SC, IBP should look into questionable dispensing of online legal advice

DIFFERENT modes of interaction are used on social media platforms to facilitate engagement, spark discussions and exchange information. One commonly used format in social media postings is the “question-and-answer” mode. Here, the social media account user posts questions on their social media profiles or pages, purportedly coming from others, who often seek advice, opinions, recommendations or information on a particular topic.

Other users or followers see the question and can respond with their answers, insights, experiences or suggestions in the comments section. They may offer advice, share their perspectives, provide relevant information or engage in dialogue with the original poster and other respondents. This play is used, not only by social media influencers, but by lawyers as well.

Lawyers advising on social media

Lawyers can use social media to share law updates, answer legal questions, address audience concerns and provide valuable information to their audience. Some lawyers use social media to establish themselves as thought leaders and authorities in their practice areas. By sharing insights, analysis and commentary on legal issues, trends and developments, lawyers can demonstrate their supposed “expertise” and position themselves as trusted advisers within that field. By establishing presence on social media platforms, lawyers can increase visibility, reach a broader audience and differentiate themselves from their peers.

There is no problem with that kind of scenario. It’s their own choice and decision to be on social media platforms. However, it becomes a problem when those lawyers post misleading legal advice, and worse, totally incorrect ones.

It is essential for lawyers to exercise caution and adhere to ethical rules and professional standards when providing legal advice on social media to ensure its accuracy and truthfulness. Lawyers should implement preventive measures to prevent the likelihood of errors, such as conducting thorough legal research, consulting with experts on the topic and verifying the accuracy of information before publication and posting.

If a lawyer gives incorrect legal advice online then they must take responsibility and demonstrate accountability.

Social media legal advising gone wrong

Let me cite two examples of these legal advising on social media gone wrong. Of course, I will neither reveal their identities nor their social media handles to protect their anonymity.

Case 1. A user sent a message to the lawyer telling the latter that his girlfriend “opens my phone without my consent and reads my private conversations,” and subsequently asks, “Is this legal?” She then responds, “No! That’s not legal. It’s a crime. Pwedeng makulong ang girlfriend mo for up to 12 years kasi nilabag niya ang Section 4A of Republic Act (RA) 10175, or the ‘Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012’ … by reading your private converstions pwede na naman siyang kasuhan ng another crime under Article 290 of the Revised Penal Code… pwede rin makasuhan ‘yung girlfriend mo under RA 10173 or the ‘Data Privacy Act.’ Ang daming pwedeng ikaso.”

My colleagues in the techno-legal area would readily conclude that these pieces of advice are erroneous — particularly those concerning RA 10173 and RA 10175. I won’t belabor the content of these laws now but might do so in future columns.

Let’s focus on Article 290 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). “Article 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence. The penalty of prisión correccionalin its minimum and medium periods, and a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) shall be imposed upon any private individual who in order to discover the secrets of another, shall seize his papers or letters and reveal the contents thereof. (As amended by RA 10951).”

The four elements of the crime of discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence are as follows: 1) that the offender is a private individual; 2) that the offender seizes another’s papers or letters; 3) that the offender committed such act in order to discover another’s secrets; and 4) that the offender reveals the contents thereof.

For the second element, the offender seizes another’s papers or letters in order to discover the latter’s secrets. Based on Black’s Law Dictionary, to “seize” means “to take possession forcibly, to grasp, to snatch.” Papers are those “written or printed document” while letters include “a direct or personal written or printed message addressed to a person or organization.” These papers or letters contain secrets of another person. As it is, Case 1 does not fall within this realm.

Case 2. I stumbled upon a content creator running a YouTube channel where he discusses laws and crimes. In one particular video concerning Article 290 of the RPC, he claimed that the case of Zulueta v Zulueta (with no citation included) is the applicable jurisprudence. He is clearly wrong on this aspect.

Zulueta v Zulueta, GR 428, is a century-old civil case which pertains to the provisions of the law regarding the time within which an appeal should be submitted. It has nothing in relation to Article 290 of the RPC. The applicable jurisprudence should be Zulueta v Court of Appeals et al., GR 107383, a 1996 case.

It must be noted that if the incorrect advice constitutes a violation of ethical rules or professional standards, the lawyer may be subject to disciplinary action by the Supreme Court or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

In both cases, these social media users offered misleading legal information, if not erroneous legal advice. Should they be held accountable for that? I can’t answer that. Only the Supreme Court and the IBP can do so.