.C. No. 9057 [Formerly CBD Case No.
12-3413]
ARLENE O. BAUTISTA, Complainant
vs.
ATTY. ZENAIDA M. FERRER, Respondent
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is an Affidavit-Complaint dated July 11, 2011 filed by
1
complainant Arlene O. Bautista charging respondent Atty. Zenaida M. Ferrer with
Violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the
Canons of Professional Ethics.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
In her complaint, Bautista alleged that she had recently accused Ferrer, Assistant
Regional State Prosecutor, Office of the Prosecutor, Region 1, San Fernando
City, La Union, with grave coercion, grave threats, grave oral defamation,
unlawful arrest, violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7438, entitled An Act Defining
Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or under Custodial Investigation as
well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining and Investigating Officers, and
Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof, theft, and attempted homicide. As
borne by the records, Bautista suggests that she once owed Ferrer ₱200,000.00,
but the latter is now claiming that the amount is already ₱440,000.00.
Bautista narrated that in the morning of March 28, 2011, Ferrer, who was very
furious, came to her house she was renting from the latter and uttered derogatory
remarks such as "punyeta ka! Ang kapal ng mukha mo!" and threatened her with
the words, "kung hindi lang ako naawa sa anak mo, tuluyan kita!" Ferrer then
brought out a handgun from a bag being held by her driver, forced her to leave
the house she was renting, illegally searched her bag, and forcibly took her Nokia
cellular phone. When her live-in partner and the latter's sister arrived on a
tricycle, she also harassed them and took the key thereto from him.
Thereafter, Bautista recalled that at around 9:00 a.m. of the same day, Ferrer
forcibly brought her to the City Hall of San Fernando supposedly to identify those
people who she lent Ferrer's money to. Upon arriving thereat, however, Ferrer
not only identified her debtors, but also placed Bautista in public ridicule in
exclaiming that she was a member of the "Budol-budol" gang.
Unsatisfied with said deed, Bautista alleged that at around 2:30 p.m., Ferrer next
detained and delivered her to the custody of the Philippine National Police (PNP),
San Fernando City, La Union, without any legal grounds. At the police station,
she was subjected to an investigation where she was again asked about those
persons who were indebted to Ferrer. When she finally disclosed the names,
Ferrer kicked, punched, and repeatedly slapped her head. Then, Ferrer bragged
that the police was under her control and ordered Police Officer (PO) 2 Maricar
Godoy to search her bag who consequently searched her wallet and got the list
of debtors therein. It was only upon the intercession of a certain Johnny Go that
she was released from the custody of the PNP.
Finally, at the end of the day, Bautista recalled that Ferrer evicted her and her
family from the house they were renting from Ferrer and prevented them from
taking their personal belongings therein. These personal belongings, which
includes a television set and a refrigerator, were taken out of the rented house
and brought to one of the rooms in Ferrer's house, which Ferrer refused to return
until Bautista paid the alleged sum of money.
Bautista further narrates that on May 23, 2011, she went to Ferrer's office with
Jose Mari Almeida, a Supervisor from the Department of Education (DepEd), to
beg for the release of her personal belongings as well as a computer belonging
to Almeida. But Ferrer got angry and told her "Putang ina mo Arlene ayusin mo
ako bago mo muna makuha mga gamit mo!" She then picked a pair of scissors
on top of her table and thrust it towards Bautista but was subdued by Almeida.
According to Bautista, she made another attempt to beg for the release of her
personal belongings amounting to ₱38,700.00, but was again rejected by Ferrer.
In the end, Bautista maintains that as a result of her family's displacement, she
had no choice but to allow her fomier husband to bring their 13-year-old daughter
with him to Isabela where he succeeded in raping the latter. Thus, she blames
Ferrer for her daughter's misfortune.2
In her Comment, Ferrer denied the accusations against her. Ferrer recalls that
3
Bautista, known as "Sudsud' for being the familiar manicurist of the employees at
the City Hall of San Fernando, rented one of her houses in December 2010.
Since then, Bautista would frequent her place to do her nails and even help her
out around her house. As a result, Bautista eventually gained her trust and
confidence. Ferrer later learned that Bautista was in the business of lending
money to people and was being financed by a rich Chinese businessman. From
Bautista's representations, it appeared to Ferrer that Bautista was well-connected
and that her business was very lucrative. Consequently, Ferrer soon gave
Bautista capital who re-lent the money to several government employees. To
allay Ferrer's fears, Bautista assured her that her rich Chinese financer would be
arriving soon and would readily pay all the sums of money she gave Bautista
amounting to a total of ₱440,000.00. Bautista, however, failed to pay.
