Lawyer’s Disbarment Upheld, PHP 155,000 Fine Imposed for Disrespect to Courts

The Supreme Court, in a recent En Banc decision, held that a lawyer who has already been disbarred can still be fined for misconduct committed before the disbarment. In Oncines v. Atty. 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), even as it reiterated his continuing disbarment. The ruling clarifies the extent of the Court's disciplinary authority over lawyers who have already been stripped of their license to practice.

The Facts of the Case

The case stemmed from a 2016 incident at the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City. Complainant Bernadette C. Oncines, then the officer-in-charge of Branch 2, had issued a certification regarding a land registration case. Atty. Causing, counsel for one of the parties, demanded that Oncines retract the certification. When she refused, Atty. Causing allegedly shouted at her in the presence of her colleagues and threatened to file an administrative case against her.

Atty. Causing later endorsed an administrative complaint against Oncines. In response, Oncines filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Causing, alleging he violated his duty to respect the courts and promoted a groundless suit against her.

The Issue Before the Court

The central issue was whether Atty. Causing violated the CPRA, specifically: (1) his duty to maintain respect toward courts and judicial officers, (2) his obligation to obey lawful orders of the Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), and (3) the prohibition against promoting frivolous or baseless suits.

The Ruling: Respect for Courts is Non-Negotiable

The Supreme Court found Atty. Causing guilty of violating Canon II, Section 2 of the CPRA, which requires lawyers to "act with courtesy, civility, fairness, and candor towards fellow members of the bar" and to respect courts and their employees. The Court noted that Atty. Causing's angry outburst and arrogant demands toward Oncines showed a lack of reverence for the judicial system.

More significantly, the Court cited Atty. Causing's history of making "slanderous remarks and menacing language" against judges, including baseless accusations of partiality and malice against the presiding judge. The Court emphasized that while lawyers may criticize judges, this right "does not constitute an unbridled license to malign and insult the court and its officers."

Willful Disobedience of IBP Directives

The Court also found Atty. Causing guilty of violating Canon III, Section 2 of the CPRA for his unjustified failure to comply with IBP directives, including submitting his position paper and attending mandatory conferences. The Court stressed that IBP directives are "not mere requests but lawful orders" that lawyers must comply with promptly and completely.

No Evidence of Promoting a Groundless Suit

However, the Court declined to hold Atty. Causing liable for promoting a frivolous suit against Oncines. While the evidence showed he supported his client's administrative complaint, the Court found insufficient proof that the complaint was filed for a malicious purpose. The Court noted that "no person shall be penalized for exercising his right to litigate, especially when done in good faith."

Penalties After Disbarment

A key aspect of the ruling is its treatment of penalties for an already-disbarred lawyer. The Court explained that while it can no longer impose suspension or disbarment on someone already disbarred, it retains jurisdiction over offenses committed before disbarment. The Court may impose fines "for the sole purpose of recording it in his personal file" with the Office of the Bar Confidant, which would be considered should the lawyer seek reinstatement.

Applying the CPRA's rules on aggravating circumstances—Atty. Causing had prior administrative liabilities, including disbarment in two earlier cases—the Court imposed:

• PHP 120,000 for failing to maintain respect toward the Court
• PHP 35,000 for willful noncompliance with IBP directives

Practical Takeaways

• Respect for courts is absolute. Lawyers must maintain a respectful attitude toward courts and judicial officers at all times, even when passionately defending a client's cause. Criticism of judges must be reserved for proper legal forums and supported by the record.
• IBP directives are court orders. Failure to comply with IBP requirements in disciplinary proceedings constitutes willful disobedience of lawful orders and is itself a punishable offense.
• Disbarment does not erase prior misconduct. The Court retains jurisdiction to discipline a lawyer for offenses committed before disbarment, and fines may be recorded for consideration in any future reinstatement petition.
• Filing a case is not automatically unethical. Supporting a client's complaint is not necessarily a violation of professional ethics unless there is clear evidence of malice or bad faith.
• Substantial evidence is the standard. In disbarment cases, complainants must prove their allegations by substantial evidence; mere general denials by respondents are insufficient to rebut well-documented charges.

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