V rough draft of legbib hw so yun sensya <3 2 cases to.

jerry palencia v atty pedro linsangan, atty gerard linsangan, atty glenda linsangan-binoya
per curiam
- complaint for disciplinary action
- palencia was an ofw seafarer who was seriously injured when he fell into the elevator shaft of the
vessel M/T Panos G flying a Cyprus flag
- initally treated in singapore, then flown to the Phils to continue treatment and rehab
- during his confinement at the Manila Doctors Hospital, paralegals of the respondent's law
offices(Moises and Jesherel) approached him and convinced him to engage in the services of their law
office to file suit against his employers of indemnity.
- they executed an attorney-client contract and a special power of attorney wherein he engaged legal
services w/ respondents and singaporean law firm gurbani and co. and agreed to pay attorney's fees of
35% of any recovery/settlement obtained for both
- he was paid 60k$ as indemnity and 20k under their cba by his employer, from these amounts, the
respondents charged him 35%
- respondents and gurbani and co also filed a tort case against the owners of Panos G in Singapore, for
this case, they engaged the services of a Cyrpus law firm to draft a written opinion on the issues
involving cyprus law and engaged in the services of retired justice emilio gancayno for his expert opinion
on issues raised by defendant's counsel
- they successfully negotiated a settlement worth 95k, gurbani and co remitted 59608.40 and from this
respondents got 5k for justice gancayno and deducted their 35% as well as other fees leaving just
18132.43 for him
- they tendered 20756.05 to him but he refused
- respondents filed an action to compel palencia to take the money, palencia filed an action for
accounting, remittance of settlement amounts, and damages
- rtc ruled in favor of palencia; it determined the fees are lumped for both respondents and garbani co;
on appeal, ca affirmed rtc decisions but reduced the attorney's fees to 10%
- complainant also filed a complaint with the ibp cbd and requested to investigate and discipline the
respondents for refusing to remit the 95k and only offering the 20k, depositing his money in their acct,
and engaging in ambulance chasing by deploying their agents to convince him to hire them while he was
still bedridden
- respondents answer: palencia retained gurbani and co to file a claim against the ship owner; gurbani
and co advised them on the settlement claim for 95k, he did not want to accept his net share of 20k and
even filed a consignation suit with the rtc; they denied putting it in their account and said they kept it in
a vault for safekeeping, they claimed that they only deposited it in an interest savings account for the
complainant after the receipt of the complaint and the IBP-CBD's order; re: ambulance chasing, they
provide free legal advice to the public, it was in this course of public service when they met palencia
- ibp-cd in its report and recommendations ruled that they violated the canons of the code of
professional responsibility: in soliciting legal business through agents while he was still in the hospital,
failing to account for and deliver the funds and property of his client when due/upon demand, hiring
services of foreign law firm and another lawyer without prior knowledge and consent of complainant;
found that all 3 respondents connived and recommended their suspension from practice of law for 1 yr
and directed them to comply with the decision in the accounting case in favor of complainant
- IBP board of gov adopted the report and recommendation and modified the penalty and increased the
suspension to 2 yrs with warning and ordered respondents to return the 5% of the amount assessed to
complainant as attorney's fees
- SC adopts the findings, but absolves atty. glenda linsangan-binoya for lack of evidence as to her
participation