Thus, in the morning of March 28, 2011, Ferrer decided to seriously talk with
Bautista, bringing with her her carpenter who is close to Bautista and the wife of
another one of her carpenters. In front of said persons, Ferrer asked Bautista to
remit her collections, but Bautista said that she has not yet made any collections.
Instead, Bautista suggested that they go to the DepEd and City Hall so Ferrer
could personally talk with the debtors. Before proceeding thereto, Ferrer and
Bautista passed by the latter's rented house where she voluntarily gave Ferrer
her cellphone. Ferrer, however, returned it the same day. According to Ferrer,
the encounter between her and Bautista was peaceful and smooth. It was not
true that she pointed a gun at Bautista.
It was also untrue that Ferrer caused Bautista scandal and humiliation at the
DepEd and City Hall. On the contrary, Ferrer was nothing but professional when
she asked the debtors about the amounts that they owed her. In fact, she
remained calm and composed despite her discovery of several inconsistencies
between Bautista's claims and those of her debtors at the said government
offices.
4
Ferrer further denied the truth to Bautista's assertions that she forcibly detained
her at the police station where she verbally and physically abused her. 1awp+
According to Ferrer, they went to the police station merely for the purpose of
+i1
talking about Bautista's obligations in front of the police authorities. In support of
said contention, Ferrer submitted a letter of the police officer stationed at the time
confirming the fact that no confrontation or anything untoward occurred between
the parties therein. In fact, the certain Johnny Go who supposedly helped in the
release of Bautista disproved in his sworn statement Bautista' s claims when he
narrated how in a telephone conversation between him and another alleged
debtor, Ferrer discovered that Bautista lied again as to the amount of money said
debtor owes.
With respect to the claim of theft in detaining Bautista's personal properties,
Ferrer insists that Bautista voluntarily left the same and would only totally vacate
the rented premises when she settles her obligations to Ferrer. The only reason
why the refrigerator was transferred from Bautista's rented house to Ferrer's was
because it needed cleaning and safekeeping since said rented house was
abandoned. 5
Finally, as to Bautista's allegation that Ferrer pointed a pair of scissors at her,
Ferrer presented the Affidavit of Jose Mari Almeida, the DepEd Supervisor who
accompanied Bautista to Ferrer's office. In said document, Almeida retracted his
allegations in his original Sworn Statement submitted by Bautista to the effect
that his previous statement that Ferrer pointed a pair of scissors at Bautista did
not accurately reflect the events that transpired that day. Instead, Almeida
declared that while Ferrer uttered the words ''putang ina mo Arlene, ang kapal ng
mukha mo. Ayusin mo muna aka bago mo makuha ang mga gamit mo," she
never pointed the pair of scissors at Bautista but merely made a move to throw it
in anger which was not in the direction of Bautista. Ferrer added that it was just
6
her mannerism to play with the things she holds alternately with her two hands,
like when she is teaching, she always holds a pen and plays with it like one
would play ping pong. 7
In the end, Ferrer insists that the complaint filed against her is merely an attempt
on Bautista's part to pressure her into withdrawing her complaint against Bautista
for Estafa. She adds that to blame her for her daughter's rape is completely
misguided and is the highest form of unfairness. 8
In a Report and Recommendation dated November 12, 2012, the Investigating
9
Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that Ferrer be reprimanded and warned
that a similar show in the future of the tendency to take the law into her own
hands and/or careless use of her public office or influence to advance, or even to
vindicate a purely private interest, and/or the careless use of abusive, offensive
or otherwise improper language will be dealt with more severely. 10
In a Resolution dated August 9, 2014, however, the Board of Governors (BOG)
11
of the IBP approved, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner and suspended Ferrer from the practice of law for
one (1) year.
But in another Resolution dated June 7, 2015, the BOG granted the Motion for
12
Reconsideration of Ferrer and resolved to set aside its earlier resolution and
adopt the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. Thus, the BOG
reprimanded Ferrer and warned her that a similar conduct in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.
The Court's Ruling
In view of the circumstances of the instant case, the Court finds that Ferrer must
be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, as originally
found by the BOG in its August 9, 2014 Resolution.
It may be true that Bautista was, and may still be, indebted to Ferrer and that the
former may not have been completely honest about where exactly the latter's
money went. This fact, however, does not give Ferrer unbridled authority to act
the way that she did. As stated by the Investigating Commissioner, not only is
there something wrong with the means employed by Ferrer in her efforts to
recover what Bautista may have owed her, said means violated her duties under
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
First of all, it was clearly established, and in fact admitted by Ferrer, that she
uttered the derogatory remarks "putang ina mo Arlene, ang kapal ng mukha mo.
