Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila
First Division

Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares,

Complainant

-versus- Administrative Case No. 11394

Atty. Roberto Argee C. Guevarra for: Disbarment

Defendant

X-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE COMPLAINANT

In compliance with the order of this Honorable Court, complainant through

counsel most respectfully submits this memorandum and state:

STATEMET OF FACTS

Complainant is the Medical Director and principal stockholder of the Belo Medical
Group, Inc. (BMGI), a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws
and engaged in the specialized field of cosmetic surgery. On the other hand, respondent
is the lawyer of a certain Ms. Josefina "Josie" Norcio, who filed criminal cases against
complainant for an allegedly botched surgical procedure on her buttocks in 2002 and
2005, purportedly causing infection and making her ill in 2009.

In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts on his Facebook account, a popular

online social networking site, insulting and verbally abusing complainant. Respondent
also allegedly threatened complainant with criminal conviction without factual basis and
without proof. Complainant further averred that the attacks against her were made with
the object to extort money from her.

In the report and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
dated August 13, 2013, it recommended that the respondent be suspended from the
practice of law with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be
dealt with more severely. In a resolution dated September 27, 2014, the IBP Board of
Governors resolved to adopt and approve said report and recommendation.

Respondent moved for reconsideration, arguing there was no specific act

attributed to him that would warrant his suspension from the law. In a resolution dated
October 28, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors partially granted respondents motion,
reducing the penalty from one (1) year to six (6) months suspension.

ISSUES

The following are the relevant issues in this case:

a. Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable based

on the allegations of the verified complaint.

b. Whether or not statements made by the respondent on his social

media account constitute private remarks, guaranteed by the right to
privacy

c. Whether or not such statements were made in exercise of freedom of

speech and expression.

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS

Respondents actions constitute a clear violation of Rules No. 7.03, 8.01, 19.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which state that:

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that

adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he,
whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the legal profession.

Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use

language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means
to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present,
participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal
charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.

Through his remarks directed towards complainant and BMGI, made on a

platform such as Facebook, respondent did not behave with the proper decorum and
behavior expected from that of an officer of the court. This regard for proper decorum
should extend to both public and private life. As such, he is expected to be respectful
and decent in his words and actions. His behavior however, has made it clear that he
disregards the high standards set for members of the bar such as himself. He used
words unbecoming of an officer of the law and even threated to abuse the law to further
his own agenda and that of his client. The law should be not be the cudgel by which he
fights his foes.

Respondents criticisms and insults towards Complainant exceed that which is

expected by a public figure. For this, Respondent should be duly sanctioned by the
court so as to ensure that no repetition of such actions will occur.

Respondent cannot also claim that his remarks fall under the purview of his right
to privacy. Foremost is the fact that he has around 2000 friends in his account, all of
whom could see and read his posts. Furthermore, respondent has failed to prove that
he availed of the security and privacy options provided by Facebook, despite his claims
that his posts were set to private.

Moreover, even if the court were to accept the respondents ludicrous claims that
his posts were merely available to that of his friends, there is no assurance that said
posts will be safeguarded within the right of privacy, due to the following reasons:

(1) Facebook "allows the world to be more open and connected by giving
its users the tools to interact and share in any conceivable way";

(2) A good number of Facebook users "befriend" other users who are total
strangers;

(3) The sheer number of "Friends" one user has, usually by the hundreds;
And

(4) A user's Facebook friend can "share" the former's post, or "tag" others
who are not Facebook friends with the former, despite its being visible
only to his or her own Facebook friends.

In this vein, the respondents claim that his remarks were made in the exercise of
his freedom of speech and expression should be rejected. It has been proven time and
again that this right is not absolute, as is all constitutional freedoms. While the freedom
of expression and the right of speech and of the press are among the most zealously
protected rights in the Constitution, every person exercising them, as the Civil Code
stresses, is obliged to act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and
good faith. 70 As such, the constitutional right of freedom of expression may not be
availed of to broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others, destroy their name or reputation
or bring them into disrepute.
As shown by the foregoing, complainant prays for immediate dispensation of
justice.
Very Truly Yours,

Law Office