Oncines vs. Causing

A lawyer who has already been disbarred may no longer be suspended or disbarred anew, but the Supreme Court retains jurisdiction to impose a fine for offenses committed while still a member of the Bar, for recording in the lawyer’s OBC file and consideration in any petition for reinstatement. A lawyer likewise violates the CPRA by failing to maintain respect toward the courts and judicial officers and by willfully disobeying the lawful directives of the IBP.

Bernadette C. Oncines was employed at Branch 2, Regional Trial Court, Butuan City, as Court Legal Researcher II, and at one point served as officer-in-charge, Branch Clerk of Court. Atty. Berteni C. Causing served as counsel for Angelita Tan Licup in a land registration case pending before the same court, docketed as CAD Case No. 1, Cad. Rec. No. 321 (Lot No. 447). The administrative case was governed by the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, which took effect on May 29, 2023 and applies to pending and future cases. Atty. Causing had prior disciplinary cases, including Velasco, Lao, and Hidalgo, which became material to the penalty imposed.

At the time of the filing of the case, Bernadette C. Oncines was an employee of Branch 2, Regional Trial Court, Butuan City, as Court Legal Researcher II. Atty. Berteni C. Causing served as counsel of Angelita Tan Licup, whose land registration case was pending at RTC Butuan and docketed as CAD Case No. 1, Cad. Rec. No. 321 (Lot No. 447). Sometime in 2014, Oncines was designated as officer-in-charge, Branch Clerk of Court of RTC Butuan. In that capacity, she issued a Certification on October 8, 2014, stating that per the court’s docket, Lot No. 447 owned by a certain Hong C. See appeared to be the subject of CAD Case No. 1, Cad. Rec. No. 321.

On June 29, 2016, Licup came to RTC Butuan claiming that Atty. Causing advised her to ask for a new certification from the court to the effect that the October 8, 2014 Certification issued by Oncines was of no force and effect. Oncines advised Licup that she was no longer the OIC of RTC Butuan and suggested that Licup put the request in writing or that Atty. Causing file the necessary pleading before the court. On the same day, Atty. Causing arrived at RTC Butuan and angrily shouted at Oncines, demanded that she retract the Certification she previously issued, and mentioned the possibility of filing an administrative case against her. Despite Atty. Causing’s aggression, Oncines asked Licup to return to the office in the afternoon as she would have to confer with the presiding judge and the clerk of court regarding the matter.

On the same day, Oncines submitted an incident report to her presiding judge. After conferring with Presiding Judge Emmanuel E. Escatron and their branch clerk of court, Oncines advised Licup’s representative that she no longer had authority to retract the Certification as requested, considering that she was no longer OIC Branch Clerk of Court. Atty. Causing endorsed Licup’s administrative complaint against Oncines to the Court on July 1, 2016. Believing that Atty. Causing promoted the malicious and unfounded suit against her, Oncines filed the present Verified Complaint for disbarment against Atty. Causing. Oncines likewise alleged that Atty. Causing committed conduct unbecoming of a lawyer for insisting that she retract the October 8, 2014 Certification.

Before the IBP, Commissioner Escueta found that Oncines had proved by substantial evidence that Atty. Causing violated his duty to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers, and his professional responsibility not to promote or sue any false or groundless suit. Oncines submitted certified true copies of her letter to the Prosecutor’s Office, Licup’s Complaint-Affidavit, respondent’s indorsement of Licup’s Complaint-Affidavit, Licup’s Complaint-Affidavit filed with the Court, the 2014 Certification issued by complainant in relation to CAD Case No. 1, Cad. Rec. 321, the Official Receipt of the 2014 Certification, and the Joint-Affidavit of complainant’s co-employees Sherwin Berol and Jestoni Lagare. Atty. Causing, on the other hand, merely made general statements of denial and failed to submit any documentary evidence or affidavit to support his position, and he also failed to file his position paper with the Commission on Bar Discipline.

