Title: A.C. No. Complainant: Respondent: Date: Ponente: DOCTRINE: A Lawyer Shall Employ Only Fair and Honest Means To Attain Lawful Objectives. Facts
Title: A.C. No. Complainant: Respondent: Date: Ponente: DOCTRINE: A Lawyer Shall Employ Only Fair and Honest Means To Attain Lawful Objectives. Facts
9310
DOCTRINE: A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives.
FACTS:
The complainants were the plaintiffs in a prior case with HLURB.
Before the HLURB, the complainants, as buyers of property in Don Jose Subd., sought to compel
Purence Realty and Roberto Bassig to deliver to them the property they bought.
The HLURB’s decision stated that the defendants n the case must accept the payments of the
buyers under the old purchase price and ordered them to deliver the TCT and Deeds of Sale to the
winning litigants. However, the HLURB did not prohibit the buyers to vacate the property.
The HLURB’s decision became final and executory. It issued a writ of execution.
However, Villarin was engaged as counsel of Purence. He filed a motion to set aside the decision
and to quash the write of execution because the decision was allegedly VOID because of improper
service of summons on his client.
Further, he sent demand letters to the buyers to vacate their property. If they will not vacate, then
he’ll file a forcible entry case against them. They did not heed to his demand so he filed the
aforementioned complaint.
ISSUE:
Whether Villarin must be disciplined for sending demand letters despite the final and executory
decision of HLURB
HELD:
The Court ruled in the affirmative.
As a lawyer, respondent is expected to champion the cause of his client with wholehearted
fidelity, care, and devotion. This means that he can avail of every remedy or defence, as long as it
is within the bounds of the law. They should believe it to be honestly debatable under the law.
Here, Villarin lawfully pursued the interests of his client because he had an honest belief that the
client was improperly served of the summons. If his theory turned out to be correct, then the
HLURB decision in favour of the complainants will be void.
Rule 19.01 provides that the 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 improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
Here, Villarin brazenly typified one of the complainants, Ms. Lander, as an illegal occupant.
However, this is opposite from the truth, since the final and executory decision of HLURB had
already recognised her as a subdivision lot buyer who had a right to complete her payments in
order to occupy the property.
He was very much aware of this ruling when he filed the motion.
REPRIMANDED.