In The Matter of Proceedings for Disciplinary Action against Atty.

Vicente Raul
Almacen in G.R. No. L-27654

G.R. No. L-27654 | February 18, 1970

Facts:
Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen was the counsel for the defendant Victoria Yaptinchay in the
case Calero vs. Yaptinchay. They lost in said case in the trial court. Atty. Almacen filed a
Motion for Reconsideration but was denied because he failed to indicate the time and place
of hearing of said motion. Hence, he went to the Court of Appeals, which agreed with the
denial of reconsideration. Atty. Almacen filed an appeal on certiorari to the SC. To
Almacens disappointment, the appeal was denied in a minute resolution.

Almacen then filed before the SC a petition to surrender his Lawyers Certificate of Title as
he claimed that it is useless to continue practicing his profession when members of the high
court are men who are calloused to pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own
applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. He
further alleged that due to the minute resolution, his client was made to pay P120,000.00
without knowing the reasons why and that he became one of the sacrificial victims before
the altar of hypocrisy. He also stated that justice as administered by the present members
of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.

The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacens petition as the Court wanted to
wait for Almacen to actually surrender his certificate. Almacen did not surrender his lawyers
certificate though as he now argues that he chose not to. Almacen then asked that he may
be permitted to give reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against
him in an open and public hearing. He said he preferred this considering that the Supreme
Court is the complainant, prosecutor and Judge. Almacen was however unapologetic.

Issue:
Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined.

Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions are needed because the
Supreme Court cannot accept every case or write full opinion for every petition they reject
otherwise the High Court would be unable to effectively carry out its constitutional duties.
The proper role of the Supreme Court is to decide only those cases which present
questions whose resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the particular facts
and parties involved. It should be remembered that a petition to review the decision of the

Court of Appeals is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion; and so there is no
need to fully explain the courts denial. For one thing, the facts and the law are already
mentioned in the Court of Appeals opinion.

On Almacens attack against the Supreme Court, the High Court regarded said criticisms as
uncalled for; that such is insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory. It is
true that a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, has the right to
criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of
courts and judges. His right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the courts in a fair and
respectful manner, and the independence of the bar, as well as of the judiciary, has always
been encouraged by the courts. But, it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it
shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.
Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts.

In the case at bar, Almacens criticism is misplaced. As a veteran lawyer, he should have
known that a motion for reconsideration which failed to notify the opposing party of the time
and place of trial is a mere scrap of paper and will not be entertained by the court. He has
only himself to blame and he is the reason why his client lost. Almacen was suspended
indefinitely.