Lao v. Causing
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Jackiya A. Lao charged Atty. Berteni C. Causing with violating the Lawyer's Oath and Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Lao alleged that on January 18, 2019, Atty. Causing published a draft Complaint-Affidavit for Plunder on his Facebook account, accusing Lao and others of the crime. This publication, made before the complaint was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman, allegedly subjected Lao to public hate, contempt, and ridicule, besmirching her reputation. Atty. Causing repeated the publication on January 31, 2019, after he had filed the complaint. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner recommended a six-month suspension for Atty. Causing. The IBP Board of Governors modified this to a reprimand, reasoning that the complaint was ultimately filed with the proper authorities. The Court reviewed the case. The Petition: The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Atty. Causing violated the CPR and the Lawyer's Oath by posting his Complaint for Plunder on Facebook to the detriment of the complainant.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Causing violated the CPR and the Lawyer's Oath when he posted his Complaint for Plunder on his Facebook account to the detriment of herein complainant.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Berteni C. Causing guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is disbarred from the practice of law, and the Office of the Bar Confidant is directed to remove his name from the Roll of Attorneys.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that Atty. Causing violated the Lawyer's Oath and Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the CPR. Atty. Causing admitted to publishing the complaint on his Facebook account. His defense of freedom of speech and press was deemed untenable, as these rights are not absolute and cannot be used to broadcast lies, half-truths, or to destroy the reputation of others. The Court emphasized that social media is not a proper forum for airing grievances or conducting a "public trial." The damage to the complainant's reputation was already done by the social media posts, regardless of the subsequent filing of the complaint. Furthermore, Atty. Causing also violated Rule 8.01 of the CPR by using abusive and improper language in his professional dealings, as evidenced by the comments on his post calling the respondents "nangungurakot" and "corrupt na official." The Court noted that this was not Atty. Causing's first offense, referencing a previous one-year suspension for violating confidentiality in Velasco vs. Atty. Causing. Considering his repeated misconduct and prior suspension, the Court found disbarment to be the appropriate penalty.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who publishes a complaint containing accusations of serious crimes like plunder on social media before its official filing, thereby exposing the complainant to public hate, contempt, and ridicule, violates the Lawyer's Oath and Rules 1.01, 7.03, and 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The defense of freedom of speech and expression is untenable as these rights are not absolute and do not permit the broadcasting of lies, half-truths, or the destruction of another's reputation. The subsequent filing of the complaint does not negate the damage already caused. Given a history of prior disciplinary actions, including suspension, such repeated misconduct warrants the ultimate penalty of disbarment.