REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE
PASIG CITY

DR. ANA BELOSILLO

Complainant,

CBD Case No. 18-1234

-versus-

ATTY. CHRIS HAY

Respondent,
x---------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT – AFFIDAVIT

I, DR. ANA BELOSILLO (“Belosillo” for brevity), of legal age,

widow, Filipino and a resident of 641 Sales St, Quiapo, Manila, 1001 Metro
Manila, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law hereby
depose and state that:

1. I am the complainant in the instant case;

2. I am filing this administrative complaint against respondent

ATTY. CHRIS HAY (“Hay” for brevity), likewise of legal age,
Filipino and a resident of 590 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City,
where he may be served with summons and other legal
processes of this Honorable Office;

3. That complainant Belosillo is a popular cosmetic surgeon known

for her expertise among politicians and artists in the country;

4. That respondent Hay, is a writer in “ORAS”, a newspaper of

general circulation with his own article;

5. That on November 30, 2018, Respondent Hay wrote in his article

alleging that complainant Belosillo is a "Doctor Kwak-Kwak".

1
 Which is locally understood as a “fake” doctor; A photocopy of
the said publication is herewith attached and marked as Annex
“A” to form an integral part herof;

6. That soon after the article of respondent Hay was published,

complainant observed that the number of her clients begun to
decline brought about by the article written by the respondent
which was published in a newspaper of general circulation;

7. Evidently, the allegations of respondent Hay against

complainant Belosillo was without bases, discriminatory,
malicious and made in public;

8. That for a crime of libel to be present, the following elements

should be present: (a) it must be defamatory; (b) it must be malicious;
(c) it must be given publicity; and (d) the victim must be identifiable;

9. That freedom of expression is not absolute as laid in the case

Soriano v. Laguardia GR No. 164785, April 29, 20091 to wit:

“… The freedom of expression, as with the other freedoms

encased in the Bill of Rights, is, however, not absolute. It may
be regulated to some extent to serve important public interests,
some forms of speech not being protected. As has been held, the
limits of the freedom of expression are reached when the
expression touches upon matters of essentially private
concern…”

10.That it must be emphasized that more than a writer for a

newspaper of general circulation, respondent Hay is also an
officer of the court. As such, he owes candor, fairness and good
faith to the court, and is duty-bound to uphold the constitution,
obey the laws of that land and use only true, honest, fair, dignified
and objective information or statement of facts. This is very well
explicit from the Code of Professional Responsibility which
respondent Hay promised to live by as a lawyer, which states that:

CHAPTER 1. THE LAW AND SOCIETY

1
Soriano v Laguardia GR No. 164785, April 29, 2009

2
 CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LOEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in an unlawful, dishonest,

immoral or deceitful conduct.

CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL

SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR,
DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR
STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or
unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal
services.

CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION
AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

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.

11.That aside from being criminally liable, it is firmly believed that

respondent Hay should be administratively sanctioned for being
unethical and violative of the above stated Canons of Code of
Professional Conduct;

12.That being a lawyer, respondent Hay must be an example of

integrity being a member of an elite organization. Respondent’s
Hay’s writing of malicious and baseless allegations is
undoubtedly a violation of the Code of Professional.

13.Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be
removed or suspended on the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2)

3
 malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral
conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6)
violation of lawyer’s oath; (7) willful disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court; and (8) corruptly or willfully appearing
as a lawyer for a party to a case without authority to do so;

14.In the case of Gonzales v. Alcaraz, AC No. 5321, September 27,

2006)2, to wit:

the Supreme Court emphasized that “A lawyer’s brash

transgression of any, especially a penal law is repulsive and
reprehensible and cannot be countenanced by this Court.”

Going further , the Supreme Court also warned that lawters may
be disbarred or suspended for misconduct as a consequence of
acts showing their unworthiness as officers of the courts. To wit:

“Whether in their professional or in their private capacity,

lawyers may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct. This
penalyy is a consequence of acts showing their unworthiness as
officers of the courts; as well as their lack of moral character,
honesty, probity, and good demeanor. When the misconduct
committed outside of their professional dealings is so gross as to
show them to be morally unfit for the office and the privileges
conferred upon them by their license and law, they may be
suspended or disbarred.”

15. With these acts and omissions of respondent Atty. Hay, surely, he
should be accordingly punished and must suffer the penalty as
provided for by law;

16.I am respectfully imploring the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines to act on my complaint and to impose the
appropriate administrative sanction against the
respondent.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 5th

day of December 2018 in City of Manila.

2
Gonzales v. Alcaraz, AC No. 5321, September 27, 2006

4
 DR. ANA BELOSILLO

Republic of the Philippines)

Quezon City )S.S.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public for

and in Quezon City, this 27th day of November 2014. Affiant
exhibited to me her Senior Citizen ID No. 1008115, issued at
Marikina City on September 1994 as her Competent Evidence of
Identity.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that respondent be

declared guilty of violating Rule of the Canon of Professional
Responsibility.
Complainant prays for other relief as may be just and equitable
under the premises.

City of Manila, December 5, 2018.

DR. ANA BELOSILLO

Complainant
641 Sales St, Quiapo, Manila

5
 VERIFICATION

I, DR. ANA BELOSILLO, first being duly sworn in accordance

with law, hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the complainant in the above-entitled case.

2. I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing

Complaint-Affidavit.

3. I have read the complaint contained herein and I affirm the

truthfulness of the contents thereof based on my personal knowledge
and on the basis of authentic records.

DR. ANA BELOSILLO

PRC ID No. 1234567

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 5 th day of

December 2018, at City of Manila. I hereby further certify that I have
personally examined affiant and that I am satisfied that he freely and
voluntarily executed the foregoing instrument and understood the
contents therein.

Doc No. ________

Page No. _______
Book No. ______
Series of 2018