Additional-topics

Additional topics Pobre-Holgado v. Pader-Villanueva, A.C. No. 11604, June 7, 2017 The complainant has the burden of proof to prove malice or bad faith. Initiated by: complaint[1] filed by Ma. Christina Pobre-Holgado against Atty. Carmina Agnes P. PaderVillanueva before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Facts: Complaint: On the basis of a malicious and defamatory message which was admitted by the herein respondent during the preliminary conference of this case. Respondent practically assumed authorship of the messages and that, indeed, it originated from her Facebook account, a social networking site. Unfazed, complainant believes that through such act respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. On September 3, 2013, herein respondent was ordered to file her Answer within a period of fifteen (15) days upon receipt of the same. Pursuant to the said Order, respondent filed her Answer dated October 1, 2013. On December 19, 2013, the undersigned Commissioner conducted a mandatory preliminary conference on which both parties appeared on the said proceedings. Thereafter, the parties were directed to submit their respective Position paper on or before January 17, 2014. Complainant narrated in her Sworn Statement that on August 14, 2013 a message or status was posted by the respondent on her Facebook account which is hereunder reproduce[d]:

"To you TintinHolgado: Please leave me alone. I do not have any interest in you and I hope you will start [losing] interest in me. Do not waste your time and energy on me. I do not know why you do [the] things you do but maybe that is just how [lonely] and miserable people are. Truth be told, you should be nice to me because [I] pity you. I may not know any rich, influential people and beauty queens like you, but [I] have a family [I] go home [to] at the end of []each tiring day. [I] may not have millions of inheritance (at least that's what you claim) but at least [I] do not have to watch movies alone and force invitations out of people[.U]nlike you, people do not duck or hide or run the opposite direction when they see me coming. Maybe if you just learned the art of acceptance, you would be [a] happier human being. We all wish you find happiness soon. Because only then will we be free of your lengthy nonsense text messages. In case you haven't noticed[,] no one really like you and everybody's laughing at you. [A]nd really, you are not that interesting so do not text us with blow-by-blow accounts of your day. We have better things to do with our time. You make me wish telecommunications companies will soon end their unlimited text promos. And [lest] you forget, [I] am not ignorant where the law is concerned, so please do not even dare threaten me with filing suits against [me] the way you did to someone else. I do hope [I] make myself clear to you. I will not be as nice [the] next time. I "unfriended" you on [F]acebook a long time ago that's why [I can't] post this 1

Additional topics directly on your page but [I] am hoping yournosy[] skills will be put to good use and you will get to read this."

Issue Whether or not Atty. Carmina Agnes P. Pader-Villanueva committed grave misconduct by posting messages in complainant's Facebook account amounting to violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility particularly Canon 1 and Canon[] 7, [Rules] 7.01 and 7.03? Held: The undersigned deemed it proper to pore[over] the existence of an abuse of right. What needs to be prove [d] is whether respondent exercised the alleged acts solely to prejudice or injure the herein complainant. As a basic rule, exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it was established and must not be excessive or unduly harsh; there must be no intention to harm another. Otherwise, as provided by jurisprudence, the liability for damages to the injured party will attach. At the onset, the manner by which the messages were addressed to complainant's instance was apparently attended without bad faith. Why? The status posted by the respondent was discovered at the behest of the complainant since there is no way that the complainant could have directly known the messages at first hand considering that the link between them on networking site was already severed when the respondent "unfriended" the complainant. In the system of Facebook, the moment the message was "liked" by a common Facebook friend it would [already be] seen by another. This explains the manner on how the Said messages posted by the respondent reached the knowledge of the complainant. The question of whether or not the principle of abuse of rights has been violated resulting in damages under Article 20 or other applicable provision^] of law, depends on the circumstances of each case. In the present case, the undersigned found that complainant earlier induced an array of lengthy text messages driven to malign the reputation of the herein respondent on one of the witnesses of the complainant. Relevant to the facts gathered, complainant fondly makes phone calls during unholy hour on the person of Atty. [Reinier] Paul Yebra. On several occasions, complainant without hesitation would dare discuss her feelings to people close to Atty. Paul Yebra. By doing this, she was nonetheless [] hoping that her sentiments would reach Atty. Yebra.

The right of free expression stands as a hallmark of the modern democratic and humane state. Not only does it assure a person's right to say freely what is thought freely, it likewise reveal [s] the presence of the subordinate freedom from psychological insecurity. Corollary to the spirit of such fundamentals it demands from each individual [] sheer exercise with good faith in pelting undesirable utterances to fellow individuals. While it is not difficult to understand the plight of the respondent in her right to protect herself from further vexations and gradual dwindling of her reputation through 2

Additional topics unimaginable affront on her person, she being a lawyer, should be reminded of the clear demarcation of all her actions, and which must fall within the ambit of decent legal profession. As earlier indicated, respondent's real intention was to prevent complainant from further mongering rumors and disseminating shrink lines to her prejudice. In fact, with a series of concocted lies perpetrated by the complainant the respondent [found] it feasible to avail the usage of the Facebook. In the course of the thrust of the respondent to air her grievances to the complainant that the latter would absolutely abstain from doing such strange and menacing (sic) fell on deaf ears of the complainant. Herein respondent "with good motives and for justifiable ends" has , done nothing but exercised the proper mode by which she believes will rescue [] her from the consistent attempts of the complainant to stir up or spread something that is usually petty or discreditable on her part.

