Case Summary (A.C. No. 6672)
Complaint and Allegations
Petitioner Linsangan filed a disbarment complaint alleging that Tolentino, through paralegal Labiano, solicited his clients and encroached on his practice. Tolentino and Labiano allegedly promised financial assistance and expedited claim collection, persistently contacted existing clients by calls and text messages, and induced them to transfer representation in exchange for loans (e.g., a P50,000 offer to James Gregorio). A calling card bearing Tolentino’s law office name and “with financial assistance” slogan was submitted as evidence.
Respondent’s Defense and Referral to CBD
Tolentino denied any knowledge of Labiano or authorization of the calling card. The Supreme Court referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
IBP/CBD Findings and Recommendations
After testimonial and documentary review, the CBD concluded that Tolentino breached his ethical duties by encroaching on another lawyer’s practice (Rule 8.02, CPR) and by soliciting cases for gain through a paid agent (Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court). The CBD recommended a mere reprimand with stern warning.
Applicable Ethical Provisions
- Canon 3, CPR: Lawyers’ announcements must be “true, honest, fair, dignified and objective.”
- Rule 2.03, CPR: Prohibits any act primarily designed to solicit legal business.
- Rule 1.03, CPR: Forbids encouragement of suits for corrupt motives, proscribing “ambulance chasing.”
- Rule 8.02, CPR: Bars encroachment on another lawyer’s professional employment.
- Rule 16.04, CPR: Forbids lending money to a client, except advances necessary expenses in the interest of justice.
- Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court: Classifies solicitation of cases for gain as malpractice warranting disbarment or suspension.
Assessment of Evidence and Violations
The Court found substantial evidence—sworn statements of the coaxed clients—establishing that Labiano acted as Tolentino’s agent to solicit business and that Tolentino benefited from those referrals. Tolentino’s later admission of Labiano’s connection to his office confirmed his liability. Consequently, Tolentino violated Rule 2.03 (illegal solicitation), Rule 1.03 (ambulance chasing), Canon 3 (commercialized advertising), Rule 8.02 (client-stealing), and Section 27, Rule 138 (malpractice).
Professional Calling Card Analysis
While acknowledging that professional cards may list only name
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 6672)
Background and Parties
- 614 Phil. 327; 106 OG No. 29, 4112 (July 19, 2010), First Division, A.C. No. 6672, September 04, 2009
- Complainant: Pedro L. Linsangan of Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office
- Respondent: Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino
- Nature of the case: Complaint for disbarment based on solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services
Facts
- Respondent, through paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, allegedly induced complainant’s overseas seafaring clients to transfer legal representation
- Promises made: financial assistance (loan of ₱50,000) and expedited collection of claims
- Methods employed: persistent telephone calls and text messages
- Sworn affidavit of James Gregorio confirming Labiano’s offer to sever ties with complainant in exchange for a loan
- Presentation of respondent’s calling card offering “Consultancy & Maritime Services w/ Financial Assistance”
Procedural History
- Complaint filed February 1, 2005 and answered April 26, 2005
- Referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation
- CBD report and recommendation (Commissioner Lolita Quisumbing, March 2, 2006) found violations and advised a reprimand
- Supreme Court resolution by Justice Corona adopting findings but modifying penalty
Issues
- Whether respondent violated Rule 8.02, CPR, by encroaching on another lawyer’s employment
- Whether respondent committed illegal solicitation un