Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > December 2010 Resolutions > [A.C. No. 4515 : December 07, 2010] CECILIA A. AGNO VS. ATTY. MARCIANO J. CAGATAN:

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated DECEMBER 7, 2010, which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 4515 (Cecilia A. Agno vs. Atty. Marciano J. Cagatan)

On July 14, 2008, this Court promulgated its Decision on the instant complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Cecilia A. Agno against respondent Atty. Marciano J. Cagatan, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Marciano J. Cagatan is SUSPENDED FOR ONE (1) YEAR and ONE (1) MONTH from the practice of law with warning that repetition of the same or similar acts will merit a more severe penalty; and ordered to RESTITUTE the amount of P500,000.00 to the complainant.

On September 16, 2008, this Court resolved to deny with finality respondent's motion for reconsideration, there being no substantial matters raised to warrant the reversal of the questioned decision.

Respondent again filed a Motion to Resolve Respondent's Alternative Prayer for New Trial of this Administrative Case to Avoid Miscarriage of Justice, which this Court also denied for lack of merit on December 2, 2008.

On December 19, 2008, complainant filed a Manifestation and Motion praying that this Court issue an order enjoining respondent to immediately comply with the judgment in the present case. Acting on complainant's motion, this Court issued a Resolution on January 20, 2009, requiring respondent to submit proof of compliance with the Decision dated July 14, 2008 within ten (10) days from notice.

Respondent then filed a Compliance with Manifestation dated March 20, 2009 stating, among other things, that even before this case was resolved by Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan, the respondent had already executed an Absolute Deed of Sale covering 5,000 square meters of real property situated in Candelaria, Quezon, in complainant's favor. Respondent also alleged that said Deed of Sale was delivered to and accepted by complainant, so he was then confident that this would settle the civil aspect of the case and eventually result in the dismissal of the administrative charge against him.

Respondent also averred that in the proceedings before the IBP, he had already brought attention to the amicable settlement of the case which, however, was objected to by complainant's counsel, who claimed that the property ceded to complainant was no longer owned by respondent, having already been taken over by the government under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Even assuming that the property subject of the Deed of Absolute Sale has indeed been placed under the CARP, respondent argued in his Compliance and Manifestation that the said Deed is still a valid contract because he still retained an area of five hectares or 50,000 square meters from which the 5,000 square meters sold to complainant could be taken.

Ultimately, respondent implored this Court to consider the execution of the above-mentioned Deed of Absolute Sale as full settlement and compliance with the Decision dated July 14, 2008 of this Court insofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned. Respondent also reiterated his prayer for the reopening of the investigation of the case based on the IBP Commissioner's willful violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics.

In the Resolution dated April 28, 2009, this Court noted respondent's Compliance with Manifestation and required complainant to comment thereon.

Complainant filed a Counter Manifestation dated April 8, 2009, in which she admitted that she was willing to accept respondent's offer of his real property in Candelaria, Quezon, as settlement of the civil aspect of the case. However, upon acceptance of the Deed of Absolute Sale, complainant verified the records of the subject property with the concerned government agencies. Records revealed that the subject property was already acquired and distributed to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries as early as October 7, 1998. Thus, complainant prayed that respondent be adjudged in contempt of court for misleading the Court with his purported compliance and his deliberate refusal to comply with the Decision dated July 14, 2008 of this Court.

The Court, in the Resolution dated June 9, 2009, noted complainant's Counter Manifestation and required respondent to comply with the Decision dated July 14, 2008, otherwise, he shall be held in contempt.

Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of this Honorable Court dated June 9, 2009 Requiring the Respondent to Comply With the Decision dated July 14, 2008, praying therein that this Court consider the consummated Deed of Absolute Sale as full restitution of complainant's claim against respondent, considering that complainant did not return the said Deed to respondent. Respondent also averred that the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) had offered P2,618,695.57 as just compensation for the Candelaria, Quezon property. Such amount is enough to cover complainant's claim against respondent, and it is still deposited with the Land Bank, Lucena Branch, pending the latter's appeal of the valuation of his property. In addition, even when respondent's property was placed under the CARP, there remained a guaranteed retention of five (5) hectares in favor of respondent, as owner of the property.

