BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
JASON GENE H. BALTAO VS. ATTY. JESUS NICARDO M. FALCIS III, A.C. NO. 14443 (NOVEMBER 18, 2025): SUPREME COURT SUSPENDS LAWYER FOR VULGAR WORDS IN HIS TWITTER POST
The instant administrative case stems from the Twitter post of respondent Atty. Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III (“respondent Atty. Falcis”) as follows, “Yung mga biased na dilawan dyan, halata kayo. Sa allegations ni Kris, paniwalang paniwala na kayo agad. Pero sa allegations namin na she threatened my brother, wala ako narinig sa inyo? Pakyu kayo mga gago haha check your cognitive biases.” This post was made after Kris Aquino, a famous television personality and ex-business partner of complainant Jason Gene H. Baltao, filed multiple counts of qualified theft against Nicko Falscis, brother of the respondent.
For his defense before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline, respondent Atty. Falcis invoked previous rulings of the Supreme Court wherein the word “putang ina” was held as not meant to defame someone but an expression of anger or displeasure. Respondent Atty. Falcis also averred that he did not commit any prior administrative violations given that he was only previously cited by the Supreme Court for direct and indirect contempt and the dispositive portion therein only imposed a stern warning on him, thus it was not a penalty.
The IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent Atty. Falcis be held liable for violating Section 4, Canon II of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) for use of abusive, intemperate, offensive or otherwise improper language. The IBP Board of Governors modified the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and meted him the penalties of fine of Php17,500.00 and Reprimand with Stern Warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
The Supreme Court held that respondent Atty. Falcis violated Canon II of the CPRA, particularly Section 4 – “A lawyer shall use only dignified, gender-fair, child- and culturally-sensitive language in all personal and professional dealings. To this end, a lawyer shall not use language which is abusive, intemperate, offensive or otherwise improper, oral or written, and whether made through traditional or electronic means, including all forms or types of mass or social media.” and Section 37 – “A lawyer shall ensure that their online posts, whether made in a public or restricted privacy setting that still holds an audience, uphold the dignity of the legal profession and shield it from disrepute, as well as maintain respect for the law.”
The Court held that it cannot be justified that respondent Atty. Falcis used the words, “pakyu” and “gago” making an excuse that he only uttered such words out of passion to express his anger or displeasure against the supporters of Kris Aquino and that he only acted in defense of his brother and the latter’s reputation. Respondent Atty. Falcis could have remained in the realm of legal discourse by showing news articles and made solid arguments. Rather, respondent Atty. Falcis used profanity to verbally attack what he referred as “dilawans” or supporters of Aquino.
The Supreme Court further held that as a lawyer, respondent Atty. Falcis must understand the consequences of uttering vulgar words in his Twitter account, its risks, and ethical implications, including the likehood of it spreading indiscriminately, becoming available to anyone on social media, and the influence that oy could have on lawyers and non-lawyers alike, not to mentioned the children who have been exposed to social media. The Court also held that while freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Constitution, the lawyer’s oath and their duties and responsibilities ultimately serve as a limit thereto.
For his penalty, the Supreme Court held that respondent Atty. Falcis committed simple misconduct in trying to influence the then pending litigation between his brother and Aquino by attacking the supporters of Aquino using profanity and vulgar words on social media. While simple misconduct is only classified as a less serious offense which range of suspension from the practice of law is for not more than six (6) months, the Court, however, considered respondent Atty. Falcis’ previous infractions of direct and indirect contempt and the gravity of using profane and obscene words on social media to merit a heftier penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.