A.C. No. 12883 - Velasco vs. Causing

Case Summary (A.C. No. 12883)

Factual Background

The complaint arose from Civil Case No. 10536, a petition to declare null the marriage of complainant Enrico R. Velasco with Nina Ricci Narvaez Laudato, pending before Branch 3, Regional Trial Court, Balanga City, Bataan. Atty. Berteni C. Causing acted as counsel for Laudato. On March 19, 2016, Atty. Causing published a Facebook post captioned “Wise Polygamous Husband?” that described complainant’s conduct in strong terms and attached photographs of the complete copy of complainant’s petition in the nullity case. On April 7, 2016, Atty. Causing sent a direct message containing a link to that post to complainant’s son, Jomel A. Velasco. Atty. Causing shared the post from one Facebook account to another and to a public Facebook group with roughly 3,500 members. The post generated negative reactions and comments directed at complainant.

Procedural History

Complainant filed a Complaint-Affidavit for disbarment against Atty. Berteni C. Causing before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Investigating Commissioner Jose Alfonso M. Gomos issued a Report and Recommendation dated January 23, 2017 finding breach of the privacy and confidentiality of Family Court proceedings and recommending suspension from the practice of law for one year. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s factual findings but increased the recommended penalty to suspension for two years in a Resolution dated November 28, 2017. Atty. Causing filed a motion for reconsideration, which the IBP denied in a Resolution dated June 18, 2019. The matter was elevated to the Supreme Court under A.C. No. 12883 (Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5016).

The Parties’ Contentions

Complainant alleged that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the confidentiality provisions applicable to Family Court proceedings by publishing the post and attaching the petition. Atty. Causing admitted authorship and transmission of the Facebook post and the link. He denied harassment and contended that he acted as his client’s “spokesman-lawyer” and as a “journalist-blogger.” He invoked the constitutional right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press. He further maintained that his statements were truthful, pointed to complainant’s own filing of the nullity petition, and argued that truth negates libel.

Issue Presented

Whether Atty. Berteni C. Causing should be held administratively liable for publishing on Facebook the subject post and photographs of complainant’s petition in the nullity case and for sending a link to complainant’s son.

IBP Findings and Recommendation

The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Causing breached the rule on the privacy and confidentiality of Family Court proceedings as embodied in Section 12, Republic Act No. 8369, and recommended a one-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the factual findings but modified the penalty to a two-year suspension. The IBP further denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration.

The Court’s Disposition

The Court adopted the IBP’s factual findings but modified the penalty imposed on Atty. Causing. The Court found respondent guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 8.01, Canon 13, Rule 13.02, Canon 19, and Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court suspended Atty. Causing from the practice of law for one year, effective upon his receipt of the Decision, and sternly warned that repetition would be dealt with more severely. The Court directed respondent to manifest the commencement of his suspension and to furnish copies of the Decision to specified court offices and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for record and guidance.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reasoned that a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney in some contexts and a mere citizen in others; ethical duties persist regardless of the forum. The Court cited Canon 1 and the requirement to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws, Rule 8.01 prohibiting abusive or offensive language in professional dealings, Canon 13 and Rule 13.02 forbidding public statements in the media regarding pending cases that tend to arouse public opinion, and Canon 19 and Rule 19.01 requiring lawyers to employ only fair and honest means. The Court held that respondent violated Section 12, Republic Act No. 8369, which mandates that records of Family Court cases be dealt with with utmost confidentiality and forbids divulging parties’ identities except as authorized by the judge. The Court found that the Facebook post disclosed confidential case records, attached the petition, and coupled disclosure with strongly worded opinion aimed at eliciting negative public reaction against complainant. The Court concluded that respondent’s employment of descriptors such as “polygamous,” “criminal,” “dishonest,” “arrogance,” “disgusti

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 12883)

Parties and Procedural Posture

ENRICO R. VELASCO, COMPLAINANT filed a Complaint-Affidavit for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines alleging ethical violations by ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING, RESPONDENT.
ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING, RESPONDENT was counsel for the respondent in Civil Case No. 10536, a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage pending before Branch 3, Regional Trial Court, Balanga City, Bataan.
The Investigating Commissioner for the IBP prepared a Report and Recommendation finding misconduct and recommending suspension from the practice of law for one year.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s findings of fact and modified the recommended penalty to suspension for two years.
ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING, RESPONDENT filed a motion for reconsideration which the IBP Board of Governors denied.
The case escalated to the Court en banc for final disposition on the administrative charges.

Key Factual Allegations

ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING, RESPONDENT published a Facebook post dated March 19, 2016, captioned “Wise Polygamous Husband?” and included commentary on complainant’s conduct in the nullity case.
ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING, RESPONDENT attached photographs of the complete copy of complainant’s petition in the nullity case to the Facebook post and thereafter shared the post to another Facebook account and to a public Facebook group of about 3,500 members.
ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING, RESPONDENT sent a direct message containing a link to the subject post to complainant’s son, Jomel A. Velasco.
The subject post generated negative reactions and comments against ENRICO R. VELASCO, COMPLAINANT after being shared by other persons to their Facebook accounts.
ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING, RESPONDENT admitted publishing the post and sending the link to complainant’s son in his Verified Answer.

Contentions of Parties

ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING, RESPONDENT contended that he acted as a “spokesman-lawyer” and as a “journalist-blogger” exercising his constitutional rights to freedom of speech and of the press.
ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING, RESPONDENT argued that his statements were true and that truth negated any charge of libel or ethical violation.
ENRICO R. VELASCO, COMPLAINANT alleged that the publication of the petition and derogatory commentary violated confidentiality rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

IBP Findings and Recommendation

The Investigating Commissioner found that ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING, RESPONDENT breached the rule on privacy and confidentiality of Family Court proceedings and recommended a one-year suspension.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the factual findings and increased the penalty to suspension for two years.
The IBP concluded that the asserted roles as “spokesman” and “journalist-blogger” did not justify the publication of confidential court records or the use of intemperate language.

Legal Issues

Whether ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING, RESPONDENT violated the duties imposed by the Code of Professional Responsibility by publishing confidential Family Court records and making public statements tending to arouse opinion against a party.
Whether the asserted rights to f