Post

Jerry M. Palencia vs. Pedro L. Linsangan, Gerard M. Linsangan, Glenda M. Linsangan-Binoya

Posted
By Anonymous
9 min read
Jerry M. Palencia vs. Pedro L. Linsangan, Gerard M. Linsangan, Glenda M. Linsangan-Binoya

  1. Case Title and Citation

Jerry M. Palencia, complainant, vs. Atty. Pedro L. Linsangan, Atty. Gerard M. Linsangan, and Atty. Glenda M. Linsangan-Binoya, respondents.
A.C. No. 10557, July 10, 2018
Supreme Court - En Banc
Ponente: Per Curiam
Dissent: Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.

  1. Facts

  • Complainant Jerry M. Palencia, an overseas Filipino worker (seafarer), was seriously injured when he fell into the elevator shaft of the vessel M/T “Panos G” (Cyprus flag). He received initial treatment in Singapore and was later flown to the Philippines for continued treatment and rehabilitation.
  • While confined at Manila Doctors Hospital, two paralegals—first identified as “Moises” and later as Jesherel L. Millena (Jesherel)—approached complainant and convinced him to engage the services of respondents’ law office to file claims for indemnity.
  • Complainant executed:
    1. an Attorney-Client Contract, and
    2. a Special Power of Attorney,
      agreeing to pay attorney’s fees of 35% of any recovery or settlement to respondents and their collaborating Singapore counsel, Gurbani & Co.
  • Through respondents’ efforts complainant received from his employer: US$60,000 as indemnity and US$20,000 under the collective bargaining agreement; respondents deducted attorney’s fees of 35% from these amounts.
  • Respondents and Gurbani & Co. filed a tort case in the High Court of Singapore. Respondents engaged Papadopoulos, Lycourgos & Co. (Cyprus) for a written opinion and retired Justice Emilio Gancayco for an expert opinion.
  • Negotiations in Singapore produced a settlement award of US$95,000. Gurbani & Co. remitted US$59,608.40 to respondents. From that amount respondents deducted (inter alia) US$5,000 paid to Justice Gancayco, respondents’ attorney’s fees (claimed 35%), other expenses, leaving a computed net of US$18,132.43 for complainant. Respondents tendered US$20,756.05 (representing the net amount with adjustments) to complainant, which he refused to accept.
  • Timeline of litigation and administrative proceedings:
    1. September 12, 2005 — respondents filed a preliminary mandatory injunction (consignation) case before the RTC of Manila; RTC dismissed; dismissal was affirmed by this Court on July 7, 2008.
    2. September 22, 2005 — complainant filed an action for accounting, remittance and damages (Civil Case No. 2401) before the RTC of Ligao City; June 16, 2011 — RTC ruled in favor of complainant ordering accounting and various monetary awards.
    3. On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed but reduced attorney’s fees to 10%; this Court affirmed in G.R. No. 205088 (Resolution dated February 20, 2013); Entry of Judgment issued August 8, 2013.
    4. March 28, 2007 — complainant filed a letter-complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) alleging: (a) refusal to remit full settlement, (b) depositing complainant’s money into respondents’ own account, and (c) soliciting a bedridden client through agents (“ambulance chasing”).
  • Respondents’ responses and conduct:
    • Respondents stated they informed complainant of receipt of the settlement on June 20, 2005, and tendered complainant’s net share on June 28, 2005; complainant refused.
    • Respondents denied depositing the funds into their own account, claiming the amount was kept in a vault in their office until May 3, 2007 when they deposited it with Bank of the Philippine Islands in an interest savings account, in trust for complainant.
    • Respondents denied improper solicitation, asserting they provided free legal advice to the public.
  • IBP-CBD findings and disciplinary recommendations:
    • The IBP-CBD found violations for solicitation through agents, failure to account and deliver client funds, and hiring foreign counsel without prior client consent; recommended one-year suspension for all three respondents and compliance with the accounting decision.
    • The IBP Board of Governors initially adopted the recommendation, and later modified the penalty to a two-year suspension with a warning and ordered return of 5% of the amount assessed to complainant.
  • Supreme Court disposition: the Court adopted IBP findings as to Attorneys Pedro L. Linsangan and Gerard M. Linsangan, absolved Atty. Glenda M. Linsangan-Binoya for lack of evidence of participation, and imposed a two-year suspension on Pedro and Gerard effective upon finality of the Decision.

  1. Issues

  2. Did respondents solicit legal business (“ambulance chasing”) by sending agents/paralegals to a bed-ridden complainant in the hospital?
  3. Did respondents fail to account for, and improperly retain or convert, complainant’s settlement funds?
  4. Did respondents improperly engage foreign counsel and incur fees/expenses without prior knowledge and consent of complainant?
  5. Is respondent Atty. Glenda M. Linsangan-Binoya liable for the alleged unethical acts?
  6. Should respondents be ordered to return 5% of the amount assessed to complainant as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors?

  1. Ruling

  2. Yes - Respondents engaged in solicitation through agents/paralegals while complainant was hospitalized; this violated the CPR prohibition on solicitation.
  3. Yes - Respondents failed to give accurate accounting, improperly withheld and mishandled client funds, constituting gross misconduct.
  4. Yes - Respondents engaged foreign counsel and incurred fees/expenses without adequate client disclosure and consent, violating duties of disclosure and fiduciary responsibility.
  5. No - The Court dismissed the complaint against Atty. Glenda M. Linsangan-Binoya for lack of evidence of her participation.
  6. No - The Court did not adopt the IBP Board of Governors’ recommendation to return 5% because the issue of recoverable attorney’s fees had been finally adjudicated in G.R. No. 205088.

