Hidalgo vs. Causing

A lawyer violates Canon II, Sections 13 and 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability by imputing an unsubstantiated bribery charge against a judge in a pleading, based on rumor and hearsay and immaterial to the case; and a disbarred lawyer subsequently found guilty of a new ethical violation cannot be disbarred or suspended again, but the penalty must be recorded in the Office of the Bar Confidant for consideration in any future application for reinstatement.

Dr. Joyce T. Hidalgo and Atty. Berteni Cataluña Causing were on opposing sides of litigation stemming from the demolition of the houses of Atty. Causing's clients. Atty. Causing had previously been disciplined in Velasco vs. Causing, where he was suspended for one year, and in Lao vs. Causing, where he was disbarred for posting a draft plunder complaint on Facebook. The disciplinary framework is the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, which took effect on May 30, 2023 and repealed the Code of Professional Responsibility, with a provision applying it to pending and future cases except when retroactive application would not be feasible or would work injustice.

On January 5, 2018, Dr. Joyce T. Hidalgo filed an administrative Complaint against Atty. Berteni Cataluña Causing for violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Dr. Hidalgo alleged that Atty. Causing deliberately refused to comply with several court decisions that had attained finality and filed numerous malicious, unfounded, and baseless complaints against her, her counsel, and other government officials involved in the demolition of the houses of Atty. Causing's clients, supposedly to secure leverage in a pending case and convince them to yield; these cases were ultimately dismissed by the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, and the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao Station. Dr. Hidalgo also stated that Atty. Causing charged Judge Emmanuel Escatron, presiding judge of Branch 2, Regional Trial Court, Butuan City, with allegedly receiving PHP 16,000,000.00 from Dr. Hidalgo in exchange for issuing the Alias Writ of Demolition, an allegation made without evidence. Dr. Hidalgo denied making any payment to Judge Escatron, especially since she already had difficulty paying for the legal services of her counsel, and maintained that Atty. Causing violated the Lawyer's Oath and multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility by perpetuating falsehood and filing multiple groundless, false, and unlawful suits.

Attached to the Complaint were the Court of Appeals' October 27, 2017 Decision in Villar vs. Escatron affirming the lower court's issuance of a second Alias Writ of Demolition; the Supreme Court's October 8, 2014 Resolution dismissing the petition in Members of Iglesia Ni Cristo vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals; Atty. Causing's complaint-affidavit in Causing vs. Amante, Jr., where Dr. Hidalgo and other government officials were impleaded as respondents; and the Office of the Ombudsman's Joint Order in Amante denying Atty. Causing's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his complaint. In his Verified Answer with Motion for Leave to Admit Answer, Atty. Causing stated that he had no participation in most of the cases mentioned and pointed out that they were filed by an Atty. Froilan A. Montero. He claimed that the sole complaint he filed was the one against Dr. Hidalgo for grave misconduct, oppression, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, which was supported by the affidavits of the demolition victims.

The crux of the case was Atty. Causing's statement in his complaint-affidavit regarding Judge Escatron. Atty. Causing stated that the Sinumpaang Reklamo of the 24 residents whose houses were demolished named Judge Escatron as among the errant government officials, but that Judge Escatron was not included in the complaint because a disciplinary case was already filed against him for allegedly accepting a bribe in the amount of PHP 16,000,000.00. The complaint-affidavit quoted paragraphs stating that the 24 Sinumpaang Reklamo named Judge Emmanuel E. Escatron and the sheriffs of Butuan RTCs but that these court officials were not included because they were subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and because a separate complaint was already filed before the Supreme Court against Judge Escatron, and that in the complaint filed before the Supreme Court against Judge Escatron, the complainants alleged that it was rumored that Sixteen Million Pesos (₱16,000,000.00) was given to officials to ensure the success of the demolition. The Commission on Bar Discipline found that the accusation was based on a mere rumor, wholly unverified, and made without any personal knowledge, and that Atty. Causing should have refrained from stating it.

