G.R. No. L-40003 - Yap vs. Court of Appeals

Plaintiff Virginia Y. Yaptinchay sued defendant Antonio H. Calero before the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Civil Case No. 8909). Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen represented Calero.
On June 15, 1966 the trial court rendered judgment against Calero. On July 5, 1966 Atty. Almacen filed a motion for reconsideration but failed to notify the adverse party of the hearing time and place. The trial court denied the motion for “lack of proof of service.”

A second motion for reconsideration was filed on August 17, 1966 with proof of service but withdrawn on August 30, 1966 after Atty. Almacen perfected his appeal on August 22.
On March 27, 1967 the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as perfected out of time under Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. vs. Batu Construction & Co. (June 24, 1965). A motion for reconsideration citing Republic vs. Venturanza (May 30, 1966) was denied on May 8, 1967.
A petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court was denied by minute resolution. A subsequent motion for reconsideration and petitions for extension were likewise denied, with entry of final judgment on September 8, 1967.

On September 25, 1967 Atty. Almacen filed a “Petition to Surrender Lawyer’s Certificate of Title,” denouncing the Supreme Court as “calloused,” administering “short-cut justice,” and characterizing it as blind, deaf and dumb. He sought to deposit his law certificate “in trust” pending restoration of his confidence in the Court.
On September 26, 1967 the Manila Times published extracts of his petition. A columnist in the Manila Chronicle on September 28, 1967 reiterated his charges and noted their impeachment implications.

By resolution of November 17, 1967 the Supreme Court required Atty. Almacen to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken for his disrespectful and contemptuous remarks.
He requested an open public hearing, then filed a written answer refusing to apologize, reiterating his biblical quotations and claims that the Court violated the Constitution and was unresponsive to pleas for justice.
He was granted leave to submit a written explanation and to argue orally. No apology or retraction was made.

Whether Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen’s petition and public statements, which branded the Supreme Court and its members as calloused, unconstitutional, blind, deaf and dumb, constitute grossly disrespectful and contemptuous conduct unbecoming an attorney.
Whether the Supreme Court, in its inherent and exclusive disciplinary power, may suspend or disbar a member of the Bar for such conduct.
Whether criticisms made after finality of a decision are immune from disciplinary action on the ground that contempt lies only during pendency of a case.