G.R. No. L-27654 February 18, 1970
IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY. VICENTE RAUL ALMACEN. ANTONIO H. CALERO, vs. VIRGINIA Y. YAPTINCHAY.

FACTS

Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen filed a “Petition to Surrender Lawyer’s Certificate of Title” with the Supreme Court, protesting an alleged injustice against his client, Antonio H. Calero, arising from the case Calero v. Yaptinchay. He made scandalous, contemptuous, and derogatory statements against the Supreme Court and its members, calling them “calloused to our pleas for justice,” accusing them of ignoring applicable decisions and violating the Constitution, and stating that justice as administered by the Court is “not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.” He publicized these statements in newspapers. The underlying case involved a civil judgment against his client. Atty. Almacen’s motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s decision was denied for lack of proof of service. He perfected an appeal to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it for being filed out of time, ruling that his earlier motion for reconsideration was a “useless piece of paper” because it lacked a notice of time and place of hearing. The Supreme Court subsequently denied his petition for certiorari and related motions. After entry of judgment, Atty. Almacen filed his surrender petition. The Supreme Court, after requiring him to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken, allowed him to file a written explanation and heard him in oral argument. In his answer, he reaffirmed his statements and showed no contrition.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen should be subject to disciplinary action for his grossly disrespectful, contemptuous, and libelous statements against the Supreme Court and its members, made in a pleading and disseminated to the press, which constitute gross misconduct as a member of the bar.

RULING

Yes. Atty. Almacen is suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period until he has shown proof of fitness to resume practice. The Court found that his statements were not legitimate criticism but scurrilous attacks that exceeded the bounds of decency and professional propriety. While a lawyer may criticize the judiciary, such criticism must be bona fide, respectful, and constructive. Atty. Almacen’s actions, motivated by disappointment over an adverse judgment, were calculated to mislead the public and degrade the administration of justice. His offer to surrender his certificate was a mere dramatic gesture, not a sincere act of renunciation. His conduct violated his oath and the canons of legal ethics, requiring disciplinary action to preserve the integrity of the legal profession and public confidence in the courts.