A.C. No. 13453 - Lao vs. Causing

Case Summary (A.C. No. 13453)

Petitioner (Complainant) — Allegations

Lao filed an administrative complaint dated February 11, 2019, alleging that Atty. Causing (1) published on his Facebook account on January 18, 2019, a draft and yet-to-be-filed complaint-affidavit for plunder naming Lao and others; (2) repeated the posting on January 31, 2019 and announced that the complaint had been filed; (3) used social media to publicize allegations to benefit his sister’s political campaign; (4) caused public hate, contempt and ridicule against Lao and besmirched her reputation; and (5) falsely referred to Lao as Chairperson of the BAC of DSWD Regional Office No. XII and as the official responsible for awarding food packs to Tacurong Fit Mart, Inc.

Respondent — Admissions and Defense

Atty. Causing admitted authorship of the Facebook posts in his Answer‑Affidavit (dated June 10, 2019). He stated that his main basis for filing the plunder complaint was investigative reports from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) and that the complaint was supported by evidence. He invoked freedom of expression and freedom of the press as defenses and contended that the existence of supporting evidence justified dismissal of the administrative complaint.

Key Dates and Procedural History

January 18, 2019: Initial Facebook publication of a draft plunder complaint (per Lao).
January 31, 2019: Alleged repeat of the Facebook post and announcement of filing.
February 11, 2019: Lao’s administrative complaint filed with the IBP/Commission on Bar Discipline.
June 10, 2019: Atty. Causing’s Answer‑Affidavit.
December 11, 2019: Mandatory conference (Atty. Michael Vargas appeared for Lao; respondent failed to appear).
June 15, 2020: IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended six (6) months suspension.
October 16, 2021: IBP Board of Governors modified recommendation to reprimand.
January 21, 2022: IBP Extended Resolution explained modification (reason: complaint was ultimately filed before the Ombudsman).
October 4, 2022: Supreme Court en banc decision (adopts IBP findings but imposes disbarment).

Applicable Law and Standards

Constitution: 1987 Constitution — freedom of speech, expression, and of the press are recognized but not absolute; constitutional freedoms are subject to limitations consistent with justice, honesty and good faith.
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR): Rules invoked — Rule 1.01 (prohibition on unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct), Rule 7.03 (prohibition on conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law or scandalous behavior), Rule 8.01 (prohibition on abusive, offensive or otherwise improper language in professional dealings).
Lawyer’s Oath: Duties to support the Constitution, obey laws, avoid falsehood, refrain from promoting or suing on groundless or false suits, and to conduct oneself with fidelity to courts and clients.
Administrative standard of proof: Substantial evidence is required in administrative disciplinary proceedings (Rules of Court, Rule 133, Sec. 5; Reyes v. Nieva cited).
Precedent applied: Belo‑Henares v. Guevarra (freedom of expression not absolute for lawyers), Ong v. Unto (ethical duties and promotion of public confidence), Velasco v. Atty. Causing (prior disciplinary suspension for online publication of confidential proceedings), Francisco v. Atty. Real (disbarment for repeat offenders), and others cited by the Court.

Factual Findings Adopted by the Court

The Court accepted that respondent authored and published the Facebook posts and that Lao submitted documentary evidence (screenshots) showing the posts and resulting comments that subjected her to public hate, contempt and ridicule. The posts included allegations that respondent accused Lao and other respondents of stealing approximately P226 million intended for evacuees. The Court found that the initial publication was of a draft complaint not yet filed with the Ombudsman, and that the online posting was designed to elicit negative public reaction and to damage reputations before any official adjudicative process.

Issue Presented

Whether Atty. Causing’s publication on Facebook of a complaint‑affidavit (initially drafted and then later filed) violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Rules 1.01, 7.03 and 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Court’s Legal Analysis — Freedom of Expression and Limits

The Court held that respondent’s reliance on freedom of expression and press rights is untenable in this context because constitutional freedoms are not absolute. Citing Belo‑Henares, the Court reiterated that freedom of expression may not be used to broadcast lies, half‑truths, insults or to destroy reputation. As a lawyer, respondent’s ethical obligations remain unchanged regardless of his invocation of press freedom or role as a citizen; a member of the Bar must act with justice, honesty and good faith and must not seek vindication or public trial through extra‑legal fora that undermine the rule of law.

Court’s Legal Analysis — Violations of the CPR and Lawyer’s Oath

The Court found that respondent violated:

Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 by engaging in conduct that reflected adversely on his fitness to practice law and by behaving in a manner scandalous to the profession through the extrajudicial publication of allegations intended to inflame public opinion;
Rule 8.01 by using abusive and improper language in relation to Lao and others, including accusations of stealing P226 million; and
the Lawyer’s Oath by promoting or publishing allegations that were not properly vetted through the proper forum and by failing to conduct himself with the integrity expected of a member of the Bar.

