Lawyer's Courtroom Conduct: When Advocacy Crosses Into Gross Misconduct

The Supreme Court recently reminded the legal profession that zealous advocacy has firm limits. In Oncines v. Atty. Causing (A.C. No. 11508, June 10, 2026), the Court imposed fines totaling PHP 155,000 on a lawyer who shouted at court personnel, made baseless accusations against a judge, and defied orders of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The case clarifies how lawyers must balance vigorous representation with the duty to respect courts and their officers.

The Facts of the Case

The dispute began when Atty. Berteni C. Causing, counsel for a party in a land registration case, demanded that Bernadette Oncines—a court legal researcher who had earlier served as officer-in-charge of the branch clerk of court—retract a certification she had issued in 2014. When Oncines explained she no longer held that position, Atty. Causing shouted at her in the presence of her client and co-employees, threatened to file an administrative case, and later endorsed a complaint against her.

Oncines filed a disbarment complaint, alleging that Atty. Causing had promoted a groundless suit and engaged in conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. The IBP found him liable and recommended suspension, but by the time the case reached the Supreme Court, Atty. Causing had already been disbarred in separate cases for unrelated misconduct.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether Atty. Causing violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which took effect on May 29, 2023, and applies to pending cases. The Court examined three specific allegations: disrespect toward the court and its personnel, promotion of a baseless suit, and disobedience of IBP directives.

The Court's Ruling

The Court found Atty. Causing guilty of two violations but cleared him of one charge.

First, he violated Canon II, Section 2 of the CPRA—the duty to maintain dignified conduct and respect toward courts, their officials, and employees. The Court emphasized that a lawyer's duty to respect the courts exists "not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance." Atty. Causing's angry outburst at Oncines, his menacing language, and his baseless imputation of malice and partiality against the presiding judge all demonstrated a lack of reverence for the judiciary. The Court stressed that while lawyers may criticize judges, this right "does not constitute an unbridled license to malign and insult the court and its officers."

Second, he violated Canon III, Section 2 of the CPRA for willful disobedience of lawful orders. Atty. Causing repeatedly failed to comply with IBP directives to file his position paper and attend mandatory conferences. The Court noted that IBP directives "are not mere requests but lawful orders which should be complied with promptly and completely."

However, the Court found insufficient evidence that Atty. Causing promoted a groundless or baseless suit against Oncines. While his endorsement of the client's complaint showed support, it did not clearly prove malicious purpose. The Court reiterated that "no person shall be penalized for exercising his right to litigate, especially when done in good faith."

The Penalty

Because Atty. Causing had already been disbarred, the Court could not impose another suspension or disbarment. Instead, it imposed fines to be recorded in his personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant—PHP 120,000 for the disrespect violation and PHP 35,000 for the disobedience violation—which would be considered if he ever seeks reinstatement.

Practical Takeaways

• Respect is non-negotiable. Lawyers must maintain courtesy and civility toward courts, judges, and court personnel, even when frustrated with a case's progress.
• Criticism has limits. Lawyers may criticize judicial decisions or conduct, but personal attacks, slanderous remarks, and baseless accusations against judges cross the line into professional misconduct.
• IBP orders are court orders. Failure to comply with IBP directives in disciplinary proceedings constitutes willful disobedience of Supreme Court orders.
• Disbarment is not the end. The Court retains jurisdiction over offenses committed before disbarment and may impose fines that affect future reinstatement petitions.
• Filing cases has ethical boundaries. While lawyers may support clients' legitimate claims, they must guard against promoting frivolous or malicious suits.

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