3 July 2019

Atty. Carmelita Angelina Espedilla-Mata

Unit 411, Prime Building, Abucay
Tacloban City, 6500

Dear Atty. Espedilla – Mata,

This legal opinion is in reference to you query as to the legal measures you may take, including the
defenses you may raise in your answer to the complaint for disbarment filed by you husband, Butchoy M.
Mata, for allegedly having an illicit affair with a married man.

The Facts

As represented, On June 30, 2018 you 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 to which you
strongly disagree. You also tried to explain to your husband why you didn’t want the property sold and the
legal implication of your refusal to give consent thereto which resulted to several aggressive advances,
verbally and physically, of your husband which traumatized you. You also made mention of several threats
your husband made to you through text messaging which included the possibility of not being able to see
your daughter again should you refuse to go back home. In addition, your husband started alleging that you
was having an affair with Caleb Sencillo who, as you discussed, is gay which also caused his marriage to
his former spouse to be declared null and void.

Furthermore, you also mentioned that based on the complaint filed by your husband, he was
alleging that your second child Ani Moe E. Mata is not his child but that of Mr. Caleb Sencillo.

In addition to our discussion, you also presented the pieces of evidence presented by your husband
to support his allegations (i.e., pictures from Facebook posts, police blotter, certification from DPWH and
Robinsons Mall head security)

Discussion (Analysis of Facts, Applicable Laws and Jurisprudence)

Based on the foregoing facts and pieces of evidence, it appears that your husband has not supported
well its allegations banking only on Facebook posts and certifications which do not conclusively point to
the alleged issue.

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:

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 you
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."

Conclusion and Recommendation

The pictures presented while you 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 show 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. Furthermore, the statement of the security personnel of Robinson’s Mall and the Regional
Director of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) must not be accorded substance and
relevance as the former’s testimony appears doubtful of credibility while the latter’s testimony does not
even point to or imply an important matter.

I am of the considered opinion that the disbarment case filed against you by your husband will not
prosper, especially with the appreciation of the pieces of evidence available on your end. The testimony of
the Medical Professional who attended your delivery and whom you consulted during the pre-natal check
up with your husband will prove that your husband’s allegation as to the paternity filiation of your second
child is purely malicious, made up and a form of harassment for you to concede to his yearning.

Finally, the testimony of Mr. Caleb Sencillo and his former spouse as to your claim of his gender
preference will be of great help to your case.

I appreciate to advise you regarding this matter. Please let me know if you wish to discuss any of
these issues further. Thank you.

Yours Faithfully,

ATTY. NURIA PEREZ