PEDRO L. LINSANGAN vs. ATTY.

NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
Facts: Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan & Linsangan Law office filed a complaint for disbarmentagainst Atty.
Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services. The respondent was
alleged that he was convincing his clients to transfer legalrepresentation and promised them financial assistance and
expeditious collection on their claims. Also, he induce his clients to hire his services by calling them and
sending themtext messages.

Issue: Whether or not respondent acted in contravention of Canon 8 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.

Held: The respondent violated Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which rulesthat a lawyer
should not steal another lawyers client nor induce the latter to retain him by apromise of better service, good result
or reduced fees for his services. He, then committedan unethical, predatory overstep into anothers legal
practice.The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyers independence of mind so that the freeexercise of his
judgment may not be adversely affected. It seeks to ensure his undividedattention to the case he is handling as well
as his entire devotion and fidelity to the clientscause.


QUE vs REVILLA

Facts: The complainant in this case filed charges against the respondent for (1) abuse of courtremedies and
processes (2) the commission of forum-shopping by filing the subject cases inorder to impede, obstruct, and frustrate
the efficient administration of justice for his ownpersonal gain and to defeat the right of the complainant (3) the
respondents lack of candor and respect towards his adversary and the courts by resorting to falsehood and deception
tomisguide, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice by fabricating an imaginaryorder issued by the
presiding judge in open court which allegedly denied the motion todismiss filed by the respondents in the said case.
(4) the respondents willful and revoltingfalsehood that unjustly maligned and defamed the good name and
reputation of the late
Atty. Alfredo Catolico (Atty. Catolico), the previous counsel of the respondents clients (5) therespondents
deliberate, fraudulent and unauthorized appearances in court in the petition for annulment of judgment for 15
litigants, three of whom are already deceased; and (6) therespondents willful and fraudulent appearance in the
second petition for annulment of titleas counsel for the Republic of the Philippines without being authorized to do
so.

Issue: Whether the respondent can be held liable for the imputed unethical infractions andprofessional misconduct,
and the penalty these transgressions should carry.

Held: The respondent is guilty of violations of the Lawyers Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and 10.03,Canon 10;
Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and Sections
20(d), 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The respondent failed to observe Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the
Code of ProfessionalResponsibility, which reads:CANON 19 A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS
CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THEBOUNDS OF LAWRule 19.01 A lawyer shall employ only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful objectivesof his clients x x xThis Canon obligates a lawyer, in defending
his client, to employ only such means as areconsistent with truth and honor. He should not prosecute
patently frivolous and meritlessappeals or institute clearly groundless actions. The recital of what the respondent did
toprevent the execution of the judgment against his clients shows that he actually committedwhat the above rule
expressly prohibits.Respondent is disbarred from the practice of law.










PENA vs APARICIO

Facts: The respondent lawyer wrote a demand letter the contents of which threatened complainantwith the filing of
criminal cases for tax evasion and falsification of documents. The salientparts of the demand letter are as
follows:BUT if these are not paid on August 10, 2005, we will be constrained to file and claim bigger amounts
including moral damages to the tune of millions under established precedence of cases and laws. In addition to other
multiple charges like:

1. Tax evasion by the millions of pesos of income not reported to the government.2. Criminal Charges for
Tax Evasion3. Criminal Charges for Falsification of Documents4. Cancellation of business license to operate due
to violations of laws.These are reserved for future actions in case of failure to pay the above amounts
assettlements in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

However, respondent does not find anything wrong with what he wrote, dismissing the sameas
merely an act of pointing out massive violations of the law by the other party, and, withboldness, asserting that a
lawyer is under obligation to tell the truth, to report to thegovernment commission of offenses punishable by the
State. He further asserts that thewriting of demand letters is a standard practice and tradition and that our laws
allow andencourage the settlement of disputes.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violating Canon 19 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.

Held: Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall represent hisclient with zeal
within the bounds of the law, reminding legal practitioners that a lawyersduty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice; to that end, his clients success iswholly subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must
always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. In particular, Rule 19.01 commands that a lawyer
shall employ only fair andhonest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present,
participate inpresenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any
case or proceeding. Under this Rule, a lawyer should not file or threatento file any unfounded or baseless criminal
case or cases against the adversaries of his clientdesigned to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or
withdraw their owncases against the lawyers client.In the case at bar, respondent did exactly what Canon 19 and its
Rule proscribe. Throughhis letter, he threatened complainant that should the latter fail to pay the amounts
theypropose as settlement, he would file and claim bigger amounts including moral damages, aswell as multiple
charges such as tax evasion, falsification of documents, and cancellation of business license to operate due to
violations of laws. The threats are not only unethical for violating Canon 19, but they also amount to
blackmail.Respondent is reprimanded.