Patricia Paz' lawyer Atty. Lorna Kapunan fires back at COMELEC chairman Andres Bautista

In an interview with CNN broadcast journalist Pinky Webb, Atty. Lorna Kapunan was asked by the former why Patricia Paz hired the latter on November 2016 but their services was eventually terminated by Patricia. A voice clip of Patricia was played containing the reason why.



Patricia said, "I got Lorna Kapunan as my lawyer in deference to them, it became difficult. She has personal history with Andy, you know, and she tried to resonate. It just that it became a personal thing between the two of them and for my sake, I decided to terminate. I just felt, as a client, it can't go anywhere, they had a personal history, they didn't like each other..."

But in a text message to a different media, Kapunan said her termination was a requirement by Bautista on Patricia for the settlement.

So Webb asked the lady lawyer what was the real conflict between her and Bautista.

Kapunan said there's no conflict and contrary to what Bautista said that she doesn't like him and she's evil, Kapunan said  she just have been indifferent with the COMELEC chairman ever since the latter failed to investigate his fiscal agents regarding the Philippine Communication Satellite Corportion (PHILCOMSAT) issue which she represented as their lawyer. However, Bautista did not do anything about it. There was no case filed to the Ombudsman.



Moreover, Kapunan said she couldn't understand Bautista when the latter said that the documents found about his hidden wealth were all private documents but he also argued that these documents were all fabricated.

So she told Bautista to clarify and decide which really is it: are the documents fabricated or do those belong to his family members and if the documents were fabricated, how can he be violated if they are non-existing documents.

Webb asked if Patricia can really be charged for taking those said documents, the passbook, a photocopy of checks and commission sheets since Bautista already filed cases of grave coercion, qualified theft and robbery.

Kapunan answered, "The question is can she be charged. These are conjugal property. This is presumed to be conjugal property. In fact some of the passbooks have their names in it. How will she know that he will claim these are not his. [And] how can he claim now that these belongs to the mother, the brother, or the sister when he's saying they're non-existent, we manufacture most of it."

"We stole what we manufactured?" she added.

The journalist said, that Bautista previously claimed tha only half of those documents were fabricated.

Moreover, Kapunan said that since he [Bautista] hasn't been practicing law for quite a long time, he has forgotten that mere allegations are not proof but Patricia has the passbooks and if Bautista accuses that these are non-existent, the documents will prove otherwise.

Second, since a bank is involved, under the Senate, House or Department of Justice (DOJ) inquiry, "the bank can easily be subpoena produce documents."

Kapunan also clarified the previous accusations of Bautista about his estranged wife stealing documents. She said that Patricia did not steal them, how can you steal something that belongs to you as well,

"They were kept in a conjugal safe, they were found in the conjugal study room and they were found in the conjugal home."





Source: Ordinary Filipino



Loading...