AGNO vs.

CAGATAN

FACTS:

A complaint for disbarment was filed by Cecilia A. Agno (petitioner) against respondent Atty.
Marciano J. Cagatan for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent was the President of ISRC, a corporation engaged in the recruitment of Filipino
workers for overseas employment. On 12 July 1988, ISRC’s recruitment license was cancelled by DOLE for
violation of labor law provisions and subsequently was forever banned from participating in overseas
recruitment. Since ISRC’s license had expired on 17 September 1989, ISRC filed an application for
renewal with the POEA. However, during pendency of the appeal, respondent entered into a
memorandum of Agreement with UAE national, Mr. Khalifa H. Juma, the husband of complainant, Cecilia
A. Agno. Under the said MOA, Mr Khalifa is “ordered to pay P250,000 to be used to have the license of
ISRC reinstated” and “another P250,000 to start the business operation of the corporation and to
liquidate pending government and other obligations, if any”.

When Agno demanded return of the money, respondent issued a bank check in the amount of
P500,000, however, it was dishonored for being drawn against a closed account. In his (respondent)
defense, he averred that he sold and assigned his own shareholdings in ISRC for P500,000 to Khalifa as
evidenced by a Deed of Assignment, and the issued check was not intended to be encashed but only to
guarantee the reimbursement of the money to Khalifa. Conversely, the check would be returned to him if
the appeal is resolved in favor of ISRC.

ISSUE:

WON respondent violated the provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility

HELD:

Yes, the respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Rule 1.01 states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct, and Rule 7.03 states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice of law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to
the discredit of the legal profession.

In this case, respondent manifested lack of candor, when he knowingly failed to provide the
complainant with accurate and complete information due her under the circumstances. Likewise, there
is no showing that the amount received by respondent was used for the reinstatement of the license.
Further, the respondent was aware at the time of the issuance of check that his bank account was
already closed, clearly constitutes gross misconduct for which he should be penalized.

Hence, premises considered respondent was SUSPENDED from practice of law for one (1) year.