SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12790. June 14, 2021.]
LORNA L. OCAMPO, petitioner,vs. ATTY. JOSE Q. LORICA IV, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Special Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 June 2021 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12790 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4810] (Lorna L. Ocampo v. Atty. Jose Q. Lorica IV). — On September 23, 2020, the Court promulgated a Decision 1 finding Atty. Jose Q. Lorica IV (Atty. Lorica) guilty of violating Canon 17, Rule 18.04, Canon 18, and Rule 22.02, Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as well as the Lawyer's Oath for his failure, among others, to update his client on the case, to return the documents entrusted to him, and to protect his client's interest with utmost diligence. For his violations, the Court imposed upon him the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
The dispositive portion of the Decision 2 reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Jose Q. Lorica IV GUILTY of violating Canon 17, Rule 18.04, Canon 18, and Rule 22.02, Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as well as the Lawyer's Oath, and hereby SUSPENDS him for the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. He is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
The suspension in the practice of law shall take [effect] immediately upon receipt of this Decision by respondent Atty. Jose Q. Lorica IV. He is DIRECTED to immediately file a Manifestation to the Court that his suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he entered his appearance as counsel.
xxx xxx xxx. 3
On December 1, 2020, Atty. Reynaldo G. Paris (Atty. Paris) filed Manifestations 4 dated November 30, 2020 stating therein that he is a former Associate of Atty. Lorica; that he received the Notice of Judgment 5 dated November 23, 2020 against Atty. Lorica sometime on November 25, 2020; that Atty. Lorica died on May 22, 2020 at the Region I Medical Center in Dagupan City; and that due to the untimely demise of Atty. Lorica, the instant administrative case is rendered moot. Attached in the Manifestations 6 is a certified true copy of Atty. Lorica's Certificate of Death, 7 which indicates "cerebrovascular disease, hemorrhage" as the cause of death.
In the 2020 case of Flores-Concepcion v. Judge Castañeda (Flores-Concepcion), 8 the Court dismissed the administrative case against the respondent judge on account of her death during the pendency of the case. It explained as follows:
Hence, when the respondent in a pending administrative case dies, the case must be rendered moot. Proceeding any further would be to violate the respondent's fundamental right to due process. Should it be a guilty verdict, any monetary penalty imposed on the dead respondent's estate only works to the detriment of their heirs. To continue with such cases would not punish the perpetrator, but only subject the grieving family to further suffering by passing on the punishment to them. 9
Moreover, in Flores-Concepcion, 10 the Court ruled that the respondent in an administrative case must be given not only the opportunity to be informed of the judgment against him or her but also to seek reconsideration of that judgment in order to fully satisfy the requirements of due process. 11
Considering that Atty. Lorica has effectively lost the opportunity to be informed and to seek reconsideration of the judgment against him, coupled with the simple reality that the penalty imposed in the Decision 12 dated September 23, 2020 can no longer be carried out, the dismissal of this administrative case in accordance with the doctrine laid down in Flores-Concepcion13 is in order.
WHEREFORE, in view of the death of Atty. Jose Q. Lorica IV on May 22, 2020, before the promulgation of the Decision in Administrative Case No. 12790 on September 23, 2020, the Court SETS ASIDE the said Decision and DISMISSES the administrative case against him. The Court NOTES the Manifestations dated November 30, 2020 of Atty. Reynaldo G. Paris.
The case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 256-263; penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting with Senior Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe and Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, concurring.
2.Id.
3.Id. at 262.
4.Id. at 268-269.
5.Id. at 255.
6.Id. at 268-269.
7.Id. at 270.
8. A.M. No. RTJ-15-2438, September 15, 2020.
9.Id.
10.Flores-Concepcion v. Judge Castañeda, supra note 8.
11.Id.
12.Rollo, pp. 256-263.
13.Flores-Concepcion v. Judge Castañeda, supra note 8.