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 misconductHeld: 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 16.04The 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.

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 misconductHeld: 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 16.04The 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.