A.C. No. 5119 - Berenguer-Landers vs. Florin

Complainants: Rosario Berenguer-Landers and Pablo Berenguer, owner-participants of a 58.0649-hectare landholding in Bibingcahan, Sorsogon.
Respondents: Atty. Isabel E. Florin, Atty. Marcelino Jornales, and Atty. Pedro Vega, officials involved in the conduct of the Department of Agrarian Reform’s (DAR) adjudicatory and enforcement functions.

The land in question is registered in the names of Remedios Berenguer-Lintag, Carlo Berenguer, Belinda Berenguer-Aguirre, Rosario Berenguer-Landers, and Pablo Berenguer.
The complainants asserted that the land was used exclusively for livestock purposes, supporting their application for exclusion from coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) as provided by Republic Act No. 6657.

In April 1998, a notice of coverage was issued by DAR on the owners’ land pursuant to CARP.
The Berenguers protested said notice and applied for exclusion of their land from the program based on DAR Administrative Order No. 09 which recognized its exclusive use for livestock.
Despite their protest, in October–November 1998 the DAR Secretary cancelled the original certificates of title 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’ application for exclusion in an Order dated February 15, 1999, basing his decision on an Investigation Report indicating that the area was principally devoted to coconut production rather than livestock.
The complainants filed a notice of appeal with the DAR Secretary, attempting to secure relief from the adverse order.

While the appeal was pending, BARIBAG filed a separate petition for the implementation of the February 15, 1999 Order before the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD).
As RARAD, Atty. Florin granted the motion on March 15, 1999, thereby directing the issuance and subsequent implementation of a Writ of Possession.
Despite the pending appeal by the Berenguers, subsequent motions by them—including a motion for reconsideration (March 19, 1999) and an appeal to the DAR Adjudication Board—failed to halt the execution process.
On April 8, 1999, Florin issued a Resolution granting BARIBAG’s motion for a special sheriff, which was followed by the issuance of the Writ of Possession on April 21, 1999.
The Berenguers, objecting to the premature execution in light of their unresolved appeal, moved to have the resolution set aside and later sought Florin’s inhibition over grounds of partiality.

The complainants elevated the issue to the Court of Appeals (CA) via petitions for certiorari disputing various orders and motions; these petitions were dismissed on procedural grounds, including certification and exhaustion of administrative remedies.
The writ of possession, despite these protests, was fully implemented, and further motions to quash it filed on June 3, 1999 were unsuccessful.
Ultimately, on August 4, 1999, the complainants filed the instant Complaint for disbarment against Florin, Jornales, and Vega, alleging a series of misconducts connected with the issuance and enforcement of the writ.
In their respective comments, the respondents contended that:

Florin’s actions were anchored on the authority of the CLOAs and did not contravene any final decision since the writ was issued without a final certification but on legal presumptions of regularity.
Jornales and Vega maintained that their roles in the execution did not amount to misconduct and that they were not in a position to control or influence the decision-making process regarding the writ.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) was tasked to investigate the matter and later recommended:

A suspension for three (3) years against Florin for knowingly rendering unjust judgments and orders prejudicial to the complainants.
Dismissal of the charges against Jornales and Vega due to insufficient evidence supporting the allegations against them.

The IBP Board later modified its recommended penalty for Florin to one (1) year of suspension.

The Court noted that Florin, as a quasi-judicial officer, failed to observe the requisite due process by issuing the writ of execution and writ of possession while the order was still pending appeal.
In light of legal precedents and identified administrative lapses, the Court imposed a penalty of three (3) months suspension without pay on Florin, while dismissing the complaint against Jornales and Vega for lack of substantial evidence.

Whether the issuance of the writ of possession by Atty. Florin was proper given that the underlying order had not yet become final and executory due to the pending appeal.
Whether the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, had the competence to issue the writ pending the unresolved appeal and contrary to the established rules of execution.

Whether the complainants were denied due process by not receiving timely copies of critical petitions and orders, and how this affected their ability to protect their interests.
Whether the conduct of respondents, particularly Florin, demonstrated such gross ignorance or deliberate disregard of the law as to require disciplinary sanctions under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Whether acts committed in the discharge of quasi-judicial functions by government lawyers (such as issuing writs and orders) can be subjected to disciplinary actions if they also amount to a violation of their professional oath, with a specific inquiry into the actions of Florin versus those of Jornales and Vega.