SC ADMONISHES LAWYER DUE TO FACEBOOK POST Whether or not Atty. Carmina Agnes P.

Pader-Villanueva committed grave

THIRD DIVISION [ A.C. No. 11604, June 07, 2017 ] MA.CHRISTINA POBRE- misconduct by posting messages in complainant's Facebook account amounting
HOLGADO V. ATTY. CARMINA AGNES P. PADER-VILLANUEVA. to violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility
particularly Canon 1 and Canon[] 7, [Rules] 7.01 and 7.03?
This resolves the complaint[1] filed by Ma. Christina Pobre-Holgado against Atty. Commissioner's Findings
Carmina Agnes P. Pader-Villanueva before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP). Our prevailing jurisprudence in the field of Legal Ethics will undeniably support
the fact that when lawyers speak their minds, they must ever be mindful of their
Acting on the complaint, Investigating Commissioner Atty. Erwin A. Aguilera sworn oath to observe ethical standards of their profession.
submitted the following Report and Recommendation: [2]
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The advent of the social networking site created a new dimension of
communication. It minimizes the distance of one another propelled by an
As borne by the records of this case, Ma. Christina Pobre-Holgado filed an
unimaginable speed and a cheap mode of response. Apparently, this offspring of
administrative complaint on August 23, 2013, before the IBP Commission on Bar
ingenuity undeniably provided dual effects in the framework of human relations.
Discipline at Pasig City. Herein respondent Atty. Carmina Agnes P. Pader-
It serves as a bridge that connects the whereabouts of members among family,
Villanueva stands charge [d] allegedly on the basis of a malicious and defamatory
message which was admitted by the herein respondent during the preliminary friends and even awarded the commercial sector of a fast and reliable mode of
conference of this case. Respondent practically assumed authorship of the keeping abreast with updated situations, to name a few.
messages and that, indeed, it originated from her Facebook account, a social
networking site. Unfazed, complainant believes that through such act respondent On the other side, it seemingly became a source of controversy nurturing
violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. animosity, worse, deeper conflicts among individuals. Of various viewpoints, the
dilemma encountered by the parties in this case painted a[] scenario and portrait
On September 3, 2013, herein respondent was ordered to file her Answer within into existence due to the popular networking site, Facebook.
a period of fifteen (15) days upon receipt of the same. Pursuant to the said Order,
respondent filed her Answer dated October 1, 2013. Complainant narrated in her Sworn Statement that on August 14, 2013 a message
or status was posted by the respondent on her Facebook account which is
On December 19, 2013, the undersigned Commissioner conducted a mandatory hereunder reproduce[d]:
preliminary conference on which both parties appeared on the said proceedings. "To you TintinHolgado: Please leave me alone. I do not have any interest in you
Thereafter, the parties were directed to submit their respective Position paper on and I hope you will start [losing] interest in me. Do not waste your time and
or before January 17, 2014. energy on me. I do not know why you do [the] things you do but maybe that is
just how [lonely] and miserable people are. Truth be told, you should be nice to
Issue me because [I] pity you. I may not know any rich, influential people and beauty
queens like you, but [I] have a family [I] go home [to] at the end of []each tiring respondent. Unfortunately, in a stark contrast with the Answer filed by the
day. [I] may not have millions of inheritance (at least that's what you claim) but respondent, it was not incorporated with any details that would show any ill-
at least [I] do not have to watch movies alone and force invitations out of motive hatched by the respondent. The history of the parties' acquaintanceship
people[.U]nlike you, people do not duck or hide or run the opposite direction was properly addressed by the respondent. Thus, it leaves an impression that the
when they see me coming. Maybe if you just learned the art of acceptance, you completeness of her narration would equally establish^ her sincerity to divulge
would be [a] happier human being. We all wish you find happiness soon.
nothing but the truth which is very essential in arriving at a fair and well-penned
Because only then will we be free of your lengthy nonsense text messages. In
conclusion, to say the least.
case you haven't noticed[,] no one really like you and everybody's laughing at
you. [A]nd really, you are not that interesting so do not text us with blow-by-
The salient provisions allegedly transgress[ed] by the respondent is reproduced
blow accounts of your day. We have better things to do with our time. You
hereunder:
make me wish telecommunications companies will soon end their unlimited
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF
text promos. And [lest] you forget, [I] am not ignorant where the law is
THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
concerned, so please do not even dare threaten me with filing suits against [me]
the way you did to someone else. I do hope [I] make myself clear to you. I will
Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
not be as nice [the] next time. I "unfriended" you on [F]acebook a long time ago
conduct.
that's why [I can't] post this directly on your page but [I] am hoping yournosy[]
skills will be put to good use and you will get to read this."
[x x x]
Simply raised in her Answer, respondent argued that [] she posted the
aforementioned status in order to protect and make the complainant stop from CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY
spreading lies, concocted stories that in effect, damage her reputation as a OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED
lawyer. BAR.

