Case Digest (A.C. No. 10565) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In the case of Prosecutor Rhodna A. Bacatan vs. Atty. Merari D. Dadula, decided by the Third Division of the Supreme Court on September 7, 2016 (A.C. No. 10565), the complainant, Assistant City Prosecutor Rhodna A. Bacatan, initiated a formal complaint against Atty. Merari D. Dadula. The complaint, submitted on June 16, 2008, to the Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), alleged violations of Canon 8, Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as misconduct in accordance with Section 20(d) of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court and the lawyer's oath not to commit falsehood. The events leading to the complaint occurred between September and October 2007, during which Bacatan conducted preliminary investigations on two cases: a libel complaint filed by Reverend Jose Bailey Bernaldez against Dr. Carlito Impas, Sr. (I.S. No. 4760), and a falsification complaint by Dr. Carlito Impas, Jr. against Bernaldez (I.S. No. 4999-J). Bacata
Case Digest (A.C. No. 10565) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the Complaint
- A Complaint dated June 16, 2008, was filed by Rhodna A. Bacatan, Assistant Cebu City Prosecutor, with the Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
- The Complaint charged Atty. Merari D. Dadula with violations including:
- Violation of Canon 8, Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility;
- Disregard of the duties of attorneys under paragraph (d) of Section 20, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court;
- Breach of her lawyer’s oath not to do falsehood nor consent to its doing.
- The Cases and Initiation of Proceedings
- Between September and October 2007, the prosecutor’s office received two cases through raffling:
- A complaint for libel (I.S. No. 4760) filed by Rev. Jose Bailey Bernaldez against Dr. Carlito Impas, Sr.
- A complaint for falsification (I.S. No. 4999-J) filed by Dr. Carlito Impas, Jr. against Rev. Jose Bailey Bernaldez, with respondent serving as counsel for Dr. Impas, Jr.
- The prosecutor found probable cause for the libel complaint and recommended its filing, while recommending dismissal for lack of probable cause in the falsification case.
- Both recommendations were subsequently approved by the City Prosecutor.
- Respondent’s Pleadings and Allegations
- Respondent (Atty. Dadula) filed a Motion to Determine Probable Cause with multiple ancillary motions in the libel case.
- In her pleadings, respondent asserted that:
- The prosecutor’s resolution was hastily rendered and failed to indicate which part of the publication was libelous;
- An undated Order for reconsideration showed dispatch without sufficient explanation;
- There was a notable delay in resolving the falsification case compared to the libel case;
- The resolution copy was not sent to the accused;
- Dismissal of the falsification case was improper in spite of evidence of the accused’s admission regarding his signature;
- The filing of the information coincided with the appeal period in an unusual manner.
- Respondent maintained that these actions indicated manifest partiality and bias on the part of the prosecutor.
- Ultimately, respondent alleged that due to these adverse actions, the prosecutor must have been bribed.
- Prosecution’s Defense and IBP Investigation
- In her comment, the prosecutor (complainant) denied any irregularity, clarifying that:
- The cases were raffled and received on different dates;
- A first-in-first-out policy was strictly followed, explaining the difference in resolution dates for the two cases.
- In her rejoinder, respondent persisted with the allegations, highlighting that the Resolution and Information were prepared and signed on the same day (November 20, 2007).
- The IBP, through Investigating Commissioner Hector B. Almeyda, examined the matter and stated that:
- It is standard practice in the National Prosecution Service for the information to be prepared concurrently with the resolution finding probable cause.
- The similarity of the dates does not indicate irregularity in the process.
- Respondent’s inclusion of an irrelevant personal attack on the prosecutor's character went beyond acceptable bounds of courtesy, fairness, and candor.
- Recommendations and Subsequent Developments
- Commissioner Almeyda recommended that respondent be “strongly reprimanded” with a warning that any future similar misconduct would incur more severe sanctions.
- The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation in Resolution No. XX-2013-216 on March 20, 2013.
- Despite respondent’s additional filings before the Office of the Ombudsman and the IBP that echoed her earlier allegations, no new issues were introduced in these subsequent pleadings.
Issues:
- Whether Atty. Merari D. Dadula’s conduct amounted to a violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- Whether the actions and allegations made by the respondent—criticizing the prosecutor for undue haste, delay, and alleged bribery—were substantiated by sufficient evidence.
- Whether the practice of preparing the information concurrently with the resolution, as observed in the National Prosecution Service, negated the respondent’s claims of irregularity.
- Whether the inclusion of personal attacks against the complainant’s character in the pleadings was justified or constituted unethical conduct.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)