This must serve a stern reminder to lawyers who are fond of posting their professional-related activities on social media.
This must serve a stern reminder to lawyers who are fond of posting their professional-related activities on social media.
I have personally witnessed lawyers, especially newly minted ones, who have the propensity to post their activities on social media (Facebook). They post their achievements like winning a case or obtaining an acquittal of their clients (accused). Worse, some would post the picture of the check or cash as their acceptance fee. These are, obviously, all “kayabangan” and intended to lift their personality by telling the public that they are in demand or lawyers de campanilla.
This case, decided in October, 2022 and uploaded February 1, 2023, must be a lesson to them.
A lawyer was administratively charged for posting on his Facebook a draft and yet to be filed complaint Plunder against the political foe of the lawyer’s sister in the province. He resorted to the use of social media to make his sister known to the public.
As a result of the posting of said complaint, it subjected the victim to public hate, contempt and ridicule. It besmirched her good name and reputation in the eyes of Facebook users since there was no actual case yet filed or pending before the Office of the Ombudsman.
The lawyer did not deny that he is the author of the questioned Face book posts. He admitted that his main basis in filing the Plunder case was the investigative reports from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ). The fact that the instant complaint for Plunder is supported by evidence, as cited in his Answer-Affidavit, was already a sufficient justification to dismiss the administrative complaint. He submitted that the Facebook posts are an exercise of the freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
RELATED
• The Supreme Court (SC) justices warned lawyers: No online posting of communication with clients.
Was the lawyer correct?
The lawyer cannot justify his infractions by hiding behind the rights to freedom of the press and freedom of expression under the Constitution as such are not absolute. As a member of the Bar, he ought to know that Facebook - or any other social medium, for that matter - is not the proper forum to air out his grievances, for a lawyer who uses extra-legal fora is a lawyer who weakens the rule of law.
In this case, the lawyer knew that the proper forum for his complaint is the Office of the ombudsman. His posting of the complaint for Plunder on his Facebook account was motivated by the desire to damage the reputation of the respondents therein. In fact, it was posted precisely to elicit negative reactions, comments and public opinions against Lao and her fellow respondents.
Previously, the lawyer was earlier suspended when he posted on his FB regarding a nullity case he was handling. He posted an article together with the photographs of the petition which is a violation of the confidentiality rule under the Code of Professional Responsibility. He cannot be a “spokesman-lawyer” and a “journalist-blogger at the same time
Thus, the lawyer has the propensity to divulge sensitive information in online platforms, such as Facebook, to the detriment of the people involved in the said cases.
In view of his previous infraction, the lawyer was disbarred.
See the original post here:
https://www.facebook.com/100004916315607/posts/pfbid02rFNeoou8BVZhfCf8hdTjYvHtBGuN8ULbuKQnq9SH23KgpwgQo4dJKnza2RTmyciNl/?mibextid=Nif5oz
Comments
Post a Comment