You are on page 1of 5

CANON 3: A LAWYER SHALL IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE,

HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.

PALENCIA vs. LINSANGAN (A.C. 10557) JULY 10, 2018

FACTS:
Complainant Jerry M. Palencia was an overseas Filipino worker seafarer who was seriously
injured during work when he fell into the elevator shaft of the vessel M/T "Panos G" flying a Cyprus
flag. He was initially treated in Singapore and was flown to the Philippines to continue his medical
treatment and rehabilitation at Manila Doctors Hospital. He was then approached by a “Moises” and
“Jesherel” who were later identified as paralegals at the firm of the respondents (Atty. Pedro
Linsangan, Atty, Gerard Linsangan and Atty. Glenda Linsangan-Binoya). After several visits, they
were able to convince the complainant to engage in their legal services, hence the execution of an
Attorney-Client contract and a Special Power of Attorney, together with Gurbani & Co., a
Singaporean law firm. Plaintiff and respondents also agreed on the payment of 35% attorney’s fees
of any recovery or settlement or both.

Due to the efforts of respondents and Gurbani & Co., plaintiff’s employer paid the following
amounts: US$60,000.00 as indemnity and US$20,000.00 under the collective bargaining agreement.
Respondents and Gurbani & Co. also filed a tort case against the owners of “Panos G” before the
High Court of Singapore (Singapore case), wherein they engaged the services of: (a) Papadopoulos,
Lycourgos & Co., a law firm based in Cyprus, to draft a written opinion on the issues involving
Cyprus law, among others; (b) retired Justice Emilio Gancayco for his expert opinion regarding
various issues raised by defendant's lawyer and representatives. Negotiations led to a settlement
award in favor of plaintiff in the amount of US$95,000.00 in which Gurbani & Co. remitted to
respondents an amount of US$59,608.40. Thereafter, respondents deducted upon said amount the
payment for Justice Gancayco, their attorney’s fees equivalent to 35% and other fees, tendering the
amount of US$20,756.05(representing the US$18,132.43). However, plaintiff denied acceptance.
Respondents filed an action for preliminary mandatory injunction, to compel plaintiff to receive the
amount tendered, which the RTC denied and was eventually upheld by the Court. Plaintiff filed with
the RTC of Ligao City the remittance of settlement amounts and damages. RTC ruled in favor of
Palencia and upheld the stipulated attorney’s fees with the determination that fees are lumped for
both respondents and Gurbani & Co. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision however reduced the
attorney’s fees to 10%, and was likewise upheld by the Court. Plaintiff also filed with the IBP-CBD
the subject letter-complaint and requested for an investigation and the corresponding disciplinary
action be imposed upon respondents for committing the following unethical acts: (1) refusing to
remit the amount collected in the Singapore case worth US$95,000.00 and instead offering only
US$20,756.05; (2) depositing complainant’s money into their own account; and (3) engaging in
“ambulance chasing” or the act of chasing victims of accidents for the purpose of talking and
offering his legal services for the filing of a case against those who caused the accident(s) by
deploying their agents to convince plaintiff to hire respondents’ services while the former was still
bedridden in the hospital.
IBP-CBD ruled that respondents violated the canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR): (1) in soliciting legal business through their agents while complainant was in
the hospital; (2) in failing to account for, and deliver the funds and property of his client when due
or upon demand; and (3) in hiring the services of a foreign law firm and another lawyer without
prior knowledge and consent of complainant of the fees and expenses to be incurred. The Court
adopted the findings of the IBP, however absolved Atty. Glenda Linsangan-Binoya for the lack of
evidence as to participation in the acts complained of.

ISSUE:

W/N violated the canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

Yes, the respondent-lawyers violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The practice of law is a profession and not a business. Lawyers are reminded to avoid at all
times any act that would tend to lessen the confidence of the public in the legal profession as a
noble calling, including, among others, the manner by which he makes known his legal services.
According to Canon 3, a lawyer in making known his legal services must do so in a dignified
manner. They are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers. The CPR explicitly states that "[a] lawyer shall not do or permit to
be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business." Corollary to this duty is for lawyers not
to encourage any suit or proceeding for any corrupt motive or interest. Thus, "ambulance chasing,"
or the solicitation of almost any kind of business by an attorney, personally or through an agent, in
order to gain employment, is proscribed.

Here, there is sufficient evidence to show that respondents violated these rules. No less than
their former paralegal Jesherel admitted that respondent Atty. Pedro Linsangan came with her and
another paralegal named Moises, to Manila Doctors Hospital several times to convince complainant
to hire their services. This is a far cry from respondents' claim that they were merely providing free
legal advice to the public. Moreover, while respondents deny Jesherel's connection with their law
firm, this was sufficiently rebutted by complainant when he presented Jesherel's resignation letter
as received by respondents' firm. In employing paralegals to encourage complainant to file a
lawsuit against his employers, respondents indirectly solicited legal business and encouraged the
filing of suit. These constitute malpractice which calls for the exercise of the court's disciplinary
powers and warrants serious sanctions.

Therefore, it is clear that respondent-lawyers Atty. Pedro Linsangan and Atty. Gerard
Linsangan are held guilty and are suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years with a
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
ULEP vs. THE LEGAL CLINIC INC. (B.M. 553) JUNE 17, 1993

FACTS:

In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to
Nogales, was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of
big law firms. Petitioner prays this Court "to order the respondent to cease and desist from Issuing
advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of Annexes 'A' and 'B' (of said petition) and to
perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of
the law profession other than those allowed by law."

