23/06/2026
Thus sayeth the Court!
The (SC) has suspended a lawyer for using vulgar words in a social media post.
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SCโs Second Division found Atty. Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III guilty of simple misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for one year.
The case arose from a Twitter post made by Atty. Falcis defending his brother, Nicko, against accusations related to a qualified theft complaint filed by Kris Aquino (Aquino):
โ๐ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฎ๐จ๐ข ๐ฃ๐ช๐ข๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฏ๐ข ๐ฅ๐ช๐ญ๐ข๐ธ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ฅ๐บ๐ข๐ฏ, ๐ฉ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ต๐ข ๐ฌ๐ข๐บ๐ฐ. ๐๐ข ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐ฆ๐จ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐ฏ๐ช ๐๐ณ๐ช๐ด, ๐ฑ๐ข๐ฏ๐ช๐ธ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฑ๐ข๐ฏ๐ช๐ธ๐ข๐ญ๐ข ๐ฏ๐ข ๐ฌ๐ข๐บ๐ฐ ๐ข๐จ๐ข๐ฅ. ๐๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฐ ๐ด๐ข ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐ฆ๐จ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐ฏ๐ข๐ฎ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ฏ๐ข ๐ด๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฎ๐บ ๐ฃ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ, ๐ธ๐ข๐ญ๐ข ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฐ ๐ฏ๐ข๐ณ๐ช๐ณ๐ช๐ฏ๐ช๐จ ๐ด๐ข ๐ช๐ฏ๐บ๐ฐ? ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐บ๐ถ ๐ฌ๐ข๐บ๐ฐ ๐ฎ๐จ๐ข ๐จ๐ข๐จ๐ฐ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ฉ๐ข ๐ค๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ค๐ฌ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ค๐ฐ๐จ๐ฏ๐ช๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ช๐ข๐ด๐ฆ๐ด.โ
Jason Gene Baltao (Baltao), Aquinoโs former business partner, filed a complaint against Atty. Falcis before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.
Atty. Falcis argued that previous SC rulings held that the phrase โ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ต๐ข๐ฏ๐จ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ขโ is often used to express anger or frustration, not to defame. He also claimed that lawyers are entitled to freedom of speech and expression.
The IBP found that Atty. Falcis violated the ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ณ๐ฐ๐ง๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ฆ๐ด๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด๐ช๐ฃ๐ช๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐๐ค๐ค๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ต๐ข๐ฃ๐ช๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐บ (๐๐๐๐) by using offensive language and recommended a penalty of a fine and reprimand.
The SC agreed with the IBPโs findings but imposed a heavier penalty of suspension.
Under Canon II, Section 4 of the CPRA, lawyers must use dignified, gender-fair, child- and culturally-sensitive language in both their professional and personal dealings. They must not use abusive, offensive, or improper language, whether spoken or written, including on social media. Such conduct undermines the dignity of the legal profession.
Section 37 of the same Canon requires lawyers to ensure that their online postsโwhether public or shared within a limited audienceโuphold the dignity of the profession, protect it from disrepute, and maintain respect for the law.
Section 36 also requires lawyers to understand the benefits, risks, and ethical implications of using social media.
Ruling that Atty. Falcis failed to meet these standards, the SC stressed that he should have understood the risks and consequences of his statements on social media, including how they can spread widely, reach all kinds of audiences, and influence both lawyers and non-lawyers, including children.
The SC held that the lawyerโs oath and their duties and responsibilities serve as the limit of free speech for lawyers.
The SC also reminded lawyers of the nature of social media, which encompasses a wide audience and may not easily be restricted.
The SC explained that Atty. Falcisโ actions amounted to misconduct, defined as intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule or standard of behavior, whether work-related or not. It is considered simple misconduct if there is no corruption or clear intent to violate the law.
The SC increased the penalty from a fine to suspension due to Atty. Falcisโ prior administrative violations, including direct and indirect contempt, and the seriousness of his use of profane and offensive language.
Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167468
Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167448
Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=167455
Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIOโs Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution
