A LAW EACH DAY [Keeps Trouble Away] Intemperate and abusive

Alawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use abusive, offensive or otherwise improper language or make public statements in media regarding a pending case which tend to arouse public opinion for or against a party (Canons 13 and 13.02, Canon of Professional Responsibility, CPR). He / she is likewise prohibited from publicizing or disclosing cases pending in the Family Courts (R.A. 8369, Family Courts Act of 1997). The reason for such prohibition is obviously to prevent the exposure of confidential or derogatory information involving the parties to the cases. This is illustrated in this case of Atty. Mario Makaso.

Attorney Makaso is the lawyer of Rica Laso, who was sued by her husband Ricardo Valdez for Declaration of Nullity of their marriage. While the case is still pending, Atty. Makaso posted on Facebook (FB) a copy of the Petition in the nullity case and thereafter sent a link of the post to Jimmy Velasco, the son of Ricardo, stating as follows: “Paki tingnan mo ang iyong ama iho at huwag mo siyang gagayahin ha.” The post on FB is captioned “Wise and Polygamous Husband” and contains the following:

“After marrying a girl as his second wife while his first wife was still alive, when there was no doubt it was bigamous and a crime of bigamy, this man still has the gall to file a petition to declare his second marriage void.

“In his petition he asked the Regional Trial Court to declare his marriage void because of lack of marriage license and not because his marriage is bigamous.

“If you wish to read his petition, a copy is attached here. His intention in filing the petition is to prevent his second wife’s criminal case of bigamy from succeeding by reason of prejudicial question.”

Because of the foregoing posts of Atty. Makaso, Ricardo Valdez filed an Administrative Complaint for his disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

In his verified answer, Atty. Makaso admitted that he published the subject post in his FB account and sent a link thereof to Ricardo’s son, Jimmy Velasco. However, he denied harassing Ricardo and insisted that he was only performing his duties as “spokesman-lawyer” of his client, Rica. He asserted that he was not tarnishing the reputation of Ricardo Valdez when he published the post on FB and that his actions did not constitute libel as he was only telling the truth contained in the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the marriage between Ricardo and Rica Valdez.

But the IBP found that Atty. Makaso breached the rule on the privacy and confidentiality of the Family Court proceedings and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year. The IBP held that Atty. Makaso’s contentions that he was merely acting in his capacity as the “spokesman lawyer” of his client or that he was merely exercising his right to press freedom as a “journalist blogger” did not justify a violation of the CPR.

The Supreme Court (SC) upheld the IBP ruling that Atty. Makaso should be administratively liable for publishing the subject post and photograph of Ricardo’s petition in his FB accounts. According to the SC, a lawyer is not allowed to divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Regardless of whether a lawyer is representing his client in court, acting as a supposed spokesperson outside of it, or is merely practicing his right to press freedom as a “journalist blogger,” his duties to the society and his ethical obligations as a member of the Bar remain unchanged.

Here he violated the Family Court Act (RA 8369, Section 12) which prohibits the publication or disclosure of the records of Family Court cases. This is also a breach of his duty under Canon 13, Rule 13.02 of the CPR as the subject post not only disclosed confidential information regarding the nullity case but also included his own strongly worded opinion regarding Ricardo’s character and the circumstances surrounding the case.

In addition, when he used the words “polygamous,” “criminal,” “dishonest,” “arrogance,” “disgusting” and “cheater” in the subject post and in his pleadings in direct reference to Ricardo, he violated Rule 801 of the CPR which provides that: “A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.” Indeed a lawyer’s language, though forceful and emphatic, must always be dignified, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind description has no place in the dignity of the judicial forum.

Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory and illuminating but not offensive. A lawyer must employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. (Velasco vs. Causing, A.C. 12883, March 2, 2021)

* * * Email: js0711192@gmail.com