In Virginia N. Jumalon v. Atty. Elmer Dela Rosa, the Supreme Court addressed the ethical responsibilities of lawyers in handling agrarian reform cases. The Court found Atty. Dela Rosa liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to protect his client’s interests, engaging in conflicting representation, and improperly managing client funds. This decision reinforces the high standards of fidelity, diligence, and integrity expected of lawyers, especially when dealing with vulnerable populations like agrarian reform beneficiaries. Attorneys must prioritize their clients’ welfare and avoid actions that undermine the objectives of agrarian reform laws.

When a Lawyer’s Actions Undermine Agrarian Reform: The Case of Atty. Dela Rosa

Virginia Jumalon filed a complaint seeking the disbarment of Atty. Elmer Dela Rosa, alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Jumalon claimed that Atty. Dela Rosa failed to properly account for funds, breached the trust reposed in him, and acted against the interests of his clients regarding land awarded under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The case revolves around a parcel of land awarded to Wilson Jumalon, Virginia’s husband, under CARP. After Wilson’s death, Atty. Dela Rosa, who was the cooperative’s counsel, allegedly sold the property without consulting Virginia and improperly disbursed the proceeds. This action, Jumalon argued, violated Atty. Dela Rosa’s duties as a lawyer.

Atty. Dela Rosa countered that the land was under the cooperative’s name, not Virginia’s, and that Wilson had already transferred his rights to a third party, Eugene Gamolo, through a Deed of Sale of Acquired Rights and an Affidavit of Waiver and Quitclaim executed in 1992. He claimed that he acted in the best interest of the cooperative, fearing the land would be lost to foreclosure or repossession. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline initially recommended dismissing the complaint, but the IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. The Supreme Court, however, took a different view.

The Supreme Court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis, focusing on the lawyer’s fitness to continue practicing law. Membership in the Bar is a privilege conditioned on intellectual attainment and moral character. The Court found substantial evidence that Atty. Dela Rosa violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court stated that,

“Public interest is their primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the lawyer should still be allowed the privileges as such.”

The Court focused on Atty. Dela Rosa’s failure to inform his client about the sale of the CARP-awarded property. As a lawyer, Atty. Dela Rosa had a duty to serve his clients with competence, diligence, and fidelity. Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility underscore this duty. These canons state:

CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

Atty. Dela Rosa failed to protect the interests of Wilson and his heirs when he sold the awarded property to an undisclosed buyer and remitted the proceeds to third persons. He justified his actions by citing Wilson’s Affidavit of Waiver and Quitclaim and Deed of Sale of Acquired Rights, but the Court noted that these documents were executed within the 10-year prohibited period under Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6657, which states:

SECTION 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. – Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years…

The Court emphasized that the sale took place within the prohibited period and without the necessary approval from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). This disregard for the law and the interests of his clients constituted a serious breach of professional ethics. The Supreme Court found that:

That respondent did abandon the cause of his clients is evident from his own Comment

To the respondent’s own opinion, but with due respect to the members of his client, the Cooperative, the general membership of the Cooperative were thinking that although with herein respondent’s unpaid legal services and help, they might have won the Annulment of Title case filed by the Philippine Veterans Bank against the Cooperative but they will all stand to lose the land due to foreclosure by the Land Bank due to non-payment of realty taxes. It seems that no member of the cooperative would want to “hold an empty bag”, so to [speak], and would better have some financial benefit out of a sale of the land beyond the ten-year prohibited period which expired in 2002.

Further, Atty. Dela Rosa deposited the proceeds of the sale into his own bank account. Rules 16.01 and 16.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility require lawyers to account for all money received from clients and keep client funds separate from their own. Atty. Dela Rosa violated these rules by maintaining sole access to the cooperative’s Metrobank account, failing to properly account for the proceeds of the sale. Rules 16.01 and 16.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandate:

RULE 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

RULE 16.02 A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him.

Given Atty. Dela Rosa’s actions, the Court found him liable for gross misconduct. Although he had already been disbarred in a previous case involving similar actions, the Court imposed a fine of PHP 100,000.00 and declared him ineligible for judicial clemency. This decision serves as a stern warning to lawyers to uphold their ethical obligations and prioritize their clients’ interests above all else.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Dela Rosa violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to protect his client’s interests in an agrarian reform matter, engaging in conflicting representation, and improperly managing client funds.
What specific violations was Atty. Dela Rosa found guilty of?	Atty. Dela Rosa was found liable for violating Canons 15, 17, and 18, as well as Rules 15.01, 15.02, 16.01, and 16.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. These violations pertain to candor, fairness, loyalty, fidelity to the client’s cause, competence, diligence, and proper handling of client funds.
Why was the sale of the land considered problematic?	The sale of the land was problematic because it occurred within the 10-year prohibited period under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657) and without the necessary approval from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
What is the significance of Section 27 of RA 6657?	Section 27 of RA 6657 restricts the transferability of awarded lands for a period of ten years, except through hereditary succession, to the government, to the Land Bank of the Philippines, or to other qualified beneficiaries. This provision aims to ensure that agrarian reform beneficiaries retain ownership and cultivate the land awarded to them.
What was the penalty imposed on Atty. Dela Rosa?	Although Atty. Dela Rosa had already been disbarred in a previous case, the Court imposed a fine of PHP 100,000.00 and declared him ineligible for judicial clemency due to the severity and repetitiveness of his misconduct.
What are a lawyer’s obligations regarding client funds?	Lawyers must account for all money or property collected from clients and keep these funds separate from their own, as mandated by Rules 16.01 and 16.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. They must also ensure that client funds are used only for their intended purpose.
How does this case affect other lawyers in the Philippines?	This case serves as a reminder to all lawyers in the Philippines of their ethical obligations to act with competence, diligence, and fidelity to their clients’ interests. It underscores the importance of upholding the law and avoiding conflicts of interest.
What is the role of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in disciplinary proceedings?	The IBP investigates complaints against lawyers and makes recommendations to the Supreme Court regarding disciplinary actions. While the IBP’s recommendations are considered, the Supreme Court has the final authority to impose penalties on erring lawyers.

This ruling highlights the crucial role lawyers play in upholding the principles of agrarian reform and protecting the rights of vulnerable beneficiaries. It reinforces the need for lawyers to act with the highest standards of integrity and fidelity in all their dealings, particularly when entrusted with the welfare of their clients. The Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the severe consequences that can arise from neglecting these ethical obligations.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: VIRGINIA N. JUMALON v. ATTY. ELMER DELA ROSA, A.C. No. 9288, January 31, 2023