SC penalizes 5 lawyers over homophobic comments on Facebook

THE Supreme Court has penalized five lawyers for posting homophobic statements on their social media accounts.

In a 26-page Per Curiam Decision, the high tribunal reprimanded lawyers Morgan Rosales Nicanor, Joseph Marion Pe?a Navarrete, Noel Antay Jr., and Israel Calderon and imposed a P25,000 fine on lawyer Ernesto Tabujara 3rd all for violation of Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Court also issued a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be more severely dealt with.

On June 29, 2021, the High Court motu proprio resolved to require Antay, Tabujara, Calderon, Nicanor, and Navarrete to show cause why no administrative charges should be filed against them for certain Facebook posts.

Antay initiated a Facebook thread with a post stating he had “(j)ust 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,” he added.

This was followed by a comment from Tabujara, who asked “(s)ino yung bakla na judge…(n)aka eye liner and eye shadow pag nag hehearing. Ang taray pa! (who is the gay judge…he even puts on eyeliner and eye shadow during the hearing. What arrogance!).”

He, later on, commented that the joke among lawyers is that in a certain courthouse, “sa 2nd floor puro may sira ulo mga judge, sa baba bakla at mga corrupt (on the 2nd floor, there are insane judges, below are gays and corrupt people).”

He, later on, commented that the joke among lawyers is that in a certain courthouse, “sa 2nd floor puro may sira ulo mga judge, sa baba bakla at mga corrupt (on the 2nd floor, there are insane judges, below are gays and corrupt people).”

In another comment, Calderon then replied to Antay: “Baka type ka (Maybe you are his type.),” later on adding “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. [sic]. Charot haha (He saw your intelligence given the good looks and that you still were able to convict him. Then of course he can’t have you in his hands so he got peeved. [sic]. Charot haha.).”

Nicanor agreed, posting: “(f)eel ko type ka bossing. Hehehe (I think he likes you boss),” to which Tabujara added: “Dapat kinurot mo! Charot! (You should have pinched him).”

Navarrete chimed in, saying that he remembered Nicanor’s client that he brought to the Ombudsman.

“Pinatawag lang ako ng Prof Morgan Nicanor mga panahon nayan. Tapos bitbit nya kliyente niya. Ang natatandaan ko lang is malagkit tingin kay papa, este Prof. Morgan (Prof Morgan Nicanor called me at that time. He was with his client. The only thing I remember is the way Prof. Morgan looked at his client).”

In its Report and Recommendation dated Aug. 31, 2022, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) recommended that the lawyers be admonished, noting that their comments show that the main topic of their online conversation was LGBTQIA+ community members and judges.

The OBC opined that though no other names were mentioned, the comments of the five lawyers were made in a degrading and shameful manner, contrary to the duty of lawyers to “conduct themselves with the highest degree of propriety and decorum” and to “refrain from making remarks and conjectures that tend to ridicule a certain segment of the population such as the LGBTQIA+ community.”

The OBC recommended the penalty of admonition, taking into consideration that the lawyers concerned have apologized and appeared to be remorseful.

In finding the five lawyers administratively liable for their statements, the Supreme Court first resolved the issue of whether they can invoke their right to privacy vis-?-vis their online activities.

The Court ruled that such right of lawyers to privacy is limited, especially when it concerns their social media accounts.

The Court further reiterated that restricting the privacy of one’s Facebook posts to “Friends” only does not guarantee absolute protection from the prying eyes of other users. Thus, the Court said, it cannot give credence to the invocation of Atty. Antay, who started the post, of his right to privacy.