MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) has found a bar review coach guilty of indirect contempt for spreading false information about how the 2023 Bar Examinations would be checked.

In a Per Curiam Decision, the SC En Banc held Edgar S. Dizon, administrator of the Facebook group Bar Law for Dummies, liable for indirect contempt and fined him PHP 30,000. The Court also ordered the removal of his name from the list of 2016 Bar passers.

The case stemmed from a post published on Sept. 21, 2023, by the Facebook group and the account Tsidkenu Dizon. The post claimed, among other things, that the 2023 Bar Examinations would be “sorted, checked, and corrected by means of artificial intelligence (AI).”

It also stated:

ALWAYS START WITH YES or NO.

Yan ang unang hahanapin ng AI Checking to sort out the correct answers.

The post went viral and caused anxiety among bar examinees who were preparing for the examinations.

The Office of the 2023 Bar Chair (BCO), headed by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, investigated the source and assessed its impact on the examinations.

The BCO subsequently issued an advisory clarifying that the examinations would be checked by four human examiners for each subject, all of whom were experts in their respective fields.

Instead of taking down the post, however, Dizon gave a media interview in which he threatened to sue the Court and demanded a public apology “within 24 hours.” He also sent several emails to the SC’s Judiciary Public Assistance Section, claiming that the advisory had a chilling effect on him.

Dizon denied spreading misinformation and asked the Court to issue a statement correcting the advisory.

The SC then directed him to explain why he should not be cited for indirect contempt for interfering with the conduct of the 2023 Bar Examinations.

In his explanation, Dizon admitted that he owned the Facebook account and had passed the 2016 Bar Examinations, although he had not taken the lawyer’s oath because of pending criminal cases. He also acknowledged authoring review materials used in the Bar Law for Dummies training program.

Dizon said he was surprised by the public reaction to his post and denied claiming that AI would check the examinations, arguing that he had used the words “TO HELP” in the post.

The Court rejected his explanation.

Under Rule 71, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, indirect contempt includes unlawful interference with court processes outside the courtroom, conduct that degrades the courts or undermines public confidence in the administration of justice, and unauthorized practice of law.

The SC ruled that Dizon’s post unlawfully interfered with the 2023 Bar Examinations and undermined the integrity of both the examinations and the Court, which exercises supervision over the legal profession.

The Court said the post clearly conveyed that AI would sort and check examination answers. As a Bar passer himself, Dizon should have known that the examinations are evaluated by a committee of examiners appointed by the Court.

The SC emphasized that the examiners are “all warm bodies” and are neither powered nor guided by AI.

According to the Court, the misinformation caused confusion and alarm and forced bar officials to divert limited time and resources to tracing the source of the post, coordinating with government agencies, issuing clarifications and responding to numerous inquiries.

The post also distracted examinees from their preparations. The Court said Dizon should have recognized that Bar examinees were under significant pressure and would likely be concerned by information concerning the examinations.

The SC also cited Dizon’s lack of remorse, noting that he demanded an apology from the Court, threatened legal action, refused to remove the post and sought a statement retracting the advisory instead of acknowledging the harm caused by his claims.

The Court further found Dizon liable for unauthorized practice of law for conducting bar review coaching sessions and authoring review materials covering various Bar examination subjects.

Aside from the penalties imposed, Dizon was warned against further engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

In a Separate Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen agreed that Dizon should be punished for undermining the integrity of the Bar Examinations.

Leonen, however, also stressed the need to balance the Court’s contempt powers with the constitutional right to free speech, including legitimate criticism of the courts.