SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 8766. December 9, 2015.]
ALFRED L. HONTANOSAS, complainant, vs. ATTY. PURITA HONTANOSAS-CORTES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated09 December 2015 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 8766 — Alfred L. Hontanosas, complainant v. Atty. Purita Hontanosas-Cortes, respondent.
This case stemmed from an undated and unverified Letter-Complaint 1 filed by Alfred L. Hontanosas (complainant) against his elder sister, Atty. Purita Hontanosas-Cortes (respondent), before the Office of the Bar Confidant for violence and grave threat. Attached to the complaint is a Police Report 2 involving an incident on October 2, 2010 wherein respondent allegedly uttered threatening words ("Hapakon taka!") against complainant.
Subsequently, complainant transmitted to the Court a Letter-Complaint 3 signed by his mother, Desamparados Lim vda. De Hontanosas (Desamparados), stating that respondent has been bothering her since she became seriously ill in September 2010; that on October 2, 2010, respondent physically threatened complainant; that in December 2010, respondent agreed to stop Desamparados' tube feeding; that on May 26, 2011, respondent verbally threatened her grandson, Dominic Hontanosas; and that respondent violated Desamparados' right to dignified health care by her repeated hostile acts against the doctor and caregivers of Desamparados.
In a Letter 4 dated September 17, 2011, complainant stated that respondent has a manic-depressive mental illness and her presence in the house of Desamparados is a threat to the latter's welfare.
On October 13, 2011, respondent filed by registered mail her Comment 5 alleging that she filed a case for unjust vexation, grave oral defamation and grave coercion against complainant; that complainant, in turn, sued her for grave threats and grave coercion; and that these criminal cases were all dismissed by the Tagbilaran City Prosecutor's Office. Respondent also claimed that on October 2, 2010, complainant insulted her; and that she did not expect such insult considering that complainant was 18 years younger than she was. Respondent maintained that she did not violate any provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Thereafter, complainant submitted to the Court an Affidavit 6 of his sister, Salvacion Hontanosas-Santiago (Salvacion), alleging that on October 2, 2010, at about 10:30 a.m., complainant and respondent were in their father's ancestral house. While talking to complainant, respondent purportedly uttered "hapakon taka" and was about to hit complainant. Salvacion stated that to prevent respondent from hitting complainant, she held respondent's hand and separated them.
On November 26, 2012, the Court referred this case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. 7
Later, respondent filed a Consolidated Comment 8 dated February 25, 2013 arguing that the complaint is not supported by affidavits of witnesses and not made under oath. She further alleged that on October 2, 2010, she and complainant quarreled and the latter insulted her by repeatedly calling her "segurista." Immediately after the incident, complainant reported the matter to the Tagbilaran Police Station. She denied that she attempted to hit complainant on October 2, 2010. She also denied that she is a violent person as she had not been charged with violence by any person.
On June 20, 2013, the IBP held the mandatory conference on the case. Thereafter, it required the parties to submit their respective verified position papers. 9 Respondent filed her Position Paper 10 essentially reiterating the arguments and discussions in her comment on the complaint. cSEDTC
On September 19, 2013, IBP Commissioner Eldrid C. Antiquiera (Investigating Commissioner) recommended the dismissal of the Complaint. The pertinent portions of his Report and Recommendation read:
During the mandatory conference last June 20, 2013, only respondent appeared. In view of the summary nature of the proceedings, an Order was issued thereby terminating the mandatory conference and requiring the submission of position papers of the parties. To date, only respondent submitted her position paper. Hence, this report and recommendation.
xxx xxx xxx
It is very evident that the excerpt of the police blotter attached to the letter-complaint mentioned an incident that happened between complainant and respondent when the latter allegedly uttered threatening words against the former. Unfortunately, however, this allegation was not clearly established nor substantiated by complainant. Moreover, the blotter report touched on the issue of inheritance among the siblings. This family feud cannot be considered as ground for disbarment absent any specific acts to establish respondent's culpability for violation of the lawyer's oath or the CPR. 11
On September 28, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution adopting and approving the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
Issue
Did respondent's alleged threatening utterance against complainant violate the Lawyer's Oath or the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)?
Our Ruling
The Court adopts and accepts the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors to dismiss the instant administrative case.
In disbarment cases, the principal issue for resolution is whether a lawyer is fit to be allowed the privileges as a member of the bar. In resolving this matter, it is necessary to determine if a lawyer committed "any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in good moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor as to render him unworthy to continue as an officer of the Court." 12 The burden of proof is with the complainant, who must establish his case by clear preponderance of evidence. 13
Here, complainant failed to discharge his burden. As properly determined by the Investigating Commissioner, complainant failed to provide any act on the part of respondent that amounts to a violation of the Lawyer's Oath or the CPR. Other than his assertion that respondent uttered threatening words against him and that a blotter was entered in connection therewith, he failed to establish by clear evidence that respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath or the CPR.
Moreover, complainant neither attended the mandatory conference nor submitted his position paper to substantiate his charges. Thus, in the absence of proof, the presumption of respondent's innocence remains and the complaint against her must be dismissed. 14
WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Atty. Purita Hontanosas-Cortes is DISMISSED. Considering that no motion for reconsideration or petition for review was filed with the Court per records of the Office of the Bar Confidant, this case is declared CLOSED and TERMINATED. (Perez, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2301 dated December 1, 2015).
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 7.
2. Id. at 2.
3. Id. at 26.
4. Id. at 37-38.
5. Id. at 47-50.
6. Id. at 73, 90.
7. Id. at 95-96.
8. Temporary Rollo, pp. 3-13.
9. Id. at 14; as stated in the Order dated June 20, 2013, penned by Commissioner Eldrid C. Antiquiera.
10. Id. at 15-23.
11. See Report and Recommendation, pp. 1-2.
12. Caspe v. Mejica, A.C. No. 10679 (Resolution), March 10, 2015.
13. Villamor, Jr. v. Santos, A.C. No. 9868, April 22, 2015.
14. Id.