G.R. No. L-38988 February 25, 1975
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Rafael Dalusag, et al., appellants, Ricardo C. Fernandez, respondent.

FACTS

This case involves a disciplinary proceeding against respondent attorney Ricardo C. Fernandez. The Supreme Court, in a resolution dated November 13, 1974, required Atty. Fernandez to comment on a telegram from a Mrs. Privado Dalusag, which informed the Court that he was the counsel for several appellants in a criminal case. The Court directed him to confirm whether he indeed represented these clients and, if so, to file a formal appearance within ten days. Atty. Fernandez failed to comply with this directive.
Consequently, in a subsequent resolution dated January 8, 1975, the Court required Atty. Fernandez to explain his failure to file the required comment. In his explanation, he stated that he did not personally know Mrs. Dalusag, having been recommended by a friend, and that he had requested the case records for study before commenting. He claimed these records were never provided, leaving him with “no other alternative but to refuse acceptance of the said case.”

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Ricardo C. Fernandez is administratively liable for his failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s resolution requiring him to comment on his alleged representation of the appellants.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Fernandez is administratively liable. The Court clarified that the core issue was not his ultimate decision to refuse the case, which was his privilege, but his blatant failure to comply with the Court’s lawful order within the prescribed period. The November 13 resolution gave him a clear ten-day period to inform the Court of his position. His explanation that he was waiting for case records and then decided to refuse the case did not justify his inaction.
The legal logic is grounded in a lawyer’s fundamental duties to the court and the administration of justice. A resolution from the Supreme Court is a direct order that demands prompt compliance. Even if a lawyer encounters difficulties or needs more time, the proper course is to communicate with the Court, file a motion for extension, or at the very least, inform the Court of the steps taken and the decision reached. By remaining silent and leaving the Court “uninformed and in the dark,” Atty. Fernandez exhibited inattention to duty and a lack of courtesy owed to the Tribunal. This conduct falls short of the diligence and respect required of every member of the bar. However, considering the offense as relatively minor, the Court deemed an admonition sufficient. Atty. Ricardo C. Fernandez was admonished to be more attentive to his duties, specifically in complying with court orders.