Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. vs. Respondent Gonzalo W. Gonzales Office of The Solicitor General

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-26868. December 27, 1972.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. REMEGIO

ESTEBIA, defendant-appellant, LOPE E. ADRIANO, respondent.
Gonzalo W. Gonzales for defendant appellant.

Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
RESOLUTION
FERNANDO, J : p
It is a di cult choice that confronts a practitioner called upon to serve with

delity both the courts and his clients, if, as does happen at times, there may be
discerned a con ict as to what compliance with such respective obligations demands.
Respondent Lope E. Adriano, however, was not faced with such a dilemma. The
negligence for which he had to account was a disservice to this Tribunal and the person
he was called upon to defend. Accordingly, he was suspended for one year. 1 There
was, in addition, a pecuniary penalty exacted as far back as October 3, 1968, but as
would appear from the records of the case, whether due to inadvertence or otherwise,
he was remiss in satisfying it. On November 20, 1972, there was a resolution from us
taking him to task for it, but affording him an opportunity to state why there was such a
failure on his part. Then came his manifestation led on November 27, 1972. As will
hereafter be shown in some detail, what was offered by him, by way, not of justi cation
but of explanation, could be attributed to a mistaken interpretation of our resolution,
perhaps the product of loose thinking and inaccurate analysis, but hardly an indication
of recalcitrance and willful disobedience. At the most, then, it su ces that his attention
be called to exercise greater care in the reading of resolutions from this Tribunal and
thus avoid the occasion for any possible misconstruction of his actuations. What must
be kept in mind by respondent and by everyone admitted to the Bar is that, in the
language of Cardozo, they enjoy "a privilege burdened with conditions." 2 They should
exert their utmost to fulfill them.
The incident now before us had it origin in our resolution of November 20, 1972,
requiring respondent Adriano to explain why he had not paid the ne of P500.00
imposed upon him by resolution of October 3, 1968. There was a compliance by
respondent Adriano led with this Court on November 27, 1972 with this manifestation:
"In compliance with this Honorable Court's directive 'to show cause within ten (10) days
from notice, why he should not be disbarred for his failure to comply with this Court's
resolutions,' the undersigned respectfully manifests the following: 1. That the
undersigned had not hitherto paid the ne imposed by this Honorable Court's
Resolution of October 3, 1968 in the honest belief that said Resolution was superseded
by this Honorable Court's Resolution of February 27, 1969 suspending the undersigned
from the practice of law for a period of one year; 2. That, the undersigned's honest
belief that the Resolution of February 27, 1969 superseded the Resolution of October 3,
1968 stemmed from his interpretation of the terms of the Resolution of October 3,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
1968 which were re-stated in the Resolution of February 27, 1968 in this wise: 'For
failure to comply with the September 25, 1967 Resolution, this Court, on October 3,
1968, resolved to impose upon him a ne of P500 payable to this Court within fteen
days from notice with a warning that upon further non-compliance with the said
resolution of September 25, 1967 within the same period of fteen days, " more drastic
disciplinary action will be taken against him." ' (P. 2, Resolution of February 27, 1969); 3.
That the undersigned interpreted the Resolution of October 3, 1968 as re-stated in, and
as cited by way of rationale for, the Resolution of February 27, 1969 to mean that his
failure to pay the ne therein imposed would result in more drastic disciplinary action,
and that the imposition upon him under the Resolution of February 27, 1969 of the
more drastic one-year suspension from the practice of law accordingly served to
supersede the P500 ne previously imposed; 4. That, it having been made clear by this
Honorable Court's Resolution of November 20, that undersigned's interpretation of the
effect of the Resolution of February 27, 1969 suspending him from the practice of law
for one year was not correct, and that contrary to undersigned's belief, he is still
obligated to pay the P500 ne imposed under the Resolution of October 3, 1968, the
undersigned has thereafter paid the P500 ne, as evidenced by [a] receipt . . ." 3 Then
came this plea from respondent: "In the light of the foregoing circumstances, the
undersigned prays this Honorable Court to view the undersigned's failure to pay the ne
of P500 imposed by the Resolution of October 3, 1968 not as a willful non-compliance
with this Honorable Court's mandate, but as having arisen from an honest mistake in his
interpretation thereof." 4
The Court, as set forth earlier, is inclined to accept the above explanation. It is not
inherently implausible. It partakes of an element that is essentially human, all too
human, of an individual responding to the urge of resolving every doubt in his favor.
Lawyers, of course, as members of a learned profession, are expected to display a
greater degree of objectivity, not to say analytical skill. Nonetheless, between an
inaccurate appreciation of the real tenor of a court resolution and an attitude of
de ance, there is quite a gap. The conduct of respondent then, all things considered,
cannot fairly be said to manifest the latter. There is likewise in respondent's favor this
assertion of humility which cannot be simply brushed aside: "The undersigned
acknowledges his past errors, and had accepted as just, and indeed had served, the
judgment of suspension imposed upon him by this Honorable Court in the Resolution of
February 27, 1969; thereafter, the undersigned has tried very hard, within human
limitations, to live up to what the law profession demands of him." 5 It is quite in
keeping with such an attitude that his compliance ends on this note: "The undersigned
humbly submits to whatever disposition on the matter this Honorable Court may deem
just and proper in the premises." 6
Premises considered, the explanation of respondent Lope E. Adriano is deemed
satisfactory and this incident is considered closed.
Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and
Esguerra, JJ., concur.
Zaldivar and Castro, JJ., took no part.
Footnotes
1. The resolution of this Court, penned by Justice Sanchez, dated February 27, 1969, contains
the following: "Here, we have a clear case of an attorney whose acts exhibited willful
disobedience of lawful orders of this Court. A cause su cient is thus present for
suspension or disbarment. Counsel has received no less than three resolutions of this
Court requiring compliance of its orders . . . He has done nothing." Its dispositive portion
reads: "For the reasons given, we vote to suspend Attorney Lope E. Adriano from the
practice of law throughout the Philippines for a period of one (1) year."
2. In Re Rouss, 116 NE 782, 783 (1917). Cf. People ex rel. Karlin v. Culkin, 162 NE 487 (1928).
The opinion was likewise by Justice Cardozo.
3. Compliance, par. II.
4. Ibid, par. III.
5. Ibid, par. IV.
6. Ibid, par. V.

Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. vs. Respondent Gonzalo W. Gonzales Office of The Solicitor General

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. vs. Respondent Gonzalo W. Gonzales Office of The Solicitor General

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. vs. Respondent Gonzalo W. Gonzales Office of The Solicitor General

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-26868. December 27, 1972.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. REMEGIO

Gonzalo W. Gonzales for defendant appellant.

It is a di cult choice that confronts a practitioner called upon to serve with

3. Compliance, par. II.

4. Ibid, par. III.

5. Ibid, par. IV.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like