MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) has suspended a lawyer from the practice of law for one year after finding him guilty of simple misconduct over a vulgar post on social media.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC Second Division ruled that Atty. Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III violated ethical standards governing lawyers’ conduct online.

The case stemmed from a Twitter post made by Atty. Falcis defending his brother, Nicko, in connection with allegations linked to a qualified theft complaint filed by Kris Aquino. In the post, he used offensive language directed at individuals he described as supporters of Aquino.

Jason Gene H. Baltao, Aquino’s former business partner, filed a complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), citing conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

Atty. Falcis argued that previous SC rulings had recognized that the phrase “putang ina” may express anger or frustration and not necessarily defamation, and that lawyers are entitled to freedom of expression.

The IBP found him guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) and recommended a penalty of fine and reprimand, but the SC imposed a stiffer penalty of suspension.

The Court said lawyers are required under Canon II, Section 4 of the CPRA to use dignified, respectful, and socially responsible language in both professional and personal conduct, including on social media, and must avoid abusive or offensive expressions.

It also cited Section 37, which requires lawyers to ensure that online posts uphold the dignity of the profession, and Section 36, which obliges them to understand the ethical risks of social media use.

The SC said Atty. Falcis failed to meet these standards, noting that he could have relied on legal arguments and public records instead of using profanity and personal attacks.

It added that lawyers must recognize that online posts can reach a wide audience, including non-lawyers and children, and may quickly spread beyond their control.

The Court also rejected his claim that he was merely defending his brother, stressing that lawyers remain bound by ethical standards regardless of personal circumstances.

“[W]hile freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Constitution, the lawyer’s oath and their duties and responsibilities ultimately serve as a limit thereto. Notably, lawyers should be cautious in their postings online. They are reminded to always practice restraint in their conduct, be it in real life or in social media.”

The SC further emphasized that social media platforms allow content to spread rapidly and widely, making responsible communication essential for members of the Bar.

It defined misconduct as intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of standards of behavior, and said Atty. Falcis’ act constituted simple misconduct as there was no showing of corruption or intent to violate the law.

The Court elevated the penalty from a fine to suspension, citing prior administrative violations and the seriousness of his use of profane and offensive language.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, in a concurring opinion, noted that the lawyer showed no remorse and characterized the post as a form of “rage bait” intended to draw attention to his brother’s case.

In a separate statement, Atty. Falcis said he accepts the ruling of the Supreme Court and acknowledged the disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar.

He said he posted on social media during a difficult period involving his brother’s legal case and his family’s situation, and that he felt compelled to express himself online.

He added that he accepts responsibility for his words, noting that lawyers must be accountable for their conduct and expressions.

He also called on the Court to resolve pending disbarment cases involving former President Rodrigo Duterte and Vice President Sara Duterte, saying accountability should apply to all regardless of position.