The Court also took judicial notice that Atty. Causing had been disciplined twice within the last four years and was currently disbarred. In Velasco vs. Causing, he published on his Facebook account a post entitled "Wise Polygamous Husband?" and attached photographs of Enrico R. Velasco's petition for declaration of nullity of marriage; he shared the post to his other Facebook account and a Facebook group under his name with approximately 3,500 members, and sent it to Velasco's son through direct message. For these acts, he was suspended from the practice of law for one year with a stern warning that the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

In Lao vs. Causing, Atty. Causing posted on his Facebook account on January 18, 2019 his draft complaint-affidavit for plunder against Jackiya A. Lao and other persons. Lao proved that the post elicited negative reactions, comments, and public opinions against her and her fellow respondents, and she was subjected to public hate, contempt, and ridicule, with the respondents being called "nangungurakot" and "corrupt na official." The Court observed that Atty. Causing was motivated by his desire to ruin the reputation of Lao and the others, and that his subsequent filing of the complaint was immaterial because he had already succeeded in damaging their reputation. As a repeat offender, he was disbarred from the practice of law.

• Non-compliance with Final Decisions: Dr. Hidalgo argued that Atty. Causing deliberately refused to comply with several court decisions that had attained finality.
• Malicious and Baseless Complaints: Dr. Hidalgo maintained that Atty. Causing filed numerous malicious, unfounded, and baseless complaints against her, her counsel, and other government officials involved in the demolition, to secure leverage in a pending case and convince them to yield; these cases were ultimately dismissed by the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, and the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao Station.
• Unsubstantiated Bribery Accusation: Dr. Hidalgo alleged that Atty. Causing charged Judge Emmanuel Escatron with allegedly receiving PHP 16,000,000.00 from her in exchange for issuing the Alias Writ of Demolition without any evidence; she denied making any payment to Judge Escatron.
• Violation of Lawyer's Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility: Dr. Hidalgo maintained that Atty. Causing violated the Lawyer's Oath and multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility by perpetuating falsehood and filing multiple groundless, false, and unlawful suits.

• Lack of Participation: Atty. Causing stated that he had no participation in most of the cases mentioned and pointed out that they were filed by an Atty. Froilan A. Montero.
• Sole Complaint: Atty. Causing claimed that the sole complaint he filed was the one against Dr. Hidalgo for grave misconduct, oppression, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, which was supported by the affidavits of the demolition victims.
• No Direct Complaint Against Judge Escatron: Atty. Causing clarified that he was not among the complainants in the administrative complaint filed against Judge Escatron, although he entered his appearance as their pro bono lawyer, and that prior to filing the case, he ensured the veracity of his clients' allegations that Judge Escatron was involved in bribery.
• Amante Statement: Atty. Causing explained that as regards Amante, he was merely stating a fact that an administrative complaint existed involving Judge Escatron's alleged bribery and that he did not provide any remark or opinion on the matter; he prayed that the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors be reversed and the Complaint against him be dismissed.

• Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability: Whether respondent Atty. Berteni Cataluña Causing violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.
• Penalty Despite Prior Disbarment: Whether the penalty of disbarment may be imposed and recorded against respondent, who was already disbarred, for a new ethical violation.

• Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability: Yes. Respondent violated Canon II, Sections 13 and 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability by imputing an unsubstantiated bribery accusation against Judge Escatron in his complaint-affidavit, based on rumor and hearsay and immaterial to his Ombudsman suit.
• Penalty Despite Prior Disbarment: Disbarment is the proper penalty as a serious offense under Section 33(i) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, but because respondent is already disbarred, it cannot be imposed and must instead be recorded in his Office of the Bar Confidant file for consideration in any future application for reinstatement.

• Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability: The Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability took effect on May 30, 2023 and repealed the Code of Professional Responsibility, and its provisions apply to all pending and future cases except when retroactive application would not be feasible or would work injustice. Although respondent's assailed actions were committed before its effectivity, the Court applied the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability to determine his administrative liability. Canon II, Section 13 prohibits a lawyer from directly or indirectly imputing to or accusing another lawyer of misconduct, impropriety, or a crime in the absence of factual or legal basis, and from filing or causing the filing of frivolous or baseless administrative, civil, or criminal complaints against another lawyer. Canon II, Section 14 requires grievances against any officer of a court, tribunal, or other government agency to be submitted only through the appropriate remedy and before the proper authorities, and makes statements insinuating improper motive on the part of such officer, not supported by substantial evidence, a ground for disciplinary action. Lawyers may criticize the acts of courts and judges in respectful terms and through legitimate channels, but this is not an unbridled freedom to malign and slander the courts and its officers; criticisms must be supported by evidence and ventilated in the proper forum. Alpajora vs. Calayan teaches that lawyers are duty-bound to observe and maintain respect due to courts and judicial officers, abstain from offensive or menacing language or behavior, and refrain from attributing to a judge motives not supported by the record or having no materiality to the case; a lawyer was suspended for two years for consistently making unsupported imputations that a judge had improper ties with adverse counsels. Here, the Court agreed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines that there was insufficient evidence to show respondent was involved in Villar and Members of Iglesia Ni Cristo. The crux was his statement in his complaint-affidavit regarding Judge Escatron. Respondent stated that the Sinumpaang Reklamo of the 24 residents named Judge Escatron as among the errant government officials, but that Judge Escatron was not included because a disciplinary case was already filed against him for allegedly accepting a bribe of PHP 16,000,000.00. Because Judge Escatron was not a party in Amante, there was no need to make any statement regarding the administrative case, much less state that a member of the Judiciary was facing a bribery charge. Respondent's lack of personal knowledge of its veracity should have prevented him from charging someone based solely on rumors and hearsay, and the administrative case was immaterial to his suit before the Office of the Ombudsman. His conduct was unbecoming of the standards expected from a lawyer with knowledge of legal processes, undermined the integrity of the legal profession, showed lack of respect for the Judiciary, and revealed his failure to uphold honesty and fairness, reflecting his unfitness to practice law. Unsubstantiated accusations against judges spurred by ill motives warrant administrative sanctions. Thus, respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.
• Penalty Despite Prior Disbarment: The Court took judicial notice that respondent had been disciplined twice within the last four years and was currently disbarred. In Velasco vs. Causing, he was suspended for one year with a stern warning for publishing on Facebook a post entitled "Wise Polygamous Husband?" with photographs of Enrico R. Velasco's petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, sharing it to his other Facebook account and a Facebook group with approximately 3,500 members, and sending it to Velasco's son through direct message. In Lao vs. Causing, he was disbarred after posting on Facebook his draft complaint-affidavit for plunder against Jackiya A. Lao and others, which elicited negative reactions, comments, and public opinions, subjected Lao to public hate, contempt, and ridicule, and led to the respondents being called "nangungurakot" and "corrupt na official"; the Court found he was motivated by a desire to ruin their reputation and that his subsequent filing was immaterial because he had already damaged their reputation. As a repeat offender, he was disbarred. Respondent's pattern of misconduct revealed a gross disregard for ethical standards; his inclusion of unsubstantiated accusations damaged Judge Escatron's reputation and eroded public confidence in the courts and their integrity in administering justice, anathema to his duty as an officer of the court to uphold honesty and respect for the Judiciary. Despite respondent's disbarment, the Court may still prescribe the proper penalty commensurate to his violation for record purposes. Canon VI, Section 42 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability provides that when the respondent has been previously disbarred and is subsequently found guilty of a new charge, the Court may impose a fine or order the disbarred lawyer to return money or property to the client, when proper; if the new charge deserves disbarment or suspension, it shall not be imposed but the penalty shall be recorded in the personal file of the disbarred lawyer in the Office of the Bar Confidant or other office designated for the purpose; and in the event the disbarred lawyer applies for judicial clemency, the penalty so recorded shall be considered in the resolution of the same. Recording the new ethical violation in an already-disbarred lawyer's official file serves a vital function: should the disbarred lawyer ever apply for reinstatement, this documented history of ethical violations would weigh heavily in the decision, making reinstatement more difficult to obtain. The Court found that respondent exhibited grossly undignified conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, a serious offense under Section 33(i) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. Under Canon VI, Section 37, sanctions for serious offenses include disbarment, suspension from the practice of law for more than six months, revocation of notarial commission and disqualification as notary public for not less than two years, or a fine exceeding PHP 100,000.00. Under Canon VI, Sections 38 and 39, a respondent's previous administrative liability is an aggravating circumstance that may warrant disbarment. Given these considerations, the imposition of the ultimate penalty of disbarment was proper, but because respondent was already disbarred, the penalty could no longer be imposed and should instead be recorded for consideration should he apply for reinstatement.

