FACTS: Atty.
Vicente Raul Almacen's "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of
Title," filed on September
25, 1967 , in protest against what he therein asserts is "a
great injustice committed against his client by this Supreme Court." He
indicts this Court, in his own phrase, as a tribunal "peopled by men who
are calloused to our pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own
applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with
impunity." His client's he continues, who was deeply aggrieved by this
Court's "unjust judgment," has become "one of the sacrificial
victims before the altar of hypocrisy."
He alludes
to the classic symbol of justice, he ridicules the members of this 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 vows to argue
the cause of his client "in the people's forum," so that "the
people may know of the silent injustice's committed by this Court," and
that "whatever mistakes, wrongs and injustices that were committed must
never be repeated." He ends his petition with a prayer that a resolution
issue ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the certificate of the undersigned
attorney and counsellor-at-law IN TRUST with reservation that at any time in
the future and in the event we regain our faith and confidence, we may retrieve
our title to assume the practice of the noblest profession.
The genesis of this
unfortunate incident was a civil case entitled Virginia Y. Yaptinchay vs. Antonio H. Calero, in
which Atty. Almacen was counsel for the defendant. The trial court, after due
hearing, rendered judgment against his client. On June 15, 1966 Atty. Almacen received a copy of
the decision. Twenty days later, or on July 5, 1966 , he moved for its reconsideration. He served
on the adverse counsel a copy of the motion, but did not notify the latter of
the time and place of hearing on said motion. Meanwhile, on July 18, 1966 , the
plaintiff moved for execution of the judgment. 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, Atty.
Almacen filed on August 17,
1966 a second motion for reconsideration to which he attached the
required registry return card. This second motion for reconsideration, however,
was ordered withdrawn by the trial court on August 30, 1966 , upon verbal motion of Atty.
Almacen himself, who, earlier, that is, on August 22, 1966 , had already perfected the
appeal. Because the plaintiff interposed no objection to the record on appeal
and appeal bond, the trial court elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen must surrender his
Lawyer’s Certificate of Title.
HELD:
It is the duty of the
lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake
of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of
its supreme importance. Well-recognized therefore is the right
of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, to criticize in
properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts
and judges.
As a citizen
and as officer of the court, a lawyer is expected not only to exercise the
right, but also to consider his duty to avail of such right. No law may abridge
this right, nor is he “professionally answerable for a scrutiny into the
official conduct of the judges, which would not expose him to legal
animadversion as a citizen. Atty. Almacen is suspended from the practice of law
until further orders.
