MARIA VICTORIA G. BELO-HENARES v. ATTY. ROBERTO "ARGEE" C. GUEVARRA
A.C. No. 11394, December 01, 2016
Facts:
Complainant is the Medical Director and principal stockholder of the Belo Medical Group, Inc. On the other hand, respondent is the lawyer of a certain Ms. Josefina "Josie" Norcio, who filed criminal cases against complainant for an allegedly botched surgical procedure on her buttocks in 2002 and 2005, purportedly causing infection and making her ill in 2009.
Complainant is the Medical Director and principal stockholder of the Belo Medical Group, Inc. On the other hand, respondent is the lawyer of a certain Ms. Josefina "Josie" Norcio, who filed criminal cases against complainant for an allegedly botched surgical procedure on her buttocks in 2002 and 2005, purportedly causing infection and making her ill in 2009.
In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts on his Facebook account, a popular online social networking site, insulting and verbally abusing complainant.
The complaint further alleged that respondent posted remarks on his Facebook account that were intended to destroy and ruin BMGI's medical personnel, as well as the entire medical practice of around 300 employees for no fair or justifiable cause.
Moreover, respondent, through his Facebook account, posted remarks that allegedly threatened complainant with criminal conviction, without factual basis and without proof.
Finally, complainant averred that the attacks against her were made with the object to extort money from her, as apparent from the following reply made by respondent on a comment on his Facebook post.
Asserting that the said posts, written in vulgar and obscene language, were designed to inspire public hatred, destroy her reputation, and to close BMGI and all its clinics, as well as to extort the amount of P200 Million from her as evident from his demand letter dated August 26, 2009, complainant lodged the instant complaint for disbarment against respondent.
Issue
1. Whether or not complainant violated the right of privacy of respondent, claiming that they were "private remarks" on his "private account" that can only be viewed by his circle of friends.
2. Whether it is violative of the freedom of expression
3. Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable based on the allegations of the verified complaint.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling
First Issue
To address concerns about privacy, but without defeating its purpose, Facebook was armed with different privacy tools designed to regulate the accessibility of a user's profile, as well as information uploaded by the user.
Consequently, before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her online social networking activity - in this case, Facebook - it is first necessary that said user manifests the intention to keep certain posts private, through the employment of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility. This intention can materialize in cyberspace through the utilization of Facebook's privacy tools. In other words, utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation, in the cyber world, of the user's invocation of his or her right to informational privacy.
The bases of the instant complaint are the Facebook posts maligning and insulting complainant, which posts respondent insists were set to private view. However, the latter has failed to offer evidence that he utilized any of the privacy tools or features of Facebook available to him to protect his posts, or that he restricted its privacy to a select few. Therefore, without any positive evidence to corroborate his statement that the subject posts, as well as the comments thereto, were visible only to him and his circle of friends, respondent's statement is, at best, self-serving, thus deserving scant consideration.
Restricting the privacy of one's Facebook posts to "Friends" does not guarantee absolute protection from the prying eyes of another user who does not belong to one's circle of friends. The user's own Facebook friend can share said content or tag his or her own Facebook friend thereto, regardless of whether the user tagged by the latter is Facebook friends or not with the former. Also, when the post is shared or when a person is tagged, the respective Facebook friends of the person who shared the post or who was tagged can view the post, the privacy setting of which was set at "Friends." Under the circumstances, therefore, respondent's claim of violation of right to privacy is negated.
Second issue
No. Time and again, it has been held that the freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute. The constitutional right of freedom of expression may not be availed of to broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others, destroy their name or reputation or bring them into disrepute.
A punctilious scrutiny of the Facebook remarks complained of disclosed that they were ostensibly made with malice tending to insult and tarnish the reputation of complainant and BMGI. Calling complainant a "quack doctor," "Reyna ng Kaplastikan," "Reyna ng Payola," and "Reyna ng Kapalpakan," and insinuating that she has been bribing people to destroy respondent smacks of bad faith and reveals an intention to besmirch the name and reputation of complainant, as well as BMGI. Respondent also ascribed criminal negligence upon complainant and BMGI by posting that complainant disfigured ("binaboy") his client Norcio, labeling BMGI a "Frankenstein Factory," and calling out a boycott of BMGI's services all these despite the pendency of the criminal cases that Norcio had already filed against complainant. He even threatened complainant with conviction for criminal negligence and estafa which is contrary to one's obligation "to act with justice."·
Third Issue:
Yes. The subject Facebook posts are in complete and utter violation of the following provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and BMGI, respondent disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper decorum at all times, be it in his public or private life. He overlooked the fact that he must behave in a manner befitting of an officer of the court, that is, respectful, firm, and decent. Instead, he acted inappropriately and rudely; he used words unbecoming of an officer of the law, and conducted himself in an aggressive way by hurling insults and maligning complainant's and BMGI's reputation.
That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and therefore, a public personage who is exposed to criticism does not justify respondent's disrespectful language. It is the cardinal condition of all criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. In this case, respondent's remarks against complainant breached the said walls, for which reason the former must be administratively sanctioned.
Penalty: suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment