“Lawyer-litigants who choose to use their skill to recklessly file cases to further their fame and notoriety…will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.”
(Last of 2 parts)
“Litigants and their counsels are in closest proximity to the courts as parties in judicial proceedings. Their speech is subject to the greatest restriction because they voluntarily agree to abide by the Rules of Court and the decorum required in judicial proceedings” (G.R. 227004).
“In choosing to resolve their disputes before the courts, they agree to its resolution through fair and impartial proceedings without resorting to undue advantage other than arguing the merits of the case.”
“[T]he court has restricted public speech that violates the sub judice rule, the confidentiality of administrative proceedings, and illegitimate criticisms of litigants and their counsels…” (loc. cit.)
“The public speech of litigants and their counsel pertaining to the case should be assessed based on a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that will affect the administration of justice.
“This will be a matter for the court to assess based on the content of the speech, how it was delivered, and the platform used” (loc. cit.)
“This Court (Supreme Court) is very much aware that defendants must protect and defend their reputation when sued publicly and will give this the utmost consideration when they claim their freedom of speech.”
However, “lawyer-litigants who choose to use their skill to recklessly file cases to further their fame and notoriety… will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability and their commitments under the Lawyers’ Oath” (loc. cit.)
“Litigants and their counsels who choose to speak publicly may not be punished if their speech is limited to a fair and true commentary of the proceedings, provided, however, that public discussion was made in good faith and in furtherance of public interest. Counsels, owing to their duty of fidelity to the courts, must clearly provide the necessity of the utterance” (loc.cit.)
Additional rules are imposed on the lawyer’s speech, given the proximity of litigants and their counsel to the courts:
“1. Lawyers can criticize the courts. However, the exercise of their freedom of speech as citizens is burdened by their responsibilities as officers of the court. Their criticism must be legitimate, and must support the administration of justice.
2. Counsels are responsible for advising their clients that in choosing the courts’ forum, they are not allowed to attack the integrity of the courts unless they have actual proof that can sustain a disciplinary action; and
Some cases are more public than others, owing to the public interest involved. A fair and true reporting of a matter relating to a pending case will not amount to a violation of the sub judice rule.
Lawyers should also explain the arguments of the other party to give the public a balanced understanding of the case without editorializing. Comments or predictions as to how the courts will rule are not [permissible]” (loc.cit.)
Public commentaries may also be directed to the cases of other lawyers.
Being officers of the court, “[e]ven if they are not representing clients in court, their public speech as regards the Judiciary are limited by their oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability” (loc.cit.).
The Supreme Court’s “disciplinary authority is broader than its contempt powers. In their public commentaries, lawyers must be careful not to exceed the limits of fair comment and criticism.
“Moreover, lawyers cannot give an opinion on the services given by other lawyers in representing their clients as part of their duty to give courtesy, fairness, and candor to their colleagues” (loc.cit.)
