THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 12157. February 6, 2019.]

ANA P. GEQUILASAO , complainant, vs. ATTY. EDUARDO SEGUERA

FORTALEZA , respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated
February 6, 2019 , which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12157 (ANA P. GEQUILASAO, complainant v. ATTY. EDUARDO
SEGUERA FORTALEZA, respondent ). — Utterances made during judicial
proceedings are considered privileged unless it is su ciently shown that they are
"palpably wanting in relation to the subject matter of the controversy that no
reasonable man can doubt its relevancy and impropriety." 1
This case involves the Complaint 2 of Ana P. Gequilasao (Ana) against Atty.
Eduardo S. Fortaleza (Atty. Fortaleza), charging him with violation of Canon 8, Rule 8.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 20 (f) of the Rules of
Court. 3 In his September 24, 2016 Report and Recommendation, 4 the Investigating
Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended that the
Complaint be dismissed. 5 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors, in
its March 1, 2017 Resolution, 6 resolved to adopt the ndings of fact and
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. 7
On November 25, 2013, Atty. Fortaleza led before the Regional Trial Court a
Petition for Judicial Authorization to Encumber Real Properties 8 at the behest of his
client, Danny C. Gequilasao (Danny), Ana's husband. The Petition was docketed as Civil
Case No. 13-32111. 9
The Petition prayed for the trial court's approval of the mortgage of two (2)
properties in Mandurriao, Iloilo City acquired by the Gequilasao Spouses during their
cohabitation. The proceeds would be used to repair their businesses and family home,
which were all ravaged by typhoon Yolanda, and for their children's school expenses. 1 0
In the Petition, Danny claimed that Ana squandered his hard-earned money "to
defray the expenses entailed by her extravagant ways and illicit affairs[.]" 1 1 He also
alleged that she was an "inveterate gambler" 1 2 and an uncaring mother. 1 3 Pertinent
allegations were enumerated in Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Petition, which read: CAIHTE

23. The following overt acts of the RESPONDENT are indicia of her wayward
ways as she lived in splendor using the hard-earned money of the
PETITIONER, viz.:
•   RESPONDENT sponsored the Christmas Party in 2012, of the
CAFGU with detachment in Bagong Barrio, Tapaz, Capiz, with
Jocirval Lemana as Detachment Commander, for the sum of not
less than Thirty Thousand Pesos (PhP30,000.00);

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 •  In May, 2012, during the esta in San Julian, Capiz, RESPONDENT
sponsored at least four (4) tables worth One Thousand Pesos
(PhP1,000.00), each, with one (1) table reserved for Jocirval
Lemana and company, and three (3) tables reserved for her friends
and our employees;
•  RESPONDENT shouldered the tickets, and drinks for at least ten (10)
companions of Jocirval Lemana, during the said fiesta;
•   In the morning of February 19, 2013, RESPONDENT admitted to
PETITIONER her affair with Jocirval Lemana;
•   RESPONDENT addresses Jocirval Lemana as "HON," short for
"HONEY";
•   The SIM card number of RESPONDENT which she was using to
contact PETITIONER, her children, and Jocirval Lemana is:
09208978936;
•  RESPONDENT used to address PETITIONER as "BABES";
•  RESPONDENT had been consuming birth control pills on a regular
basis even while PETITIONER was already on board an ocean-going
vessel plying an international route, until the day before
PETITIONER arrived home in San Julian, Tapaz, Capiz, on February
18, 2013;
•   RESPONDENT also procured pregnancy test kits even while
PETITIONER was already several months away from home in San
Julian, Tapaz, Capiz, on board an ocean-going vessel plying an
international route;
•  RESPONDENT also procured "ALBOTHYL," even while PETITIONER
was already months away from home in San Julian, Tapaz, Capiz,
on board an ocean-going vessel plying an international route;
•   "ALBOTHYL" is a medication for in ammation of the cervix,
otherwise known as cervicitis;
•  RESPONDENT missent a text message to PETITIONER on February
18, 2013, at 7:59 o'clock in the evening;
•  The missent text message was intended for Jocirval Lemana;
•  RESPONDENT is an inveterate gambler;
•   RESPONDENT has no house of her own, and presently, she is
staying in the house of her aunt in 20B, El 98 Street, Taytay Zone II,
Jaro, Iloilo City;
•   RESPONDENT is a socialite who spends time in the company of
socialite friends;
•   In March, 2013, while Dennis Lorenz was sick, RESPONDENT was
gallivanting with her friends in Manila, particularly in the SM Mall of
Asia;
•  RESPONDENT is not gainfully employed;
•  RESPONDENT is not a caring mother, for she left the children under
the care of the "yaya";DETACa

