View full case

ROSARIO BERENGUER-LANDERS v. ATTY. ISABEL E. FLORIN

FACTS:

The complainants, Rosario Berenguer-Landers and Pablo Berenguer, are the registered owners of a land subject to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) in Sorsogon, Sorsogon. They protested and applied for exclusion of their land from CARP, but the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) cancelled their certificates of title and issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to beneficiaries called BARIBAG. The Berenguers filed an appeal with the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), while BARIBAG filed a motion for the implementation of the order before the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) Isabel Florin. Florin granted the motion and issued a Writ of Possession. The Berenguers filed a motion for reconsideration, but Florin denied it. They appealed to the DARAB, but the appeal was denied. Florin later granted the motion for the appointment of a special sheriff and ordered the issuance of the writ of possession. The Berenguers filed a motion to set aside the order and also sought Florin's inhibition. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied their petitions for certiorari. Florin issued a writ of possession in favor of BARIBAG despite the Berenguers' objections. The Berenguers then filed a complaint for disbarment against Florin, Marcelino Jornales, and Pedro Vega, accusing them of conspiracy in committing prejudicial acts.

Another disbarment complaint was filed against Atty. Florin, Atty. Jornales, and Atty. Vega. The complaint alleges that Atty. Florin, as Provincial Adjudicator of Sorsogon, rendered unjust judgments, failed to forward appeals to the proper appellate board, and unlawfully cited counsel for the petitioners in contempt. Atty. Jornales and Atty. Vega, both lawyers from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), are accused of assisting in the illegal implementation of a writ of possession against legitimate farmers. Atty. Florin denied the allegations and argued that her actions were based on the CLOAs issued by the DAR. Atty. Jornales and Atty. Vega also denied the charges and claimed that the writ of possession was not illegal. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Commissioner recommended a three-year suspension for Atty. Florin and dismissed the charges against Atty. Jornales and Atty. Vega. The recommendation against Atty. Florin was based on the CA's findings that the CLOAs were void as the subject properties were outside the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Isabel Florin should be suspended from the practice of law for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, orders, and resolutions adverse and prejudicial to the interests of the complainants.

  2. Whether the charges against Atty. Marcelino Jornales and Atty. Peter Vega should be dismissed for failure of the complainants to substantiate the charges against them.

  3. Whether a lawyer in government service is subject to the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  4. Whether the acts committed by the lawyer in this case constitute a violation of his professional obligations.

  5. Whether the lawyer's issuance of the writ of execution and writ of possession is in violation of the law.

  6. Whether Atty. Isabel E. Florin violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  7. Whether the penalty of suspension for three (3) months without pay should be imposed on Atty. Isabel E. Florin.

  8. Whether the complaint against Atty. Marcelino Jornales and Atty. Pedro Vega should be dismissed.

RULING:

  1. Atty. Isabel Florin is suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year for knowingly rendering unjust judgments, orders, and resolutions adverse and prejudicial to the interests of the complainants.

  2. The charges against Atty. Marcelino Jornales and Atty. Peter Vega are dismissed for failure of the complainants to substantiate the charges against them.

  3. Yes, lawyers in government service are subject to the Code of Professional Responsibility, which governs the conduct of all lawyers including those in government service.

  4. Yes, the acts committed by the lawyer in this case constitute a violation of his professional obligations. As a lawyer in government service, he is expected to refrain from any act or omission that might lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government. He must uphold the dignity of the legal profession and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. In this case, the lawyer's issuance of the writ of execution and writ of possession without the subject judgment becoming final and executory constitutes ignorance of the law and violates his professional obligations.

  5. Yes, the lawyer's issuance of the writ of execution and writ of possession is in violation of the law. Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Court states that execution may only be had after a decision or order has become final and executory, pending appeal only upon good reasons stated in a special order after due hearing, or for several, separate, or partial judgments. Similarly, Rule XX of the 2009 Rules of the DARAB provides for the execution of final orders, resolutions, or decisions, as well as the execution pending appeal upon meritorious grounds and the posting of a sufficient bond. In this case, the subject judgment has not become final and executory, and there is no indication of whether a bond was posted.

  6. Atty. Isabel E. Florin is found guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  7. The penalty of suspension for three (3) months without pay is imposed on Atty. Isabel E. Florin.

  8. The complaint against Atty. Marcelino Jornales and Atty. Pedro Vega is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for misconduct showing any fault or deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.

  • Gross misconduct is any inexcusable, shameful or flagrant unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned with the administration of justice, conduct prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right determination of the cause.

  • A lawyer who holds a government office may be disciplined as a member of the Bar if his misconduct as a government official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer.

  • Lawyers in government service are subject to the Code of Professional Responsibility, which governs the conduct of all lawyers, including those in government service.

  • Lawyers in government service have a higher degree of social responsibility and should be more sensitive in the performance of their professional obligations.

  • An administrative case against a lawyer for acts committed in his capacity as a government official may be likened to administrative cases against judges, given their role in the quasi-judicial system of the government.

  • Execution may only be had after a decision or order has become final and executory, pending appeal only upon good reasons stated in a special order after due hearing, or for several, separate, or partial judgments.

  • Ignorance of the law is not an excuse and lawyers are expected to be knowledgeable in the law and jurisprudence.

  • Lawyers are duty-bound to observe honesty, integrity, and good moral character in the practice of law.

  • Lawyers who display dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do injustice will be administratively sanctioned.

  • The penalty for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility may be reconsidered based on the circumstances of the case.

  • Suspension without pay may be imposed on lawyers whose ignorance of the law is not tainted with bad faith.

  • The charges against lawyers must be substantiated by sufficient evidence to warrant disciplinary action.