Lawyer's Disbarment Upheld, Fines Imposed for Disrespect and Noncompliance

The Supreme Court, in a recent en banc decision, imposed fines totaling PHP 155,000.00 on a lawyer who had already been disbarred, for separate offenses committed before his disbarment. The case clarifies that disbarment does not erase a lawyer's accountability for prior misconduct, and that the Court retains jurisdiction to discipline errant lawyers even after they have been stripped of their license.

The Case of Oncines v. Causing

The case stemmed from a 2016 incident at the Regional Trial Court in Butuan City. Complainant Bernadette C. Oncines was a Court Legal Researcher and had previously served as Officer-in-Charge, Branch Clerk of Court. Respondent Atty. Berteni C. Causing was counsel for a party in a land registration case pending before the same court.

In 2014, Oncines issued a certification regarding Lot No. 447, which was the subject of the pending case. Two years later, Atty. Causing's client came to the court asking for a new certification declaring the 2014 document void. When Oncines explained she no longer had authority to act on the matter, Atty. Causing arrived and angrily shouted at her, demanding she retract the certification and threatening to file an administrative case against her.

Atty. Causing later endorsed an administrative complaint against Oncines. She, in turn, filed a disbarment complaint against him.

The Issue

The central question was whether Atty. Causing violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) in his dealings with court personnel and in his failure to comply with the directives of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

The Ruling

The Court found Atty. Causing guilty of two offenses under the CPRA, which took effect on May 29, 2023 and applies to pending cases.

First, the Court held that Atty. Causing violated Canon II, Section 2 of the CPRA, which requires lawyers to maintain dignified conduct and respect toward courts, their officials, and employees. The Court noted that Atty. Causing's angry outburst at Oncines, in the presence of her client and co-employees, cast doubt on the court's authority. The Court also cited his baseless accusations of partiality and malice against the presiding judge, which he included in his IBP brief.

Second, the Court found Atty. Causing liable for violating Canon III, Section 2 of the CPRA for willful disobedience of lawful orders. He had repeatedly failed to comply with IBP directives to attend mandatory conferences and file his position paper. The Court emphasized that IBP directives are not mere requests but lawful orders that lawyers must promptly and completely obey.

However, the Court did not find substantial evidence that Atty. Causing promoted a groundless or frivolous suit against Oncines. While his support for the administrative case against her was established, the Court found insufficient proof that the case was filed for a malicious purpose.

Penalty Despite Prior Disbarment

A crucial aspect of this case is that Atty. Causing had already been disbarred in 2022 for separate offenses involving the unauthorized publication of pleadings and defamatory accusations. The Court explained that once a lawyer is disbarred, no further penalty regarding the privilege to practice law can be imposed.

Nevertheless, the Court retains jurisdiction over offenses committed while the lawyer was still a member of the Bar. The Court may impose a fine for the purpose of recording it in the lawyer's personal file, which would be considered if the disbarred lawyer later seeks reinstatement.

Applying the CPRA's rules on multiple offenses and the aggravating circumstance of prior administrative liabilities, the Court imposed:

• PHP 120,000.00 for failure to observe and maintain respect toward the Court; and
• PHP 35,000.00 for willful noncompliance with IBP directives.

The Court reiterated Atty. Causing's continuing disbarment and ordered copies of the decision attached to his personal record and circulated to all courts.

Practical Takeaways

• Disbarment does not end accountability. Lawyers can still be fined for misconduct committed before their disbarment, and these records matter in any future reinstatement petition.
• Respect for court personnel is mandatory. Lawyers must treat court employees with courtesy and civility, regardless of frustration with a case.
• IBP directives are lawful orders. Failure to comply with IBP requirements in disciplinary proceedings constitutes willful disobedience of court orders.
• Accusations against judges have limits. While lawyers may criticize judges, baseless imputations of malice or partiality violate ethical standards.
• Substantial evidence is the standard. In disbarment cases, complainants must prove their allegations with substantial evidence, not mere assumptions or suspicions.

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