Jackiya Lao vs Atty. Berteni Causing
AC 13453
October 4, 2022
Facts:
Atty. Causing published in his facebook account a draft complaint-affidavit for plunder against Lao as the Chairperson of the BAC of DSWD Region XII. Such publication subjected Lao to public hate, contempt and ridicule considering that at that time no such complaint was filed or pending before the Ombudsman.
Atty. Causing repeated his allegation again in 2019 on a different facebook post announcing that he has filed the complaint for plunder before the Office of the Ombudsman.
In his answer, Atty. Causing did not deny that he is the author of the posts. He insisted that the fact that the complaint is supported by evidence, was already a sufficient justification to dismiss the administrative complaint while also citing the exercise of freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended a suspension for 6 months; however, it was modified by the IBP Board of Governors to a penalty of reprimand considering that the complaint was ultimately filed by the respondent towards the proper legal authorities.
Lao charged Atty. Causing with violation of Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Ethics.
Issue:
W or N Atty. Causing violated the CPR and the Lawyer’s Oath when he posted his complaint for plunder on his facebook account to the detriment of the complainant?
Ruling: YES. (He was disbarred)
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 Lao 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 respondents in the complaint for Plunder, including Lao, were called several names including "nangungurakot" and "corrupt na official.
Also, the lawyer’s oath provides that a lawyer shall conduct himself as a lawyer according to his best knowledge and discretion. Such oath mandates lawyers to conduct themselves in a manner which would keep the integrity of the legal profession intact. The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin lawyers to act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the course of his practice of law.
Furthermore, this is not the first time Atty. Causing has been sanctioned by the court. In Velasco vs Atty. Causing, he was suspended for 1 year for violating the confidentiality of an ongoing family court proceeding.
In Francisco vs. Atty. Real, the court did not hesitate to impose the penalty of disbarment when the guilty party has become a repeat offender.
While freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Constitution, the lawyer's oath and his duties and responsibilities ultimately serve as a limit thereto. We caution lawyers to be circumspect in their postings online. They are 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.
Atty. Causing was disbarred.