Pedro Linsangan vs.

Atty Nicomedes Tolentino

Facts:
Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his
clients[2] to transfer legal representation. Respondent promised them financial assistance[3] and
expeditious collection on their... claims.[4] To induce them to hire his services, he persistently
called them and sent them text messages.
To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit[5] of James Gregorio
attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with
complainant and utilize respondent's services instead, in exchange for a... loan of P50,000.
also attached "respondent's" calling card
NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
LAW OFFFICE
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Hence, this complaint.
Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation
of the said calling card.[7]
The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.[8]
CBD... the CBD... recommended that respondent be reprimanded with a stern warning that any
repetition would merit a heavier penalty.
Issues:
This is a complaint for disbarment
Ruling:
We adopt the findings of the IBP on the unethical conduct of respondent but we modify the
recommended penalty.
respondent clearly solicited employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and Canon 3 of the
CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
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, stenographer's fees
for transcript of stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond, etc.)... for a matter
that he is handling for the client.
the sanction recommended by the IBP, a mere reprimand, is a wimpy slap on the wrist. The
proposed penalty is grossly incommensurate to its findings.
Labiano's 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.
respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon
3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is
hereby SUSPENDED from the 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.
Principles:
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 advertise their wares.[13] To
allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize... the practice of law, degrade
the profession in the public's estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that high
character of service to which every member of the bar is called.[14]... 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) lawyer's name;
(b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;
(c) address;
(d) telephone number and
(e) special branch of law practiced.
Juan Rustia vs CFI Batangas
Facts:
July 31, 1921, the respondent Justo Porcuna, for himself and on behalf of his wife, the
respondent Rosa H. de Porcuna, by means of a written contract, retained the Juan Rustia to
represent them as their lawyer in case No. 1435 then pending in the Court of First Instance of
Batangas and in which Rosa H. de Porcuna was the plaintiff and one Eulalia Magsombol was the
defendant.
The contract fixed the petitioner's fee at P200 in advance with an additional contigent fee of
P1,300. It was also provided in the contract that Justo Porcuna should not compromise the claim
against the defendant in the case without express consent of his lawyer, the herein petitioner.
After trial, the petitioner then being plaintiffs' attorney of record, the Court of First Instance,
under date of December 24, 1921, rendered judgment in favor of Justo Porcuna and Rosa H. de
Porcuna.

The plaintiffs, without any further intervention of their attorney, now appear before this
Honorable Court and respectfully aver:

That, through Mr. Miguel Olgado, they already settled this case with the herein defendant.

Wherefore, the plaintiffs respectfully request the dismissal of this case without any
pronouncement as to costs, and that the appeal interposed by the defendant be further dismissed.c

The Court of First Instance on the same day, March 2, dismissed the action without notice to
counsel for the plaintiffs.

The petitioner alleges that he did not discover the dismissal of the action until April 4, 1922.

Issue Whether or not the litigant has the right to dismiss the lawyer as their counsel.

Ruling

Both at the common law and under section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure a client may
dismiss his lawyer at any time or at any stage of the proceedings and there is nothing to prevent a
litigant from appearing before the court to conduct his own litigation. (Sec. 34, Code of Civil
Procedure.) The client has also an undoubted right to compromise a suit without the intervention
of his lawyer.

In the present instance the clients did nothing that they did not have a perfect right to do. By
appearing personally and presenting a motion they impliedly dismissed their lawyer. The
petitioner's contingent interest in the judgment rendered did not appear of record. Neither as a
party in interest nor as an attorney was he therefore entitled to notice of the motion.
LINSANGAN v. TOLENTINO
LINSANGAN v. TOLENTINO
A.C. No. 6672
September 4, 2009

FACTS:

• There was a complaint for disbarment filed by LINSANGAN against Atty. TOLENTINO for
solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services.
– LINSANGAN alleged that TOLENTINO, with the help of a paralegal, LABIANO, convinced his clients
to transfer legal representation. TOLENTINO promised 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.
• LINSANGAN presented an affidavit attesting that LABIANO tried to prevail upon a client to sever
his lawyer-client relations with LINSANGAN and utilize TOLENTINO's services instead, in exchange
for a loan of ₱50,000. 
• LINSANGAN also attached TOLENTINO's calling card.
• TOLENTINO denied knowing LABIANO and authorizing the printing and circulation of the said
calling card.
• The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP.
• The CBD recommended that TOLENTINO be reprimanded as it found that he:
– had encroached on the professional practice of LINSANGAN, violating Rule 8.02 and other canons
of the Code of Professional Responsibility
– contravened the rule against soliciting cases for gain, personally or through paid agents or brokers
as stated in Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court

