The Supreme Court (SC) has suspended lawyer Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III from the practice of law for one year after finding him guilty of simple misconduct over a profanity-laden post on social media.
In a decision penned by SC associate justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division ruled that Falcis violated provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) requiring lawyers to use dignified language and uphold the integrity of the legal profession, including in online platforms.
The case stemmed from a Twitter post in which Falcis defended his brother, Nicko, against allegations related to a qualified theft complaint filed by television personality Kris Aquino. In the post, he criticized Aquino’s supporters and used vulgar language:
“Yung mga biased na dilawan dyan, halata kayo. Sa allegations ni Kris, paniwalang paniwala na kayo agad. Pero sa allegations namin na she threatened my brother, wala ako naririnig sa inyo? Pakyu kayo mga gago haha check your cognitive biases.”
The administrative complaint was filed by Jason Gene H. Baltao, Aquino’s former business partner, before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which found that Falcis had violated ethical rules governing lawyers’ conduct. The IBP recommended that he be fined and reprimanded.
The SC agreed with the finding of liability but imposed a stiffer penalty, citing the seriousness of the misconduct and Falcis’ previous administrative violations.
In a statement following the ruling, Falcis said he accepted the SC’s decision.
“I accept the wisdom of the Supreme Court to suspend me for one year. All lawyers are under the disciplinary power of the Court and I am no exception,” he said.
Falcis said that when he made the post in 2018 and 2019, he was fighting for “the life and liberty” of his brother and for his family’s safety and reputation.
“I felt helpless and powerless except for my small voice on social media. We were nobodies and I was screaming against the void,” he said.
“If being suspended is the price I have to pay for defending my family, then it is a price I will pay in any lifetime.”
At the same time, Falcis acknowledged that lawyers should be accountable for their online statements.
“I recognize that words, contained in a tweet, have power and my choice of words should have consequences. All lawyers should be held accountable for their words and actions,” he said.
Falcis also urged the court to resolve pending disbarment complaints involving former president Rodrigo Duterte and Vice President Sara Duterte, and called on senator-judges in the vice president’s impeachment trial to hold public officials accountable for their statements and actions.
“Accountability should apply to all, big or small,” he said.
Under the CPRA, lawyers are prohibited from using abusive, offensive, or improper language in both their professional and personal dealings, including on social media.
The rules also require lawyers to ensure that online posts uphold the dignity of the profession and maintain respect for the law.
The high court acknowledged that Falcis was attempting to defend his brother but said he could have relied on legal arguments and public records instead of attacking individuals he described as “dilawans,” a political label commonly used against Aquino supporters.
The SC emphasized that lawyers must be mindful of the broad reach and influence of social media platforms, noting that online posts can easily spread to diverse audiences, including children, and shape public perceptions of the legal profession.
“[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 court said.
The tribunal also pointed out that a court case related to the dispute was already pending when the post was made. Rather than relying on legal remedies, Falcis resorted to personal attacks, which the court said could create the impression that lawyers are free to insult supporters of parties involved in litigation.
In discussing the nature of online platforms, the SC noted that social media sites allow content to spread rapidly and unpredictably.
“It must be emphasized that social media are web-based platforms that enable online interaction and facilitate users to generate and share content… Certainly, Twitter’s public nature facilitates complex and unexpected interactions that breed viral events which can reach millions of users,” it said.
The SC classified Falcis’ actions as simple misconduct, describing the offense as intentional wrongdoing that did not involve corruption or a clear intent to violate the law.
In a concurring opinion, SC senior associate justice Marvic Leonen said Falcis showed no remorse and instead justified the post as an expression of anger.
Leonen added that because the message was posted on a public account capable of reaching a wide audience, it appeared designed as “rage bait” to attract attention to his brother’s situation.
The ruling serves as a reminder that lawyers remain bound by professional and ethical standards even when expressing personal views on social media, the court said.
