NARIDO vs. LINSANGAN A.M. No.

944 July 25, 1974 A labor dispute arose between Flora Narido, an indigent client represented by Atty. Ru ino Ris!a, against "er e!ployer #ergel De Dios, represented by Atty. $ai!e Linsangan. In t"e trial court, Atty. Ris!a ve"e!ently opposed t"e sub!ission o a certain a idavit e%ecuted by De Dios because "e believed t"at said a idavit is per&ured. 'e t"reatened Atty. Linsangan t"at i said a idavit is sub!itted in court, t"ey s"all ile a disbar!ent case against "i!. ("e a idavit was iled) Atty. Ris!a and Narido iled an ad!inistrative case against Linsangan. Linsangan t"en iled a separate ad!inistrative case against Ris!a accusing "i! o instigating "is client to ile an ad!inistrative case and t"at said ad!inistrative case is groundless) t"at it was only iled as a !ere sc"e!e to t"reaten and ensure t"at Ris!a and Narido "as an edge over t"e labor case. ISSUE: *"et"er or not bot" ad!inistrative cases s"ould prosper+ HELD: No, t"e Solicitor General reco!!ended t"at bot" ad!inistrative cases are not well !erited w"ic" was adopted by t"e Supre!e ,ourt. ("ere was no su icient evidence to prove t"at De Dios- a idavit is per&ured in t"e ad!inistrative case against Linsangan. It was not proven t"at "e "ad t"e intention o !isleading t"e court. In t"e ad!inistrative case against Ris!a, it was not proven t"at "e instigated Narido. ("ere was no bad ait" on t"e part o Ris!a. 'e even advanced t"e e%penses because Narido is indigent. 'owever, Ris!a !ade an arrange!ent wit" Narido t"at "e s"all collect ./0 ro! w"atever a!ount t"ey s"all collect ro! De Dios as a result o t"e labor case. Ris!a was ad!onis"ed or t"is) under t"e *or1!en-s ,o!pensation Act, "e-s only allowed to collect a !a%i!u! o .20. 3ot" petitioner and respondent s"ould be e%culpated.