Melanio Deodoro Benjamin G.

Singson
Melanio Deodoro Benjamin G. Singson
Atty. Pedro L. Linsangan vs Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino
A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009
Facts: Atty. Pedro Linsangan filed a disbarment case against
Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and
encroachment of professional services alleging that
respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano,
convinced his clients to transfer legal representation to
Tolentino with the promise of financial assistance and
expeditious collection on their claims. To induce them to hire
his services, he persistently called them and sent them text
messages. Linsangan presented the sworn affidavit of James
Gregorio attesting that Labiano convinced him to sever his
lawyer-client relations with Linsangan and use Tolentinos
services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000.00.
Further, Linsangans calling card was also attached wherein it
appeared that aside from legal services, financial assistance
was offered as well.
Issue: Whether Tolentino is guilty of misconduct
Held: Yes. The court adopted the IBPs finding of unethical
conduct, whereby it found Tolentino to have encroached on
the professional practice of Linsangan violating Rule 8.02,
which prohibits a lawyer from stealing another lawyers client
or induce the latters client to retain him by a promise of better
service, good result or reduced fees for his services.
Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture
with his clients as borrowers, Tolentino violated Rule 16.04
The court further added that Tolentino violated Rule
2.03 of the CPR which provides A LAWYER SHALL NOT
DO OR PERMIT TO BE DONE ANY ACT DESIGNED
PRIMARILY TO SOLICIT LEGAL BUSINESS. Hence,
lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers. Such
actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment.
Moreover, Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule
1.03 of the CPR which provides: Rule 1.03. A LAWYER
SHALL NOT, FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE OR
INTEREST, ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING
OR DELAY ANY MANS CAUSE. This rule proscribes
ambulance chasing (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal
business by an attorney, personally or through an agent in
order to gain employment) as a measure to protect the
community from barratry and champerty.
The calling card contained with the phrase financial
assistance, was clearly used to entice clients to change
counsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal actions.
This crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar
and deserved no place in the legal profession.
Additionally, the court said that a lawyers best
advertisement is a well-merited reputation for professional
capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and
conduct. For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to
announce their services by publication in reputable law lists or
use of simple professional cards. Hence, Atty. Tolentino was
suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.

Atty. Pedro L. Linsangan vs Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino

A.C. No. 6672, September 4, 2009
Facts: Atty. Pedro Linsangan filed a disbarment case against
Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and
encroachment of professional services alleging that
respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano,
convinced his clients to transfer legal representation to
Tolentino with the promise of financial assistance and
expeditious collection on their claims. To induce them to hire
his services, he persistently called them and sent them text
messages. Linsangan presented the sworn affidavit of James
Gregorio attesting that Labiano convinced him to sever his
lawyer-client relations with Linsangan and use Tolentinos
services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000.00.
Further, Linsangans calling card was also attached wherein it
appeared that aside from legal services, financial assistance
was offered as well.
Issue: Whether Tolentino is guilty of misconduct
Held: Yes. The court adopted the IBPs finding of unethical
conduct, whereby it found Tolentino to have encroached on
the professional practice of Linsangan violating Rule 8.02,
which prohibits a lawyer from stealing another lawyers client
or induce the latters client to retain him by a promise of better
service, good result or reduced fees for his services.
Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture
with his clients as borrowers, Tolentino violated Rule 16.04
The court further added that Tolentino violated Rule
2.03 of the CPR which provides A LAWYER SHALL NOT
DO OR PERMIT TO BE DONE ANY ACT DESIGNED
PRIMARILY TO SOLICIT LEGAL BUSINESS. Hence,
lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers. Such
actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment.
Moreover, Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule
1.03 of the CPR which provides: Rule 1.03. A LAWYER
SHALL NOT, FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE OR
INTEREST, ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING
OR DELAY ANY MANS CAUSE. This rule proscribes
ambulance chasing (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal
business by an attorney, personally or through an agent in
order to gain employment) as a measure to protect the
community from barratry and champerty.
The calling card contained with the phrase financial
assistance, was clearly used to entice clients to change
counsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal actions.
This crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar
and deserved no place in the legal profession.
Additionally, the court said that a lawyers best
advertisement is a well-merited reputation for professional
capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and
conduct. For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to
announce their services by publication in reputable law lists or
use of simple professional cards. Hence, Atty. Tolentino was
suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.