G.R. No. A.M. No. 196 June 30, 1980
VIRGINIA SOTTO DE GUIA, petitioner, vs. ORTANES DE GUIA, respondent.

FACTS

The case originated from a complaint for disbarment filed by Virginia Sotto De Guia against her husband, Atty. Ortanes De Guia, in 1962. The complaint, prepared by the Solicitor General after investigation, charged the respondent with grossly immoral conduct and unfitness to be a member of the bar. The allegations included that the respondent contracted a bigamous marriage with Catalina Manuel in 1944, resulting in a child, and that since 1953 he had been cohabiting with a mistress named Filomena Race. The record indicates that no immediate action was taken on this complaint.
Subsequently, in a verified motion dated August 11, 1961, the complainant, Mrs. De Guia, sought to withdraw her complaint and have it dismissed. The investigating fiscal recommended denying this motion. The case remained pending until 1980, when Mrs. De Guia submitted a letter to the Court dated April 17, 1980. In this letter, she informed the Court that the respondent, her husband, had died on August 13, 1979, and she attached a certified copy of his death certificate as proof. She reiterated her request for dismissal of the case and also asked for permission to withdraw the original of her marriage contract (Exhibit A) from the records, offering to substitute it with a photostatic copy.

ISSUE

Whether the death of the respondent attorney during the pendency of the disbarment proceedings necessitates the dismissal of the case.

RULING

Yes, the death of the respondent attorney extinguishes the disbarment proceedings. The Court granted the complainant’s requests, ordering the dismissal of the case and allowing the substitution of the original marriage contract with a photostatic copy.
The legal logic is grounded on the personal nature of disbarment proceedings. Disbarment is an action that is inherently personal to the respondent lawyer, as its objective is to inquire into his or her fitness to continue in the practice of law and to protect the courts and the public. It is a disciplinary measure directed at the individual’s right to practice a profession. Consequently, upon the respondent’s death, there is no longer any person against whom the proceedings can be directed or from whom the privilege to practice law can be withdrawn. The Court applied the maxim “actio personalis moritur cum persona” (a personal action dies with the person). Since the primary purpose of disbarment—to regulate the living members of the bar—becomes moot upon the attorney’s death, the proceedings cannot continue and must be terminated. The ancillary request regarding the exhibit was granted as a mere procedural accommodation to the complainant, given the termination of the main case.