Atty. Almacen was the counsel of defendant in the civil case of Yaptinchay v Calero.

The trial court

rendered judgment against his client but Atty. Almacen filed a MR. He notified the opposing party
of said motion but he failed to indicate the time and place of hearing of said motion. Hence, his
motion was denied. He then appealed but the CA denied his appeal as it agreed with the trial court
with regard to the MR. Eventually, Almacen filed an appeal on certiorari before the Supreme Court
which outrightly denied his appeal in a minute resolution.
Due to this, he filed before the Supreme Court a Petition to surrender his lawyer’s 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 P120k 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.” He even reiterated and disclosed to the press (Manila Times) the contents of the
aforementioned petition.

The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacen’s petition as the SC wanted to wait for Atty.
Almacen to actually surrender his certificate. He did not surrender his lawyer’s certificate though as
he now argues that he chose not to. In the exercise of its inherent power to discipline a member of
the bar for contumely and gross misconduct, SC resolved to require Atty. Almacen to show cause
"why no disciplinary action should be taken against him.

He 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.” To this resolution Atty.
Almacen manifested that since this Court is "the complainant, prosecutor and
Judge," he preferred to be heard and to answer questions "in person and in an
open and public hearing" so that this Court could observe his sincerity and
candor.
ISSUE + RULING: W/N Atty. Almacen should be disciplined - YES
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 court’s denial. For one
thing, the facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals’ opinion.
On Almacen’s 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, Almacen’s 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.