Title
Bautista vs. Ferrer
Case
A.C. No. 9057
Decision Date
Jul 3, 2019
A lawyer, accused of abusive language, confiscation of property, and misuse of public office in a debt dispute, was suspended for one year for violating professional ethics.
abusive language
offensive language
confiscation of personal belongings

Case Summary (A.C. No. 9057)

Factual Background

Bautista alleged that she had earlier accused Ferrer—then and in relation to their dispute—of multiple criminal acts, including grave coercion, grave threats, grave oral defamation, unlawful arrest, violations of R.A. No. 7438, theft, and attempted homicide. At the core of the administrative complaint was Bautista’s account of Ferrer’s conduct on March 28, 2011, when Ferrer allegedly decided to “collect” what Bautista owed.

Bautista claimed that she previously owed Ferrer P200,000.00, but Ferrer later demanded P440,000.00. She narrated that on the morning of March 28, 2011, Ferrer came to the house Bautista was renting from her and uttered derogatory remarks such as “punyeta ka! Ang kapal ng mukha mo!” She further alleged that Ferrer threatened her with “kung hindi lang ako naawa sa anak mo, tuluyan kita!” Bautista stated that Ferrer produced a handgun from a bag held by Ferrer’s driver, forced her to leave the rented premises, illegally searched her bag, and forcibly took her Nokia cellular phone. Bautista added that when her live-in partner and the latter’s sister arrived, Ferrer harassed them and took the key to their tricycle.

Bautista also alleged that around 9:00 a.m. on the same day, Ferrer forcibly brought her to San Fernando City Hall ostensibly to identify those to whom Bautista had lent Ferrer’s money. Instead, Bautista claimed Ferrer publicly ridiculed her by declaring she was part of the “Budol-budol” gang. Later, around 2:30 p.m., Bautista alleged that Ferrer detained her without legal grounds and turned her over to the custody of the PNP in San Fernando City. She said she was investigated at the police station and, when she disclosed the names of debtors, Ferrer kicked, punched, and repeatedly slapped her head. Bautista further claimed that Ferrer bragged that the police was under her control and directed Police Officer (PO) 2 Maricar Godoy to search her bag, resulting in the search of her wallet and the taking of a list of debtors. Bautista claimed she was released only after the intercession of a certain Johnny Go. Finally, Bautista alleged that Ferrer evicted her family and withheld return of personal belongings—such as a television set and refrigerator—until Bautista paid the supposed amount.

Bautista claimed further that on May 23, 2011, she went to Ferrer’s office with Jose Mari Almeida of the Department of Education (DepEd) to seek release of her belongings and Almeida’s computer. Bautista asserted that Ferrer became angry, told her “Putang ina mo Arlene ayusin mo ako bago mo muna makuha mga gamit mo!” and then thrust a pair of scissors toward her, but Almeida subdued Ferrer. Bautista attempted again to request the return of additional belongings amounting to P38,700.00, but Ferrer allegedly rejected the request. Bautista also attributed the eventual rape of her thirteen-year-old daughter by her former husband to Ferrer’s acts, asserting that her displacement compelled the daughter to live with the former husband in Isabela.

Respondent’s Denial and Alternative Narrative

In her Comment, Ferrer denied the allegations of violence, unlawful detention, and improper coercion. She described Bautista as the familiar manicurist of City Hall employees, noting that Bautista had rented one of Ferrer’s houses in December 2010 and frequently visited Ferrer’s place for nail services and assistance around the house. Ferrer claimed Bautista later gained her trust and confidence.

Ferrer stated that she learned Bautista was engaged in money-lending activities and was allegedly financed by a rich Chinese businessman. Ferrer maintained that, based on Bautista’s representations, she believed Bautista’s business was lucrative and therefore gave Bautista capital to re-lend to government employees. Ferrer explained that she decided to confront Bautista because Bautista failed to pay Ferrer the sums due, which Ferrer said totaled P440,000.00, consistent with Bautista’s promised payment from the Chinese businessman.

According to Ferrer, on the morning of March 28, 2011, she seriously talked with Bautista in front of witnesses close to Bautista and Ferrer’s household. She stated that she asked Bautista to remit her collections, and Bautista allegedly proposed that they go to DepEd and City Hall so Ferrer could personally talk with the debtors. Ferrer claimed that during their passage by Bautista’s rented house, Bautista voluntarily gave her her cellphone and that Ferrer returned it the same day. Ferrer asserted that the encounter was peaceful and that she did not point a gun at Bautista. She also denied that she caused humiliation at DepEd and City Hall, and claimed she remained calm while checking the debtors’ explanations and discovering inconsistencies.

