SC junks admin charge vs. octogenarian lawyer

By Benjamin Pulta

July 21, 2022, 4:01 pm

MANILA – The Supreme Court has dismissed a complaint for allegedly soliciting legal business and clients in violation of standing bar ethics standards filed against an 80-year-old lawyer. 
 
In a resolution dated July 6 and published online July 18, the tribunal junked the administrative complaint filed by lawyer Maria Nympha Mandagan against her fellow counsel, Fatemah Remedios Balbin.
 
Mandagan claimed that Balbin encroached on the cases she was handling for her client Marcelino Ramos whom she represented in 2014 to handle charges for murder and a land dispute case before the Iligan City, Isabela Regional Trial Court (RTC). 
 
As Ramos was paralyzed, blind, and with no means to shoulder the litigation expenses, the client offered to compensate his lawyer with a portion of the proceeds of the sale of land in the property dispute case. 
 
After his release on criminal charges, Ramos moved to Solsona, Ilocos Norte, to receive treatment from faith healers. 
 
Once more burdened with debt, the client, with the help of friends, offered the land dispute case to Balbin, prompting Mandagan to file a complaint for disciplinary action. 
 
Balbin denied knowing of the agreement between the client and the complainant in connection with the disputed property said she cannot be considered as an “ambulance chaser” being already 80 years old. 
 
The Code of Professional Responsibility of lawyers proscribes ambulance chasing and provides that “a lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding” or “do any act designed primarily to solicit legal business”.
 
Mandagan claimed that Balbin habitually used her age as a defense and the latter had assisted the client in initiating a case against the complainant lawyer before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines which was eventually dismissed in 2016. 
 
In clearing the lawyer, the SC said “there is no proof demonstrating that Atty. Balbin actively solicited from anyone to further her legal business”, adding “it was actually Ramos (the client) who caused the confusion and conflict” which led to the filing of administrative cases. (PNA) 
 

Comments