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

Case Summary (A.C. No. 12883)

Factual Background

Atty. Causing posted on Facebook a public item captioned “Wise Polygamous Husband?” which included commentary accusing the complainant of bigamy and alleged improper motives in filing his nullity petition; he also attached photographs showing the complete copy of the complainant’s petition in the nullity case. On April 7, 2016, Atty. Causing sent a direct message with a link to that post to the complainant’s son. The post was shared from multiple accounts and in a public Facebook group of approximately 3,500 members, generating negative reactions and comments about the complainant.

Procedural History Before the IBP

The complainant filed a Complaint-Affidavit for disbarment before the IBP. The Investigating Commissioner found breaches of confidentiality and recommended suspension from the practice of law for one year. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the factual findings but increased the recommended penalty to two years. The Board denied Atty. Causing’s motion for reconsideration.

Respondent’s Defenses

Atty. Causing admitted publishing the post and sending the link to the complainant’s son but defended his conduct on two principal grounds: (1) he acted as a “spokesman-lawyer” for his client and thus was performing duties related to representation; and (2) he was exercising constitutional freedoms as a “journalist-blogger,” invoking freedom of speech and of the press. He also argued truthfulness of the published material.

Controlling Legal Norms: Professional Ethics and Statute

The Court relied on the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) provisions: Canon 1 (uphold the Constitution and promote respect for law and legal processes), Rule 8.01 (prohibition on abusive, offensive or otherwise improper language in professional dealings), Canon 13 and Rule 13.02 (prohibition on public statements in the media regarding pending cases tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party), and Canon 19 and Rule 19.01 (duty to employ only fair and honest means in representation). The Family Courts Act (Republic Act No. 8369), Section 12, was also decisive: it mandates privacy and confidentiality of child and family case records and prohibits divulgence of identities or records except as authorized by the judge.

Legal Issue

Whether Atty. Causing should be held administratively liable under the CPR and Section 12 of RA 8369 for publishing the subject Facebook post and attached petition photographs, and for sending the link to the complainant’s son.

Court’s Findings on Liability

The Supreme Court adopted the IBP’s factual findings and concluded that Atty. Causing violated Section 12 of RA 8369 by publishing confidential Family Court records and disclosed the identity and records of the nullity case without judicial authorization. That statutory breach was deemed also to constitute violations of the CPR provisions cited above because the publication disclosed confidential information regarding a pending Family Court matter and included strongly-worded, disparaging commentary about the complainant.

Court’s Findings on the Defenses

The Court rejected the dual-personality and press-freedom defenses. It held that a lawyer cannot effectively separate his role as a member of the bar from his activities as a private citizen or journalist; ethical obligations and duties to respect confidentiality and the dignity of the profession persist regardless of the forum in which the lawyer speaks. The Court also reiterated that freedom of speech and of the press under the 1987 Constitution is not absolute and cannot be used to disseminate material that injures reputation, broadcasts lies or half-truths, or tends to arouse public opinion in a pending case in contravention of ethical rules and statutory confidentiality.

Application of Precedent

The Court cited its prior decision in Belo-Henares v. Atty. Guevarra to underscore that public expression by lawyers that insults or maligns parties in pending cases may be sanctioned notwithstanding free-speech claims. That precedent supports the principle that freedom of expression does not include the license to insult, vilify, or publicly disclose confidential case materials to influence public opinion against a party.

Findings on Language and Conduct

Atty. Causing’s use of pejorative descriptors — e.g., “polygamous,” “criminal,” “dishonest,” “arrogant,” “disgusting,” “cheater” — were held to violate Rule 8.01 because such intemperate and derogatory language is inconsistent with the dignity required of a member of the bar. The publication was also found to contravene Rule 13.02 and Rule 19.01 because it was likely designed to elicit negative public opinion and to obtain an improper advantage for his client, rather than to rely solely on the merits of the case and fair, honest means.

Penalty Imposed and Directives

The Supreme Court found At

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 12883)

Case Caption, Report, and Source Identifiers

Reported in 119 O.G. No. 40, 8182 (October 2, 2023), En Banc decision.
Administrative Case No. A.C. No. 12883 (Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5016), with the decision dated March 02, 2021.
Decision authored by Justice Inting.
Parties: Enrico R. Velasco (complainant) and Atty. Berteni C. Causing (respondent).
Source materials and references cited in the record are from the rollo (specific rollo pages referenced throughout the decision).

Nature and Procedural Background of the Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment originally filed as a Complaint-Affidavit before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) by Enrico Velasco alleging violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by Atty. Berteni C. Causing.
The complaint arises from events connected with Civil Case No. 10536 (Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 4 of the Family Code) pending before Branch 3, Regional Trial Court, Balanga City, Bataan, where Velasco is the petitioner and Nina Ricci Narvaez Laudato is the respondent; Atty. Causing is counsel for Laudato. (Rollo, pp. 2; petition at pp. 42–48.)
The IBP Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation dated January 23, 2017; the IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings and imposed a modified penalty via a Resolution dated November 28, 2017, and denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated June 18, 2019.
The matter was elevated to the Supreme Court En Banc for resolution of the administrative charges against Atty. Causing.

Facts as Found and Stipulated in the Record

On April 7, 2016, Atty. Causing posted on Facebook a post dated March 19, 2016, captioned "Wise Polygamous Husband?" and sent a direct message containing a link to that post to complainant's son, Jomel A. Velasco. (Rollo, pp. 3, 8.)
The subject Facebook post included commentary: "After marrying a girl as his second wife while his first wife was still alive, when there was no doubt it was bigamous and a crime of bigamy, this man still has the gall to file a petition to declare his second marriage null and void. In his petition, he asked the RTC of Balanga to declare his marriage void because of lack of marriage license and not because of marriage being bigamous. If you want to read his petition, a copy is attached here. His intention in filing the petition was to prevent the second wife's criminal case of bigamy from succeeding by reason of prejudicial question." (Italics in original.) (Rollo, p. 8.)
Atty. Causing attached photographs showing the complete copy of complainant's petition in the nullity case to the Facebook post.
Atty. Causing shared the post to another Facebook account under the name "Berteni 'Toto' CataluAa Causing" and to a public Facebook group under the same name with about 3,500 members; other persons also shared the post to their accounts, generating negative reactions and comments directed at complainant. (Rollo, pp. 3–4, 111.)
In his Verified Answer, Atty. Causing admitted publishing the Facebook post and sending the link to complainant's son. (Rollo, pp. 11–24; admitted at p. 13.)

Specific Allegations in the Complaint

The complaint charged that Atty. Causing breached duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility by publishing confidential Family Court records and by making public statements tending to arouse public opinion against a party in a pending case, thereby tarnishing complainant's reputation and violating professional conduct rules.
The complaint specifically relied on the confidentiality requirements applicable to Family Court proceedings and the prohibitions in the CPR against certain forms of public commentary and abusive language.

Respondent’s Admissions and Defenses

Admissions:
- Atty. Causing admitted he published the subject Facebook post and sent its link to complainant’s son. (Rollo, p. 13.)
- He did not deny the existence and genuineness of the petition for declaration of nullity that he posted and attached; he acknowledged its authenticity. (Rollo, pp. 18–19.)
Defenses:
- Atty. Causing asserted he acted as the "spokesman-lawyer" of his client in publishing the post and was "performing his duties" on behalf of his client.
- He contended he was exercising the constitutional right to freedom of expression and of the press, describing himself as a "journalist-blogger" and arguing that his status as a lawyer did not lessen his press freedoms. (Rollo, pp. 21–22.)
- He argued there could be no libel in expressing truth and invoked the truthfulness of the posted petition (citing John 8:32 in his pleadings). (Rollo, pp. 18–19.)
- He denied that his actions amounted to harassment or libel, insisting his statements were truthful and thus not actionable. (Rollo, pp. 18–19.)

IBP Investigation, Findings, and Recommendations

The Investigating Commissioner, Jose Alfonso M. Gomos, issued a Report and Recommendation dated January 23, 2017, finding that Atty. Causing breached the rule on privacy and confidentiality of Family Court proceedings and recommending suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year. (Rollo, pp. 192–199; finding at p. 198.)
The Investigating Commissioner rejected Atty. Causing's defenses that he was acting as a "spokesman-lawyer" or as a "journalist-blogger" exercising press freedom, finding these did not justify violation of the CPR. (Rollo, p. 198.)
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s findings of fact but modified the recommended penalty, increasing suspension to two (2) years in a Resolution dated November 28, 2017. (Rollo, p. 191.)
A motion for reconsideration by Atty. Causing was filed (Motion for Reconsideration dated December 6, 2018; rollo pp. 204–234) but was denied by the IBP Board of Governors in a Resolution dated June 18, 2019. (Rollo, pp. 267–268.)

Legal Issues Presented

Main question before the Court: Whether Atty. Causing should be held administratively liable for publishing the subject Facebook post and photographs of complainant's petition in the nullity case in his Facebook accounts.
Subsidiary legal questions implicit in the decision:
- Whether publishing records and attachments from a F
...continue reading