Dauin Point Land Corp. vs. Enojo

Facts:

The complainant is Dauin Point Land Corp., represented by Ralph Gavin Hughes; the respondent is Atty. Richard R. Enojo, then Provincial Legal Officer of Negros Oriental. On January 15, 2013, Ramon Regalado, through his attorney-in-fact Merlinda A. Regalado, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale to Dauin Point Land Corp. covering Lot No. 394 (7,081 sq.m.), the subject property, for PHP6,000,000.00.

Respondent, using the official letterhead of his office as Provincial Legal Officer, sent a letter dated February 28, 2013 to the Dauin Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator objecting to complainant’s fencing permit application and asserting a proprietary claim to a portion of Lot No. 394 as payment for legal services rendered to Ramon. Thereafter, respondent replied on October 26, 2015 to the Municipal Engineer stating the lot was the subject of pending litigation and blaming the buyer for purchasing a “problematic” lot without consulting respondent’s office. The DILG Regional Director (Region VII) later wrote that respondent’s opposition was improperly filed and unsubstantiated. The Dauin PNP also sent a Request for Conference dated November 10, 2015 to complainant’s representatives, an act complainant attributed to respondent’s use of public office to harass them.

Complainant filed an administrative disbarment complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline and pursued administrative and criminal complaints with the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman filed Information in the Sandiganbayan; the Sandiganbayan convicted respondent (Decision dated October 18, 2019), but this Court, in People v. Enojo, G.R. No. 252258 (April 6, 2022), acquitted him on the criminal charges for reasonable doubt, including for lack of proof that he influenced the police to send the Request for Conference.

Respondent submitted an Answer denying champerty and asserting he acted as co-owner and as legal counsel for an owner; he also maintained he merely requested a conference at the PNP because of his claimed share. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended suspension from the practice of law for two years, finding respondent used his public office to advance private interests and rendered legal opinions despite a conflict. The IBP Board of Governors adopted that recommendation ...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Did the complainant prove, by substantial evidence, that respondent committed the acts charged so as to render him administratively liable?
• Should the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) apply to this proceeding and, if so, which specific canons govern respondent’s conduct?
• If respondent is liable, what is the appropriate penalty considering hi...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)