AC 13453; (October, 2022) (Digest)
A.C. No. 13453 (Formerly CBD Case No. 19-5956). October 04, 2022. Jackiya A. Lao, Complainant, vs. Atty. Berteni C. Causing, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Jackiya A. Lao, a public official, charged Atty. Berteni C. Causing with violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Lao alleged that on January 18, 2019, Atty. Causing published on his Facebook account a draft complaint-affidavit for Plunder accusing Lao and others of the crime. The post identified Lao as the Chairperson of a Bids and Awards Committee involved in a questionable procurement, an allegation Lao claimed was false. Atty. Causing repeated this publication on January 31, 2019, announcing he had filed the complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman. Lao contended the posts subjected her to public ridicule and damaged her reputation before any formal legal proceeding was initiated.
In his Answer, Atty. Causing admitted authoring the posts but defended them as an exercise of freedom of expression and the press, citing investigative reports as his basis. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found a violation and recommended a six-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors modified this to a mere reprimand, reasoning that the complaint was ultimately filed with the proper office. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for final determination.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Berteni C. Causing violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPR by publicly posting on social media an unverified complaint-affidavit accusing an individual of a serious crime.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Causing is guilty of gross misconduct warranting disbarment. The Court found he violated Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the CPR, which prohibit unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct and any behavior that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law. While lawyers enjoy constitutional freedoms, these are limited by their oath to uphold the law and act with fidelity to the courts. The act of publicly trying a case on social media by posting unverified and damaging accusations undermines the judicial process, preempts the authority of proper tribunals, and subjects individuals to trial by publicity, which is professionally unethical.
The Court rejected the IBP’s recommended penalty of reprimand as too lenient, emphasizing the gravity of the misconduct. Critically, the Court considered Atty. Causing’s disciplinary record, noting he was recently suspended for one year in a separate case (Velasco v. Causing) for similar conduct involving improper use of social media to attack a judge. His failure to reform despite prior sanction demonstrates a character unfit for the legal profession. The Court held that the protective privilege of a law license is forfeited by persistent disregard of ethical duties. Consequently, Atty. Berteni C. Causing is DISBARRED from the practice of law, and his name is ordered removed from the Roll of Attorneys.