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

Case Summary (A.C. No. 5119)

Factual Background

The complainants are registered owners of a 58.0649-hectare land in Bibingcahan, Sorsogon. In April 1998 the Department of Agrarian Reform issued a notice of coverage under Republic Act No. 6657, prompting the Berenguers to apply for exclusion and for a notice to lift coverage on the ground that their lands were used exclusively for livestock pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 09. In October and November 1998 the DAR Secretary cancelled the Berenguers’ certificates of title and issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) in favor of members of the Baribag Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Development Cooperative (BARIBAG). Regional Director Percival Dalugdug denied the Berenguers’ application for exclusion in the Order dated February 15, 1999 based on an investigation finding that the area was principally devoted to coconuts.

Administrative and Adjudicative Proceedings

The Berenguers timely appealed to the DAR Secretary, which, under DAR Administrative Order No. 06-00, operated to stay execution of the regional director’s order unless the Secretary directed otherwise. While the appeal was pending, BARIBAG filed a petition for implementation before the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator. As RARAD, Atty. Isabel E. Florin granted BARIBAG’s petition in an Order dated March 15, 1999 and directed issuance of a writ of possession. Florin denied the Berenguers’ motion for reconsideration on March 22, 1999. BARIBAG then moved for appointment of a special sheriff and for issuance of the writ; DAR Acting Secretary Conrado S. Navarro denied the Berenguers’ appeal on April 6, 1999. Florin issued a Resolution on April 8, 1999 granting appointment of a special sheriff and ordering issuance of the writ of possession. The Berenguers’ motion to set aside that Resolution was denied on April 21, 1999, after which Florin issued a writ of possession in favor of BARIBAG and directed its full implementation pursuant to Rule 71, Rules of Court.

Writ of Possession and Execution

Florin implemented the writ of possession despite the pendency of the Berenguers’ appeal to the DAR Secretary and despite the absence in the records of any order by the DAR Secretary directing execution pending appeal or any certification of finality. The Berenguers filed motions to quash and pursued petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals which were dismissed on procedural grounds and for lack of jurisdiction. The writ of possession was executed with the assistance of law enforcement and with DAR officers present during implementation.

Disbarment Complaint and Allegations

On August 4, 1999 the Berenguers filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Isabel E. Florin, Atty. Marcelino Jornales, and Atty. Pedro Vega. The complaint alleged that Florin knowingly rendered unjust judgments, issued an ex parte order and a writ of execution and possession without certification of finality, hid the writ from petitioners, refused to hear pleadings, failed to forward appeals, interfered with lawyer-client relationships, and abused authority to cite counsel for contempt and issue an arrest order without hearing. The complaint alleged that Jornales and Vega, despite knowledge of the writ’s illegality, assisted in implementation to the prejudice of petitioners and legitimate farmers.

Respondents’ Defenses

In her Comment Atty. Florin asserted that the writ of possession was anchored on CLOAs issued by the Register of Deeds and not on a final and executory adjudicator’s decision requiring certification of finality; that counsel was not furnished a copy because the writ had not been signed when requested; that there was no intent to hide the writ; that the writ was delivered to the sheriff when signed; and that DAR officers including the Legal Division acted under a presumption of regularity. Atty. Pedro Vega denied participation in issuance, averred that the writ was not illegal absent a court order so stating, and explained that his presence during execution was to ensure compliance with law. Atty. Marcelino Jornales denied being privy to the issuance, denied authority to determine the writ’s validity, and explained his presence at a pre-execution meeting as Regional Assistant Director for Operations rather than as counsel.

IBP Investigation and Recommendation

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation. IBP Commissioner Milagros San Juan recommended that Atty. Florin be suspended from the practice of law for three years for knowingly rendering unjust judgments, orders, and resolutions prejudicial to the complainants, and recommended dismissal of charges against Atty. Jornales and Atty. Vega for failure to substantiate the charges. The IBP Board of Governors, however, adopted a Resolution on May 26, 2006 modifying the recommended penalty and suspending Atty. Florin for one year while dismissing the charges against Jornales and Vega.