issue: w/n the respondents in this case violated the code of professional responsibility
application:
- a lawyer in making known his legal services must do so in a dignified manner; prohibited from soliciting
cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid brokers
- CPR: a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business;
corollary to this = duty to not encourage suit for any corrupt motive/interest (ambulance chasing is
proscribed)
- there is sufficient evidence to show their violation: former paralegal Jesherel admitted that they did
come to the hospital many times to convince palencia to accept their services; Jesherel proved her
connection with the firm through her resignation letter and employment of paralegals to encourage
complaint to file a lawsuit = indirectly solicited legal business and encouraged filing of suit = constitue
malpractice and calls for exercise of disciplinary powers of the court and warrants serious sanctions
- canon 16: hold in trust all moneys and properties of the client that may come into his possession,
deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand subject to his retaining lien, and
account for all money or property collected or received for or from his client
- money collected by lawyer on a judgement rendered in favor of client = trusts funds, must be
immediately paid over to client; failure to pay/deliver after demands constitutes conversion
- lawyer's duty to give a prompt and accurate account to his client, upon collection, he must notify client
promptly, and absent a contrary understanding, pay/remit to client less only proper fees and
disbursements asap
- req 2 give full detailed accurate acct of money received and justify all transactions and dealings, and
while he holds the funds, must not conmingle it w/ pvt property or use for personal purposes without
consent
- they gave prompt notice, but amiss in duty to give accurate accounting of amounts due to
complainant, and return the money due to client upon demand
- the stipulated rate in their contract clearly indicates that the 35% refers to the combined fees of the
respondents and the singapore firm
- they proceeded to deduct separate fees after the singapore firm deducted, instead of forcibly
deducting their share, they should have moved for judicial determination, and collection of their fees
- The fact alone that a lawyer has a lien for his attorney's fees on money in his hands collected for his
client does not entitle him to unilaterally appropriate his client's money for himself.
- respondents kept the money in their vault for 2 years until they were made aware of the disciplinary
complaint in the ibp-cd and claimed to forget about the whole ordeal
- even if we believe them, it is impromper to keep it in personal safety deposit, must be in a separate
trust acct in a bank/trust company of good repute for safekeeping
- showed lack of good faith when appropriated more than their share, demonstrated fees > fiduciary and
faithful duty in accting and returning what is due for their client
- failed to observe proper safekeeping, flagrant and malicious refusal to comply w/ cpr = gross
misconduct, warrants imposition of disciplinary actions
- pedro and gerardo linsangan violated Rule 1.03, Rule 2.03, Canon 3, Canon 16, Rule 16.01, and Rule
16.03 of the CPR, records dont show that glenda linsangan-binoya participated, complainant only dealt
with pedro and gerardo, case vs glenda dismissed
- ambulance chasing = 1 yr, rule 16 violation = 6 months to 1-2 yrs or even disbarment depending the
amt, penalty for gross misconduct consisting in failure/refusal despite demand to accont for and return
money = suspension for 2 years, we recognize efforts to tender payment even if improper amt, 1 yr
suspension = sufficient
- penalty for 2nd infraction = justified, not just rule 16 violation but gross misconduct, breached trust by
betraying language of contract, actions following complainant's objection = disregard for fiduciary
duties, for 2 years insisted on and forcibly deducted the amount when there are alt avenues to
determine the proper amt, and they mishandled client's money and comingled with their own funds
- adopt ibp recommendation of 2 year suspension
- For both violations, we adopt the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors of the imposition of
two-year suspension for respondents Attys. Pedro L. Linsangan and Gerard M. Linsangan. We emphasize
that this penalty of two years of suspension corresponds to the compounded infractions of the
violations of Rule 1.03, Rule 2.03, Canon 3, Canon 16, Rule 16.01, and Rule 16.03 of the CPR: (1) the
penalty of suspension of one year is imposed for the violation of the proscription on ambulance chasing;
and (2) the penalty of one year suspension for gross misconduct consisting in the failure or refusal,
despite demand, of a lawyer to account for and to ( return money or property belonging to a client
- we note that this Court, in G.R. No. 205088, has already affirmed the CA's ruling as to the issue of how
much respondents can collect from complainant as attorney's fees. This judgment has long attained
finality and, in fact, appears to be set for execution. For this reason, we do not adopt the IBP Board of
Governors' recommendation for respondents to return to complainant 5% of the amount assessed. The
principle of immutability of judgments behooves us from making any further statements on this
particular issue

conclusion: we find respondents Attys. Pedro L. Linsangan and Gerard M. Linsangan GUILTY.
Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondents Attys. Pedro Linsangan and Gerard Linsangan from the practice
of law for TWO YEARS effective upon finality of this Decision, with a WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely. The complaint against Atty. Glenda M.
Linsangan-Binoya is DISMISSED
pedro linsangan v atty nicomedes tolentino
corona j
- complaint for disbarment filed by linsangan against tolentino for solicitation of clients and
encroachment of professional services
- linsangan alleged that tolentino, w/ the help of paralegal labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal
representation; tolentino promised financial assitance and other expeditious collection on their claims,
he also persistently called and texted them to induce them to hire his services
- presented sworn affidavit of james gregorio which attested that labiano tried to make him sever his
lawyer-cliant relationship w/ linsangan and utilize respondents services instead in exchange for a loan of
50k and complainant attached respondent's calling card
- respondent denied knowing labiano and authorizing printing and circulation of calling card
- complaint was referred to ibp-cbd and it found that tolentino did encroach on the prof practice of
complainant violating rule 8.02 and other canons of the cpr; contravened rule against soliciting cases for
personal gain personally or thru paid brokers as stated in sec 27 rule 138 rules of court, recommended
he be reprimanded w/ stern warning that any repetition would merit heavier penalties
- adopt findings, but modify penalty

Whether or not Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino encroached upon the professional services of Atty. Pedro
Linsangan.

- canon 3 LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR,
DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
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.
- Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides: RULE 2.03. 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 = malpractice
- rule proscribes ambulance chasing
- respondent initially denied knowing Labiano in his answer, he later admitted it during the mandatory
hearing; Through Labianos actions, respondents law practice was benefited. Hapless seamen were
enticed to transfer representation on the strength of Labianos word that respondent could produce a
more favorable result.
- 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.
- regard to respondents violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled is the rule that 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.
- respondent never denied having these seafarers in his client list nor receiving benefits from Labianos
referrals. Furthermore, he never denied Labianos connection to his office.
- Respondent committed an unethical, predatory overstep into anothers legal practice. He cannot
escape liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR. Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his
clients as borrowers, respondent violated Rule 16.04: 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 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, stenographers fees for transcript of
stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond, etc.) for a matter that he is handling for the
client.
- 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.
- any act of solicitation = malpractice = calls for exercise of disciplinary powers
- A lawyers best advertisement is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust
based on his character and conduct. For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their services
by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple professional cards.
- labiano's card included w/ financial assitance, used to entice clients (who already had representation)
to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal actions
- his crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserved no place in the legal
profession. However, in the absence of substantial evidence to prove his culpability, the Court is not
prepared to rule that respondent was personally and directly responsible for the printing and
distribution of Labianos calling cards.
- WHEREFORE, 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.