View full case

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

FACTS:

The complainant, Arlene O. Bautista, filed an Affidavit-Complaint against Atty. Zenaida M. Ferrer, accusing her of various violations including grave coercion, grave threats, grave oral defamation, unlawful arrest, and theft. Bautista claimed that she owed Ferrer P200,000.00, but Ferrer is now claiming that the amount is P440,000.00. Bautista alleged that on March 28, 2011, Ferrer came to her rented house, uttered derogatory remarks, threatened her, forcefully took her belongings, and harassed her live-in partner. Ferrer then brought Bautista to the City Hall of San Fernando supposedly to identify her debtors, but instead, Ferrer humiliated her by proclaiming that she was a member of the "Budol-budol" gang. Later that day, Ferrer detained Bautista and delivered her to the police station without legal grounds. Bautista was subjected to physical abuse and her belongings were taken. Ferrer also evicted Bautista and her family from their rented house and refused to return their personal belongings unless Bautista paid the alleged amount of money. Bautista went to Ferrer's office to request the release of their belongings, but Ferrer got angry and attempted to attack Bautista with a pair of scissors. Bautista holds Ferrer responsible for the rape of her 13-year-old daughter due to their displacement. Ferrer denied the accusations and claimed that she had a good relationship with Bautista, whom she trusted. Ferrer accused Bautista of failing to pay the borrowed money. The encounter between Ferrer and Bautista on March 28, 2011, according to Ferrer, was peaceful and she did not point a gun at Bautista.

The case involves a complaint filed against a lawyer named Ferrer by a certain Bautista. Bautista alleged that Ferrer caused her scandal and humiliation at the Department of Education (DepEd) and City Hall by confronting her debtors about the amounts they owed her. Ferrer denied these allegations and claimed that she was professional and composed during the encounters. Ferrer also denied the allegation that she forcibly detained Bautista at the police station and verbally and physically abused her. Ferrer stated that they went to the police station only to discuss Bautista's obligations in front of the police authorities. Ferrer submitted a letter from a police officer stationed at the time, confirming that no confrontation occurred between the parties. Additionally, a certain Johnny Go disproved Bautista's claims by stating in a sworn statement that Bautista had lied about the amount of money owed by another alleged debtor. Bautista also accused Ferrer of theft for detaining her personal properties. However, Ferrer claimed that Bautista voluntarily left the properties and that the refrigerator was transferred to Ferrer's house for cleaning and safekeeping. Lastly, Bautista alleged that Ferrer had pointed a pair of scissors at her. Ferrer presented an affidavit from a DepEd Supervisor who accompanied Bautista to Ferrer's office, stating that Ferrer did not point the scissors at Bautista but made a move to throw it in anger, not in Bautista's direction. Ferrer argued that the complaint against her was an attempt by Bautista to pressure her into withdrawing her complaint for Estafa. Ferrer further contended that blaming her for her daughter's rape was unfounded and unfair. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially recommended a reprimand for Ferrer but later suspended her from the practice of law for one year. However, the IBP ultimately granted Ferrer's motion for reconsideration and reprimanded her instead, warning that similar conduct in the future would be dealt with more severely.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Attorney Ferrer’s actions violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  2. Whether the respondent lawyer should be disciplined for her misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  3. Whether the fact that the respondent lawyer was in the government service for many years extinguishes her administrative liability.

  4. Whether Atty. Zenaida M. Ferrer violated Canon 1, Rule 6.02, Canon 6, and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  5. If so, what is the appropriate penalty for the violations committed by Atty. Ferrer?

RULING:

  1. Attorney Ferrer’s actions violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. She was reprimanded and warned by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), but the suspension of her law practice for one year was later set aside.

  2. Yes, the respondent lawyer should be disciplined for her misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court held that the respondent lawyer's acts of personally questioning the complainant, bringing her to the police station, and confiscating her personal belongings violated multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The respondent lawyer's actions showed a certain vindictiveness and violated the duty of lawyers to maintain good moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor. The Court stated that lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality not only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal career. The possession of good moral character is a condition precedent to the admission to the practice of law and to retain membership in the legal profession.

  3. No, the fact that the respondent lawyer was in the government service for many years does not extinguish her administrative liability. The Court emphasized that lawyers in the government service are subject to constant public scrutiny and are held to higher standards of ethical conduct. Their private activities should not interfere with the discharge of their official functions. The respondent lawyer's position in the government does not exempt her from disciplinary action for her misconduct.

  4. Atty. Zenaida M. Ferrer is found to have violated Canon 1, Rule 6.02, Canon 6, and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a result, she is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The use of abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper language is prohibited by Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  • Lawyers are mandated to uphold the Constitution and the laws, and taking someone’s property without due process of law is a breach of the Bill of Rights (Canon 1).

  • Lawyers in government positions are prohibited from using their public position or influence to promote or advance their private interests (Rule 6.02, Canon 6).

  • Lawyers may be disciplined or disbarred for misconduct, whether in their professional or private capacity, if such misconduct shows their unworthiness as officers of the courts and their lack of moral character.

  • Good moral character is a requirement for admission to the Bar and for the continuance of the privilege to practice law.

  • Lawyers in the government service are held to higher standards of ethical conduct and must put aside their private interests in favor of the interest of the public.

  • Possession of good moral character is a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law and a continuing requirement to retain membership in the legal profession.

  • The use of insulting, offensive, and improper language by a lawyer is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  • Lawyers should respect the rights and dignity of individuals and should exhibit good moral character in both their professional and personal conduct.

  • Lawyers should not personally attack or demean a fellow lawyer, regardless of the circumstances.