8/10/2019 PALE - Linsangan vs. Tolentino

1/2

Pedro Linsangan vs. Atty. Nicomedes TolentinoSeptember 4, 2009

FATS!

Pedro Linsangan filed a disbarment case against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment

of professional services.

Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office alleged that Atty. Tolentino and his paralegal, Fe arieLabiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation. Atty. Tolentino allegedly ind!ced Linsangan"s clients tohire his services by persistently calling and sending te#t messages to them.

Linsangan also alleged that Atty. Tolentino tried to convince his client, $ames %regorio, to sever his lawyerclient

relationship with Linsangan, and to hire him instead, in e#change for a loan of P'(,(((.

)n addition, Atty. Tolentino also had calling cards circ!lating which incl!ded a description of his legal services, stating

Consultancy & Maritime Services w/ Financial Assistance.

"SS#$!

%&N Atty. Tolentino violated t'e ode o( Pro(essional )esponsibility by engaging in a money*lending vent+re

it' clients- /$S.

$L1!

*+. The !preme -o!rt held that Atty. Tolentino engaged in a moneylending vent!re with his clients as borrowers,violating !le /0.(1 of the -ode of Professional esponsibility.

)+le 3.042 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 interestof justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.

The r!le is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The only e#ception is, when in the interest of 3!stice, he has

to advance necessary e#penses 4s!ch as filing fees, stenographer"s fees for transcript of stenographic notes, cash

bond or premi!m for s!rety bond, etc.5 for a matter that he is handling for the client.

The p!rpose of the r!le is to safeg!ard the lawyer"s independence of mind so that the free e#ercise of his 3!dgment

may not be adversely affected. )t see6s to ens!re his !ndivided attention to the case he is handling as well as his entire

devotion and fidelity to the client"s ca!se. )f the lawyer lends money to the client in connection with the client"s case,

the lawyer in effect ac7!ires an interest in the s!b3ect matter of the case or an additional sta6e in its o!tcome.

+ither of these circ!mstances may lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that of his client, or to

accept a settlement which may ta6e care of his interest in the verdict to the pre3!dice of the client in violation of his d!ty

of !ndivided fidelity to the cl ient"s ca!se.

Any act of solicitation constit!tes malpractice, which calls for the e#ercise of the -o!rt"s disciplinary powers.

As regards the calling card of Atty. Tolentino, a lawyer"s best advertisement is a wellmerited rep!tation for professional

capacity and fidelity to tr!st based on his character and cond!ct. For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to anno!nce

their services by p!blication in rep!table law lists or !se of simple professional cards.

Professional calling cards may only contain the following details8

4a5 lawyer"s name9

4b5 name of the law firm with which he is connected9

8/10/2019 PALE - Linsangan vs. Tolentino

2/2

4c5 address9

4d5 telephone n!mber and

4e5 special branch of law practiced.

Labiano"s calling card contained the phrase :with financial assistance.: The phrase was clearly !sed to entice clients

4who already had representation5 to change co!nsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal actions. oney was

dangled to l!re clients away from their original lawyers, ta6ing advantage of their financial distress and emotional

v!lnerability. This crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserved no place in the legal profession.

;owever, in the absence of s!bstantial evidence to prove his c!lpability, the -o!rt is not prepared to r!le that Atty.

Tolentino was personally and directly responsible for the printing and distrib!tion of Labiano"s calling cards.

The !preme fo!nd that Atty. Tolentino violated !les /0.(1, /.(.(= and -anon < of the -ode of

Professional esponsibility and ection =?,of !le / of the !les of -o!rt and s!spended him from the practice of

law for a period of one year.