ANNEX A ANNEX B
SECRET MARRIAGE? GUAM DIVORCE
P560.00 for a valid marriage. DON PARKINSON
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The
ANNULMENT. VISA. Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office hours.
THE Please call: 521-0767 Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext.
LEGAL 5217232, 5222041 Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree's Visa. Declaration of Absence.
CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am - 6:00 pm Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil.
7-Flr. Victoria Bldg. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.
UN Ave., Mla. THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.
LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy
CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-7232
521-7251
522-2041
521-0767

It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above reproduced are


champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the
community in the integrity of the members of the bar and that, as a member of the legal profession,
he is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements, hence the reliefs sought in his petition. In
its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisements at its
instance, but claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal
support services" through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines.
Respondent further argues that assuming that the services advertised are legal services, the act of
advertising these services should be allowed supposedly in the light of the case of Bates and O'Steen
vs. State Bar of Arizona reportedly decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977.

ISSUE:

W/N the advertised services offered by respondent constitutes practice of law and the same
are in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

Yes, the services offered by respondent firm constitutes practice of law and Yes, said act of
advertising constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The advertisement of the respondent is covered in the term practice of law as defined in the
case of Cayetano vs. Monsod. There is a restricted concept and limited acceptance of paralegal
services in the Philippines. It is allowed that some persons not duly licensed to practice law are or
have been permitted with a limited representation in behalf of another or to render legal services,
but such allowable services are limited in scope and extent by the law, rules or regulations granting
permission therefore. Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in
making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information
or statement of facts. Canon 3.01 adds that he is not supposed to use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding
his qualifications or legal services. Nor shall he pay or give something of value to representatives of
the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business (Canon 3.04).
The Canons of Professional Ethics, before the adoption of the CPR, had also warned that lawyers
should not resort to indirect advertisements for professional employment, such as furnishing or
inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph to be published in connection with
causes in which the lawyer have been engaged of concerning the manner of the conduct, the
magnitude of the interest involved, the importance the lawyer's position, and all other like self-
laudation. There are existing exceptions under the law on the rule prohibiting the advertisement of
a lawyer’s services. However, taking into consideration the nature and contents of the
advertisements for which respondent is being taken to task, which even includes a quotation of the
fees charged by said respondent-corporation for services rendered, the Court found and held that
the same definitely do not and conclusively cannot fall under any of the exceptions. The
respondent’s defense with the case of Bates vs. State Bar applies only when there is an exception to
the prohibition against advertisements by lawyers, to publish a statement of legal fees for an initial
consultation or the availability upon request of a written schedule of fees or an estimate of the fee
to be charged for the specific services. No such exception is provided for, expressly or impliedly
whether in our former Canons of Professional Ethics or the present Code of Professional
Responsibility. The only allowed form of advertisements would be: (1) citing your involvement in a
reputable law list; (2) an ordinary professional card; and (3) phone directory listing without
designation to a lawyer’s specialization.

Therefore, it is undoubtedly a misbehavior on the part of the lawyer, subject to disciplinary


action, to advertise his services except in allowable instances or to aid a layman in the unauthorized
practice of law. Considering that Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales, who is the prime incorporator, major
stockholder and proprietor of The Legal Clinic, Inc. is a member of the Philippine Bar, he is hereby
reprimanded, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts which are involved in this
proceeding will be dealt with more severely. The Court resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN herein
respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing the publication or dissemination of any
advertisement in any form which is of the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A" and
"B" of this petition, and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity, operation or
transaction proscribed by law or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated herein.
PEDRO L. LINSANGAN vs. ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO (A.C. No. 6672) September 4, 2009

FACTS:

A complaint for disbarment is filed by Pedro Linsangan against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino
for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services. The complainant alleged that
respondent convinced his clients to transfer legal representation by promising them financial
assistance. The allegations of the complainant were supported by the sworn affidavit of James
Gregorio who attested to the respondent’s acts of trying to lure him to sever his lawyer-client
relationship with complainant Linsangan. An attached calling card of the respondent further
supported the complaint which advertised the respondent’s law firm with the term “w/ financial
assistance”. Below is the said calling card:

NICOMEDES TOLENTINO

LAW OFFFICE
SERVICES OFFERED:

CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE


W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
Fe Marie L. Labiano
Paralegal INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS
ABROAD.
1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr. Rm. M-01 Tel: 362-7820
6th Ave., cor M.H. Del Pilar Fax: (632) 362-7821 1av vphi1

Grace Park, Caloocan City Cel.: (0926) 2701719

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent’s acts are violative of Canon 3 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

HELD:

Yes, Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “A lawyer making known
his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statements
of facts. ”The practice of law is a professions and not a business. Lawyers should not advertise their
talents as merchants advertise their wares. The act of the respondent in including the phrase “with
financial assistance” in his calling card is a conduct of advertising the legal profession with
commercialism and with the purpose of enticing clients to change counsels through the promise of
loans to finance their legal action. A lawyer need not to advertise the legal profession in such a
manner similar to commercial businesses, a lawyer’s best advertisement is a well-merited
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and conduct and not
through promises of money.

You might also like