Pedro Linsangan vs Atty.

Nicomedes Tolentino
July 3, 2015
598 SCRA 133 – Legal Ethics – Unethical Solicitation of Legal Business

In 2005, Atty. Pedro Linsangan filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino alleging that Atty.
Tolentino, through his paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, “pirated” a client of Atty. Linsangan. Said client later executed an affidavit
in support of Atty. Linsangan’s allegations.

Atty. Linsangan also questioned the propriety of Labiano’s calling card which appears as follows:

FRONT

NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
LAW OFFICE

CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES

W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Fe Marie L. Labiano
Paralegal

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, Atty. Tolentino denied knowing Labiano. He also denied authorizing the printing of such calling cards.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino encroached upon the professional services of Atty. Pedro Linsangan.
2. Whether or not Atty. Tolentino is liable for the improper calling card of Labiano.

HELD:
1. Yes. Atty. Tolentino violated Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer should not steal another
lawyer’s client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his services.
By recruiting Atty. Linsangan’s clients, Atty. Tolentino committed an unethical, predatory overstep into another’s legal
practice.
2. Yes. Atty. Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, and 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Although Atty.
Tolentino initially denied knowing Labiano, he admitted he actually knew her later in the proceedings. It is thus clear that
Labiano was connected to his law office. Through Labiano’s actions, Atty. Tolentino’s law practice was benefited. Hapless
seamen were enticed to transfer representation on the strength of Labiano’s word that Atty. Tolentino could produce a more
favorable result.

Labiano’s calling card is improper. The card made it appear that the law office will finance legal actions for the clients. The
rule is, a lawyer shall not lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses
in a legal matter he is handling for the client.

The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyer’s independence of mind so that the free exercise of his judgment may not be
adversely affected. It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he is handling as well as his entire devotion and
fidelity to the client’s cause. If the lawyer lends money to the client in connection with the client’s case, the lawyer in effect
acquires an interest in the subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its outcome. Either of these circumstances may
lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that of his client, or to accept a settlement which may take care of his
interest in the verdict to the prejudice of the client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to the client’s cause.

The phrase in the calling card which states “w/ financial assistance“, was clearly used to entice clients (who already had
representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal actions.

However, since there is no substantial evidence to prove that Atty. Tolentino had a personal and direct hand in the printing of
said calling cards, he cannot be punished with severity. At any rate, for all the infractions Atty. Tolentino committed, he was
suspended by the Supreme Court for one year.