Legal Framework and Precedent Considered

The Court applied Rule 138, Sec. 27, Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility in assessing disciplinary liability. The Court considered precedents governing disciplinary sanctions for lawyers in public office, including Atty. Vitriolo v. Atty. Dasig, which holds that a lawyer in government service remains subject to professional obligations, and Tadlip v. Atty. Borres, Jr., which likened adjudicators’ administrative responsibility to that of judges. The Court also applied the DAR rules on effect of appeal in DAR Administrative Order No. 06-00, Sec. 29, which provides that an appeal to the Secretary stays the order appealed from unless the Secretary directs execution pending appeal, and Rule 39, 1997 Rules of Court, which limits execution to instances when an order becomes final and executory or when special reasons and hearing justify execution pending appeal. The Court examined Rule XX, 2009 Rules of the DARAB, which prescribes execution only upon final order or upon certification by the proper officer and regulates execution pending appeal subject to bond and Board action.

Court’s Reasoning and Findings

The Court found that Florin, as RARAD, exercised quasi-judicial functions akin to a judge and thus remained subject to the Code of Professional Responsibility when performing those functions. The Court concluded that the Berenguers’ appeal to the DAR Secretary clearly stayed execution of Regional Director Dalugdug’s Order dated February 15, 1999 and that there was no record of any DAR Secretary order directing execution pending appeal. The Court held that issuance of a writ of execution or possession ordinarily requires a final and executory decision or an express grant of execution pending appeal after due process, and that Florin’

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 5119)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Rosario Berenguer-Landers and Pablo Berenguer filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Isabel E. Florin, Atty. Marcelino Jornales, and Atty. Pedro Vega.
The disputed subject was a 58.0649-hectare landholding in Bibingcahan, Sorsogon, covered by a DAR notice under Republic Act No. 6657.
The DAR issued CLOAs in favor of Baribag Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Development Cooperative (BARIBAG) while the owners' exclusion application remained pending.
Florin, acting as Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD), issued orders including a writ of execution and a writ of possession in favor of BARIBAG.
The Berenguers filed administrative appeals to the DAR Secretary and certiorari petitions with the Court of Appeals, which were dismissed on procedural grounds.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated and recommended sanctions, and the IBP Board of Governors adopted and modified the recommendation before the matter reached the Court.
The Supreme Court reviewed the IBP findings and rendered the decision now summarized.

Key Factual Allegations

The owners applied for exclusion from CARP coverage on the ground that the land was used exclusively for livestock pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 09.
DAR Regional Director Percival Dalugdug denied the exclusion application in an order dated February 15, 1999.
BARIBAG filed a petition for implementation and obtained from Florin an order directing issuance and implementation of a writ of possession.
Florin denied the Berenguers' motion for reconsideration and set aside motions, thereafter directing execution despite the pendency of the owners' administrative appeal.
The Berenguers alleged that Florin, Jornales, and Vega conspired to implement an illegal writ of possession, denied due process, hid the writ, refused hearings, and improperly interfered with counsel and clients.

Issues Presented

Whether the acts of Atty. Isabel E. Florin in issuing and implementing the writs constituted professional misconduct warranting disciplinary sanction.
Whether Atty. Marcelino Jornales and Atty. Pedro Vega participated in or assisted the alleged illegal implementation so as to warrant disciplinary action.
What penalty, if any, should be imposed upon a lawyer-judge equivalent in government service when quasi-judicial acts are found improper.

Contentions of Parties

The complainants contended that Florin knowingly rendered unjust orders, issued ex parte execution, signed a writ of possession without a certification of finality, hid the writ, denied hearings, and abused authority to the prejudice of the Berenguers.
Florin contended that the writ of possession was anchored on the CLOAs and not on a finality certification, that counsel was not furnished a copy because the writ was not yet issued, and that she did not intend to hide the writ.
Florin further asserted that the DARAB and the DAR had jurisdiction and that the Berenguers never questioned the regularity of the CLOAs.
Vega maintained that he did not participate in the issuance of the writ, that the writ was not prima facie illegal in the absence of a court order declaring it invalid, and that his presence at execution was to ensure legality.
Jornales denied privy participation, denied supervision or control over the DARAB, and admitted attendance at a pre-implementation meeting in his administrative capacity only.

Statutory Framework

Republic Act No. 6657 provided the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) context in which coverage and exclusion issues arose.
DAR Administrative Order No. 09 governed exclusion for land devoted exclusively to livestock as urged by the Berenguers.
Section 29,