SC disbars lawyer for Facebook posts
Lawyers cannot invoke freedom of the press and freedom of expression for their infractions of the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), like online postings in Facebook of cases they would file or have filed, the Supreme Court said.
“While freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Constitution, the lawyer's oath and his duties and responsibilities ultimately serve as a limit thereto,” the SC said. “We caution lawyers to be circumspect in their postings online. They are reminded to always practice restraint in their conduct, be it in real life or online. Otherwise, the rule of law may very well be completely circumvented and rendered nugatory by blatantly seeking public trial on social media.”
With the ruling, the SC ordered the disbarment of lawyer Berteni C. Causing who was found to have violated his oath as a lawyer and the CPR. The SC decision was made public on Wednesday, Feb. 1.
The complaint against Causing was filed on Feb. 11, 2019 by Jackiya A. Lao, who accused the lawyer of publishing in his Facebook account on Jan. 18, 2019 a draft of his complaint accusing her and other persons of plunder.
Causing named and referred to Lao in his Facebook post as the “Chairperson of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the DSWD (Department of Social Welfare and Development) Regional Office No. XII and the one that handled the bidding that ended up in the awarding of these food packs to Tacurong Fit Mart, Inc.”
Lao denied the online post. She said in her administrative complaint against Causing that the publication besmirched her good name and reputation in the eyes of Facebook users at the time that no complaint was filed or pending before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB).
In another Facebook post on Jan. 31, 2019, Causing published his complaint-affidavit for plunder, which he said, has been filed with the OMB. Lao again denied the allegations contained in the Facebook post.
In his answer-affidavit to Lao’s complaint, Causing admitted he was the author of the Facebook posts and alleged that since the complaint for plunder before the OMB is supported by evidence, the administrative complaint filed against him by Lao should be dismissed.
Causing said his Facebook posts are an exercise of the freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
On June 15, 2020, the investigating commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended a six-month suspension for Causing.
But the IBP board of governors modified it on Oct. 16, 2021, and said Causing should only be reprimanded since he ultimately filed the plunder complaint against Lao and others before the OMB.
But the the SC declared that “Atty. Causing cannot justify his infractions by hiding behind the rights to freedom of the press and freedom of expression under the Constitution as such are not absolute.”
The SC said: “As a member of the Bar, Atty. Causing ought to know that Facebook—or any other social medium, for that matter—is not the proper forum to air out his grievances, for a lawyer who uses extra-legal fora is a lawyer who weakens the rule of law.
“In this case, Atty. Causing knew that the proper forum for his complaint is the Office of the Ombudsman. Atty. Causing's posting of the complaint for plunder on his Facebook account was motivated by the desire to damage the reputation of the respondents (Lao and others) therein.
“In fact, it was posted precisely to elicit negative reactions, comments and public opinions against Lao and her fellow respondents. The fact that Atty. Causing subsequently filed the complaint for plunder before the Office of the Ombudsman is of no moment as the damage to the reputation of therein respondents had already been done.
“The documentary evidence presented by Lao, which consists of screenshots of Atty. Causing's post, show that she was subjected to public hate, contempt and ridicule, as several people have commented on the said post. The respondents in the complaint for plunder, including Lao, were called several names, including ‘nangungurakot’ and ‘corrupt na official.’
“Based on the foregoing, Atty. Causing also violated Rule 8.01 of the CPR when he accused Lao and the other respondents of stealing around ₱226 million intended for evacuees.
“Lastly, we note that this is not the first time that Atty. Causing has been sanctioned by the Court. In Velasco vs. Atty. Causing (decided in 2021), the Supreme Court en banc, voting unanimously, suspended Atty. Causing from the practice of law for a period of one year for violating the confidentiality of an ongoing family court proceeding.”