in re almacen (legprof)

11/10/2015 G.R. No. L-27654

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1970/feb1970/gr_27654_1970.html 1/16

TodayisTuesday,November10,2015

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L27654February18,1970

INTHEMATTEROFPROCEEDINGSFORDISCIPLINARYACTIONAGAINSTATTY.VICENTERAULALMACENInL27654,ANTONIOH.CALERO,

vs.

VIRGINIAY.YAPTINCHAY.

RESOLUTION

CASTRO,J.:

BeforeusisAtty.VicenteRaulAlmacen's"PetitiontoSurrenderLawyer'sCertificateofTitle,"filedonSeptember25,1967, inprotestagainstwhathethereinasserts is"agreat injusticecommittedagainsthisclientbythisSupremeCourt."HeindictsthisCourt, inhisownphrase,asatribunal"peopledbymenwhoarecallousedtoourpleasforjustice,whoignorewithoutreasonstheirownapplicabledecisionsandcommitculpableviolationsoftheConstitutionwithimpunity."Hisclient'shecontinues,whowasdeeplyaggrievedbythisCourt's"unjustjudgment,"hasbecome"oneofthesacrificialvictimsbeforethealtarofhypocrisy."Inthesamebreaththathealludestotheclassicsymbolofjustice,heridiculesthemembersofthisCourt,saying"thatjusticeasadministeredbythepresentmembersoftheSupremeCourt isnotonlyblind,butalsodeafanddumb."He thenvows toargue thecauseofhisclient "in thepeople'sforum,"sothat"thepeoplemayknowofthesilentinjustice'scommittedbythisCourt,"andthat"whatevermistakes,wrongsandinjusticesthatwerecommittedmustneverberepeated."Heendshispetitionwithaprayerthat

...aresolutionissueorderingtheClerkofCourttoreceivethecertificateoftheundersignedattorneyand counselloratlaw INTRUSTwith reservation that at any time in the futureand in theeventweregain our faith and confidence, we may retrieve our title to assume the practice of the noblestprofession.

Hereiteratedanddisclosedtothepressthecontentsoftheaforementionedpetition.Thus,onSeptember26,1967,theManilaTimespublishedstatementsattributedtohim,asfollows:

Vicente Raul Almacen, in an unprecedented petition, said he did it to expose the tribunal's"unconstitutionalandobnoxious"practiceofarbitrarilydenyingpetitionsorappealswithoutanyreason.

Because of the tribunal's "shortcut justice," Almacen deplored, his client was condemned to payP120,000,withoutknowingwhyhelostthecase.

xxxxxxxxx

Thereisnousecontinuinghislawpractice,Almacensaidinthispetition,"whereourSupremeCourtiscomposed ofmen who are calloused to our pleas for justice, who ignore without reason their ownapplicabledecisionsandcommitculpableviolationsoftheConstitutionwithimpunity.

xxxxxxxxx

Heexpressed thehopethatbydivestinghimselfofhis titlebywhichheearnshis living, thepresentmembersof theSupremeCourt "willbecome responsive toall casesbrought to itsattentionwithoutdiscrimination,andwillpurge itselfof thoseunconstitutionalandobnoxious"lackofmerit"or "deniedresolutions.(Emphasissupplied)

Atty.Almacen'sstatementthat

...ourownSupremeCourt iscomposedofmenwhoarecalloused toourpleasof [sic] justice,whoignoretheirownapplicabledecisionsandcommitculpableviolationsoftheConstitutionwithimpunity

11/10/2015 G.R. No. L-27654


was quoted by columnist Vicente Albano Pacis in the issue of theManilaChronicle of September 28, 1967. Inconnection therewith,Paciscommented thatAtty.Almacenhad"accused thehigh tribunalofoffensessoseriousthattheCourtmustclearitself,"andthat"hischargeisoneoftheconstitutionalbasesforimpeachment."

Thegenesisof thisunfortunate incidentwasacivilcaseentitledVirginiaY.Yaptinchayvs.AntonioH.Calero,1 inwhichAtty.Almacenwascounselforthedefendant.Thetrialcourt,afterduehearing,renderedjudgmentagainsthisclient.OnJune15,1966Atty.Almacenreceivedacopyof thedecision.Twentydays later,oronJuly5,1966,hemovedfor itsreconsideration.Heservedontheadversecounselacopyofthemotion,butdidnotnotifythelatterofthetimeandplaceofhearingonsaidmotion.Meanwhile,onJuly18,1966,theplaintiffmovedforexecutionofthejudgment.For"lackofproofofservice," thetrialcourtdeniedbothmotions.Toprovethathedidserveontheadversepartyacopyofhisfirstmotionforreconsideration, Atty. Almacen filed on August 17, 1966 a second motion for reconsideration to which he attached therequiredregistryreturncard.Thissecondmotionforreconsideration,however,wasorderedwithdrawnbythetrialcourtonAugust 30, 1966, upon verbal motion of Atty. Almacen himself, who, earlier, that is, on August 22, 1966, had alreadyperfectedtheappeal.Becausetheplaintiffinterposednoobjectiontotherecordonappealandappealbond,thetrialcourtelevatedthecasetotheCourtofAppeals.

But theCourt of Appeals, on the authority of thisCourt's decision inManilaSurety& FidelityCo., Inc. vs. BatuConstruction&Co.,L16636,June24,1965,dismissedtheappeal,inthefollowingwords:

Upon consideration of the motion datedMarch 27, 1967, filed by plaintiffappellee praying that theappealbedismissed,andoftheoppositiontheretofiledbydefendantappellanttheCourtRESOLVEDTODISMISS, as it herebydismisses, theappeal, for the reason that themotion for reconsiderationdatedJuly5,1966(pp.90113,printedrecordonappeal)doesnotcontainanoticeoftimeandplaceofhearingthereofandis,therefore,auselesspieceofpaper(ManilaSurety&FidelityCo.,Inc.vs.BatuConstruction&Co.,G.R.No.L16636,June24,1965),whichdidnotinterrupttherunningoftheperiodtoappeal,and,consequently,theappealwasperfectedoutoftime.

Atty.Almacenmovedtoreconsider thisresolution,urgingthatManilaSurety&FidelityCo. isnotdecisive.At thesame time he filed a pleading entitled "Latest decision of the Supreme Court in Support of Motion forReconsideration,"citingRepublicofthePhilippinesvs.GregorioA.Venturanza,L20417,decidedbythisCourtonMay30,1966,astheapplicablecase.Again,theCourtofAppealsdeniedthemotionforreconsideration,thus:

BeforethisCourt forresolutionarethemotiondatedMay9,1967andthesupplement theretoof thesamedatefiledbydefendantappellant,prayingforreconsiderationoftheresolutionofMay8,1967,dismissingtheappeal.

Appellant contends that there are some important distinctions between this case and that ofManilaSuretyandFidelityCo., Inc. vs.BatuConstruction&Co.,G.R.No.L 16636, June24,1965, reliedupon by thisCourt in its resolution ofMay 8, 1967. Appellant further states that in the latest case,Republic vs. Venturanza, L20417, May 30, 1966, decided by the Supreme Court concerning thequestion raised by appellant'smotion, the ruling is contrary to the doctrine laid down in theManilaSurety&FidelityCo.,Inc.case.

ThereisnosubstantialdistinctionbetweenthiscaseandthatofManilaSurety&FidelityCo.

InthecaseofRepublicvs.Venturanza,theresolutiondenyingthemotiontodismisstheappeal,basedongroundssimilartothoseraisedhereinwasissuedonNovember26,1962,whichwasmuchearlierthan thedateofpromulgationof thedecision in theManilaSuretyCase,whichwasJune24,1965.Further, the resolution in the Venturanza case was interlocutory and the Supreme Court issued it"withoutprejudicetoappellee'srestoringthepointinthebrief."Inthemaindecisioninsaidcase(Rep.vs.VenturanzatheSupremeCourtpassedupontheissuesubsilenciopresumablybecauseofitspriordecisionscontrary to the resolutionofNovember26,1962,oneofwhich is that in theManilaSuretyandFidelitycase.ThereforeRepublicvs.Venturanzaisnoauthorityonthematterinissue.