• Conduct Unbecoming: Oncines alleged that Atty. Causing committed conduct unbecoming of a lawyer by insisting that she retract the October 8, 2014 Certification.
• Promotion of Malicious and Unfounded Suit: Oncines alleged that Atty. Causing promoted the malicious and unfounded administrative suit against her.
• Disrespect and Intimidation: Oncines alleged that Atty. Causing angrily shouted at her, demanded that she retract the Certification, and mentioned the possibility of filing an administrative case against her.

• General Denial: Respondent merely made general statements of denial of complainant’s allegations and failed to submit any documentary evidence or affidavit to support his position.
• Bad Faith and Bias: Respondent made presumptuous statements regarding the reason behind the filing of the present case, baselessly imputing bad faith on complainant and Judge Escatron; in his Mandatory Conference Brief, he claimed that Judge Escatron convinced complainant to file the case out of spite and revenge for lawyering administrative cases against Judge Escatron.

• CPRA Violation — Respect Due to Courts: Whether respondent violated the CPRA for failing to observe and maintain respect towards the Court, its processes, and its employees.
• CPRA Violation — IBP Directives: Whether respondent violated the CPRA for willful noncompliance with the lawful directives of the IBP-CBD and the Supreme Court.
• CPRA Violation — Groundless Suit: Whether respondent violated the CPRA for promoting a groundless, false, or unlawful suit against complainant.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty of suspension or disbarment may still be imposed on respondent, and what penalty is proper, considering his prior disbarment.

• CPRA Violation — Respect Due to Courts: Yes. Respondent’s slanderous remarks and menacing language before the Court and its employees, and his imputations of malice and partiality against Judge Escatron, violate Canon II, Section 2 of the CPRA and constitute grossly undignified conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
• CPRA Violation — IBP Directives: Yes. Respondent’s cavalier attitude and willful noncompliance with the lawful directives of the IBP violate Canon III, Section 2 of the CPRA and are classified as a less serious offense.
• CPRA Violation — Groundless Suit: No. Substantial evidence does not show that the administrative case against complainant was filed for a malicious purpose or was frivolous and baseless.
• Penalty: The Court imposed an aggregate fine of PHP 155,000.000, comprising PHP 120,000.00 for disrespect toward the Court and PHP 35,000.00 for willful noncompliance with IBP directives, and reiterated respondent’s continuing disbarment.