  1. Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • Solicitation (“ambulance chasing”):
    • The CPR (Rule 2.03; Rule 1.03; Canon 3) prohibits acts designed primarily to solicit legal business and forbids encouraging suits for corrupt motives. The Court credited Jesherel’s admission and the paralegal’s resignation letter received by respondents’ firm as evidence that respondent Atty. Pedro Linsangan and paralegals repeatedly visited the hospital to induce complainant to hire respondents, constituting proscribed solicitation. See Linsangan v. Tolentino and Code of Professional Responsibility provisions cited in the record.
  • Fiduciary duties, accounting and handling of client funds:
    • Canon 16 and Rules 16.01 and 16.03 require lawyers to hold client monies in trust, to account for monies received, to deliver funds upon demand subject to a lien only, and to avoid commingling or using client funds for personal purposes. Case authorities cited include Rayos v. Hernandez, Bayonla v. Reyes, and Camino v. Pasagui.
    • The Attorney-Client Contract stipulated a combined 35% fee for respondents and their Singapore counsel. The Court found respondents nevertheless imposed separate additional deductions beyond what Gurbani & Co. already deducted, and retained funds in their office vault for an extended period, demonstrating failure to account, improper safekeeping, and appropriation of client funds inconsistent with their fiduciary obligations.
    • The Court explained that a lawyer’s lien does not authorize unilateral appropriation of a client’s funds; instead, fees should be judicially determined if contested. (Cited Rayos v. Hernandez; other authorities in record.)
  • Engagement of foreign counsel and consent:
    • Employing foreign counsel and incurring external expenses without prior disclosure and client consent violated the duty of full disclosure and faithful handling of the client’s interests, as found by the IBP-CBD and adopted by the Court.
  • Penalty assessment:
    • The Court applied precedents on sanctions for ambulance chasing and for gross misconduct in failing to account and return client funds (e.g., Viray v. Sanicas, Cerdan v. Gomez, and others), and recognized a range of penalties. Considering the compounded infractions—(1) ambulance chasing (one-year suspension precedent) and (2) gross misconduct in handling client funds (suspension up to two years or disbarment depending on severity)—and factoring that this was respondents’ first administrative offense and that respondents tendered payment (though improper), the Court imposed a combined two-year suspension for Pedro and Gerard.
  • Liability of Atty. Glenda M. Linsangan-Binoya:
    • The record lacked evidence showing her participation or knowledge of the soliciting and mishandling; complainant dealt only with Pedro and Gerard. The Court therefore dismissed the complaint against her.
  • Return of 5%:
    • Although the IBP Board recommended return of 5%, the Court declined to order this because the issue of attorney’s fees had been finally adjudicated in G.R. No. 205088; the principle of immutability of judgments precluded revisiting that aspect.

  1. Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • Lawyers must not solicit legal business personally or through agents; solicitation by or through paralegals is prohibited (Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 2.03; Rule 1.03; Canon 3).
  • Client funds are trust funds; lawyers owe strict fiduciary duties to notify, account for, and promptly remit client funds, and must avoid commingling (Canon 16; Rules 16.01 and 16.03).
  • A lawyer’s lien does not permit unilateral appropriation of a client’s money; disputed fees should be judicially determined.
  • Improper safekeeping of client funds (e.g., storing in a lawyer’s office vault, not in a separate trust account) constitutes misconduct.
  • Breach of these duties can constitute gross misconduct warranting suspension or disbarment; penalties depend on the severity and surrounding circumstances (see Viray v. Sanicas; Rayos v. Hernandez; Cerdan v. Gomez).

  1. Disposition

  • Findings: Respondents Atty. Pedro L. Linsangan and Atty. Gerard M. Linsangan are found GUILTY of violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (including solicitation, failure to account, improper handling of client funds, and related rules).
  • Penalty: Suspension from the practice of law for TWO YEARS for each of Atty. Pedro L. Linsangan and Atty. Gerard M. Linsangan, effective upon finality of this Decision, with a warning that repetition will be dealt with more severely.
  • The complaint against Atty. Glenda M. Linsangan-Binoya is DISMISSED.
  • The Court did not adopt the IBP Board of Governors’ recommendation to order return of 5% of the amount assessed to complainant because the attorney-fees issue had been finally adjudicated in G.R. No. 205088.

  1. Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • Dissent: Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (noted in the case header).
  • No separate concurring opinions identified in the provided record.

  1. Significance / Notes

  • Reinforces prohibition against solicitation: attorneys and their agents may not solicit clients, especially vulnerable persons (e.g., bedridden patients); use of paralegals for solicitation is culpable.
  • Clarifies fiduciary obligations: strict accounting, prompt remittance, non-commingling, and proper safekeeping (trust accounts) are required; failure can amount to gross misconduct.
  • Confirms that attorney liens do not justify unilateral appropriation of client funds; disputed fees should be resolved judicially.
  • Demonstrates interplay between administrative disciplinary findings (IBP-CBD/Board) and the Supreme Court’s disciplinary power, including deference to final judgments in civil proceedings (immutability of judgments).
  • Practical implication for practitioners: counsel must obtain informed client consent before engaging outside counsel or incurring expenses and must maintain transparent accounting and proper bank trust deposits for client funds.
  • Related authorities cited in the opinion include Linsangan v. Tolentino; Rayos v. Hernandez; Viray v. Sanicas; Cerdan v. Gomez; Bayonla v. Reyes; Camino v. Pasagui; and decisions affirming accounting and fee issues in G.R. No. 205088.
Legal Ethics Disciplinary Cases Judicial Conduct and Discipline
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.