FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11270. July 15, 2020.][Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5212]
RONNIE F. FAULVE, complainant,vs.ATTY. ROSA ELMINA CATACUTAN-VILLARIN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 15, 2020which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11270 [Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5212] — RONNIE F. FAULVE, complainant, versusATTY. ROSA ELMINA CATACUTAN-VILLARIN, respondent.
Complainant Ronnie F. Faulve (Faulve) files this disbarment case against Atty. Rosa Elmina Catacutan-Villarin (Atty. Catacutan-Villarin), the City Prosecutor of Imus, Cavite, for inhibiting in five criminal complaints filed by Faulve and for referring said cases to the Office of the Regional Prosecutor in San Pablo City, Laguna for appropriate action via an Indorsement dated December 2, 2015. Faulve alleges that Atty. Catacutan-Villarin exhibited rudeness in her Indorsement and her acts violated the rules on inhibition and venue. He further accuses Atty. Catacutan-Villarin of having been motivated by monetary consideration. 1
Faulve also faults Atty. Catacutan-Villarin for the non-filing of an information in I.S. No. IV-03-INV-10B-0549 for slight physical injuries and light threats where Faulve was also a complainant. 2
In a Resolution 3 dated June 28, 2016, the Court referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. Thereafter, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) ordered Atty. Catacutan-Villarin to file her answer to the complaint, with which she complied. The IBP later set the case for mandatory conference and only Atty. Catacutan-Villarin appeared. When the mandatory conference was terminated and the parties were asked to file their position papers, it was also only Atty. Catacutan-Villarin who complied with the directive of the IBP. 4
In her defense, Atty. Catacutan-Villarin denies the charges against her, maintaining that there was nothing irregular about her inhibition from the criminal complaints. She explains that it was a voluntary act in light of several administrative complainants Faulve had filed against her before the Office of the Ombudsman when she was still the Reviewing Prosecutor of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite. She points out that Faulve did not complain about her inhibition and Indorsement then, and only did so when the Office of the Regional Prosecutor in San Pablo, Laguna dismissed the cases. 5
Atty. Catacutan-Villarin explains further that she merely reviewed, for the ultimate approval of the Provincial Prosecutor, the resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor in I.S. No. IV-03-INV-10B-0549. 6
In his Report and Recommendation, 7 the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-CBD recommends the dismissal of the complaint, noting that it was a mere harassment suit because of the palpable lack of merit of the case. 8 The Investigating Commissioner found nothing wrong with the acts of Atty. Catacutan-Villarin. On account of the previous administrative complaint Faulve filed against her, Atty. Catacutan-Villarin inhibited from the conduct of the preliminary investigation of the criminal cases Faulve filed and referred them instead to the Office of the Regional Prosecutor in San Pablo, Laguna so as to bar any imputation of partiality, bias, or prejudice against him. The IBP-CBD held that Atty. Catacutan-Villarin acted in good faith and in keeping with the tenets that prosecutors must not only act with fairness and impartiality, but must also be perceived to be the embodiment of these qualities. 9
In its Notice of Resolution 10 dated May 27, 2019, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) resolved to adopt the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner to dismiss the complaint.
The Court dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Court, in the fairly recent cases of Alicias, Jr. v. Macatangay11 (Alicias) and Trovela v. Robles12(Trovela), has laid down the rule that the accountability of lawyers performing or discharging their official duties as lawyers of the Government is always to be differentiated from their accountability as members of the Philippine Bar. Thus, the IBP has no jurisdiction to investigate government lawyers charged with administrative offenses involving the performance of their official duties.
Clearly, the allegations in the complaint arose from the performance or discharge of official duties of Atty. Catacutan-Villarin as the City Prosecutor of Imus, Cavite, as these allegations revolve on her inhibition from the criminal complaints Faulve filed before her office. Following Trovela, therefore, the authority to discipline Atty. Catacutan-Villarin is lodged with her superior, the Secretary of Justice or to the Office of the Ombudsman, which similarly exercises disciplinary jurisdiction over prosecutors as public officials pursuant to Section 15, paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989), to wit:
SECTION 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. — The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such cases[.]
The power of the Office of the Ombudsman provided in Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 is, in turn, lifted from Article XI, Section 13, paragraph (1) 13 of the 1987 Constitution. Thus, in Alicias, the Court held that the Office of the Ombudsman is the government agency responsible for enforcing administrative, civil, and criminal liability of government officials "in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people." 14 The Court went on to elaborate that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance committed by any public officer or employee during his or her tenure. 15 Consequently, acts or omissions of public officials relating to the performance of their functions as government officials are within the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. 16
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against Atty. Rosa Elmina Catacutan-Villarin is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 147-148.
2.Id. at 2, 148.
3.Id. at 52.
4.Id. at 146-147.
5.Id. at 74-75, 148-149.
6.Id. at 148.
7.Id. at 146-152. Rendered by Commissioner Romualdo A. Din, Jr.
8.Id. at 152.
9.Id. at 150.
10.Id. at 144-145.
11. A.C. No. 7478, January 11, 2017, 814 SCRA 96, 103.
12. A.C. No. 11550, June 4, 2018, 864 SCRA 1, 7.
13. SECTION 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties:
(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
14.Alicias, Jr. v. Macatangay, supra note 11, at 102. Underscoring supplied; emphasis in the original.
15.Id., citing Samson v. Restrivera, 662 Phil. 45 (2011).
16.Id. at 102-103.