ISSUE/S:

• W.O.N. Tolentino's actions warrant disbarment

RULING:

• SC adopts the findings of the IBP on the unethical conduct of TOLENTINO but modifies the
recommended penalty.
• The means employed by TOLENTINO in furtherance of the said misconduct constituted distinct
violations of ethical rules.
• • Canon 3, CPR provides:
– A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and
objective information or statement of facts.
– The practice of law is a profession and not a business. 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 every member of the
bar is called.
• • Rule 2.03, CPR provides:
– A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
– 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.
• • Rule 1.03, CPR which provides:
– A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay
any man’s 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.
• TOLENTINO clearly solicited employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and Canon 3 of the
CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
• TOLENTINO also committed an unethical, predatory overstep into another’s legal practice, in
violation of
• • Rule 8.02, CPR
– 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.
• Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his clients as borrowers, TOLENTINO
violated:
• • Rule 16.04, CPR
– 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 expenses in a legal matter he is
handling for the client.
• • The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyers 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 clients cause. 
• Any act of solicitation constitutes malpractice which calls for the exercise of the Courts
disciplinary powers. 
• Considering the myriad infractions of respondent (including violation of the prohibition on lending
money to clients), the sanction recommended by the IBP, a mere reprimand, is a wimpy slap on the
wrist. The proposed penalty is grossly incommensurate to its findings.
• • Atty. TOLENTINO for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of 1 year .
• 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: lawyers
name; name of the law firm with which he is connected; address; telephone number and special
branch of law practiced.
ROGELIO A. TAN, NORMA TAN and MALIYAWAO
PAGAYOKAN, Petitioners, v. BENEDICTO M. BALAJADIA,

Facts

Petitioners allege that on May 8, 2005, respondent filed a criminal case against them
with the Office of the City of Prosecutor of Baguio City for usurpation of authority, grave
coercion and violation of city tax ordinance due to the alleged illegal collection of
parking fees by petitioners from respondent.

In paragraph 5 of the complaint-affidavit, respondent asserted that he is a "practicing

lawyer based in Baguio City with office address at Room B-207, 2/F Lopez Building,
Session Road, Baguio City."2 However, certifications issued by the Office of the Bar
Confidant3 and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines4 showed that respondent has never
been admitted to the Philippine Bar. Hence, petitioners claim that respondent is liable
for indirect contempt for misrepresenting himself as a lawyer.

The complaint-affidavit that he is a practicing lawyer was an honest mistake. He claims

that the secretary of Atty. Paterno Aquino prepared the subject complaint-affidavit
which was patterned after Atty. Aquino's complaint-affidavit.6 It appears that Atty.
Aquino had previously filed a complaint-affidavit against petitioners involving the same
subject matter.

Liza Laconsay, Atty. Aquino's secretary, executed an affidavit8 admitting the mistake in

the preparation of the complaint-affidavit. Respondent alleged that he did not read the
complaint-affidavit because he assumed that the two complaint-affidavits contained the
same allegations with respect to his occupation and office address. Respondent claims
that he had no intention of misrepresenting himself as a practicing lawyer.

Issue: whether respondent is liable for indirect contempt.

Ruling: No he is not liable of indirect contempt

Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. - After a charge
in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment
thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or
counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect
contempt:

In the case at bar, a review of the records supports respondent's claim that he never
intended to project himself as a lawyer to the public. It was a clear inadvertence on the
part of the secretary of Atty Aquino. The affidavit of Liza Laconsay attesting to the
circumstances that gave rise to the mistake in the drafting of the complaint-affidavit
conforms to the documentary evidence on record. Taken together, these circumstances
show that the allegation in paragraph 5 of respondent's complaint-affidavit was, indeed,
the result of inadvertence.