LEGAL ETHICS Isnihayah M.

Pangandaman

DRAFT NO.: 1 Commented [PS1]: underlined

ARLENE O. BAUTISTA v. ATTY. ZENAIDA M. FERRER

A.C. No. 9057, 3 July 2019, THIRD DIVISION (PERALTA, J.) Commented [PS2]: Single spaced

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

The possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent, and a

continuing requirement, to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain membership in the
legal profession.

FACTS

Complainant Arlene O. Bautista charged respondent Atty. Zenaida M. Ferrer with Commented [PS3]: Arlene O. Bautista (Bautista)

violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons Commented [PS4]: Atty. Zenaida M. Ferrer (Ferrer)

of Professional Ethics. Bautista alleged that she accused Ferrer, the Assistant Regional
Prosecutor of San Fernando City, La Union, with grave coercion, grave threats, grave Commented [PS5]: of

oral defamation, unlawful arrest, violation of RA No. 7438, theft, and attempted homicide.

In her narrative, Bautista alleged that she owed P200,000 to Ferrer as opposed to
the latter’s claim of P440,000. Bautista narrated that on March 28, 2011, Ferrer came to
her house and uttered derogatory remarks such as “punyeta ka! Ang kapal ng mukha mo”
and threatened her. Ferrer then brought a handgun and forced Bautista to leave the
house she was renting from Ferrer. Ferrer also allegedly illegally searched her bag and
took her Nokia cellphone. At the same day, Ferrer forcibly brought her to the City Hall of
San Fernando placing her in public ridicule by exclaiming that she was a member of
“Budol-Budol.” Unsatisfied with the said deed, Bautista alleged that Ferrer detained and Commented [PS6]: further added

delivered her to the custody of the Philippine National Police (PNP) San Fernando City,
La Union without any legal ground. At the police station, she was subjected to police
investigation regarding those persons who were indebted to Ferrer. When she disclosed
the names, Ferrer kicked, punched, and repeatedly slapped her head. It was only upon a
certain Johnny Go that she was released from the custody of the PNP. At the end of the
day, Ferrer evicted Bautista and her family from the house they were renting and
prevented them from taking their personal belongings. When Bautista tried to beg for the
release of their belongings, Ferrer got angry and told her “Putang ina mo Arlene ayusin
mo ako bago mo makuha mga gamit mo” and she then picked a pair of scissors and
thrust it towards Bautista but was subdued by Almeida.

On the other hand, Ferrer denied the accusations of Bautista. Ferrer recounted
that Bautista rented one of her houses. When Bautista gained her trust, Ferrer learned
that Bautista was in the business of lending money to people financed by a rich Chinese
businessman. Thus, Ferrer gave in and lent money to Bautista the amount of P440,000
for the purpose of re-lending the said money to several government employees, however,
Bautista failed to pay. Ferrer alleged that on March 28, 2011, she came to Bautista’s
house to personally talk to her and that Bautista voluntarily gave Ferrer her cellphone.
Ferrer further denied pointing a gun at Bautista. Ferrer also denied causing humiliation
and scandal at the City Hall. Ferrer denied the assertion that she forcibly detained her at
the police station. They merely went to the police station to talk about Bautista’s
obligation. In support of Ferrer’s claim. She submitted police reports and affidavits of
those who witnessed the said acts. In the said affidavit, Almeida reiterated that Ferrer did
not point scissors at Bautista as opposed to her allegation in a Sworn Statement filed by
Bautista. She declared that Ferrer only uttered the words “putang ina mo Arlene, ang
kapal ng mukha mo. Ayusin mo muna ako bago mo makuha mga gamit mo,”

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended that Ferrer be suspended from
the practice of law for one (1) year. Upon motion for reconsideration of Ferrer, the BOG Commented [PS7]: Board of Governors (BOG)

granted such motion and warned Ferrer for her conduct. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not Ferrer violated the Lawyer’s Oath, Code of Professional

Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics.

RULING

YES. The Court ruled 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.
 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 ako 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.

Second, it was also clearly proven that Ferrer went to Bautista early morning on
March 28, 2011 to inquire about the sum of money. Evidence show that said personal
properties are really being held until payment of obligations. The 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.

Finally, it was, likewise, established when Bautista was brought to the police
station 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. It is a clear violation of 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.

In view of the foregoing, the Court may suspend or disbar a lawyer for any
misconduct showing any fault or deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity or
good demeanor, whether in his profession or private life because good character is an
essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law and for the continuance of
such privilege. To the Court, Ferrer's acts evinces a certain vindictiveness, an
undesirable trait in any individual, and as extensively discussed above, these actuations
violated multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Indeed, the
possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent, and a continuing
requirement, to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain membership in the legal
profession. This proceeds from the lawyer's duty to observe the highest degree of morality
in order to safeguard the Bar's integrity. Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of
a lawyer, be it in the lawyer's public or private activities, which tends to show deficiency
in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension
or disbarment.

Ferrer not only exclaimed foul words and expletives directed at Bautista, she
practically took matters into her own hands in detaining and confronting Bautista in the
police station as well as in depriving her of her belongings without due process of law.
This vindictive behavior must be met with suspension from the practice of law for a period
of one (1) year in line with the cases of Spouses Saburnido v. Madroño, Gonzalez v. Atty.
Alcaraz, and Co v. Atty. Bernardino.