Case Digest (A.C. No. 13453)
Facts:
Jackiya A. Lao v. Atty. Berteni C. Causing, A.C. No. 13453 (Formerly CBD Case No. 19-5956), October 04, 2022, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. Complainant Jackiya A. Lao alleged that respondent Atty. Berteni C. Causing published on his Facebook account, on January 18 and again on January 31, 2019, a draft (and later a final) Complaint‑Affidavit for Plunder that named Lao and others as respondents and imputed that they misappropriated funds intended for evacuees. Lao asserted the April 2019 social‑media posts were defamatory and damaging to her reputation at a time when no Ombudsman case was pending (initial post was a draft), and submitted screenshots showing hostile comments and epithets directed at her.Atty. Causing admitted authorship of the Facebook posts in his June 10, 2019 Answer‑Affidavit, defended them as exercises of freedom of expression and press, and stated his factual basis included investigative reports from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ). Lao filed an administrative complaint dated February 11, 2019 charging violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and Rules 1.01 and 7.03 (and ultimately Rule 8.01) of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). A mandatory conference was held on December 11, 2019; counsel for Lao appeared, while Atty. Causing failed to appear in person.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner Gilbert L. Macatangay issued a Report and Recommendation dated June 15, 2020, finding violations and recommending suspension from the practice of law for six months. The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution dated October 16, 2021, modified that recommendation to impose a penalty of reprimand; its Extended Resolution of January 21, 2022 explained the modification on the ground that the complaint posted on Facebook was ultimately fil...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Atty. Berteni C. Causing violate the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (Rules 1.01, 7.03, and 8.01) by posting his Complaint for Plunder on Facebook to the detriment of Jack...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)