• Duty of lawyers to respect courts and judges; prohibition on unsubstantiated imputations — Under Canon II, Sections 13 and 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, a lawyer shall not directly or indirectly impute to or accuse another lawyer of misconduct, impropriety, or a crime without factual or legal basis, nor file or cause the filing of frivolous or baseless administrative, civil, or criminal complaints against another lawyer. Grievances against any officer of a court, tribunal, or other government agency must be submitted only through the appropriate remedy and before the proper authorities, and statements insinuating improper motive on the part of such officer, not supported by substantial evidence, are a ground for disciplinary action. Lawyers may criticize the acts of courts and judges in respectful terms and through legitimate channels, but this right is not an unbridled freedom to malign and slander the courts and its officers; criticisms must be supported by evidence and ventilated in the proper forum. The Court applied this doctrine to respondent's unsubstantiated bribery accusation against Judge Escatron in his complaint-affidavit, which was based on rumor and hearsay and immaterial to his Ombudsman suit.
• Penalty when the respondent has been previously disbarred — Under Canon VI, Section 42 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, when a respondent has been previously disbarred and is subsequently found guilty of a new charge, the Court may impose a fine or order the disbarred lawyer to return money or property to the client, when proper. If the new charge deserves disbarment or suspension, it shall not be imposed but the penalty shall be recorded in the personal file of the disbarred lawyer in the Office of the Bar Confidant or other office designated for the purpose. In the event the disbarred lawyer applies for judicial clemency, the recorded penalty shall be considered. The Court applied this doctrine because respondent was already disbarred, ordering the present disbarment penalty recorded for consideration in any future application for reinstatement.
• Serious offense of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice — Under Canon VI, Section 33(i) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, grossly undignified conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice is a serious offense. Section 37 authorizes disbarment, suspension exceeding six months, revocation of notarial commission and disqualification as notary public for not less than two years, or a fine exceeding PHP 100,000.00 for serious offenses. Sections 38 and 39 provide that a respondent's previous administrative liability is an aggravating circumstance that may warrant disbarment. The Court found respondent's pattern of misconduct and unsubstantiated accusations against Judge Escatron to be a serious offense warranting disbarment, but because he was already disbarred, the penalty was recorded instead.
• Retroactive application of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability — The Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability took effect on May 30, 2023 and repealed the Code of Professional Responsibility. Its General Provisions, Section 1 states that it shall be applied to all pending and future cases, except to the extent that in the opinion of the Court its retroactive application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern. The Court applied the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability to respondent's actions committed before its effectivity to determine his administrative liability.
• Lawyers as officers of the court; membership in the legal profession as a privilege — Lawyers are bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts and to promote confidence in the fair administration of justice; respect for the courts guarantees the stability of the judicial institution. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege, and when an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of the Court to withdraw the same. The Court applied this doctrine in finding respondent's conduct anathema to his duty as an officer of the court and in imposing disbarment, recorded because of his existing disbarment.

• "While a disbarred lawyer cannot be suspended or disbarred again, these penalties may be formally recorded in case a reinstatement is sought in the future." — This states the core ruling on the effect of a new ethical violation committed by a lawyer who is already disbarred.
• "A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, impute to or accuse another lawyer of a misconduct, impropriety, or a crime in the absence of factual or legal basis." — This is the controlling ethical prohibition under Canon II, Section 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, applied to respondent's unsubstantiated bribery accusation.
• "As Judge Escatron was not a party in Amante, there was no need to make any statement regarding the administrative case, much less state that a member of the Judiciary is facing a bribery charge. That respondent had no personal knowledge of its veracity should have prevented him from charging someone based solely on rumors and hearsay." — This is the ratio decidendi for the finding of administrative liability, explaining why the statement in the complaint-affidavit was unethical and sanctionable.
• "If the new charge deserves the penalty of a disbarment or suspension from the practice of law, it shall not be imposed but the penalty shall be recorded in the personal file of the disbarred lawyer in the Office of the Bar Confidant or other office designated for the purpose." — This is the canonical formulation of Canon VI, Section 42, which the Court applied because respondent was already disbarred.

