The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Berteni C. Causing for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by posting a complaint for Plunder on his Facebook account before filing it with the Ombudsman. This decision underscores that attorneys must exercise caution and restraint in their online conduct, as their constitutional right to free speech is limited by their ethical obligations to the legal profession and the rule of law. The Court emphasized that social media is not an appropriate forum for airing grievances and that lawyers who use such platforms to damage reputations weaken the integrity of the legal system.

When Online Posts Lead to Professional Fallout: Disbarment for Social Media Misconduct

This case arose from a complaint filed by Jackiya A. Lao against Atty. Berteni C. Causing, alleging that he violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR. The core issue revolved around Atty. Causing’s decision to publish a draft complaint-affidavit for Plunder on his Facebook account, accusing Lao and others of the crime of Plunder. Lao argued that this action subjected her to public hatred, contempt, and ridicule, thereby besmirching her reputation. The central legal question was whether Atty. Causing’s social media activity constituted a breach of his professional responsibilities as a lawyer.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and initially recommended a six-month suspension for Atty. Causing. However, the IBP Board of Governors later modified this recommendation to a mere reprimand, reasoning that the complaint was eventually filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Lao sought further review, leading the Supreme Court to weigh in on the matter. The Supreme Court disagreed with the IBP’s modified recommendation.

The Court emphasized that substantial evidence supported Lao’s allegations that Atty. Causing violated Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the CPR. Rule 1.01 states that “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct,” while Rule 7.03 prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on their fitness to practice law or behaving scandalously to the discredit of the legal profession. The Court highlighted that Atty. Causing’s admission of posting the complaint on Facebook, coupled with his defense based on freedom of expression, did not absolve him of his ethical breaches.

The Court rejected Atty. Causing’s reliance on freedom of expression, citing Belo-Henares vs. Atty. Guevarra, which clarified that constitutional freedoms are not absolute. The Court stated:

Time and again, it has been held that the freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute. While the freedom of expression and the right of speech and of the press are among the most zealously protected rights in the Constitution, every person exercising them, as the Civil Code stresses, is obliged to act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. As such, the constitutional right of freedom of expression may not be availed of to broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others, destroy their name or reputation or bring them into disrepute.

Building on this principle, the Court asserted that Atty. Causing, as a member of the Bar, should have known that social media is not the appropriate forum for airing grievances. Instead, he should have pursued his complaint through the proper legal channels. The Court emphasized that a lawyer who uses extra-legal forums weakens the rule of law. The Court further noted that the intention behind Atty. Causing’s Facebook post was to damage the reputation of the respondents in the Plunder case, demonstrating a clear violation of ethical standards.

The Court also pointed out that the subsequent filing of the complaint with the Ombudsman did not negate the harm already inflicted on the respondents’ reputations. The Court highlighted evidence showing that Lao was subjected to public hate, contempt, and ridicule due to Atty. Causing’s post, with people calling her derogatory names online. The Supreme Court went further and declared that Atty. Causing also violated Rule 8.01 of the CPR, which states that a lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper.

The Court cited the Lawyer’s Oath, which mandates lawyers to conduct themselves in a manner that upholds the integrity of the legal profession. The Court also quoted Ong vs. Atty. Unto, which enjoined lawyers to act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play, and nobility, stating, “Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the Bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and comport himself in such a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.”

Notably, this was not the first time Atty. Causing had been sanctioned. In Velasco vs. Atty. Causing, he was suspended for one year for violating the confidentiality of a family court proceeding by publishing information on Facebook. The Court emphasized that lawyers cannot separate their professional and personal capacities and that their ethical obligations remain unchanged regardless of the platform they use. The relevant portion of the Velasco case states:

First, 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.

Given Atty. Causing’s repeated misconduct, the Court determined that the appropriate penalty was disbarment. Citing Francisco vs. Atty. Real, the Court emphasized that it does not hesitate to impose disbarment on repeat offenders. In the *Francisco* case, the Court stated:

The Court, however, does not hesitate to impose the penalty of disbarment when the guilty party has become a repeat offender.

The Court highlighted that Atty. Causing had recently served a one-year suspension and that the previous disbarment complaint should have served as a deterrent. However, his continued misconduct demonstrated a disregard for his ethical obligations, warranting the ultimate penalty. The Court issued a strong caution to lawyers about their online conduct and reminded them to exercise restraint, as their oath and responsibilities limit their freedom of expression. Failure to do so, according to the Court, would allow parties to circumvent the rule of law by seeking public trial on social media.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Causing violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by posting a complaint for Plunder on his Facebook account before it was filed with the Ombudsman.
What rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility did Atty. Causing violate?	Atty. Causing violated Rules 1.01, 7.03, and 8.01 of the CPR, which prohibit lawyers from engaging in dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, conduct that reflects adversely on their fitness to practice law, and the use of abusive or offensive language.
Did the Supreme Court consider Atty. Causing’s right to freedom of expression?	Yes, the Supreme Court considered Atty. Causing’s right to freedom of expression but clarified that this right is not absolute and is limited by the ethical obligations of lawyers to maintain the integrity of the legal profession.
What was the significance of Atty. Causing previously being suspended from the practice of law?	Atty. Causing’s prior suspension was a significant factor in the Supreme Court’s decision to disbar him, as it demonstrated a pattern of misconduct and a failure to adhere to the ethical standards of the legal profession.
Why was the IBP’s recommendation of reprimand rejected by the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court rejected the IBP’s recommendation of reprimand because it found that the gravity of Atty. Causing’s misconduct, coupled with his prior suspension, warranted the more severe penalty of disbarment.
What is the main takeaway for lawyers from this case?	The main takeaway is that lawyers must exercise caution and restraint in their online conduct and recognize that their ethical obligations to the legal profession and the rule of law limit their constitutional right to free speech.
What constitutes substantial evidence in administrative cases against lawyers?	Substantial evidence is defined as that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, according to the Rules of Court.
What was the Court’s final ruling in this case?	The Court found Atty. Berteni C. Causing guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility and ordered his disbarment from the practice of law.

The disbarment of Atty. Causing serves as a stern reminder to all members of the legal profession about the importance of upholding ethical standards both in their professional and personal lives, particularly in the age of social media. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that lawyers are held to a higher standard of conduct and that their actions, whether online or offline, must reflect the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Jackiya A. Lao vs. Atty. Berteni C. Causing, A.C. No. 13453, October 04, 2022