A.C. No. 11026. November 29, 2023
Dauin Point Land Corp., represented by Ralph Gavin Hughes, complainant, vs. Atty. Richard R. Enojo, Provincial Legal Officer, Province of Negros Oriental, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant corporation purchased a parcel of land from Ramon Regalado through his attorney-in-fact. Respondent, then the Provincial Legal Officer of Negros Oriental, subsequently sent an official letter on his office letterhead to a local municipal official, rendering an unsolicited legal opinion objecting to complainant’s application for a fencing permit over the property. In the letter, respondent claimed a portion of the lot belonged to him as payment for legal services rendered to the seller. He later reiterated his claim of ownership in another official correspondence and was alleged to have used his position to cause the local police to send a request for conference to complainant’s representatives, which complainant construed as harassment.
The complainant filed administrative and criminal actions before the Office of the Ombudsman based on these acts, leading to a Sandiganbayan conviction for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. However, the Supreme Court later acquitted respondent in the criminal case ( G.R. No. 252258 ) on the ground of reasonable doubt, finding insufficient proof that he influenced the police. The disbarment case proceeded independently before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

ISSUE

Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by using his public office to advance his private interest in a disputed parcel of land.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of professional misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for two years. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s public office demands the highest standards of ethical conduct. Respondent’s act of using his official stationery and title as Provincial Legal Officer to assert a personal claim of ownership over a private property constituted a clear misuse of his public position to promote his private interest, in violation of Rule 6.02 of the CPR. This rule explicitly prohibits a lawyer in government service from using his public position to advance private interests.
The Court ruled that while his criminal acquittal was based on the high standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the administrative case for disbarment only requires substantial evidence. The official letters he authored were undeniable evidence of his unethical conduct. By wielding the influence of his government office in a private property dispute, he failed to act with the integrity and prudence required of a lawyer and a public official. His actions created an impression of impropriety and undue influence, undermining public confidence in the legal profession. The Court affirmed the IBP’s finding that he should have recused himself or referred the matter given his clear conflict of interest, and his failure to do so warranted disciplinary sanction.