The Supreme Court has found Atty. Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III guilty of simple misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for a period of one year after he used the words "pakyu" and "gaga" on his Twitter account. The Court also sternly warned him that a repetition of the same or similar infraction will be dealt with more severely.
The Case
The complaint arose from posts Atty. Falcis III made on his Twitter account, where he used the words "pakyu" and "gaga" while defending his brother against what he described as false accusations raised in several media platforms. A certain Baltao filed a complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), arguing that the use of those obscene words was clearly unbecoming of a lawyer.
In his defense, Atty. Falcis III argued he could not be held liable for violation of Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, invoking prior Supreme Court decisions where the Court ruled that the word "putang ina" is not really meant to defame but is an expression of anger or displeasure. He also argued that lawyers are entitled to free speech and expression, especially since he was only defending his brother from false accusations. He further claimed he had no prior administrative violations, asserting that a previous citation for direct and indirect contempt — which carried only a stern warning — was not a penalty.
Baltao countered that this was not Atty. Falcis III's first infraction, pointing to a September 3, 2019 Decision of the Supreme Court in which Atty. Falcis III was cited for direct and indirect contempt and meted a penalty of PHP 5,000.00.
The Issue
The core issue, as framed by the Court, was whether respondent Atty. Jesus Nicardo Falcis III should be administratively liable under Canon II, Section 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
The Ruling
The Supreme Court found that Atty. Falcis III's conduct amounted to simple misconduct, classified under the CPRA as a less serious offense, there being no manifest elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. The Court resolved to increase the penalty due to his previous administrative infractions of direct and indirect contempt and the gravity of his action in using profane and obscene words.
The Court's dispositive portion reads: "ACCORDINGLY, this Court finds respondent Atty. Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III GUILTY of simple misconduct and he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year. Respondent Atty. Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar infraction will be dealt with more severely by this Court."
After completing his one-year suspension, Atty. Falcis III is required to file a Sworn Statement with the Office of the Bar Confidant pursuant to Section 45 of the CPRA.
By the Numbers
- A.C. No. 14443 — Supreme Court docket number (formerly CBD Case No. 19-5898)
- 1 year — length of suspension from the practice of law imposed by the Supreme Court
- PHP 5,000.00 — penalty imposed on Atty. Falcis III in the September 3, 2019 Supreme Court Decision for direct and indirect contempt
- PHP 17,500 — fine recommended by the IBP-Board of Governors (not adopted by the Supreme Court)
- April 11, 2023 — effectivity date of the CPRA (A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC)
The Court's Reasoning
The Court held that the practice of law is a privilege bestowed only on those who possess and continue to possess the qualifications for the legal profession, and that lawyers are duty-bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency but also morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.
While acknowledging that Atty. Falcis III was defending his brother, the Court said he "could have remained in the realm of legal discourse by showing the news articles regarding the cases they filed against Aquino and make solid arguments." Instead, he used profanity to verbally attack those he referred to as "dilawans" or supporters of Aquino. The Court noted that his posts were directed against persons who were not even parties to the case filed by Aquino against his brother.
The Court further stressed that a lawyer must understand the consequences of uttering vulgar words on Twitter, including the likelihood of such posts spreading indiscriminately, becoming available to anyone on social media, and the influence they could have on lawyers and non-lawyers alike, including children exposed to social media. The Court cited Canon II, Section 4 of the CPRA, which prohibits lawyers from using language that is "abusive, intemperate, offensive or otherwise improper, oral or written, and whether made through traditional or electronic means, including all forms or types of mass or social media," and Section 37, which requires lawyers to ensure their online posts uphold the dignity of the legal profession.
The Court also noted that the term "dilawan" fosters polarization between political groups instead of constructive engagement, and that giving the impression that lawyers may throw invectives against supporters of a litigant is a misconduct that tends to discredit the legal profession.
Source: A.C. No. 14443 (Formerly CBD Case No. 19-5898), decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.