Bacatan vs. Dadula

A lawyer violates Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when, without proof or sufficient basis, he or she accuses another lawyer or prosecutor of bribery or serious misconduct in pleadings; zeal for a client’s cause does not justify intemperate and baseless accusations, and a client’s subsequent acquittal does not cure the misconduct.

Complainant Rhodna A. Bacatan was an Assistant Cebu City Prosecutor. Respondent Atty. Merari D. Dadula was a member of the Bar admitted in March 2003 and counsel for Dr. Carlito Impas, Jr. The disciplinary complaint invoked Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward professional colleagues and to avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel, as well as Rule 8.01, Section 20(d) of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, and the lawyer’s oath.

Complainant Rhodna A. Bacatan was an Assistant Cebu City Prosecutor. Respondent Atty. Merari D. Dadula was counsel for Dr. Carlito Impas, Jr. Between September and October 2007, two cases were raffled to complainant for preliminary investigation: 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) filed by Dr. Carlito Impas, Jr. against Rev. Jose Bailey Bernaldez.

Complainant found probable cause for libel and recommended its filing in court, while she recommended dismissal of the falsification complaint for lack of probable cause. Both recommendations were approved by the City Prosecutor. Respondent then filed in the libel case a Motion to Determine Probable Cause With Motion to Hold in Abeyance Trial With Motion to Defer Issuance of Warrant and Motion to Defer Posting of Reduced Bail Bond.

In her pleadings, respondent accused complainant of manifest partiality and bias against her client. She cited that complainant summarily ruled the publication libelous but failed to point out which portion constituted libel; denied the motion for reconsideration with dispatch in an undated Order; “sat” on the falsification case by not resolving it with dispatch unlike the libel case; did not send a copy of the resolution in the libel case to the accused; dismissed the falsification case despite a clear admission from the accused that it was his signature; and lodged the information in the libel case within the period to appeal the undated Order. Perceiving an obvious disparity in treatment and the swiftness of the adverse libel resolution, respondent concluded that complainant must have been bribed.

Complainant denied the charges. According to her, the two cases were raffled on different dates and received by her office on separate dates; adopting a first-in-first-out policy, the libel case, raffled first, was resolved earlier than the falsification case. She maintained that she did not sit on the falsification case or act with undue haste in the libel case, but merely followed the procedure in resolving cases at the Cebu City Prosecutor’s Office. In her Rejoinder, respondent claimed that complainant’s undue haste and grave irregularity were evident from the Resolution and Information which she prepared and signed on the same day, November 20, 2007.

In her Answer, respondent insisted that complainant follow the regular procedure, reiterated her arguments, invoked as an affirmative defense the RTC Order dated August 26, 2008 granting the motion to determine probable cause for the libel case, and presented the RTC Decision dated June 29, 2012 acquitting Dr. Impas, Jr. of libel. Pending investigation, respondent also filed on December 20, 2010 a Complaint for Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 before the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas and a Petition for Disbarment and Imposition of Appropriate Disciplinary Actions before the IBP, containing the same allegations but no new issues.

IBP Investigating Commissioner Hector B. Almeyda found that the National Prosecution Service practice is for the investigating prosecutor to prepare the information together with the resolution finding probable cause, so the similarity of dates was inconsequential and did not call the regularity of the process into question. He further found that respondent failed to abide by the bounds of courtesy, fairness, and candor under Canon 8, having overstepped the bounds of fair play by including a completely irrelevant allegation concerning complainant’s character that did not enter into the determination of probable cause, and observed that respondent was a comparatively new member of the profession.

• Violation of Canon 8 and Related Duties: Complainant charged respondent with 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; and her lawyer’s oath not to do falsehood nor consent to the doing of any.
• No Undue Haste or Delay: Complainant denied the charges of undue haste in the libel case and undue delay in the falsification case, explaining that the two cases were raffled on different dates and received by her office on separate dates; under a first-in-first-out policy, the libel case, raffled first, was resolved earlier than the falsification case.
• Regular Procedure Followed: Complainant maintained that she did not sit on the falsification case or act with undue haste in the libel case, but merely followed the procedure in resolving cases at the Cebu City Prosecutor’s Office.

