THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10956. January 13, 2016.]
ROSARIO GASACAO VDA. DE GRABATO, complainant, vs. ATTY. AGUSTIN T. SARDIDO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 13, 2016, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10956 (Rosario Gasacao Vda. De Grabato v. Atty. Agustin T. Sardido). — The Court resolves to NOTE:
(1) the Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-833 dated October 11, 2014 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors adopting and approving the report and recommendation of the investigating commissioner, and dismissing the case for lack of basis; and
(2) the letter dated September 18, 2015 of the IBP transmitting the documents pertaining to this case with information that no motion for reconsideration has been filed.
Complainant Rosario Gasacao Vda. De Grabato (complainant) filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Agustin T. Sardido (respondent) for alleged gross ignorance of the law.
Acting on the complaint, Investigating Commissioner Hector B. Almeyda submitted the following Report and Recommendation:
I. The Complaint/The Charge
Complainant sees respondent to be "ignorant" of certain Rules with respect to execution and lack of knowledge of jurisdiction touching on when execution may be permitted.
II. The Defense Put Up
That there is no legal or factual basis for the filing of the complaint.
III. Issue
Has a reason and/or cause been made out to render respondent liable for sanction under the Code of Professional Responsibility?
IV. Findings
The root of the controversy may be traced to Civil Case No. 892 of the Regional Trial Court based in Isullah, Sultan Kudarat. Complainant was one of the defendants in said case while respondent happened to be counsel for the plaintiff.
In a judgment dated November 24, 2005, the trial court ruled:
"Wherefore, upon all the foregoing consideration, judgment is hereby rendered:
(a) Declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 14, 1972 as a falsified document and null and void for having been executed within the prohibitory period of five (5) years from the issuance of Homestead Patent No. 131562 on May 28, 1971.
(b) Ordering the defendants and those acting for in their behalves to vacate Lot No. 34, Pls. 310 and surrender possession thereof to the plaintiffs.
(c) Ordering the defendants to remove all improvements introduced by them on Lot No. 34, Pls 310 or to buy the portion of the said lot occupied by their improvements thereon, otherwise to pay reasonable rent for the use of said person occupied by their improvements.
(d) Ordering the defendants, Rosario Casacao vda. de Grabato:
1. To deliver to plaintiffs as back rentals the equivalent of five (5) cavans of palay per cropping for twice a year, corresponding to each hectare of land cultivated by her co-defendants, or for a total of eighty (80) cavans of palay or to pay to plaintiffs the total cash value thereof, based on the prevailing price per kilo, for each from 1996 up to the time possession of Lot 34, Pls. 310 would be restored to plaintiffs;
2. To pay plaintiffs the sum of Php100,000.00, by way of moral damages; aDSIHc
3. To pay plaintiffs the sum of Php50,000.00 by way of exemplary damages; and
(e) Ordering the defendants to pay the costs.
For lack of merit, the counterclaim interposed by defendant Rosario Gasacao vda. de Grabato in her verified answer should be as it is hereby dismissed."
Appeal by the losing parties-defendants (that included herein complainant) to the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. No. CV 06653) turned out to be without success. In a decision promulgated on January 28, 2010, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, in effect affirming the decision of the court a quo dated November 24, 2005. Resort to the Supreme Court later under taken by the losing parties suffered the same fate. By resolution dated June 16, 2010, the Supreme Court resolved to dismiss the certiorari case brought to it by the losing party for being the wrong [mode] of judicial review.
In time, the winning party, represented by the respondent as counsel, moved for execution of judgment, despite the filing by complainant of a petition for relief from order, Execution was nonetheless pursued by respondent. This prompted the filing of the instant administrative [complaint] that is clearly without an iota of merit.
The processes have been assiduously followed by the party represented by respondent as counsel. Three (3) courts, i.e., Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals, Supreme Court, have come to the same conclusion, namely: that plaintiff was able to establish the right he demanded.
The filing by complainant of a petition for relief calculated to deter issuance of the writ of execution of what is otherwise a final judgment does not in any way render respondent, as, counsel, liable for violation of the Code of the Professional Responsibility. What respondent sought, in representation of his clients, for the execution of a final judgment, was a natural consequence of the finality of a decision. The mere filing of a petition for relief does not operate to prevent execution, absent factors that perhaps relate to jurisdiction that will prevent movement of the case. None is present here.
V. Recommendation
In the circumstances, it is respectfully recommended that the complaint be dismissed for utter lack of basis in fact and in law.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Pasig City, April 23, 2014.
In its Resolution No. XXI-2014-833, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the above Report and Recommendation.
Finding the IBP recommendation to be in accord with law, the Court ADOPTS the same. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the complaint against Atty. Agustin T. Sardido for lack of basis in fact and in law.
Let this case be considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court