G.R. No. L-37633 and G.R. No. L-37937, January 31, 1975
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Carlos Medina y de Guzman, Reynaldo Dantes y Laxamana, et al., accused. Reynaldo Dantes y Laxamana and Rodolfo Balinas y Villena, defendants-appellants. Cesar G. Fajardo, respondent.

FACTS

This case involves a disciplinary proceeding against respondent Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo. The Supreme Court, in a resolution dated February 21, 1974, required Fajardo to comment on a letter from the Bureau of Prisons stating that appellant Rodolfo Balinas had identified him as his counsel. Fajardo failed to file the required comment. The Court, in a subsequent resolution dated May 16, 1974, directed him to explain this omission, which he again ignored.
Consequently, the Court issued a resolution on June 18, 1974, imposing a fine of P100.00 on Fajardo for his failure to comment and ordering him to comply with the February 21 resolution within ten days. Fajardo still did not comply or pay the fine. This led to the Court’s resolution of August 6, 1974, which suspended him from the practice of law until further orders, circularized the suspension to all courts, and required the appellant to state his representation preferences.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should lift the order of suspension against Atty. Cesar G. Fajardo for his repeated failures to comply with its resolutions.

RULING

Yes, the suspension is lifted, but only upon payment of the imposed fine. The Court acknowledged that it had to exercise its disciplinary power due to Fajardo’s blatant disregard of its orders over nearly four months. His conduct demonstrated a clear failure to exercise due diligence as an officer of the court. He received the resolutions but ignored them, and even when fined, he did not pay. He offered explanations only after the suspension order, citing mental and emotional stress due to a relative’s detention. The Court found these excuses insufficient to justify his inaction, as he could have sought an extension but did not.
However, the Court granted his plea for reconsideration. It considered that the period of suspension already served was a sufficient penalty and a reminder of his duties. The Court also noted his expressed remorse, his disavowal of any intent to disobey, and his willingness to assist the appellant. The lifting of the suspension was made conditional on his payment of the P100.00 fine, emphasizing that compliance with court orders is non-negotiable. This resolution balances disciplinary action with compassion, while upholding the integrity of judicial processes and the standards of the legal profession.