Case Summary (A.M. No. 21-06-20-SC)
Procedural History and Applicable Law
• June 29, 2021: Show-cause Resolution issued
• October 6–25, 2021 & November 7, 2021: Individual explanations/compliances filed
• August 31, 2022: Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) Report recommends admonition
• April 11, 2023: En Banc decision per curiam
• Governing Charter: 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Code of Professional Responsibility: Rule 7.03 (prohibiting conduct that discredits the profession)
Factual Background
Atty. Antay, Jr. initiated a Facebook thread praising a prosecution of a “member of the LGBTA community” and describing a judge as “somewhat effeminate.” Co-respondents joined with homophobic jokes: labeling judges “bakla,” equating homosexuality with corruption, and insinuating perverse motivations. Screenshots later circulated despite locked privacy settings.
Respondents’ Explanations
• Antay, Jr.: Remorseful, could not recall posts, asserted descriptive—not disparaging—use of “effeminate” and “LGBT community,” claimed privacy settings prevented outsider access
• Nicanor & Navarrete: Apologized for lapse in judgment; insisted comments were playful banter, not aimed at disparaging judiciary or LGBTQIA+ individuals
• Tabujara III: Denied bigotry, highlighted long-standing friendships with LGBTQIA+ persons, expressed regret if anyone was offended but did not specifically acknowledge his remarks
• Calderon: Claimed jest, no intent to malign, stressed professional neutrality
OBC Investigation and Recommendation
OBC found the comments degrading to both LGBTQIA+ individuals and magistrates, undermining public respect for the judiciary. Despite respondents’ apologies and apparent remorse, the OBC recommended admonition under the CPR.
Issues Presented
- Whether respondents may invoke a right to privacy in their social media posts to evade administrative liability
- Whether their Facebook comments violate Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Right to Privacy in Online Activities
The Court held that lawyers’ expectation of privacy on social media is not absolute (citing Belo-Henares v. Atty. Guevarra). Locked profiles do not guarantee confidentiality. Respondents cannot shield behind privacy settings once content leaks.
Duty of Respect and Professionalism
Under Rule 7.03, a lawyer must not engage in conduct that reflects adversely on fitness to practice or behave scandalously. The Court reiterated that even private utterances can warrant discipline if they degrade the judiciary or minority groups.
Violations of the Code of Professional Responsibi
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 21-06-20-SC)
Antecedents
- On June 29, 2021, the Supreme Court, motu proprio, required five lawyers to show cause why they should not face administrative charges for Facebook posts.
- Respondents: Atty. Noel V. Antay, Jr.; Atty. Ernesto A. Tabujara III; Atty. Israel P. Calderon; Atty. Morgan Rosales Nicanor; Atty. Joseph Marion PeAa Navarrete.
- The posts consisted of off-color remarks about members of the LGBTQIA+ community and judges of the Taguig City courts, employing stereotyping language and insinuations about sexual orientation and mental fitness.
Summary of the Disputed Online Exchanges
- Atty. Antay, Jr. described prosecuting a “member of the LGBTA community,” called the convict a bigot, and referred to the judge as “somewhat effeminate,” punctuating his narrative with emoticons.
- Atty. Tabujara III asked “Sino yung bakla na judge sa Taguig,” noted the judge’s eyeliner and “mataray” demeanor, and quipped about Taguig judges being homosexual on one floor and “sira sa ulo” on another.
- Atty. Calderon and Atty. Nicanor joined in a banter, joking that the convict might have been sexually attracted to Atty. Antay, Jr., and teasing with phrases like “feel ko type ka bossing.”
- Atty. Navarrete recalled a client’s “malagkit” look toward Atty. Nicanor, again with undertones about attraction and orientation.
Respondents’ Compliance, Explanations and Apologies
- Atty. Antay, Jr. (Compliance dated October 25, 2021):
• Expressed “deep remorse” and apologized for any alarm caused.
• Claimed inability to recover the original posts—account “locked”—and relied on circulating screenshots.
• Asserted no intent to disrespect any magistrate or LGBTQIA+ member; described terms used as merely “descriptive.” - Atty. Nicanor (Explanation dated October 6, 2021):
• Apologized for lapse in judgment over a single jesting comment.
• Denied intent to malign judiciary or LGBTQIA+; emphasized good faith and unblemished reco