Scribd
Upload
44 views

People V Dalusag

This Supreme Court case summarizes the failure of attorney Ricardo C. Fernandez to comply with two Court resolutions requiring him to clarify whether he was representing certain appellants and to file a formal notice of representation. While Fernandez explained that he was unable to contact the appellants or obtain case records, the Court found this did not justify his non-compliance. The Court admonished Fernandez to be more attentive to his duties to the Court, specifically complying with resolutions and orders, and ensured a copy of the resolution would be placed in his record.

Uploaded by

Stephen Berou
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
44 views

People V Dalusag

This Supreme Court case summarizes the failure of attorney Ricardo C. Fernandez to comply with two Court resolutions requiring him to clarify whether he was representing certain appellants and to file a formal notice of representation. While Fernandez explained that he was unable to contact the appellants or obtain case records, the Court found this did not justify his non-compliance. The Court admonished Fernandez to be more attentive to his duties to the Court, specifically complying with resolutions and orders, and ensured a copy of the resolution would be placed in his record.

Uploaded by

Stephen Berou
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No. L-38988 https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1975/feb1975/gr_38988_1975.

html

Today is Wednesday, August 31, 2022

Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines


SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-38988 February 25, 1975

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,


vs.
RAFAEL DALUSAG, PRIVADO DALUSAG, JORGE GOLFO, PERFECTO RAMOS, CATALINO TAFALLA and
MAXIMO GOLFO, appellants, RICARDO C. FERNANDEZ, respondent.

RESOLUTION

FERNANDO, J.:

It defies understanding why, in spite of this Court's reiteration time and time again that members of the bar cannot
escape accountability for inattention to duty, more specifically failure to file pleadings required of them, respondent
Ricardo C. Fernandez, a practicing attorney, acted in a manner contrary to such a precept. He was thus asked to
explain. Two resolutions of this Court, one of November 13, 1974 and the other of January 8, 1975, set forth the
relevant facts. The former reads: "Considering the pleadings filed in this case, the Court Resolved: (a) to [note]: (1)
The notice of appearance of Abraham F. Sarmiento Law Office as counsel for Perfecto Ramos and Rafael Dalusag;
and (2) the telegraphic-message of Mrs. Privado Dalusag, informing this Court that Atty. Ricardo C. Fernandez, 204
Madrigal Bldg., Escolta, Manila, is the counsel for Privado Dalusag, Jorge Golfo, Perfecto Ramos and Catalino
Tafalla and (b) to require Atty. Ricardo C. Fernandez to comment on the aforesaid telegram of whether he is counsel
for aforementioned appellants, and if so, to file a formal appearance, within ten (10) days from notice hereof." Now,
as to the latter: "For failure of Atty. Ricardo C. Fernandez to file comment on the telegram of Mrs. Privado Dalusag,
[as to] whether he is the counsel for appellants Privado Dalusag, Jorge Golfo, Perfecto Ramos, and Catalino Tafalla
and if so to file a formal appearance, as required in the resolution of November 13, 1974, within the period which
expired on November 29, 1974, the Court Resolved to require Atty. Fernandez to [explain] such failure and to [file]
such comment both within ten (10) days from notice hereof."

Then came this explanation from respondent: "1. That when he received copy of the resolution of this Honorable
Court dated November 13, 1974, he exerted his best efforts to contact Mrs. Dalusag, sender of the telegram
attached to the said resolution, as she is personally unknown to the undersigned; 2. That from information gathered
by the undersigned, it was Mr. Oscar Malinis, a personal friend, who recommended to Mrs. Dalusag the services of
the undersigned counsel; 3. That the undersigned counsel requested Mr. Oscar Malinis to deliver the complete
records of the case for his study before making his comment, but unfortunately, up to the present, the said request
remained unheeded; 4. That because of the foregoing, undersigned counsel has no other alternative but to refuse
acceptance of the said case."

The above pleading explains but does not justify his conduct. There was nothing in the resolution of this Court of
November 13, 1974 to preclude him from refusing to act as counsel for appellant Dalusag, Golfo, Ramos and
Tafalla. That was, and is, his privilege. He can act either way, and he is well within his rights. No element of
compulsion entered into the picture. That is not, however, the issue involved in this proceeding. It was his failure to
comply with the resolution of November 13, 1974. He was given a period of ten (10) days to inform the Court as to
whether or not he would act as such counsel. If for some reason or another he could not very well do so, he still was
under obligation to inform this Court as to what steps he had taken. If he were in need of more time all he had to do
was to ask for it. His failing consisted in leaving the Court uninformed and in the dark. Common courtesy, let alone
his duty as a lawyer, frowns on such inattention. He has then laid himself open to disciplinary action. He cannot
avoid being taken into task. The offense, however, is relatively minor. An admonition, which he should take to heart,
ought to suffice.

WHEREFORE, respondent Ricardo C. Fernandez is admonished to be more attentive to the call of duty, more

1 of 2 31/08/2022, 2:06 AM
G.R. No. L-38988 https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1975/feb1975/gr_38988_1975.html

specifically in complying with resolutions and orders of this Tribunal. Let a copy of this resolution be spread on his
record.

Barredo, Antonio, Fernandez and Aquino, JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

2 of 2 31/08/2022, 2:06 AM

You might also like