The Supreme Court found Atty. Berteni C. Causing GUILTY of violating Canon II, Section 2 and Canon III, Section 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), and imposed an aggregate fine of PHP 155,000.00. Because Causing had already been disbarred, the Court reiterated his continuing disbarment while imposing the fine.
The Case
The complaint was filed by Oncines against Atty. Berteni Causing before the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). At the time of the filing, Oncines was an employee of Branch 2, Regional Trial Court, Butuan City (RTC Butuan) as Court Legal Researcher II. Atty. Causing served as counsel of Angelita Tan Licup (Licup), whose land registration case was pending at RTC Butuan, docketed as CAD Case No. 1, Cad. Rec. No. 321 (Lot No. 447).
Sometime in 2014, Oncines was designated as officer-in-charge (OIC), Branch Clerk of Court of RTC Butuan. In that capacity, she issued a Certification on October 8, 2014, which states that per the court's docket, Lot No. 447 owned by a certain Hong C. See appears to be the subject of the case.
On June 29, 2016, Licup came to RTC Butuan claiming that Atty. Causing advised her to ask for a new certification stating that the October 8, 2014 Certification was of no force and effect. Oncines advised Licup that she was no longer the OIC and suggested that the request be put in writing or that Atty. Causing file the necessary pleading. On the same day, Atty. Causing arrived at RTC Butuan and 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 E. Escatron (Judge Escatron), that same day.
Atty. Causing endorsed Licup's administrative complaint against Oncines to the Court on July 1, 2016. Believing that Atty. Causing promoted a malicious and unfounded suit against her, Oncines filed the present Verified Complaint for disbarment.
The Issue
The Court framed the issue as whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
The Ruling
The Court adopted the findings of the IBP but modified the penalty. It found that the complainant partially discharged her burden and established, through substantial evidence, that respondent violated the CPRA for failing to maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers—but not for promoting any groundless or baseless suit against her.
The Court noted that a lawyer who has already been disbarred cannot again be penalized with disbarment or suspension, but it can still impose the corresponding penalty for the sole purpose of recording it in his personal file with the OBC, to be considered if the disbarred lawyer later files a petition for reinstatement. Respondent violated the CPR in 2016, six years before he was disbarred in 2022.
The dispositive portion reads: "ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Berteni C. Causing is found GUILTY of violating Canon II, Section 2 and Canon III, Section 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, warranting the imposition of an aggregate fine of PHP 155,000.000. However, the Court REITERATES respondent Causing's CONTINUING DISBARMENT."
By the Numbers
- Certification issued: October 8, 2014
- Incident at RTC Butuan: June 29, 2016
- Endorsement of complaint to the Court: July 1, 2016
- Fine for failure to observe and maintain respect towards the Court: PHP 120,000.00
- Fine for willful noncompliance with the lawful directives of the IBP: PHP 35,000.00
- Aggregate fine: PHP 155,000.00
- Year of disbarment: 2022
The Court's Reasoning
The Court held that the proper evidentiary threshold in disbarment cases is substantial evidence—the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Respondent merely made general statements of denial and failed to submit documentary evidence or witness affidavits.
Under Section 9 of the CPRA, a respondent found liable for more than one offense arising from separate acts or omissions in a single administrative proceeding shall be meted separate penalties. Considering the aggravating circumstance of previous administrative liabilities—the disbarment of Causing in Lao and Hidalgo, and his preventive suspension in Velasco—Section 38 of the CPRA dictates that the Court shall impose the maximum penalty prescribed for each offense.
Respondent's slanderous remarks and menacing language before the Court and its employees, and his imputations of malice and partiality against Judge Escatron, violate Canon II of the CPRA and constitute grossly undignified conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, a serious offense under Canon VI, Section 33. His cavalier attitude and willful noncompliance with the lawful directives of the IBP violate Canon III of the CPRA and is classified as a less serious offense.
Source: Supreme Court Decision, A.C. No. 11508, penned by Senior Associate Justice Caguioa.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.