The Supreme Court has declared that lawyers cannot invoke their right to privacy in their online activities, like social media posts, as they may incur administrative, civil, and criminal liability on the basis of their language alone.
The SC made the ruling even as it reprimanded four lawyers and fined another for P25,000 for their disrespectful, inappropriate, and defamatory language in their social media posts.
“Reprimand Atty. Morgan Rosales Nicanor, Atty. Joseph Marion Pefia Navarrete, Atty. Noel V. Antay, Jr. and Atty. Israel P. Calderon for violation of Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely,” the high court ruled.
“Impose a fine in the amount of P25,000 on Atty. Ernesto A. Tabujara III for violation of Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely,” it said.
The SC also ordered that its decision should be attached to the personal records of the five lawyers in the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), and a copy should be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its information and guidance and the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts nationwide.
The SC’s Public Information Office said that on June 29, 2021, the high tribunal, on its own, resolved to require the five lawyers to explain why no administrative charges should be filed against them for their Facebook posts.
“Atty. Antay initiated a Facebook thread with a post stating he had ‘(j)ust prosecuted and helped convict a member of the LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) community for large scale estafa. The new convict then began cussing at me accusing me of being a bigot. A first for me (smiley emoticon),’ adding: ‘The judge (who is somewhat effeminate) comes to my defense and warns the felon to behave. All in a day’s work (more smiley emoticons),’” the SC noted.
It said that the post “was followed by a comment from Atty. Tabujara, who asked ‘(s)ino yung bakla na judge…(n)aka eye liner and eye shadow pag nag hehearing. Ang taray pa!”
Atty. Tabujara later on commented that the joke among lawyers is that in a certain courthouse, ‘sa 2nd floor puro may sira ulo mga judge, sa baba bakla at mga corrupt.’”
It also said that in another comment, “Atty. Calderon then replied to Atty. Antay: ‘Baka type ka,’ later on adding ‘Nakita n’ya intelligence mo given na good looks eh na convict mo pa s’ya. Tapos syempre di ka mapapasakamay n’ya kaya ayon imbyerna I. [sic]. Charot haha.’”
“Atty. Nicanor agreed, posting: ‘(f)eel ko type ka bossing. Hehehe,’ to which Atty. Tabujara added: ‘Dapat kinurot mo! Charot!’ Atty. Navarrete chimed in, saying that he remembered Atty. Nicanor’s client that the latter brought to the Ombudsman. He said: ‘Pinatawag lang ako ng Prof. Morgan Nicanor mga panahon nayan. Tapos bitbit nya kliyente niya. Ang natatandaan ko lang is malagkit tingin kay papa, este Prof. Morgan,” the PIO said in its summary.
“Atty. Antay then posted: ‘Matikas kasi si Prof. Morgan eh, Habulin,” it added.
The SC said that on Aug. 21, 2022, the OBC recommended that the lawyers be admonished as it noted that their comments show that the main topic of their online conversation was LGBTQIA+ community members and judges.
It said that the OBC opined that though no other names were mentioned, the comments of the five lawyers were made in a degrading and shameful manner, contrary to the duty of lawyers to “conduct themselves with the highest degree of propriety and decorum” and to “refrain from making remarks and conjectures that tend to ridicule a certain segment of the population such as the LGBTQIA+ community.”
The OBC recommended the penalty of admonition, taking into consideration that the lawyers concerned have apologized and appear to be remorseful.
Instead of mere admonition, the SC ordered a reprimand on the four lawyers and a fine on the other.
“Indeed, lawyers, as keepers of public faith, are burdened with a high degree of social responsibility and, hence, must handle their personal affairs with great caution. Undoubtedly, inappropriate, disrespectful, and defamatory language of lawyers, even in the private sphere, are still within reach of this Court’s disciplinary authority,” the SC said.
“Clearly, the principles of non-discrimination and equality are deeply embedded in the Philippine system of laws. As such, every member of the legal profession is bound to observe and abide by them, especially when dealing with LGBTQIA+ individuals. Incidentally, any discriminatory act can be a source of civil liability,” the high court added.
According to the tribunal, “inappropriate, disrespectful, belligerent or malicious language can be a source of criminal liability under the Safe Spaces Act. Gender-based sexual harassment — encompassing transphobic and homophobic slurs — in streets and public spaces as well as online, may warrant progressive penalties ranging from community service, fines and imprisonment.”
“It is not a defense that the discriminatory language was uttered in what was seemingly intended to be private exchanges among the macho men. The fact that their exchanges became public trumps whatever intention they may have had to keep their communications private.
The Supreme Court pointed out that seekers of righteousness cannot seek cover under a pledge of anonymity “when their actions are brought to light for everyone’s scrutiny.”
“Unfortunately or fortunately, respondents’ (the five lawyers) true character came to light. Their secret codes divulged. This was their undoing. Their conversations became public and have become a public proceeding by the turn of events, as if they were uttered in a public discourse such as a court hearing,” the SC lamented.
The high court noted that, unlike the other lawyers here, Atty. Tabujara III did not sincerely apologize. He only said: ‘Unfortunately, some conversations may rub some persons the wrong way or offend certain people. I do not profess to be perfect. I do make mistakes occasionally. l[ I have hurt anyone, I am sorry and seek to make amends. No one is 100% perfect.”
“He is the only one so far who has not acknowledged his participation in the conversation and he seems to completely sidestep the fact that he made such sweeping statements against judges pertaining to their mental health or their sexual orientation. There is no slightest hint of remorse. What makes the offense worse is that Atty. Tabujara III is a professor,” it said.
The SC found the unapologizing stance of Atty. Tubajara III and his seeming disregard of his position as “molder of minds of soon-to-be lawyers” who is tasked with guiding “his students to behave and act in a manner consistent with the lofty standards of the legal profession.”