Ayusin mo muna aka bago mo makuha ang mga gamit mo" in the confines of her
own office. This fact, standing alone, already violates Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which prohibits a lawyer from using language
which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper. It is not amiss to add,
moreover, that Ferrer was even thrusting a pair of scissors making a move to
throw it in anger. To the Court, Ferrer's excuse that she did not point the same in
the direction of Bautista and that it is simply her mannerism to hold things with
her hands does not absolve her from administrative liability. The fact that she
angrily hurled offensive words at Bautista while holding a pair of scissors was
enough to threaten and intimidate the latter. As the Investigating Commissioner
held, these words surely have no place in the mouth of a lawyer in a high
government office such as Ferrer, an Assistant Regional State Prosecutor no
less.
Second, it was also clearly proven that Ferrer went to Bautista early morning on
March 28, 2011 to inquire about the sum of money and that before proceeding to
the government offices to talk to the alleged debtors, Ferrer took Bautista's
cellphone. Moreover, while Ferrer insists that she did not physically prohibit
Bautista from taking her personal property and that she only urged her to settle
her obligations before she can totally vacate the leased premises, evidence show
that said personal properties are really being held until payment of obligations.
As the witnesses Johnny Go and Almeida stated in their affidavits, Ferrer allowed
the removal of the properties only after Bautista returns Ferrer's investment. In
fact, Ferrer even admitted that she said the following words to Bautista: "putang
ina mo Arlene, ang kapal ng mukha mo. Ayusin mo muna ako bago mo makuha
ang mga gamit mo."
Thus, the Court agrees with the Investigating Commissioner's''finding that
Ferrer's taking of Bautista's cellphone, even if it was eventually returned later on,
and refusal to release the personal effects of Bautista is tantamount to
confiscation, or depriving Bautista of something that is hers without due process
of law. This is in clear breach of the Bill of Rights, particularly the principle that no
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Under Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyers, such as
Ferrer, are mandated to uphold the Constitution and the laws. The Court is of the
opinion, therefore, that Ferrer's withholding of Bautista's personal property not
only runs counter to her duty to uphold the law, it is also equivalent to putting the
law into her own hands.
Finally, it was, likewise, established that in her quest to inquire about the money
she had given Bautista, Ferrer did not stop at merely dropping by Bautista's
house. As the records show, Ferrer began her confrontation early in the morning
at Bautista's place where she confiscated the latter's cellphone, then proceeded
with Bautista to the government offices to talk to the debtors, and finally ended
up at the police station where she further questioned Bautista about the same
issue concerning the money she had given her. In hindsight, this interrogation
practically persisted the entire day, beginning early in the morning of March 28,
2011 up until 7 o'clock in the evening. Thus, Ferrer may insist that she only
wanted to "talk about Bautista's obligations in front of the police authorities," but
We agree with the Investigating Commissioner when he said that Ferrer's
actuations gave Bautista the impression that she was arrested and detained, and
worse, that government agencies were being used to advance her private
interests.
Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a lawyer
in government from using his/her public position or influence to promote or
advance his/her private interests. On this score, let Us not forget that Ferrer was
the Assistant Regional State Prosecutor of San Fernando City, La Union, at the
time of the incident and that Bautista was well aware of such fact. Let Us also not
forget that Bautista was questioned at the police station from 2:30 p.m. to 7:00
p.m., or almost 5 hours. But despite this, Ferrer did not file any complaint against
Bautista, insisting that she merely wanted to talk to Bautista in front of the police
authorities. These police authorities searched Bautista's belongings looking for
any clue as to the whereabouts of Ferrer's money as well as the debtors who
borrowed the same. Thus, even assuming that Ferrer did not really kick, punch,
or repeatedly slap Bautista's head, the fact that Bautista surrendered her
cellphone and allowed herself to be brought by Ferrer from one place to another,
from early morning until the evening, shows how Ferrer succeeded in using her
high and powerful position in the government to intimidate Bautista, a mere
manicurist and lessee of her property.
In view of the foregoing, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that
a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney
by the Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office,
grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the
admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case without authority to do so. In addition, the failure to live up to the provisions
of the Code of Professional Responsibility is, likewise, a ground for disciplinary
action.
13
Moreover, whether the dispute between the parties is a private matter is of no
moment. In Gonzalez v. Atty. Alcaraz, We held that "whether in their
14
professional or in their private capacity, lawyers may be disbarred or suspended
for misconduct. This penalty is a consequence of acts showing their
unworthiness as officers of the courts, as well as their lack of moral character,
honesty, probity, and good demeanor. When the misconduct committed outside
of their professional dealings is so gross as to show them to be morally unfit for
the office and the privileges conferred upon them by their license and the law,
they may be suspended or disbarred." 15
The rationale for this is found in Cordon v. Balicanta, to wit:
16
