EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-27569. July 28, 1969.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOMINGO PASCUAL; ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.
SYLLABUS
1. LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW; DUTY TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS OBEDIENTLY; BREACHED BY COUNSEL IN CASE AT BAR. — Members of the Bar should stand foremost in complying with court orders obediently and respectfully. Thus, where an attorney failed to comply with the notice he received from the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court requiring him to file, within 30 days from notice, his brief as counsel for defendants-appellants and when the Supreme Court required him to show cause within 10 days from notice why disciplinary action should not be taken against him, again, he did not comply, such that, thru another resolution he was declare in contempt and a fine of P100 payable to the Supreme Court was imposed on him, and thereafter, after the denial of two motions for reconsideration and after being required once more to pay the fine, he filed a motion for the extension of the period within which to pay the fine, and after this was granted, he again filed another motion for extension this time alleging "tight money," counsel’s inability to pay, taken in conjunction with his previous actuations here to fore cited, exhibits an utter lack of regard on the part of counsel for the orders of this Court, and he should be ordered to pay the fine imposed on him within 10 days from notice and in the event of his failure to do so, an order for his arrest should be issued for his confinement in jail for a period of 10 days.
R E S O L U T I O N
SANCHEZ, J.:
The record of this case discloses that —
On August 23, 1967, the Clerk of this Court sent notice to Atty. Crisostomo F. Pariñas requiring him in thirty (30) days from notice to file his brief as counsel for defendants-appellants who were convicted as principals of the crime of murder and sentenced, inter alia, to life imprisonment. Counsel received this notice on September 7,1967. Because as late as December 17, 1968, Atty. Crisostomo F. Pariñas had failed to file his brief within the period which expired on October 7, 1967, this Court, on said date, December 17, 1968, required him to show cause within ten (10) days from notice thereof why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Atty. Pariñas received copy of this resolution on January 13, 1969.
On March 10, 1969, for failure to comply, within the period which expired on January 23, 1969, with the resolution of this Court requiring him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him, Atty. Pariñas was declared in contempt of court and a fine of P100 payable to this Court within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof was imposed upon him. Atty. Pariñas received copy of this resolution on March 21, 1969. It was only on March 25, 1969 when this Court first heard from Atty. Pariñas. On this date, March 25, 1969, this Court received a motion for reconsideration dated March 21, 1969 wherein he asked that "the undersigned be meted out a disciplinary action in the form of a stern warning not to repeat the omission which he committed in the instant case at bar." By Resolution of March 27, 1969, this Court denied the motion just adverted to.
Meanwhile, counsel de oficio was appointed for defendant Domingo Pascual, it appearing that by letter of March 18, 1969, the other defendant, Sergio Nicolas, had informed this Court that he was no longer interested in the prosecution of his appeal and had expressed a desire to serve his sentence.
The second motion for reconsideration dated May 8, 1969 of Atty. Pariñas, filed on May 15, was denied by this Court in its resolution of May 20, 1969. Counsel was again required to pay the fine within ten (10) days from receipt of notice thereof. On June 16, 1969, Atty. Pariñas moved for an extension of ten (10) days up to June 20, 1969 within which to pay the fine upon a plea of recent expenditures. This motion was granted in the resolution of this Court of June 19, 1969. In another motion filed on June 25, 1969, allegedly because of "tight money," further aggravated by the circumstances that counsel had to pay for his car’s license, matriculation of his two children in college and others he averred that it was financially impossible for him "to make good further monetary obligations," and thereupon prayed for another extension of ten (10) days, that is, up to June 30, 1969 within which to pay the fine imposed upon him.
Counsel’s plea of inability to pay the fine of P100 does not impress us. Rather, taken in conjunction with his previous actuations heretofore cited, it exhibits an utter lack of regard on the part of counsel for the orders of this Court. 1 Members of the Bar should stand foremost in complying with court orders obediently and respectfully. 2
For the foregoing reasons, counsel is hereby directed to pay to this Court the fine of P100 imposed upon him within five (5) days from notice hereof. In the event of his failure so to do, let an order of arrest be issued for his confinement in jail for a period of ten (10) days.
Let a copy of this resolution be entered in the personal file in this Court of Atty. Crisostomo F. Pariñas as member of the Bar.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.
On August 23, 1967, the Clerk of this Court sent notice to Atty. Crisostomo F. Pariñas requiring him in thirty (30) days from notice to file his brief as counsel for defendants-appellants who were convicted as principals of the crime of murder and sentenced, inter alia, to life imprisonment. Counsel received this notice on September 7,1967. Because as late as December 17, 1968, Atty. Crisostomo F. Pariñas had failed to file his brief within the period which expired on October 7, 1967, this Court, on said date, December 17, 1968, required him to show cause within ten (10) days from notice thereof why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Atty. Pariñas received copy of this resolution on January 13, 1969.
On March 10, 1969, for failure to comply, within the period which expired on January 23, 1969, with the resolution of this Court requiring him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him, Atty. Pariñas was declared in contempt of court and a fine of P100 payable to this Court within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof was imposed upon him. Atty. Pariñas received copy of this resolution on March 21, 1969. It was only on March 25, 1969 when this Court first heard from Atty. Pariñas. On this date, March 25, 1969, this Court received a motion for reconsideration dated March 21, 1969 wherein he asked that "the undersigned be meted out a disciplinary action in the form of a stern warning not to repeat the omission which he committed in the instant case at bar." By Resolution of March 27, 1969, this Court denied the motion just adverted to.
Meanwhile, counsel de oficio was appointed for defendant Domingo Pascual, it appearing that by letter of March 18, 1969, the other defendant, Sergio Nicolas, had informed this Court that he was no longer interested in the prosecution of his appeal and had expressed a desire to serve his sentence.
The second motion for reconsideration dated May 8, 1969 of Atty. Pariñas, filed on May 15, was denied by this Court in its resolution of May 20, 1969. Counsel was again required to pay the fine within ten (10) days from receipt of notice thereof. On June 16, 1969, Atty. Pariñas moved for an extension of ten (10) days up to June 20, 1969 within which to pay the fine upon a plea of recent expenditures. This motion was granted in the resolution of this Court of June 19, 1969. In another motion filed on June 25, 1969, allegedly because of "tight money," further aggravated by the circumstances that counsel had to pay for his car’s license, matriculation of his two children in college and others he averred that it was financially impossible for him "to make good further monetary obligations," and thereupon prayed for another extension of ten (10) days, that is, up to June 30, 1969 within which to pay the fine imposed upon him.
Counsel’s plea of inability to pay the fine of P100 does not impress us. Rather, taken in conjunction with his previous actuations heretofore cited, it exhibits an utter lack of regard on the part of counsel for the orders of this Court. 1 Members of the Bar should stand foremost in complying with court orders obediently and respectfully. 2
For the foregoing reasons, counsel is hereby directed to pay to this Court the fine of P100 imposed upon him within five (5) days from notice hereof. In the event of his failure so to do, let an order of arrest be issued for his confinement in jail for a period of ten (10) days.
Let a copy of this resolution be entered in the personal file in this Court of Atty. Crisostomo F. Pariñas as member of the Bar.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. In the Matter of Atty. Filoteo Dianala Jo (1961), 1 SCRA 31; People v. Estebia (In the Matter of Atty. Lope E. Adriano), L-26868, February 27, 1969.
2. See: 5 Martin, Rules of Court in the Philippines, 1966 ed., p. 105.
