SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 13072. March 16, 2022.]
JUNE R. GARCIA, petitioner, vs.ATTY. NICOLAS C. TORRES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated16 March 2022which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 13072 (June R. Garcia v. Atty. Nicolas C. Torres). — Due to the supervening death of respondent Atty. Nicolas C. Torres (respondent), the Court resolves to DISMISS the administrative complaint 1 against him.
As jurisprudence shows, the Court has consistently dismissed administrative complaints against lawyers once it is duly informed of the respondent's death. 2 Notably, in the fairly recent case of Concepcion v. Judge Castaneda, 3 the Court held that the death of therein respondent judge warrants the dismissal of the administrative complaint lodged against her for the following reasons: (1) death forecloses the opportunity for the respondent to refute the charges as well as to seek for clemency; (2) the punishment for administrative infractions is personal to the respondent and is not punitive but for the purpose of public accountability; and (3) remorse is impossible when the respondent dies before this Court can hand down its judgment; thus, since there is no one left to punish, it is irrational and illogical for the Court to continue with disciplinary proceedings despite the respondent's death. It is discerned that while Concepcion involved an administrative complaint against a judge and not a lawyer (as in this case), the same considerations may be analogously applied to administrative complaints against lawyers who have died during the pendency of the proceedings.
Here, records show respondent's supervening death as evidenced by the certified true copy of his Certificate of Death 4 submitted together with the Manifestation 5 filed by respondent's counsel. Thus, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, the instant administrative complaint is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-6.
2. See De Aquino v. Castellano, A.C. No. 1145, March 24, 2004; Dela Cruz-Lozada v. Tankeh-Asuncion, A.C. No. 10569, July 8, 2015; Orijuela v. Rosario, 201 Phil. 45, 47 (1982); Coronado v. Huertas, 196 Phil. 588, 589 (1981); and Sotto v. de Guia, 187 Phil. 268, 269 (1980); and Mateos v. Wisco, Adm. Case No. 613, May 25, 1972.
3. A.M. No. RTJ-15-2438 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3681-RTJ], September 02, 2020.
4.Rollo, pp. 158-159.
5.Id. at 160-161.