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.