Nuezca VS Atty. Villa Garcia
Nuezca VS Atty. Villa Garcia
VILLAGARCIA
FACTS: ISSUE: Whether respondent should be
In their verified complaint, Nuezca held administratively liable based on the
averred that Atty. Villagarcia sent them a allegations of the verified complaint.
demand letter copy furnished to various
offices and persons, which contained not
only threatening but also libelous RULING: Yes
utterances. The demand letter seriously →Code of Professional Responsibility,
maligned and ridiculed them and such
caused them sleepless nights, wounded Rule 8.01, Canon 8 provides: A lawyer
feelings, and besmirched reputation. shall not, in his professional dealings,
use language which is abusive, offensive
or otherwise improper.
The demand letter stated that Nuezca
issued BDO checks but were all un- The demand letter that respondent sent
encashed because they were proved to to complainants contained not merely a
be "worthless and unfounded." By law, demand for them to settle their monetary
you are liable under BP 22 and Art. obligations to respondent's client, but
315, Par. 2 (d) SWINDLING/ESTAFA, also used words that maligned their
RPC. For all your deceit, fraud, character. It also imputed crimes against against them, especially considering
schemes and other manipulations to them, i.e., that they were criminally liable that there is a proper forum therefor
defraud Mrs. Arcilla, taking advantage for worthless checks, estafa and other and they have yet to be found
of her helplessness, age and deceits. criminally liable by a court of proper
handicaps to her grave and serious The respondent could have simply jurisdiction. Respondent's use of
damage, you are also criminally liable stated the ultimate facts, made the demeaning and immoderate
under ART. 318, OTHER DECEITS. demand for settlement and refrained language put complainants in shame
RPC. from the imputation of criminal offenses and disgrace. →