• Partiality and Bias: Respondent argued that complainant was manifestly partial and biased against her client because complainant summarily ruled the publication libelous without identifying the libelous portion, denied the motion for reconsideration with dispatch in an undated Order, sat on the falsification case, did not send a copy of the libel resolution to the accused, dismissed the falsification case despite an admission of signature, and lodged the libel information within the period to appeal the undated Order.
• Bribery: Respondent concluded from these adverse actions that complainant must have been bribed.
• Undue Haste and Irregularity: In her Rejoinder, respondent claimed that complainant’s undue haste and grave irregularity were evident from the Resolution and Information being prepared and signed on the same day, November 20, 2007.
• Regular Procedure and Affirmative Defense: In her Answer, respondent insisted that complainant follow the regular procedure, reiterated her earlier arguments, and invoked as an affirmative defense the RTC Order dated August 26, 2008 granting the motion to determine probable cause for the libel case.
• Acquittal as Defense: Respondent presented the RTC Decision dated June 29, 2012 acquitting Dr. Impas, Jr. of libel, contending in effect that the eventual acquittal cured or justified her misconduct.

• Violation of Canon 8: Whether respondent Atty. Merari D. Dadula violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by accusing complainant of manifest partiality, bias, irregularity, and bribery in her pleadings without proof or sufficient basis.
• Effect of Client’s Acquittal: Whether the eventual acquittal of respondent’s client, Dr. Carlito Impas, Jr., cured or justified respondent’s alleged misconduct.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty recommended by the IBP—strong reprimand with warning—was appropriate under the circumstances.

• Violation of Canon 8: Yes. Respondent violated Canon 8; her baseless accusations of bribery and irregularity overstepped the bounds of courtesy, fairness, and candor required of lawyers toward professional colleagues.
• Effect of Client’s Acquittal: No. The client’s eventual acquittal did not cure nor justify respondent’s misconduct; the attack on complainant’s character was unnecessary to the motion for determination of probable cause.
• Penalty: No. The IBP-recommended penalty was light; the Court imposed a ₱2,000.00 fine with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.

• Violation of Canon 8: Canon 8 requires lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward professional colleagues and to avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Strongly worded statements against opposing counsel may be permissible if justified by the records, but respondent’s tirades were baseless. The IBP found that the same-date resolution and information were explained by the National Prosecution Service practice of preparing the information together with the resolution finding probable cause, a practice respondent could have verified. Respondent failed to substantiate her bare allegations and sweeping conclusion of irregularity and bribery, relying only on a flimsy gut feeling. It is unethical for a lawyer to accuse another lawyer wantonly and maliciously of serious misconduct absent reasonable cause. The attack on complainant’s character was also completely unnecessary in the motion for determination of probable cause.
• Effect of Client’s Acquittal: Contrary to respondent’s contention, her misconduct was not cured nor justified by the eventual acquittal of her client. The propriety of her statements in the pleadings was to be judged by the basis existing at the time, not by the later outcome of the criminal case.
• Penalty: The Court concurred with the IBP’s finding but took exception to the recommended penalty as light. In Saberon vs. Larong, a lawyer was found guilty of simple misconduct and fined ₱2,000.00 for referring to a party’s pleadings as “a series of blackmail suits”; while a lawyer may present a case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify offensive and abusive language, and remarks must not trench beyond relevancy and propriety. In Ng vs. Alar, the IBP’s recommended reprimand was modified to a ₱5,000.00 fine for pleadings containing insults and diatribes against the NLRC and attacks on its moral and intellectual integrity. Here, respondent violated Canon 8; zeal or enthusiasm in championing a client’s cause is desirable, but unprofessional conduct stemming from it is disfavored. Having swiftly concluded, without proof or enough basis, that complainant was bribed or acted for a valuable consideration, respondent overstepped the bounds of courtesy, fairness, and candor. The Court thus imposed a ₱2,000.00 fine with a stern warning.

