The Case of Badilla vs Phillips

...by guest author Randall Smith

The name Badilla is synonymous with the early Covina area, both before and after the town’s founding. As most already know, the Badilla brothers owned the land upon which the Covina Tract would later be founded by Joseph S. Phillips. Among the legacies left behind is the street called Badillo, named in homage to the three Badilla brothers, who successfully grew wheat and barley on their land holdings. They also attempted to establish a coffee plantation on a portion of the property. Although they were successful in developing the trees, it was reported that the associated costs made its growing and cultivation an unprofitable enterprise, which ultimately led to the failure of their business enterprise.

Two sons of Pedro Antonio Badilla would remain in the area after their father’s return to Costa Rica, and assisted Joseph Phillips in building a portion of the infrastructure of the early township. Yet, it’s a different episode involving the Badilla name, and Covina’s early history, which is the focus of this post.

On June 18, 2021, a Badilla descendant posted an allegation on the Facebook group "I Grew Up in Covina" stating that Joseph S. Phillips raped a daughter of Pedro Antonio Badilla, resulting in pregnancy. The author offered no proof that such an event happened, only stating that it was printed in a San Francisco newspaper. The poster goes on to say, “We're on a quest too to see if a relative of ours is the daughter and Phillip's (sic) son. Sure seems like he is.”

In researching the allegation, I can state, unequivocally, that there is no record in any San Francisco newspaper, or any other newspaper, of any rape charge being brought against Joseph S. Phillips.

What did happen was this: Francisca Vicenta Badilla filed a complaint against Phillips for “seduction”, claiming that it resulted in pregnancy. The concept of “seduction,” as it pertained to the law at that time, implied a consensual sexual relationship, based on some sort of misrepresentation on the part of the seducer, such as: a promise to marry the complainant; a promise to pay support for any children born to the complainant; or, some similar promise which was not fulfilled, of which the complainant relied upon before engaging in the relationship. The law, as regarded to seduction, does not equate to rape, and as such, the nature of the complaint dictates that the alleged incident was not rape, nor was it claimed to be by the complainant.

The complaint was filed on January 15, of 1886, in Los Angeles. The suit alleged that the seduction occurred in June of 1885, while Francisca was employed as a servant in the Phillips home. Additionally, the complaint called for damages in the amount of $25,000.

On the same day that the complaint was filed, announcements appeared in multiple newspapers in California, including the following announcement which was made in the Sacramento Record-Union:

Los Angeles – A complaint was filed in the municipal court today by Miss Francisco (sic) Badilla, charging J. S. Phillips, a well known capitalist, with seducing her last June, resulting in pregnancy, and claiming $25,000 in damages. The father of Miss Bodilla (sic) came from Costa Rica several years ago, and endeavored to establish a coffee plantation in the San Gabriel valley. Speculation ruined him, and he returned to Costa Rica, but his daughter remained as a servant in the house of Phillips.

Two days later, on January 17, 1886, the following announcement regarding the suit was published in the Los Angeles Times:

Sensational Seduction Suit Against J. S. Phillips – J. S. Phillips is a wealthy and well-known citizen of Covina. Francisco (sic) Badilla is a Spanish girl who worked at his residence last summer. Now, through Major Horace Bell, her attorney, she brings suit against Mr. Phillips for $25,000 damages for seduction. She alleges that the crime was committed last June, while she was a domestic at the Phillips residence. Mr. Phillips's friends look upon it as a blackmailing scheme.

On February 4, 1886, less than three weeks after the initial filing of the complaint, the following brief article about the dismissal of the suit appeared in the Los Angeles Times:

The case of Badilla vs. Phillips, in which the latter, a resident of Azusa, was charged with seduction has been dismissed on motion of the prosecution. The fair Badilla, it is said, is not enough like Caesar’s wife to make the action good.

For those who are unfamiliar with the phrase used in the final sentence, it refers to an old idiom, in which, Caesar’s wife is said to be above suspicion. In the context used here, Ms. Badilla’s testimony was apparently NOT above suspicion.

As reported two days later, in the Pomona Times-Courier of February 6, 1886, Joseph Phillips answered a query about the case, posed by its reporter on the previous day. Phillips’ response was quoted as:

“There is not an iota of truth in the charge, and this woman, knowing that I have property, thought to extort money, believing that I would pay heavily rather than to have the matter come into the courts. While the injury done me cannot easily be repaired, I trust to be able to show that the charge was made solely for blackmail.”

On February 13, 1886, news of the case dismissal was published in the Pomona Times-Courier as:

"The many friends in this locality of Mr. J. S. Phillips, of Covina, will be glad to know that the suit for damage that was brought against him recently by a Spanish girl, of the Azusa settlement, has been dismissed. It was too glaring a blackmail to stand a legal crossfire, and it seems her counsel very wisely advised her to drop it."

