EN
BANC
PEOPLE
OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. L-27569
July
28,
1969
-versus-
DOMINGO
PASCUAL,
ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellants.
R
E S O L U
T I O N
SANCHEZ,
J :
The record of this case
discloses that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
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 vs.
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. |