AM 284; (July, 1977) (Digest)
A.M. No. 284. July 29, 1977.
HECTOR FULE, ET AL., petitioners, vs. SOLON F. CORDERO, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Solon F. Cordero, a member of the Philippine Bar and Auxiliary Justice of the Peace of San Pablo City, was charged by his first cousins, Attorneys Hector C. Fule and Conrado C. Fule, with violation of his attorney’s oath through alleged blackmail. The charge stemmed from Cordero’s threat to file criminal and administrative complaints against Conrado C. Fule for the alleged falsification of Daily Time Records (Municipal Form No. 45 A) if Hector C. Fule did not withdraw his application for the position of solicitor in the Solicitor General’s Office, a position Cordero himself desired. Despite the threat, Hector Fule pursued and secured the appointment.
Cordero subsequently made good on his threat, filing five separate administrative charges with the Department of Justice and a five-count criminal complaint for Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents against Conrado Fule with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Laguna. This initiated a protracted series of reciprocal charges and countercharges between the parties. The present administrative case was held in abeyance pending the outcome of these related proceedings. The criminal complaint was eventually dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, and the administrative charges resulted only in an admonition to Judge Conrado Fule.
ISSUE
Whether the administrative case for violation of the attorney’s oath against respondent Solon F. Cordero should proceed.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative case as moot and academic. The legal logic for dismissal is grounded in the fundamental principle that the death of the respondent extinguishes the disciplinary proceedings against him. The Court’s power to discipline members of the bar is personal and aimed at protecting the public and the integrity of the legal profession by regulating the conduct of living practitioners. Since the respondent, Atty. Solon F. Cordero, had died on January 9, 1977, as reported by his counsel, the primary purpose of the administrative case—to impose a sanction upon the erring attorney—could no longer be served. There was no surviving party to discipline, and thus, no justiciable controversy remained for the Court to adjudicate. The dismissal was therefore proper. The Court directed the Solicitor General to submit a copy of Cordero’s death certificate and ordered a copy of the resolution entered into his bar record.