Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A.C.No.6672
FIRST DIVISION
xx
RESOLUTION
CORONA, J.:
[1]
This is a complaint for disbarment
filed by Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan
Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for
solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services.
Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano,
[2]
convinced his clients
to transfer legal representation. Respondent promised
[3]
[4]
them financial assistance
and expeditious collection on their claims.
To
induce them to hire his services, he persistently called them and sent them text
messages.
[5]
To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit
of James
Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyerclient
relations with complainant and utilize respondents services instead, in exchange
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm
[6]
1/8
11/10/2016
A.C.No.6672
[6]
for a loan of P50,000. Complainant also attached respondents calling card:
Front
NICOMEDESTOLENTINO
LAWOFFFICE
CONSULTANCY&MARITIMESERVICES
W/FINANCIALASSISTANCE
FeMarieL.Labiano
Paralegal
1stMIJIMansion,2ndFlr.Rm.M01Tel:3627820
6thAve.,corM.H.DelPilarFax:(632)3627821
GracePark,CaloocanCityCel.:(0926)2701719
Back
SERVICESOFFERED:
CONSULTATIONANDASSISTANCE
TOOVERSEASSEAMEN
REPATRIATEDDUETOACCIDENT,
INJURY,ILLNESS,SICKNESS,DEATH
ANDINSURANCEBENEFITCLAIMS
ABROAD.
(emphasissupplied)
Bar
of
the
Philippines
(IBP)
for
investigation,
report
and
[8]
recommendation.
Based on testimonial and documentary evidence, the CBD, in its report and
[9]
recommendation,
found that respondent had encroached on the professional
[10]
[11]
practice of complainant, violating Rule 8.02
and other canons
of the Code
of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Moreover, he contravened the rule against
soliciting cases for gain, personally or through paid agents or brokers as stated in
[12]
Section 27, Rule 138
of the Rules of Court. Hence, the CBD recommended that
respondent be reprimanded with a stern warning that any repetition would merit a
heavier penalty.
We adopt the findings of the IBP on the unethical conduct of respondent but we
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm
2/8
11/10/2016
A.C.No.6672
CANON 3 A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY
TRUE,HONEST,FAIR,DIGNIFIEDANDOBJECTIVEINFORMATIONORSTATEMENTOF
FACTS.
Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a profession
and not a business lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants
[13]
advertise their wares.
To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to
commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession in the publics estimation
and impair its ability to efficiently render that high character of service to which
[14]
every member of the bar is called.
RULE2.03.ALAWYERSHALLNOTDOORPERMITTOBEDONEANYACTDESIGNED
PRIMARILYTOSOLICITLEGALBUSINESS.
Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either
[15]
personally or through paid agents or brokers.
Such actuation constitutes
[16]
malpractice, a ground for disbarment.
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,
ENCOURAGEANYSUITORPROCEEDINGORDELAYANYMANSCAUSE.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm
3/8
11/10/2016
A.C.No.6672
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
[17]
employment)
as a measure to protect the community from barratry and
[18]
champerty.
Complainant
presented
substantial
[19]
evidence
(consisting
of
the
sworn
4/8
11/10/2016
A.C.No.6672
Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend
money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary
expensesinalegalmatterheishandlingfortheclient.
The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The only exception
is, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses (such as
filing fees, stenographers fees for transcript of stenographic notes, cash bond or
premium for surety bond, etc.) for a matter that he is handling for the client.
[25]
As previously mentioned, any act of solicitation constitutes malpractice
which
calls for the exercise of the Courts disciplinary powers. Violation of antisolicitation
statutes warrants serious sanctions for initiating contact with a prospective client
[26]
for the purpose of obtaining employment.
Thus, in this jurisdiction, we adhere
to the rule to protect the public from the Machiavellian machinations of
unscrupulous lawyers and to uphold the nobility of the legal profession.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm
5/8
11/10/2016
A.C.No.6672
(a)lawyers name
(b)name of the law firm with which he is connected
(c)address
(d)telephone number and
[28]
(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 deserved no place in the legal profession.
However, in the absence of substantial evidence to prove his culpability, the Court
is not prepared to rule that respondent was personally and directly responsible for
the printing and distribution of Labianos calling cards.
