CANON 8.

Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the
professional employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any
lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
Lawyer Should not Steal Anothers Client
A person without a retained lawyer is a legitimate prospective client for any
lawyer whom he approaches for legal services. But as soon as he had
retained one, and had not dismissed him, any efforts on the part of another
lawyer to take him as client constitutes an act of encroaching upon the
employment of another lawyer.
Such efforts may consist of a promise of better service, lower attys fees, or
downgrading the qualifications or services of the lawyer. Any act which is
calculated to ease out the previous lawyers with the intent to grab the case
is violative of the rule against encroachment upon the employment of
another lawyer.
ATTY. DALLONG- GALICINAO V. ATTY. CASTRO
A.C. No. 6396, Oct 25, 2005
Facts:
Atty. Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of RTC and Atty. Castro was
a private practitioner and VP of IBP-Nueva Vizcaya. Respondent went to
complainants office to inquire whether the records of Civil Case No. 784 had
already been remanded to the MCTC. Respondent was not the counsel of
either party in that case.
Complainant replied that the record had not yet been transmitted since
a certified true copy of the CA decision should first be presented. To this
respondent retorted, You mean to say, I would have to go to Manila to get a
copy? Complainant replied that respondent may show instead the copy
sent to the party he represents. Respondent then replied that complainant
shouldve notified him. Complainant explained that it is not her duty to notify
the respondent of such duty. Angered, respondent yelled stuff in Ilocano and
left the office, banging the door so loud. He then returned to the office and
shouted, Ukinnam nga babai! (Vulva of your mother, you woman!)
Later, complainant filed a manifestation that she wont appear in the
hearing of the case in view of the respondents public apology, and that the
latter was forgiven already.
Held:
Respondent is fined the amount of 10k with a warning.
Respondent was not the counsel of record of Civil Case No. 784. His
explanation that he will enter his appearance in the case when its records

were already transmitted to the MCTC is unacceptable. Not being the counsel
of record respondent had no right to impose his will on the clerk of court. He
violated Rule 8.02, because this was an act of encroachment. It matters not
that he did so in good faith.
His act of raising his voice and uttering vulgar invectives to the clerk of
court was not only ill-mannered but also unbecoming considering that he did
these in front of the complainants subordinates. For these, he violated Rules
7.03 and 8.01 and Canon 8.
The penalty was tempered because respondent apologized to the
complainant and the latter accepted it. This is not to say, however, that
respondent should be absolved from his actuations. People are accountable
for the consequences of the things they say and do even if they repent
afterwards.
SC Suspends Money-Lending Lawyer for Stealing Clients
Posted: September 10, 2009
by Annie Rose A. Laborte
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph
Linsangan vs Tolentino
AC No. 6672, Sept 4, 2009
Thou shall not steal another lawyers clients.
The Supreme Court has cracked the whip on a lawyer who had encroached
on the professional practice of another lawyer and in doing so, contravened
the rule against soliciting cases for gain.
In a the 12-page resolution penned by Justice Renato B. Corona, the Court
suspended from the practice of law for one year Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino
for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Rules of
Court.
The Court found that Tolentino committed an unethical, predatory overstep
into anothers legal practice. Specifically, Tolentino violated Rules 1.03,
2.03, 8.02, and 16.01, and Canon 3 of the CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Atty. Pedro L. Linsangan of the
Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Tolentino for solicitation
of clients and encroachment of professional services.

In his complaint, Linsangan alleged that Tolentino, with the help of paralegal
Fe Marie Labiano, convinced three of Linsangans clients, who are all
overseas seafarers, to transfer legal representation.
One of the said seafarers attested that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to
switch to Tolentinos services in exchange for a loan of PhP50,000. Labianos
calling card had the words with financial assistance on the front, and
services offered: consultation and assistance to overseas seamen
repatriated due to accident, injury, sickness, death and insurance benefit
claims abroad on the back.
In his defense, Tolentino initially denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the
printing and circulation of the said calling card, but later on admitted it
during the mandatory hearing held by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. It
found that respondent encroached on the professional service of Linsangan,
violating Rule 8.02 and other Canons of the CPR. Tolentino also contravened
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which prohibits solicitation of
cases for gain, personally or through paid agents or brokers, it added. Rule
8.02, on the other hand, provides that a lawyer should not steal another
lawyers client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better
service, good result or reduced fees for his services.
While the Court adopted the findings of the IBP, it raised the recommended
penalty from reprimand to suspension.
The Court said Linsangan presented substantial evidence to prove that
Tolentino benefited through Labianos actions, enticing hapless seamen to
transfer representation due to Labianos promise that Tolentino could
produce a more favorable result.
The Court pointed out that the phrase with financial assistance contained
in Labianos calling card was clearly to lure clients who already had the
services of another lawyer to change counsels with a promise of loan to
finance their legal actions. Money was dangled the clients, taking advantage
of their financial distress and emotional vulnerability, it said. The Court cited
Rule 2.03 of the CPR, which provides that (A) lawyer shall not do or permit
to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business. Thus,
lawyers are not allowed to solicit cases for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers as such constitutes malpractice,

which is a ground for disbarment.

