Title

Velasco vs. Causing

Case Decision Date

A.C. No. 12883 Mar 2, 2021

Atty. Causing suspended for one year for breaching confidentiality, violating ethical
rules, and making derogatory public posts about a client's case.

Jur.ph - Case Digest (A.C. No. 12883)

Reasoning Model - Advanced

Facts:

Background of the Case

Complainant: Enrico R. Velasco, who is also the petitioner in a pending nullity case
involving his marriage with Nina Ricci Narvaez Laudato before the Regional Trial
Court in Balanga City, Bataan.
Respondent: Atty. Berteni C. Causing, who represents Laudato in the said nullity
case.
Nature of the Case: An administrative proceeding initiated by a complaint-affidavit
for disbarment filed by the complainant against Atty. Causing for alleged violations
of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Incident and Publication Details

On April 7, 2016, Atty. Causing sent a direct message via Facebook to Jomel A.
Velasco, the son of the complainant.
The message read: "akitignan mo ang iyong ama, iho at huwag mo syang gayahin
ha."
It was intended to initiate a private communication that later expanded into a public
controversy.
Accompanying the message was a link to a Facebook post (subject post) dated
March 19, 2016, with the caption "Wise Polygamous Husband?"
The post contained a detailed narrative disparaging the complainant by highlighting
his second marriage and alleged bigamous conduct.
It included references to the nullity petition and even attached photographs of the
complete copy of the petition filed by the complainant.
Dissemination of the Subject Post
 Atty. Causing not only published the post on his personal Facebook account but also
“shared” it via another account under the name “Berteni 'Toto' CataluAa Causing.”
The post was further circulated through a public Facebook group with
approximately 3,500 members and by other users sharing the content, thereby
amplifying the negative public reactions and comments against the complainant.

Administrative and Procedural Developments

In his Verified Answer, Atty. Causing admitted to publishing the subject post on
Facebook and sending its link to the complainant’s son.
He denied any intention to harass the complainant.
He maintained that his actions were performed in his capacity as the “spokesman-
lawyer” for his client and as a “journalist-blogger.”
Defense Grounds and Justifications
Atty. Causing asserted that his statements were truthful, citing that not only did the
complainant admit to filing a petition for case nullity but also referencing John 8:32
from the Holy Bible (“the truth shall make you free”).
He further argued that his rights to freedom of expression and of the press,
guaranteed by the constitution, should protect his actions, irrespective of his
professional role as a lawyer.
IBP Investigation and Recommendations
Investigating Commissioner Jose Alfonso M. Gomos found that Atty. Causing had
breached the privacy and confidentiality rules applicable to Family Court
proceedings.
The Commissioner recommended a suspension from the practice of law for one (1)
year.
IBP Board of Governors’ Rulings
The Board adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s findings of fact but modified
the penalty to a suspension of two (2) years.
Atty. Causing sought reconsideration, which was denied in subsequent resolutions.

Issue:

Primary Issue
Whether Atty. Berteni C. Causing should be held administratively liable for
publishing a Facebook post that included the complainant's petition for nullity of
marriage and disparaging remarks regarding his character.

Specific Points of Contention

 Whether the act of posting confidential legal documents and using derogatory
language on social media amounts to a violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Whether Atty. Causing’s defense in invoking his constitutional right to freedom of
speech and press—coupled with his claim of acting only as a “spokesman-lawyer”
and “journalist-blogger”—is tenable under the ethical standards mandated for
lawyers.

Ethical and Legal Considerations

The potential breach of confidentiality and privacy protocols relating to Family
Court records as stipulated in Republic Act No. 8369.
The proper limits, if any, of a lawyer’s freedom of expression when acting in both
personal and professional capacities.

Ruling:

Adoption of IBP’s Findings

The Court accepted the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines regarding
the factual occurrences and misconduct of Atty. Causing.
It was affirmed that Atty. Causing indeed admitted to publishing the contested
Facebook post and sending its link to the complainant’s son.

Rejection of the Defense

The Court held that a lawyer cannot bifurcate his personal rights from his
professional responsibilities; the ethical obligations remain intact regardless of the
guise in which he operates (i.e., as an attorney or as a private citizen exercising
press freedom).
The defense that his actions were merely expressions of truth or necessary for his
role as a “spokesman-lawyer” was deemed untenable.

Imposition of the Penalty

Atty. Causing was found to have violated several provisions of the CPR, specifically
Canon 1, Rule 8.01, Canon 13, Rule 13.02, Canon 19, and Rule 19.01.
Rather than the two-year suspension recommended by the IBP Board of Governors,
the Court modified the imposition by suspending him from the practice of law for
one (1) year.
The suspension takes immediate effect upon receipt of the Decision, along with a
stern warning that any repetition of similar misconduct will incur more severe
disciplinary measures.

Ratio:
 Separation of Rights and Professional Duties
A lawyer’s professional role does not permit a division between his duty as an
officer of the court and his personal rights to free expression.
The ethical obligations under the Code of Professional Responsibility continue to
bind the lawyer regardless of whether he is acting as a citizen or proclaiming his
views under the banner of press freedom.

Limitations on Freedom of Expression

Although freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press are constitutionally
guaranteed, these rights are not absolute.
The expression of truth, even if accurate, does not grant permission to breach
confidentiality—especially when involving sensitive Family Court proceedings.
The case underscores that defamation, even through social media, and the use of
derogatory language in a professional context are not protected under the freedom
of expression.

Precedent and Legal Principles

The ruling references precedents such as Belo-Henares v. Atty. Guevarra, which
clarifies that freedom of expression does not extend to defamatory, misleading, or
derogatory statements that harm another’s reputation.
The decision reinforces the principle that ethical standards and legal protocols
must be maintained to preserve public confidence in the legal profession.

Doctrine:

Ethical Obligations of the Legal Profession

The case reaffirms that lawyers must uphold the dignity, decorum, and ethical
standards of the profession at all times.
It highlights the non-negotiable duty to maintain confidentiality, especially
concerning Family Court records, as established under Republic Act No. 8369.

Limitations on Constitutional Rights in the Legal Context

The doctrine established here delineates the limits of constitutional rights such as
freedom of speech when in conflict with the professional and ethical
responsibilities imposed on lawyers.
It underscores that the exercise of a lawyer’s right to free expression must be
balanced against the potential harm to the reputation of involved parties and the
integrity of legal proceedings.

Professional Conduct and Public Responsibility

 The case serves as a cautionary tale, reminding that ethical misconduct—
particularly involving the public dissemination of confidential and sensitive
information—will be met with strict sanctions.
It reinforces the broader legal and moral doctrine that the pursuit of zeal in
advocacy does not give license to engage in conduct that undermines the
respectability of the legal profession or the integrity of judicial processes.

Note: AI summaries help you analyze quickly, but always read the full text for complete context.