You are on page 1of 2

598 SCRA 133 Legal Ethics Unethical Solicitation of Legal Business

In 2005, Atty. Pedro Linsangan filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Nicomedes
Tolentino alleging that Atty. Tolentino, through his paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, pirated a
client of Atty. Linsangan. Said client later executed an affidavit in support of Atty.
Linsangans allegations.
Atty. Linsangan also questioned the propriety of Labianos calling card which appears as
follows:
FRONT
NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
LAW OFFICE
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Fe Marie L. Labiano
Paralegal
BACK
SERVICES OFFERED:
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS
ABROAD.
In his defense, Atty. Tolentino denied knowing Labiano. He also denied authorizing the
printing of such calling cards.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino encroached upon the professional services of
Atty. Pedro Linsangan.
2. Whether or not Atty. Tolentino is liable for the improper calling card of Labiano.
HELD:
1. Yes. Atty. Tolentino violated Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
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. By recruiting Atty.
Linsangans clients, Atty. Tolentino committed an unethical, predatory overstep into
anothers legal practice.

2. Yes. Atty. Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, and 16.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Although Atty. Tolentino initially denied knowing Labiano, he admitted he
actually knew her later in the proceedings. It is thus clear that Labiano was connected to his
law office. Through Labianos actions, Atty. Tolentinos law practice was benefited. Hapless
seamen were enticed to transfer representation on the strength of Labianos word that Atty.
Tolentino could produce a more favorable result.
Labianos calling card is improper. The card made it appear that the law office will finance
legal actions for the clients. The rule is, a lawyer shall not 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. If the lawyer lends money to the client in connection with the clients case, the lawyer
in effect acquires an interest in the subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its
outcome. Either of these circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery
rather than that of his client, or to accept a settlement which may take care of his interest in
the verdict to the prejudice of the client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to the
clients cause.
The phrase in the calling card which states w/ financial assistance, was clearly used to
entice clients (who already had representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans
to finance their legal actions.
However, since there is no substantial evidence to prove that Atty. Tolentino had a personal
and direct hand in the printing of said calling cards, he cannot be punished with severity. At
any rate, for all the infractions Atty. Tolentino committed, he was suspended by the Supreme
Court for one year.

You might also like