Tadlip vs. Borres, Jr. 474 SCRA 441

DOCTRINES:

• A lawyer assumes responsibilities well beyond the basic requirements of good citizenship – as a servant of the law, a lawyer should moreover make himself an examplar of others to emulate.
• A member of the bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations – the Code of Professional Responsibility was not meant to govern the conduct of private practitioners alone, but of all lawyers including those in the government service. 

FACTS: 
This case involves a parcel land of land situated in Mambajao, Camiguin which was issued OCT No. P-106, Emancipation Patent No. A-028380 by the MAR to Eusebio Arce. The land was formerly owned by Angel Madarieta. 


Subsequently, a Deed of Transfer under PD 27 was executed by Angel Madarieta, as represented by his wife, Pelagia Madarieta and Eusebio Arce. 


Six years later Arce died and was succeeded by two minors and Tadlip, his nephew, assumed the responsibility of tilling the land. Tadlip caused the reallocation of the disputed land.


Respondent, as PARAD of DARAB issued an order dated 3 April 1998 granting the petition of complainant reallocating the land to him and heirs of Arce. However, the title was never transferred to the complainant and the heirs of Arce because unknown to them respondent rendered another Order dated 26 January 1999 cancelling the registration of the same OCT No. P-106 and ordering the issuance of a TCT ex parte in favor of Madarieta. He also approved the motion of execution filed by Madarieta. 


 ISSUE: Whether the respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.


HELD: 

Respondent's non-observance of the DARAB Rules on notice and hearing and his grant to Madarieta of her motion for execution pending appeal in effect deprived complainant of the land he tills and the source of his income. Complainant woke up one day not knowing that the emancipated land which he thought was already reallocated to him was lost by order of respondent. He was not given the chance to defend his claim over the property. This is tantamount to deprivation of property without due process of law, a constitutional guarantee available to every individual.

The actual review of the subject issuance of the respondent should be undertaken in the proper judicial proceedings, and not by this Court at this time via an administrative action. Nevertheless, respondent's culpability under the Code of Professional Responsibility is indubitable. As a lawyer, the IBP determined, and we subscribe to such determination, that respondent violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states:

Canon 1A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.


While the duty to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws is an obligation imposed upon every citizen, a lawyer assumes responsibilities well beyond the basic requirements of good citizenship. As a servant of the law, a lawyer should moreover make himself an exemplar of others to emulate.


A member of the bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations. Hence the Code of Professional Responsibility, promulgated on 21 June 1988, 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 the said Code. Lawyers in government service are public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the public service. Thus they should be more sensitive in the performance of their professional obligations, as their conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the public.

Respondent, as a Provincial Adjudicator of the DARAB, was reposed with a higher gravamen of responsibility than a lawyer in private practice. The recommended penalty of two months suspension is too light under the circumstances, and a penalty of six (6) months' suspension more appropriate.

As held in recent cases, the penalty for a judge found to be guilty of gross ignorance of the law is six (6) months. In the case at bar, after due consideration of the facts involved, the Court believes and so holds that the same penalty should be imposed upon respondent as he disregarded pertinent rules of procedure of the DARAB that led to the unjust deprivation of complainant of his property.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.