The Supreme Court (SC) has reminded the country’s lawyers to use dignified, gender-fair, child and culturally-sensitive language in their professional and personal dealings.

Otherwise, the SC warned that lawyers who use “abusive, offensive, or improper language – whether spoken or written, including in social media – are subject to disciplinary sanctions.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC found lawyer Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III guilty of simple misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for one year.

The SC stressed that lawyers must always act in a manner consistent with the high standards of conduct and morality expected of members of the Bar.

Citing the limits for free speech for lawyers, the SC declared: “While freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Constitution, the lawyer’s oath and their duties and responsibilities ultimately serve as a limit thereto. Notably, lawyers should be cautious in their postings online. They are reminded to always practice restraint in their conduct, be it in real life or in social media.”

In a summary of the decision, the SC’s Office of the Spokesperson said the case against Falcis arose from a Twitter (now X) post he made in defending his brother, Nicko, against the qualified theft complaint filed by television host and businesswoman Kris Aquino.

Targeting Aquino’s supporters, Falcis posted on Twitter: “Yung mga biased na dilawan dyan, halata kayo. Sa allegations ni Kris, paniwalang paniwala na kayo agad. Pero sa allegations namin na she threatened my brother, wala ako naririnig sa inyo? Pakyu kayo mga gago haha check your cognitive biases.”

Aquino’s former business partner Jason Gene H. Baltao filed a complaint against Falcis before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

In his defense, Falcis said that there are expressions used by Filipinos to express anger or frustration but not meant to defame. He also said, among other arguments, that lawyers are entitled to freedom of speech and expression.

The IBP found that Falcis violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) by using offensive language and recommended a penalty of a fine and reprimand.

While the SC agreed with the IBP’s findings, it imposed on Falcis a heavier penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law.

The SC said that aside from mandating the use of dignified, gender-fair language, the CPRA mandates all lawyers to use dignified language both in their professional and personal dealings.

At the same time, it said that the CPRA requires lawyers to ensure that “their online posts -- whether public or shared within a limited audience -- uphold the dignity of the profession, protect it from disrepute, and maintain respect for the law.”

It added that the CPRA requires lawyers to understand the benefits, risks, and ethical implications of using social media.

However, the SC said that Falcis failed to meet these standards. While acknowledging his intent to defend his brother, the SC said he could have presented legal arguments and cited news reports about their cases.

“Instead, he used profanity to attack those he described as ‘dilawans,’ or Aquino’s supporters,” it also said.

It pointed out that Falcis 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.

Thus, the SC ruled that Falcis’ 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, it said.

It added that it increased the penalty recommended by the IBP due to Falcis’ “prior administrative violations, including direct and indirect contempt, and the seriousness of his use of profane and offensive language.”