A.C. No. 9310; February 27, 2013
Verleen Trinidad, et al., Complainants, vs. Atty. Angelito Villarin, Respondent.

FACTS

The complainants were buyers of lots in the Don Jose Zavalla Subdivision. In a final and executory 2000 HLURB Decision, the subdivision owner, Purence Realty Corporation, was ordered to accept the buyers’ payments under the old purchase price and to deliver the corresponding deeds of sale and titles. The Decision contained no order for the buyers to vacate. Respondent Atty. Angelito Villarin later entered his appearance for Purence Realty. He filed an Omnibus Motion to set aside the HLURB Decision, arguing it was void due to alleged improper service of summons on his client. This motion was not acted upon.
Subsequently, respondent sent demand letters to the complainants, ordering them to vacate the property within five days, threatening legal action. Purence Realty, through respondent, then filed forcible entry complaints against some complainants. Aggrieved, the complainants filed administrative and disbarment cases, alleging the demand letters were malicious and harassing, issued in contravention of the final HLURB Decision. Respondent defended his actions, claiming he believed the HLURB Decision was void for lack of jurisdiction and that sending demand letters was a necessary prelude to an ejectment suit to protect his client’s property rights.

ISSUE

Whether respondent should be administratively sanctioned for sending the demand letters despite the existence of a final and executory HLURB Decision.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable, but only for a specific unethical act, not for the act of sending the demand letters per se. The Court, affirming the IBP’s findings, ruled that sending the demand letters was not inherently malicious. A lawyer has a duty to champion a client’s cause with fidelity and may pursue every remedy recognized by law, including filing an ejectment case after sending the requisite demand to vacate. Respondent’s legal theory—that the HLURB Decision was void for improper service—though ultimately unproven, provided a debatable basis for his actions to protect his client’s claimed ownership.
However, respondent committed an ethical violation in the execution of this duty. In his demand letter to complainant Florentina Lander, he described her as an “illegal occupant.” This characterization was directly contrary to the final HLURB Decision, which recognized her as a buyer with a right to complete payment and occupy the lot. Respondent, having filed a motion to set aside that very Decision, was fully aware of its contents. By employing a false factual assertion to advance his client’s cause, he violated Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer shall use only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives. Therefore, while his overall strategy was legally permissible, his use of a knowingly false statement was not. The Court imposed the penalty of reprimand with a stern warning.