REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Office of the Bar Confidant

SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M A N I L A

Butchoy M. Mata
Complainant,

- versus - A.C. NO. 21145

For: Disbarment
Atty. Carmelita Angelina Espedilla-Mata,
(Unit 411, Prime Building,
Abucay, Tacloban City, 6500)
Respondent.
X-------------------------------------------------X

VERIFIED ANSWER/COMMENT

Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta,

and the MEMBERS, En Banc, SUPREME COURT,
Padre Faura, Manila

Your Honors,

The undersigned respondent, Atty. Carmelita Angelina Espedilla -

Mata, most respectfully depose and say, that:

1. Respondent admits the allegations of the complainant stated in paragraphs 1, 2,

3, and 5, but qualifies the statement under paragraph 4; the couple actually having
two (2) children named Melania Angelina E. Mata, a seven (7) year old girl, born
on May 5, 2012 and ______________________ months old and born on
_________;

2. Respondent specifically denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9,

10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 with the following defenses;

2.1. The respondent, prior to the alleged date when she left the conjugal dwelling,
made it known to the complainant that she was pregnant with their second
child by 4 weeks per gestational age as indicated in the ultrasound and judicial
affidavit of the Obstetrician and Gynecologist consulted on June 22, 2018.
(Annex of ultrasound with age and date? Kaya ba? Hahaha pwede dd judaff
nla han doctor na nagpcheck up na gad udog hira upod hi husband sometime
in June.)

2.2. That on June 30, 2018, the respondent left the conjugal home at Brgy. 45
Paterno St., Tacloban City after a heated argument with the complainant over
the conveyance of a conjugal property. It was not clear to the respondent why
the complainant wanted the said property sold and why he attempted to sell
the property without the respondent’s consent. In an attempt to make it known

Page 1 of 3
 to the complainant of the respondent’s objection to such sale and that failure
to give her consent to the sale would render the transaction void, the
respondent received grave verbal harassments from the complainant such as
(butangi nla and ig-exagge nla. hahaha). Traumatized by the sudden
aggressive advances of the complainant, the respondent left the conjugal
dwelling around four o’clock (4:00) in the afternoon of the said date and
complainant was made aware of the fact and reason of such act, contrary to
his claim.

The respondent received several calls and text messages from the
complainant several hours later, with offensive statements and threats such
as, if the respondent will refuse to go back home, she will no longer be able
to get near her daughter again. (please see annex…..) The respondent refused
to return fearing that the heated argument may result to physical violence
putting herself and her unborn child’s lives in danger.

With the respondent’s continued refusal to return home, complainant started

alleging that respondent was having an affair with Caleb Sencillo despite
having knowledge of the close friendship the respondent and Mr. Sencillo
has. Such allegation is strongly denied by the respondent. Mr. Caleb Sencillo
has long been a close friend (other term please) of the respondent, dating back
in high school; is gay as to his preferred sexual orientation which is not
known to many people except few of his friends, including the respondent.
(testimonies of a friend siguro including the fact na bayot hiya).

2.3. That the respondent gave birth to her child with the complainant on
___________ with the support of Mr. Sencillo and some of her friends who
had knowledge of the issue between the couple then. (judaff 2 friends siguro
an lawyers na bisan same content la ibahon la presentation)

2.4. That the pieces of evidence presented by the complainant do not provide
established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof that the respondent
maintains an illicit affair with Mr. Caleb Sencillo. The pictures presented
while the respondent and Mr. Sencillo were attending the DPWH Christmas
Party do not categorically depict an illicit relationship as said pictures are
equivocal and that the relied Facebook post made by the party organizer does
not conclusively depict an illicit relationship, especially that it was made by
a person who had no personal knowledge of the fact and circumstances
between and among the parties involved, thus, said complaint is insufficient
to warrant disbarment.

Section 5, in relation to Sections 1 and 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court

states that in administrative cases, such as the ones at bar, only substantial
evidence is required, not proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases,
or preponderance of evidence as in civil cases. Substantial evidence is that
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion.

In Reyes v. Nieva, the Supreme Court reiterated this rule on the quantum of
proof in administrative proceedings, as it held:

Page 2 of 3
 Based on a survey of cases, the recent ruling on the matter is Cabas v.
Sususco, which was promulgated just this June 15, 2016. In the said case,
it was pronounced that:

In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a

finding of guilt is substantial evidence, i.e., that 'amount of relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.

Accordingly, this more recent pronouncement ought to control and

therefore, quell any further confusion on the proper evidentiary threshold
to be applied in administrative cases against lawyers.

The rule is taken in light of other settled principles that apply for a proper
disposition of administrative cases. In Advincula v. Macabata, the Court
emphasized:

The burden of proof rests on the complainant, and she must establish the
case against the respondent by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof,
disclosing a case that is free from doubt as to compel the exercise by the
Court of its disciplinary power. Thus, the adage that he who asserts not
he who denies, must prove.

Further, the Court emphasized in Cabas v. Sususco the oft-repeated rule that
"mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based
on mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given credence."

3. In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that the case of disbarment be

dismissed on ground of insufficiency of evidence that could warrant removal of
the respondent from the practice of law.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this answer/comment on the disbarment case

this 14th day of January, 2020 at Tacloban City.

Page 3 of 3