Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado
“Jackiya A. Lao vs. Atty. Berteni C. Causing”, A.C. 13453, October 4, 2022:
Supreme Court Disbars a Lawyer Who Posted on Social Media Plunder Complaint Before Filing
This case stems from a complaint of complainant Jackiya Lao against respondent Atty. Berteni Causing. Petitioner Lao is accusing respondent Atty. Causing of publishing in the latter’s Facebook account a draft and yet to be filed Complaint-Affidavit against the former and two (2) others for the crime of Plunder. According to Ms. Lao, in the draft Complaint-Affidavit posted on January 18, 2019, respondent Atty. Causing named and referred to her as the “Chairperson of the Bids and Awards Committee (“BAC”) of the Department of Social Work and Development (“DSWD”) Regional Office No. XII and the one who ended up awarding the supposed food packs to Tacurong Fit Mart, Inc.” Complainant Lao alleged that such posting by respondent Atty. Causing besmirched her good name and reputation and subjected her to public hate, ridicule and contempt as these imputations are supposedly false.
Respondent Atty. Causing allegedly repeated his false imputation against Lao and other individuals on January 31, 2019, when he again published his Complaint-Affidavit on his social media account. On that posting, respondent Atty. Causing announced that he already filed his complaint for Plunder before the Office of the Ombudsman. Again, complainant Lao insisted that the allegations in the Complaint-Affidavit are false.
Respondent Atty. Causing did not deny in making such posts on his social media account but justified that the basis of the filing of the Complaint-Affidavit are investigative reports from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. Respondent Atty. Causing also submitted that the Facebook posts are an exercise of the freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
The Investigating Commissioner found respondent Atty. Causing liable and imposed the penalty of suspension for six (6) months. The Board of Governors modified the penalty to reprimand as it justified that respondent Atty. Causing eventually filed the said Complaint-Affidavit for Plunder before the Office of the Ombudsman.
In its per curiam Decision, the Supreme Court imposed the supreme penalty of disbarment on respondent Atty. Causing. Citing the case of Belo-Henares vs. Atty. Guevarra, A.C. No. 11394, December 1, 2016, the Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute as 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. In finding respondent Atty. Causing liable of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath, the Court held:
“As a member of the Bar, Atty. Causing ought to know that Facebook—or any other social medium, for that matter-is not the proper forum to air out his grievances, for a lawyer who uses extra—legal fora is a lawyer who weakens the rule of law. In this case, Atty. Causing knew that the proper forum for his complaint is the Office of the Ombudsman.
Atty. Causing’s posting of the complaint for Plunder on his Facebook account was motivated by the desire to damage the reputation of the respondents therein. In fact, it was posted precisely to elicit negative reactions, comments and public opinions against Law and her fellow respondents.
The fact that Atty. Causing subsequently filed the complaint for Plunder before the Office of the Ombudsman is of no moment as the damage to the reputation of therein respondents had already been done. The documentary evidence presented by Lao, which consists of screenshots of Atty. Causing’s post, show that she was subjected to public hate, contempt and ridicule, as several people have commented on the said post. The respondents in the complaint for Plunder, including Lao, were called several names including ‘nangungurakot’ and ‘corrupt na official’.
What prompted the Supreme Court to impose the supreme penalty of disbarment on respondent Atty. Causing is the fact that he was previously suspended for a similar incident, hence, a repeat offender. In the case of Velasco vs. Causing, A.C. No. 12883, March 2, 2021, the Supreme Court suspended respondent Atty. Causing from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year for violating the confidentiality of an ongoing family court proceeding. The Court held:
“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. Thus, considering that Atty. Causing was already suspended for one (1) year with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely, We believe that the appropriate penalty to be imposed herein is the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
Here, the Court takes note of the fact that Atty. Causing had just recently served his one-year suspension pursuant to the ruling in the Velasco case, which was promulgated on March 2, 2021. We likewise note that the acts complained of therein occurred in April 2016 and the corresponding disbarment complaint was filed thereafter. The filing of the disbarment complaint against Atty. Causing in the Velasco case should have served as a deterrent. However, it appears that the same had no effect. Thus, the penalty of disbarment is warranted.”
Finally, the Supreme Court issued a warning that whole freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Constitution, the lawyer’s oath and his duties and responsibilities ultimately serve as a limit thereto. The Court cautioned lawyers to be circumspect in their postings online and reminded to always practice restraint in their conduct, be it in real life or online, otherwise, “the rule of law may very well be completely circumvented and rendered nugatory by blatantly seeking public trial on social media”.