In what appeared to be a supporting statement for the rape accusation in her post, the Badilla descendant claimed that “A LOT” of money was paid to two brothers of Francisca, who worked for Phillips. This seems to imply that the payment made to the Badilla brothers was a “pay-off” to the family, by Phillips, in agreement for dropping the lawsuit. However, it seems highly unlikely that an attorney, much less one of Horace Bell’s notoriety, would agree to any dismissal of a legitimate lawsuit on the premise that the alleged perpetrator pay damages to the alleged victim’s siblings. The implication doesn’t seem to pass common rules of scrutiny as to a reasonable assertion within the context of a lawsuit settlement.

At the time of the dismissal of the complaint, the younger Badilla brothers were working under Phillips’ direction on improvements to the new Covina tract. The primary focus of Phillips, as of that date, was the building of a new irrigation system which would bring water from the San Gabriel Canyon, via the San Gabriel River, to the new ranches and farms of the Covina area, as well as the proposed parcels which would be sold in the Covina Tract. This is very likely the project that the Badilla brothers were working on at the time of the implied “pay-off.” Undoubtedly, some of these expenses were likely very substantial, due to the costs associated with the equipment, supplies, and manpower which were necessary to build the irrigation canals. It seems reasonable to surmise that any monies paid to the younger Badilla brothers were for legitimate business expenses, and not a pay-off to the siblings on behalf of a seduction victim.

In summary, we will never know all of the details of what transpired. However, in reviewing the evidence contained within the available historical documents, and the context of the complaint, it becomes obvious that there is another possible scenario to this historical scandal. That scenario involves the possibility that Francisca Badilla gave false testimony against Joseph Phillips for the purpose of financial gain. As reported, this was, most certainly, the opinion held by most of those people who knew Phillips personally, or by reputation, and would explain the quick dismissal of the case.

If, under reasonable examination, this scenario is deemed possible, there remains a further possibility that the complaint may have been encouraged by Francisca’s father, Pedro Antonio Badilla, due to what was considered a frequent use of the seduction complaint. It was fairly common in cases of seduction that a father actually filed a complaint of seduction, or was otherwise involved in the initiation of a complaint. In the laws of that time regarding seduction, a father was often considered to be a victim of seduction also, through the perspective of a daughter being regarded as the “property” of a father. In such circumstances, the “value” of a daughter was considered to be diminished due to the loss of chastity.

Of either of these possible scenarios – whether Francisca gave false testimony against Phillips, or whether Pedro Antonio Badilla was involved in, or encouraged, the seduction complaint – we’ll likely never know for certain. They simply remain as possibilities, especially when the term “blackmail” had been used to describe the complaint. However, the complaint was, in fact, filed in Francisca’s name, and not in her father’s, as he was residing in Costa Rica at the time of the filing. In any event, these scenarios are not presented as accusations, but simply as possibilities, based on the available documentation.

Here is what can be determined, with certainty, by the documents currently available:

1. There is no evidence to support the claim that Francisca was actually pregnant at the time of the complaint filing, and no mention by any source that she appeared to be seven-months pregnant at the time of the filing.
2. There is no record that Francisca gave birth to a child fathered by Phillips, or anyone else, during the time period which would coincide with a pregnancy which began anywhere near the date of the claimed seduction.
3. It is biologically impossible that the son born to Francisca five years later, in 1891, was the result of a pregnancy which began in June of 1885. Furthermore, ancestry records show that the father of this child, born in 1891, was a man other than Joseph Phillips.
4. Rape was never claimed by the alleged victim, nor was the charge included in the complaint which was filed against Phillips.
5. In the court records of the case, there is no mention of any financial settlement reached between the parties. It would be expected that the details of any such settlement would be specifically spelled-out, and included in the Order of Dismissal for the case, if such a settlement was actually made.

There remains the possibility that the complaint against Joseph Phillips, aside from the claim of pregnancy, was an accurate portrayal of what happened. Perhaps Phillips and Ms. Badilla did have a consensual relationship, and perhaps it was based on promises he made to her, but did not honor. There simply aren’t enough details available today to determine every aspect of what actually transpired, and any suppositions to be taken from the existing evidence are left to the individual reader to make. Those details were taken to the grave long ago by the parties involved. But, clearly, the evidence in the case, along with the testimony of Ms. Badilla, did not meet the standards required to proceed with the case of seduction.

All of this information is researchable through newspapers archives, and the major ancestry websites. When researching an historic incident, such as this, it is important to find all of the available pertinent facts relating to the incident, and then, explore all of the possible scenarios which may align with those facts.

The sad truth, in regard to this particular scandal, at the time it occurred, is that it likely caused as much harm to the Badilla family name as it did to that of the Phillips family. If it was, indeed, an attempt on the part of Francisca Badilla to blackmail Joseph Phillips for financial gain, as many people, no doubt, believed at the time, it doesn’t alter the other historical accomplishments associated with the Badilla name, and their time in the Covina area.

However, in regard to the Badilla descendant’s claim that Joseph S. Phillips raped a daughter of Pedro Antonio Badilla, that claim is categorically and irrefutably not true.