It is settled that in disbarment cases, complainant bears the burden of proving her charge with substantial evidence. Absent such evidence, the presumption of innocence on the part of respondent lawyer prevails. In the present case, complainant failed to discharge her burden of proof. Apart from her bare allegations, she was not able to prove malice or bad faith on the part of respondent. On the contrary, we find that respondent's statement on her social networking account was motivated by a desire to clear her name and reputation. To our mind, there is no misconduct, simple or grave, that warrants any disciplinary action. WHEREFORE, Resolution Nos. XXI-2014-867 and XXII-2016-346 of the IBP Board of Governors are hereby AFFIRMED and the complaint against Atty. Carmina Agnes P. Pader-Villanueva is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Respondent is hereby ADMONISHED and advised to be more circumspect in the handling of her personal interactions in the future."

Libi vs IAC Parents are responsible for the actions of their minor children. CRESENCIO LIBI * and AMELIA YAP LIBI, Petitioners, v., FELIPE GOTIONG and SHIRLEY GOTIONG, Respondents. Respondent spouses are the legitimate parents of Julie Ann Gotiong who, at the time of the deplorable incident which took place and from which she died on January 14, 1979, was an 18-year old. Petitioners are the parents of Wendell Libi, then a minor between 18 and 19 years of age living with his aforesaid parents, and who also died in the same event on the same date. Facts: 3

Additional topics Wendell Libi, then a minor between 18 and 19 years of age living with his aforesaid parents, and who also died in the same event on the same date. Julie Ann Gotiong and Wendell Libi were a sweetheart until the former broke up with the latter after she found out the Wendell was irresponsible and sadistic.  Wendell wanted reconciliation but was not granted by Julie so it prompted him to resort to threats.  One day, there were found dead from a single gunshot wound each coming from the same gun.  The parents of Julie herein private respondents filed a civil case against the parents of Wendell to recover damages.  Trial court dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence but was set aside by CA.

ISSUE: WON the parents should be held liable for such damages.

HELD: Yes, Spouses Libi is liable for the actions of their son. The subsidiary liability of parents for damages caused by their minor children imposed under Art 2180 of the Civil Code and Art. 101 of Revised Penal Code covered obligations arising from both quasi-delicts and criminal offenses.  The court held that the civil liability of the parents for quasi-delict of their minor children is primary and not subsidiary and that responsibility shall cease when the persons can prove that they observe all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.  However, Wendell’s mother testified that her husband owns a gun which he kept in a safety deposit box inside a drawer in their bedroom.  Each of the spouses had their own key.  She likewise admitted that during the incident, the gun was no longer in the safety deposit box.  Wendell could not have gotten hold of the gun unless the key was left negligently lying around and that he has free access of the mother’s bag where the key was kept.  The spouses failed to observe and exercise the required diligence of a good father to prevent such damage.

People vs Egan An indigenous ritual of betrothal, like any other love affair, does not justify forcibly banishing the beloved against her will with the intention of molesting her. It is likewise well-settled that the giving of money does not beget an unbridled license to subject the assumed fiancée to carnal desires. Rape needs to be proven by a coherent testimony and evidence such as medico-legal findings. Facts: 4

Additional topics Lito Egan alias Akiao, thirty-six (36) years old abducts and rapes a twelve (12)-year old girl named Lenie T. Camad. An attempt to settle the case extra judicially was done. 2 horses for the marriage of Lenie, but this didn’t follow through. As per Muslim culture. Lenie then went to the police instead. Defense: The accused tried to prove that he and Lenie had actually been living together under Manobo rites in the house of her father Palmones Camad since 2 September 1996 after giving dowry. Issue: Is Egan guilty of both forcible abduction and rape? Held: Only Forcible abduction, as rape was not proven. The testimony of the victim negated this contrived posture of accused-appellant which in reality is simply a variation of the sweetheart defense. If they were, surely, Lenie would not have jeopardized their relationship by accusing him of having held her against her will and molesting her and, on top of it all, by filing a criminal charge against him. If it had been so, Lenie could have easily told her father after the latter had successfully traced their whereabouts that nothing untoward had happened between her and the accused. Her normal reaction would have been to cover-up for the man she supposedly loved and with whom she had a passionate affair. But, on the contrary, Lenie lost no time in denouncing accused-appellant and exposing to her family and the authorities the disgrace that had befallen her. If they had indeed been lovers, Lenie's father would not have shown so much concern for her welfare and safety by searching for the couple for four (4) months, desperately wanting to rescue her from captivity and seeking the intervention of the datus in resolving the matter. Neither was accused-appellant able to present any convincing evidence to substantiate his claim, like love letters, notes and other symbols of affection attesting to a consensual relationship. Nonetheless even assuming that the accused and the complainant were engaged by virtue of the dowry he had offered, this fact alone would not negate the commission of forcible abduction. An indigenous ritual of betrothal, like any other love affair, does not justify forcibly banishing the beloved against her will with the intention of molesting her. It is likewise well-settled that the giving of money does not beget an unbridled license to subject the assumed fiancée to carnal desires. By asserting the existence of such relationship, the accused seeks to prove that the victim willingly participated in the act.

