In re: Almacen

DOCTRINES: A lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, may criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the act of courts and judges. 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. 

In his relations with the courts, a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. 

Post-litigation utterances or publications, made by lawyers, critical of the courts and their judicial actuations, whether amounting to a crime or not, which transcend the permissible bounds of fair comment and legitimate criticism and thereby tend to bring them into disrepute or to subvert public confidence in their integrity and in the orderly administration of justice, constitute grave professional misconduct which may be visited with disbarment or other lesser appropriate disciplinary sanctions by the Supreme Court in the exercise of the prerogatives inherent in it as the duly constituted guardian of the morals and ethics of the legal fraternity. 

FACTS:

Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen filed a Petition to Surrender Lawyer’s Certificate in protest against what he therein asserts is “a great injustice committed against his client by this Supreme Court.” He indicts this Court, in his own phrase, as a tribunal “peopled by men who are calloused to our pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity.” His client’s he continues, who was deeply aggrieved by this Court’s “unjust judgment,” has become “one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy.” In the same breath that he alludes to the classic symbol of justice, he ridicules the members of this Court, saying “that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.” He then vows to argue the cause of his client “in the people’s forum,” so that “the people may know of the silent injustices committed by this Court,” and that “whatever mistakes, wrongs and injustices that were committed must never be repeated.” 

He reiterated and disclosed to the press the contents of the aforementioned petition. Manila Times published the statements. It was quoted by columnist Vicente Pacis of the Manila Chronicle. Pacis commented that Atty. Almacen had “accused the high tribunal of offenses so serious that the Court must clear itself,” and that “his charge is one of the constitutional bases for impeachment.” 

The genesis of this unfortunate incident was a civil case entitled Virginia Y. Yaptinchay vs. Antonio H. Calero,1 in which Atty. Almacen was counsel for the defendant The trial court, after due hearing, rendered judgment against his client. He moved for reconsideration. He served on the adverse counsel a copy of the motion, but did not notify the latter of the time and place of hearing on said motion. Meanwhile, the plaintiff moved for execution of the judgment. For ‘lack of proof of service,” the trial court denied both motions. To prove that he did serve on the adverse party a copy of his first motion for reconsideration, Atty. Almacen filed a second motion for reconsideration to which he attached the required registry return card. This second motion for reconsideration, however, was ordered withdrawn by the trial court. The trial court elevated the case to the CA but it was dismissed. The Motion for Reconsideration was also denied. Atty. Almacen appealed to the SC but it was also denied.

Hence, the Petition.

ISSUE/S:

Whether Atty. Almacen should be disciplined. (YES)

HELD: 

Called upon to make an explanation, he expressed no regret, offered no apology. Instead, with characteristic arrogance, he rehashed and reiterated his vituperative attacks and, alluding to the Scriptures, virtually tarred and feathered the Court and its members, as inveterate hypocrites incapable of administering justice and unworthy to impose disciplinary sanctions upon him. The virulence so blatantly evident in Atty. Almaeen’s petition, answer and oral argumentation speaks for itself. The vicious language used and the scurrilous innuendoes they carried far transcend the permissible bounds of legitimate criticism. They could never serve any purpose but to gratify the spite of an irate attorney, attract public attention to himself and, more important of all, bring this Court and its members into disrepute and destroy public confidence in them to the detriment of the orderly administration of justice. Odium of this character and •texture presents no redeeming feature, and completely negates any pretense of passionate commitment to the truth. It is not a whit less than a classic example of gross misconduct, gross violation of the lawyer’s oath and gross transgression of the Canons of Legal Ethics. As such, it cannot be allowed to go unrebuked. The way for the exertion of our disciplinary powers is thus laid clear, and the need therefor is unavoidable. 

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS THE SENSE of the Court that Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen be, as he is hereby, suspended from the practice of law until further orders, the suspension to take effect immediately.