THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10336. September 17, 2014.]
RHODORA A. CORPUZ, complainant, vs. ATTY. MICHAEL A. IGNES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 17, 2014, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10336 (Rhodora A. Corpuz v. Atty. Michael A. Ignes). — The Court resolves to NOTE:
(1) respondent's comment on the letter-complaint; and
(2) complainant's undated letter informing the Court that respondent has already paid her the amount of P60,000.00 subject of this complaint, through the RTC-Koronadal.
In a letter dated October 18, 2013, complainant Rhodora A. Corpuz (Rhodora) alleged that respondent Atty. Michael A. Ignes (Atty. Ignes) was counsel for defendants in the forcible entry case, docketed as Civil Case No. 1625, filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Koronadal City, South Cotabato. According to her, Atty. Ignes failed to deliver to them the amount of P60,000.00 representing the purchase price of the disputed property owned by her children, Llyold Corpuz and Blady Corpuz, whom she and her spouse represented as plaintiffs in the said case.
In his Comment dated June 27, 2014, Atty. Ignes denied Rhodora's allegation that he kept the money to himself and did not give it to them. Atty. Ignes explained that since Rhodora did not agree to defendants' request to lower the purchase price to P50,000.00 and considering that defendants had only at that time P50,000.00 in their possession, said amount was given to him for safekeeping until such time plaintiffs and Rhodora herself agreed to accept the offered buying price. Not wanting to hold the money for so long, he deposited the money to the Clerk of Court of MTCC, Koronadal City for proper safekeeping, as evidenced by the Acknowledgment Receipt signed by the Koronadal City MTCC Clerk of Court.
Meanwhile, in her letter mailed on June 25, 2014, Rhodora informed the Court that she already received the amount of P60,000.00 from Atty. Ignes through the MTCC, Koronadal City, and expressed her gratitude to the Court for giving attention to her letter.
In view of the foregoing, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant administrative case against respondent Atty. Michael A. Ignes for being moot and academic. Accordingly, the case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
Let the parties be informed accordingly. AaCTcI
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court