G.R. No. L-73576. April 29, 1987.
RUBEN P. MORALES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. JOB F. FABELLO, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition to review and nullify a Resolution dated January 13, 1986, issued by respondent Judge Job F. Fabello in Criminal Case No. SF-547 for Qualified Theft. During the pendency of this petition, the Court noted that an administrative complaint had been filed against the same judge. More significantly, the Court discovered that the Regional Trial Court of Romblon had issued an order on July 9, 1986, in the related Criminal Case No. OD-179, provisionally dismissing the qualified theft case against the petitioners. This dismissal was based on a reinvestigation by the Acting Provincial Fiscal, who found the prima facie case had been overcome.
Consequently, in a Resolution dated September 24, 1986, the Court required petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Arturo M. de Castro, to inform the Court within ten days why the petition should not be deemed moot and academic given the apparent dismissal of the underlying criminal action. Atty. de Castro failed to comply with this directive. The Court then required him to show cause for this failure and to file the required information.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) Whether the petition for certiorari and prohibition is moot and academic; and (2) Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Atty. de Castro for failure to comply with the Court’s September 24, 1986 Resolution.

RULING

The petition is dismissed for being moot and academic. Atty. de Castro is admonished but no disciplinary action is imposed.
On the first issue, the petition has been rendered moot. In his explanation, Atty. de Castro himself confirmed that the criminal cases had been dismissed and the petitioners released from detention. The core objective of the petition—to challenge the proceedings in the criminal case—no longer exists, as there is no live controversy for the Court to adjudicate.
On the second issue, while the Court accepts Atty. de Castro’s explanation that he handled the case pro bono and that an office employee failed to forward the Court’s Resolution to him, his failure merits an admonition. He remained the counsel of record, and the formal requisites for substitution of counsel were not observed. The Court reiterated the rule from Baring v. Cabahug that it is the duty of counsel to adopt and maintain a system to efficiently account for all court notices, and negligence of an employee is imputable to the counsel. Therefore, he is admonished to observe the proper procedure for substitution of counsel and to implement a reliable system for handling court notices.