A.C. No. 6672 - Linsangan vs. Tolentino

Complainant Pedro L. Linsangan of Linsangan, Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office filed a disbarment complaint dated February 1, 2005 against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services.
The complaint alleged that respondent, through paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, induced overseas seamen clients (Cenen Magno, Henry Dy, James R. Gregorio, Noel Geronimo) to transfer representation by promising financial assistance and expeditious collection of claims.

Sworn affidavit of James Gregorio stating Labiano offered him a P50,000 loan to leave complainant’s representation and retain respondent.
Presentation of a calling card bearing respondent’s law office name and the phrase “with financial assistance” under paralegal Labiano’s name, advertising consultancy and maritime services.
Respondent’s defense denied knowledge of Labiano and disavowed authorization of the calling card.
The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) for investigation, which found violations of Rule 8.02 (encroachment), Rule 2.03 (solicitation), Canon 3 (commercialism), and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, recommending a stern reprimand.

The Supreme Court adopted the IBP findings on unethical conduct but deemed the recommended penalty inadequate.
The Court analyzed applicable Canons and Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Rules of Court, and noted additional violation of Rule 16.04 (lending money to clients).

Whether respondent encroached upon the professional practice of another lawyer in violation of CPR Rule 8.02.
Whether respondent solicited legal business through paid agents or brokers, contravening CPR Rule 2.03, CPR Rule 1.03, Canon 3, and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Whether respondent’s act of lending money to clients violated CPR Rule 16.04.
What penalty is proper given the multiple ethical infractions.