The bone of contention raised by the complainant is not novel. It could be a plot [x xx]
of a movie depicting conflicts among teens nurtured by misunderstanding and
failure to grasp the history of the present [setup]. Or, it could be a scenario Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
showing old sentiments posted with mastery hurled to an unknowingly human fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
creature. And then, crying for justice due to the humiliation[] and embarrassment scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
conceived. Based on the facts of the case, the aura of the complainant fell short as she [tried]
to portray herself here as a victim inflicted [with] social humiliation and wounded
The complaint as it appears promptly narrated a series of messages attributed to feelings brought about by the messages is wanting of sufficient basis.
the work of the respondent. The allegations by the way it was presented clearly Complainant, as what is appearing from the narrations she presented in her
presented each and every message thrown into cyberspace by the herein sworn statement, [tried] to persuade the lady justice that it was through ill-will
that the messages were sent to the cyberspace. remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under either Article 20
or Article 21 would be proper." The Court said:
Complainant further alleged that such acts by the respondent [were] attended by One of the more notable innovations of the New Civil Code is the codification of
bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to her, done in a manner "some basic principles that are to be observed for the rightful relationship
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. The complaint failed to allege between human beings and for the stability of the social order." [REPORT ON THE
ultimate facts on which complainant [relied on for] her claim. Notably, such CODE COMMISSION ON THE PROPOSED CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, p. 39].
allegations made by the complainant, taking all circumstances into account, The framers of the Code, seeking to remedy the defect of the old Code which
merely stated the effects of the law, but failed to draw out its spirit, incorporated
cannot be justified solely upon the premise that by the context of the messages
certain fundamental precepts which were "designed to indicate certain norms
dealt her a more serious effect. Additional facts must be pleaded and proven to
that spring from the fountain of good conscience" and which were also meant to
warrant that the respondent without aggression on her part initiated the
serve as "guides for human conduct [that] should run as golden threads through
"messages war" on the social networking site [witnessed] by other people.
society, to the end that law may approach its supreme ideal, which is the sway
and dominance of justice." (Id.) Foremost among these principles is that
xxx
pronounced in Article 19 which provides:
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of
The fact that fifty-eight (58) persons "liked" the contested message is of no
his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good
moment. The reason [for] doing so by the said plurality does readily imbibe their faith.
opinion on the matter. The "liked" made by the said common friend is susceptible
This article, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of
[to] different interpretations. As it is a portal where the intent of the participants
abuse of rights, sets certain standards which must be observed not only in the
were kept in secrecy, it would be difficult to state with all prudency that each of
exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties. These
them sided on the posting of the said message. Or, it could go the other way. One
standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to
may "like" just for the purpose of a "bandwagon sentiment" without knowing observe honesty and good faith. The law, therefore, recognizes a primordial
what it [is] all about. This, can only infer the interest, supposedly in complainant's limitation on all rights; that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set
favor, from her bare allegation that the act done by the respondent entails forth in Article 19 must be observed. A right, though by itself legal because
liability. recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of
some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform
The undersigned deemed it proper to apply the context of Human Relations. The with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal
doctrine was basically developed in order to guide and promote the civilized yet wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible.
