Case Summary (A.C. No. 10565)
Allegations Against the Respondent
Complainant Rhodna A. Bacatan filed a complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) alleging that Atty. Merari D. Dadula violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The specific allegations included a breach of Canon 8, Rule 8.01, which concerns courteous dealings among lawyers, as well as the disregard for the duties of attorneys outlined in Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court and the oath taken by lawyers not to engage in falsehood.
Background Facts
The cases in question centered around a libel complaint (I.S. No. 4760) filed by Rev. Jose Bailey Bernaldez against Dr. Carlito Impas, Sr., and a falsification complaint (I.S. No. 4999-J) by Dr. Carlito Impas, Jr. against Rev. Bernaldez. The complainant recommended the filing of the libel case but dismissed the falsification case due to a lack of probable cause. Respondent Atty. Dadula, who represented Dr. Impas, Jr., asserted that the complainant acted with manifest bias and prejudice against her client.
Respondent’s Accusations
In her pleadings, Atty. Dadula alleged that Bacatan exhibited partiality toward the complainant in the libel case and disregarded the rights of the accused. She accused Bacatan of failing to properly indicate which specific statements constituted libel and of resolving the libel case with undue haste, while allegedly delaying the resolution of the falsification case. Atty. Dadula even suggested that these actions were indicative of bribery, calling into question Bacatan’s integrity.
Complainant’s Defense
In response to the accusations, Bacatan denied any undue haste in resolving the cases. She explained that the two cases were handled based on their respective dates of referral and that the libel case was regularly resolved ahead of the falsification case. Her actions aligned with standard operating procedures in her office.
Investigations and Findings
The investigation by the IBP's Investigating Commissioner, Hector B. Almeyda, confirmed the methodology in the National Prosecution Service where a finding of probable cause coincides with the preparation of an information document to expedite case processing. Commissioner Almeyda found Atty. Dadula's allegations against Bacatan to be without merit, noting her failure to maintain a professional demeanor as mandated by Canon 8 of the Code.
Recommended Action by IBP
Commissioner Almeyda recommended that Atty. Dadula be strongly reprimanded, advising a more cautious approach in her professional conduct and language. The recommendation was subsequently adopted by the IBP Board of Governors, reflecting a recognition of Atty. Dadula's relatively new status in the legal profession while also holding her accountable for her conduct.
Court's Ruling
The Court upheld the findi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 10565)
Background of the Case
- The case involves a complaint filed on June 16, 2008, by Rhodna A. Bacatan, an Assistant Cebu City Prosecutor, against Atty. Merari D. Dadula.
- The complaint alleges violations of:
- Canon 8, Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- Duties of attorneys as per Section 20, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
- The lawyer's oath regarding honesty and truthfulness.
Facts of the Case
- Between September and October 2007, two cases were raffled to Bacatan for preliminary investigation:
- A libel complaint (I.S. No. 4760) filed by Rev. Jose Bailey Bernaldez against Dr. Carlito Impas, Sr.
- A falsification complaint (I.S. No. 4999-J) filed by Dr. Carlito Impas, Jr. against Rev. Jose Bailey Bernaldez.
- Atty. Dadula represented Dr. Carlito Impas, Jr.
- Bacatan recommended the filing of the libel case due to probable cause and dismissed the falsification case for lack of probable cause.
- Respondent Dadula filed multiple motions, accusing Bacatan of partiality and bias against her client, citing specific allegations related to the handling of both cases.
Allegations by the Respondent
- Dadula accused Bacatan of:
- Failing to specify which part of the publication was libelous.
- Rapidly denying her motion for reconsideration.
- Delaying the resolution of the falsification complaint.
- Not providing a copy of the libel resolution to the accused.
- Dismissing the falsification case despite an admission from the accused regarding the signature.
- Filing the information in the libel case during the appeal period o