• CPRA Violation — Respect Due to Courts: The proper evidentiary threshold in disbarment cases is substantial evidence, which is the amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Complainant partially discharged this burden by submitting certified true copies of relevant documents and the Joint-Affidavit of Sherwin Berol and Jestoni Lagare, while respondent merely made general denials and failed to submit evidence. Canon II, Section 2 of the CPRA requires a lawyer to respect the law, the courts, tribunals, and other government agencies, their officials, employees, and processes, and to act with courtesy, civility, fairness, and candor. As Licup’s counsel, respondent was bound to observe and maintain respect toward the courts, but he angrily shouted at complainant and arrogantly demanded that she explain why she issued the Certification. His Mandatory Conference Brief also contained blatant yet baseless accusations of partiality and malice against Judge Escatron, claiming that the judge convinced complainant to file the case out of spite and revenge. Even if true, such personal attacks against Judge Escatron should have been reserved for a different forum; lawyers should refrain from attributing to a judge motives not supported by record or immaterial to the case. The Court had previously addressed respondent’s slanderous statements regarding Judge Escatron in Hidalgo vs. Causing, where such statements were found unnecessary and reflective of lack of respect for the Judiciary. While lawyers may criticize judges, that right is not an unbridled license to malign and insult the court and its officers. As stated in Alpajora vs. Calayan, no matter how passionate a lawyer is in defending his client’s cause, he must display the appropriate decorum and afford proper and utmost respect due to the courts.
• CPRA Violation — IBP Directives: The IBP found that respondent unjustifiably failed to comply with its directives to file his position paper and attend the Mandatory Conference despite having received due notice. As an officer of the Court, respondent is expected to know that the directives of the IBP, as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers, are not mere requests but lawful orders that should be complied with promptly and completely. His blatant noncompliance indicates a lack of respect for the Court and the IBP’s rules and procedures, tantamount to willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the Court. This violates Canon III, Section 2 of the CPRA, which requires a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, promote respect for laws and legal processes, safeguard human rights, and at all times advance the honor and integrity of the legal profession. As held in Radian Golden Marine Services Corporation vs. Atty. Cabugoy, the highest form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a lawyer’s obedience to court orders and processes.
• CPRA Violation — Groundless Suit: Complainant alleged that respondent promoted the filing of an unfounded suit against a personnel of the court. Canon II, Section 13 of the CPRA provides that a lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, impute to or accuse another lawyer of misconduct, impropriety, or a crime in the absence of factual or legal basis, nor file or cause the filing of frivolous or baseless administrative, civil, or criminal complaints against another lawyer. However, no person shall be penalized for exercising the right to litigate, especially when done in good faith. Licup’s Counter-Affidavit showed that Atty. Causing asked Licup to request a certification that the October 8, 2014 Certification had no legal effect, and that he told Oncines that if she would not give a certificate to retract the certification, they would file a case against her at the Supreme Court. At best, this conduct may establish that respondent supported Licup’s filing of an administrative case against complainant, but such support does not clearly prove that the case was filed for a malicious purpose, and thus cannot be classified with certainty as a frivolous and baseless suit.
• Penalty: Respondent had been previously found guilty of violating the CPR multiple times. In Velasco vs. Atty. Causing, he was suspended from the practice of law for one year for violating the confidentiality of an ongoing family court proceeding by publishing pleadings on social media. In Lao vs. Atty. Causing, he was disbarred for violating the CPR and the Lawyer’s Oath when he utilized social media to publish defamatory accusations of plunder against Lao and other individuals. In Hidalgo vs. Atty. Causing, he was again sentenced to disbarment. These multiple disciplinary actions show his propensity to violate the Lawyer’s Oath and his repeated failure to live up to the exacting ethical standards imposed upon members of the Bar. However, the penalty of disbarment or suspension cannot again be imposed on a lawyer who has already been disbarred; once a lawyer is disbarred, there is no penalty that can be imposed regarding his privilege to practice law. Nonetheless, the Court can still give the corresponding penalty for the sole purpose of recording it in his personal file with the OBC, to be considered in the event the disbarred lawyer subsequently files a petition for reinstatement. Respondent violated the CPR in 2016, or six years before he was disbarred in 2022, and the Court does not lose jurisdiction over other offenses committed by a disbarred lawyer while he was still a member of the profession or prior to his disbarment. By imposing a fine, the Court asserts its authority and competence to discipline all acts and actuations committed by members of the legal profession. The CPRA allows the Court to impose a fine upon a disbarred lawyer when subsequently found guilty of a new charge. Under Section 39 of the CPRA, a respondent found liable for more than one offense arising from separate acts or omissions in a single administrative proceeding shall be meted with separate penalties. Considering the aggravating circumstance of previous administrative liabilities, particularly the disbarment of Causing in Lao and Hidalgo and his preventive suspension in Velasco, Section 38 of the CPRA dictates that the Court shall impose the maximum penalty prescribed for each offense, which is a period or amount not exceeding double of the maximum prescribed by the Rules. Respondent’s slanderous remarks and menacing language before the Court and its employees, and his imputations of malice and partiality against Judge Escatron, violate Canon II of the CPRA and constitute grossly undignified conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, a serious offense under Canon VI, Section 33 of the CPRA, which may be sanctioned with a fine exceeding PHP 100,000.00. Respondent’s cavalier attitude and willful noncompliance with the lawful directives of the IBP violate Canon III of the CPRA and are a less serious offense, punishable by suspension from the practice of law for one month to six months and/or a fine within the range of PHP 35,000.00 to PHP 100,000.00. The Court thus imposed PHP 120,000.00 for failure to observe and maintain respect toward the Court and PHP 35,000.00 for willful noncompliance with the lawful directives of the IBP.

