Can lawyers be administratively sanctioned for Facebook
posts related to their client’s case when there is no definitive proof of
account ownership or malicious intent—especially when such posts fall within
the realm of protected free speech?
Case Title:
Atty. Randy Serrano vs. Atty. Rose Beatrix Cruz-Angeles
and Atty. George Ahmed G. Paglinawan
A.C. No. 10985, July 29, 2024
FACTS OF THE CASE:
This administrative case arose from a complaint filed by Atty.
Randy Serrano against Atty. Rose Beatrix Cruz-Angeles and Atty.
George Ahmed G. Paglinawan for alleged violations of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Accountability due to their social media
activity related to their client, Isaias "Jun" T. Samson, Jr.,
a former minister of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC).
Samson was expelled from the INC after holding a press
conference accusing the church's leaders of illegal detention. Soon after,
Atty. Cruz-Angeles publicly posted on Facebook that she and Atty. Paglinawan
were representing Samson, describing him as having escaped captivity. They also
discussed the criminal charges he filed against INC officials, sometimes using
inflammatory language—particularly in another Facebook post by Atty.
Paglinawan. Cruz-Angeles also issued an open letter to then-President Benigno
Aquino III and Senator Mar Roxas, demanding transparency in the
handling of Samson's complaints.
Atty. Serrano alleged that the respondents improperly
publicized sensitive information and cast aspersions on public officials and
the judiciary, violating ethical rules. Furthermore, he accused them of leaking
Samson’s Complaint-Affidavit and filing a writ of habeas corpus and amparo
petition laced with inaccuracies to malign INC leaders.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, in its January
17, 2023 report, recommended a six-month suspension for Atty.
Cruz-Angeles and one-month suspension for her alleged violation of
ethical canons. Atty. Paglinawan was merely admonished.
However, on April 14, 2023, the IBP Board of
Governors reversed this, dismissing the complaint for lack of
substantial evidence but imposed PHP15,000 fines on each respondent for
failure to comply with the investigating commissioner's directives.
Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the IBP
Board’s resolution.
PRIMARY ISSUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:
Can administrative sanctions be imposed against lawyers
based solely on unverified social media posts when the allegations concern
their advocacy for a client and statements arguably protected by freedom of
expression?
SUPREME COURT RULING:
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The Court
found that there was no substantial proof linking the respondents to the
Facebook posts in question. Even assuming ownership of the accounts, the posts
were deemed to fall within the constitutionally protected right to free
speech.
Importantly, the Court emphasized that in disciplinary
proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant. Since
there was no evidence of authenticity or due execution of the electronic
posts nor proof that they were false or malicious, no sanction could be
imposed.
Still, the Court fined both respondents PHP15,000 for
failure to follow procedural orders from the IBP’s investigating commissioner
and issued a stern warning against future violations.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
"ACCORDINGLY, the Administrative Complaint against
respondents ATTY. ROSE BEATRIX CRUZ-ANGELES and ATTY. GEORGE AHMED G.
PAGLINAWAN is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Respondents are each ORDERED to pay a FINE of
PHP15,000.00 for failure to comply with the directives of the investigating
commissioner... with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act
or any further infraction shall be dealt with more severely."
In the digital age, should lawyers be held accountable for
social media posts that appear to advocate for their clients but may blur the
line between ethical advocacy and trial by publicity?
IMPORTANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED:
- "An
attorney enjoys the legal presumption of innocence until the contrary is
proved."
– The burden is on the complainant to establish the violation by substantial evidence. - Freedom
of Expression includes public comments on pending cases,
– Cabansag v. Fernandez allows for commentary unless there's a clear and present danger of obstructing justice. - Electronic
evidence must be authenticated.
– Under Rules on Electronic Evidence, screenshots and posts require authentication before being accepted. - Pleadings
are absolutely privileged.
– Statements made in the course of litigation are immune from administrative liability when relevant to judicial issues.
CLASSIFICATION:
Legal Ethics
From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/685ea049-6fd0-800a-805e-54140ec80bf8>
Under the jurisprudence in A.C. No. 10985 (Serrano v.
