ARLENE O. BAUTISTA, petitioner vs. ATTY. ZENAIDA M.

FERRER, respondent

[A.C. No. 9057. July 3, 2019.]

FACTS:

Complainant Arlene O. Bautista charged respondent Atty. Zenaida M. Ferrer with violation of
the Lawyer’s Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics.
Bautista alleged that she accused Ferrer, the Assistant Regional Prosecutor of San Fernando City, La
Union, with grave coercion, grave threats, grave oral defamation, unlawful arrest, violation of RA No.
7438, theft, and attempted homicide.

In her narrative, Bautista alleged that she owed P200,000 to Ferrer as opposed to the latter’s
claim of P440,000. Bautista narrated that on March 28, 2011, Ferrer came to her house and uttered
derogatory remarks and threatened her. Ferrer then brought a handgun and forced Bautista to leave
the house she was renting from Ferrer. Ferrer also allegedly illegally searched her bag and took her
Nokia cellphone. At the same day, Ferrer forcibly brought her to the City Hall of San Fernando placing
her in public ridicule by exclaiming that she was a member of “Budol-Budol.” Unsatisfied with the said
deed, Bautista alleged that Ferrer detained and delivered her to the custody of the Philippine National
Police (PNP) San Fernando City, La Union without any legal ground. At the end of the day, Ferrer
evicted Bautista and her family from the house they were renting and prevented them from taking
their personal belongings. When Bautista tried to beg for the release of their belongings, Ferrer got
angry and she then picked a pair of scissors and thrust it towards Bautista but was subdued by
Almeida.

On the other hand, Ferrer denied the accusations of Bautista. Ferrer recounted that Bautista
rented one of her houses. When Bautista gained her trust, Ferrer learned that Bautista was in the
business of lending money to people financed by a rich Chinese businessman. Thus, Ferrer gave in and
lent money to Bautista the amount of P440,000 for the purpose of re-lending the said money to
several government employees, however, Bautista failed to pay. Ferrer alleged that on March 28, 2011,
she came to Bautista’s house to personally talk to her and that Bautista voluntarily gave Ferrer her
cellphone. Ferrer further denied pointing a gun at Bautista. Ferrer also denied causing humiliation and
scandal at the City Hall. Ferrer denied the assertion that she forcibly detained her at the police station.
They merely went to the police station to talk about Bautista’s obligation. In support of Ferrer’s claim,
she submitted police reports and affidavits of those who witnessed the said acts. In the said affidavit,
Almeida reiterated that Ferrer did not point scissors at Bautista as opposed to her allegation in a Sworn
Statement filed by Bautista.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended that Ferrer be suspended from the practice
of law for one (1) year. Upon motion for reconsideration of Ferrer, the BOG granted such motion and
warned Ferrer for her conduct. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ferrer violated the Lawyer’s Oath, Code of Professional Responsibility, and the
Canons of Professional Ethics.

HELD:

YES. The Court ruled that Ferrer must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one
(1) year, as originally found by the BOG in its August 9, 2014 Resolution. First of all, it was clearly
established, and in fact admitted by Ferrer, that she uttered the derogatory remarks in the confines of
her own office. This fact, standing alone, already violates Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which prohibits a lawyer from using language which is abusive, offensive, or
otherwise improper.
 Second, it was also clearly proven that Ferrer went to Bautista early morning on March 28, 2011
to inquire about the sum of money. Evidence show that said personal properties are really being held
until payment of obligations. The refusal to release the personal effects of Bautista is tantamount to
confiscation, or depriving Bautista of something that is hers without due process of law. This is in clear
breach of the Bill of Rights, particularly the principle that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law. Under Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
lawyers, such as Ferrer, are mandated to uphold the Constitution and the laws. Finally, it was, likewise,
established when Bautista was brought to the police station Ferrer's actuations gave Bautista the
impression that she was arrested and detained, and worse, that government agencies were being used
to advance her private interests. It is a clear violation of Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility prohibits a lawyer in government from using his/her public position or influence to
promote or advance his/her private interests.

In view of the foregoing, the Court may suspend or disbar a lawyer for any misconduct showing
any fault or deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, whether in his
profession or private life because good character is an essential qualification for the admission to the
practice of law and for the continuance of such privilege. To the Court, Ferrer's acts evinces a certain
vindictiveness, an undesirable trait in any individual, and as extensively discussed above, these
actuations violated multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Indeed, the
possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent, and a continuing requirement, to
warrant admission to the Bar and to retain membership in the legal profession. This proceeds from the
lawyer's duty to observe the highest degree of morality.

In order to safeguard the Bar's integrity. Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of a
lawyer, be it in the lawyer's public or private activities, which tends to show deficiency in moral
character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment.