Title
Supreme Court
Re: Capito
Case
A.M. No. 2008-19-SC
Decision Date
Jul 27, 2010
Atty. Capito suspended for gross discourtesy after vulgar remarks and unproven debt claims; private practice allegation dismissed.

Case Digest (A.M. No. 2008-19-SC)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background and Parties Involved
    • Complainants: Mrs. Milagros Lee and her daughter, Samantha Lee.
    • Respondent: Atty. Gil Luisito R. Capito, Court Attorney IV at the Office of the Chief Attorney (OCAT).
  • Origin of the Complaint
    • Mrs. Lee sought legal assistance for a claim for financial support against her husband who is in Hawaii.
    • Atty. Capito was introduced to her by neighbors, the De Guzmans (Ma. Cecilia and Ferdinand De Guzman), with the knowledge that he was a friend of Ferdinand and purportedly connected with influential persons and the Supreme Court.
  • Initial Legal Consultation and Subsequent Events
    • In March 2008, upon first introduction, Mrs. Lee engaged Atty. Capito regarding her legal matter.
    • In the third week of April 2008, Mrs. Lee learned more about Atty. Capito’s specialties and his supposed connection to influential persons during another encounter at the De Guzmans' residence.
    • Mrs. Lee’s marital documents were photocopied by her daughter, Samantha, and given to Atty. Capito, indicating initiation of engagement.
  • Financial Transactions and Borrowings
    • On June 26, 2008, after a meeting at KFC regarding her claim for support, Atty. Capito informed Mrs. Lee that it was “malabo na” (uncertain) that her claim could succeed.
    • The following day, June 27, 2008, Atty. Capito visited Mrs. Lee’s house to borrow money.
      • He requested a pawn of a bracelet for P7,000.00, with an additional alleged P4,000.00 lending round to help redeem his cell phone.
    • On June 28, 2008, Atty. Capito requested permission to stay in Mrs. Lee’s house for an initially agreed two-week period, which later extended to a month, during which he promised, but failed, to pay for board and lodging.
    • On July 7, 2008, despite outstanding borrowings, he borrowed an additional P10,000.00.
    • On subsequent occasions, he borrowed smaller sums of P1,000.00 on two separate dates (with one date unspecified and another on July 23, 2008).
    • The total alleged indebtedness enumerated by Mrs. Lee amounted to P16,000.00.
  • Communications and Disputed Representations
    • Mrs. Lee persistently contacted Atty. Capito via the OCAT phone line but received evasive responses such as “wala pa” ("not yet").
    • Mrs. Lee had received a specific promise from Atty. Capito to clear his debt by September 30, 2008.
    • On September 30, 2008, when Mrs. Lee and her daughter came to the office, they were told “wala pa,” intensifying the dispute.
  • Incident of Gross Discourtesy
    • During the September 30, 2008 encounter, in a heated confrontation and in the presence of several witnesses including Mrs. Lee’s daughter, Atty. Capito utilized vulgar language.
      • He reportedly said, “Eh kung sabihin ko na sugar mommy kita,” and then added, “Nagpapakantot ka naman sa akin.”
    • The utterance was confirmed by multiple witnesses, including Leonora F. DiAo, a testimony from Jose Torres, and corroboration by Edeta Torres and Toribio S. Balicot through associated evidences such as a text message linked to Atty. Capito’s cellphone number.
  • Respondent’s Defense
    • Atty. Capito denied staying in Mrs. Lee’s house and denied any indebtedness, stating that the complainants’ allegations were unfounded and aimed at maligning his reputation.
    • He maintained that his troubles were due to the complainants’ own financial needs and that he had explained his position in his Affidavit of Explanation and Rejoinder.
    • Additionally, he referenced his role as administrator of his late father’s substantial estate to emphasize his financial stability.

Issues:

  • Factual Determination of Residence and Borrowings
    • Whether Atty. Capito actually stayed in Mrs. Lee’s residence, contrary to his denial.
    • Whether the series of borrowings including the pawn of the bracelet and monetary advances occurred as alleged.
  • Nature and Verification of the Debt
    • The legitimacy and substantiation of the alleged indebtedness totaling P16,000.00.
    • Whether the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and text messages, sufficiently supported Mrs. Lee’s claims.
  • Concerning Professional Conduct
    • Whether Atty. Capito’s use of vulgar and abusive language in a public and professional setting constitutes gross discourtesy.
    • The implications of such language and behavior on his adherence to the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 7.03 and Rule 8.01.
  • Appropriate Remedies and Penalties
    • Determining the proper disciplinary action for acts of gross discourtesy committed by a court employee.
    • Whether mitigating circumstances, such as Atty. Capito’s 17 years of service and his first administrative charge, justify a lesser penalty.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.