Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Complainant vs. vs. Respondent: Second Division
Complainant vs. vs. Respondent: Second Division
DECISION
PERALTA , J : p
The Court nds no cogent reason to depart from the ndings and
recommendations of the IBP.
An attorney may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his
duties as an attorney and counselor, which include statutory grounds enumerated in
Section 27, 1 2 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. 1 3
Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall
represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law." Moreover, Rule 19.01
thereof states that "a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten
to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding." Under this Rule, a lawyer should not le or threaten to le any unfounded
or baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client designed to
secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases
against the lawyer's client. 1 4
In the instant case, Malvar claims that Feir sent him the demand letters in order
to interpose threats that should he fail to pay the sum of P18,000,000.00, Feir will le
criminal, civil, and administrative complaints which were, in truth, unfounded for being
based neither on valid nor relevant facts and law. Such demands, according to Malvar,
are tantamount to blackmail or extortion.
The Court, however, does not nd merit in Malvar's contention. Blackmail is
de ned as "the extortion of money from a person by threats of accusation or exposure
or opposition in the public prints, x x x obtaining of value from a person as a condition
of refraining from making an accusation against him, or disclosing some secret
calculated to operate to his prejudice." In common parlance and in general acceptation,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
it is equivalent to and synonymous with extortion, the exaction of money either for the
performance of a duty, the prevention of an injury, or the exercise of an in uence. Not
infrequently, it is extorted by threats, or by operating on the fears or the credulity, or by
promises to conceal or offers to expose the weaknesses, the follies, or the crime of the
victim. 1 5
In the instant case, it is undisputed that Malvar is the buyer of the properties
subject herein and that Amurao, Feir's client, is one of the owners of the same. It is also
undisputed that said subject properties are already registered under Malvar's name.
But according to Amurao, he has yet to receive the remaining balance of its purchase
price. To the Court, this fact alone is enough reason for Amurao to seek the legal advice
of Feir and for Feir to send the demand letters to Malvar. As the IBP held, these demand
letters were based on a legitimate cause or issue, which is the alleged failure of Malvar
to pay the full amount of the consideration in the sale transaction as well as the alleged
falsi ed Deed of Sale used to transfer ownership over the lots subject of the instant
case. 1 6 Whether the Deed of Sale used in transferring the properties in the name of
Malvar was, indeed, forged and falsi ed is another matter for as far as the instant
complaint for disbarment is concerned, Feir was simply acting in compliance with his
lawyer's oath to protect and preserve the rights of his client.
It bears stressing, moreover, that the monetary consideration Feir was
demanding from Malvar in the amount of P18,000,000.00 cannot be considered as the
subject of blackmail or extortion. Feir's demand for said amount is not an exaction of
money for the exercise of an in uence but is actually a legitimate claim for the
remaining balance subject of a legitimate sale transaction. Contrary to Malvar's claims,
there is nothing in the demand letters to show that the same was maliciously made
with intent to extort money from him since it was based on a valid and justi able cause.
Indeed, the writing of demand letters is a standard practice and tradition in this
jurisdiction. It is usually done by a lawyer pursuant to the principal-agent relationship
that he has with his client, the principal. Thus, in the performance of his role as agent,
the lawyer may be tasked to enforce his client's claim and to take all the steps
necessary to collect it, such as writing a letter of demand requiring payment within a
specified period. 1 7
In the absence, therefore, of any evidence preponderant to prove that Feir
committed acts constituting grounds for disbarment, such as the violation of Canon 19,
Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath, Malvar's
claims must necessarily fail.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court DISMISSES the Petition
for Disbarment against Atty. Freddie Feir for utter lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, * Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018.
1. Rollo, pp. 2-3.
2. Rollo, p. 108.
3. Id. at 109.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
4. Id. at 2.
5. Id. at 8.
6. Id. at 9.
7. Id. at 110.
8. Id. at 12.
9. Id. at 17.