Atty. Almacen then appealed to this Court by certiorari.We refused to take the case, and byminute resolutiondeniedtheappeal.Deniedshortlythereafterwashismotionforreconsiderationaswellashispetitionforleavetofileasecondmotionforreconsiderationandforextensionoftime.EntryofjudgmentwasmadeonSeptember8,1967.Hence, the secondmotion for reconsideration filed by him after the Said date was ordered expunged from therecords.

ItwasatthisjuncturethatAtty.Almacengaveventtohisdisappointmentbyfilinghis"PetitiontoSurrenderLawyer'sCertificateofTitle,"alreadyadverted toapleading that is interspersed frombeginning toendwith the insolentcontemptuous,grosslydisrespectfulandderogatoryremarkshereinbeforereproduced,againstthisCourtaswellasitsindividualmembers,abehaviorthatisasunprecedentedasitisunprofessional.

Nonethelesswedecidedby resolutiondatedSeptember28,1967 towithholdactiononhispetitionuntil heshallhaveactuallysurrenderedhiscertificate.Patiently,wewaitedforhimtomakegoodhisproffer.Nowordcamefromhim.Sohewasremindedtoturnoverhiscertificate,whichhehadearliervociferouslyofferedtosurrender,sothatthisCourtcouldactonhispetition.Tosaidreminderhemanifested"thathehasnopendingpetitioninconnectionwith Case G.R. No. L27654, Calero vs. Yaptinchay, said case is now final and executory" that this Court'sSeptember28,1967resolutiondidnotrequirehimtodoeitherapositiveornegativeactandthatsincehisofferwasnotaccepted,he"chosetopursuethenegativeact."

In theexerciseof its inherentpower todisciplineamemberof thebar for contumelyandgrossmisconduct, this

11/10/2015 G.R. No. L-27654


CourtonNovember17,1967resolvedtorequireAtty.Almacentoshowcause"whynodisciplinaryactionshouldbetakenagainsthim."DenyingthechargescontainedintheNovember17resolution,heaskedforpermission"togivereasonsandcausewhynodisciplinaryactionshouldbetakenagainsthim...inanopenandpublichearing."ThisCourtresolved(onDecember7)"torequireAtty.Almacentostate,withinfivedaysfromnoticehereof,hisreasonsfor such request,otherwise,oralargument shall bedeemedwaivedand incident submitted fordecision."To thisresolutionhemanifestedthatsincethisCourtis"thecomplainant,prosecutorandJudge,"hepreferredtobeheardandtoanswerquestions"inpersonandinanopenandpublichearing"sothatthisCourtcouldobservehissincerityandcandor.Healsoaskedforleavetofileawrittenexplanation"intheeventthisCourthasnotimetohearhiminperson."Togivehimtheampliestlatitudeforhisdefense,hewasallowedtofileawrittenexplanationandthereafterwasheardinoralargument.

Hiswrittenanswer,asundignifiedandcynicalasitisunchastened,offersnoapology.FarfrombeingcontriteAtty.Almacenunremittingly repeatshis jeremiadof lamentations, this timeembellishing itwithabundant sarcasmandinnuendo.Thus:

Atthestart,letmequotepassagesfromtheHolyBible,Chapter7,St.Matthew:

"Donotjudge,thatyoumaynotbejudged.Forwithwhatjudgmentyoujudge,youshallbe judged, andwithwhatmeasure youmeasure, it shall bemeasured to you.Butwhydost thousee thespeck in thybrother'seye,andyetdostnotconsider thebeam in thyowneye?Orhowcanthousaytothybrother,"Letmecastoutthespeckfromthyeye"andbehold,thereisabeaminthyowneye?Thouhypocrite,firstcastoutthebeamfromthyowneye,andthenthouwiltseeclearlytocastoutthespeckfromthybrother'seyes."

"Thereforeallthatyouwishmentodotoyou,eventodoyoualsotothem:forthisistheLawandtheProphets."

xxxxxxxxx

Your respondent has no intention of disavowing the statements mentioned in his petition. On thecontrary,he refirms the truthofwhathestated, compatiblewithhis lawyer'soath thathewill donofalsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court. But he vigorously DENY under oath that theunderscoredstatementscontained in theCHARGEare insolent,contemptuous,grosslydisrespectfulandderogatorytotheindividualmembersoftheCourtthattheytendtobringtheentireCourt,withoutjustification,intodisreputeandconstituteconductunbecomingofamemberofthenobleprofessionoflaw.

xxxxxxxxx

RespondentstandsfoursquarethathisstatementisbornebyTRUTHandhasbeenassertedwithNOMALICEBEFOREANDAFTERTHOUGHTbutmainlymotivatedwiththehighestinterestofjusticethatin the particular case of our client, the members have shown callousness to our various pleas forJUSTICE,ourpleadingswillbearusonthismatter,...

xxxxxxxxx

To all these beggings, supplications, words of humility, appeals for charity, generosity, fairness,understanding,sympathyandaboveallinthehighestinterestofJUSTICE,whatdidwegetfromthisCOURT?Oneword,DENIED,with all its hardiness and insensibility. Thatwas the unfeeling of theCourttowardsourpleasandprayers,insimpleword,itisplaincallousnesstowardsourparticularcase.

xxxxxxxxx

Now that your respondent has the guts to tell the members of the Court that notwithstanding theviolationoftheConstitution,youremainedunpunished,thisCourtinthereverseorderofnaturalthings,isnowintheattempttoinflictpunishmentonyourrespondentforactshesaidingoodfaith.

Did His Honors care to listen to our pleadings and supplications for JUSTICE, CHARITY,GENEROSITY and FAIRNESS? Did His Honors attempt to justify their stubborn denial with anysemblance of reason, NEVER. Now that your respondent is given the opportunity to face you, hereiteratesthesamestatementwithemphasis,DIDYOU?Sir.Isthis.thewayoflifeinthePhilippinestoday,thatevenourownPresident,said:"thestoryiscurrent,thoughnebulous,istoitstruth,it isstill being circulated that justice in thePhilippines today is notwhat it is used tobebefore thewar.There are those who have told me frankly and brutally that justice is a commodity, a marketablecommodityinthePhilippines."

xxxxxxxxx

WecondemntheSIN,nottheSINNER.WedetesttheACTS,nottheACTOR.WeattackthedecisionofthisCourt,notthemembers....Wewereprovoked.Wewerecompelledbyforceofnecessity.Wewereangrybutwewaitedforthefinalityofthedecision.Wewaiteduntil thisCourthasperformeditsduties.Weneverinterferednorobstructintheperformanceoftheirduties.Butintheend,afterseeingthattheConstitutionhasplacedfinalityonyourjudgmentagainstourclientandsensingthatyouhavenot performed your duties with "circumspection, carefulness, confidence and wisdom", your

11/10/2015 G.R. No. L-27654


Respondent rise to claim hisGod given right to speak the truth and his Constitutional right of freespeech.

xxxxxxxxx

The INJUSTICESwhichwe have attributed to thisCourt and the further violationswe sought to bepreventedisimpliedlysharedbyourPresident.....

xxxxxxxxx

Whathasbeenabhoredandcondemned,are thevery things thatwereapplied tous.RecallingMadamRoland'sfamousapostropheduringtheFrenchrevolution,"OLiberty,whatcrimesarecommittedinthyname",wemaydaresay,"OJUSTICE,whattechnicalitiesarecommittedinthyname'ormoreappropriately,'OJUSTICE,whatinjusticesarecommittedinthyname."

xxxxxxxxx

WemustadmitthatthisCourtisnotfreefromcommissionofanyabuses,butwhowouldcorrectsuchabusesconsideringthatyoursisacourtoflastresort.Astrongpublicopinionmustbegeneratedsoastocurtailtheseabuses.

xxxxxxxxx

Thephrase,Justiceisblind issymbolize inpaintings thatcanbe found inallcourtsandgovernmentoffices.Wehaveaddedonlytwomoresymbols,thatitisalsodeafanddumb.Deafinthesensethatnomembers of this Court has ever heard our cries for charity, generosity, fairness, understandingsympathyandforjusticedumbinthesense,thatinspiteofourbeggings,supplications,andpleadingstogiveusreasonswhyourappealhasbeenDENIED,notonewordwasspokenorgiven...Werefertonohumandefectorailmentintheabovestatement.Weonlydescribethe. impersonalstateofthingsandnothingmore.

xxxxxxxxx

Aswehavestated,wehavelostourfaithandconfidenceinthemembersofthisCourtandforwhichreasonweofferedtosurrenderourlawyer'scertificate,INTRUSTONLY.Becausewhathasbeenlosttodaymay be regained tomorrow.As the offerwas intended as our selfimposed sacrifice, thenwealonemaydecideas towhenwemustendourselfsacrifice. Ifwehave tochoosebetween forcingourselvestohavefaithandconfidenceinthemembersoftheCourtbutdisregardourConstitutionandtouphold theConstitutionandbecondemnedby themembersof thisCourt, there isnochoice,wemustupholdthelatter.

Butoverlooking,forthenonce,thevituperativechaffwhichheclaimsisnotintendedasastudieddisrespecttothisCourt,letusexaminethegrainofhisgrievances.

Hechafesattheminuteresolutiondenialofhispetitionforreview.Wearequiteawareofthecriticisms2expressedagainstthisCourt'spracticeofrejectingpetitionsbyminuteresolutions.Wehavebeenaskedtodoawaywithit,tostatethefactsandthelaw,andtospelloutthereasonsfordenial.Wehavegiventhissuggestionverycarefulthought.Forweknowthe abject frustration of a lawyer who tediously collates the facts and for many weary hours meticulously marshalls hisarguments,onlytohavehiseffortsrebuffedwithaterseunadorneddenial.Truthtotell,however,mostpetitionsrejectedbythisCourtareutterlyfrivolousandoughtnevertohavebeenlodgedatall.3Therestdoexhibitafirstimpressioncogency,butfailto,withstandcriticalscrutiny.Byandlarge,thisCourthasbeengenerousingivingduecoursetopetitionsforcertiorari.

Be thisas itmay,werewe toaccepteverycaseorwritea fullopinion foreverypetitionwe reject,wewouldbeunabletocarryouteffectivelytheburdenplaceduponusbytheConstitution.TheproperroleoftheSupremeCourt,asMr.ChiefJusticeVinsonoftheU.S.SupremeCourthasdefinedit,istodecide"onlythosecaseswhichpresentquestions whose resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved."Pertinenthere is theobservationofMr.JusticeFrankfurter inMarylandvs.BaltimoreRadioShow,94L.ed562,566:

Avarietyofconsiderationsunderliedenialsof thewrit,andas to thesamepetitiondifferent reasonsmayreaddifferentjusticestothesameresult....

Sincetherearetheseconflicting,and,totheuninformed,evenconfusingreasonsfordenyingpetitionsforcertiorari, it has been suggested from time to time that theCourt indicate its reasons for denial.Practical considerations preclude. In order that the Court may be enabled to discharge itsindispensable duties, Congress has placed the control of the Court's business, in effect, within theCourt'sdiscretion.DuringthelastthreetermstheCourtdisposedof260,217,224cases,respectively,ontheirmerits.ForthesamethreetermstheCourtdenied,respectively,1,260,1,105,1,189petitionscallingfordiscretionaryreview. If theCourt is todo itswork itwouldnotbefeasible togivereasons,howeverbrief, for refusing to take thesecases.The tune thatwouldbe required isprohibitive.ApartfromthefactthatasalreadyindicateddifferentreasonsnotinfrequentlymovedifferentmembersoftheCourtinconcludingthataparticularcaseataparticulartimemakesreviewundesirable.

Sixyearsago, inNovino,etal.,vs.Court ofAppeals, et al., 1,21098,May31, 1963 (60O.G. 8099), thisCourt,

11/10/2015 G.R. No. L-27654


throughthethenChiefJusticeCesarBengzon,articulateditsconsideredviewonthismatter.There,thepetitionerscounsel urged that a "lack of merit" resolution violates Section 12 of Article VIII of the Constitution. Said ChiefJusticeBengzon:

Inconnectionwithidenticalshortresolutions,thesamequestionhasbeenraisedbeforeandweheldthat these "resolutions" arenot "decisions"within theabove constitutional requirement.Theymerelyhold that thepetition for reviewshouldnotbeentertained inviewof theprovisionsofRule46of theRulesofCourtandevenordinarylawyershaveallthistimesounderstoodit.Itshouldberememberedthat a petition to review the decision of theCourt of Appeals is not amatter of right, but of soundjudicialdiscretionandso there isnoneedto fullyexplain thecourt'sdenial.Forone thing, the factsandthelawarealreadymentionedintheCourtofAppeals'opinion.

By the way, this mode of disposal has as intended helped the Court in alleviating its heavydocketitwaspatternedafterthepracticeoftheU.S.SupremeCourt,whereinpetitionsforreviewareoftenmerelyordered"dismissed".

WeunderscorethefactthatcasestakentothisCourtonpetitionsforcertiorarifromtheCourtofAppealshavehadthebenefitofappellatereview.Hence,theneedforcompellingreasonstobuttresssuchpetitionsifthisCourtistobemovedintoacceptingthem.For it isaxiomaticthatthesupervisoryjurisdictionvesteduponthisCourtovertheCourtofAppealsisnotintendedtogiveeverylosingpartyanotherhearing.Thisaxiomisimpliedinsec.4ofRule45oftheRulesofCourtwhichrecites:

Review of Court of Appeals' decision discretionary.A review is not amatter of right but of soundjudicialdiscretion,andwillbegrantedonlywhentherearespecialandimportantreasonstherefor.Thefollowing,whileneithercontrollingnor fullymeasuring thecourt'sdiscretion, indicate thecharacterofreasonswhichwillbeconsidered:

(a)WhentheCourtofAppealshasdecidedaquestionofsubstance,nottheretoforedeterminedbytheSupremeCourt, nor has decided it in away probably not in accordwith law orwith the applicabledecisionsoftheSupremeCourt

(b)When theCourt of Appeals has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicialproceedings,orsofarsanctionedsuchdeparturebythelowercourt,astocallfortheexerciseofthepowerofsupervision.

RecallingAtty.Almacen'spetition for review,we found,upona thoroughgoingexaminationof thepleadings.andrecords,thattheCourtofAppealshadfullyandcorrectlyconsideredthedismissalofhisappealinthelightofthelawandapplicabledecisionsofthisCourt.Farfromstrayingawayfromthe"acceptedandusualcourseofjudicialproceedings,"ittracedtheprocedurallinesetchedbythisCourtinanumberofdecisions.Therewas,therefore,noneedforthisCourttoexerciseitssupervisorypower.

Asa lawpractitionerwhowasadmitted to theBaras farbackas1941,Atty.Almacenkneworought tohaveknownthatforamotionforreconsiderationtostaytherunningoftheperiodofappeal,themovantmustnotonlyserveacopyofthemotionupontheadverseparty(whichhedid),butalsonotifytheadversepartyofthetimeandplaceofhearing(whichadmittedlyhedidnot).ThisrulewasunequivocallyarticulatedinManilaSurety&Fidelityvs.BatuConstruction&Co.,supra:

ThewrittennoticereferredtoevidentlyisprescribedformotionsingeneralbyRule15,Sections4and5 (formerlyRule26),whichprovides that suchnoticeshall state the time,andplaceofhearingandshall be served upon all the Parties concerned at least three days in advance. And according toSection6of thesameRulenomotionshallbeacteduponbythecourtwithoutproofofsuchnotice.Indeed it has been held that in such a case the motion is nothing but a useless piece of paper(PhilippineNationalBankv.Damasco, I,18638,Feb.28,1963citingManakil v.Revilla,42Phil.81RomanCatholicBishopofLipav.MunicipalityofUnisan,41Phil.866andDirectorofLandsvs.Sanz,45Phil.117).Thereasonisobvious:UnlessthemovantsetsthetimeandplaceofhearingtheCourtwould have no way to determine whether that party agrees to or objects to the motion, and if heobjects,tohearhimonhisobjection,sincetheRulesthemselvesdonotfixanyperiodwithinwhichhemayfilehisreplyoropposition.

If Atty. Almacen failed tomove the appellate court to review the lower court's judgment, he has only himself toblame.Hisownnegligencecausedtheforfeitureoftheremedyofappeal,which,incidentally,isnotamatterofright.Toshiftawayfromhimselftheconsequencesofhiscarelessness,helookedfora"whippingboy."Buthemadesurethatheassumedthepostureofamartyr,and,inofferingtosurrenderhisprofessionalcertificate,hetookthelibertyofvilifyingthisCourtandinflictinghisexacerbatingrancoronthemembersthereof.Itwouldthusappearthatthereisnojustificationforhisscurrilousandscandalousoutbursts.

NonethelesswegavethisunprecedentedactofAtty.Almacenthemostcircumspectconsideration.Weknowthatitis natural for a lawyer to express his dissatisfaction each time he loses what he sanguinely believes to be ameritoriouscase.Thatiswhylawyersaregiven'widelatitudetodifferwith,andvoicetheirdisapprovalof,notonlythecourts'rulingsbut,alsothemannerinwhichtheyarehandeddown.

Moreover,everycitizenhastherighttocommentuponandcriticizetheactuationsofpublicofficers.Thisrightisnotdiminishedbythefactthatthecriticismisaimedatajudicialauthority,4orthatitisarticulatedbyalawyer.5Suchright

11/10/2015 G.R. No. L-27654


isespeciallyrecognizedwherethecriticismconcernsaconcludedlitigation,6becausethenthecourt'sactuationsarethrownopentopublicconsumption.7"Ourdecisionsandallourofficialactions,"saidtheSupremeCourtofNebraska,8"arepublicproperty,andthepressandthepeoplehavetheundoubtedrighttocommentonthem,criticizeandcensurethemastheyseefit.Judicialofficers,likeotherpublicservants,mustanswerfortheirofficialactionsbeforethechanceryofpublicopinion."

Thelikelydangerofconfusingthefuryofhumanreactiontoanattackonone'sintegrity,competenceandhonesty,with "imminent danger to the administration of justice," is the reason why courts have been loath to inflictpunishmentonthosewhoassailtheiractuations.9ThisdangerlurksespeciallyinsuchacaseasthiswherethosewhoSitasmembersofanentireCourtarethemselvescollectivelytheaggrievedparties.

Courtsthustreatwithforbearanceandrestraintalawyerwhovigorouslyassailstheiractuations.10Forcourageousandfearlessadvocatesarethestrandsthatweavedurabilityintothetapestryofjustice.Hence,ascitizenandofficerofthecourt,everylawyerisexpectednotonlytoexercisetheright,butalsotoconsiderithisdutytoexposetheshortcomingsandindiscretionsofcourtsandjudges.11

Courtsandjudgesarenotsacrosanct.12Theyshouldandexpectcriticalevaluationoftheirperformance.13Forliketheexecutive and the legislative branches, the judiciary is rooted in the soil of democratic society, nourishedby theperiodicappraisalofthecitizenswhomitisexpectedtoserve.

Wellrecognized therefore is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, to criticize inproperlyrespectfultermsandthroughlegitimatechannelstheactsofcourtsandjudges.Thereasonisthat

Anattorneydoesnotsurrender,inassumingtheimportantplaceaccordedtohimintheadministrationof justice,hisrightasacitizentocriticizethedecisionsofthecourts inafairandrespectfulmanner,and the independence of the bar, as well as of the judiciary, has always been encouraged by thecourts.(InreAdes,6FSupp.487).

Criticismofthecourtshas, indeed,beenanimportantpartof thetraditionalworkofthebar. Intheprosecutionofappeals,hepointsouttheerrorsoflowercourts.Inwrittenforlawjournalshedissectswithdetachmentthedoctrinalpronouncementsofcourtsandfearlesslylaysbareforalltoseethatflawsandinconsistence"ofthedoctrines(Hillv.Lyman,126NYS2d286).AsaptlystatedbyChiefJusticeSharswoodinExParteSteinman,40Am.Rep.641:

Noclassofthecommunityoughttobeallowedfreerscopeintheexpansionorpublicationofopinionsas to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges thanmembers of the bar. They have the bestopportunities forobservingand forminga correct judgment.Theyare in constantattendanceon thecourts. ...Tosay thatanattorneycanonlyactorspeakon thissubjectunder liability tobecalled toaccount and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood, by the judge or judgeswhom hemayconsiderithisdutytoattackandexpose,isapositiontoomonstroustobeentertained.....

Hence, as a citizen and as Officer of the court a lawyer is expected not only to exercise the right, but also toconsiderithisdutytoavailofsuchright.Nolawmayabridgethisright.Norishe"professionallyanswerableforascrutiny into theofficial conductof the judges,whichwouldnotexposehim to legalanimadversionasacitizen."(CaseofAustin,28Am.Dee.657,665).

Aboveallothers, themembersof thebarhave thebeatOpportunity tobecomeconversantwith thecharacterandefficiencyofourjudges.Noclassislesslikelytoabusetheprivilege,asnootherclasshasasgreataninterestinthepreservationofanableanduprightbench.(StateBoardofExaminersinLawv.Hart,116N.W.212,216)

Tocurtailtherightofalawyertobecriticalofthefoiblesofcourtsandjudgesistosealthelipsofthoseinthebestpositiontogiveadviceandwhomightconsiderittheirdutytospeakdisparagingly."Undersucharule,"sofarasthebar isconcerned, "themeritsofasitting judgemayberehearsed,butas tohisdemerits theremustbeprofoundsilence."(Statev.CircuitCourt,72N.W.196)

But it is the cardinal conditionof all such criticism that it shall bebonafide, and shall not spill over thewalls ofdecencyandpropriety.Awide chasmexists between fair criticism, on theOnehand, andabuseand slander ofcourts and the judges thereof, on the other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty ofrespecttocourts.ItisSuchamisconductthatsubjectsalawyertodisciplinaryaction.

For,membershipintheBarimposesuponapersonobligationsanddutieswhicharenotmerefluxandferment.Hisinvestiture into the legal profession places upon his shoulders no burdenmore basic, more exacting andmoreimperative thanthatof respectfulbehavior toward thecourts.Hevowssolemnly toconducthimself "withallgoodfidelity...tothecourts14andtheRulesofCourtconstantlyremindhim"toobserveandmaintaintherespectduetocourtsof justiceand judicialofficers."15 The first canonof legal ethicsenjoinshim "tomaintain towards thecourtsa respectfulattitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supremeimportance."

AsMr.JusticeFieldputsit:

... the obligationwhich attorneys impliedly assume, if they do not by express declaration take uponthemselves,when theyareadmitted to theBar, isnotmerely tobeobedient to theConstitutionandlaws,buttomaintainatalltimestherespectduetocourtsofjusticeandjudicialofficers.Thisobligation

11/10/2015 G.R. No. L-27654


is not discharged bymerely observing the rules of courteous demeanor in open court, but includesabstainingoutofcourtfromall insultinglanguageandoffensiveconducttowardjudgespersonallyfortheirjudicialacts.(Bradley,v.Fisher,20Law.4d.647,652)

Thelawyer'sdutytorenderrespectfulsubordinationtothecourtsisessentialtotheorderlyadministrationofjustice.Hence,intheassertionoftheirclients'rights,lawyerseventhosegiftedwithsuperiorintellectareenjoinedtoreinuptheirtempers.

Thecounselinanycasemayormaynotbeanablerormorelearnedlawyerthanthejudge,anditmaytaxhispatienceandtempertosubmittorulingswhichheregardsasincorrect,butdisciplineandselfrespectareasnecessarytotheorderlyadministrationofjusticeastheyaretotheeffectivenessofanarmy.Thedecisionsofthejudgemustbeobeyed,becauseheisthetribunalappointedtodecide,andthebarshouldatalltimesbetheforemostinrenderingrespectfulsubmission.(InReScouten,40Atl.481)

WeconcedethatalawyermaythinkhighlyofhisintellectualendowmentThatishisprivilege.Andhemaysufferfrustrationatwhathefeelsisothers'lackofit.Thatishismisfortune.Somesuchframeofmind,however,shouldnotbeallowedtohardenintoabeliefthathemayattackacourt'sdecisioninwordscalculatedtojettisonthetimehonoredaphorismthatcourtsarethetemplesofright.(PerJusticeSanchezinRheemofthePhilippinesvs.Ferrer,L22979.June26,1967)

Inhisrelationswiththecourts,a lawyermaynotdividehispersonalitysoastobeanattorneyatonetimeandamerecitizenatanother.Thus,statementsmadebyanattorneyinprivateconversationsorcommunications16orinthecourseofapolitical,campaign,17ifcouchedininsultinglanguageastobringintoscornanddisreputetheadministrationofjustice,maysubjecttheattorneytodisciplinaryaction.

Offundamentalpertinenceatthisjunctureisanexaminationofrelevantparallelprecedents.

1.Admittingthata"judgeasapublicofficial isneithersacrosanctnor immunetopubliccriticismofhisconduct inoffice," theSupremeCourtofFlorida inStatev.Calhoon, 102So.2d604, 608, neverthelessdeclared that "anyconductofalawyerwhichbringsintoscornanddisreputetheadministrationofjusticedemandscondemnationandtheapplicationofappropriatepenalties,"addingthat:

Itwouldbecontrary to,everydemocratic theory tohold thata judgeoracourt isbeyondbona fidecommentsandcriticismswhichdonotexceedtheboundsofdecencyandtruthorwhicharenotaimedat. the destruction of public confidence in the judicial system as such. However, when the likelyimpairmentoftheadministrationofjusticethedirectproductoffalseandscandalousaccusationsthentheruleisotherwise.

2.In InReGlenn, 130N.W.2d672,anattorneywassuspended for puttingout andcirculatinga leaflet entitled"JUSTICE??? IN OTUMWA," which accused a municipal judge of having committed judicial error, of being soprejudicedastodenyhisclientsafairtrialonappealandofbeingsubjecttothecontrolofagroupofcityofficials.Asaprefatorystatementhewrote:"TheysaythatJusticeisBLIND,butittookMunicipalJudgeWillardtoprovethatitisalsoDEAFandDUMB!"Thecourtdidnothesitatetofindthattheleafletwentmuchfurtherthantheaccused,asalawyer,hadarighttodo.

TheentirepublicationevidencesadesireonthepartOftheaccusedtobelittleandbesmirchthecourtandtobringitintodisreputewiththegeneralpublic.

3.InInReHumphrey,163Pac.60,theSupremeCourtofCaliforniaaffirmedthetwoyearsuspensionofanattorneywhopublishedacircularassailingajudgewhoatthattimewasacandidateforreelectiontoajudicialoffice.Thecircularwhich referred to twodecisionsof the judgeconcludedwithastatement that the judge "usedhis judicialofficetoenablesaidbanktokeepthatmoney."Saidthecourt:

Weareawarethatthereisalineofauthoritieswhichplacenolimittothecriticismmembersofthebarmaymakeregardingthecapacity,impartiality,orintegrityofthecourts,eventhoughitextendstothedeliberatepublicationbytheattorneycapableofcorrectreasoningofbaselessinsinuationsagainsttheintelligenceand integrityof thehighestcourts.SeeStateBoard,etc.v.Hart.116N.W.212,17LRA(N.S.)585,15AnnCas197andnote:ExparteSteinman95Pac.220,40Am.Rep.637.Inthefirstcasementioneditwasobserved,forinstance:

"It may be (although we do not so decide) that a libelous publication by an attorney,directedagainsta judicialofficer,couldbesovileandofsuchanatureas to justify thedisbarmentofitsauthor."

Yetthefalsechargesmadebyanattorneyinthatcasewereofgravercharacterthanthosemadebytherespondenthere.But,inourview,thebetterruleisthatwhichrequiresofthosewhoarepermittedtoenjoy theprivilegeofpracticing law thestrictestobservanceatall timesof theprinciplesof truth,honestyandfairness,especiallyintheircriticismofthecourts,totheendthatthepublicconfidenceinthedueadministrationofjusticebeupheld,andthedignityandusefulnessofthecourtsbemaintained.InreCollins,81Pac.220.

4.InPeopleexrelChicagoBarAsso.v.Metzen,123N.E.734,anattorney,representingawomanwhohadbeengrantedadivorce,attackedthejudgewhosetasidethedecreeonbillofreview.Hewrotethejudgeathreatening

11/10/2015 G.R. No. L-27654


letterandgavethepressthestoryofaproposedlibelsuitagainstthejudgeandothers.Theletterbegan:

Unlesstherecord inInrePetersenv.Petersen isclearedupso thatmyname isprotected fromthelibel, lies,andperjurycommitted in thecases involved, Ishallbecompelled to resort tosuchdrasticactionasthelawallowsandthecasewarrants.

Further,hesaid:"HoweverletmeassureyouIdonotintendtoallowsuchdastardlyworktogounchallenged,"andsaid that he was engaged in dealing withmen and not irresponsible political manikins or appearances ofmen.Orderingtheattorney'sdisbarment,theSupremeCourtofIllinoisdeclared:

... Judges are not exempt from just criticism, and whenever there is proper ground for seriouscomplaintagainsta judge, it is the rightanddutyofa lawyer tosubmithisgrievances to theproperauthorities,butthepublicinterestandtheadministrationofthelawdemandthatthecourtsshouldhavetheconfidenceandrespectof thepeople.Unjustcriticism, insulting language,andoffensiveconducttowardthejudgespersonallybyattorneys,whoareofficersofthecourt,whichtendtobringthecourtsandthelawintodisreputeandtodestroypublicconfidenceintheirintegrity,cannotbepermitted.Theletterwritten to the judgewasplainly anattempt to intimidateand influencehim in thedischargeofjudicial functions,and thebringingof theunauthorizedsuit, togetherwith thewriteup in theSundaypapers,wasintendedandcalculatedtobringthecourtintodisreputewiththepublic.

5.Inapublicspeech,aRhodeIslandlawyeraccusedthecourtsofthestateofbeinginfluencedbycorruptionandgreed,sayingthattheseatsoftheSupremeCourtwerebartered.Itdoesnotappearthattheattorneyhadcriticizedany of the opinions or decisions of the Court. The lawyer was charged with unprofessional conduct, and wasorderedsuspendedforaperiodoftwoyears.TheCourtsaid:

Acalumnyofthatcharacter,ifbelieved,wouldtendtoweakentheauthorityofthecourtagainstwhosemembers it was made, bring its judgments into contempt, undermine its influence as an unbiasedarbiterofthepeople'sright,andinterferewiththeadministrationofjustice....

