AM 1182; (July, 1982) (Digest)
A.M. No. 1182 July 30, 1982
Isabelo C. Orijuela, complainant, vs. Temistocles Ayson Rosario, respondent.
FACTS
The complainant, Isabelo C. Orijuela, filed an administrative complaint for dishonesty against respondent attorney Temistocles Ayson Rosario. The complaint alleged that Rosario, acting as attorney-in-fact for a certain Bill Soriano, sold to Orijuela Soriano’s rights to a lot and two houses in the Ana Sarmiento Estate, Malate, Manila, which was under the administration of the Land Tenure Administration (later the Land Authority). Orijuela claimed he paid Rosario a total of P10,110.00 as consideration for the sale. It was further alleged that at the time of the contract, Soriano’s unpaid account with the Land Authority was only P3,694.78, but Rosario only paid P2,003.40 to the Authority on Soriano’s behalf in March 1962. This alleged shortfall purportedly resulted in accumulating interest and insecurity of title for the complainant.
In his answer, respondent Rosario denied receiving the full amount of P10,110.00 from Orijuela, contending that the complainant did not deliver the entire sum intended for payment on the property. The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation, and hearings commenced where the complainant presented evidence.
ISSUE
Whether the administrative disbarment proceedings against the respondent should continue given a supervening event.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint as moot and academic. The legal logic is grounded in the fundamental principle that disbarment proceedings are purely personal and punitive in nature, aimed at protecting the public and the integrity of the legal profession by disciplining or removing a living attorney. During the proceedings before the Solicitor General, it was established through testimony and a presented death certificate that respondent Temistocles Ayson Rosario had passed away. Counsel for the complainant did not object to this evidence or to the dismissal of the case.
Consequently, with the respondent’s death, the primary purpose of the administrative action—to impose disciplinary sanctions upon the attorney—was rendered inoperative. The Court no longer had a living respondent over whom it could exercise disciplinary jurisdiction or against whom a penalty could be enforced. Therefore, the case lost its justiciable character. The Court, adopting the recommendation of the Solicitor General, ordered the dismissal of the complaint.