LEGAL ETHICS; Lawyers must not present and offer in evidence any document they know to be false; this includes false allegations or statements in letters sent to opposing parties

Trinidad, et al. v. Atty. Villarin, A.C. No. 9310, 27 February 2013 is an administrative case against a lawyer for allegedly harassing complainants through demand letters sent to them.

In disposing of the case, the Supreme Court found Atty. Villarin to have acted without malice when he sent the letters to vacate to Complainants since a lawyer “is expected to champion the cause of his client with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion.” This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is recognized by our laws, to wit:

“Proceeding to the contested demand letters, we adopt the recommendation of the IBP board of governors that the issuance thereof was not malicious.  According to its Report, respondent counsel merely acted on his legal theory that the HLURB Decision was not binding on his client, since it had not received the summons. Espousing the belief that the proceedings in the HLURB were void, Villarin pursued the issuance of demand letters as a prelude to the ejectment case he would later on file to protect the property rights of his client.

As the lawyer of Purence Realty, respondent is expected to champion the cause of his client with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense — including the institution of an ejectment case — that is recognized by our property laws. In Legarda v. Court of Appeals, we held that in the full discharge of their duties to the client, lawyers shall not be afraid of the possibility that they may displease the general public.”

However, the Supreme Court reminded the Bar that the duty to pursue a client’s case with zeal comes with a limitation and that is, that any means adopted by a lawyer in pursuit of a client’s claim should be within the bounds of law. “[Lawyers] should only make such defense only when they believe it to be honestly debatable under the law.”

                “Nevertheless, the Code of Professional Responsibility provides the limitation that lawyers shall perform their duty to the client within the bounds of law. They should only make such defense only when they believe it to be honestly debatable under the law. In this case, respondent's act of issuing demand letters, moved by the understanding of a void HLURB Decision, is legally sanctioned. If his theory holds water, the notice to vacate becomes necessary in order to file an action for ejectment. Hence, he did not resort to any fraud or chicanery prohibited by the Code, just to maintain his client's disputed ownership over the subdivision lots.

Even so, respondent cannot be considered free of error. The factual findings of the IBP board of governors reveal that in his demand letter, he brazenly typified one of the complainants, Florentina Lander, as an illegal occupant. However, this description is the exact opposite of the truth, since the final and executory 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. Respondent is very much aware of this ruling when he filed an Omnibus Motion to set aside the HLURB Decision and the appurtenant Writ of Execution.

Given that respondent knew that the aforementioned falsity totally disregarded the HLURB Decision, he thus advances the interest of his client through means that are not in keeping with fairness and honesty. What he does is clearly proscribed by Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which 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.”

As can be seen from the above disquisition, while the Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the IBP that no malice attended the sending of the letters to Complainants by Atty. Villarin, the latter’s act of naming or referring to one of the complainants as an “illegal occupant”, when he very well knew of the finality of the HLURB’s decision in their (one of the Complainants) favor is not in accord with the ethics of the legal profession, particularly Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to “employ only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives” and not to “present and offer in evidence any document that they know is false.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reprimanded Atty. Villarin with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.