Title
Lao vs. Causing
Case
A.C. No. 13453
Decision Date
Oct 4, 2022
Atty. Causing disbarred for posting unverified plunder allegations on Facebook, violating professional ethics and damaging complainant's reputation.
disbarment
defamation
reputation

Case Summary (A.C. No. 13453)

Factual Background

Jackiya A. Lao alleged that on January 18, 2019 Atty. Berteni C. Causing posted on his Facebook account a draft and yet-to-be-filed Complaint-Affidavit for Plunder accusing her and others of plunder. The post identified Lao as “Chairperson of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the DSWD Regional Office No. XII” and the person who handled the bidding that resulted in awarding food packs to Tacurong Fit Mart, Inc., an allegation Lao maintained was entirely false. Lao alleged the Facebook publication subjected her to public hate, contempt, and ridicule, and that the damage occurred before any complaint was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman.

Respondent’s Admission and Defense

Atty. Berteni C. Causing admitted authorship of the Facebook posts in his Answer-Affidavit and stated that his principal basis for filing the plunder complaint was investigative reports from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. He asserted that the Facebook publications were exercises of the freedoms of the press and of expression and argued that the existence of evidentiary support for the Ombudsman complaint justified dismissal of the administrative complaint against him.

Procedural History

A mandatory conference occurred on December 11, 2019, with counsel appearing for the complainant and a representative appearing for the respondent. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Investigating Commissioner, Gilbert L. Macatangay, submitted a Report and Recommendation dated June 15, 2020, finding a violation and recommending suspension from the practice of law for six months. The IBP Board of Governors modified that recommendation by Resolution dated October 16, 2021, and, in an Extended Resolution dated January 21, 2022, explained the modification by noting that the complaint posted on Facebook was ultimately filed with the Office of the Ombudsman and recommended the imposition of a reprimand.

Issue Presented

The dispositive issue was whether Atty. Berteni C. Causing violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (and related provisions) by posting his complaint for plunder on Facebook to the detriment of Jackiya A. Lao and others.

Standard of Proof

The Court reiterated that administrative disciplinary proceedings require only substantial evidence. Substantial evidence was defined, with citation to Reyes vs. Nieva and Rule 133, Sec. 5, as the amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

Findings of the IBP

Both the Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors found that Lao established her allegations by substantial evidence and that Atty. Causing had violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Commissioner recommended suspension for six months; the Board modified the penalty to reprimand on the ground that the complaint posted was eventually filed with the Office of the Ombudsman.

Court’s Evaluation of Defenses

The Court rejected Atty. Causing’s invocation of freedom of expression and of the press as a defense, observing that constitutional freedoms are not absolute and that lawyers bear ethical obligations that limit the exercise of such rights. The Court cited Belo-Henares vs. Atty. Guevarra for the proposition that freedom of expression may not be used to broadcast lies, insult others, or destroy reputations. The Court emphasized that social media is not a proper forum for airing complaints that are properly addressed to legal fora and that publication designed to elicit negative public opinion undermines the rule of law.

Evidence of Harm

The Court relied on documentary evidence consisting of screenshots of the Facebook post showing that Lao was subjected to public hate, contempt, and ridicule. Comments exhibited epithets such as “nangungurakot” and “corrupt na official,” and the post alleged that respondents stole approximately P226 million intended for evacuees. The Court concluded that the reputational damage occurred at the time of the online publication, irrespective of the later filing of the complaint with the Ombudsman.

Violations of the Code and the Lawyer’s Oath

The Court held that Atty. Causing violated Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 for engaging in conduct reflecting adversely on his fitness to practice law and behaving in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the profession. The Court also found a breach of Rule 8.01, which prohibits abusive, offensive, or otherwise improper language in professional dealings, given the defamatory tenor and public statements alleging massive theft.

Prior Discipline and Aggravating Circumstance

The Court took judicial notice of a prior disciplinary decision, Velasco vs. Atty. Causing (A.C. No. 12883, March 2, 2021), in which Atty. Causing had been suspended for one year for publishing sensitive material from an ongoing family court proceeding and for using intemperate and offensive language. The Court regarded that prior sanction and the respondent’s continued propensity to divulge sensitive information online as an aggravating circumstance indicative of recidivism.

Precedent on Repeat Offenders and Penalty

Invoking the rule that disbarment may be imposed on repeat offenders, as discussed in Francisco vs. Atty. Real and other authorities cited in the Court’s opinion, the Court reasoned that the earlier one-year suspension should have deterred the respondent but evidently did not. The Court thus concluded that a lesser penalty would be insufficient to protect the integrity of the profession.

Ruling and Disposition

The Court adopted the IBP’s factual findings but, on the basis of the respondent’s prior sus

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms