In Re: Almacen

Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen lost a civil case (Yaptinchay v. Calero) for his client. He served his motion for reconsideration without a notice of time and place of hearing, so it did not stop the appeal period. The Court of Appeals, following Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. v. Batu Construction, dismissed the appeal as filed out of time. The Supreme Court denied his petition for review by minute resolution, and entry of judgment followed. Almacen then filed a "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title" describing the Court as "peopled by men who are calloused to our pleas for justice," calling his client "one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy," and saying that justice under its members was "not only blind, but also deaf and dumb." He disclosed its contents to the press. He never surrendered his certificate. Ordered to show cause why he should not be disciplined, he offered no apology, repeated his charges in his written answer and oral argument, and objected that the Court was "the complainant, prosecutor and Judge."

1. 1Whether Almacen's statements exceeded the bounds of legitimate criticism and warranted discipline
2. 2Whether the finality of the case or the Court's position as the aggrieved party barred disciplinary action
3. 3What sanction was proper

Yes, the statements warranted discipline. The Court affirmed "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," especially in concluded cases. But the criticism must be bona fide: "Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts." The Court relied on the lawyer's oath, the Rules of Court's duty to respect the courts, and the Canons of Legal Ethics. It found his minute-resolution grievance baseless, because his own negligence cost him the appeal. It held that post-litigation statements which exceed fair comment and undermine public confidence in the courts are "grave professional misconduct". The proceeding was a disciplinary one, so whether the case was still pending was "altogether of no consequence". Disciplinary proceedings are "sui generis": an investigation into an officer's fitness with no plaintiff or prosecutor, in which the Court acts as an entity distinct from its members. His language was "a classic example of gross misconduct, gross violation of the lawyer's oath and gross transgression of the Canons of Legal Ethics." Heeding that disbarment should not be imposed where a lesser sanction suffices, but noting his lack of repentance, the Court chose an indefinite suspension, which he could end by proving his fitness. Disposition: Almacen was suspended from the practice of law until further orders, effective immediately.