Cruz-Angeles and Paglinawan, July 29, 2024), the process of presenting
screenshots as evidence, particularly in administrative or judicial
proceedings, follows the Rules on Electronic Evidence (REE) and the Rules
of Court. Here's a breakdown of the required process:
🔍 1. Classification of
Screenshots as Electronic Documentary Evidence
Under Rule 130, Section 2 of the Rules of Court,
screenshots are considered documentary evidence because they consist of writings,
photographs, or any material containing letters, words, or symbols.
Under Rule 3, Section 1 of the Rules on Electronic
Evidence (REE):
Electronic documents (like Facebook screenshots) are
treated as the functional equivalent of paper-based documents.
🛠 2. Burden of Proving
Authenticity
Rule 5, Section 1 of the REE:
“The person seeking to introduce an electronic document
in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity...”
This means the party offering the screenshot must prove that
it is genuine and unaltered, and that it originated from the claimed
source.
📌 3. Manner of
Authentication (Rule 5, Section 2 of the REE)
An electronic document (such as a screenshot of a Facebook
post) must be authenticated by any of the following:
- (a)
Digital signature
If the post or message was digitally signed by the alleged sender, that digital signature proves authenticity. - (b)
Other security procedures or devices
This can include platform metadata, logs, timestamps, or other verifiable cybersecurity tools (if available). - (c)
Other evidence showing its integrity and reliability
This is the most commonly used method, which may include: - Testimony
from the person who took the screenshot
- Expert
witness to verify metadata or hash values
- Subpoena
of data from the platform (e.g., Facebook) to verify origin
- Corroborating
evidence like official correspondence or simultaneous posts
🧾 4. Presentation as
"Original" Document
Under Rule 4, Section 1 of the REE:
“An electronic document or its printout is regarded as
the original if it is a reliable representation of the electronic document.”
Thus, printouts of Facebook screenshots may be
accepted as originals, but only if authenticity is proven.
⚠️ What Happens If Not
Authenticated Properly?
As in Serrano v. Cruz-Angeles, failure to
authenticate screenshots means they cannot be considered valid evidence.
Mere allegations of authorship or association with the social media post are insufficient.
✅ Summary: Process to Present
Screenshots as Evidence
|
Step |
Action |
|
1 |
Identify the screenshot as an electronic document
under the Rules on Electronic Evidence. |
|
2 |
Prove authenticity via digital signature, security
protocols, or testimony and technical verification. |
|
3 |
Show that the screenshot is a reliable representation
(i.e., admissible as original). |
|
4 |
Satisfy substantial evidence requirement
(especially in administrative proceedings). |
🧾 Sample Affidavit to
Authenticate Screenshot as Evidence
Republic of the Philippines
[City/Municipality]
[Region]
AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT
(SCREENSHOT)
I, [Full Name of Affiant], of legal age, [civil
status], [citizenship], and a resident of [complete address],
after being duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:
- That I
am the person who personally captured and saved the screenshot
attached hereto as Annex "A";
- That
the screenshot shows the content of a Facebook post/Facebook Messenger
conversation/Email/Tweet/Instagram post, as it appeared on [platform],
specifically from the account or page of [account name or username];
- That I
captured the screenshot using my [device used, e.g., mobile phone,
computer] on [exact date and time], while I was logged into my
account;
- That to
the best of my knowledge and belief, the screenshot accurately and
completely reflects the content of the post or message at the time it
was captured, and has not been edited, altered, or tampered with in
any way;
- That I
can testify, if required, as to the circumstances of the capture, the source
and authenticity of the screenshot, and the identity of the person who
made the post, to the extent of my personal knowledge;
- That
attached herewith is the following supporting evidence:
- (a)
A printout of the screenshot marked as Annex "A";
- (b)
[Optional] Metadata or digital information regarding the screenshot, if
available;
- (c)
[Optional] A certified forensic report or hash value comparison, if
applicable;
- That I
am executing this Affidavit to attest to the authenticity and
reliability of the screenshot as an electronic document, and to
support its admissibility in the [name of case or proceeding, e.g.,
Administrative Case No. XXXX], pending before the [office or court].
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ___ day
of _______, 20 in ________________, Philippines.
[Signature of Affiant]
[Printed Name of Affiant]
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of _______,
20 in ____________, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his/her [valid
ID, with ID number and expiration date].
Notary Public
Doc. No. _____
Page No. _____
Book No. _____
Series of _____
No comments:
Post a Comment