BERNADETTE C. ONCINES, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING, RESPONDENT.

Oncines versus Causing

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment filed by Bernadette Oncines, a Court Legal Researcher and former officer in charge of the Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City, against Atty. Berteni Causing, the counsel of a litigant in a land registration case pending in that court. Oncines complains that Atty. Causing angrily shouted at her inside the court, demanded that she retract a certification she had issued, threatened her with an administrative case, and later imputed malice and partiality to the presiding judge. The case matters because it is a modern statement of a lawyer's sworn duty of respect toward the courts and their personnel, and because it shows how the Court disciplines a lawyer who has already been disbarred — not with another suspension, which can no longer be imposed, but with fines recorded against his name.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant and referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Investigating Commissioner Leilani Escueta, after proceedings before the Commission on Bar Discipline, rendered a Report and Recommendation dated August 4, 2022, finding Atty. Causing liable for violating his duty to maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers, and recommending suspension from the practice of law for two years, plus an additional six months for his failure to comply with the Court's resolutions and his failure to file his Mandatory Conference Brief and Position Paper. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar, by Notice of Resolution dated November 12, 2022, modified the recommendation and recommended suspension for two and a half years. The case then came to the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court adopted the findings of the Integrated Bar but modified the penalty.

Facts

Oncines was then an employee of the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City as Court Legal Researcher II, and in 2014 she was designated officer in charge of the Branch Clerk of Court. In that capacity she issued a Certification dated October 8, 2014, stating that per the court's docket, a parcel of land appeared to be the subject of a cadastral case. Atty. Causing was counsel for Angelita Licup, whose land registration case was pending in that court.

On June 29, 2016, Licup came to the court claiming that Atty. Causing had advised her to ask for a new certification declaring the 2014 Certification of no force and effect. Oncines told Licup she was no longer the officer in charge and suggested that the request be put in writing, or that Atty. Causing file the necessary pleading. On the same day, Atty. Causing arrived, angrily shouted at Oncines, demanded that she retract the Certification, and mentioned the possibility of filing an administrative case against her. Oncines submitted an incident report to her presiding judge, Judge Emmanuel Escatron, and after conferring with him and the branch clerk of court, advised Licup's representative that she no longer had authority to retract the Certification.

Atty. Causing then endorsed Licup's administrative complaint against Oncines to the Court on July 1, 2016. Believing that he had promoted a malicious and unfounded suit against her, Oncines filed the present complaint for disbarment, alleging conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. In his defense, Atty. Causing made only general denials and submitted no documentary evidence or witness affidavit, and he failed to file his position paper and to attend the mandatory conference before the Commission on Bar Discipline.

Issues

• Whether or not Atty. Causing violated Canon II, Section 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability for failing to observe and maintain respect toward the courts, their processes, and their employees.
• Whether or not Atty. Causing violated Canon III, Section 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability for willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar.
• Whether or not Atty. Causing promoted a groundless, false, or unlawful suit against Oncines in violation of Canon II, Section 13 of the Code.
• Whether or not a penalty may still be imposed upon a lawyer who has already been disbarred, and if so, what penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Canon II, Section 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability provides:

SECTION 2. Dignified conduct. — A lawyer shall respect the law, the courts, tribunals and other government agencies, their officials, employees and: processes, and act with courtesy, civility, fairness, and candor towards fellow members of the bar.

This is the standard Atty. Causing was found to have breached by shouting at Oncines and by imputing malice to Judge Escatron.

Canon III, Section 2 of the same Code provides:

SECTION 2. The responsible and accountable lawyer. – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, promote respect for laws and legal processes, safeguard human rights, and at all times advance the honor and integrity of the legal profession.

This is the provision breached by his failure to comply with the directives of the Integrated Bar and of the Court.

Canon II, Section 13 of the same Code provides:

SECTION 13. Imputation of a Misconduct, Impropriety, or Crime without Basis. — A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, impute to or accuse another lawyer of a misconduct, impropriety, or a crime in the absence of factual or legal basis.

This is the provision Oncines invoked on the charge of promoting a baseless suit, which the Court found not to have been substantially proved.

Canon VI, Section 38 of the same Code provides:

SECTION 38. Manner of imposition. — If one (1) or more aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances are present, the Supreme Court may impose the penalties of suspension or fine for a period or amount not exceeding double of the maximum prescribed in this Rule.

This is the provision that allowed the Court to raise the fines because of Atty. Causing's prior disciplinary record.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the proper evidentiary threshold in disbarment cases is substantial evidence, and that Oncines discharged her burden in part. She submitted certified true copies of her letter, Licup's complaint-affidavit, Atty. Causing's endorsement, the 2014 Certification and its official receipt, and a joint affidavit of two co-employees who witnessed the incident. Atty. Causing offered only general denials and baseless imputations of bad faith against Oncines and Judge Escatron. The Court held that a lawyer's sworn duty is to maintain toward the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent but for the maintenance of the judiciary's supreme importance, and that his angry shouting and his accusations of partiality and revenge against Judge Escatron, even if true, should have been raised in another forum. He was thus guilty under Canon II, Section 2.

On the second issue, the Court held that the directives of the Integrated Bar, as the investigating arm of the Court, are not mere requests but lawful orders, and that the highest form of respect for judicial authority is obedience to court orders and processes. His noncompliance was willful disobedience, a less serious offense under Canon III, Section 2.

On the third issue, the Court held that no person shall be penalized for exercising the right to litigate in good faith. At most, Atty. Causing supported Licup's filing of an administrative case, but that support did not clearly prove a malicious purpose, so the suit could not be classified with certainty as frivolous and baseless.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that once a lawyer is disbarred, no penalty regarding his privilege to practice can be imposed, but the Court retains jurisdiction over offenses committed while he was still a member of the profession, and may impose a fine, recording it in his personal file for consideration should he later seek reinstatement. Because Atty. Causing had prior penalties, including disbarment in two earlier cases, the aggravating circumstance called for the maximum penalty for each offense. The Court therefore imposed a fine of 120,000 pesos for the violation of Canon II, Section 2, and a fine of 35,000 pesos for the violation of Canon III, Section 2.

Doctrine

• A lawyer's duty to the courts is a sworn duty of respect, owed not to the temporary incumbent of the judicial office but to the judiciary itself; intemperate language and unkind ascription have no place in the judicial forum.
• The right of a lawyer to criticize judges is not an unbridled license to malign and insult the court and its officers; personal attacks on a judge's motives belong in a different forum.
• The directives of the Integrated Bar in disciplinary proceedings are lawful orders of the Court, and disobedience of them is willful disobedience punishable under Canon III, Section 2.
• Disbarment cases are governed by substantial evidence; general denials cannot overcome certified documents and corroborating affidavits.
• A disbarred lawyer may no longer be suspended or disbarred again, but the Court retains jurisdiction over his prior offenses and may impose a fine, recorded in his file with the Office of the Bar Confidant for use in any future petition for reinstatement.

Disposition

The Court found Atty. Causing guilty of violating Canon II, Section 2 and Canon III, Section 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, imposed an aggregate fine of 155,000 pesos, and reiterated his continuing disbarment.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the highest form of respect for judicial authority is a lawyer's obedience to court orders and processes. Examiners use this case to test the penalty problem of the already disbarred lawyer, and the rule that respect for the courts is owed to the institution and not to its temporary incumbent.