G.R. No. L-27569




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-27569 July 28, 1969 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINGO PASCUAL, ET AL., defendants-appellants. In the Matter of Attorney CRISOSTOMO F. PARIÑAS, Member of the Philippine Bar. 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. Pari_¤_as 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 officio 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.¹Members 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.1äwphï1.ñët Footnotes ¹In the Matter of Atty. Filoteo Dianala Jo (1961), 1 SCRA 31; People vs. Estebia (In the Matter of Atty. Lope E. Adriano), L-26868, February 27, 1969. ²See: 5 Martin, Rules of Court in the Philippines, 1966 ed., p. 105. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation