THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12414. June 26, 2019.]
ANICETA DEUNIDA, complainant, vs.ATTY. MARIE ELAINE C. ADORA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 26, 2019, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12414 (Aniceta Deunida v. Atty. Marie Elaine C. Adora). — For resolution is a Complaint 1 for Disbarment/Disciplinary Action dated November 11, 2015 filed by Aniceta Deunida (complainant) against Atty. Marie Elaine C. Adora (respondent) for violations of Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02, Canon 1 and Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Lawyer's Oath. On November 11, 2015, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) resolved to require respondent to comment on the complaint against her. 2
The Report and Recommendation 3 of Investigating Commissioner Leilani V. Escueta, IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline, dated July 20, 2016 is as follows:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a Verified Complaint for disbarment/disciplinary action filed by Complainant against ATTY. MARIE ELAINE C. ADORA for alleged violation of Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of Canon 1, Canon 12 and other provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and violation of Attorney's Oath.
The Commission on Bar Discipline received on November 11, 2015, a copy of Complainant's Complaint-Affidavit. On the same date, the Director for Bar Discipline, Ramon S. Esguerra, issued an Order requiring the Respondent to submit her Answer within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Order.
On December 23, 2015, the Commission received from Respondent a Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer, asking for an extension of three (3) days from December 16, 2015 or until December 19, 2015 to file an Answer.
On January 4, 2016, a Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer was received by the Commission dated December 19, 2015 wherein Respondent prayed for an additional period of seven (7) days from December 19, 2015 or until December 26, 2015 (or until December 28, 2015 which is the next working day) to file her Answer. On January 5, 2016, Respondent filed a Manifestation and Motion attaching a copy of her Answer dated 08 December 2015. On January 7, 2016, the Commission received the original copy of Respondent's Answer.
On January 7, 2016, this Commissioner issued an Order directing both parties to appear for mandatory conference on February 5, 2016 and to submit their respective mandatory conference briefs at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled date of conference.
Complainant then filed on January 28, 2016 her Reply-Affidavit which was received by the Commission on even date. Respondent filed her Mandatory Conference Brief dated January 29, 2016 and the same was received by the Commission on February 1, 2016.
On the February 5, 2016 hearing, both parties appeared. However, by agreement of the parties, the mandatory conference was reset to March 4, 2016.
On the March 4, 2016 hearing, the Complainant as well as her Counsel appeared. The Respondent failed to appear despite notice. Complainant's counsel moved for the termination of the mandatory conference. Thus, the undersigned Commissioner terminated the mandatory conference and issued an Order requiring both parties to submit their respective Verified Position Paper together with the documentary exhibits and/or judicial affidavit/s of their witness/es, if any, within an extendible [period] of forty[-]five (45) days therefrom.
Complainants' Position Paper dated April 15, 2016 was received by the Commission on April 19, 2016. Meanwhile, Respondent's Position Paper dated April 16, 2016 was received by the Commission on April 20, 2016.
II. STATEMENT OF THE COMPLAINT
According to the Complainant, in the morning of August 24, 2015, she had a talk with Respondent Atty. Adora in connection with Respondent's offer to employ Complainant's former employee, Roy Eser, which she resented since Complainant and Respondent were neighbors in the same building. After the talk, Atty. Adora suddenly opened the door of Complainant's office and shouted "Halika dito! Lumabas ka dito! Lumaban ka, kundi ingungudngud ko ang nguso mo at sasapakin kita!"
Then, on September 4, 2015, while Complainant was at her office, she suddenly heard repeated loud thuds, as if some things were being thrown towards their partition wall. The loud sounds and yells came from a woman who Complainant determined to be Atty. Adora. She heard repeated banging on the wall followed by shouts saying, "An[o] pa problema mo sa akin Annie?!," "Bakit mo ako dinadabugan sa CR?!!" "Anu? Kung talagang matapang ka, lumabas kayo diyan! Magharap tayo!" Complainant realized that Atty. Adora was directing her rage towards her since she was the last person whom she saw a minute back. She also realized that Atty. Adora must have thought that she purposely slammed the door of the comfort room to vex Atty. Adora. Because of that incident, Complainant filed a complaint for Alarms and Scandal and Threats at the Barangay.
On September 7, 2015, at around 9:30 in the morning, Complainant with her officemate Nora Requinton, heard a commotion outside their room. They heard Atty. Adora yelling, "Hindi kami under ng jurisdiction ng barangay! I-terminate ninyo yan! I-terminate yan!" Later, a male person who introduced himself as Roger Dela, an employee of Barangay Diliman Central came to Complainant's office and told Complainant that Atty. Adora refused to receive the summons from the Barangay and even wanted the case terminated. Roger further said that he allegedly told Atty. Adora that only Complainant can terminate the case and hence, he was asking Complainant if the latter wanted to have the case terminated. Before Complainant was able to answer Roger, Atty. Adora suddenly appeared in front of Complainant's door and screamed with her index finger pointing at Complainant's face, "Ikaw napakasinungaling mo! Napakagaling mong gumawa ng istorya! Ipinaiimbestigahan na kita sa barangay! Pati sa COA! Kaya humanda ka!" Further, Atty. Adora, upon hearing that Complainant will not withdraw her complaint at the Barangay, shouted, "Sige, dito na lang tayo magkasubukan! Bakit gusto mo pa sa barangay? Takot ka ha?" When Roger insisted that the Barangay had jurisdiction, Atty. Adora shouted, "Hindi naming tatanggapin yan!" Thus, Roger left unable to serve the summons.
III. RESPONDENT'S POSITION/DEFENSE
In July or August 2015, Respondent Atty. Adora bumped into Roy M. Eser, an employee of the Complainant and asked him if he is familiar with an open case with the BIR and if he can assist Respondent with it. Roy answered in the affirmative and both agreed to meet up on August 22, 2015.
