That a judge has retired or has otherwise been separated from the service does not necessarily divest the Court of its jurisdiction to rule on complaints filed while he was still in the service. - RTJ-13-2361.pdf

See - RTJ-13-2361.pdf

"x x x.

In any case, that a judge has retired or has otherwise been separated from the service does not necessarily divest the Court of its jurisdiction to rule on complaints filed while he was still in the service. 

As we held in Gallos v. Cordero: 20 

The jurisdiction that was ours at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent had ceased in office during the pendency of his case. The Court retains jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent public official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. 

A contrary rule would be fraught with injustice and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications x x x If innocent, respondent public official merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the government which he has served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation. · 

Nor does separation from office render a pending administrative charge moot and  academic. 

x x x."