GR L 27569; (July, 1969) (Digest)
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.
FACTS
Atty. Crisostomo F. Pariñas was counsel for defendants-appellants convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On August 23, 1967, the Supreme Court Clerk notified him to file his brief within thirty days from notice, which he received on September 7, 1967. He failed to file the brief by the deadline of October 7, 1967. On December 17, 1968, the Court required him to show cause within ten days why disciplinary action should not be taken against him; he received this on January 13, 1969. He failed to comply. On March 10, 1969, the Court declared him in contempt and imposed a P100 fine payable within fifteen days, which he received on March 21, 1969. On March 25, 1969, he filed a motion for reconsideration, offering to accept a stern warning instead. This was denied on March 27, 1969. He filed a second motion for reconsideration on May 15, 1969, which was denied on May 20, 1969, with the Court reiterating the order to pay the fine. On June 16, 1969, he moved for a ten-day extension to pay, citing recent expenditures, which was granted. On June 25, 1969, he filed another motion for extension, pleading financial impossibility due to “tight money” and other expenses, and prayed for an extension until June 30, 1969.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Crisostomo F. Pariñas should be disciplined for his failure to comply with court orders and for his contemptuous conduct.
RULING
The Supreme Court found Atty. Pariñas’s plea of inability to pay the P100 fine unimpressive. Taken together with his previous actions, it exhibited an utter lack of regard for the Court’s orders. The Court emphasized that members of the Bar should stand foremost in complying with court orders obediently and respectfully. Consequently, the Court directed Atty. Pariñas to pay the P100 fine within five days from notice. Failure to do so would result in the issuance of an order for his arrest and confinement in jail for ten days. A copy of the resolution was ordered to be entered in his personal file as a member of the Bar.