BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
BERNADETTE C. ONCINES VS. ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING, A.C. 11508 (JUNE 10, 2026): CAN THE SUPREME COURT STILL IMPOSE ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY OVER A DISBARRED LAWYER?
Atty. Berteni C. Causing has been suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year for violating the confidentiality of an ongoing family court proceeding by publishing the pleadings on social media in the case of Velasco vs. Atty. Causing, A.C. No. 12883, March 2, 2021; imposed the supreme penalty of Disbarment in the case of Lao vs. Atty. Causing, A.C. No. 13453, October 4, 2022, for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath when he once again utilized social media to public defamatory accusations of Plunder against Lao and other individuals; and in the most recent case of Hidalgo vs. Atty. Causing, A.C. No. 11993, March 4, 2025, the Supreme Court again imposed the penalty of disbarment on Atty. Causing to be appended to his records should he seek for reinstatement for malicious and unfounded imputation of accepting bribe on a judge in the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City.
In the instant case, the Supreme Court held that Atty. Causing violated Section 2, Canon II of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), to wit: “SECTION 2. Dignified conduct. – A lawyer shall respect the law, the courts, tribunals and other government agencies, their officials, employees and: processes, and act with courtesy, civility, fairness, and candor towards fellow members of the bar.” Atty. Causing angrily shouted at complainant Bernadette C. Oncines, personnel of the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City, when he demanded why Oncines issued a Certification in a land dispute when she supposedly had no discretion to do so. Atty. Causing did this in front of his client Licup and Oncines’ co-employees. In Atty. Causing’s Mandatory Conference Brief, he also ascribed partiality and malice on RTC Butuan’s Judge Escatron and even accused the latter of being the one who prodded Oncines in filing an administrative case against him which the Supreme Court found to be baseless and should have been ventilated in a different forum.
In the instant case, Atty. Causing violated the Code of Professional Responsibility in 2016 or six years before he was disbarred in 2002. The Supreme Court held that it does not lose its jurisdiction over other offenses committed by a disbarred lawyer while he was still a member of the profession or prior to his disbarment. The Court held that by imposing a fine, the Court is able to assert its authority and competence to discipline all acts and actuations committed by the members of the legal profession. It is settled that the Court may choose to impose a fine upon a disbarred lawyer when subsequently found guilty of a new charge as provided under Section 42, Canon VI of the CPRA.
To summarize, the Court finds respondent guilty of violating: (a) Canon II, Section 2 of the CPRA for failure to observe and maintain respect towards the Court, its processes and its employees; and (b) Canon III, Section 2 of the CPRA for willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the Supreme Court. Given the factual milieu of this case, and especially considering respondent’s repeated infractions, the Supreme Court imposed the fines of (a) Php120,000.00 for his failure to observe and maintain respect; and (b) Php35,000.00 for his willful noncompliance with the lawful directives of the IBP.