Dauin Point Land Corp. vs. Enojo

Factual Background

On January 15, 2013, Ramon Regalado through his attorney-in-fact executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying Lot No. 394, District II, Dauin, Negros Oriental, to Dauin Point Land Corp. for the consideration of PHP6,000,000.00. Thereafter, respondent, using the official letterhead of the Provincial Legal Office, wrote to the Dauin Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator on February 28, 2013, expressing objection to complainant’s fencing permit application and claiming that a portion of Lot No. 394 belonged to him as payment for legal services rendered to Ramon. Respondent likewise responded to an October 12, 2015 inquiry from the Municipal Engineer by letter dated October 26, 2015, advising that the lot was subject of a pending case and criticizing complainant for purchasing a “problematic lot” without consulting his office. Complainant further alleges that respondent caused the Dauin PNP to send a Request for Conference dated November 10, 2015 to harass complainant’s representatives. The DILG Regional Director, Region VII, by letter dated April 24, 2013, found respondent’s opposition improperly filed and unsubstantiated.

Procedural History in Other Forums

Complainant filed administrative and criminal complaints against respondent with the Office of the Ombudsman which resulted in the filing of an Information in the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan found respondent guilty and imposed penalty in a Decision dated October 18, 2019. On appeal, the Supreme Court in People v. Enojo, G.R. No. 252258, dated April 6, 2022, acquitted respondent on the ground of reasonable doubt, specifically finding inadequate proof that respondent persuaded or influenced the police to send the request for conference. Separately, respondent had been previously found administratively liable in A.C. No. 13211 and was suspended from the practice of law for six months.

Respondent’s Position

Respondent maintained that he merely requested a conference at the Dauin PNP because the sale included his share; that his February 28, 2013 letter was written in his capacity as a co-owner of the subject land rather than in his official capacity; that he did not engage in champerty because he did not finance litigation in exchange for a portion of judgment proceeds; and that his October 26, 2015 letter to the Municipal Engineer reflected his legal knowledge and his capacity as counsel for the owner of the land.

IBP Investigation and Recommendation

Investigating Commissioner Sherwin C. De Joya recommended suspension from the practice of law for two years in a Report dated August 4, 2022. The Investigating Commissioner found that respondent flagrantly used his public position in matters involving his private claim, failed to exercise prudence in view of his public trust, and manifested a conflict of interest in responding to the Municipal Engineer’s query instead of referring it to subordinates or another office. The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No. CBD-XXV-2022-10-34 dated October 14, 2022, adopted the recommendation and noted respondent’s prior administrative sanction in A.C. No. 13211.

Issue Presented

The dispositive issue before the Court was whether respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the ethical rules by using his official position to advance his private interest and by rendering a legal opinion on a matter in which he had a personal claim.

Burden of Proof and the Court’s Finding on Evidence

The Court reiterated that a lawyer is presumed innocent unless proven otherwise, and that the complainant bears the burden to establish the charges by substantial evidence. Citing applicable authorities, the Court found that complainant met that burden. The Court concluded that the record established two principal wrongful acts: respondent used his public position to assert and advance a private interest in Lot No. 394, and respondent rendered a legal opinion as Provincial Legal Officer touching the same property despite his personal interest.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court grounded its conclusion in Rule 1.01 and Rule 6.02 of the CPR and applied the CPRA under its transitory provision, observing that the cited CPR norms are reflected in CPRA Canon II Section 1 and Section 30. The Court held that respondent’s use of the Provincial Legal Office letterhead to oppose a fencing permit concerning a land in which he claimed an ownership interest was unjustified and amounted to gross misconduct because he unlawfully used his station to procure benefit for himself contrary to the rights of others. The Court relied on the DILG Regional Director’s finding that respondent’s opposition was improperly filed and unsubstantiated. The Court further held that respondent’s omission to disclose his personal claim in his reply to the Municipal Engineer, together with his rendering of a legal opinion on the disputed land, evinced lack of propriety and an indirect advancement of private interest in contravention of CPRA Section 30. The Court treated these acts as falling within the definition of gross misconduct as articulated in prior cases.

Penalty Analysis and Imposition

The Court applied CPRA Section 33 whi