Arangco vs.

Baloso

G.R. No. L-28617

Facts:

This is a petition to appeal. If there is a violation of the applicable legal norm, the appeal
then cannot prosper.

Vicente Abanñ o was married to Soledad Arangco. Vicente has (four) children with Soledad
namely: Laurente, Jorge, Fatima and Gracita. Vicente has (three) children with Anacorita
Andes namely: Calixto, Jocelyn and Soriano after his marriage to Soledad. In 1946, Soledad
had been confine in National Mental Hospital. On May 1946, Vincente mortgaged a parcel of
land to Gloria Baloso for P 800.00 which is Vicente and Soledad acquire after their
marriage. On July 24, 1964, another mortgage was executed by Vicente where the
consideration was raised to P1, 200.00; another mortgage was executed by Laurente Abanñ o
with the conformity of Leonor Abanñ o for P1, 800.00. On June 16, 1966, Vicente’s four
children and his widow file an action to redeem the land from the defendant. Defendant
insists that the total sum is P2, 600.00 because the plaintiffs took a total P800.00 from her
through all the year of 1965. At that time, Leonor was not yet appointed guardian of the
minor plaintiffs and that Jorge, Fatima and Gracita were then minors.

Issue:

Whether or not litigants raise a question of law that is not applicable to legal norms

Ruling:

No. If there is a violation of the applicable legal norm, the appeal then cannot prosper.
Counsel, if faithful to the command of legal ethics insofar as their duty to the judiciary is
concerned, would do well to temper such inclination on the part of clients.

As set forth at the outset, this appeal is doomed to futility.

FAIR AND HONEST MEANS TO ATTAIN THE LAWFUL OBJECTIVES
TRINIDAD, ET.AL. vs. ATTY. ANGELITO VILLARIN
A.C. No. 9310 February 27, 2013
Facts:
The instant case stemmed from a Complaint for specific performance filed
with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) by the buyers of
the lots in Don Jose Zavalla Subdivision against the subdivision's owner and
developer- Purence Realty Corporation and Roberto Bassig. The HLURB
ordered the owner and the developer to deliver the Deeds of Sale and the
Transfer Certificates of Title to the winning litigants.
The Decision did not show any directive for the buyers to vacate the
property. Purence Realty and Roberto Bassig did not appeal the Decision,
thus making it final and executory. Thereafter, the HLURB issued a Writ of
Execution. It was at this point that respondent Villarin entered his special
appearance to represent Purence Realty. Specifically, he filed an Omnibus
Motion to set aside the Decision and to quash the Writ of Execution for being
null and void on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to the improper service
of summons on his client. This motion was not acted upon by the HLURB.
Respondent sent demand letters to herein complainants.
In all of these letters, he demanded that they immediately vacate the
property and surrender it to Purence Realty within five days from receipt.
Otherwise, he would file the necessary action against them. True enough,
Purence Realty, as represented by respondent, filed a Complaint for forcible
entry before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) against Trinidad, Lander,
Casubuan and Mendoza.
Aggrieved, the four complainants filed an administrative case against
respondent. A month after, Alojado, Villamin and Tolentino filed a disbarment
case against respondent. As found by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) and affirmed by its Board of Governors, complainants asserted in their
respective verified Complaints that the demand letters sent by Villarin had
been issued with malice and intent to harass them. They insisted that the
letters also contravened the HLURB Decision ordering his client to permit the
buyers to pay the balance of the purchase price of the subdivision lots.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent should be administratively sanctioned for
sending the demand letters?
Ruling:
The respondent’s action is clearly proscribed by Rule 19.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which states that:
Rule 19.01 - 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.
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.