• Substantial Evidence in Disbarment Cases — The proper evidentiary threshold in disbarment cases is substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Complainants bear the burden of proving their allegations by substantial evidence; mere assumptions and suspicions do not satisfy the burden. The Court applied this standard to find that the respect violation was established, but the groundless-suit charge was not.
• Respect Due to Courts and Judicial Officers — A lawyer must maintain toward the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of the judiciary’s supreme importance, and must uphold its dignity and authority. The Court found Atty. Causing violated this duty by angrily shouting at Oncines, demanding retraction, and making slanderous remarks and baseless imputations against Judge Escatron.
• Right to Criticize Judges Is Not Unbridled — While lawyers may criticize judges, that right does not constitute an unbridled license to malign and insult the court and its officers. The Court held that respondent’s intemperate language and unkind ascription had no place in the dignity of the judicial forum.
• Willful Disobedience of IBP Directives — Directives of the IBP, as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers, are lawful orders that must be complied with promptly and completely. Respondent’s failure to file his position paper and attend the Mandatory Conference despite notice violated Canon III, Section 2 of the CPRA.
• Groundless or Baseless Suits — Lawyers must not initiate or promote frivolous or baseless complaints, but no person shall be penalized for exercising the right to litigate in good faith. The Court found no substantial evidence that respondent promoted a groundless suit because support for Licup’s filing did not prove malicious purpose.
• Penalty on a Disbarred Lawyer — Once a lawyer is disbarred, no penalty can be imposed regarding the privilege to practice law, but the Court retains jurisdiction over offenses committed while still a member of the profession and may impose a fine for recording in the OBC file, to be considered in any petition for reinstatement.
• Multiple Offenses and Aggravating Circumstances — Under the CPRA, a respondent liable for more than one offense in a single administrative proceeding shall receive separate penalties; with aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances, the Court may impose penalties not exceeding double the maximum prescribed. The Court applied this to impose PHP 120,000.00 and PHP 35,000.00 fines.
• Effectivity of the CPRA — The CPRA took effect on May 29, 2023 and applies to all pending and future cases, except if not feasible or would work injustice against the respondent. The Court applied it to this pending administrative case.

• "Jurisprudence dictates that the proper evidentiary threshold in disbarment cases is substantial evidence, which is the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." — This states the evidentiary standard governing disbarment proceedings and frames the Court’s assessment of whether complainant discharged her burden.
• "It cannot be overemphasized that it is the sworn duty of a lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance." — This articulates the foundational duty of respect toward the courts, which the Court found respondent violated.
• "At best, this specific conduct may establish that respondent supported Licup's filing of an administrative case against complainant. However, such support does not clearly prove that the case filed against complainant was done for a malicious purpose, and thus, cannot be classified with certainty as a frivolous and baseless suit." — This is the ratio for the Court’s ruling that the groundless-suit charge was not supported by substantial evidence.
• "Once a lawyer is disbarred, there is no penalty that can be imposed regarding his privilege to practice law." — This states the rule that a disbarred lawyer cannot be suspended or disbarred anew, explaining why the Court imposed fines instead.

