Chiz files disbarment case vs. lawyer over malicious posts

Former Senate President Francis “Chiz” G. Escudero filed a disbarment case on Monday with the Supreme Court against Attorney Jesus Nicardo Madarang Falcis III for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), citing multiple irresponsible and unwarranted social media posts unbecoming of a member of the Philippine Bar.

In a verified complaint dated 29 September 2025, Escudero described Falcis’ actions as “gross and serious violations” of the CPRA, through a series of Facebook posts the senator characterized as “accusatory, defamatory, demeaning, speculative, hateful and/or malicious.” Escudero said these were sufficient grounds to have Falcis removed from the roster of licensed legal practitioners.

A lawyer himself, Escudero lamented that Falcis “failed to abide by the highest standards of the legal profession as to warrant the extreme penalty of disbarment. And while it may be argued by respondent that he employed ‘only words’ as to perhaps justify lighter penalty, the public and tenacious character of his conduct require no less than removal from the Roll of Attorneys.”

The complaint cited multiple posts from July to September 2025 that maliciously maligned Escudero over the 2025 national budget and flood control programs. Among them were remarks calling him “shameless,” “the worst Senate President in history,” and repeatedly referring to him as “bulok na keso” or “rotten cheese.”

“These unwarranted and professionally irresponsible statements and remarks were made principally by respondent,” Escudero said. “Unfortunately … such statements and remarks are actually gratuitous instruments of contempt designed to publicly humiliate complainant. As such, their irresponsible and unrestrained character serve to provide a bad and scandalous example of how a lawyer should not behave publicly.”

The complaint also noted that Falcis violated Canon II (Propriety) by failing to act with courtesy and civility toward a fellow lawyer, and Canon III (Fidelity) by undermining respect for the rule of law when he aired accusations on social media rather than before the proper forum.

Escudero’s pleading highlighted that Falcis had previously been cited by the Court for direct and indirect contempt, demonstrating a “propensity to violate and continue to violate” the CPRA.

While acknowledging that public officials must accept criticism, Escudero emphasized that lawyers are duty-bound to exercise their rights with dignity.

“As a duly elected public official, as well as having been in public service for many years, complainant naturally respects the right of every citizen, including respondent as co-member of the Philippine Bar, to comment on matters of public interest. The premise of our republican democracy is that all power emanates from the people. Public officers must, at all times, be accountable to the people because public office is a public trust. To give effect to this mandate, a full discussion of public affairs is indispensable,” he said.

“Frustratingly enough, respondent crossed the line. And even granting without admitting that he may have had a point as regard these postings, still the nobility of the profession requires him to speak and comment in a dignified and non-insulting manner and with due respect to a member of the Philippine Bar.”

The complaint referenced previous Supreme Court rulings to stress the limits of free speech for lawyers. In 2022, the SC disbarred Berteni “Toto” Causing for posting a draft plunder complaint on Facebook that subjected a government official to “public hate, contempt and ridicule.” Similarly, in 2023, Larry Gadon was stripped of his license following a profane tirade, with the Court underscoring that criticism must preserve the dignity of the profession.

Escudero’s pleading argued that these precedents show that freedom of speech is not absolute for members of the Bar. He said the language used by Falcis in his Facebook posts “can hardly be considered as a form of free speech and thus cannot be protected under the Constitution. As a lawyer, respondent should be the first one to follow with utmost fealty [to] constitutional law. He should be an example to all.”

The lawmaker also asked the Court to impose the ultimate sanction of disbarment, arguing that suspension or reprimand would not suffice for a repeat offender who had previously been sanctioned by the High Tribunal.