Procedural and Mitigating/Aggravating Considerations within the IBP Findings

The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension for six months based on the misconduct. The IBP Board of Governors modified that recommendation to a reprimand, reasoning in its Extended Resolution that respondent ultimately filed the complaint before the Ombudsman. The Court acknowledged the IBP findings of substantive misconduct but addressed the appropriate disciplinary measure in light of respondent’s prior disciplinary history and the nature and impact of the conduct.

Prior Discipline and Rationale for a Harsher

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 13453)

Procedural Posture and Case Identification

Case heard en banc as A.C. No. 13453 (Formerly CBD Case No. 19-5956), decided October 4, 2022.
Complaint filed by Jackiya A. Lao dated February 11, 2019, charging Atty. Berteni C. Causing with violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Record references: Complaint and supporting documents appear in the rollo (specific page citations supplied in the source material).
A mandatory conference was conducted on December 11, 2019; counsel for the complainant (Atty. Michael Vargas) appeared; respondent failed to appear and was represented by a certain Helen Consulta.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner Gilbert L. Macatangay issued a Report and Recommendation dated June 15, 2020; subsequent IBP Board of Governors Resolution dated October 16, 2021 modified that recommendation; an Extended Resolution dated January 21, 2022 explained the modification.
Supreme Court en banc issued a per curiam decision adopting IBP findings with modification of penalty and rendering final disposition.

Facts (Antecedents) as Alleged by Complainant

On January 18, 2019, respondent Atty. Causing published on his Facebook account a draft (not yet filed) copy of his Complaint-Affidavit for Plunder, accusing Lao and others of the crime of Plunder.
Complainant alleged the Facebook publication was used to make respondent’s sister, Lyndale Causing, a candidate for Representative of the 2nd District of South Cotabato, known to the public; respondent allegedly used social media for that purpose.
The Facebook publication allegedly subjected Lao to public hate, contempt, and ridicule because at that time no such complaint was filed or pending before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Respondent specifically named and described Lao as “Chairperson of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the DSWD Regional Office No. XII and the one that handled the bidding that ended up in the awarding of these food packs to Tacurong Fit Mart, Inc.”; Lao asserted that allegation was “completely and absolutely wrong.”
Complainant alleged respondent repeated the false imputation on January 31, 2019, when he again published his complaint-affidavit on social media and announced he had already filed his complaint for Plunder before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Complainant submitted documentary evidence consisting of screenshots of respondent’s Facebook posts showing derogatory public comments and name-calling directed at Lao and other respondents (including terms such as “nangungurakot” and “corrupt na official”).
Complainant asserted the posts and publications besmirched her good name and reputation among Facebook users.

Respondent’s Admissions and Defense

In his Answer-Affidavit dated June 10, 2019, Atty. Causing did not deny authorship of the questioned Facebook posts; he admitted he posted the complaint-affidavit on his Facebook account.
He claimed his main basis for filing the Plunder case was investigative reports from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ).
He argued that the existence of evidentiary support for the Plunder complaint justified dismissal of the administrative complaint.
He invoked freedom of the press and freedom of expression as defenses, characterizing the Facebook posts as an exercise of those rights.

IBP Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation

Investigating Commissioner Gilbert L. Macatangay issued a Report and Recommendation dated June 15, 2020.
Commissioner Macatangay found respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and pertinent provisions of the CPR.
Commissioner recommended suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with a stern warning that repetition would warrant a more severe penalty.
The Report and Recommendation is part of the record and cited by the Supreme Court.

IBP Board of Governors’ Action and Extended Resolution

On October 16, 2021, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to modify the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation and recommended instead the imposition of the penalty of reprimand.
The Board of Governors directed the Commission of Bar Discipline to prepare an Extended Resolution explaining the modification.
The Extended Resolution dated January 21, 2022 explained the rationale for modifying the penalty to reprimand: the Board reasoned that the complaint posted on Facebook was ultimately filed by respondent before the Office of the Ombudsman.
The Extended Resolution’s explanation and the IBP’s modification are part of the case record and were considered by the Supreme Court.

Legal Issue Presented

Whether Atty. Berteni C. Causing violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath when he posted his Complaint for Plunder on his Facebook account to the detriment of the complainant, Jackiya A. Lao.

Applicable Ethical Provisions, Oath, and Standard of Proof

Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility invoked in the complaint:
- Rule 1.01: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”
- Rule 7.03: “A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
...continue reading