G.R. No. A.C. No. 5119; April 17, 2013
ROSARIO BERENGUER-LANDERS and PABLO BERENGUER, Complainants, vs. ATTY. ISABEL E. FLORIN, ATTY. MARCELINO JORNALES and ATTY. PEDRO VEGA, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainants Rosario Berenguer-Landers and Pablo Berenguer, along with other co-owners (the Berenguers), were the registered owners of a 58.0649-hectare land in Sorsogon. In April 1998, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued a notice of coverage for their land under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The Berenguers applied for exclusion, claiming the land was used exclusively for livestock. In October and November 1998, the DAR Secretary cancelled the Berenguers’ certificates of title and issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to members of the Baribag Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Development Cooperative (BARIBAG). On February 15, 1999, DAR Regional Director Percival Dalugdug denied the application for exclusion. The Berenguers filed a notice of appeal with the DAR Secretary.
While the appeal was pending, BARIBAG filed a petition for implementation of the February 15, 1999 Order before the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD). Respondent Atty. Isabel E. Florin, as RARAD, granted the petition in an Order dated March 15, 1999, directing the issuance of a Writ of Possession. The Berenguers’ motion for reconsideration was denied. They appealed to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). On April 6, 1999, the DAR Acting Secretary denied the Berenguers’ appeal. On April 8, 1999, Florin issued a Resolution granting BARIBAG’s motion for appointment of a special sheriff and ordering the issuance of the writ of possession. The Berenguers’ motion to set aside this resolution and subsequent motion for Florin’s inhibition were denied. Florin issued the Writ of Possession on April 21, 1999, and directed its full implementation.
The Berenguers filed two petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 51858 and CA-G.R. SP No. 53174), both of which were denied on procedural grounds. On August 4, 1999, the complainants filed the instant disbarment complaint against respondents Florin, Atty. Marcelino Jornales (DAR Assistant Regional Director), and Atty. Pedro Vega (DAR Legal Officer V), alleging they conspired in: (A) Florin knowingly rendering unjust judgments and orders; (B) Florin issuing a writ of possession ex-parte without proper authority and hiding it from complainants; (C) Florin refusing to act on pleadings and forward the appeal; (D) Florin’s unwarranted interference in lawyer-client relationships and abuse of authority; and (E) Jornales and Vega assisting in the illegal implementation of the writ.
Florin defended her actions, stating the writ was based on the CLOAs and not a final judgment requiring a certification of finality, and denied hiding the writ. Vega and Jornales denied the allegations, arguing the writ had no prima facie infirmity, they were not privy to its issuance, and their involvement was in their official capacities.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Atty. Isabel E. Florin, Atty. Marcelino Jornales, and Atty. Pedro Vega should be disbarred or otherwise disciplined for the alleged acts of misconduct in relation to the agrarian reform proceedings involving the complainants’ land.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the complaint against Atty. Marcelino Jornales and Atty. Pedro Vega for lack of sufficient evidence. The Court found that the complainants failed to substantiate the charges against them. Jornales and Vega’s participation was in their official capacities as DAR officials, and there was no proof of conspiracy or malicious intent.
The Court SUSPENDED Atty. Isabel E. Florin from the practice of law for three (3) years for violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The suspension was based on the findings of the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated December 26, 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 53174, which the Supreme Court adopted. The CA found that Florin, as RARAD, acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction when she issued the Writ of Possession and ordered its implementation despite knowing that the Berenguers had a pending appeal before the DARAB and that the DAR Secretary’s Order (which was the basis for the writ) was not yet final. Her actions constituted knowingly rendering an unjust order, which is a breach of her oath as a lawyer and a violation of the ethical duties of a lawyer in government service. The Court emphasized that a lawyer in government service is held to the same, if not higher, standards of conduct as a private practitioner.