The suspension takes effect immediately from Tolentinos receipt of the
Courts resolution. The Court also sternly warned Tolentino that a repetition
of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
(AC No. 6672, Linsangan v. Tolentino, September 4, 2009)
LINSANGAN V. TOLENTINO
Facts:
A complaint of disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan of the
Linsangan, Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes
Tolentino for solicitation of clients & encroachment of professional services.
Linsangan alleges that Tolentino with the help of paralegal Labiano convinced
his clients to transfer legal representation by promising financial assistance
and expeditious collection of their claims. To induce them, Tolentino allegedly
texted and called them persistently. To support his allegation, Linsangan
presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried
to prevail over him to sever his client-atty relationship with Linsangan. Also,
he attached respondents calling card:
Front
NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
LAW OFFFICE
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Fe Marie L. Labiano
Paralegal
1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr. Rm. M-01
Tel: 362-7820
6th Ave., cor M.H. Del Pilar
Fax: (632) 362-7821
Grace Park, Caloocan City
Cel.: (0926) 2701719
Back
SERVICES OFFERED:
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH

AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS

ABROAD.
In his defense, Tolentino denies knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing
and circulating of said calling card.
Issue:
W/N Atty. Tolentino is guilty of advertising his services
Held:
Yes. Atty. Tolentino suspended for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and
16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
With regard to Canon 3, the practice of law is a profession and not a
business. Thus, lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants
advertise their wares. To allow lawyers to advertise their talents/skill is a
commercialization of the practice of law (degrading the profession in the
publics estimation).
With regard to Rule 2.03, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases
for purpose of gain, either personally or through an agent. In relation to Rule
1.03, which proscribes ambulance chasing (involving solicitation personally
or through an agent/broker) as a measure to protect community from
barratry and champertry.
As a final note regarding the calling card presented as evidence by
Linsangan, 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.
Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:
(a) lawyers name;
(b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;
(c) address;
(d) telephone number and
(e) special branch of law practiced.
Labianos calling card contained the phrase with financial assistance.
The phrase was clearly used to entice clients (who already had
representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance their
legal actions. Money was dangled to lure clients away from their original
lawyers, thereby taking advantage of their financial distress and emotional
vulnerability. This crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and
deserves no place in the legal profession.
CAMACHO V. PAGULAYAN
FACTS
AMA Computer College (AMACC) had a pending case in the RTC for
expelling some students due to having published objectionable features or

articles in the school paper. Thereafter, Atty. Camacho who is the counsel for
the expelled students filed a complaint against Atty. Pangulayan, counsel for
AMACC, for violation of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics which
provides that "A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject
of controversy with a party represented by counsel, much less should he
undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should only
deal with his counsel. It is incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to
avoid everything that may tend to mislead a party not represented by
counsel and he should not undertake to advise him as to law." The complaint
was based on the fact that Atty. Pangulayan procured and effected from the
expelled students and their parents compromise agreements in which the
students waived all kinds of claims they may have against AMACC and to
terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings filed against it.
The compromise agreements were procured by Atty. Pangulayan without the
consent and knowledge of Atty. Camacho given that he was already the
counsel for the students at that time. It was averred that the acts of Atty.
Pangulayan was unbecoming of any member of the legal profession
warranting either disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Pangulayan violated Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Ethics
HELD
YES! Atty. Pangulayan is suspended for 3 months from the practice of
law for having ciolated the Code of Professional Ethics.
In this case, when the compromise agreements were formalized and
effected by Atty. Pangulayan, Atty. Camacho was already the retained
counsel for the students in the pending case filed by the students against
AMACC and Atty. Pangulayan had full knowledge of such fact. However, Atty.
Pangulayan still proceeded to negotiate with the students and the parents
without at least communicating the matter with their lawyer even being
aware that the students were being represented by counsel.
Such failure of Atty. Pangulayan, whether by design or oversight, is an
inexcusable violation of the canons of professional ethics and in utter
disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Atty. Pangulayan in this case fell
short of the demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the
Bar.
*In relation to our topic (not stated in case), such act of Atty.
Pangulayan is also in violation of Canon 8.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which states that "A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer, however, it is
the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and
assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel."