G.R. No. Adm. Case No. 1344 February 28, 1985
PATRICIO GUNDRAN, complainant, vs. FLORENTINO LIBATIQUE, respondent.

FACTS

The municipal court of Bauang, La Union, rendered a judgment on September 29, 1971, in favor of Patrocinia Flores. The judgment declared her the owner and prior possessor of a 3,000-square-meter portion of land, ordered defendants Alfonso and Alejandro Caluza to pay her P350, and directed them not to disturb her possession. A writ of execution dated May 2, 1972, was issued to enforce this judgment. Respondent lawyer Florentino G. Libatique, counsel for Alfonso Caluza, advised his client not to vacate the land. Libatique based this advice on his interpretation that the first writ specifically directed the sheriff to enforce only the monetary award (P350) and did not explicitly order the sheriff to place Flores in physical possession of the lot.
Subsequently, a second writ of execution was issued on June 9, 1972. This later writ explicitly specified that Patrocinia Flores should be placed in possession of the land. This second writ was duly executed, and Flores was successfully placed in possession. Following these events, Patricio Gundran, the son of Patrocinia Flores, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Libatique. Gundran alleged that Libatique was guilty of malpractice and conduct unbecoming an officer of the court for advising his client to disobey a court order by not vacating the land pursuant to the first writ.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Florentino G. Libatique committed malpractice or conduct unbecoming a lawyer by advising his client not to vacate the land based on his interpretation of the first writ of execution.

RULING

The Court dismissed the complaint and exonerated Atty. Libatique. The ruling hinged on the specific language of the first writ of execution. The Court found that the initial writ dated May 2, 1972, directed the sheriff to enforce only the monetary portion of the judgment and did not contain a clear, specific command to oust the defendants and deliver possession to Flores. A lawyer has a duty to represent his client’s interests zealously within the bounds of the law. Libatique’s advice was a legitimate legal interpretation of an ambiguous writ; he essentially counseled his client on the writ’s perceived legal deficiency. The record showed that Libatique instructed Caluza to surrender possession immediately once a proper court order to vacate was issued. This instruction was followed when the second, clearer writ was enforced. Therefore, his actions constituted neither obstruction of justice nor unethical conduct, but rather a reasonable exercise of his professional duty to his client based on a permissible reading of the court’s process.