Case Digest (A.C. No. 5119)
Facts:
Rosario Berenguer-Landers and Pablo Berenguer v. Atty. Isabel E. Florin, A.C. No. 5119, April 17, 2013, Supreme Court First Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court. Complainants Rosario Berenguer-Landers and Pablo Berenguer (together with other members of the Berenguer family) are registered owners of a 58.0649-hectare parcel in Bibingcahan, Sorsogon. In April 1998 the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued a notice of coverage under Republic Act No. 6657 (CARP); the Berenguers sought exclusion, asserting their land was used exclusively for livestock under DAR Administrative Order No. 09.While their exclusion application was pending, the DAR Secretary cancelled the Berenguers' titles and issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) in favor of members of the Baribag Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Development Cooperative (BARIBAG). The DAR Regional Director, Percival Dalugdug, denied the Berenguers' exclusion application by Order dated February 15, 1999; the Berenguers appealed to the DAR Secretary.
During the pendency of administrative appeals, BARIBAG petitioned the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) for implementation. As RARAD, Atty. Isabel E. Florin granted BARIBAG’s petition (Order March 15, 1999) and later issued a Writ of Possession (April 21, 1999) and directed its implementation pursuant to Rule 71, despite the Berenguers’ pending appeal to the DAR Secretary and the Berenguers’ motions for reconsideration, to set aside, and for inhibition of Florin. The Berenguers sought judicial relief via two certiorari petitions to the Court of Appeals (CA); both were denied on procedural grounds (lack of proper certifications, non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, and lack of CA jurisdiction).
On August 4, 1999 the Berenguers filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Florin, Atty. Marcelino Jornales (Assistant Regional Director, DAR), and Atty. Pedro Vega (DAR Legal Officer V), alleging conspiracy to implement an illegal writ of possession, denial of due process, abuse of authority, and interference with lawyer-client relations. Florin, Jornales and Vega filed comments denying culpability and asserting regularity of their acts and lack of participation in the issuance of the writ.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated and Commissioner Milagros San Juan recommended a three-year suspension of Florin but dismissal of charges against Jornales and Vega. The IBP Board of Governors modified the recommendation to a one-year suspension for Florin and dismissed the others. Florin opposed, arguing she had jurisdiction and that BARIBAG’s implementation petition vested the RARAD with...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May a lawyer be disciplined by the Supreme Court for actions performed in a quasi-judicial capacity, and is Atty. Isabel E. Florin liable for discipline for issuing and implementing a writ of execution/possession while an appeal was pending?
- Are Atty. Marcelino Jornales and Atty. Pedro Vega administratively liable for their alleged roles in the implementation of the writ of possession?
- If Flori...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)