5

Additional topics Sexual abuse cannot be equated with rape. In the case at bar, there is no evidence of entrance or introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum. While it is true that Lenie subsequently testified that there was "intercourse" between her and the accused-appellant, her testimony cannot be accorded such credence as to outweigh her original declarations. For one, there is an irreconcilable contradiction between her two (2) testimonies as to the place and date of the alleged rape. Abaigar vs Paz Pilar Abaigar hired David D. C. Paz as help in a divorce case. But Paz started courting Abaigar after the resolution of the case. Paz proposed to marry Abaigar, she said yes, though they were not married, they have been living as husband and wife, Abaigar got pregnant but subsequently had a miscarriage. Abaigar, then was introduced to then wife of Paz, Virginia Paz. In response Pilar Abaigar filed this administrative case for disbarment against David D. C. Paz, a member of the Philippine Bar. Paz denied the allegations. Issue: Is Paz administratively liable? Held: No, Abaigar was not able to show convincing evidence of a lack of morality on the part of Paz. Complainant admitted that during her alleged romantic liason with respondent, she was married to a certain Samuel Navales, also a Filipino, who divorced her in the U.S.A. sometime in the middle of 1970. She also admitted that before she submitted herself to his sexual desires, she was informed by him that, he had a wife with whom he was civilly married but that the marriage was void because it was either fake or 'forced'. Whether there was deceit hinges on whether complainant actually believed the representation of respondent that they could legally marry. Highly intelligent that she is and with the educational background that she has, it is difficult to accept the proposition that she swallowed hook, line and sinker his supposed assurances that notwithstanding full awareness by both of the existence of each other's previous marriages, no legal impediment stood in the way of their getting married ecclesiastically. It is improbable that at this age, she was still ignorant of the law regarding indissolubility of marriage. Before jumping headlong into accepting respondent's proposal that they act as husband and wife, she should have pondered upon the serious legal implications and complications of a second marriage for both of them. She could have easily asked a lawyer for advice on the matter. Complainant's own neighbor in Mandaluyong, Rizal is a lawyer by the name of Atty. Paler whose wife testified on her behalf. 6

Additional topics It is not enough that he denies the charges against him; he must meet the issues and overcome the evidence for the relator and to show proof that he still maintains the highest degree of morality and integrity which at all times he is expected of him Insofar as this point is concerned, the evidence of the complainant as to the trysts they had in the two hotels has not been met and overthrown by respondent. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant and the charge against the lawyer must be established by convincing proof.

Zaguirre vs Castillo Repentance can reduce an indefinite suspension to a suspension of 2 years. CARMELITA I. ZAGUIRRE, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ALFREDO CASTILLO, Respondent Inititated by: Zaguirre, against Atty. Alfredo Castillo an administrative case, for Gross Immoral Conduct. FACTS: Atty. Alfredo Castillo was already married with three children when he had an affair with Carmelita Zaguirre.  This occurred sometime from 1996 to 1997, while Castillo was reviewing for the bar and before the release of its results.  Zaguirre then got pregnant allegedly with Castillo’s daughter.  The latter, who was already a lawyer, notarized an affidavit recognizing the child and promising for her support which did not materialize after the birth of the child.  Zaguirre, against Atty. Alfredo Castillo an administrative case, for Gross Immoral Conduct. The Court found him guilty of Gross Immoral Conduct to which Castillo filed a motion for reconsideration. The IBP commented that until Castillo admits the paternity of the child and agrees to support her.  In his defense, the latter presented different certificates appreciating his services as a lawyer and proving his good moral character.  His wife even submitted a handwritten letter stating his amicability as a husband and father despite the affair.  More than a year since the original decision rendered by the Court, Castillo reiterated his willingness to support the child to the Court and attached a photocopy of postdated checks addressed to Zaguirre for the months of March to December 2005 in the amount of Php2,000.00 each.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Alfredo Castillo is guilty of Gross Immoral Conduct and should be punished with the penalty of Indefinite Suspension. 7

Additional topics HELD: Respondent’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The indefinite suspension imposed on him by the Court in its Decision dated March 6, 2003 is REDUCED to TWO YEARS suspension effective from date of receipt of herein Resolution. The Court found that Castillo’s show of repentance and active service to the community is a just and reasonable ground to convert the original penalty of indefinite suspension to a definite suspension of two years.  Furthermore, the Court noted that Zaguirre’s further claim for the support of her child should be addressed to the proper court in a proper case.

8