CITING primacy of the rule of law, the Supreme Court recently disbarred a lawyer because of a Facebook post.
The lawyer posted the draft of a complaint for plunder that he said he intended to file against the complainant who was a public officer involved in public biddings.
The public officer filed a disbarment complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines because the Facebook post allegedly subjected her to public scorn and ridicule.
***
The respondent lawyer admitted having posted the draft complaint for plunder but defended it as an exercise of the freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
The Supreme Court did not find merit in the lawyer’s defense, saying that constitutional freedoms may not be availed of to “insult others, destroy their name or reputation or bring them into disrepute.”
The Court also took note of a prior infraction. The lawyer was previously suspended also because of a Facebook post showing a petition for annulment of marriage and using the words “cheater,” “disgusting,” “polygamous,” “criminal,” etc., against the complainant.
***
The supreme penalty of disbarment was thus imposed to contain the lawyer’s “propensity to divulge sensitive information in online platforms, such as Facebook, to the detriment of the people involved in the said cases.”
The decision contained a warning: lawyers must be circumspect in their postings online. The rule of law may not be negated by “blatantly seeking public trial on social media.”
***
The Supreme Court cited a precedent.
In 2016 a lawyer was suspended for insinuating online that the other party in a litigation had been bribing people to defeat him. His posts in Facebook were also noted to be vulgar, obscene, and sexist.
The High Court did not lend credence to the lawyer’s defense that his online remarks were written in the exercise of his freedom of speech and expression. The Civil Code provides that every person exercising his rights must “act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.”
***
The Court also brushed aside the lawyer’s contention that his posts were viewable by “friends only” because it does not guarantee absolute protection from the eyes of another Facebook user who does not belong in his list of friends.
The widely used online platform “allows the world to be more open and connected by giving its users the tools to interact and share in any conceivable way.”
***
These rulings have cited laws, rules and regulations that were enacted before the advent of popular social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. The principles embodied in those rules continue to be useful in the meantime that social media has magnified the people’s desire for public acceptance and validation.
Unfortunately, social media has likewise ushered in the age of disinformation and hate speech. The legal community is apparently not exempt from complications that arise from oversharing content.
Other jurisdictions have thus seen fit to formulate policies that squarely address the online behavior of lawyers.
***
The American Bar Association has issued an opinion addressed to lawyers posting on blogs and social media. Online communications are subject to the rule on confidentiality even if the information about to be shared is public record.
Even if the posting is a hypothetical, i.e., some details are changed to protect the privacy of people involved, confidentiality might still be violated if it is likely that others could connect the situation to the identity of the client. Sanction may be imposed if a posting is done without the permission of the client./PN
