Case Summary (G.R. No. 138051)
Procedural History
- Trial Court (Rizal CFI): On June 15, 1966, rendered judgment for Yaptinchay; Atty. Almacen moved for reconsideration July 5, 1966, failed to notify adverse party of hearing time and place; court denied motion. Second motion filed August 17, 1966 with proof of service was withdrawn August 30, 1966 when appeal perfected.
- Court of Appeals: Dismissed the appeal as perfected out of time per Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. vs. Batu Construction & Co. (L-16636, 1965) because the first motion lacked notice of hearing. Motion for reconsideration denied May 1967; reliance on Republic vs. Venturanza (L-20417, 1966) rejected.
- Supreme Court Certiorari: Petition for review was denied by minute resolution and motion for reconsideration likewise denied; judgment became final September 8, 1967.
Petition to Surrender Lawyer’s Certificate of Title
On September 25, 1967, Atty. Almacen filed a “Petition to Surrender Lawyer’s Certificate of Title” accusing the Supreme Court of callous injustice, ignoring its own decisions, and committing constitutional violations. He vowed to pursue his client’s cause “in the people’s forum” and requested the court to receive his certificate “in trust” so he might resume practice if confidence were restored.
Disparaging Statements and Publication
- September 26, 1967: Manila Times reported Almacen’s charges of “short-cut justice,” condemning the Court as “blind, deaf and dumb,” and calling for the purge of “unconstitutional and obnoxious” practices.
- Manila Chronicle (Sept. 28): Columnist Vicente Albano Pacis noted the seriousness of charging the Supreme Court with constitutional offenses, an impeachment ground.
Disciplinary Proceedings and Respondent’s Defense
- November 17, 1967: Supreme Court, invoking its inherent disciplinary power, ordered Almacen to show cause why he should not be disciplined for contumely and gross misconduct.
- Almacen’s Response: He sought open, public hearing; later filed a written explanation doubling down on his allegations, invoking Scripture, denying contemptuous intent, and reaffirming that the Court had been callous and indifferent to pleas for justice.
- Oral Argument: He reiterated criticisms, contrasted “justice” with “injustice,” and invoked public opinion as a corrective because courts are not infallible.
Legal Principles on Criticism and Disciplinary Power
- Right to Criticize: Lawyers, as citizens and officers of the court, may fairly criticize judicial acts in respectful terms and through legitimate channels.
- Limits on Criticism: Criticism must be bona fide, fair, and not spill over into scandalous abuse or personal attacks that undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
- Disciplinary Authority: Under the 1935 Constitution and Rule 138, Sec. 27, the Supreme Court has inherent and exclusive power to discipline or remove attorneys for misconduct unbecoming of the profession.
- Controlling Precedents: Philippine and foreign jurisprudence confirm that post-litigation publications by counsel which use vituperative, defamatory, or insulting language against courts or judges justify suspension or disbarment.
Application of Principles to Almacen’s Conduct
- Nature of Outbursts: Almacen’s petition and public statements employed grossly disrespectful, derogatory, and unsubstantiated charges against the Court and its members.
- Impact on Administration of Justice: Such language tended to bring t
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 138051)
Procedural History
- Civil case of Virginia Y. Yaptinchay vs. Antonio H. Calero filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Civil Case No. 8909, September 17, 1965).
- Judgment rendered against Calero; decision received by counsel Atty. Almacen on June 15, 1966.
- First motion for reconsideration filed July 5, 1966 without notice of hearing; denied for lack of proof of service.
- Second motion for reconsideration filed August 17, 1966 with registry return card; later withdrawn upon perfection of appeal on August 22, 1966.
- Court of Appeals dismissed appeal (March 27, 1967 resolution) for lack of notice in motion to reconsider, citing Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. vs. Batu Construction & Co. (June 24, 1965).
- Motion for reconsideration of appellate dismissal denied May 8, 1967; supplemental pleadings based on Republic vs. Venturanza (May 30, 1966) also denied.
- Petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court refused by minute resolution; motion for reconsideration denied.
- Entry of final judgment on September 8, 1967.
Facts
- Atty. Almacen represented defendant Antonio H. Calero; judgment creditor was Virginia Y. Yaptinchay.
- Plaintiff moved for execution July 18, 1966; trial court denied both parties’ motions for lack of notice/service.
- Appeal perfected by Calero on August 22, 1966; no objection by appellee to record or bond.
- Court of Appeals dismissed appeal as untimely under Rule 15 (formerly Rule 26), § 6, requiring notice of hearing on motions.
Petition to Surrender Lawyer’s Certificate and Media Statements
- On September 25, 1967, Atty. Almacen filed a “Petition to Surrender Lawyer’s Certificate of Title,” charging the Supreme Court with “calloused” injustice.
- He vowed to argue the case “in the people’s forum” and published deprecatory statements in The Manila Times (September 26, 1967) accusing the Court of “short-cut justice,” “silent injustices,” and being “blind, deaf and dumb.”
- Columnist Vicente Albano Pacis quoted Almacen’s charges as “constitutional bases for impeachment” (Manila Chronicle, September 28, 1967).
Disciplinary Proceedings Initiated
- Supreme Court issued a resolution on November 17, 1967 invoking its inherent power to discipline Atty. Almacen for contumely and gross misconduct.
- Counsel was ordered to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken.
- He requested a public hearing to “observe his sincerity,” then was allowed to file a written explanation and to argue orally.