The Supreme Court held that lawyers are subject to administrative liability for their social media posts that are disrespectful, inappropriate, and discriminatory, particularly towards the LGBTQIA+ community. This decision emphasizes that lawyers must maintain a high standard of conduct both in their public and private lives, including online, and that their right to privacy is limited when their online activities reflect poorly on their fitness to practice law. This ruling serves as a reminder that the principles of non-discrimination and equality are deeply embedded in the Philippine legal system, and members of the legal profession must adhere to these principles, especially when interacting with or discussing LGBTQIA+ individuals.

From Banter to Breach: When Lawyers’ Social Media Posts Invite Disciplinary Action

In a case that underscores the evolving intersection of law and social media, the Supreme Court addressed the administrative liabilities of several lawyers for their disturbing Facebook posts. The case, RE: DISTURBING SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS OF LAWYERS/LAW PROFESSORS, A.M. No. 21-06-20-SC, April 11, 2023, arose from a motu proprio action by the Court, prompted by concerns over comments made by Attys. Noel V. Antay, Jr., Ernesto A. Tabujara III, Israel P. Calderon, Morgan Rosales Nicanor, and Joseph Marion Peña Navarrete. Their online exchanges, which touched on members of the LGBTQIA+ community and judges in Taguig City, were deemed inappropriate and led to an investigation regarding potential violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

The controversy began with a series of Facebook posts where the lawyers made comments perceived as disrespectful and discriminatory. Atty. Antay, Jr. initiated the thread by discussing a case he prosecuted against a member of the LGBTQIA+ community, describing the individual and a judge in a manner that suggested bias. Atty. Tabujara III followed with remarks about a judge’s appearance and sweeping generalizations about judges in Taguig City. Other lawyers chimed in with comments that further perpetuated stereotypes and contributed to the demeaning tone of the conversation. This led the Supreme Court to consider whether these lawyers had violated ethical standards and whether their right to privacy shielded them from administrative sanctions.

The lawyers argued, among other things, that their posts were made in jest, within a private online circle, and without the intention to malign or disrespect anyone. Atty. Antay, Jr. claimed his social media profile was locked, suggesting an expectation of privacy. However, the Supreme Court firmly rejected these defenses, citing the limited application of the right to privacy in online activities, especially for members of the legal profession. The Court referenced the landmark case of Belo-Henares v. Atty. Guevarra, which clarified that even with privacy settings, social media posts are not guaranteed absolute protection from wider visibility.

Facebook is currently the most popular social media site, having surpassed one (1) billion registered accounts and with 1.71 billion monthly active users. Social media are web-based platforms that enable online interaction and facilitate users to generate and share content.

The Court emphasized that lawyers, as keepers of public faith, bear a high degree of social responsibility and must handle their affairs, including online conduct, with great caution. The applicable provision of the CPR, Rule 7.03, states that lawyers shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on their fitness to practice law or behave scandalously to the discredit of the legal profession. The Court referenced Belo-Henares v. Atty. Guevarra, underscoring that inappropriate, disrespectful, and defamatory language, even in the private sphere, falls under the Court’s disciplinary authority.

Furthermore, the Court reiterated the importance of respecting the freedom of expression of LGBTQIA+ individuals and adhering to the principles of non-discrimination and equality. Citing Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC, the Court highlighted that freedom of expression applies to those that offend, shock, or disturb and that the Philippines adheres to internationally recognized principles of non-discrimination and equality as noted in CBEAI v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, and this freedom applies not only to those that are favorably received but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb.

The Supreme Court examined analogous cases where lawyers and judges were sanctioned for offensive language, referring to Dojillo, Jr. v. Ching, where a judge was admonished for offensive language against a lesbian, and Espejon v. Judge Loredo, where a judge was found to have committed simple misconduct for using homophobic slurs. The Court also considered cases involving disrespectful language toward the courts, as in Judge Baculi v. Atty. Battung and Go v. Court of Appeals, to determine appropriate penalties.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court considered the specific comments made by each lawyer, noting Atty. Antay, Jr.’s initial post setting a homophobic tone, Atty. Tabujara III’s sweeping statements about judges’ mental fitness and sexuality, and the other lawyers’ comments that perpetuated stereotypes. The Court found each lawyer guilty of breaching Rule 7.03 of the CPR. Based on the nature of the comments and the lawyers’ respective roles in the conversation, the Court determined varying degrees of culpability.

