Serrano vs. Cruz-Angeles

An administrative complaint against a lawyer based on social media posts cannot prosper absent substantial evidence proving the respondent's ownership of the account and participation in the publication, and the screenshots must be authenticated as electronic evidence; even if ownership is assumed, statements concerning pending cases, criticism of public officials, and pleadings may fall within constitutionally protected freedom of expression. Failure to comply with the investigating commissioner's directives, however, warrants a fine.

Atty. Randy Serrano and respondents Atty. Rose Beatrix Cruz-Angeles and Atty. George Ahmed G. Paglinawan are members of the Philippine Bar. Respondents represented Isaias "Jun" T. Samson, Jr., a suspended minister of the Iglesia ni Cristo, in matters arising from his expulsion from the church and his accusations against church officials. The disciplinary proceeding implicated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, the constitutional protection of freedom of expression, and the evidentiary treatment of social media posts.

Atty. Randy Serrano filed a Complaint-Affidavit dated November 5, 2015 against Atty. Rose Beatrix Cruz-Angeles and Atty. George Ahmed G. Paglinawan for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. The complaint arose from respondents' representation of Isaias "Jun" T. Samson, Jr., a suspended minister of the Iglesia ni Cristo. Felix Nathaniel "Angel" Manalo and Lolita "Lottie" M. Hemedez had been expelled from the INC. Samson held a press conference and accused several church officials of detaining him, prompting the INC to expel him and initiate a libel suit against him.

On August 10, 2015, Atty. Cruz-Angeles posted on her Facebook page that she and Atty. Paglinawan were representing Samson. The post narrated Samson's version of events: he had been illegally detained by persons identified with the INC's Sanggunian, detained for questioning the suspicious transactions of several members of that body, and had escaped from his captors on July 23, 2015 after being detained for over a week. The post further stated that their representation covered Samson's cases both as respondent and as complainant, and that his statements would be released through the undersigned.

On August 25, 2015, Samson filed a complaint with the Department of Justice against INC church officials, denominated as the Criminal Case. Atty. Cruz-Angeles assisted Samson and brought reporters from ABS-CBN to cover the event. A few days later, Atty. Paglinawan posted on a Facebook account regarding the Criminal Case, stating that it was inevitable for the "unusually weird-minded members of INC's Sanggunian" to plan their exits out of the country and asking whether they should be allowed to leave the Philippines just like that, with the answer "HELL NO!" On August 31, 2015, Atty. Cruz-Angeles posted an open letter addressed to former President Benigno Aquino III and former Senator Mar Roxas regarding the Criminal Case, asking them to be transparent about any agreement and to guarantee Samson a fair hearing at preliminary investigation. Thereafter, on various dates, multiple other posts were made on Atty. Cruz-Angeles's Facebook account.

On October 20, 2015, Atty. Cruz-Angeles filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and amparo before the Supreme Court against Bro. Eduardo V. Manalo and other top officials of the INC for the release of Lowell R. Manorca II. According to the complaint, this was done to paint an evil picture of the church officials despite the contradictions in the petition. The Supreme Court issued a writ of amparo on October 23, 2015.

The complaint alleged that respondents leaked an unsigned copy of Samson's Complaint-Affidavit. The IBP Board of Governors found that the complaint and its submissions were bereft of any evidence on the ownership of the Facebook accounts where the subject statements were posted, and that complainant failed to fulfill his burden of proof by substantial evidence.

• Violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability: Complainant alleged that respondents violated the Code through the subject Facebook posts.
• Leak of Client's Complaint-Affidavit: Complainant alleged that respondents leaked an unsigned copy of their client Samson's Complaint-Affidavit.
• Improper Purpose in Habeas Corpus and Amparo Petition: Complainant alleged that Atty. Cruz-Angeles filed the petition for habeas corpus and amparo to paint an evil picture of INC church officials despite contradictions in the petition.

• Ownership and Participation: Whether complainant proved by substantial evidence that respondents owned the Facebook accounts and participated in the subject posts.
• Authentication of Electronic Evidence: Whether the Facebook screenshots were authenticated as electronic evidence under the Rules on Electronic Evidence.
• Freedom of Expression: Whether the subject statements are protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression.
• Non-Compliance with IBP Directives: Whether respondents should be penalized for failure to comply with the investigating commissioner's directives to file an answer, attend preliminary conference, and submit a conference brief and position.

• Ownership and Participation: No. The complaint was bereft of evidence proving ownership of the Facebook accounts; substantial evidence was lacking.
• Authentication of Electronic Evidence: No. Screenshots are documentary and electronic evidence and must be authenticated under Rule 5, Sections 1 and 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence; none of the modes were alleged or presented.
• Freedom of Expression: Yes. Even assuming ownership, the posts regarding pending cases, criticism against government officials, and statements in pleadings are protected by freedom of expression.
• Non-Compliance with IBP Directives: Yes. Each respondent was fined PHP15,000.00 for failure to comply with the investigating commissioner's directives, following Toledo vs. Carlos.

