual
integrity, implying that the NLRC can be bought. He used improper and offensive language, which
cannot be justified. Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it must always be
dignified and respectful. He deserves not only a warning but also a fine of P 5,0000. The counter-
complaint is dismissed because there was no position paper submitted to substantiate the claims

Nunez vs. Astroga

FACTS:

Late Maria Ortega Vda de. Nunez executed a Sale of a lot OCT 2651 ( Now

8955) with “Right to Repurchase” in favor of Eugenio Nunez within 10 years from date of

execution. The son of Maria Ortega, Ricardo Nunez extra judicially partitioned his estate. Ricardo
appointed Atty. Astorga as administrator and alleged that complainants have no right over the same
lots. Ricardo sold the same lot to Imelda and Elisa the lot that they were occupying and after which Elisa
filed Estafa against respondent before the Municipal Trial Court of Baybay, Leyte. Another criminal case
of which is grave threat was again filed against Atty. Astroga by Eduardo Nunez for uttering words
ipaposil ta ka ' which means 'I'll have you shot.” while in the house of Eduardo

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Astroga is guilt of serious misconduct.

HELD:

No, however the Court ruled that the offensive language of Atty. Astroga to complainants and their
counsel is unbecoming an attorney. “The legal profession exacts a high standard from its members.
Lawyers shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on their fitness to practice law”
 He hurled insulting language in describing the opposing counsel and cast doubts on the latter are
integrity by implying that the lawyer had instigated the filing of the so-called baseless suits, violated the
rules on non-forum shopping and committed malpractice. However there were no clear evidence that
would show proof that Atty. Astroga’s deceit and gross misconduct. The mere existence of pending
cases that constitute of serious misconduct is not a ground that someone has been behaving in a
misconduct manner. Conviction of a crime is needed before it would be a ground for disciplinary actions.
TIANA v. OCAMPO

Facts:

Maria Tiania claims in her verified complaint that respondent Amado Ocampo who has been her
"retaining counsel" in all her legal problems and court cases as early as 1966, has always had her
unqualified faith and confidence. One Mrs. Concepcion Blaylock sued Tiania for ejectment2from a
parcel of land. Ocampo appeared for Tiania and also for Blaylock. Tiania confronted Ocampo about this
but the latter reassured Tiania that he will take care of everything and that there was no need for Tiania
to hire a new lawyer since he is still Tiania's lawyer. Ocampo prepared the answer in the said ejectment
case, which Tiania signed. Then Ocampo made Tiania sign a Compromise Agreement which the latter
signed without reading.

Issue: WON respondent Atty. Ocampo is guilty of representing conflicting interests?

Held:

Yes. The specific law applicable in both administrative cases is Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides: A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interest except by written consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. The aforementioned acts of the respondent in
representing Blaylock, and at the same time advising Tiania, the opposing party, as in the first
administrative case, and once again representing Blaylock and her interest while handling the
legal documents of another opposing party as in the second case, whether the said actions were
related or totally unrelated, constitute serious misconduct.

Xxx Promoting obedience to the Constitution and the laws of the land is the primary obligation of
lawyers. When respondent issued the worthless checks, he discredited the legal profession and created
the public impression that laws were mere tools of convenience that could be used, headed and abused
to satisfy personal whims and desires.

Respondent’s refusal to answer complainant’s demands; trying to make the complainant believe

that he was no longer residing at his given address demonstrate lack of moral character to satisfy the
responsibilities and duties imposed on lawyers as professionals and as officers of the court.

The only issue in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers is the respondent’s fitness to remain as

a member of the Bar. Respondent is guilty of violating Rule 1.01 Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of the CPR and
suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years. SPOUSES JONATHAN AND ESTER LOPEZ v.
ATTY. SINAMAR LIMOS, AC No. 7618, February 2, 2016 Facts: Complainants while living abroad engaged
the services of respondent as counsel in connection with their intention to adopt a minor child. In
consideration therefore, complainants paid respondent the sum of P75,000.00. After a few months,
complainants came back to the Philippines for a two-weep stay to commence the filing of the adoption
case before the proper court. However, despite payment and submission of all the required documents
to respondent, no petition was filed during their stay. Around 7 months later, complainants t

hrough Jonathan’s employer received respondent’s letter requesting that complainants be allowed to
come home to the Philippines to

appear and testify in court for the adoption case she purportedly filed on behalf of complainants
indicating therein the docket number and the court. Thus, complainants returned to the Philippines only
to find out that: A) the docket referred to a petition for the declaration of the presumptive death of
another person filed by another lawyer; and B) respondent had yet to file a petition for adoption on
their behalf

Xxx Promoting obedience to the Constitution and the laws of the land is the primary obligation of
lawyers. When respondent issued the worthless checks, he discredited the legal profession and created
the public impression that laws were mere tools of convenience that could be used, headed and abused
to satisfy personal whims and desires.

Respondent’s refusal to answer complainant’s demands; trying to make the complainant believe

that he was no longer residing at his given address demonstrate lack of moral character to satisfy the
responsibilities and duties imposed on lawyers as professionals and as officers of the court.

The only issue in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers is the respondent’s fitness to remain as

a member of the Bar. Respondent is guilty of violating Rule 1.01 Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of the CPR and
suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years. SPOUSES JONATHAN AND ESTER LOPEZ v.
ATTY. SINAMAR LIMOS, AC No. 7618, February 2, 2016 Facts: Complainants while living abroad engaged
the services of respondent as counsel in connection with their intention to adopt a minor child. In
consideration therefore, complainants paid respondent the sum of P75,000.00. After a few months,
complainants came back to the Philippines for a two-weep stay to commence the filing of the adoption
case before the proper court. However, despite payment and submission of all the required documents
to respondent, no petition was filed during their stay. Around 7 months later, complainants t

hrough Jonathan’s employer received respondent’s letter requesting that complainants be allowed to
come home to the Philippines to

appear and testify in court for the adoption case she purportedly filed on behalf of complainants
indicating therein the docket number and the court. Thus, complainants returned to the Philippines only
to find out that: A) the docket referred to a petition for the declaration of the presumptive death of
another person filed by another lawyer; and B) respondent had yet to file a petition for adoption on
their behalf.

Complainants then, withdrew all their documents from respondent’s custody and hired another
lawyer to handle the filing of the adoption case; demanded the return of P75,000.00 given as legal fees.
Respondent, however, refused to return the amount demanded retorting that as a standArd

operating procedure, she does not return “acceptance fees.”

Ruling