VIRGINIA SOTTO, PETITIONER, VS. ORTAÑES DE GUIA, RESPONDENT.

Sotto versus De Guia

The Case

This is a disbarment proceeding brought against Attorney Ortañes de Guia at the instance of his own wife, Virginia Sotto-De Guia. The complaint charged him with grossly immoral conduct and with being unfit to remain a member of the bar, and it was pursued through the Office of the Solicitor General. The case matters to every bar candidate for one clean, memorable reason: it fixes the rule on what happens to a disbarment case when the respondent lawyer dies while the proceeding is still pending. The Supreme Court closes the case, and in doing so gives us the Latin maxim that examiners love — actio personalis moritur cum persona, a personal action dies with the person.

Procedural History

The complaint was initiated by Virginia Sotto-De Guia. After due investigation and hearing, the Solicitor General, in a complaint dated July 5, 1962, formally charged the respondent with grossly immoral conduct and with being unfit to be a member of the bar. For reasons not appearing in the record, no action was taken on that complaint. What does appear is that Mrs. De Guia filed a verified motion to dismiss dated August 11, 1961, asking that she be allowed to withdraw her complaint; the investigating fiscal recommended that the motion be denied. The matter remained unresolved until, in a letter dated April 17, 1980, Mrs. De Guia asked that the case be dismissed because her husband, the respondent, had died on August 13, 1979. She attached a certified copy of the death certificate, and she also asked leave to withdraw the marriage contract marked as Exhibit A and to substitute a photostatic copy. The case was thus resolved by the Supreme Court in its disciplinary jurisdiction, on the complainant's own manifestation of the respondent's death.

Facts

Ortañes de Guia was admitted to the bar in 1952 and was married to the complainant, Virginia Sotto-De Guia, in 1938. The complaint against him alleged that in 1944 he contracted a bigamous marriage with one Catalina Manuel, with whom he begot a child, and that since 1953 he had been living with a mistress named Filomena Race.

On the strength of these allegations, and after investigation and hearing, the Solicitor General filed the disbarment complaint in July 1962. No action was taken on it for reasons not reflected in the record. In the meantime, the complainant herself moved to withdraw the complaint in August 1961, but the investigating fiscal recommended denial of that motion.

The proceeding was finally put to rest by a letter dated April 17, 1980, in which the complainant informed the Court that the respondent, her husband, had died on August 13, 1979. She attached a certified copy of the death certificate and asked leave to withdraw the marriage contract, Exhibit A, substituting a photostatic copy in its place.

Issues

• Whether or not the death of the respondent lawyer extinguishes a pending disbarment proceeding against him.
• Whether or not the complainant may be allowed to withdraw the marriage contract marked as Exhibit A and substitute a photostatic copy in its place.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory provision; it rests on the governing legal maxim, which it states in the original Latin. The Court declares:

Actio personalis moritur cum persona.

This maxim — a personal action dies with the person — is the entire basis for closing the case, because a disbarment proceeding is personal to the respondent.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the death of the respondent extinguishes the disbarment proceeding. Its reasoning is stated as a rule: a disbarment is a proceeding which is personal to the respondent, and his death naturally extinguishes it. Hence the maxim applies:

As a disbarment is a proceeding, which is personal to the respondent, his death naturally extinguishes the proceeding. Actio personalis moritur cum persona.

On the second issue, the Court granted the complainant's request, allowing the marriage contract, Exhibit A, to be returned to her upon her presentation to the Clerk of Court of a photostatic copy of it.

Doctrine

A disbarment proceeding is personal to the respondent lawyer. Because it is personal, his death while the case is pending extinguishes the proceeding — the Court applies the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona, a personal action dies with the person. The practical consequence for a Bar answer is that no disciplinary penalty can be imposed on a dead lawyer, and the case is simply closed rather than resolved on the merits of the charges. The rule is tied directly to the Court's own formulation that a disbarment is a proceeding personal to the respondent, whose death naturally extinguishes it.

Disposition

The Court granted the complainant's requests, considered the case closed on account of the respondent's death, and allowed the return of the marriage contract, Exhibit A, upon presentation of a photostatic copy to the Clerk of Court.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a disbarment proceeding is personal to the respondent, and his death extinguishes it — actio personalis moritur cum persona. Examiners use this case to test whether you know that a pending disbarment case is closed, not decided, when the respondent lawyer dies.