PATRICIO GUNDRAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. FLORENTINO G. LIBATIQUE, RESPONDENT.

Gundran versus Libatique

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed with the Supreme Court against a practicing lawyer, Florentino G. Libatique, by Patricio Gundran, the son of a prevailing litigant in an ejectment case. Gundran accused the lawyer of malpractice and of conduct unbecoming an officer of the court, on the theory that the lawyer had advised the losing party not to obey a writ of execution. The case matters because it fixes the boundary of a lawyer's duty to the courts: advising a client to withhold obedience is not misconduct where the writ itself does not command the act the client is asked to perform. It is a short, clean lesson on the difference between counselling defiance and reading a writ correctly.

Procedural History

The controversy began in the municipal court of Bauang, La Union, which rendered a judgment in favor of Patrocinia Flores, the mother of the complainant, against Alfonso Caluza and Alejandro Caluza. From that judgment two writs of execution issued in succession. The complainant then filed this administrative complaint directly with the Supreme Court on the third of January, nineteen hundred seventy-three, asking that the respondent lawyer be disciplined. The case was heard on the administrative side, with testimony taken and exhibits marked, and it was resolved by the Court en banc.

Facts

On the twenty-ninth of September, nineteen hundred seventy-one, the municipal court of Bauang, La Union rendered judgment declaring Patrocinia Flores, the owner and prior possessor of a portion of a parcel of land with an area of three thousand square meters, entitled to take possession of that portion and to receive her share of its produce from Alfonso Caluza and Alejandro Caluza. The judgment ordered the Caluzas to pay Flores three hundred fifty pesos and not to disturb her possession.

A writ of execution dated the second of May, nineteen hundred seventy-two directed the sheriff to enforce the monetary part of the judgment, but it did not specifically order the sheriff to place Flores in possession of the lot. On the strength of that writ, the respondent lawyer, Florentino G. Libatique, advised Alfonso Caluza not to vacate the land. The respondent's advice was qualified: he told Caluza that as soon as the court issued an order for him to vacate, he should surrender possession to Patrocinia Flores.

A second writ of execution issued on the ninth of June, nineteen hundred seventy-two, and this time it specified that Patrocinia Flores should be placed in possession of the land. That second writ was duly executed, and Flores was placed in possession. On the third of January, nineteen hundred seventy-three, Patricio Gundran, her son, filed this complaint, alleging that the lawyer was guilty of malpractice and conduct unbecoming an officer of the court because he had advised Caluza not to obey the writ of execution.

Issues

• Whether or not a lawyer commits malpractice and conduct unbecoming an officer of the court by advising a client not to vacate the land where the writ of execution then in force did not order the client to vacate it.
• Whether or not the respondent's advice amounted to counselling disobedience to a lawful order of the court.

Applicable Provisions

No statutory provision is quoted in the decision. The Court's ruling rests entirely on the terms of the two writs of execution as established by the exhibits and the testimony, and on the settled duty of a lawyer not to counsel defiance of a lawful court order. The first writ, dated the second of May, nineteen hundred seventy-two, directed the sheriff to enforce only the monetary part of the judgment. The second writ, dated the ninth of June, nineteen hundred seventy-two, expressly specified that Patrocinia Flores should be placed in possession of the land. The distinction between the two writs is the whole case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent did not commit any malpractice. The first writ of execution did not order Caluza to vacate the land. The respondent told Caluza that as soon as the court issued an order for him to vacate the land, he should surrender possession to Patrocinia Flores. A lawyer who reads a writ according to its terms and tells his client to comply with it as written has done nothing dishonorable.

On the second issue, the Court found no counselling of disobedience. The second writ of execution, which did specify that Flores be placed in possession, was duly implemented. The respondent's advice was therefore conditional and law-abiding: obey the moment the court commands. The complaint was dismissed and the case considered closed.

Doctrine

A lawyer is not guilty of malpractice or of conduct unbecoming an officer of the court for advising a client to remain in possession where the writ of execution in force does not command the client to vacate. The duty to obey a writ is measured by the writ's own terms; a lawyer may properly insist that the sheriff act only within what the writ authorizes. Advice to surrender possession once the court issues the order to vacate is the opposite of defiance. For the Bar candidate, the rule is simple: misconduct requires a clear command disobeyed, and here there was none.

Disposition

The complaint was dismissed and the case considered closed; the respondent lawyer was exonerated.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a lawyer does not commit malpractice by advising a client to obey the writ as written and to surrender possession the moment the court orders it. Examiners use this case to test the boundary between legitimate counsel and counselling defiance of a court order.