Title
Supreme Court
Belo-Henares vs. Guevarra
Case
A.C. No. 11394
Decision Date
Dec 1, 2016
A lawyer posted derogatory, sexist remarks on Facebook targeting a doctor, alleging malpractice and demanding money. Found guilty of violating professional ethics, he was suspended for one year.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 11394)

Petitioner

Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares, a renowned cosmetic surgeon and public figure associated with Belo Medical Group, Inc.

Respondent

Atty. Roberto “Argee” C. Guevarra, counsel for Ms. Norcio, accused of making defamatory and extortionate statements on Facebook.

Key Dates

• 2009: Posting of insulting and threatening Facebook remarks by respondent
• October 25, 2009: Filing of verified disbarment complaint (CBD Case No. 09-2551)
• August 13, 2013: IBP-CBD recommends one-year suspension
• September 27, 2014: IBP Board adopts recommendation
• October 28, 2015: Penalty reduced to six-month suspension
• December 1, 2016: Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

1987 Constitution (freedom of speech, right to privacy) and the Code of Professional Responsibility (Rules 1.01–1.02; 7.03; 8.01; 19.01).

Facts

Respondent published multiple Facebook posts beginning July 2009 that disparaged Belo-Henares as a “quack doctor” and “Reyna ng Kaplastikan,” alleged criminal negligence and bribery, urged boycotts of her clinics, and threatened her with prosecution. He also suggested extortion to halt his campaign against her reputation.

Respondent’s Defense

He claimed (1) his posts were private and protected by his constitutional right to privacy; (2) he exercised freedom of speech; (3) complainant is a public figure subject to fair comment; and (4) his demand letter was a procedural prerequisite, not an extortion attempt.

IBP Proceedings and Recommendations

The IBP-CBD found respondent liable under Rules 7.03, 8.01, and 19.01 for public misconduct, abusive language, and unfounded threats of criminal charges. It disregarded his privacy claim given the number of “friends” with access. The IBP Board initially adopted a one-year suspension, later reduced to six months.

Issue

Whether respondent’s Facebook posts constitute administrative violations warranting suspension under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Court’s Findings on Privacy

Facebook’s nature as a social networking site and available privacy settings require a manifest invocation of privacy tools. Respondent offered no proof he restricted access; mere “Friends” settings do not guarantee confidentiality. His right to privacy defense fails.

Court’s Findings on Freedom of Speech

Freedom of expression is subject to obligations of justice, honesty, and good faith. Respondent’s posts were malicious, insulting, and defamatory, going be



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.