•  Marilyn G. Gayagaya has been the househelper of PETITIONER and

RESPONDENT for about six (6) years already, and it was mainly
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 under her care that RESPONDENT left the children;
•  Since 1996, PETITIONER has been gainfully employed as Engineer
in a ship, initially as Fourth Marine Engineer, and eventually as Chief
Marine Engineer, in the year 2004, until his emergency
disembarkation in February, 2013;
•   RESPONDENT withdrew the CASH BOND amounting to
US$11,139.95, posted in favor of SANTOS PETROLEUM
CORPORATION, and to date, the whereabouts of the said sum of
money is unknown;
•  RESPONDENT took the said US$11,139.95 for her personal gain and
profit;
•  RESPONDENT actually withdrew the sum of EIGHT HUNDRED TEN
THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE PESOS
(PhP810,825.00), from PETITIONER's Saving's Account with the BPI,
SM City Branch;
•  The foregoing amount of EIGHT HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND EIGHT
HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE PESOS (PhP810,825.00) should have
been applied by RESPONDENT to the monthly payment due to
NIKKIE BUILDERS, Compaña Street, Molo, Iloilo City, which
contracted the construction of a three (3)-door apartment in
Tabucan, Mandurriao, Iloilo City;
•   RESPONDENT applied the sum of EIGHT HUNDRED TEN
THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE PESOS
(PhP810,825.00) for her personal gain and profit;
•   RESPONDENT took the sum of FOUR HUNDRED NINETY-ONE
THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-NINE PESOS and 50/100
(PhP491,279.50), which amount formed part of the initial capital
required of PETITIONER and RESPONDENT by SANTOS
PETROLEUM CORPORATION, for her personal gain and profit;
•   RESPONDENT took the sum of THREE MILLION ONE HUNDRED
FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (PhP3,150,000.00), from the income of
the RENZO GAS STATION and RENZO MINIMART, for the period
May 18, 2011 to February 18, 2013, for her own personal gain and
profit;
•   RESPONDENT sold THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED (3,200)
sacks of palay, stocked in the bodega of PETITIONER and
RESPONDENT in San Julian, Tapaz, Capiz, and appropriated the
proceeds therefrom, for her personal gain and pro t, to the tune of
at least ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(Php1,500,000.00);
•   RESPONDENT, on her own, mortgaged two (2) parcels of riceland
which were mortgaged to PETITIONER and RESPONDENT by Mr.
Giner and RESPONDENT's own father himself, for the total amount
of ONE HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND PESOS (PhP110,000.00), which
amount she appropriated for her own personal gain and profit;
•  RESPONDENT sold the two (2) carabaos taken care of by Silvestre
Cambel, PETITIONER's uncle, for FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
(PhP45,000.00), which amount she appropriated unto herself, for
her own personal gain and profit;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 •   RESPONDENT lent money to several persons amounting to FOUR
HUNDRED FORTY-EIGHT THOUSAND SIXTY-NINE PESOS and
57/100 (PhP448,069.57), which amount has not been collected until
the present, to the prejudice of the PETITIONER;
aDSIHc