• Canon 8 — Courtesy, Fairness, and Candor Toward Professional Colleagues — Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. The Court applied this canon to respondent’s pleadings, finding that her baseless accusations of partiality, irregularity, and bribery against complainant violated the required standards of professional dealing.
• Unfounded Accusations Against Fellow Lawyers — It is unethical for a lawyer to accuse another lawyer wantonly and maliciously of a serious misconduct in the absence of reasonable cause. The Court found respondent’s charge of bribery and irregularity unsubstantiated, based only on a flimsy gut feeling, and therefore a violation.
• Zeal for a Client’s Cause — A lawyer is entitled to present a client’s case with vigor and courage, and strongly worded statements against opposing counsel may be allowed if justified by the records. However, such zeal or enthusiasm does not justify offensive, abusive, or baseless language; it must be circumscribed within the bounds of propriety and relevancy. The Court held that respondent’s overzealousness did not excuse her unprofessional accusations.
• Client’s Acquittal Does Not Cure Lawyer Misconduct — The eventual acquittal of a client does not cure nor justify a lawyer’s misconduct in the course of representing that client. The Court rejected respondent’s reliance on the RTC decision acquitting Dr. Impas, Jr.
• Penalty for Intemperate Language/Simple Misconduct — Prior jurisprudence imposed fines for a lawyer’s use of intemperate language: ₱2,000.00 in Saberon vs. Larong and ₱5,000.00 in Ng vs. Alar. The Court imposed a ₱2,000.00 fine with a stern warning.

• “It is unethical for a lawyer to accuse another lawyer wantonly and maliciously of a serious misconduct in the absence of a reasonable cause.” — This states the controlling ethical prohibition applied to respondent’s unsubstantiated bribery accusation.
• “While zeal or enthusiasm in championing a client’s cause is desirable, unprofessional conduct stemming from such zeal or enthusiasm is disfavoured.” — This defines the balance between vigorous advocacy and professional discipline, supporting the finding that respondent’s overzealousness did not excuse her conduct.
• “Contrary to respondent’s contention, her misconduct is not cured nor justified by the eventual acquittal of her client.” — This rejects the defense based on the RTC decision acquitting Dr. Impas, Jr. of libel.
• “When without proof nor enough basis on record, respondent swiftly concluded, based only on gut feeling, that the complainant has been bribed or had acted for a valuable consideration, her conduct has overstepped the bounds of courtesy, fairness and candor.” — This applies Canon 8 to the facts and is the core basis for the penalty.

• Saberon vs. Larong, A.C. No. 6567, April 16, 2008, 551 SCRA 359 — Cited by the Court as an earlier case where a lawyer was found guilty of simple misconduct and fined ₱2,000.00 for referring to a party’s pleadings as “a series of blackmail suits”; it supports the rule that vigorous advocacy does not justify offensive and abusive language.
• Ng vs. Alar, A.C. No. 7252, November 22, 2006, 507 SCRA 465 — Cited as precedent where the IBP’s recommended reprimand was modified to a ₱5,000.00 fine for pleadings containing insults and diatribes against the NLRC and attacks on its moral and intellectual integrity; the lawyer also filed disbarment cases against opposing counsel. The Court used it to support a fine for intemperate language and violation of Canon 8.
• Phil. Surety & Ins. Co. Inc. vs. Royal Oil Products, et al., 102 Phil. 326, 336-339 (1957) — Cited for the proposition that strongly worded statements by a lawyer against opposing counsel, if justified by the records, may not justify disciplinary action; the Court distinguished it because respondent’s statements were baseless.
• Rheem of the Philippines vs. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-22979, June 26, 1967, 20 SCRA 441 — Cited in Ng vs. Alar for the principle that enthusiasm, or even excess of it, is not bad if channeled in the right direction, but must be circumscribed within the bounds of propriety and with due regard for the proper place of courts in the system of government.

• Canon 8, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. The Court found respondent violated this canon through her baseless accusations against complainant.
• Rule 8.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Invoked in the complaint as a basis for disciplining respondent; the Decision ultimately found a violation of Canon 8.
• Section 20, paragraph (d), Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court — Invoked in the complaint as part of the duties of attorneys disregarded by respondent; the Decision’s finding centered on Canon 8.
• Lawyer’s Oath — Invoked in the complaint, particularly the undertaking not to do falsehood nor consent to the doing of any; the Decision’s disciplinary finding was based on Canon 8.
• Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019 — Mentioned as the basis of respondent’s separate complaint against complainant before the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas; it was not the provision under which respondent was disciplined.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, and Perez, JJ., concurred. Reyes, J., was on official leave.