Lawyer's Disrespect Toward Court and Staff Yields PHP 155,000 Fine Despite Prior Disbarment

The Supreme Court has ruled that a lawyer who shouts at court personnel and disobeys disciplinary directives can still be held accountable even after being disbarred. In Oncines v. Causing (A.C. No. 11508, June 10, 2026), the Court imposed an aggregate fine of PHP 155,000 on Atty. Berteni C. Causing for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), reiterating that disbarment does not erase liability for misconduct committed while still a member of the Bar.

The Facts of the Case

The case arose from a 2014 incident involving Bernadette C. Oncines, a Court Legal Researcher II at Branch 2, Regional Trial Court, Butuan City. While serving as officer-in-charge, Branch Clerk of Court, Oncines issued a Certification regarding Lot No. 447, which was the subject of a land registration case where Atty. Causing served as counsel.

In June 2016, Atty. Causing arrived at the court and angrily shouted at Oncines, demanding she retract the Certification she had previously issued. He threatened to file an administrative case against her and insisted she be dismissed from service. When Oncines explained she no longer had authority to retract the document, Atty. Causing endorsed an administrative complaint against her filed by his client.

Oncines subsequently filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Causing for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether Atty. Causing violated the CPRA through his conduct toward court personnel and his handling of the administrative complaint against Oncines.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found Atty. Causing guilty of two violations under the CPRA:

First, he violated Canon II, Section 2 (dignified conduct) for failing to maintain respect toward the courts and their employees. The Court emphasized that lawyers owe a sworn duty to maintain a respectful attitude toward courts—not for the sake of the incumbent judicial officer, but for the maintenance of the judiciary's supreme importance. Atty. Causing's shouting, arrogant demands, and baseless accusations of partiality and malice against the presiding judge demonstrated a lack of reverence for the judicial system.

Second, he violated Canon III, Section 2 (responsible and accountable lawyer) for willful disobedience of lawful orders. Atty. Causing repeatedly failed to comply with directives from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to file his position paper and attend the mandatory conference. The Court stressed that IBP directives are lawful orders, not mere requests.

However, the Court found insufficient evidence that Atty. Causing promoted a groundless suit against Oncines. While he supported his client's administrative complaint, the evidence did not clearly establish malicious purpose.

The Significance of the Penalty

Notably, Atty. Causing had already been disbarred in 2022 for separate offenses involving social media posts. The Court explained that while disbarment removes a lawyer's privilege to practice, the Court retains jurisdiction over offenses committed before disbarment. The fines imposed—PHP 120,000 for disrespect and PHP 35,000 for disobedience—were recorded in his personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant and may be considered if he ever petitions for reinstatement.

The Court applied the CPRA's rules on multiple offenses and aggravating circumstances, noting Atty. Causing's prior administrative liabilities warranted maximum penalties.

Practical Takeaways

• Lawyers must maintain composure and courtesy when dealing with court personnel, even in heated disputes. Shouting, threats, and aggressive demands constitute professional misconduct.
• Disobeying IBP directives carries serious consequences. Failure to file required pleadings or attend conferences is treated as willful disobedience of Supreme Court orders.
• Disbarment does not extinguish liability for prior misconduct. The Court can still impose fines and record them for future reinstatement considerations.
• Accusations against judges must be raised in proper forums. Personal attacks and baseless imputations of malice against judicial officers violate ethical standards.
• Supporting a client's complaint is not automatically unethical, but lawyers must guard against promoting frivolous or baseless suits.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.