Lawyer's Disrespect for Court and Staff Draws PHP 155,000 Fine Despite Prior Disbarment

The Supreme Court has ruled that a lawyer who shouted at a court employee and defied orders of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), even though the lawyer had already been disbarred. 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 conduct that showed gross disrespect for the judiciary.

The case reminds lawyers that their duty to maintain respect for courts and judicial officers is non-negotiable, and that prior disbarment does not erase liability for offenses committed while still a member of the Bar.

The Facts

The case arose from a 2014 incident at Branch 2, Regional Trial Court, Butuan City. Bernadette C. Oncines, then officer-in-charge and Branch Clerk of Court, issued a certification about a parcel of land subject of a land registration case. Atty. Causing represented Angelita Tan Licup, whose case was pending before the same court.

In 2016, Licup returned to the court claiming Atty. Causing advised her to ask for a new certification declaring the 2014 document void. When Oncines said she no longer had authority to retract it, Atty. Causing arrived and angrily shouted at her, demanding she retract the certification and threatening to file an administrative case. He later endorsed Licup's administrative complaint against Oncines.

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

The Issue

The central question was whether Atty. Causing violated the CPRA by failing to maintain respect for the courts and judicial officers, and by promoting a groundless suit against Oncines.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found Atty. Causing guilty of two violations 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 respect courts and their officials and employees. The Court noted that as counsel, Atty. Causing should have been the first to uphold the court's authority. Instead, he shouted at Oncines in front of Licup and her co-employees.

The Court also cited Atty. Causing's Mandatory Conference Brief, which contained baseless accusations of partiality and malice against Presiding Judge Emmanuel E. Escatron. 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, the Court found Atty. Causing violated Canon III, Section 2 of the CPRA for willful disobedience of lawful orders. He repeatedly failed to comply with IBP directives to file his position paper and attend the Mandatory Conference, despite receiving due notice. The Court stressed that IBP directives are lawful orders, not mere requests.

However, the Court found no substantial evidence that Atty. Causing promoted a groundless suit against Oncines. While he supported Licup's administrative complaint, the Court ruled this did not clearly prove malicious purpose.

The Penalty

The Court noted Atty. Causing's prior disciplinary record, including a one-year suspension in Velasco v. Atty. Causing (A.C. No. 12883) and disbarment in Lao v. Atty. Causing (930 Phil. 538) and Hidalgo v. Atty. Causing (A.C. No. 11993).

Since Atty. Causing was already disbarred, the Court could no longer impose suspension or disbarment. Instead, it imposed fines to be recorded in his personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant, which may be considered if he ever petitions for reinstatement. The Court fined him PHP 120,000 for disrespecting the Court and PHP 35,000 for disobeying IBP directives, totaling PHP 155,000.

Practical Takeaways

• Respect for courts is a continuing duty. Lawyers must maintain a respectful attitude toward courts and judicial officers, regardless of the merits of their case or their personal feelings.
• Intemperate language has consequences. Shouting at court personnel or making baseless accusations against judges can constitute grossly undignified conduct warranting severe sanctions.
• IBP directives are binding. Failure to comply with IBP orders in disciplinary proceedings is itself a violation of the CPRA.
• Disbarment does not erase prior misconduct. The Court retains jurisdiction over offenses committed before disbarment and may impose fines recorded for future reinstatement consideration.
• Evidence matters. General denials without supporting evidence are insufficient to rebut charges in administrative cases; substantial evidence from the complainant will prevail.

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