On August 22, 2015, Roy informed Respondent that he applied as a call center agent and that he is resigning from Complainant herein, who allegedly knew of his intention to resign. Later, Roy started opening up about the salary he gets and how Complainant maltreats, curses, and humiliates him in front of other people. Respondent felt sorry for Roy but did not make any comment as regards the character of Complainant. She then told Roy to try his luck with his application with the call center and that if, in the future, he decides not to continue he is free to apply at the Respondent's law office.
In the morning of August 24, 2015, Roy went to Complainant's office to explain his intended resignation. Respondent and her officemates heard Complainant at Rm. 208 yelling/shouting. When Roy went back to Respondent's office, he told that he was castigated, lambasted, and cursed by the Complainant. Respondent was shocked with what she heard and she felt sorry for Roy.
On September 4, 2015, Respondent with her daughter, went to the lavatory (CR) and saw Complainant in front of the sink. Respondent saw Complainant looked at her menacingly; nonetheless, Respondent and her daughter proceeded to enter separate cubicles. When Respondent and her daughter came out of their respective cubicles, Complainant immediately pulled the door handle hitting Respondent's daughter who was at that time standing just beside complainant near the door. Complainant further strongly pulled the door knob causing the door to slam right in front of the face of Respondent and Respondent's daughter who were still inside the comfort room. Because of these actuations of Complainant, Respondent hurriedly opened the door, ran after Complainant and told the Complainant upfront the following: "Bakit mo sinaktan ang anak ko? Inaano ba kita ha? Hanggang ngayon ba may galit ka pa rin sa akin? Akala ko ba tapos na iyong kay Roy dahil nag-usap na tayo? Ano ba talaga ang gusto mong mangyari? Sumusobra ka na! Hindi na tama ang ginagawa mo! Nakakasakit ka na!" Complainant retorted, "Traydor ka kasi" and went inside her office.
IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The undisputed facts are as follows: (1) Complainant and Respondent have neighboring offices at Senor Ivan De Palacio Bldg., in Diliman, Quezon City; (2) Respondent offered a job to Roy Eser, Complainant's former employee; (3) Complainant resented the offer of Respondent to Roy Eser; (4) Respondent confronted the Complainant on September 4, 2015; (5) Complainant filed a complaint with the Barangay in connection with the September 4, 2015 incident.
Based on the above undisputed facts, Complainant would want this Commission to disbar Respondent. Citing the case of Roa vs. Moreno (A.C. 8382, April 21, 2010), Complainant argued that Respondent should be disciplined for her misconduct regardless of whether the same was committed in her professional capacity or in her private capacity.
First and foremost, "a disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction against a misbehaving member of the Integrated Bar. As such, the power to disbar is always exercised with great caution only for the most imperative reasons and in cases of clear misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar." (Kara-an v. Pineda, A.C. No. 4306, March 28, 2007, 519 SCRA 143, 146.)
Accordingly, even if a lawyer may be disciplined for his conduct done in his private capacity, still, a lawyer is not to be sanctioned for every perceived misconduct or wrong actuation. He is still to be presumed innocent of wrongdoing until the proof arrayed against him establishes otherwise. It is the burden of the complainant to properly show that the assailed conduct or actuation constituted a breach of the norms of professional conduct and legal ethics. Otherwise, the lawyer merits exoneration. (Heinz R. Heck vs. City Prosecutor Casiano A. Gamotin, Jr., A.C. No. 5329, March 18, 2014.)
As jurisprudentially settled, "in administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence which the complainant has the burden to discharge."
It is to be noted, that, herein Complainant admitted in her Complaint-Affidavit and in her Position Paper that "Respondent thought Complainant purposely slammed the door of the comfort room to vex the former because earlier or on August 24, 2015 at around 9:00 in the morning, she had a talk with Atty. Adora in connection with her having offered to employ her former employee, Mr. Roy Eser which she resented since they are neighbors in the same building." (Complainant's Position Paper, page 2, par. 3.) In other words, Complainant slammed the door causing Respondent to react outrageously. Hence, even if it were true that Respondent indeed banged the wall and yelled on September 4, 2015, it was Complainant's actuation that triggered such a reaction from the Respondent.
In the case of Heck vs. City Prosecutor Casiano Gamotin cited above, the Supreme Court did not sanction the respondent for having angrily reacted to Heck's unexpected tirade in his presence. The Court explained, thus:
"Lawyers may be expected to maintain their composure and decorum at all times, but they are still human, and their emotions are like those of other normal people placed in unexpected situations that can crack their veneer of self-control."
This Commission adopts the view of the Supreme Court in the above-cited case. Respondent reacted that way she did on September 4, 2015 because of Complainant's own actuation. Moreover, the Complainant has failed to prove that Respondent's actuations had been impelled by any bad motive, or had amounted to any breach of any canon of professional conduct or legal ethics. Thus, the Respondent could not be held to have violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. This Commission is convinced that respondent should not be sanctioned.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Commission recommends the dismissal of the present complaint.
Respectfully Submitted. 4 (Emphases in the original; citation omitted.)
In Resolution No. XXII-2017-706 5 dated January 26, 2017, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dismissing the complaint against Atty. Marie Elaine C. Adora due to lack of merit. Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied in a Resolution 6 dated February 22, 2018 for failure to adduce new evidence to warrant the reversal of the earlier decision of the Board.
Finding the recommendation of the IBP to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the case against Atty. Marie Elaine C. Adora and consider the same as CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-6.
2.Id. at 23.
3.Id. at 364-369.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 362-363.
6.Id. at 360-361.