by Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINES LAWYER FOR DISCUSSING THE MERITS
AND POSTING THE RECORDS OF A FAMILY COURT CASE ON FACEBOOK
In a Decision dated 02 March 2021, the Supreme Court En Banc unanimously suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year Atty. Berteni C. Causing for discussing the merits of the case and posting records thereof in his Facebook account. The case stemmed from an administrative complaint filed by Enrico Velasco against Atty. Causing. Velasco claims that he filed a Petition for Nullity of Marriage against his wife who was represented by Atty. Causing. According to Velasco, Atty. Causing posted and published in his Facebook Page an article entitled “Wise Polygamous Husband” discussing the merits of the case. Complainant Velasco also alleged that Atty. Causing supposedly sent a link of the article to his son, Jomel Velasco, with a message not to imitate his father. Finally, complainant Velasco alleges that Atty. Causing posted photographs of the complete copy of the Petition for Nullity of Marriage.
In his Verified Answer, Atty. Causing admitted that he published the subject post in his Facebook account and that he sent a link thereof to complainant Velasco’s son. However, Atty. Causing claims that he is just doing his duty as “spokesman-lawyer” of his client and that the said post does not constitute libel as he was only telling the truth. The Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Causing guilty for violating provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (“CPR”) and recommended his suspension for a period of one (1) year. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings of the Investigating Commissioner but increased the penalty to suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years.
In the Decision, the Supreme Court held that Atty. Causing violated Section 12 of Republic Act No. 8369, or the Family Courts Act of 1997, which prohibits publication or disclosure, in any manner, of the records of Family Court cases. The Court held that the subject post not only disclosed confidential information regarding the nullity case, but also included his own, strongly worded opinion regarding complainant Velasco’s character and the circumstances surrounding the case. The Court held:
“In addition, Atty. Causing violated Rule 8.01 of the CPR when he used the words ‘polygamous’, ‘criminal’, ‘dishonest’, ‘arrogance’, ‘disgusting’ and ‘cheater’ in the subject post and in his pleadings in direct reference to complainant. Indeed, a lawyer’s language, though forceful and emphatic, must always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, and illuminating but not offensive.”
In the Decision, the Court also held that while a lawyer is expected to exhibit zeal in defending his client’s cause, the same is not without limitation. The Court held that Atty. Causing’s Facebook post was designed to elicit, at the very least, a negative public opinion against complainant Velasco, which is a violation of Rule 19.01 of the CPR. Finally, upholding the earlier ruling of Belo-Henares vs. Atty. Guevarra, A.C. No. 11394 (01 December 2016), the Supreme Court held that the defense of exercise of freedom of speech and expression is untenable if it is meant to “broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others, destroy their name or reputation or bring them into disrepute”.
This case gives warning to lawyers who have the propensity to post case records on social media. Posting records and discussing merits of the case may expose them to administrative liability. Lawyers should uphold the sanctity of confidentiality so that clients will be at ease in confiding all information which will aid the lawyer to prosecute or defend his or her case effectively. That is the purpose why Legal Ethics mandate lawyers to strictly uphold confidentiality, especially in Family Court cases.