7/25/2019 In Re - Almacen (G.R. No. L-27654 February 18, 1970)

1/2

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

In re: Almacen

Facts:

- Atty. Almacen was the counsel for the defendant in the case entitled Virginia Y. Yaptinchay vs.

Antonio H. Calero- After due hearing, the court ruled against his client. He led a MR ut did not notify the o!!osing

counsel of the time and !lace of the hearing. "he court then denied the motion for lac# of !roof ofser$ice

- "he %ndMR y Almacen was withdrawn y himself as he !erfected his a!!eal- "he &A dismissed the a!!eal for the 'stMR did not contain a notice of time and !lace of hearing

citing Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. Inc- Almacen mo$ed to reconsider the decision urging the cited case as not decisi$e and cited instead

Repulic o! the "hilippines v #regory Venturan$a- &A ruled that there was no sustantial distinction etween the two. (ismissed- Almacen a!!ealed to the &ourt $ia &ertiorari. "his was dismissed in a minute resolution. "he MR

thereafter was li#ewise dismissed .- It was at this !oint that he $ented his disa!!ointment y ling his )etition to *urrender +awyers

&erticate of "itle with contem!tuous, grossly disres!ectful and derogatory remar#s.

- He was then reuired to show cause why no disci!linary action should e ta#en against him, towhich he answered with still disres!ectful language. He argued that the denial was without reason

/minute resolution0.

Issue1Held:

- 213 Almacen should e administrati$ely sanctioned for his contumacious remar#s 1 45*- 213 such remar#s, to e !unishale, must e made only while the case is !ending 1 36

Ratio:

- "ruth to tell, howe$er, most !etitions re7ected y this &ourt are utterly fri$olous and ought ne$er to

ha$e een lodged at all. 2ere we to acce!t e$ery case or write a full o!inion for e$ery !etition we

re7ect, we would e unale to carry out e8ecti$ely the urden !laced u!on us y the &onstitutiono "his mode of dis!osal hel!s in alle$iating &ourt doc#ets and is !atterned according to the

!ractice of the 9* *&. "hese are not decisions within the constitutional reuirement ut

merely hold that the !etition should not e entertained in $iew of the !ro$isions of R;.- "his &ourt nds that the &A correctly dismissed the case for his failure to notify the o!!osing

counsel of the time and !lace of the hearing, and thus, his MR did not stay the running !eriod of

a!!eal- &ourts and 7udges are not sacrosanct. "hey should and e

!erformance. 2ell-recogni=ed therefore is the right of a lawyer, oth as an o>cer of the court and

as a citi=en, to critici=e in !ro!erly res!ectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of

courts and 7udges. "he reason is that an attorney does not surrender, in assuming the im!ortant

!lace accorded to him in the administration of 7ustice, his right as a citi=en to critici=e the decisions

of the courts in a fair and res!ectful manner, and the inde!endence of the ar, as well as of the

7udiciary, has always een encouraged y the courts. ?ut it is the cardinal condition of all such

criticism that it shall e ona %de, and shall not s!ill o$er the walls of decency and !ro!riety. "he

lawyer@s duty to render res!ectful suordination to the courts is essential to the orderly

administration of 7ustice- )ost-litigation utterances or !ulications, made y lawyers, critical of the courts and their 7udicial

actuations, whether amounting to a crime or not, which transcend the !ermissile ounds of fair

comment and legitimate criticism and therey tend to ring them into disre!ute or to su$ert

!ulic condence in their integrity and in the orderly administration of 7ustice, constitute gra$e

!rofessional misconduct which may e $isited with disarment or other lesser a!!ro!riate

7/25/2019 In Re - Almacen (G.R. No. L-27654 February 18, 1970)

2/2

disci!linary sanctions y the *u!reme &ourt in the eInstead, with characteristic arrogance, he rehashed and reiterated his $itu!erati$e attac#s and,

alluding to the *cri!tures, $irtually tarred and feathered the &ourt and its memers as in$eterate

hy!ocrites inca!ale of administering 7ustice and unworthy to im!ose disci!linary sanctions u!onhim

- ?ut a critiue of the &ourt must e intelligent and discriminating, tting to its high function as the

court of last resort. And more than this, $alid and healthy criticism is y no means synonymous to

olouy, and reuires detachment and disinterestedness, real ualities a!!roached only through

constant stri$ing to attain them. Any criticism of the &ourt must, !ossess the uality of

7udiciousness and must e informed -y !ers!ecti$e and infused y !hiloso!hy- in the ecer of the &ourt with the end in $iew of !reser$ing the !urity of

the legal !rofession and the !ro!er and honest administration of 7ustice y !urging the !rofession

of memers who y their misconduct ha$e !ro$ed themsel$es no longer worthy to e entrusted

with the duties and res!onsiilities !ertaining to the o>ce of an attorney. 29In such !osture, there

can thus e no occasion to s!ea# of a com!lainant or a !rosecutor- He is therey sus!ended from the !ractice of law.