A.M. No. 1085 June 10, 1976
DALTON WOODROW WORTHINGTON, complainant, vs. FELIPE FERNANDEZ, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Dalton Woodrow Worthington filed a disbarment complaint in 1972 against Atty. Felipe Fernandez, alleging malpractice, fraud, and deceit. The charges stemmed from an estafa case filed against Worthington in 1968 concerning blending tobacco imported by the Eastern Tobacco Trading Corporation, of which Worthington was president. Worthington claimed that a December 28, 1968 contract for attorney’s fees, stipulating payment to Fernandez of twenty percent of the sale proceeds of seized tobacco, was simulated. He alleged its real purpose was to secure a personal share for Fernandez and denounced irregularities in the tobacco’s release and disposition.
The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation. However, the proceedings were plagued by repeated postponements and cancellations, primarily at the instance of or due to the non-appearance of complainant Worthington. Hearings scheduled throughout 1972 and 1973 were successively postponed or not held because of Worthington’s actions. Consequently, respondent Fernandez filed a motion to dismiss in May 1973 based on Worthington’s failure to prosecute the case.

ISSUE

Whether the administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Felipe Fernandez should be dismissed due to the complainant’s failure to prosecute.

RULING

Yes, the complaint is dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the recommendation of the Acting Solicitor General to dismiss the case. The legal logic is grounded in procedural principles governing administrative proceedings. A disbarment case, while sui generis and pursued for the public interest in preserving the integrity of the legal profession, still requires the complainant to prosecute the action with due diligence. The record unequivocally demonstrated that Worthington, by repeatedly causing postponements and failing to appear at scheduled hearings, had lost interest in pursuing the charges. His inaction constituted a failure to prosecute, which justifies dismissal.
The Court further ruled that respondent’s counterclaim for damages, being a permissive claim that arises from a different cause of action, cannot be properly litigated in a disbarment proceeding, which is investigative and administrative in character. Therefore, with no justification to proceed further against the respondent in light of the complainant’s abandonment of the case, the Court ordered the dismissal of the entire matter, including the counterclaim. The resolution emphasizes that while the Court has the duty to investigate misconduct, it cannot proceed without the cooperation of the complainant who initiated the charges.