In the Resolution dated August 11, 2009, this Court, among other things, required respondent to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt for his failure to fully and faithfully comply with the Resolution dated January 20, 2009, and denied with finality respondent's motion for reconsideration.

On September 16, 2009, respondent filed a Manifestation and Compliance with the Resolution of this Honorable Court dated August 11, 2009. Respondent insisted that he honestly believed that the sale of his property to complainant for P700,000.00 was duly consummated upon respondent's execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale and complainant's acceptance of the same, in full settlement of respondent's monetary liability to complainant. Respondent finally stated that he does not have P500,000.00 cash to pay complainant.

The Court noted respondent's Manifestation and Compliance in a Resolution dated November 17, 2009.

Respondent next filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Lift Order of Suspension dated March 2, 2010, alleging that he had already served from July 14, 2008 to September 14, 2009 the suspension ordered by this Court in its Decision dated July 14, 2008. Hence, respondent prayed that the order of suspension be lifted to enable him to apply for notarial commission.

In the Resolution dated March 23, 2010, this Court resolved to:

(b) HOLD IN ABEYANCE its action on the aforesaid Motion to Lift Order of Suspension until the said respondent fully complies with the Decision dated 14 July 2008.

Acting on the Manifestation and Compliance (with the Resolution of 11 August 2009) filed by the respondent, the Court resolved to:

(a) CONSIDER the Manifestation and Compliance as UNSATISFACTORY; and

(b) DIRECT the respondent to FULLY COMPLY with the Decision dated 14 July 2008 by restituting the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to the complainant within ten (10) days from notice hereof.

Respondent sought reconsideration of the foregoing resolution on the ground that he is "now penniless and helplessly unemployed due to old age and suffering from poor health." In the Resolution dated June 29, 2010, the Court denied respondent's Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated March 23, 2010.

In respondent's latest pleading - Motion for Clemency and Reconsideration of the Court's resolution denying issuance of certification as member of the Philippine Bar dated June 24, 2010 - he prayed that an order be issued directing the Bar Confidant to issue a certification that respondent is a bona fide member of the Philippine Bar. Respondent intends to use said certificate for the purpose of applying for a notarial commission. Acting thereon, the Court issued a Resolution dated July 27, 2010 directing the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) to comment on respondent's Motion for Clemency and Reconsideration.

Presently before the Court is the Comment and Compliance dated October 19, 2010 of the OBC recommending that respondent's Motion for Clemency and Reconsideration be considered "MOOT and ACADEMIC as the requested Certificate of Membership in the Philippine Bar has already been issued to herein respondent," upon request and payment of the corresponding fee therefor. Said Certificate of Membership in the Philippine Bar dated August 10, 2010, was already received by respondent's authorized agent.

The Court agrees with the OBC that in light of the latter's issuance of a Certificate of Membership in the Philippine Bar in respondent's favor, respondent's prayer for an order directing the OBC to issue such a certificate is already rendered moot and academic. Nonetheless, this Court stresses that said certificate only serves to confirm respondent's membership in the Philippine Bar, particularly, that he had passed the bar examinations and signed the rolls. A certificate of membership in the Bar is distinct and separate from a certificate of good standing/clearance as a lawyer. It is the latter certificate which is actually required for an application for notarial commission. Respondent could not be issued a certificate of good standing/clearance as a lawyer considering that per the Resolution dated March 23, 2010 of this Court, the lifting of his suspension has been held in abeyance pending his restitution of the amount of P500,000.00 to complainant. The Court is not inclined to grant respondent clemency or to reconsider its Resolution dated March 23, 2010. To recall, the Court, in its Resolution dated June 29, 2010, had already denied with finality respondent's Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated March 23, 2010.

WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to:

(a) NOTE the Comment and Compliance dated October 19, 2010 of the OBC;

(b) CLARIFY that respondent has been issued a Certificate of Membership in the Philippine Bar, but not a certificate of good standing/clearance as a lawyer, and it is the latter certificate which is required for a notarial commission; and

(c) DENY for lack of merit respondent's Motion for Clemency and Reconsideration dated June 24, 2010." Velasco, Jr., J., on official business.