Becauseamanisamemberofthebarthecourtwillnot,undertheguiseofdisciplinaryproceedings,deprive him of any part of that freedom of speech which he possesses as a citizen. The acts anddecisionsof the courtsof this state, in cases that have reached final determination, arenot exemptfrom fair and honest comment and criticism. It is only when an attorney transcends the limits oflegitimate criticism that he will be held responsible for an abuse of his liberty of speech. We wellunderstandthatanindependentbar,aswellasindependentcourt,isalwaysavigilantdefenderofcivilrights.InReTroy,111Atl.723.725.

6.InInReRockmore,111NYS879,anattorneywassuspendedforsixmonthsforsubmittingtoanappellatecourtanaffidavitreflectinguponthejudicialintegrityofthecourtfromwhichtheappealwastaken.Suchaction,theCourtsaid,constitutesunprofessionalconductjustifyingsuspensionfrompractice,notwithstandingthathefullyretractedand withdrew the statements, and asserted that the affidavit was the result of an impulse caused by what heconsideredgraveinjustice.TheCourtsaid:

Wecannot shut oureyes to the fact that there is agrowinghabit in theprofessionof criticising themotivesand integrityof judicialofficers in thedischargeof theirduties,and therebyreflectingon theadministration of justice and creating the impression that judicial action is influenced by corrupt orimpropermotives.Everyattorneyofthiscourt,aswellaseveryothercitizen,hastherightanditishisduty, tosubmitcharges to theauthorities inwhomisvested thepower to remove judicialofficers foranyconductoractofa judicialofficer that tendstoshowaviolationofhisduties,orwould justifyaninferencethatheisfalsetohistrust,orhasimproperlyadministeredthedutiesdevolveduponhimandsuchchargestothetribunal,ifbaseduponreasonableinferences,willbeencouraged,andthepersonmakingthemprotected....Whilewerecognizetheinherentrightofanattorneyinacasedecidedagainsthim,ortherightofthePublicgenerally,tocriticisethedecisionsofthecourts,orthereasonsannouncedforthem,thehabitofcriticisingthemotivesofjudicialofficersintheperformanceoftheirofficialduties,whentheproceeding is not against the officers whose acts or motives are criticised, tends to subvert theconfidenceofthecommunityinthecourtsofjusticeandintheadministrationofjusticeandwhensuchchargesaremadebyofficersofthecourts,whoareboundbytheirdutytoprotecttheadministrationofjustice,theattorneymakingsuchchargesisguiltyofprofessionalmisconduct.

7.InInReMitchell,71So.467,alawyerpublishedthisstatement:

Iacceptedthedecisioninthiscase,however,withpatience,barringpossibletemporaryobservationsmoreorlessvituperativeandfinallyconcluded,that,asmyclientswereforeigners,itmighthavebeenexpectingtoomuchtolookforadecisionintheirfavoragainstawidowresidinghere.

TheSupremeCourtofAlabamadeclaredthat:

... theexpressionsabovesetout,notonlytranscendtheboundsofproprietyandprivilegedcriticism,butareanunwarrantedattack,direct,orbyinsinuationandinnuendo,uponthemotivesandintegrityofthiscourt,andmakeoutaprimafaciecaseofimproperconductuponthepartofalawyerwhoholdsalicensefromthiscourtandwho isunderoathtodemeanhimselfwithallgoodfidelity to thecourtaswellastohisclient.

11/10/2015 G.R. No. L-27654


Thecharges,however,weredismissedaftertheattorneyapologizedtotheCourt.

8.InStateexrel.Dabneyv.Breckenridge,258Pac.747,anattorneypublishedinanewspaperanarticleinwhichheimpugnedthemotivesofthecourtanditsmemberstotryacase,chargingthecourtofhavingarbitrarilyandforasinister purpose undertaken to suspend thewrit ofhabeas corpus. TheCourt suspended the respondent for 30days,sayingthat:

Theprivilegeswhichthelawgivestomembersofthebarisonemostsubversiveofthepublicgood,iftheconductofsuchmembersdoesnotmeasureuptotherequirementsofthelawitself,aswellastotheethicsoftheprofession....

Therightoffreespeechandfreediscussionastojudicialdeterminationisofprimeimportanceunderoursystemandidealsofgovernment.Norightthinkingmanwouldconcedeforamomentthatthebestinterest to private citizens, as well as to public officials, whether he labors in a judicial capacity orotherwise,wouldbeservedbydenyingthisrightoffreespeechtoanyindividual.Butsuchrightdoesnothaveas itscorollary thatmembersof thebarwhoaresworn toacthonestlyandhonorablybothwith their client andwith the courts where justice is administered, if administered at all, could everproperlyservetheirclientorthepublicgoodbydesignedlymisstatingfactsorcarelesslyassertingthelaw.Truthandhonestyofpurposebymembersofthebarinsuchdiscussionisnecessary.Thehealthofamunicipalityisnonethelessimpairedbyapollutedwatersupplythanisthehealthofthethoughtofacommunitytowardthejudiciarybythefilthywanton,andmalignantmisuseofmembersofthebaroftheconfidencethepublic,throughitsdulyestablishedcourts,hasreposedinthemtodealwiththeaffairs of the private individual, the protection of whose rights he lends his strength and money tomaintainthejudiciary.Forsuchconductonthepartofthemembersofthebarthelawitselfdemandsretributionnotthecourt.

9. InBarAss'nofSanFranciscov.Philbrook,170Pac.440, the filingofanaffidavitbyanattorney inapendingaction using in respect to the several judges the terms criminal corrupt, and wicked conspiracies,," "criminalconfederates,""colossalandconfidentinsolence,""criminalprosecution,""calculatedbrutality,""acorruptdeadfall,"and similar phrases, was considered conduct unbecoming of amember of the bar, and the name of the erringlawyerwasorderedstrickenfromtherollofattorneys.

10.InStateBoardofExaminersv.Hart,116N.W.215,theerringattorneyclaimedthatgreaterlatitudeshouldbeallowedincaseofcriticismofcasesfinallyadjudicatedthaninthosepending.ThislawyerwroteapersonallettertotheChiefJusticeof theSupremeCourtofMinnesota impugningboth the intelligenceandthe integrityof thesaidChiefJusticeandhisassociatesinthedecisionsofcertainappealsinwhichhehadbeenattorneyforthedefeatedlitigants.Theletterswerepublishedinanewspaper.Oneoftheletterscontainedthisparagraph:

You assigned it (the property involved) to one who has no better right to it than the burglar to hisplunder.Itseemslikerobbingawidowtorewardafraud,withthecourtactingasafence,orumpire,watchfulandvigilantthatthewidowgotnoundueadvantage....Thepointisthis:Isapropermotiveforthedecisionsdiscoverable,shortofassigningtothecourtemasculated intelligence,oraconstipationofmoralsandfaithlessnesstoduty?If thestatebarassociation,oracommitteechosenfromitsrank,orthefacultyoftheUniversityLawSchool,aidedbytheresearchesofitshundredsofbright,activestudents,orifanymemberofthecourt,oranyotherperson, can formulate a statement of a correct motive for the decision, which shall not requirefumigationbeforeitisstated,andquarantineafteritismade,itwillgratifyeveryrightmindedcitizenofthestatetoreadit.

TheSupremeCourtofMinnesota,inorderingthesuspensionoftheattorneyforsixmonths,delivereditsopinionasfollows:

The question remainswhether the accusedwas guilty of professionalmisconduct in sending to theChiefJustice the letteraddressed tohim.Thiswasdone,aswehave found, for theverypurposeofinsultinghimand theother justicesof this court and the insultwassodirected to theChief Justicepersonally because of acts done by him and his associates in their official capacity. Such acommunication,somade,couldneversubserveanygoodpurpose.Itsonlyeffectinanycasewouldbetogratifythespiteofanangryattorneyandhumiliatetheofficerssoassailed.Itwouldnotandcouldnoteverenlightenthepublic inregardtotheir judicialcapacityor integrity.Norwasitanexercisebytheaccusedofanyconstitutional right,orofanyprivilegewhichany reputableattorney,uninfluencedbypassion,couldeverhaveanyoccasionordesire toassert.No judicialofficer,withdue regard tohisposition,canresentsuchaninsultotherwisethanbymethodssanctionedbylawandforanywords,oralorwritten,howeverabusive,vile,orindecent,addressedsecretlytothejudgealone,hecanhavenoredressinanyactiontriablebyajury."Thesendingofalibelouscommunicationorlibelousmattertothepersondefameddoesnotconstituteanactionablepublication."18Am.&Eng.Enc.Law(2dEd.)p.1017. In these respects thesendingby theaccusedof this letter to theChief Justicewaswhollydifferentfromhisotheractschargedintheaccusation,and,aswehavesaid,whollydifferentprinciplesareapplicablethereto.

Theconductoftheaccusedwasineverywaydiscreditablebutsofarasheexercisedtherightsofacitizen, guaranteed by the Constitution and sanctioned by considerations of public policy, to whichreferencehasbeenmade,hewasimmune,aswehold,fromthepenaltyheresoughttobeenforced.To thatextenthis rightsasacitizenwereparamount to theobligationwhichhehadassumedasan

11/10/2015 G.R. No. L-27654


officerof thiscourt.When,howeverheproceededandthusassailedtheChiefJusticepersonally,heexercisednorightwhichthecourtcanrecognize,but,onthecontrary,willfullyviolatedhisobligationtomaintain the respectdue to courtsand judicial officers. "Thisobligation isnotdischargedbymerelyobservingtherulesofcourteousdemeanorinopencourt,butitincludesabstainingoutofcourtfromallinsultinglanguageandoffensiveconducttowardthejudgespersonallyfortheirofficialacts."Bradleyv.Fisher, 13Wall. (U.S.) 355, 20 L. Ed. 646. And there appears to be no distinction, as regards theprinciple involved, between the indignity of an assault by an attorney upon a judge, induced by hisofficialact,andapersonalinsultforlikecausebywrittenorspokenwordsaddressedtothejudgeinhischambersorathishomeorelsewhere.Eitheractconstitutesmisconductwhollydifferentfromcriticismofjudicialactsaddressedorspokentoothers.Thedistinctionmadeis,wethinkentirelylogicalandwellsustainedbyauthority. Itwasrecognized inExparteMcLeodsupra.While thecourt in thatcase,ashasbeenshown,fullysustainedtherightofacitizentocriticiserulingsofthecourtinactionswhichareended, it held that onemight be summarily punished for assaulting a judicial officer, in that case acommissioner of the court, for his rulings in a cause wholly concluded. "Is it in the power of anyperson,"saidthecourt,"byinsultingorassaultingthejudgebecauseofofficialacts,ifonlytheassailantrestrainshispassionuntil the judge leaves thebuilding, tocompel the judge to forfeiteitherhisownselfrespect to the regard of the people by tame submission to the indignity, or else set in his ownpersontheevilexampleofpunishingtheinsultbytakingthelawinhisownhands?...Nohighminded,manlymanwouldholdjudicialofficeundersuchconditions."

That a communication such as this, addressed to the Judge personally, constitutes professionaldelinquency for which a professional punishment may be imposed, has been directly decided. "Anattorneywho,afterbeingdefeatedinacase,wroteapersonallettertothetrialjustice,complainingofhisconductandreflectinguponhisintegrityasajustice,isguiltyofmisconductandwillbedisciplinedbythecourt."MatterofManheim133App.Div.136,99N.Y.Supp.87ThesameisheldinReGriffin(CityCt.)1N.Y.7and inReWilkes(CityCt.)3N.Y. In the lattercase itappeared that theaccusedattorneyhadaddressedasealedlettertoajusticeoftheCityCourtofNewYork,inwhichitwasstated,inreferencetohisdecision:"Itisnotlawneitherisitcommonsense.TheresultisIhavebeenrobbedof80."And itwasdecided that,whilesuchconductwasnotacontemptunder thestate, themattershouldbe"called to theattentionof theSupremeCourt,whichhaspower todiscipline theattorney.""If,"saysthecourt,"counsellearnedinthelawarepermittedbywritingsleveledattheheadsofjudges,to charge them with ignorance, with unjust rulings, and with robbery, either as principals oraccessories, itwillnotbelongbeforethegeneralpublicmayfeelthattheymayredresstheirfanciedgrievances in like manner, and thus the lot of a judge will be anything but a happy one, and theadministrationofjusticewillfallintobadrepute."

TherecentcaseofJohnsonv.State(Ala.)44South.671,wasinthisrespectmuchthesameasthecaseatbar.Theaccused,anattorneyatlaw,wroteandmailedalettertothecircuitjudge,whichthelatter received by due course of mail, at his home, while not holding court, and which referred ininsulting terms to the conduct of the judge in a cause wherein the accused had been one of theattorneys. For this it was held that the attorney was rightly disbarred in having "willfully failed tomaintain respect due to him [the judge] as a judicial officer, and thereby breached his oath as anattorney."Asrecognizingthesameprinciple,andinsupportofitsapplicationtothefactsofthiscase,wecitethefollowing:ExparteBradley,7Wall(U.S.)364,19L.Ed.214Beenev.State,22Ark.149Commonwealthv.Dandridge,2Va.Cas.408Peoplev.Green,7Colo237,244,3Pac.65,374,49Am.Rep.351Smith'sAppeal,179Pa.14,36Atl.134Scouten'sAppeal,186Pa.270,Atl.481.

Ourconclusionisthatthechargesagainsttheaccusedhavebeensofarsustainedastomakeitourdutytoimposesuchapenaltyasmaybesufficientlessontohimandasuitablewarningtoothers....

11.InCobbv.UnitedStates,172F.641,thecourtaffirmedalawyer'ssuspensionfor18monthsforpublishingaletterinanewspaperinwhichheaccusedajudgeofbeingunderthesinisterinfluenceofagangthathadparalyzedhimfortwoyears.

12.InInReGraves,221Pac.411,thecourtheldthatanattorney'sunjustifiableattackagainsttheofficialactsanddecisionsofajudgeconstitutes"moralturpitude."There,theattorneywasdisbarredforcriticisingnotonlythejudge,buthisdecisionsingeneralclaimingthatthejudgewasdishonestinreachinghisdecisionsandunfairinhisgeneralconductofacase.

13.InInReDoss,12N.E.2d659,anattorneypublishednewspaperarticlesafterthetrialofcases,criticising thecourtinintemperatelanguage.Theinvariableeffectofthissortofpropaganda,saidthecourt,istobreeddisrespectforcourtsandbringthelegalprofessionintodisreputewiththepublic,forwhichreasonthelawyerwasdisbarred.

14.InStatev.Grimes,354Pac.2d108,anattorney,dissatisfiedwiththelossofacase,preparedoveraperiodofyears viciousattackson jurists.TheOklahomaSupremeCourt declared that hisacts involvedsuchgrossmoralturpitudeastomakehimunfitasamemberofthebar.Hisdisbarmentwasordered,eventhoughheexpressedanintentiontoresignfromthebar.

Theteachingderivedfromtheabovedisquisitionandimpressiveaffluenceofjudicialpronouncementsisindubitable:Postlitigationutterancesorpublications,madebylawyers,criticalofthecourtsandtheirjudicialactuations,whetheramountingtoacrimeornot,whichtranscendthepermissibleboundsoffaircommentandlegitimatecriticismandthereby tend to bring them into disrepute or to subvert public confidence in their integrity and in the orderlyadministrationof justice, constitutegraveprofessionalmisconductwhichmaybevisitedwithdisbarmentorother

11/10/2015 G.R. No. L-27654


lesserappropriatedisciplinarysanctionsbytheSupremeCourtintheexerciseoftheprerogativesinherentinitasthedulyconstitutedguardianofthemoralsandethicsofthelegalfraternity.