• Alpajora vs. Calayan, 823 Phil. 93 (2018) [Per J. Gesmundo, En Banc] — Cited as the controlling precedent on a lawyer's duty to observe and maintain respect due to courts and judicial officers and to refrain from attributing to a judge motives not supported by the record or having no materiality to the case; the Court noted that a lawyer was suspended for two years for consistently making unsupported imputations that a judge had improper ties with adverse counsels.
• Velasco vs. Causing, 897 Phil. 553 (2021) [Per J. Inting, En Banc] — Cited as respondent's prior disciplinary case, where he was suspended for one year with a stern warning for publishing on Facebook a post and photographs related to Enrico R. Velasco's petition for declaration of nullity of marriage; considered in determining the penalty.
• Lao vs. Causing, A.C. No. 13453, October 4, 2022 [Per Curiam, En Banc] — Cited as respondent's prior disbarment case for posting on Facebook his draft plunder complaint-affidavit against Jackiya A. Lao and others; the Court considered him a repeat offender and disbarred him, which was taken into account in the present penalty.
• PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation vs. Atty. Lokin, Jr., 785 Phil. 1 (2016) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc] — Quoted for the principle that a lawyer, as an officer of the court, has a sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy the high esteem and regard towards the courts essential to the proper administration of justice, and to safeguard the good name of the legal profession and the honor, prestige, and reputation of the judiciary.
• Ramos vs. Lazo, 883 Phil. 318 (2020) [Per J. Gaerlan, Third Division] — Cited for the rule that lawyers may criticize the acts of courts and judges in respectful terms and through legitimate channels, but this right is not an unbridled freedom to malign and slander the courts and its officers; criticisms must be supported by evidence and ventilated in the proper forum, and unsubstantiated accusations against judges spurred by ill motives warrant administrative sanctions.
• Dumlao vs. Camacho, 839 Phil. 509 (2018) [Per J. Gesmundo, En Banc] — Cited in support of recording a new ethical violation in an already-disbarred lawyer's official file, which serves a vital function and is considered should the lawyer apply for reinstatement.
• Vda. Francisco vs. Atty. Real, 880 Phil. 545 (2020) [Per Curiam, En Banc] — Quoted for the principle that membership in the legal profession is a privilege, and when an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of the Court to withdraw the same.
• In Re Gadon, A.C. No. 13521, June 27, 2023 [Per Curiam, En Banc] — Cited in connection with the effectivity of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability and its application to pending cases.

• Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, Canon II, Sections 13 and 14 — Section 13 prohibits a lawyer from directly or indirectly imputing to or accusing another lawyer of misconduct, impropriety, or a crime without factual or legal basis, and from filing or causing the filing of frivolous or baseless administrative, civil, or criminal complaints against another lawyer. Section 14 requires grievances against any officer of a court, tribunal, or other government agency to be submitted only through the appropriate remedy and before the proper authorities, and makes statements insinuating improper motive on the part of such officer, not supported by substantial evidence, a ground for disciplinary action. The Court applied these provisions to respondent's unsubstantiated bribery accusation against Judge Escatron in his complaint-affidavit.
• Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, General Provisions, Section 1 — Provides that the Code shall be applied to all pending and future cases, except to the extent that in the opinion of the Court its retroactive application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern. The Court applied the Code to respondent's actions committed before its effectivity.
• Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, Canon VI, Section 33(i) — Classifies grossly undignified conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice as a serious offense. The Court found respondent guilty of this offense.
• Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, Canon VI, Section 37 — Provides the sanctions for serious offenses: disbarment; suspension from the practice of law for a period exceeding six months; revocation of notarial commission and disqualification as notary public for not less than two years; or a fine exceeding PHP 100,000.00. The Court found disbarment proper.
• Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, Canon VI, Sections 38 and 39 — Provide that a respondent's previous administrative liability is an aggravating circumstance that may warrant the imposition of the penalty of disbarment. The Court considered respondent's prior suspension and disbarment.
• Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, Canon VI, Section 42 — Provides that when the respondent has been previously disbarred and is subsequently found guilty of a new charge, the Court may impose a fine or order the disbarred lawyer to return money or property to the client, when proper; if the new charge deserves disbarment or suspension, it shall not be imposed but the penalty shall be recorded in the personal file of the disbarred lawyer in the Office of the Bar Confidant or other office designated for the purpose; and in the event the disbarred lawyer applies for judicial clemency, the penalty so recorded shall be considered. The Court applied this provision because respondent was already disbarred.
• Code of Professional Responsibility (repealed) — The Complaint was filed for violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, but the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability repealed the Code of Professional Responsibility and was applied to the pending case.
• Lawyer's Oath — The Complaint alleged violation of the Lawyer's Oath; the Court found respondent's conduct violated his oath as a lawyer.

Gesmundo, C.J., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred. Singh, J., was on leave.