6/8
11/10/2016
A.C.No.6672
practice of law for a period of one year effective immediately from receipt of this
resolution. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts
in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be made part of his records in the Office of the Bar
Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines, and be furnished to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator to be circulated to
all courts.
SO ORDERED.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
[1]
ComplaintdatedFebruary1,2005.Rollo,pp.17.
[2]
OverseasseafarersCenenMagno,HenryDy,JamesR.GregorioandNoelGeronimo.Id.,pp.23,914.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm
7/8
11/10/2016
A.C.No.6672
OverseasseafarersCenenMagno,HenryDy,JamesR.GregorioandNoelGeronimo.Id.,pp.23,914.
[3]
Id.,p.9.
[4]
Involvedbenefitsanddisabilitycollectioncases.Id.,pp.23.
[5]
Complaint,AnnexD.Id.,pp.1214.
[6]
Complaint,AnnexA.Id.,p.8.
[7]
AnswerdatedApril26,2005.Id.,pp.2023.
[8]
ResolutiondatedAugust15,2005.Id.,p.24.
[9]
ReportandrecommendationpennedbyCommissionerLolitaQuisumbingdatedMarch2,2006.Id.,pp.106111.
[10]
CODEOFPROFESSIONALRESPONSIBILITY,Rule8.02provides:
Alawyershallnot,directlyorindirectly,encroachupontheprofessionalemploymentofanotherlawyerhowever,itistherightof
any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful
counsel.
[11]
Rule1.01Canon2Rule2.03Canon3Rule3.01Canon7Rule7.03Canon8Rule8.01Canon9andRule9.01oftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibility.Rollo,p.110.
[12]
RULESOFCOURT,Rule138,Section27provides:
DisbarmentorsuspensionofattorneysbySupremeCourtgroundstherefor.Amemberofthebarmaybedisbarredorsuspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
immoralconduct,orbyreasonofhisconvictionofacrimeinvolvingmoralturpitude,orforanyviolationoftheoathwhichheis
requiredtotakebeforeadmissiontopractice,orforawillfuldisobedienceofanylawfulorderofasuperiorcourt,orforcorruptlyor
willfullyappearingasanattorneyforapartytoacasewithoutauthoritysotodo.Thepracticeofsolicitingcasesatlawforthe
purposeofgain,eitherpersonallyorthroughpaidagentsorbrokers,constitutesmalpractice.(emphasissupplied)
[13]
InRe:Tagorda,53Phil.37(1933).
[14]
Agpalo,LEGALANDJUDICIALETHICS,7THEdition(2002),p.109.
[15]
Rule138,Section27oftheRulesofCourt.Seesupranote12.
[16]
Supranote13.
[17]
Agpalo.Supranote14,p.72.
[18]
McCloskeyv.Tobin,252US107,64LEd481,40SCt306(1920).
[19]
Orevidencewhichareasonablemindmightacceptasadequatetosupportaconclusionevenifotherequallyreasonablemindsmight
opineotherwise(Portuguezv.GSISFamilySavingsBank,G.R.No.169570,2March2007,517SCRA309Bautistav.Sula,A.M.
No. P041920, 17 August 2007, 530 SCRA 406 ePacific Global Contact Center, Inc. v. Cabansay, G.R. No. 167345, 23
November2007,538SCRA498).Moreover,inInre:ImproperSolicitationofCourtEmployeesRolandoH.Hernandez,Executive
Assistant1,OfficeoftheCourtAdministrator,A.M.No.200812SC,24April2009,theCourtadoptedtheOCAsevaluationwhich
reliedontheswornstatementstosupportitsconclusionthatillegalactswerecommittedbyrespondentsinthiscase.
[20]
Supranote14,p.101.
[21]
Rollo,pp.9697.
[22]
Agpalo,supranote14,p.240citingcommentsoftheIBPCommitteethatdraftedtheCPR,p.90.
[23]
Id.
[24]
Id.
[25]
Supranotes10and12.
[26]
StateBarv.Kilpatrick,874SW2d656(1994,Tex).Inthiscase,thelawyerwasdisbarred.
[27]
Ulepv.LegalClinic,Inc.,B.M.No.553,17June1993,223SCRA378.
[28]
Id.,p.408.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm
8/8