Trinidad vs.

Villarin
A.C. No. 9310, February 27, 2013
(J. Sereno)
 Trinidad vs. Villarin
Doctrine of the Case

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.
(Canon 19, Rule 19.01)
 Trinidad vs. Villarin
Facts

Petitioners in this case are some of the buyers of

lots in Don Jose Zavalla Subdivision. They filed a
complaint for specific performance with the
HLURB against the subdivision’s owner and
developer – Purence Realty Corp (Purence) and
Roberto Bassig (Bassig).
 Trinidad vs. Villarin
Facts

HLURB issued a decision ordering Purence and

Bassig to:
1.Accept payments of buyers under the old
purchase price;
2.Deliver the Deeds of Sale and Transfer
Certificates of Title to the winning litigants.
 Trinidad vs. Villarin
Facts

Since Purence and Bassig did not appeal, the

decision reached finality and HLURB issued a writ
of execution. It was only at this point that
respondent Atty. Angelito Villarin (Villarin) made
his special appearance to represent Purence.
 Trinidad vs. Villarin
Facts

Villarin filed an Omnibus Motion to Set Aside the

Decision and a Motion to Quash the Writ of
Execution for being null and void on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of
summons on his client.
 Trinidad vs. Villarin
Facts

Villarin sent demand letters to herein

complainants ordering them to vacate the
property within 5 days from receipt and
surrender it to Purence, otherwise he would
file the necessary legal action against them.
 Trinidad vs. Villarin
Facts

True enough, he filed a complaint for forcible

entry against herein petitioners namely
Trinidad, Lander, Casubuan and Mendoza.
 Trinidad vs. Villarin
Facts

Aggrieved, they filed an administrative case

against Villarin, alleging that:
1.The demand letters sent by Villarin had
been issued with malice and intent to harass
them;
2.The demand letters contravened the
HLURB decision that was in their favor.
 Trinidad vs. Villarin
Facts

A month after, buyers Alojado, Villamin and

Tolentino filed a disbarment case against Villarin.
Villarin moved for the consolidation of his cases
and his motion was granted by the IBP.
IBP Board of Governors issued a recommendation
that the issuance of the demand letters was not
malicious. It meted the penalty of reprimand with
a stern warning.
 Trinidad vs. Villarin
Issue

Whether Villarin should be administratively

sanctioned for sending the demand letters
 Trinidad vs. Villarin
Ruling

NO. The SC adopts the recommendation of the

IBP Board of Governors that the issuance thereof
was not malicious. As a lawyer, Villarin is
expected to champion the case of his client with
wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion.
 Trinidad vs. Villarin
Ruling

However, Villarin cannot be considered free of

error. In his demand letter, he brazenly typified one
of the complainants, Florentina Lander, as an
illegal occupant. This description is the exact
opposite of the truth, since the HLURB Decision
had already recognized her as a subdivision lot
buyer who had a right to complete her payments in
order to occupy her property.
 Trinidad vs. Villarin
Ruling

The respondent’s action is clearly proscribed by

Rule 19.01 of the CPR. The rule requires that a
lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to
attain lawful objectives. Lawyers must not present
and offer in evidence any document that they know
is false like in the case at bar.
 Trinidad vs. Villarin
Ruling

Villarin is REPRIMANDED WITH A STERN

WARNING that a repitition of the or similar act
shall be dealth with more severely.
Trinidad vs. Villarin

Thank you!