THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12569. July 20, 2022.]
RICHARD B. DELIBO and AJAY CRUZ TADIFA, complainants,vs. ATTY. KAREN D. QUIÑANOLA-GONZALES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 20, 2022, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12569 (Richard B. Delibo and Ajay Cruz Tadifa, Complainants, vs. Atty. Karen D. Quiñanola-Gonzales, Respondent). —This resolves the Verified Complaint/Letter-Affidavit 1 dated June 19, 2019 filed by Richard Basalo Delibo (Richard) and Ajay Cruz Tadifa (Tadifa) (collectively, complainants) against respondent Atty. Karen D. Quiñanola-Gonzales (respondent) for alleged unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Complainants stated that they are entrepreneurs, coaches, and trainers of "Cebu Swimming Lessons" (CSL) located at the Montebello Villa Hotel (Montebello), Apas, Lahug, Cebu City which offers swimming lessons for all ages. 2 On the other hand, respondent is the maternal aunt of 4-year old Rei Megan Auza (Megan). Megan and her 2-year old paternal cousin Laiza Belle Gultiano (Baby Laiza) both took swimming lessons with CSL. 3
Records disclose that on June 6, 2019, Rose May Q. Auza (Rose May), respondent's sister, gave negative customer feedback against CSL. Specifically, Rose May complained to Tadifa that Rose May's daughter, Megan, was traumatized by the rough handling of coaches Richard and Renato Delibo (Renato) during her swimming lessons on March 17 and 24, 2019. Purportedly, instead of addressing the concern of Rose May and proposing ways to correct the situation, Tadifa accused Rose May of being a negligent parent and threatened to sue her for lying about Megan's trauma. 4
Upon learning about what happened to Rose May and Tadifa, respondent searched for CSL's contact details so she could talk to complainants about Rose May's unresolved complaint. However, save from CSL's Facebook 5 page, she could not find CSL's contact details. 6 Then, on CSL's Facebook page, respondent found a video of Baby Laiza swimming with the CSL coaches. In the comments section of that post, she ranted about Megan's experience with CSL coaches and added that both Baby Laiza and Megan are now afraid to swim due to the male coaches' lack of skill in handling children. 7
On June 7, 2019, respondent accompanied Rose May to Montebello to officially complain about their unfortunate experience with the CSL coaches and to inquire about the coaches' identities and qualifications. 8 However, the management of Montebello informed them that they had not inquired about complainants' credentials after Tadifa had represented herself as a former athlete of the Philippine Team. The management then authorized the refund of fees that Rose May paid for the swimming lessons as Montebello's compensation to them. 9
On June 12, 2019, respondent, through her Facebook account, asked her friends if they know whether the CSL coaches possess the necessary instructor's certificate and lifesaver's training certificate that would qualify them to teach swimming to children of tender years. She also advised her friends to look into the qualifications of swimming coaches before entrusting them with the safety of their children. 10
Hence the complaint. 11
Complainants alleged that respondent engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct when she posted false statements on CSL's Facebook page and committed libelous acts which caused losses and damages to CSL. 12 Complainants added that the management of Montebello advised them that they can no longer accept new enrollees for swimming lessons out of fear of respondent, who is a lawyer. 13 CAIHTE
In her Comment, 14 respondent narrated that after she inquired about the qualifications of the CSL coaches through Facebook, complainants launched a personal attack against her and called her a real disgrace to the legal profession. 15 Thus, she filed: (1) a criminal case 16 for Cyberlibel against Tadifa docketed as NPS No. 20-00754 2020 and pending before the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Cebu City and (2) a civil case 17 for damages against Tadifa docketed as Civil Case No. R-CEB-20-03291 which is pending before Branch 5, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City. 18 Thereafter, Rose May and Lou G. Gultiano, Baby Laiza's father, filed before the OCP of Cebu City criminal cases for Child Abuse 19 against Richard and Renato which were docketed as NPS Docket Nos. VII-09-INV-19G-01602 and VII-09-INV-19G-01601, respectively. 20 Respondent maintains that the instant case is not only baseless and malicious but is intended to harass her from further prosecuting the cases she had filed against complainants. 21
The Issue
The issue to be resolved in this case is whether respondent violated Rule 1.01 22 of the CPR when she posted negative customer feedback on CSL's Facebook page and inquired about the CSL coaches' qualifications to teach children of tender years.
The Court's Ruling
After a judicious examination of the records, the Court resolves to dismiss the administrative complaint for lack of a prima facie case to warrant disciplinary action against respondent.
It is well settled that a lawyer enjoys the legal presumption that he/she is innocent of the charges against him/her until the contrary is proved, and that as an officer of the court, he/she performed his/her duties in accordance with his/her oath. 23 Corollarily, basic is the rule that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainants; for the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the complainants must establish their case against the respondent lawyer by substantial evidence or such evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 24
Here, complainants failed to submit any inculpating evidence against respondent.
