THE Supreme Court has disbarred a lawyer for violating his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) through Facebook posts accusing an official of the Department of Social Welfare and Development of committing plunder.
In a ruling promulgated in October last year but made public only on February 1, the SC held that lawyers cannot invoke freedom of expression and of the press as defense, and ordered the disbarment of Berteni C. Causing who was the subject of an administrative complaint filed by Jackiya Lao in February 2019 accusing him of publishing in his Facebook account a draft of his complaint for plunder against her and several others.
In his Facebook post, Causing said Lao was the chairperson of the DSWD Region XII Bids and Awards Committee and the one who handled the bidding for food packs, which was later awarded to Tacurong Fit Mart Inc.
In her complaint, Lao denied Causing’s claim and said it besmirched her good name and reputation, especially because at that time, no complaint was filed or pending the Office of the Ombudsman against her.
In another Facebook post on January 31, 2019 Causing published his complaint-affidavit for plunder before the Ombudsman against Lao and several others.
Lao again denied his accusations.
In his defense, Causing said his Facebook posts are protected by freedom of expression and the press as enshrined in the Constitution. He also said that since complaint for plunder is supported by evidence, the administrative complaint filed against him by Lao should be junked.
On June 2020, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended that Causing be suspended as a lawyer for six months. However, its board of governors modified the sanction in October 2021 and said Causing should only be reprimanded because he ultimately filed the plunder complaint against Lao and several others before the Ombudsman.
But the SC disagreed with the IBP. “Atty. Causing cannot justify his infractions by hiding behind the rights to freedom of the press and freedom of expression under the Constitution as such are not absolute,” it said.
“In this case, Atty. Causing knew that the proper forum for his complaint is the Office of the Ombudsman. Atty. Causing’s posting of the complaint for plunder on his Facebook account was motivated by the desire to damage the reputation of the respondents (Lao and others) therein,” the SC said, adding the Facebook posts had been meant to elicit negative reactions and comments against Lao and the other respondents. Some of the comments called Lao a “corrupt official.”
“The fact that Atty. Causing subsequently filed the complaint for plunder before the Office of the Ombudsman is of no moment as the damage to the reputation of therein respondents had already been done,” the SC added.
The SC likewise held that Causing also violated the CPR when he accused Lao and the other respondents of stealing around P226 million in government funds intended for evacuees.
The SC also noted that this is not the first time that Causing has been sanctioned by the Court.
In the case of Velasco vs. Atty. Causing decided in 2021, the SC voting unanimously, suspended him from the practice of law for one year for violating the confidentiality of an ongoing family court proceeding.
In that particular case, the SC pointed out that Causing also invoked his rights to freedom of expression and of the press in his defense.
He also argued that he was merely acting as a “spokesman-lawyer” and a “journalist-blogger” when he published the assailed post.
The SC, however, ruled that a lawyer is not allowed to divide his personality as a lawyer at one time and a mere citizen at another.