humane manner of dealing with men. The Supreme Court, [i]n Globe Mackay But while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the government of human
Cable and Radio Corporation v. Court of Appeals,251 Phil. 783 (1989), it was relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does not provide a remedy
elucidated that while Article 19 "lays down a rule of conduct for the government for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article
of human relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does not provide a 21 would be proper.
In the perception[] of the viewers of the said messages, anyone could easily be of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it was established
amused and convey sympathy to the complainant. The sentiments of everyone and must not be excessive or unduly harsh; there must be no intention to harm
would immediately arouse amid indifferently towards the author. As being a another. Otherwise, as provided by jurisprudence, the liability for damages to the
hostage of their emotions, they would never dare to know what was really in the injured party will attach.
mind of the writer. Further, the emotion of the author at the time of the making
of the message until such time it was posted (sic). Without anyone would further At the onset, the manner by which the messages were addressed to
seek first the prior situation, the stimulus of the alleged misconduct tends to be complainant's instance was apparently attended without bad faith. Why? The
hidden (sic). While the messages were meant to reflect the respondent's view as status posted by the respondent was discovered at the behest of the complainant
the basis of the allegations of grave misconduct against Arty. Pader-Villanueva, since there is no way that the complainant could have directly known the
the respondent treated such allegation not only as an established truth, but a messages at first hand considering that the link between them on networking site
truth. was already severed when the respondent "unfriended" the complainant. In the
system of Facebook, the moment the message was "liked" by a common
In particular, the undersigned [was] able to extract the availing details that herein Facebook friend it would [already be] seen by another. This explains the manner
respondent utilized such social networking site in order to [express] on how the Said messages posted by the respondent reached the knowledge of
dissatisfaction over the complainant's tirade on her. After all the previous the complainant.
dealings with the respondent, she appeared [to have] blown her top and through
Facebook she cited the latter's obvious animosity and ill-feelings as borne out by The question of whether or not the principle of abuse of rights has been violated
the primary sources of the quoted portions which were presented in the long resulting in damages under Article 20 or other applicable provision^] of law,
conversations as appearing on each party['s] respective annexes. depends on the circumstances of each case. In the present case, the undersigned
found that complainant earlier induced an array of lengthy text messages driven
Article 19, also known as the "principle of abuse of right," prescribed that a to malign the reputation of the herein respondent on one of the witnesses of the
person should not use his right unjustly or contrary to honesty and good faith, complainant. Relevant to the facts gathered, complainant fondly makes phone
otherwise he opens himself to liability. It seeks to preclude the use of, or the calls during unholy hour on the person of Atty. [Reinier] Paul Yebra. On several
tendency to use[] a legal right (or duty) as a means to unjust ends. The elements occasions, complainant without hesitation would dare discuss her feelings to
of an abuse of rights under Article 19 are: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) people close to Atty. Paul Yebra. By doing this, she was nonetheless [] hoping that
which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring her sentiments would reach Atty. Yebra.
another.
There were few instances that complainant would [make] researches among
The undersigned deemed it proper to pore[over] the existence of an abuse of people close to Atty. Yebra and intend to know the status of Atty. Yebra and her
right. What needs to be prove [d] is whether respondent exercised the alleged wife Atty. Anson Lapuz-Yebra. Further, Atty. [Reinier] Paul Yebra was also made to
acts solely to prejudice or injure the herein complainant. As a basic rule, exercise experience the vexations made by the complainant. He [oftentimes] received
