Case Digest (G.R. No. L-37937)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Carlos Medina y de Guzman, Reynaldo Dantes y Laxamana, et al., G.R. No. L-37937, January 31, 1975, the Supreme Court En Banc, Fernando, J., writing for the Court. The resolution before the Court concerns disciplinary action taken against Cesar G. Fajardo, an attorney who had been identified by an appellant as counsel and later failed to comply with this Court's directives.The matter originated when the Senior Executive Assistant and Acting Administrative Officer of the Bureau of Prisons wrote to the Court that appellant Rodolfo Balinas had identified his counsel as Atty. Cesar Fajardo (c/o Circuit Criminal Court, City Hall, Manila). By resolution of February 21, 1974, the Court required Fajardo to comment on that letter within ten days. Fajardo did not file the required comment within the prescribed period.
After the noncompliance, the Court again called on him to explain in a May 16, 1974 resolution; he still failed to respond. On June 18, 1974 the Court imposed a P100 fine on Atty. Fajardo for his failure to file the comment and required him to comply within ten days. The fine remained unpaid and no compliance was made, prompting the Court on August 6, 1974 to suspend Atty. Fajardo from the practice of law until further orders, to circularize the suspension to all courts, and to attach the resolution to his personal record; the Court also directed appellant Balinas to state whether he had other counsel.
Fajardo prepared a Motion for Reconsideration and Explanation dated July 19, 1974 but did not submit it to the Court until after the suspension resolution. In those pleadings he explained that he had no intention to disregard the Court's orders, attributed his delay to pressing personal problems (including the detention of a sister by the military), and stated that he was not presently retained as Balinas's counsel but had acted as de officio counsel during trial. He later filed a separate petition seeking reconsideration of the August 6 suspension, reiterating the explanations and pleading for indulgence and reinstatement.
The Supreme Court, exercising its own disciplinary authority, reviewed these submissions. It found a clear failure to exercise due diligence in complying with its orders and noted that the imposed fine remained unpaid; nevertheless, ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court should lift the suspension of Cesar G. Fajardo from the practice of law.
- Whether the failure to comment on the Bureau of Prisons letter and to pay the imposed fine constituted sufficient ground fo...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)