Narido vs Atty.

Linsangan
157 Phil 87

FACTS:
The 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.
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 another admin 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 will prosper
HELD:
No, the Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Solicitor General where it was
recommended that both cases are not well merited.
In the administrative case against Linsangan, it was found out that there was no
sufficient evidence to prove that De Dios affidavit is perjured. Or even if 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. There was no bad faith on the part of Risma. However, it was found out that
Risma made an agreement with Narido that he shall collect 15% from whatever amount
they shall collect from De Dios. Risma was admonished for this; that under the
Workmens Compensation Act, hes only allowed to collect 10%. Hes advised to keep
abreast of said law.