The Supreme Court has ruled that an attorney’s use of social media to publicly defame individuals, even in connection with a legal complaint, constitutes a serious breach of professional ethics and can warrant disbarment, especially in cases of repeated misconduct. This decision underscores the responsibility of lawyers to uphold the integrity of the legal profession both in and out of the courtroom, extending to their online conduct. The Court emphasized that freedom of expression is not absolute and does not protect the broadcasting of lies or half-truths that harm an individual’s reputation. This ruling serves as a stern warning to lawyers to exercise caution and restraint in their online activities, ensuring they do not undermine public confidence in the legal profession.

From Facebook to Disbarment: When an Attorney’s Online Conduct Crosses the Line

In Jackiya A. Lao v. Atty. Berteni C. Causing, the central issue before the Supreme Court was whether Atty. Causing violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Lawyer’s Oath by posting his Complaint for Plunder on his Facebook account, thereby allegedly defaming Jackiya Lao. The complainant, Lao, alleged that Atty. Causing published a draft of his Plunder complaint on Facebook, accusing her and others of the crime. Lao claimed that this action was intended to promote Atty. Causing’s sister’s political campaign and subjected her to public ridicule and contempt. Atty. Causing defended his actions by citing freedom of expression and the press, arguing that his complaint was based on investigative reports. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially recommended a six-month suspension, later modified to a reprimand, but the Supreme Court ultimately imposed the penalty of disbarment due to the severity of the misconduct and Atty. Causing’s prior disciplinary record.

The Court’s ruling hinged on the principle that lawyers must maintain the integrity of the legal profession in all aspects of their lives, including their online conduct. The CPR mandates that lawyers shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Specifically, Rule 1.01 states, “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Similarly, Rule 7.03 prohibits conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law or scandalous behavior that discredits the legal profession. As the Supreme Court stated in Belo-Henares vs. Atty. Guevarra:

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 found that Atty. Causing’s actions exceeded the bounds of protected speech. As an officer of the court, Atty. Causing had a heightened responsibility to act with dignity and respect, even in the exercise of his freedom of expression. By posting the complaint on Facebook, he bypassed the proper legal channels and sought to publicly shame the respondents, including Lao. His defense of freedom of expression was deemed untenable because it was used to broadcast potentially defamatory statements.

Moreover, Atty. Causing’s conduct violated Rule 8.01 of the CPR, which prohibits lawyers from using abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper language in their professional dealings. The Court highlighted the comments posted on Atty. Causing’s Facebook page, where Lao and others were subjected to public hate and ridicule, being labeled as “nangungurakot” and “corrupt na official.” These actions demonstrated a clear intent to malign and damage Lao’s reputation. The Lawyer’s Oath further reinforces this duty, requiring lawyers to conduct themselves with fidelity to the courts and their clients, and to uphold the integrity of the legal profession.

The Court also emphasized the importance of maintaining public confidence in the legal profession. In Ong vs. Atty. Unto, it was stated that:

The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin lawyers to act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the course of his practice of law. A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity. 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.

This decision considered Atty. Causing’s prior disciplinary record. In Velasco vs. Atty. Causing, he was previously suspended for one year for violating the confidentiality of a family court proceeding by publishing sensitive information on Facebook. The Supreme Court noted his propensity to divulge sensitive information online, despite previous sanctions. The Court said: “The aforesaid case and the case at hand show that Atty. Causing has the propensity to divulge sensitive information in online platforms, such as Facebook, to the detriment of the people involved in the said cases.” Given this history and the seriousness of the current offense, the Court determined that disbarment was the appropriate penalty.

The Court’s decision in Francisco vs. Atty. Real provided precedent for the imposition of disbarment in cases of repeated misconduct:

In imposing the appropriate penalty in administrative cases, it is the duty of the Court to exercise its sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts of the case. Well-settled is the rule in our jurisdiction that disbarment ought to be meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and that the Court will not disbar a lawyer where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end. The Court, however, does not hesitate to impose the penalty of disbarment when the guilty party has become a repeat offender.

Therefore, because Atty. Causing had previously been suspended for similar misconduct, the Supreme Court concluded that a more severe penalty was necessary to protect the integrity of the legal profession. The disbarment serves as a reminder that lawyers must exercise caution and restraint in their online postings, and that their conduct, both online and offline, is subject to the ethical standards of the legal profession. This decision reinforces the principle that lawyers must uphold the rule of law and maintain public confidence in the legal system, even in the age of social media.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Causing violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath by posting a complaint for plunder on his Facebook account, thereby potentially defaming the complainant.
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 unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct, conduct that reflects poorly on their fitness to practice law, and the use of abusive or offensive language.
What was Atty. Causing’s defense?	Atty. Causing argued that his actions were protected by freedom of expression and freedom of the press, and that his complaint was based on investigative reports.
Why did the Supreme Court reject Atty. Causing’s defense?	The Supreme Court rejected his defense because freedom of expression is not absolute and cannot be used to justify the dissemination of lies or half-truths that harm someone’s reputation.
What was the initial recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)?	The IBP initially recommended a six-month suspension for Atty. Causing, which was later modified to a reprimand by the IBP Board of Governors.
Why did the Supreme Court impose the penalty of disbarment?	The Supreme Court imposed disbarment due to the severity of Atty. Causing’s misconduct and his prior disciplinary record for similar offenses.
What was the prior disciplinary action against Atty. Causing?	Atty. Causing had previously been suspended for one year for violating the confidentiality of a family court proceeding by publishing sensitive information on Facebook.
What is the significance of this ruling for lawyers in the Philippines?	This ruling serves as a stern warning to lawyers to exercise caution and restraint in their online activities and to uphold the integrity of the legal profession both online and offline.
What does the Lawyer’s Oath require of attorneys?	The Lawyer’s Oath mandates lawyers to conduct themselves in a manner that upholds the integrity of the legal profession, with fidelity to the courts and their clients.
Can a lawyer be disciplined for actions taken in their private capacity?	Yes, a lawyer can be disciplined for misconduct in both their professional and private capacity if it reflects poorly on the legal profession.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Lao v. Causing reaffirms the high ethical standards expected of lawyers in the Philippines, particularly in their use of social media. The disbarment of Atty. Causing underscores the serious consequences of using online platforms to defame individuals and undermine the integrity of the legal profession. This case serves as a crucial reminder for attorneys to exercise restraint and responsibility in their online conduct.

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