unusual and strange messages in his Facebook account. The foregoing were all has , done nothing but exercised the proper mode by which she believes will
contained in his affidavit. (Annex "1" for the respondent). rescue [] her from the consistent attempts of the complainant to stir up or spread
something that is usually petty or discreditable on her part.
In the clear display of such attitude[], it would be prudent to state that the
complainant, who practiced dealings of such nature would certainly be [dragged] It [is], thus, recommended that the respondent be admonished and advised to be
into this kind of situation. more forthright in the handling of her personal interactions in the future.
Considering that there was no evidence to show that the respondent had acted
On that account, complainant yet arrived at a contrary conclusion that the with grave misconduct in not observing the proper and decent manner in line
respondent being a [l]awyer should be aptly disciplined by those acts alone. The with practice of law (sic). In its Resolution No.XXI-2014-867[3] dated December
articles supposedly addressed only to each of them protracted the conflicts since 13, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the above Report
it [h]as already been subjected to social leisure as part of daily dose of Filipino and Recommendation.
custom of frolicking with gossip.
Complainant moved for reconsideration of the Resolution. She argued that
The right of free expression stands as a hallmark of the modern democratic and posting the allegedly libelous statement on Facebook comprises grave
humane state. Not only does it assure a person's right to say freely what is misconduct. She prayed that respondent be found administratively liable
thought freely, it likewise reveal [s] the presence of the subordinate freedom therefor.[4]
from psychological insecurity. Corollary to the spirit of such fundamentals it
demands from each individual [] sheer exercise with good faith in pelting Respondent opposed the motion reasoning that her Facebook statement was not
undesirable utterances to fellow individuals. While it is not difficult to understand posted in bad faith. Hence, she claimed that there was no grave misconduct on
the plight of the respondent in her right to protect herself from further vexations her part. She prayed that the findings of the IBP Board of Governors be affirmed
and gradual dwindling of her reputation through unimaginable affront on her and that complainant's motion for reconsideration be dismissed.[5]
person, she being a lawyer, should be reminded of the clear demarcation of all
her actions, and which must fall within the ambit of decent legal profession. On May 28, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors denied complainant's motion for
reconsideration.[6] The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline subsequently
As earlier indicated, respondent's real intention was to prevent complainant from forwarded the records of the case to us for our consideration.[7]
further mongering rumors and disseminating shrink lines to her prejudice. In fact,
with a series of concocted lies perpetrated by the complainant the respondent After a review of the case, we affirm the IBP Board of Governors' findings of fact
[found] it feasible to avail the usage of the Facebook. In the course of the thrust and conclusions of law.
of the respondent to air her grievances to the complainant that the latter would
absolutely abstain from doing such strange and menacing (sic) fell on deaf ears of It is settled that in disbarment cases, complainant bears the burden of proving her
the complainant. Herein respondent "with good motives and for justifiable ends" charge with substantial evidence.[8] Absent such evidence, the presumption of
innocence on the part of respondent lawyer prevails.

In the present case, complainant failed to discharge her burden of proof. Apart
from her bare allegations, she was not able to prove malice or bad faith on the
part of respondent. On the contrary, we find that respondent's statement on her
social networking account was motivated by a desire to clear her name and
reputation. To our mind, there is no misconduct, simple or grave, that warrants
any disciplinary action.

WHEREFORE, Resolution Nos. XXI-2014-867 and XXII-2016-346 of the IBP Board of

Governors are hereby AFFIRMED and the complaint against Atty. Carmina Agnes
P. Pader-Villanueva is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Respondent is
hereby ADMONISHED and advised to be more circumspect in the handling of her
personal interactions in the future."

SO ORDERED.

[1] Rollo, pp. 2-3.
[2] Id. at 181-189.
[3] Id. at 180.
[4] Id. at 191-198.
[5] Id at 203-226.
[6] Id. at 229-230.
[7] Id. at 229.
[8] Reyes v. Nieva, A.C. No. 8560, September 6, 2016.