Facts
The Supreme Court, motu proprio, initiated an administrative proceeding against five (5) lawyers – Attys. Noel V. Antay, Jr., Ernesto A. Tabujara III, Israel P. Calderon, Morgan Rosales Nicanor, and Joseph Marion Pena Navarrete – concerning a series of Facebook posts.
The exchange began with Atty. Antay, Jr. posting about the conviction of a member of the LGBTQIA+ community for large-scale Estafa, describing the presiding judge as “somewhat effeminate”.
The subject Facebook exchange is quoted as follows:
SP Leon Yatna [Atty. Noel V. Antay, Jr.]
“Just prosecuted and helped convict a member of the LGBTA community for large scale estafa. The new convict then began cussing at me accusing me of being a bigot. A first for me.
The judge (who is somewhat effeminate) comes to my defense and warns the felon to behave.
All in a day’s work.”
Ernesto Tabujara III:
“Sino yung bakla na judge sa Taguig sa MTC sa first floor? Naka eye liner and eye shadow pag nag hehearing. Ang taray pa!”
SP Leon Yatna:
“Napromote na yon, Boss Ticky. RTC Judge na kaya yon.”
Ernesto Tabujara III:
“The joke among lawyers is that sa Taguig sa 2nd floor puro may sira sa ulo mga judge, sa baba bakla at mga corrupt”
SP Leon Yatna:
“No comment, Boss Ticky. May mga kaso pa ako doon eh.”
Denden Calderon [Atty. Israel P. Calderon]:
“Baka type ka.”
SP Leon Yatna:
“Bad ka, Prof.”
Denden Calderon:
“SP Leon Yatna malay mo. Nakita n’ya intelligence mo given na good looks eh na convict mo pa s’ya. Tapos syempre di ka mapapasakamay n’ya kaya ayon imbyerna I. Charot haha.”
SP Leon Yatna:
“Ang bad mo sakin, Prof”
Morgan Nicanor:
“SP Leon Yatna oo tama. feel ko type ka bossing. hehehe.”
SP Leon Yatna:
“Ay anak ng garapon. Dalawang Profs na.”
Ernesto Tabujara III:
“Dapat kinurot mo! Charot!”
Joseph Marion Navarrete:
“Morgan Nicanor natatandaan ko yung kliente mo dinala sa Ombudsman.”
SP Leon Yatna:
“Kwento ka naman, Prosec Joseph”
Joseph Marion Navarrete:
“Pinatawag lang ako ng Prof Morgan Nicanor mga panahon nayan. Tapos bitbit niya kliyente niya. Ang natatandaan ko lang is malagkit tingin kay papa, este Prof. Morgan.”
SP Leon Yatna:
“Matikas kasi si Prof. Morgan eh, Habulin.”
In their defense, the lawyers collectively expressed remorse and claimed the posts were merely “playful banter” or “joking repartee” among colleagues with no intent to malign the Judiciary or the LGBTQIA+ community. Individually, Atty. Antay, Jr. argued that his profile was “locked,” creating a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that his use of “effeminate” was merely descriptive. Atty. Tabujara III emphasized his decades of service and his radio hosting experience to argue he acted in good faith, noting he had no history of bigoted remarks. Atty. Navarrete suggested his comments were influenced by a “naughty boy” persona from his youth and cited his close personal ties with LGBTQIA+ friends as proof of his lack of malice. Atty. Nicanor pointed out that he only made a single comment in jest, which he attributed to a temporary lapse in judgment.
The Supreme Court then referred the matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
The OBC investigated the matter and, while finding the comments degrading and shameful, recommended a light penalty of admonition based on the lawyers’ apologies and clean records.
ISSUE:
i. Whether or not the lawyers can invoke the right to privacy to escape administrative liability for social media posts.
ii. Whether or not the lawyers’ Facebook exchange violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
- No, the Supreme Court held that a lawyer’s “locked” profile or privacy settings do not shield them from liability. Citing Belo-Henares v. Guevarra, the Supreme Court held that there is no “reasonable expectation of privacy” for Facebook posts because privacy tools are not foolproof, as information shared with “friends” can easily be shared or leaked to others outside the intended circle.
- Yes, the lawyers violated Rule 7.03, which prohibits conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law or behaving in a scandalous manner. The Supreme Court ruled that transphobic and homophobic language (e.g., “bakla,” “imbyerna”) is discriminatory and violates the duty to respect the dignity of all persons. Atty. Tabujara’s comments labeling judges as “corrupt,” “crazy,” or “mentally ill” were particularly egregious as they directly undermined public confidence in the Judiciary. The Supreme Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty to maintain high standards of decorum applies to both public and private life, including online interactions.
Ultimately, the Court rejected the OBC’s recommendation for admonition and instead reprimanded Attys. Antay, Jr., Nicanor, Navarrete, and Calderon with a stern warning, while imposing a fine of Php25,000.00 on Atty. Tabujara III.