NextGen Day

The Supreme Court ruled that lawyers cannot use their freedoms of the press and expression to defend their violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), such as online statements on Facebook about litigation they would or had filed.

Although the Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, the SC stated that this right is ultimately constrained by the lawyer’s oath and his obligations and responsibilities.

“We advise attorneys to exercise prudence when making online statements. They are admonished to exercise discipline at all times, whether they are acting in person or online. Otherwise, by shamelessly demanding a public trial on social media, the rule of law may very well be utterly subverted and declared nugatory,” it cautioned.

In its decision, the SC ruled that Attorney Berteni C. Causing should be barred for violating both the CPR and his lawyer’s oath. On Wednesday, February 1, the SC judgment was made public.

Jackiya A. Lao filed a complaint against Causing on February 11, 2019, alleging that the attorney published a draft of his case accusing her and other people of theft on his Facebook account on January 18, 2019.

As the “Chairperson of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the DSWD (Department of Social Welfare and Development) Regional Office No. XII and the one who handled the bidding that resulted in the awarding of these food packs to Tacurong Fit Mart, Inc.,” Causing identified and referred to Lao in his Facebook post.

Lao rejected the web article. She said in her administrative complaint against Causing that at a time when no complaint had been made or was pending with the Office of the Ombudsman, the publishing had damaged her reputation and good name among Facebook users (OMB).

On January 31, 2019, Causing released his complaint-affidavit for plunder on Facebook, claiming it had been submitted to the OMB. Lao refuted the claims made in the Facebook post once more.

In his answer-affidavit to Lao’s complaint, Causing acknowledged that he was the author of the Facebook posts and claimed that the administrative complaint Lao filed against him should be dismissed because the complaint for plunder before the OMB is backed by evidence.

Causing claimed that his Facebook posts were an expression of his right to free speech and the press.

The investigative commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended Causing’s six-month suspension from the practice of law on June 15, 2020.

On October 16, 2021, the IBP board of governors changed its recommendation, stating that Causing should only receive a reprimand because he was ultimately the one who brought the plunder charge against Lao and others to the OMB.

The SC modified the board of governors’ proposal for the IBP by stating that “Atty. Causing cannot excuse his violations by eluding to the Constitution’s provision that freedom of the press and freedom of expression as such are not absolute.”

SC stated:

As a member of the Bar, Atty. Causing ought to be aware that Facebook, or any other social media platform, for that matter, is not the appropriate venue for airing his complaints. A lawyer who uses extra-legal fora is a lawyer who undermines the rule of law.

“In this instance, Atty. Causing was aware that the Office of the Ombudsman was the appropriate place for his complaint. To harm the reputation of the respondents (Lao and others) there, attorney Causing posted the lawsuit for plunder on his Facebook account.

In actuality, it was published in order to evoke negative responses, remarks, and public perceptions of Lao and her fellow respondents. The fact that Atty. Causing later filed a case for plunder with the Office of the Ombudsman is irrelevant because the respondents’ reputations had already been damaged.

“Lao’s documentary proof, which includes screenshots of Atty. Causing’s post demonstrates that she was the target of public hatred, scorn, and derision as evidenced by the comments left on the post in question. Lao was one of the respondents in the case for plunder and was labeled “nangungurakot” and “corrupt na official,” among other things.

Based on the aforementioned, Atty. Causing also broke CPR Rule 8.01 when he claimed that Lao and the other respondents had stolen P226 million that was meant for evacuees.

“Finally, we want to point out that Atty. Causing has received sanctions from the Court before. Having reached a unanimous decision in Velasco v. Atty. Causing (decided in 2021), the Supreme Court en banc barred Atty. Causing the legal profession for a year for breaching the secrecy of a current family court case.

“The decision’s pertinent passages: The documents reveal that Atty. Causing had previously acknowledged posting the relevant post on Facebook, along with images of the complainant’s petition in the nullity case, and sending the complainant’s son a link to the post. Attorney Causing defends himself by citing his rights to free speech and the press, claiming that when he published the relevant piece, he was just serving as a “spokesman-lawyer” and a “journalist-blogger.”

First off, a lawyer is not permitted to have two distinct personalities—one as an attorney and the other as a regular citizen. A lawyer’s responsibilities to society and his ethical obligations as a member of the Bar are the same whether he is advocating for his client in court, serving as a purported spokesperson outside of it, or just exercising his right to press freedom as a “journalist-blogger.”

The aforementioned case and the current case demonstrate Atty. Causing a tendency for disclosing private material on social media sites like Facebook to the harm of the parties engaged in the cases.

As a result, we believe that disbarment is the most appropriate punishment to be applied here, especially in light of the fact that Atty. Causing was already suspended for one (1) year with a strong warning that a repetition of the same or similar crimes will be dealt with more severely.

“The filing of the suit for Atty. Causing’s disbarment in the Velasco case ought to have acted as a deterrent. It seems, though, that the same had little impact. Disbarment as a punishment is therefore appropriate.

Therefore, the Court declares Atty. Berteni C. Causing GUILTY of breaking the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath. He is DISQUALIFIED from the practice of law by this. It is DIRECTED that Berteni C. Causing’s name be struck off the Roll of Attorneys by the Office of the Bar Confidant.

This decision is unaffected by any ongoing or future actions that may be taken against the respondent. Let copies of this decision be given to the Department of Justice, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator, to be distributed to all courts across the nation for their information and guidance, and to the Bar Confidant’s office to be added to the respondent’s personal record as a member of the bar. This decision is effective right away. THEN ORDERED.

Save/Share this story with QR CODE

---

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute endorsement of any specific technologies or methodologies and financial advice or endorsement of any specific products or services.

📩 Need to get in touch?

Feel free to Email Us for comments, suggestions, reviews, or anything else.

---

We appreciate your reading. 😊Simple Ways To Say Thanks & Support Us:
1.) ❤️GIVE A TIP. Send a small donation thru Paypal😊❤️
Your DONATION will be used to fund and maintain NEXTGENDAY.com
Subscribers in the Philippines can make donations to mobile number 0917 906 3081, thru GCash.
3.) 🛒 BUY or SIGN UP to our AFFILIATE PARTNERS.
4.) 👍 Give this news article a THUMBS UP, and Leave a Comment (at Least Five Words).

---

AFFILIATE PARTNERS

World Class Nutritional Supplements - Buy Highest Quality Products, Purest Most Healthy Ingredients, Direct to your Door! Up to 90% OFF.
Join LiveGood Today - A company created to satisfy the world's most demanding leaders and entrepreneurs, with the best compensation plan today.

---