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.

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. 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.

^[1]
In the Matter
of Atty. Filoteo Dianala
Jo (1961), 1 SC RA 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.