Atty. Nicanor, Atty. Navarrete, Atty. Antay, Jr., and Atty. Calderon were reprimanded for their intemperate language, with a stern warning against future similar offenses. Atty. Tabujara III received a heavier penalty, a fine of PHP 25,000.00, due to the severity of his sweeping statements and lack of sincere apology. The Court emphasized that his comments not only violated Rule 7.03 but also jeopardized the high esteem in courts and undermined public confidence in the judiciary. His position as a law professor further aggravated the offense, as it contradicted the expected ethical standards for educators as stated in Re: Anonymous Complaint Against Cresencio P. Co Untian.

Comparison of Penalties

Lawyer	Violation	Penalty
Atty. Nicanor	Rule 7.03 (CPR) – Intemperate language against the LGBTQIA+ community	Reprimand with stern warning
Atty. Navarrete	Rule 7.03 (CPR) – Intemperate language against the LGBTQIA+ community	Reprimand with stern warning
Atty. Antay, Jr.	Rule 7.03 (CPR) – Intemperate language against the LGBTQIA+ community	Reprimand with stern warning
Atty. Calderon	Rule 7.03 (CPR) – Intemperate language against the LGBTQIA+ community	Reprimand with stern warning
Atty. Tabujara III	Rule 7.03 (CPR) – Sweeping statements about judges; Homophobic remarks	Fine of PHP 25,000.00 with stern warning

The Supreme Court clarified that it is not a defense for lawyers to claim that discriminatory language was intended for private exchanges as the fitness to practice law involves one’s competence as well as character. The Court found that the conversations became public, and each respondent violated Rule 7.03 of the CPR.

In a separate concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Leonen emphasized the need for respect for each person’s SOGIESC (sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics). Justice Leonen argued that respect is at the core of human dignity, and this includes respect for each person’s SOGIESC. When lawyers use discriminatory and derogatory language, they not only disrespect the specific lawyers and judges to whom the language is directed, but also demonstrate their disrespect for the inherent dignity and rights of an entire group of marginalized peoples.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the lawyers’ Facebook posts constituted a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically regarding conduct that reflects on their fitness to practice law and their duty to maintain respect for the courts and the LGBTQIA+ community.
Can lawyers claim a right to privacy for their social media posts?	The Court held that lawyers’ right to privacy is limited, especially when their online activities reflect on their professional conduct. Even with privacy settings, there is no guarantee that posts will remain private, and lawyers can be held accountable for inappropriate content.
What is Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?	Rule 7.03 states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on their fitness to practice law, nor shall they behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. This rule applies to both public and private life.
What was the basis for finding the lawyers liable?	The lawyers were found liable for posting comments on Facebook that were deemed disrespectful, discriminatory, and inappropriate, particularly concerning members of the LGBTQIA+ community and judges.
Why was Atty. Tabujara III given a heavier penalty?	Atty. Tabujara III received a heavier penalty (a fine of PHP 25,000.00) because his comments were considered more severe due to his sweeping statements about judges and his lack of a sincere apology. Additionally, he is a law professor which is taken into consideration.
What is SOGIESC, and why is it relevant to this case?	SOGIESC stands for Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics. It is relevant because the Court emphasized the importance of respecting every person’s SOGIESC and held that discriminatory language against the LGBTQIA+ community is a violation of ethical standards for lawyers.
What is the significance of Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC?	Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC was cited to underscore that freedom of expression applies to those that offend, shock, or disturb. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community, and the case played a key role.
What were the penalties imposed on the lawyers in this case?	Atty. Nicanor, Atty. Navarrete, Atty. Antay, Jr., and Atty. Calderon were reprimanded with a stern warning. Atty. Tabujara III was fined PHP 25,000.00 with a stern warning.
What is the Safe Spaces Act and how does it relate to this case?	The Safe Spaces Act (Republic Act No. 11313) recognizes that both men and women must have equality, security, and safety not only in private, but also on the streets, public spaces, online, workplaces, and educational and training institutions. This case highlights that inappropriate, disrespectful, belligerent, or malicious language can be a source of criminal liability under the Safe Spaces Act, with gender-based sexual harassment, including transphobic and homophobic slurs, potentially warranting progressive penalties.

In closing, the Supreme Court’s decision serves as a stark reminder that lawyers must uphold ethical standards both in their professional and personal lives, and it reinforces the legal profession’s duty to respect and protect the rights of all individuals, including those in the LGBTQIA+ community. This landmark ruling sets a precedent for holding legal professionals accountable for their online conduct and underscores the importance of fostering a culture of inclusivity and respect within 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: RE: DISTURBING SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS OF LAWYERS/LAW PROFESSORS, A.M. No. 21-06-20-SC, April 11, 2023