SC suspends Jesus Falcis over 'profane' post vs Kris Aquino supporters

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has suspended for one year Atty. Jesus Nicardo Falcis III for using profane and vulgar language in a social media post targeting the supporters of celebrity Kris Aquino.

SC’s Office of the Spokesperson issued the statement quoting a decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez. In its statement, it said that the SC’s Second Division found Falcis guilty of simple misconduct.

The case stemmed from a post Falcis made on Twitter (now X), where he fiercely defended his brother, Nicko Falcis, against a qualified theft complaint filed by Aquino, a television host and businesswoman.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Escudero seeks disbarment of Jesus Falcis over ‘hateful’ posts

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

In the post, Falcis said: “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? P**** kayo mga g*** haha check your cognitive biases (To all you biased Yellow supporters out there, you’re so obvious. When it comes to Kris’s allegations, you believe them right away. But when it comes to our allegations that she threatened my brother, I don’t hear anything from you. F*** you, idiots. Haha. Check your cognitive biases).”

Jason Gene Baltao, Aquino’s former business partner, subsequently filed a complaint against Falcis before the IBP for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

In his defense, Falcis invoked freedom of speech, arguing that previous SC rulings recognized phrases like “p**** i**” as common expressions of anger or frustration rather than tools for defamation.

The Supreme Court flatly rejected Falcis’ defense, emphasizing that the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) explicitly governs how lawyers must behave online.

Article continues after this advertisement

Under Canon II of the CPRA, the Court highlighted three strict benchmarks that Falcis failed to meet:

Section 4 (Dignified Language): Lawyers must use dignified, gender-fair, child-, and culturally sensitive language in both professional and personal dealings. Abusive or offensive language—whether spoken, written, or posted online—is strictly prohibited.

Section 36 (Social Media Literacy): Lawyers are required to understand the benefits, risks, and ethical implications of using social media platforms.

Section 37 (Online Dignity): Lawyers must ensure their digital footprints uphold the integrity of the legal profession, regardless of whether a post is public or shared within a limited circle.

The SC noted that instead of relying on proper legal arguments or citing news reports to defend his brother, Falcis resorted to profanity and partisan slurs.

Article continues after this advertisement

The high court firmly drew the line on the boundaries of free speech for officers of the court, stating:

“[W]hile 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.”

The SC further admonished Falcis for using the politically charged term “dilawan,” stating it fueled partisan division rather than constructive dialogue. Because a court case was already pending at the time, the Court noted that his public outburst gave the damaging impression that lawyers are free to insult opposing parties and their supporters.

In a separate concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen took Falcis to task for showing zero remorse. Leonen observed that because the post was published on a public account, it was calculated as “rage bait” deliberately engineered to draw sensationalized attention to his brother’s legal battles.

Why the penalty was upgraded

The SC defined Falcis’ actions as simple misconduct, which constitutes an intentional violation of a standard behavior without the presence of corruption.

While the IBP initially recommended a lighter penalty, the High Court decided a strict one-year suspension from the practice of law was necessary. The SC cited Falcis’ history of prior administrative violations — including previous tallies of direct and indirect contempt — alongside the sheer gravity of broadcasting profane language to a viral, unrestricted online audience. /das

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.