In Re Almacen GR No.

L-27654 dated February 18, 1970

Castro, J.:

FACTS:
Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen was counsel for the defendant in civil case entitled Virginia Y. Yaptinchay vs. Antonio H.
Calero. The trial court rendered judgement against his client and Atty. Almacen moved for its reconsideration. He
served on the adverse counsel the copy of motion but did not notify the latter the time and place of hearing on said
motion. The plaintiff moved for execution of the judgement. But due to "lack of proof of service", the trial court denied
both motions. The trial Court elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the case
because of the SCs decision in Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Batu Construction & Co. The CA’s decision to
dismiss was due to the non-inclusion of the notice of time and place of hearing in the motion for reconsideration
dated July 5, 1966, therefore, a useless piece of paper which did not interrupt the running of the period to appeal,
and consequently, the appeal was perfected out of time. Atty. Almacen moved to reconsider the resolution the CA
citing Republic of the Philippines us. Venturaza as the applicable case. Again, the CA denied the motion for
reconsideration and contended that there is no substantial distinction between this case and that of Manila Surety
and Fidelity Co and Republic vs. Venturaza is no authority in this issue. Atty. Almacen appealed to the Supreme
Court by certiorari. The SC refused to take the case and denied the appeal. Another motion for reconsideration and a
petition for leave to file for second motion for reconsideration and for extension of time was also denied by the
Supreme Court. It was at this juncture that Atty Almacen gave vent to his disappointment by filing his “Petition to
Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title", a pleading that is intersped from beginning to end w/ insolent, contemptuous,
grossly disrespectful and derogatory remarks against the Supreme Court as well as its individual members, a
behaviour that is as unprecedented as it is unprofessional.

The Court decided to withhold action on his petition until he shall have actually surrendered his certificate. When the
Court reminded Atty. Almacen to turn over his certificate so that the Court can act on his petition, he manifested “that
he has no pending petition in connection w/ case Calero vs. Yaptinchay, said case is now final & executory" and that
the Court’s resolution did not require him to do either a positive or negative act; and that since his offer was not
accepted, he chose to pursue the negative act."

The Court resolved to require Atty. Almacen to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him."
Atty. Almacen denied the charges and asked to give reasons why no disciplinary action against him in an open and
public hearing, because the Supreme Court is the "complainant, prosecutor & judge and he preferred to be heard
and answer questions in an open and public hearing" so that that court could observe his sincerity & candor. The
Court allowed him to file a written explanation and thereafter was heard in oral argument.

His written answer as undignified and cynical as it is unchastened, offers no apology. Far from being contrite, Atty.
Almacen unremittingly repeats his jeremiad of lamentations, this time embellishing it with abundant sarcasm &
innuendo.

The Count said that they were aware of the criticisms expressed against their practice of rejecting petition by minute
resolutions. However, is they were to accept every case or write a full opinion on every petition they reject, they
would be unable to carry out effectively the burden granted by the Constitution. They contended that the Court of
Appeals had fully and correctly considered the dismissal of his appeal and that there is no need for the Supreme
Court to exercise its supervisory power.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Almacen be levied with disciplinary action.

RULING:
The Court suspended, from the practice of law indefinitely effective immediately. It held that the actions of Atty.
Almacen is a classic example of gross misconduct, gross violation of the lawyer's oath and gross transgressions of
the Canons of Legal Ethics therefore, cannot be allowed to go unrebuked. The Court averred that any criticism of the
count must the possess quality of judiciousness.

It was not proper for Atty. Almacen to say that the members of the Court are the "complainants, prosecutors & judges
all rolled up into one in they instance. They provided that disciplinary procedures, like the case at bar, are sui generis.
This case does not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of
its officers. In such posture, there can be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor. The misconduct
committed by Atty. Almacen is of considerable gravity. However, heeding the stern injunction that disbarment should
never be decreed where a lesser sanction would accomplish the end desired. They believed that some future day,
Atty. Almacen will realize that abrasive language never fails to do disservice to an advocate and that there is an
ample room for respect in every effervescence of candor. They suspended Atty. Almacen indefinitely. They added
that the merit of this choice will then be left into the hands of Atty. Almacen, to determine for himself how long or how
short such suspension can last. For, at any time after the suspension becomes effective, he may prove to the Court
that he is once again fit to resume the practice of law.

