View full case

HEIRS OF JUAN DE DIOS E. CARLOS v. ATTY. JAIME S. LINSANGAN

FACTS:

FACTS

The complainants in this case are the children of the late Juan De Dios E. Carlos. They seek to disbar respondent Atty. Jaime S. Linsangan, who acted as their late father's counsel in several cases, including one involving the recovery of a parcel of land in Alabang, Muntinlupa City. The complainants alleged that Atty. Linsangan forced them to sign pleadings and documents, sold the parcel of land in cahoots with their estranged mother, and evaded payment of income taxes by dividing his share in the property as attorney's fees to his wife and children.

The parcel of land in question was owned by the Spouses Felix and Felipa Carlos. Their son, Teofilo Carlos, convinced them to transfer the title to his name with a promise to distribute it to his siblings. Teofilo sold the property to Pedro Balbanero, but Pedro failed to pay the agreed installment payments. Juan engaged Atty. Linsangan to help recover the property from Teofilo and Pedro. Atty. Linsangan represented Juan in several cases related to the subject property.

During the pendency of these cases, Atty. Linsangan and Juan executed a contract for professional services, wherein it was agreed that Atty. Linsangan would receive a contingent fee equivalent to 50% of the market value of the property or the zonal value, whichever is higher. The attorney's fees would be payable upon recovery of the property.

Through a series of compromise agreements and court proceedings, a portion of the property was awarded to the heirs of Juan, including Atty. Linsangan. Atty. Linsangan waived his share in favor of his wife and children, except for 250 square meters. Eventually, Atty. Linsangan sold the entire property to Helen S. Perez using special powers of attorney executed by his wife and children and representatives of Juan's wife and children.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Atty. Linsangan violated his lawyer's oath.

  2. Whether or not Atty. Linsangan committed acts warranting the Court's exercise of its disciplinary power.

  3. Whether Atty. Linsangan violated Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code by acquiring a property that was the subject of litigation in which he participated as a lawyer.

  4. Whether Atty. Linsangan violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the CPR by dividing his attorney's fee with persons who are not licensed to practice law.

  5. Whether Atty. Linsangan violated Canon 16 of the CPR by withholding his client's money without consent.

  6. Whether or not the respondent lawyer violated his lawyer's oath, Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, Rule 9.02, Canon 9, and Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  7. Whether or not the respondent lawyer should be suspended from the practice of law.

RULING:

  1. After a careful review of the record of the case, the Court finds that respondent committed acts in violation of his oath as an attorney, thereby warranting the Court's exercise of its disciplinary power.

  2. Atty. Linsangan is found liable for several violations. He violated Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code by acquiring a property that was the subject of litigation in which he participated as a lawyer. He also violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the CPR by dividing his attorney's fee with persons who are not licensed to practice law. Furthermore, he violated Canon 16 of the CPR by withholding his client's money without consent. As a result, Atty. Linsangan is suspended from the practice of law for six months.

  3. The Supreme Court found the respondent lawyer guilty of violating his lawyer's oath, Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, Rule 9.02, Canon 9, and Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a result, the respondent lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months from the date of his receipt of the decision.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The practice of law is a privilege bestowed by the state upon those who possess and continue to possess the qualifications required by law. It is not a right. Whether or not a lawyer is entitled to practice law may be resolved through a proceeding to suspend or disbar him based on his conduct rendering him unfit for the duties and responsibilities of an attorney. The purpose of suspension or disbarment is not to punish the lawyer but to protect the public and those involved in the administration of justice. The lawyer's oath is a source of obligations, and its violation is a ground for suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action.

  • Lawyers are prohibited from acquiring, by purchase or assignment, the property that has been the subject of litigation in which they have taken part by virtue of their profession, in violation of Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code.

  • Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the CPR prohibits lawyers from dividing their attorney's fee with persons who are not licensed to practice law.

  • Canon 16 of the CPR requires lawyers to exercise utmost good faith and fairness in their relationship with their clients, including the duty to promptly return client's money upon demand.

  • Violations of a lawyer's oath, the Civil Code, and the Code of Professional Responsibility may lead to penalties such as suspension from the practice of law.

  • Lawyers are expected to adhere to their lawyer's oath, which includes upholding the law, maintaining client confidentiality, and acting with honesty and candor.

  • Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to avoid situations that may compromise their independence or create a conflict of interest.

  • Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates lawyers to hold inviolate the client's confidence and not to use such confidences for their own advantage or otherwise to the detriment of the client.