• Ownership and Participation: In disbarment and administrative proceedings against lawyers, the attorney enjoys the legal presumption of innocence, and the complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations by substantial evidence. The charges here principally rested on the publication of Facebook posts by accounts ostensibly associated with respondents, as well as the alleged leak of Samson's Complaint-Affidavit. To penalize respondents, the case had to first establish their ownership of the accounts and their participation in the posts. Under Philcomsat Holdings Corp. vs. Lokin, Jr., the authenticity and due execution of documentary evidence must be proven as a condition sine qua non to proving the respondent's participation. Under Fortun vs. Quinsayas, it is not enough to allege that a publication appears to have come from a respondent; proof of participation in the publication is required before sanctions may be imposed. The complaint contained no evidence proving ownership of the accounts, so respondents' participation could not be assumed.

• Authentication of Electronic Evidence: Facebook posts and screenshots are documentary evidence under Rule 130, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, which includes writings, recordings, and photographs. They are also electronic evidence; under Rule 3, Section 1 and Rule 4, Section 1 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, electronic documents are functional equivalents of paper-based documents and their printouts are considered originals. Nevertheless, electronic evidence is not exempt from proof of authenticity and due execution. Rule 5, Sections 1 and 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence place the burden of proving authenticity on the person seeking to introduce the electronic document and allow authentication by digital signature, by appropriate security procedures or devices, or by other evidence showing integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge. None of these proofs were alleged or presented.

• Freedom of Expression: Even assuming respondents owned the Facebook accounts, the subject posts fell within the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. The statements were grouped into three categories: posts regarding pending cases, criticism against government officials, and statements made in pleadings. Freedom of expression is not absolute and may not be used to broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others, or destroy reputation, as held in Belo-Henares vs. Guevarra. For posts on pending cases, Cabansag vs. Fernandez held that a public utterance or publication is not denied constitutional protection merely because it concerns a judicial proceeding still pending; clear and present danger of substantive evils must be shown, and the possibility of engendering disrespect for the judiciary is not such a substantive evil. No allegation or proof showed that the posts unduly influenced any judge, consistent with Larranaga vs. Court of Appeals and Webb vs. De Leon. For criticism against government officials, Fermin vs. People held that such criticism is protected unless false, malicious, unrelated to the public officer's performance of duties, or irrelevant to matters of public interest involving public figures; the open letter to President Aquino, Senator Roxas, and Secretary Leila de Lima appeared to be mere pleas to secure fairness of the hearings and was not shown to be false or unrelated. For statements in pleadings, Tiongco vs. Deguma established that pleadings are absolutely privileged as long as they are relevant to the issues raised for judicial resolution; the petition for habeas corpus and amparo, which was granted on October 23, 2015, contained factual allegations relevant to its issues. Complainant failed to prove that the utterances fell under any exception or that the publication was prejudicial to the pending cases.

• Non-Compliance with IBP Directives: Respondents failed to comply with the investigating commissioner's directives to (a) file an answer, (b) attend preliminary conference, and (c) submit a conference brief and position. The Court adopted and approved the IBP Board of Governors' recommendation to impose a fine of PHP15,000.00 on each respondent. A similar penalty was imposed in Toledo vs. Carlos for failure to comply with the directive to submit a position paper to the investigating commissioner after due notice.

• Presumption of Innocence and Substantial Evidence in Disbarment Proceedings — An attorney is presumed innocent of administrative charges until the contrary is proved, and the complainant bears the burden of establishing the allegations by substantial evidence. Here, the complaint failed to prove ownership of the Facebook accounts and participation in the posts.
• Authentication of Electronic Evidence — Social media screenshots are documentary and electronic evidence; the proponent must authenticate them by digital signature, appropriate security procedures or devices, or other evidence showing integrity and reliability. Here, none of these modes were alleged or presented.
• Freedom of Expression in Administrative Cases Against Lawyers — The constitutional right is not absolute and may not be used to broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others, or destroy reputation; however, statements on pending cases, criticism of public officials, and pleadings may be protected. Here, the subject posts fell within that protection.
• Absolutely Privileged Pleadings — Pleadings are absolutely privileged as long as they are relevant to the issues raised for judicial resolution. Here, the habeas corpus and amparo petition was relevant and thus privileged.
• Prejudicial Publicity — To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must be allegation and proof that the judges were unduly influenced, not simply that they might be. Here, no such allegation or proof existed.
• Criticism Against Public Officials — Criticism against government officials is protected unless it is false, malicious, unrelated to the public officer's performance of duties, or irrelevant to matters of public interest involving public figures. Here, the open letter was not shown to be false or unrelated to official functions.
• Disciplinary Proceedings Are Sui Generis — Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are neither civil nor criminal actions but investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officers; nevertheless, the Rules of Court on evidence cannot be shunted aside because the exercise of one's profession is at stake. Here, the Court required proof of authenticity and participation.
• Penalty for Non-Compliance with IBP Directives — Failure to comply with the investigating commissioner's directives warrants a fine. Here, each respondent was fined PHP15,000.00.

