35. Pobre-Holgado v. Pader-Villanueva, A.C. No.

11604 (Notice), June 7, 2017

Facebook post just to clear her name from the accusations made by the complainant.

FACTS:

 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 hereunder reproduce:
 "To you Tintin Holgado: Please leave me alone. I do not have any interest in you and I hope you will start
losing interest in me. Do not waste your time and 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 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 day. I may not have millions of inheritance (at least that's
what you claim) but at least I do not have to watch movies alone and force invitations out of people.
Unlike you, people do not duck or hide or run the opposite direction when they see me coming. Maybe if
you just learned the art of acceptance, you would be a happier human being. We all wish you find
happiness soon. Because only then will we be free of your lengthy nonsense text messages. In case you
haven't noticed, no one really like you and everybody's laughing at you. And really, you are not that
interesting so do not text us with blow-by-blow accounts of your day. We have better things to do with
our time. You make me wish telecommunications companies will soon end their unlimited text promos.
And lest you forget, I am not ignorant where the law is 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 not be as nice the next time. I "unfriended" you on Facebook a long time ago that's why I can't post
this directly on your page but I am hoping your nosy skills will be put to good use and you will get to read
this."
 Respondent argued that she posted the aforementioned status in order to protect and make the
complainant stop from spreading lies, concocted stories that in effect, damage her reputation as a lawyer.
On the basis of said message or post, the complainant filed a complaint against respondent before the IBP
for violating Canon 1 and Canon 7.
 Considering that there was no evidence to show that the respondent had acted with grave misconduct in
not observing the proper and decent manner in line with practice of law, it is, thus, recommended that
the respondent only be admonished and advised to be more forthright in the handling of her personal
interactions in the future. IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the above Report and
Recommendation. The IBP ratiocinated that herein respondent "with good motives and for justifiable
ends" has, done nothing but exercised the proper mode by which she believes will rescue her from the
consistent attempts of the complainant to stir up or spread something that is usually petty or
discreditable on her part.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Pader-Villanueva committed grave misconduct by posting messages in complainant's Facebook
account amounting 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. (NO)

RULING:

 It is settled that in disbarment cases, complainant bears the burden of proving her charge with substantial
evidence. 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. Penalty: DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT AND ADMONITION.