Berenguer-Landers v.

Florin

Facts: The Berenguer’s are the registered owners of a parcel of land in Bibingcahan, Sorsogon. They were
sent a notice of coverage by the DAR regarding the acquisition of the said land pursuant to the CARP. The
Berenguers protested and applied for the exclusion of their land from coverage based on the fact that it
was being used exclusively for livestock.

The DAR secretary, without acting on the application for exclusion, cancelled the certificate of title and
awarded the land in favor of members of BARIBAG. It was only after that the application for exclusion was
denied by the DAR Regional Director (Jornales) on account of the land being actually devoted to coconuts
instead of livestock.

Aggrieved, the Berenguers filed an appeal with the Secretary of DAR and while the appeal was pending,
BARIBAG filed a petition to implement the order denying the exclusion. This petition of BARIBAG was
approved by Florin, as the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) who subsequently directed the
issuance and implementation of the writ of possession. On April 8, 1999, Florin issued a resolution which
granted the issuance of the writ of possession.

The Berenguers filed a motion to set aside the April 8 resolution arguing that DARAB had already acquired
jurisdiction over the case when they filed the appeal before it and Florin should have waited until it
decided the appeal. Florin denied this motion which prompted the Berenguers to move for her inhibition
on grounds of partiality.

On, April 21, 1999, Florin issued the writ of possession in f avor of BARIBAG and directed the full
implementation of the writ in spite of the Berenguers protests.

Hence, this complaint was filed for the disbarment of Atty. Florin, et al., for conspiring and confederating
in rendering an unjust judgment.

Issue: WON Florin should be suspended for rendering an unjust judgment.

Held: Yes

Ratio: In Atty. Vitriolo v. Atty. Dasig, the Court already ruled that if a misconduct as a government official
also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer, then a lawyer may be disciplined by this Court as a
member of the Bar, viz:

Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the
Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. However, if said misconduct as
a government official also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer, then he may be disciplined by
this Court as a member of the Bar.

A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations. Hence, the
Code of Professional Responsibility was not meant to govern the conduct of private practitioners alone,
but of all lawyers including those in government service. This is clear from Canon 6 of said Code. Lawyers
in government are public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the public service.

Florin’s issuance of the writ of execution and writ of possession in order to fully implement Regional
Director Dalugdug’s Order dated February 15, 1999 clearly constitutes ignorance of the law for as a rule,
a writ of execution is issued only after the subject judgment or order has already become final and
executory. As aptly stated by IBP Commissioner San Juan, Florin ordered the issuance of such writs despite
the pendency of the appeal with the DARAB.53 Consequently, the Court finds merit in the
recommendation of suspension.