•  RESPONDENT sold goods in RENZO MINIMART, on credit, to several

persons, amounting to TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-THREE THOUSAND
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-SEVEN PESOS and 50/100
(PhP283,187.50), which amount remains uncollected until the
present, to the prejudice of the PETITIONER; and
•  RESPONDENT also sold fuel oil (gasoline and diesel) from RENZO
GAS STATION, on credit, to several persons, amounting to ONE
HUNDRED FORTY-ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE
PESOS and 07/100 (PhP141,859.07), which amount remains
uncollected up to the present, to the prejudice of the PETITIONER.
24. In view of the foregoing, it would appear that RESPONDENT even had
already taken more than her fair share in the properties acquired in the
course of the cohabitation of the PETITIONER and RESPONDENT, and
squandered the same to defray the expenses entailed by her extravagant
ways and illicit affairs, which taking was unwarranted to begin with[.] 1 4
The trial court's intervention was sought since the declaration for the nullity of
the spouses' marriage was still pending in another trial court. Danny stated that Ana's
consent could not be obtained, as she abandoned her family and made his and their
children's lives "a living hell[.]" 1 5
On July 28, 2014, Ana led a Complaint 1 6 against Atty. Fortaleza before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. She claimed that he portrayed her as "a woman of
loose morals, an unfaithful wife, an uncaring mother[,] and a [thief] or even a swindler."
1 7 His description of her was allegedly abusive and offensive, which caused her
"dishonor, discredit, mental anguish[,] and besmirched reputation." 1 8
Ana claimed that Atty. Fortaleza violated Canon 8, Rule 8.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility by using "language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper." 1 9 He also allegedly violated Rule 138, Section 20 (f) of the Rules of Court
because the malicious allegations made in the Petition were not germane to the subject
of the Petition. 2 0
On October 1, 2014, Atty. Fortaleza led his Answer, 2 1 admitting that he signed
and prepared the Petition in Civil Case No. 13-32111. However, he alleged that it was
done in his capacity as counsel for Ana's husband, who supplied the allegations, as
evidenced by the Veri cation/Certi cation against Forum Shopping 2 2 attached to the
Petition. 2 3
Atty. Fortaleza also countered that the allegations made were relevant to the
Petition, as these showed the dire circumstances that compelled his client to seek
judicial intervention. As such, these allegations were in the form of privileged
communication. 2 4
On September 24, 2016, Investigating Commissioner Romualdo A. Din, Jr.
(Commissioner Din) issued a Report and Recommendation, 2 5 recommending the
Complaint's dismissal. 2 6 He found that the grant or denial of the prayer in Civil Case
No. 13-32111 hinged on the allegations made in Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Petition.
Thus, while the allegations might have vexed Ana, they were material to the purpose of
the case since they lay the foundation on why Atty. Fortaleza's client sought judicial
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 authority to encumber the real properties. 2 7
Relying on the test of relevancy in Uy v. Atty. Depasucat , 2 8 Commissioner Din
held that the allegations "must be so palpably wanting in relation to the subject matter"
2 9 to not be considered privileged. 3 0 In this case, however, the utterances made in the
Petition, no matter how offensive or malicious from Ana's vantage, were relevant. Since
she could not substantiate her claim that Atty. Fortaleza had ill motives in drafting the
Petition, it followed that the Complaint must be dismissed. 3 1
On March 1, 2017, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors
issued a Resolution, 3 2 adopting the ndings of fact and recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner. 3 3 TIADCc

The issues for this Court's resolution are:

