Case Summary (A.C. No. 13453)
Petitioner
Jackiya A. Lao.
Respondent
Atty. Berteni C. Causing.
Key Dates
• January 18 & 31, 2019 – Publication of draft and later final Complaint-Affidavit for Plunder on Facebook.
• February 11, 2019 – Administrative complaint filed before the Supreme Court’s Office of the Bar Confidant.
• June 10, 2019 – Respondent’s Answer-Affidavit.
• December 11, 2019 – Mandatory conference.
• June 15, 2020 – IBP Investigating Commissioner’s Report recommending six-month suspension.
• October 16, 2021 – IBP Board of Governors modifies penalty to reprimand.
• January 21, 2022 – IBP Extended Resolution explaining modification.
• October 4, 2022 – Decision promulgated by the Supreme Court En Banc.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution – Freedom of expression is not absolute.
• Lawyer’s Oath – Obligation to “do no falsehood” and avoid groundless suits.
• Code of Professional Responsibility:
– Rule 1.01(a): Prohibits unlawful, dishonest or deceitful conduct.
– Rule 7.03(a): Forbids scandalous behavior reflecting on fitness to practice law.
– Rule 8.01(a): Prohibits abusive, offensive or improper language in professional dealings.
Factual Background
Lao alleged that on January 18, 2019, Atty. Causing posted on Facebook an unfiled draft Complaint-Affidavit for Plunder accusing her and others of misappropriating P226 million in DSWD funds. She contended the accusations were false, publicly disparaged her, and were repeated on January 31, 2019, when respondent announced filing before the Office of the Ombudsman. The defamation caused public ridicule and invective. In his Answer-Affidavit, respondent admitted authorship of the posts, invoking freedom of expression and reliance on investigative reports by the PCIJ, and argued that subsequent filing of the complaint justified dismissal of the administrative charge.
IBP Findings and Recommendation
– Investigating Commissioner (June 15, 2020): Found violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and CPR; recommended six-month suspension.
– IBP Board of Governors (October 16, 2021): Modified penalty to reprimand on the ground that the Complaint-Affidavit was ultimately filed before the Ombudsman.
– Extended Resolution (January 21, 2022): Emphasized that posting was offset by subsequent proper filing.
Issue
Whether respondent’s publication of his plunder Complaint-Affidavit on Facebook violated the Lawyer’s Oath and CPR.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
- Substantial evidence supports that respondent engaged in deceitful and scandalous conduct in violation of Rules 1.01 and 7.03(a).
- Freedom of expression and of the press under the 1987 Constitution are not absolute; they do not license publication of lies, half-truths or abuse of reputation (citing Belo-Henares v. Atty. Guevarra).
- Facebook is not a proper legal forum; airing unfiled or defamatory charges online undermines the rule of law.
- Abusive language accusing Lao of theft violated Rule 8.01(a).
- The Lawyer’s Oath requires fidelity to truth and law, forbidding groundless or malicious suits.
- Respondent is a
Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 13453)
Antecedents (Facts of the Case)
- Complainant Jackiya A. Lao filed on February 11, 2019 an administrative complaint against Atty. Berteni C. Causing for alleged violation 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, unfiled Complaint-Affidavit for Plunder accusing Lao and others of plunder.
- The publication was allegedly intended to bolster publicity for his sister, Lyndale Causing, candidate for Representative of South Cotabato’s 2nd District.
- No such complaint was then pending or filed with the Office of the Ombudsman; the Facebook post subjected Lao to public hate, contempt and ridicule and tarnished her professional reputation.
- Atty. Causing misidentified Lao as “Chairperson of the Bids and Awards Committee of DSWD Regional Office XII” responsible for awarding food packs to Tacurong Fit Mart, Inc., an allegation Lao maintained to be completely false.
- On January 31, 2019, Atty. Causing repeated the publication, this time announcing on Facebook that he had already filed his Plunder complaint with the Ombudsman.
- Lao further insisted that false imputations persisted in the final Affidavit-Complaint actually filed before the Ombudsman.
Respondent’s Answer and Defenses
- In his Answer-Affidavit dated June 10, 2019, Atty. Causing admitted authorship of the Facebook posts.
- He grounded his Plunder complaint on investigative reports by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) and claimed that the supporting evidence justified dismissal of the administrative cause.
- He invoked freedom of the press and expression as his defense for publishing unfiled and filed pleadings on a social-media platform.
- During the mandatory conference on December 11, 2019, Atty. Causing failed to appear; he was represented by another counsel.
IBP Proceedings and Recommendations
- On June 15, 2020, IBP Investigating Commissioner Gilbert L. Macatangay recommended suspension of Atty. Causing from the practice