Case Digest (A.C. No. 13453) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In A.C. No. 13453 (Formerly CBD Case No. 19-5956), Jackiya A. Lao filed on February 11, 2019 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a complaint against Atty. Berteni C. Causing, alleging violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Lao recounted that on January 18, 2019, Atty. Causing published on his Facebook account a draft, not yet filed, Complaint-Affidavit for Plunder, falsely accusing Lao—erroneously described as “Chairperson of the Bids and Awards Committee of the DSWD Regional Office No. XII”—of diverting P226 million in relief goods. This publication, unsupported by any pending Ombudsman case at that time, exposed Lao to public hate and ridicule. On January 31, 2019, he repeated the allegations, claiming he had formally filed the complaint. In his Answer-Affidavit dated June 10, 2019, Atty. Causing admitted authorship of the Facebook posts, invoked reports by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journ Case Digest (A.C. No. 13453) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Filing and nature of the complaint
- On February 11, 2019, Jackiya A. Lao (“Lao”) filed a complaint against Atty. Berteni C. Causing (“Atty. Causing”), charging him with violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
- Lao alleged that on January 18, 2019, Atty. Causing published on his Facebook account a draft (not yet filed) Complaint-Affidavit for Plunder accusing Lao and others of Plunder, causing reputational harm and public ridicule despite no pending case before the Ombudsman.
- Subsequent publications and allegations
- On January 31, 2019, Atty. Causing republished his Complaint-Affidavit on Facebook, this time announcing its filing with the Ombudsman; Lao maintained the final version contained false imputations, including misidentifying her role in a bidding process.
- Lao submitted screenshots showing public comments labeling her “corrupt” and subjecting her to contempt and hate.
- Respondent’s admission and defense
- In his Answer-Affidavit (June 10, 2019), Atty. Causing admitted authorship of the posts and explained his basis as investigative reports from the PCIJ, arguing that supporting evidence justified his actions and that his FB publications were exercises of press freedom.
- A mandatory conference (December 11, 2019) proceeded despite Atty. Causing’s non-appearance; his counsel was represented by a substitute.
- IBP proceedings and recommendations
- The IBP Investigating Commissioner (June 15, 2020) found violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and CPR, recommending six-month suspension from practice.
- The IBP Board of Governors (October 16, 2021) modified the penalty to a reprimand, and in an Extended Resolution (January 21, 2022) cited as rationale the eventual formal filing of the plunder complaint.
Issues:
- Whether Atty. Causing violated the Lawyer’s Oath and CPR (Rules 1.01, 7.03, 8.01) by posting his Complaint for Plunder on Facebook.
- What penalty is appropriate given his misconduct and prior disciplinary history.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)