• Arsenio vs. Atty. Tabuzo, 809 Phil. 206 (2017) — Cited for the substantial evidence threshold in disbarment cases.
• Lao vs. Atty. Causing, 930 Phil. 538 (2022) — Prior disbarment of respondent for defamatory social media accusations; used as an aggravating circumstance and basis for continuing disbarment.
• Velasco vs. Atty. Causing, 897 Phil. 553 (2021) — Prior one-year suspension of respondent for violating the confidentiality of an ongoing family court proceeding; cited as a previous administrative liability.
• Hidalgo vs. Causing, A.C. No. 11993, March 4, 2025 — Prior disbarment of respondent for slanderous statements against Judge Escatron; cited as an aggravating circumstance and for lack of respect for the Judiciary.
• Judge Alpajora vs. Atty. Calayan, 823 Phil. 93 (2018) — Cited for the decorum and utmost respect lawyers must afford the courts.
• Judge Pantanosas, Jr. vs. Atty. Pamatong, 787 Phil. 86 (2016) — Cited for the duty to maintain respect toward courts and to refrain from attributing motives to judges unsupported by record.
• Radian Golden Marine Services Corporation vs. Atty. Cabugoy, 854 Phil. 643 (2019) — Cited for the rule that failure to comply with IBP directives warrants suspension.
• Judge Dumlao vs. Atty. Camacho, 839 Phil. 509 (2018) — Cited for the rule that disbarment or suspension cannot again be imposed on an already disbarred lawyer.
• Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite, Department of Justice vs. Atty. Mas, 946 Phil. 474 (2023) — Cited for recording the penalty in the OBC file for consideration in reinstatement.
• Castillo vs. Atty. Laki, 955 Phil. 548 (2024) — Cited for the imposition of fines in disciplinary cases.

• Canon II, Section 2, CPRA — Dignified conduct; a lawyer shall respect the law, the courts, tribunals, and other government agencies, their officials, employees, and processes, and act with courtesy, civility, fairness, and candor. Applied to respondent’s disrespect toward the Court and its employees.
• Canon II, Section 13, CPRA — Imputation of misconduct, impropriety, or crime without basis; a lawyer shall not file or assist in filing frivolous or baseless administrative, civil, or criminal complaints. Applied but found not violated due to lack of substantial evidence.
• Canon III, Section 2, CPRA — The responsible and accountable lawyer; a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, promote respect for laws and legal processes, safeguard human rights, and advance the honor and integrity of the legal profession. Applied to respondent’s willful disobedience of IBP directives.
• Canon VI, Section 33, CPRA — Serious offenses; grossly undignified conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice may be sanctioned with disbarment, suspension exceeding six months, revocation of notarial commission, or a fine exceeding PHP 100,000.00. Applied to the respect violation.
• Canon VI, Section 34, CPRA — Less serious offenses include violation of Supreme Court rules and issuances in relation to Bar Matters and administrative disciplinary proceedings, including willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders of the Supreme Court and the IBP. Applied to respondent’s noncompliance.
• Canon VI, Section 37(b), CPRA — Penalty for less serious offenses: suspension from the practice of law for one month to six months and/or a fine within the range of PHP 35,000.00 to PHP 100,000.00. Applied to impose PHP 35,000.00.
• Canon VI, Section 38, CPRA — Manner of imposition; with aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances, the Court may impose suspension or fine for a period or amount not exceeding double the maximum prescribed. Applied due to prior administrative liabilities.
• Canon VI, Section 40, CPRA (cited in footnote; body refers to Section 39) — Penalty for multiple offenses; if the respondent is liable for more than one offense arising from separate acts or omissions in a single administrative proceeding, the Court shall impose separate penalties for each offense. Applied to impose separate fines.
• Canon VI, Section 42, CPRA — Cited for the Court’s authority to impose a fine upon a disbarred lawyer subsequently found guilty of a new charge.
• General Provisions, Section 1, CPRA — The CPRA applies to all pending and future cases, except if not feasible or would work injustice against the respondent. Applied to this pending case.
• General Provisions, Section 3, CPRA — The CPRA took effect fifteen days following publication; it was published on May 14, 2023 and took effect on May 29, 2023. Applied to this case.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Gaerlan, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, and Villanueva, JJ., concur. Rosario, Kho, Jr., and Singh, JJ., were on leave.