First, whether or not respondent Atty. Eduardo Seguera Fortaleza violated Canon
8, Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for the utterances he made in a
pleading, which were alleged to have been abusive, offensive, and improper; and
Second, whether or not respondent violated Rule 138, Section 20 (f) of the Rules
of Court for the malicious claims, which were allegedly immaterial to his client's cause.
This Court rules in the negative and resolves to adopt the ndings of fact and
recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors, as based
on the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
Canon 8, Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
CANON 8 — A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and
candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics
against opposing counsel.
RULE 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
This Court holds that respondent did not violate Canon 8, Rule 8.01. The
utterances, as offensive as they may be for complainant, are absolutely privileged as
they fall within a legitimate judicial proceeding. Moreover, the allegations in Paragraphs
23 and 24 of the Petition were not respondent's, but his client's. This is supported by
the Veri cation/Certi cation against Forum Shopping 3 4 attached to the Petition.
Among others, the document stated that his client caused the preparation of the
Petition, and read and understood the contents in it.
Meanwhile, Rule 138, Section 20 (f) of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:
xxx xxx xxx
(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact
prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by
the justice of the cause with which he is charged[.]
Respondent cannot be said to have violated Rule 138, Section 20 (f) because the
allegations were material in establishing his client's cause in the Petition.
The test of relevancy in Uy v. Atty. Depasucat 3 5 states that allegations made
during judicial proceedings need not be on point with the subject matter of the
controversy all the time. It is su cient that they can be legitimately linked to the topic
and may become the subject of inquiry during trial. 3 6 However, utterances that are
"palpably wanting in relation to the subject matter of the controversy that no
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 reasonable man can doubt its relevancy and impropriety" 3 7 do not fall within the scope
of privileged communication. 3 8
Here, the allegations made in Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Petition lay the
antecedents that compelled respondent's client to seek judicial intervention. It showed
the source of con ict between the spouses and why his client could not obtain
complainant's consent to encumber the real properties. The allegations, therefore, are
considered absolutely privileged as they are relevant to the subject of the Petition, even
if they might be malicious or false.
The rule on privileged communication arose from public policy to have a "free
and unfettered administration of justice," 3 9 so that parties, lawyers, and judges may
"speak their minds freely and exercise their respective functions without incurring the
risk of a criminal prosecution or an action for the recovery of damages." 4 0
The Complaint, therefore, has no leg to stand on. Complainant failed to
substantiate her claims that respondent acted with malice in drafting the Petition, and
that the allegations made were not at all germane to the subject of Civil Case No. 13-
32111.
WHEREFORE , the March 1, 2017 Notice of Resolution No. XXII-2017-841 of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors is NOTED . This Court resolves to
ADOPT and APPROVE the ndings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations
of the Investigating Commissioner in his September 24, 2016 Report and
Recommendation, which the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors
likewise adopted and approved. The Complaint against respondent Atty. Eduardo
Seguera Fortaleza is DISMISSED . AIDSTE

Accordingly, the case is CLOSED and TERMINATED .

SO ORDERED ."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Uy v. Atty. Depasucat, 455 Phil. 9, 19 (2003) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division].

2. Rollo, pp. 2-10.
3. Id. at 9.
4. Id. at 115-127. The Report and Recommendation was penned by Commissioner Romualdo A.
Din, Jr. of the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
5. Id. at 127.
6. Id. at 113-114.

7. Id. at 113.
8. Id. at 11-25.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 9. Id. at 11.

10. Id. at 21-23.

11. Id. at 20.
12. Id. at 17.
13. Id. at 18.
14. Id. at 16-20.

15. Id. at 22.

16. Id. at 2-10.
17. Id. at 8.
18. Id.

19. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 8, Rule 8.01.

20. Rollo, p. 9.
21. Id. at 56-67.
22. Id. at 25.
23. Id. at 56-58.

24. Id. at 62-64.

25. Id. at 115-127.
26. Id. at 127.
27. Id. at 125.
28. 455 Phil. 9 (2003) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division].

29. Id. at 19.

30. Rollo, p. 126.
31. Id. at 125-127.
32. Id. at 113-114.

33. Id. at 113.

34. Id. at 25.
35. 455 Phil. 9 (2003) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division].
36. Id. at 19.
37. Id.

38. Id.
39. Id. at 18.
40. Id. at 19.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com