Mateos v. Wisco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Romana G. Mateos filed a complaint against respondent Primo C. Wisco, an Assistant City Fiscal of Quezon City, for allegedly defrauding her of money through inducement, false pretenses, misrepresentations, and deceits. Specifically, respondent was accused of failing to return jewelry valued at P1,000.00 entrusted to him for sale within three months, and of inducing complainant to extend loans to a Mrs. Leonor Mercado, secured by mortgages which respondent allegedly failed to register. Procedural History: Respondent filed an answer denying the charges and presenting his own version of the facts, asserting that the transaction involving the jewelry was a loan with usurious interest, and that he had no influence over the complainant's decision to lend money to Mrs. Mercado. The case was referred to the Office of the Solicitor General, which submitted a report on August 25, 1971. The Petition: The complaint sought the disbarment of respondent Primo C. Wisco.
Issue(s)
Whether the disbarment proceeding should continue despite the death of the respondent. Whether the respondent committed acts constituting fraud and deceit warranting disbarment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court accepted the recommendation of the Solicitor General and dismissed the complaint for disbarment. The dispositive portion states: "WHEREFORE, the respondent having died in the meanwhile, the recommendation of the then Solicitor-General is accepted and the complaint for disbarment dismissed."
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of continuing the disbarment proceeding despite the respondent's death: The Court accepted the recommendation of the Solicitor General to dismiss the disbarment proceeding. The report from the Solicitor General indicated that the respondent, Primo C. Wisco, had died on December 12, 1970, as evidenced by a certification from the Administrative Officer of the City Fiscal's Office at Quezon City. In cases where the respondent in a disbarment proceeding dies during its pendency, the usual practice is to dismiss the case. This is because the primary purpose of disbarment is to protect the public from unfit members of the legal profession, and this purpose can no longer be achieved if the respondent is no longer alive to face disciplinary action or to continue practicing law. The death of the respondent effectively renders the disciplinary action moot and academic. The Court found no reason to deviate from this established practice and thus adopted the recommendation for dismissal. On the issue of whether the respondent committed acts constituting fraud and deceit: While the complaint alleged acts of fraud and deceit, including the failure to return jewelry and the alleged inducement to extend loans without proper registration of mortgages, the Court did not delve into the merits of these allegations due to the intervening death of the respondent. The report of the Solicitor General, which recommended dismissal, was based on the fact of the respondent's death. Therefore, the Court did not make a definitive finding on whether the respondent actually committed the acts complained of. The dismissal was purely based on the procedural consequence of the respondent's demise. Had the respondent been alive, the Court would have proceeded to evaluate the evidence presented by both parties to determine the veracity of the accusations.
Main Doctrine
A disbarment proceeding against a member of the bar is dismissed upon his death during the pendency of the case, as recommended by the Solicitor General.