In a landmark decision that sends a clear message about both ethical conduct and online behavior, the Supreme Court has taken a stance against chauvinistic lawyers who were not only penalized for their homophobic remarks but also reprimanded for indulging in gossiping or being “Marites,” a new term coined to describe those who thrive on idle chatter.

The case revolved around the breach of Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, an essential guideline that upholds the integrity and professionalism of lawyers. The Court singled out Atty. Morgan Rosales Nicanor, Atty. Joseph Marion Peña Navarrete, Atty. Noel V. Antay Jr., Atty. Israel P. Calderon, and Atty. Ernesto A. Tabujara III for their conduct, while warning that further violations would result in more severe repercussions.

The controversy unfolded when the Court was alerted to offensive and homophobic Facebook posts made by these lawyers. However, what set this case apart was the revelation that the lawyers involved not only engaged in discriminatory remarks but also displayed tendencies that align with the new term “Marites,” reflecting a penchant for gossiping and rumor-mongering.

The controversy was brought to light when the Supreme Court took notice of certain Facebook posts by the lawyers, which were deemed inappropriate and offensive. Atty. Antay’s initial post served as a catalyst for a series of troubling remarks, ultimately leading to the legal repercussions they now face.

One of the more egregious comments came from Atty. Tabujara, who displayed a disregard for professionalism and respect. His comment insinuated that LGBTQIA+ judges were akin to corrupt ones. His exact words were, “(s)ino yung bakla na judge…(n)aka eye liner and eye shadow pag nag hehearing. Ang taray pa!” This comment immediately raised concerns about his derogatory language and negative stereotyping.

Atty. Calderon further fueled the flames with his responses to the discussion. He endorsed the offensive comments, replying to Atty. Antay with “Baka type ka,” followed by “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.” His comments not only echoed the offensive nature of the discussion but also further highlighted the disregard for sensitivity.

Adding to the concern was Atty. Nicanor, who agreed with Atty. Calderon’s sentiment, writing, “(f)eel ko type ka bossing. Hehehe,” to which Atty. Tabujara chimed in, saying, “Dapat kinurot mo! Charot!” The casual manner in which these comments were exchanged further underscored the lack of professionalism.

Atty. Navarrete’s participation in the conversation took a derogatory turn when he made remarks about a fellow lawyer. He stated, “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.” His comment, laden with innuendo, was a clear example of unprofessional conduct.

By scrutinizing the lawyers’ conduct, the Supreme Court not only addressed the violation of Rule 7.03 but also spotlighted the perils of gossiping within the legal community. This ruling emphasizes that lawyers, who are expected to uphold the highest standards of professionalism, must abstain from indulging in such behavior, both offline and in the online sphere.

The Supreme Court’s decision carries broader implications, underlining the dangers of allowing chauvinistic attitudes and gossiping tendencies to persist among legal professionals. By branding those who partake in gossip as “Marites,” the Court underscores the urgency of maintaining the dignity and respect integral to the legal profession.