Nidua vs. Lazaro

A:M-No. R-465 MTJ 6/29/1959

FACTS:

In a verified complaint dated Sept. 26, 1985, Complainant Mamertoa Nidua against respondent Judge Cornelio
Lazaro, formerly an MTC judge of Iloilo City who was subsequently promoted as RTC Judge of Branch 39 of the
same place. The complaint charged Respondent Judge with delay with the administration and neglect of duty for
having failed to decide criminal case No. 61358 entitled PP vs. Mamerta S. Nidua despite the fact that said case has
been submitted for decision as early as Sept. 8, 1980. Respondent Judge claims that he had prepared the Decision
on Nov. 15, 1986 but that it was not promulgated because the subpoena for its promulgation dated Nov. 25, 1950
was returned unserved by the process server, an INP officer of Kalibo, Aklan and that no other subpoena was
thereafter served.

He attributed the oversight to the resuffling of city court personnel which resulted in the disorderly keeping of records.
In her Reply, complainant contended that the records of the case show that her address is Balagtasan, Madalag,
Aklan, and the subpoenas issued during the pendency of the case were sent to that address. She added that the
reshuffling of court personnel had nothing to do w/ the sending of subpoenas and that the delay in the promulgation
for 5 years is a manifest neglect of duty on the part of respondent judge.

The respondent Judge's decision was finally promulgated on October 31, 1985 finding complainant guilty of estafa.
The Decision bore the date "November 15, 1980".

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court received a letter on Aug 13, 1967 from Judge Simplicia Molina of the MTCC Branch
4, Iloilo City. The letter sought a clarification as to whether only those cases left undecided but submitted for decision,
or all pending cases in Branch 2, MICC Iloilo, vacated by respondent judge Lazaro, should be raffled among the 4
MTCC Branches in Iloilo City.

The Court required (1) Respondent judge to explain why he failed to decide 251 cases already submitted for decision
within the ninety-day period before his promotion is RTC judge and (2) Clerk of Court Purita Antillon of MTC Branch 2
also to explain why she failed to mention on her April 30 1987 Report that "an additional 201 cases had also been
submitted for decision while Judge Lazaro was still the MTC Judge of Branch 2, Iloilo City.

Respondent Judge cited reasons for the delay in the decisions but contended that it only involves mismanagement,
and not graft and corruption.

COC Purita Antillon also explained the circumstances when she assumed her duties as COC of Branch 2 (records
were voluminous disorganized). She claimed that she approached Respondent Judge regarding time cases which
had been submitted for decision but were still reported as on trial. According to her, she continued signing the
monthly reports placated by Judge Lazaro's promise that he would soon dispose of the cases. This is the reason why
her monthly report as of April 30, 1987 did not reflect the 201 cases that had accumulated thru the years.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Respondent badge is guilty of gross neglect of duty.

Whether or not COC Antillon is quilty of committing falsehood.

RULING:

The Court ruled that respondent judge is guilty of gross neglect of duty in having failed to promulgate the Decision in
criminal Case No. 6135& of the MTC in Iloilo City for a period of five years and for failure to decide 251 cases
pending, in his court in the required ninety-day period before his promotion as RTC judge and was ordered to pay a
fines equivalent to his salary for 1 year as MTC Judge of Iloilo.

The Court contended that a judge should know the cases submitted to him for decision, particularly those pending for
more than 90 days. A Judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency of court personnel.

With regard to COC Purita Antillon, the Court imposed upon her a fine equivalent to one month salary for reflecting in
her monthly report dated April 30, 1987 that only 50 cases were submitted for decision but not yet decided instead of
the actual 251 cases in order to cover up Respondent Judge, thereby deliberately committing a falsehood
aggravating the Court backlog, and hampering the speedy disposition of pending cases.