On the police station incident, Ferrer denied that she physically abused or detained Bautista. She insisted that she went to the police station merely to talk about Bautista’s obligations in front of police authorities. She submitted a letter from a police officer stationed at the time to support her claim that no confrontation or untoward incident occurred. Ferrer further contended that Johnny Go’s sworn statement disproved Bautista’s version because, she argued, Johnny Go narrated how Ferrer discovered Bautista’s alleged lie regarding the debtor’s amount owed. Regarding Bautista’s theft claim concerning her personal properties, Ferrer said Bautista voluntarily left the items and would only vacate the rented premises fully after settling her obligations. Ferrer also explained that the refrigerator was moved from the rented house to Ferrer’s own premises only for cleaning and safekeeping because the rented house was allegedly abandoned.

As to the alleged scissor threat, Ferrer presented the affidavit of Jose Mari Almeida. Almeida allegedly retracted his earlier statement, explaining that Ferrer did not point scissors at Bautista; Ferrer only made a move to throw them in anger, but not in Bautista’s direction. Ferrer added that playing with objects in her hands was simply her mannerism, such as holding and playing with a pen while teaching.

Finally, Ferrer asserted that the complaint was an attempt by Bautista to pressure her into withdrawing her complaint for estafa, and she argued that it was unfair and misguided for Bautista to blame her for the rape of Bautista’s daughter.

IBP Proceedings and Recommended Sanction

The Investigating Commissioner of the CBD of the IBP issued a Report and Recommendation dated November 12, 2012, recommending that Ferrer be reprimanded and warned that similar future conduct—particularly taking the law into her own hands, careless use of public office or influence to advance private interest, or use of abusive, offensive, or improper language—would be addressed more severely. However, the Board of Governors (BOG) of the IBP approved a modified version of the report in a resolution dated August 9, 2014, which imposed a one (1) year suspension from the practice of law. Ferrer later moved for reconsideration. In a resolution dated June 7, 2015, the BOG granted the motion for reconsideration, set aside its earlier resolution, and adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation, resulting in only a reprimand and warning.

The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal to the Court

Before the Court, the central controversy remained the propriety of Ferrer’s actions in pursuing what she believed to be a private monetary claim from Bautista. Bautista consistently emphasized that Ferrer used coercive and intimidating methods while holding public office, including offensive language, taking Bautista’s cellphone, involving police authorities, and withholding personal property without legal process. Ferrer, in turn, invoked a different narrative, portraying her conduct as a calm and professional effort to verify obligations and confront alleged inconsistency, while denying unlawful detention, physical abuse, and the scissor-aiming incident. She also argued that Bautista’s complaint was retaliatory and connected to a parallel estafa dispute.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

In addressing the matter, the Court ruled that Ferrer must be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year, reinstating the penalty originally imposed by the BOG in its August 9, 2014 resolution. The Court acknowledged that Bautista might still have owed Ferrer money and that Bautista may not have been fully honest as to where Ferrer’s funds went. Nonetheless, the Court held that such circumstances did not confer “unbridled authority” upon Ferrer to act as she did.

First, the Court found Ferrer’s offensive language to violate Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from using abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper language. It was established, and admitted by Ferrer, that she uttered the words “putang ina mo Arlene, ang kapal ng mukha mo. Ayusin mo muna ako bago mo makuha ang mga gamit mo” within the confines of her office. The Court added that Ferrer’s claim that she did not direct scissors at Bautista and that she merely had a mannerism of holding objects did not negate administrative liability. The Court reasoned that angrily uttering offensive words while brandishing a pair of scissors at Bautista was sufficient to threaten and intimidate her. The Court emphasized that such words had no place in the mouth of a lawyer in a high government office, particularly one holding the position of Assistant Regional State Prosecutor.

Second, the Court found that Ferrer’s acts surrounding Bautista’s cellphone and the withholding of personal effects amounted to a denial of due process and a breach of the lawyer’s duty to uphold the law. The Court noted that Ferrer admitted she took Bautista’s cellphone before going to government offices and that she refused to release personal effects until the alleged investment was returned. The Court relied on sworn statements, including those of Johnny Go and Almeida, indicating that

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms