Disbarment for Conflicting Interests and Misleading Use of Judicial Title

The Supreme Court, in Oncines v. Atty. Causing (A.C. No. 11508, June 10, 2026), imposed an aggregate fine of PHP 155,000 on a lawyer who had already been disbarred, for conduct that occurred while he was still a member of the Bar. The case underscores that lawyers who disrespect courts and disobey lawful directives face serious consequences—even after losing their license to practice.

The Facts

Complainant Bernadette C. Oncines was a Court Legal Researcher II at Branch 2, Regional Trial Court, Butuan City. Respondent Atty. Berteni C. Causing served as counsel for a party in a land registration case pending before that court.

In 2014, Oncines, as officer-in-charge of the branch, issued a certification about a lot subject of the case. In June 2016, Atty. Causing arrived at the court and angrily shouted at Oncines, demanding that she retract the certification. He threatened to file an administrative case against her and insisted she be dismissed from service. Oncines reported the incident to the presiding judge. Atty. Causing later endorsed an administrative complaint against her.

Oncines filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Causing, alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Issue

Whether Atty. Causing violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) for his conduct toward the court and its personnel.

The Ruling

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

First, he failed to maintain respect toward the courts. Canon II, Section 2 of the CPRA requires lawyers to act with courtesy, civility, fairness, and candor. The Court noted that Atty. Causing shouted at Oncines in the presence of her co-employees and the client, casting doubt on the court's authority. He also made baseless accusations of partiality and malice against the presiding judge in his pleadings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The Court emphasized that lawyers may criticize judges, but this right does not license them to malign or insult the court and its officers.

Second, he willfully disobeyed lawful orders. Atty. Causing failed to file his position paper and attend the mandatory conference before the IBP despite due notice. The Court held that directives of the IBP, as the Court's investigating arm, are lawful orders that lawyers must promptly and completely obey.

The Court did not, however, find substantial evidence that Atty. Causing promoted a groundless suit against Oncines. While he supported his client's administrative complaint, the Court found insufficient proof that the case was filed for a malicious purpose.

Penalty for an Already-Disbarred Lawyer

Atty. Causing had previously been disbarred in Lao v. Atty. Causing (2022) and Hidalgo v. Atty. Causing (2025), and suspended in Velasco v. Atty. Causing (2021). Because he was already disbarred, the Court could no longer impose another suspension or disbarment. Instead, it imposed fines—PHP 120,000 for disrespecting the Court and PHP 35,000 for disobeying IBP directives—to be recorded in his personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant, which may be considered if he ever seeks reinstatement.

Practical Takeaways

• Respect for the court is non-negotiable. Lawyers must maintain a respectful attitude toward courts and judicial officers, regardless of how passionately they advocate for clients.
• Criticism has limits. Lawyers may criticize judges, but baseless accusations of malice or partiality, especially outside proper forums, constitute misconduct.
• IBP directives are court orders. Failure to comply with IBP requirements in disciplinary proceedings is itself a violation punishable by suspension or fine.
• Disbarment does not end jurisdiction. The Court may still impose fines on a disbarred lawyer for offenses committed before disbarment, recorded for possible reinstatement proceedings.
• Groundless suits require proof. A lawyer who assists a client in filing an administrative case is not automatically liable unless there is clear evidence of malicious or baseless intent.

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