It is undisputed that respondent posted negative customer feedback on the comments section of CSL's Facebook page and subsequently complained to the management of Montebello regarding the CSL coaches' rough handling of Megan and Baby Laiza. Nonetheless, respondent's act of raising a legitimate concern on CSL's Facebook page is not unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful but a natural reaction to defend her sister, Rose May, after Tadifa disregarded Rose May's complaint and threatened to sue her for supposedly lying about Megan's trauma.
Besides, there is nothing abusive, offensive, or inappropriate in respondent's comments on the CSL Facebook page, viz.:
This is baby laiza who has been taking swimming lessons with my 4-yr. old niece. Unknown to you, Mr. and Madam Coach, after this session and the next few sessions after, Baby Laiza is already afraid to swim. The same effect your supposedly "professional" instructional techniques had on my 4-yr. old niece. Both toddlers are now afraid to swim!
Do these swimming coaches even apply child psychology in handling toddlers? What we see here is a few seconds of the toddler's swim in the pool. What the video failed to show is the rash, brazen and total lack of skill of the male coach in handling the child. This afternoon, my sister complained to the said swimming coach in Montebello because her child, a 4-yr. old toddler, had developed fear of the water after this male coach, who did not even introduce himself to the child at the start of the session, just immediately dragged the child into the water. The child since then was crying for her mother. The next few swimming lessons saw no change in the coach's style. He would just bring the child into the water and directed her to grab hold of the floater. All through the session, the child would scream for help for her mother to come rescue her while the coach is just apathetic. This afternoon, the mother went to complain, but instead of hearing her out, these wife-and-husband coaches threatened to file a damages suit against her for complaining. Seriously??? Ok then. Let's see how you handle a real lawsuit for damages when you find yourself to be the defendants. Just you wait. 25
While respondent's comment, made in the heat of anger, may seem forceful and emphatic, her language is still dignified, respectful, and hardly libelous. 26 For one, it is settled that "[i]nsulting words are not actionable as libel per se, and a consequent personal embarrassment does not mean this is automatically equivalent to defamation." 27 For another, respondent merely narrated their unpleasant but genuine experience with CSL coaches in an attempt to contact them through CSL's Facebook page. 28 However, complainants, instead of addressing their customer's legitimate concern, immediately deleted respondent's comment and blocked her account. 29
Likewise, there is nothing malicious, defamatory, or slanderous in respondent's act of asking her friends about the CSL coaches' qualifications and advising them to look for the coaches' instructor certificate and lifesavers seminar certificate if they are thinking about enrolling their kids in swimming classes. 30 It is not unusual for customers to inquire about the qualifications of swimming instructors. This is especially true with regard to parents as they are placing the safety of their children on the hands of said instructors, as in the case. Apparently, complainants, instead of properly addressing the issue, posted through the CSL Facebook page a lengthy "notice" calling respondent a "real disgrace to [the legal] profession" and using the hashtag 31 "#gobacktolawschool." 32
In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that complainants did not present substantial evidence to show that respondent violated the CPR. "While the Court will not avoid its responsibility in meting out the proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who fail to live up to their sworn duties, the Court will not wield its axe against those accusations against whom are not indubitably proven." 33
WHEREFORE, the complaint against Atty. Karen D. Quiñanola-Gonzales is DISMISSED for lack of merit. DETACa
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 1-4.
2. Id. at 1-2.
3. Id. at 59.
4. Id.
5. Asocial networking site. See Velasco v. Atty. Causing, A.C. No. 12883, March 2, 2021.
6. Rollo, p. 59.
7. Id. at 1-2, 59-60.
8. Id. at 2, 60.
9. Id. at 60.
10. Id. at 13-14.
11. Id. at 1-4.
12. Id. at 1-2.
13. Id. at 2.
14. Id. at 57-71.
15. Id. at 61.
16. Id. at 73-78.
17. Id. at 98-108.
18. Id. at 58-59.
19. Id. at 163-166, 172-176.
20. Id. at 61. The child abuse cases were subsequently dismissed by the OCP of Cebu City. A Petition for Review seeking the reversal of the City Prosecutor's Resolution is now pending before the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Justice.
21. Id. at 55, 69.
22. Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
23. Tan v. Alvarico, A.C. No. 10933, November 3, 2020.
24. Id.
25. Rollo, pp. 8-9.
26. Parks v. Misa, Jr., A.C. No. 11639, February 5, 2020.
27. Tulfo v. People, G.R. Nos. 187113 & 187230, January 11, 2021.
28. Rollo, pp. 59-60.
29. Id. at 59.
30. Id. at 13-14.
31. A word or phrase preceded by the symbol # that classifies or categorizes the accompanying text (such as a tweet); retrieved from: <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hashtag>.
32. Rollo, pp. 61, 86.
33. Dillon v. Atty. De Quiroz, A.C. No. 12876, January 12, 2021.