In the matter of proceeding for disciplinary action against atty.

Vincent Raul Almacen in L-27654,

Antonio H. Calero VS Virginia Y. Yaptinchay

G.R. No. L-27654

Feb 18, 1970

Facts:

Atty. Almacen had served as the counsel for the defendant in the civil case entitled Virgina Y.
Yaptinchay vs Antonio H Calero. The trial Court had rendered judgement against his client, and as such
he served for a motion for reconsideration on July 6, 1966, however the copy the motion sent to the
opposing counsel did not include the time and place of the hearing on the motion. The plaintiff had
moved for execution of the judgement, 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, he filed a
second motion on August 17, 1966, to which he attached the required registry return card. The case was
elevated top the Court of Appeals, whereby the court dismissed the appeal, as the motion for
reconsideration dated on July 6, 1966 does not contain a notice of time and place of the hearing thereof,
and is therefore USELESS PIECE OF PAPER, which did not interrupt the running of the period of appeal,
and, consequently the appeal was perfected out of time. He then appealed to the Supreme Court by
certiorari, where the case was denied by minute resolution. Being denied by the Supreme Court, eh
motioned a second time for a motion for reconsideration, but this time stated that this was a petition to
surrender his lawyers’ certificate of title, in protest against what he therein asserts is “a great injustice
committed against his client by the Supreme Court”. Claim that it was an unjust judgement, and claims
his client was a sacrificial victim before the altar of hypocrisy. He then goes on to ridicule the Supreme
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 proceeds to vow that he would argue the cause of his client in
the people’s forum, so that the people may know the silent injustices committed by this court; claiming
that whatever mistakes, wrongs and injustices that were committed must never be repeated. He states
that any time in the future and in the event, he would regain his faith and confidence in the Supreme
Court, he would then return to the practice of law. He then went to the Manila times, and reiterated his
sentiments. The Supreme Court decided to withhold action on his petition until he shall have
surrendered his certificate, after all he did say he would surrender his certificate and cease in the
practice of law, yet has not yet turned over his certificate. The court now reminds him to turn over his
certificate. (under the humble opinion of this lowly digester, that this link should contain a GIF that
would perfectly sum expression of the Supreme Court at the moment they asked for his certificate
https://i.imgur.com/xgz9nkR.gif, enjoy)

The court asks Atty. Almacen why it should not take disciplinary action against him for his gross
misconduct, to which he responds by repeating lamentations, and this time with abundant sarcasm and
innuendo, quoting the Bible in his responses.
Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Almacen’s actions would count as gross misconduct?

Held:

Atty. Vincent Raul Almacen is hereby suspended from practice of law until further orders, the
suspension to take effect immediately.

The court finds that although freedom of speech is a most treasured of rights, and one
respected by the court, it is with how Atty. Alamacen had voiced his dissent to the decision of the court
that had led to his current predicament. The court welcomes constructive criticism, and welcomes the
member of the bar to open his opinion on things that the court can improve upon; however, the way
Atty. Alamacen had degraded and besmirched the name of the Supreme Court is an action that must be
disciplined. The case gives then a tirade of cases similar to what Atty. Almacen had done, 14 of them
being from cases in the United States, and 3 from the Philippines. The court did not need to give a long
explanation as to why his petition had been denied, as it would consume too much time, and that the
reason his client had lost was not the fault of the Supreme Court as he portrays it to be, but rather his
own negligence in failing to duly inform the opposing counsel of the proper time and date of the
hearing, as should have been done. He was granted an opportunity to repent, and defend himself, but
he had only continued to spout insults to the court. Atty. Almacen shows no remorse for his actions, and
as such, the court cannot grant forgiveness. So, the court is forced to give an indefinite suspension of his
ability to practice the law, in such time that he comes to repent from his mistakes, only then will the
court be able to decide the extent of the suspension.