• "In fine, it is not sufficient to allege that a publication appears to have come from a respondent in a given administrative case. There must be proof of respondents' participation in the said publication as a condition sine qua non to the imposition of any sanctions on said respondent." — This states the evidentiary threshold for sanctioning lawyers based on publications and supports the dismissal for lack of proof of ownership and participation.
• "But again, electronic evidence such as screenshots are not absolved from showing proof of authenticity and due execution. In fact, Rule 5, Sections 1 and 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence provides for the method of proving the authenticity of electronic documents and casts the burden of proof on the person seeking to introduce them as evidence" — This defines the authentication requirement for social media screenshots and explains why the complaint failed on evidentiary grounds.
• "But even assuming that the Facebook accounts were truly owned by respondents, we agree with the IBP Board of Governors that the subject posts fall within the constitutional protection of freedom of expression." — This is the ratio on the constitutional protection of the subject posts.
• "The subject statements were uttered in respondents' defense of their own client either in a proper judicial proceeding, and were thus absolutely privileged, or in public and in valid criticism of government officials." — This summarizes why the posts were protected and why the complaint was dismissed.

• Tan vs. Alvarico, 888 Phil. 345, 355 (2020) — Held that an attorney enjoys the presumption of innocence and that the complainant bears the burden of proof by substantial evidence in disbarment proceedings; applied to reject the complaint for lack of proof.
• Philcomsat Holdings Corp. vs. Lokin, Jr., A.C. No. 9092, July 4, 2013 — Held that authenticity and due execution of documentary evidence must first be proven as a condition sine qua non to proving the respondent's participation; applied to the Facebook posts.
• Fortun vs. Quinsayas, 703 Phil. 578, 599 (2013) — Held that proof of participation in the publication is required before sanctions may be imposed; applied because complainant only alleged that the posts appeared to come from respondents.
• Belo-Henares vs. Guevarra, 801 Phil. 570, 586-587 (2016) — Laid down the general standard for invoking freedom of expression as a defense in administrative cases; applied to the subject posts.
• Cabansag vs. Fernandez, 102 Phil. 152, 161-162 (1957) — Held that a public utterance or publication is not denied constitutional protection merely because it concerns a pending judicial proceeding; applied to posts on pending cases.
• Larranaga vs. Court of Appeals, 351 Phil. 75, 91 (1998) — Held that prejudicial publicity requires allegation and proof that judges were unduly influenced; applied because no such proof existed.
• Fermin vs. People, 573 Phil. 278, 297 (2008) — Held that criticism against public officials is protected unless false, malicious, unrelated to official duties, or irrelevant to public interest; applied to the open letter.
• Tiongco vs. Deguma, 375 Phil. 978, 995-996 (1999) — Held that pleadings are absolutely privileged if relevant to the issues; applied to the habeas corpus and amparo petition.
• Toledo vs. Carlos, A.C. No. 13379, July 25, 2022 — Imposed a similar penalty for failure to comply with the investigating commissioner's directive to submit a position paper; applied to the PHP15,000.00 fine.
• Lao vs. Causing, A.C. No. 13453, October 4, 2022 — Considered screenshots of Facebook posts as documentary evidence; cited in the authentication discussion.

• Rule 130, Section 2, Rules of Court — Defines documentary evidence to include writings, recordings, photographs, and other modes of written expression; applied to treat Facebook posts and screenshots as documentary evidence.
• Rule 3, Section 1, Rules on Electronic Evidence — Provides that electronic documents are functional equivalents of paper-based documents; applied to Facebook posts.
• Rule 4, Section 1, Rules on Electronic Evidence — Provides that printouts of electronic documents are considered originals; applied to the screenshots.
• Rule 5, Sections 1 and 2, Rules on Electronic Evidence — Place the burden of proving authenticity on the proponent and prescribe the manner of authentication; applied because none of the modes were alleged or presented.
• Canon 13, Rule 13.02, Code of Professional Responsibility — Cited by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline as a basis for recommending Atty. Cruz-Angeles's suspension; the Court ultimately dismissed the complaint.
• Canon 8, Rule 8.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Cited by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline as another basis for recommending Atty. Cruz-Angeles's suspension; the Court ultimately dismissed the complaint.
• Constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression — The Court held that the subject posts fell within its protection, subject to the exception that it may not be used to broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others, or destroy reputation.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), M. Lopez, J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur.