PER CURIAM:
In view of the foregoing premises, respondent Atty. Berteni C. Causing violated his Lawyer's Oath and pertinent provisions of the Code of Professional [R]esponsibility and the undersigned Commissioner respectfully recommends that a penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar conduct in the future will warrant a more severe penalty be imposed.In a Resolution[14] dated October 16, 2021, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to modify the Report and Recommendation dated June 15, 2020, and instead, imposed the penalty of reprimand, to wit:
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.[13]
RESOLVED, to MODIFY, as it is hereby MODIFIED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the instant case, and to recommend instead the imposition upon Respondent Atty. Berteni C. Causing of the penalty of REPRIMAND.In an Extended Resolution[16] dated January 21, 2022, the IBP Board of Governors offered the following explanation for the modification of the penalty imposed:
RESOLVED, FURTHER, to direct the Commission of Bar Discipline to prepare an Extended Resolution explaining the recommendation of the Board of Governors in this case, which shall be appended to this resolution.[15]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Board of Governors RESOLVED to MODIFY the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and to recommend instead the imposition of the penalty of REPRIMAND considering that the Complaint that was posted on Facebook was ultimately filed by respondent towards the proper legal authorities.
SO ORDERED.[17] (Underscoring supplied)
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.As a rule, only substantial evidence is required to warrant disciplinary sanctions in administrative proceedings.[18] Substantial evidence is defined as that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[19]
Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Time and again, it has been held that the freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute. While the freedom of expression and the right of speech and of the press are among the most zealously protected rights in the Constitution, every person exercising them, as the Civil Code stresses, is obliged to act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. As such, the constitutional right of freedom of expression may not be availed of to broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others, destroy their name or reputation or bring them into disrepute.[21] (Emphases supplied)As a member of the Bar, Atty. Causing ought to know that Facebook—or any other social medium, for that matter—is not the proper forum to air out his grievances, for a lawyer who uses extra-legal fora is a lawyer who weakens the rule of law. In this case, Atty. Causing knew that the proper forum for his complaint is the Office of the Ombudsman.
Rule 8.01 — A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.In addition, the Lawyer's Oath provides that—
I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.Such oath mandates lawyers to conduct themselves in a manner which would keep the integrity of the legal profession intact. In Ong vs. Atty. Unto,[25] the Court enjoined lawyers to conduct themselves in a manner that would promote public confidence in the legal profession, to wit:
The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin lawyers to act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the course of his practice of law. A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity. Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the Bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and comport himself in such a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.[26]Lastly, We note that this is not the first time that Atty. Causing has been sanctioned by the Court.
The records show that Atty. Causing had already admitted that he indeed published the subject post with photographs of complainant's petition in the nullity case in Facebook and thereafter sent a link of the post to complainant's son. In his defense, Atty. Causing invokes his rights to freedom of expression and of the press and argues that he was merely acting as a "spokesman-lawyer" and a "journalist-blogger" when he published the subject post.The aforesaid case and the case at hand show that Atty. Causing has the propensity to divulge sensitive information in online platforms, such as Facebook, to the detriment of the people involved in the said cases. Thus, considering that Atty. Causing was already suspended for one (1) year with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely, We believe that the appropriate penalty to be imposed herein is the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
The defense, however, is untenable.
First, a lawyer is not allowed to divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Regardless of whether a lawyer is representing his client in court, acting as a supposed spokesperson outside of it, or is merely practicing his right to press freedom as a "journalist-blogger," his duties to the society and his ethical obligations as a member of the bar remain unchanged.x x x x
In addition, Atty. Causing likewise violated Rule 8.01 of the CPR when he used the words "polygamous," "criminal," "dishonest," "arrogance," "disgusting," and "cheater" in the subject post and in his pleadings in direct reference to complainant. Indeed, a lawyer's language, though forceful and emphatic, must always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. "The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, and illuminating but not offensive."
Though it is true that Atty. Causing is, by all means, given the liberty to defend his client's cause with utmost zeal, this is not without reasonable limitations. In this case, it appears that Atty. Causing's post in Facebook was so designed to elicit, at the very least, a negative public opinion against complainant. Such act, however, is proscribed under Rule 19.01 of the CPR which, among others, mandates lawyers to "employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client."
And second, it is settled that the freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press, like all constitutional freedoms, are not absolute.[28]
In imposing the appropriate penalty in administrative cases, it is the duty of the Court to exercise its sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts of the case. Well-settled is the rule in our jurisdiction that disbarment ought to be meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and that the Court will not disbar a lawyer where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end. The Court, however, does not hesitate to impose the penalty of disbarment when the guilty party has become a repeat offender. Thus, the Court in Flores vs. Mayor, Jr., after finding respondent therein guilty of clear neglect of duty and gross ignorance of the law, considered his previous suspension by the Court in meting out the extreme penalty of disbarment. The Court concluded in this wise:Here, the Court takes note of the fact that Atty. Causing had just recently served his one-year suspension pursuant to the ruling in the Velasco case, which was promulgated on March 2, 2021. We likewise note that the acts complained of therein occurred in April 2016 and the corresponding disbarment complaint was filed thereafter. The filing of the disbarment complaint against Atty. Causing in the Velasco case should have served as a deterrent. However, it appears that the same had no effect. Thus, the penalty of disbarment is warranted.The Court, however, does not hesitate to impose the penalty of disbarment when the guilty party has become a repeat offender.
In Maligsa vs. Cabanting, the respondent lawyer was disbarred after the Court found out that he had notarized a forged deed of quitclaim. The penalty of disbarment was imposed after considering that he was previously suspended from the practice of law for six months on the ground that he had purchased his client's property while it was still the subject of a pending certiorari proceeding.
In Flores vs. Chua, the respondent lawyer was disbarred after he was found guilty of notarizing a forged deed of sale. The penalty of disbarment was imposed because in a previous administrative case, respondent was found guilty of violating Rule 1.01[16] of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was also sternly warned that a repetition of a similar act or violation in the future would be dealt with more severely.
Herein respondent was already suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months in another case, Lahm III vs. Mayor, Jr., in which he was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. For that offense, he was warned that the commission of the same or a similar offense in the future would result in the imposition of a more severe penalty. In light of respondent's previous suspension from the practice of law in an earlier administrative case as above[-]mentioned, the recommendation of the IBP Board to disbar respondent is only proper.[30] (Citations omitted and emphasis supplied)