Anda di halaman 1dari 2

IN RE ALMACEN

G.R. No. L-27654. February 18, 1970

SUMMARY:

- Almacen lost a civil case and went batshit crazy


- He batshit-crazied on the Supreme Court and called them names (boo)
- Supreme Court wont take any shit and suspended his ass indefinitely
the end.

JOKE LANG.

xxx xxx xxx

Facts:
- Atty. Almacen was the counsel of one Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. They lost in said civil case but
Almacen filed a Motion for Reconsideration. He notified the opposing party of said motion but he failed to
indicate the time and place of hearing of said motion. Hence, his motion was denied.
- He then appealed but the Court of Appeals denied his appeal as it agreed with the trial court with regard
to the motion for reconsideration. Eventually, Almacen filed an appeal on certiorari before the Supreme
Court which outrightly denied his appeal in a minute resolution.
- This earned the ire of Almacen who called such minute resolutions as unconstitutional. He then filed before
the Supreme Court a petition to surrender his lawyers certificate of title as he claimed that it is useless to
continue practicing his profession when members of the high court are men who are calloused to pleas for
justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the
Constitution with impunity.
- He further alleged that due to the minute resolution, his client was made to pay P120k without knowing
the reasons why and that he became one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy. He also
stated that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but
also deaf and dumb.
- The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacens petition as the Court wanted to wait for Almacen
to actually surrender his certificate. Almacen did not surrender his lawyers certificate though as he now
argues that he chose not to. Almacen then asked that he may be permitted to give reasons and cause why
no disciplinary action should be taken against him . . . in an open and public hearing. He said he preferred
this considering that the Supreme Court is the complainant, prosecutor and Judge. Almacen was however
unapologetic.

ISSUE: Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined.

HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions are needed because the Supreme
Court cannot accept every case or write full opinion for every petition they reject otherwise the High Court
would be unable to effectively carry out its constitutional duties. The proper role of the Supreme Court is to
decide only those cases which present questions whose resolutions will have immediate importance
beyond the particular facts and parties involved.
On Almacens attack against the Supreme Court, the High Court regarded said criticisms as uncalled for;
that such is insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory. It is true that a lawyer, both as
an officer of the court and as a citizen, has the right to criticize in properly respectful terms and through
legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. His right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the
courts in a fair and respectful manner, and the independence of the bar, as well as of the judiciary, has
always been encouraged by the courts. But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be
bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a
gross violation of the duty of respect to courts.
In the case at bar, Almacens criticism is misplaced. As a veteran lawyer, he should have known that a
motion for reconsideration which failed to notify the opposing party of the time and place of trial is a mere
scrap of paper and will not be entertained by the court. He has only himself to blame and he is the reason
why his client lost. Almacen was suspended indefinitely.