Ofcourse,rarelyhavewewieldedourdisciplinarypowersinthefaceofunwarrantedoutburstsofcounselsuchasthosecatalogued in theabovecited jurisprudence.Casesofcomparablenaturehavegenerallybeendisposedofunderthepowerofcourtstopunishforcontemptwhich,althoughrestingondifferentbasesandcalculatedtoattainadifferentend,neverthelessillustratesthatuniversalabhorrenceofsuchcondemnablepractices.

Aperusalofthemorerepresentativeoftheseinstancesmayaffordenlightenment.

1.InSalcedovs.Hernandez,61Phil.724,wherecounselbrandedthedenialofhismotionforreconsiderationas"absolutelyerroneousandconstitutinganoutragetotherigthsofthepetitionerFelipeSalcedoandamockeryofthepopularwillexpressedatthepolls,"thisCourt,althoughconcedingthat

It isrightandplausiblethatanattorney, indefendingthecauseandrightsofhisclient,shoulddosowith all the fervor and energy of which he is capable, but it is not, and neverwill be so for him toexercisesaidrightbyresortingtointimidationorproceedingwithouttheproprietyandrespectwhichthedignityofthecourtsrequires.Thereasonforthisisthatrespectforthecourtsguaranteesthestabilityoftheirinstitution.Withoutsuchguaranty,saidinstitutionwouldberestingonaveryshakyfoundation,

foundcounselguiltyofcontemptinasmuchas,initsopinion,thestatementsmadedisclosed

... an inexcusable disrespect of the authority of the court and an intentional contempt of its dignity,becausethecourtistherebychargedwithnolessthanhavingproceededinutterdisregardofthelaws,the rights to the parties, and 'of the untoward consequences, or with having abused its power andmockedandfloutedtherightsofAttorneyVicenteJ.Francisco'sclient....

2. In In re Sotto, 82 Phil. 595, counsel, a senator and the author of the Press Freedom Law, reaching to, theimprisonment forcontemptofoneAngelParazo,who, invokingsaid law,refusedtodivulgethesourceofanewsitemcarriedinhispaper,causedtobepublishedin i localnewspaperastatementexpressinghisregret"thatourHigh Tribunal has not only erroneously interpreted said law, but it is once more putting in evidence theincompetencyornarrowmindednessof themajorityof itsmembers,"andhisbelief that "In thewakeofsomanyblundersandinjusticesdeliberatelycommittedduringtheselastyears,...theonlyremedytoputanendtogomuchevil, istochangethemembersoftheSupremeCourt,"whichtribunalhedenouncedas"aconstantperiltolibertyand democracy" and "a far cry from the impregnable bulwark of justice of thosememorable times of CayetanoArellano,VictorinoMapa,ManuelAraulloandotherlearnedjuristswhowerethehonorandgloryofthePhilippineJudiciary."HetherealsoannouncedthatoneofthefirstmeasureshewouldintroduceinthenforthcomingsessionofCongresswouldhaveforitsobjectthecompletereorganizationoftheSupremeCourt.Findinghimincontempt,despitehisavowalsofgoodfaithandhisinvocationoftheguaranteeoffreespeech,thisCourtdeclared:

But in the abovequoted written statement which he caused to be published in the press, therespondentdoesnotmerelycriticizeorcommentonthedecisionoftheParazocase,whichwasthenandstill ispendingconsiderationby thisCourtuponpetitionofAngelParazo.Henotonly intendstointimidatethemembersofthisCourtwiththepresentationofabillinthenextCongress,ofwhichheisone of the members, reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing the number of Justices fromeleven,soastochangethemembersofthisCourtwhichdecidedtheParazocase,whoaccordingtohisstatement,areincompetentandnarrowminded,inordertoinfluencethefinaldecisionofsaidcaseby thisCourt, and thus embarrass or obstruct the administration of justice.But the respondent alsoattacksthehonestyandintegrityofthisCourtfortheapparentpurposeofbringingtheJusticesofthisCourtintodisreputeanddegradingtheadministration.ofjustice....

Tohurl the falsecharge that thisCourthasbeen for the lastyearscommittingdeliberatelysomanyblundersandinjustices,thatistosay,thatithasbeendecidinginfavorofQuepartyknowingthatthelawandjusticeisonthepartoftheadversepartyandnotontheoneinwhosefavorthedecisionwasrendered, in many cases decided during the last years, would tend necessarily to undermine theconfidenceofthepeopleinthehonestyandintegrityofthemembersofthisCourt,andconsequentlytolower,ordegradetheadministrationofjusticebythisCourt.TheSupremeCourtofthePhilippinesis,undertheConstitution,thelastbulwarktowhichtheFilipinopeoplemayrepairtoobtainrelieffortheirgrievances or protection of their rights when these are trampled upon, and if the people lose theirconfidence in the honesty and integrity of the members of this Court and believe that they cannotexpect justicetherefrom,theymightbedriventotakethelawintotheirownhands,anddisorderandperhapschaosmightbetheresult.Asamemberofthebarandanofficerofthecourts,Atty.VicenteSotto,likeanyother,isindutyboundtoupholdthedignityandauthorityofthisCourt,towhichheowesfidelity according to the oath he has taken as such attorney, and not to promote distrust in theadministration of justice. Respect to the courts guarantees the stability of other institutions, whichwithoutsuchguarantywouldberestingonaveryshakyfoundation.

Significantly,too,theCourtthereinhastenedtoemphasizethat

...anattorneyasanofficerofthecourtisunderspecialobligationtoberespectfulinhisconductandcommunicationtothecourtshemayberemovedfromofficeorstrickenfromtherollofattorneysasbeingguiltyofflagrantmisconduct(17L.R.A.[N.S.],586,594.)

3. InRheem of the Philippines vs. Ferrer: In re Proceedings against Alfonso Ponce Enrile, et al., supra, where

11/10/2015 G.R. No. L-27654


counsel charged this Court with having "repeatedly fallen" into ,the pitfall of blindly adhering to its previous"erroneous" pronouncements, "in disregard of the law on jurisdiction" of the Court of Industrial Relations, ourcondemnation of counsel's misconduct was unequivocal. Articulating the sentiments of the Court, Mr. JusticeSanchezstressed:

As we look back at the language (heretofore quoted) employed in the motion for reconsideration,implicationstherearewhichinescapablyarrestattention.Itspeaksofonepitfall intowhichthisCourthasrepeatedlyfallenwheneverthejurisdictionoftheCourtofIndustrialRelationscomesintoquestion.Thatpitfall isthetendencyofthisCourttorelyonitsownpronouncements indisregardofthelawonjurisdiction.ItmakesasweepingchargethatthedecisionsofthisCourt,blindlyadheretoearlierrulingswithout as much as making any reference to and analysis of the pertinent statute governing thejurisdictionoftheindustrialcourt.TheplainimportofalltheseisthatthisCourtissopatentlyineptthatindeterminingthejurisdictionoftheindustrialcourt,ithascommittederrorandcontinuouslyrepeatedthaterror to thepointof perpetuation. It pictures thisCourt asonewhich refuses tohew to the linedrawn by the law on jurisdictional boundaries. Implicit in the quoted statements is that thepronouncementsofthisCourtonthejurisdictionoftheindustrialcourtarenotentitledtorespect.ThosestatementsdetractmuchfromthedignityofandrespectduethisCourt.Theybring intoquestionthecapabilityof themembersandsome formermembersof thisCourt to render justice.Thesecondparagraph quoted yields a tone of sarcasm which counsel labelled as "so called" the "rule againstsplittingofjurisdiction."

Similarthoughtsandsentimentshavebeenexpressedinothercases18which,intheinterestofbrevity,neednotnowbereviewedindetail.

Ofcourse,acommondenominatorunderliestheaforecitedcasesalloftheminvolvedcontumaciousstatementsmade in pleadings filed pending litigation. So that, in line with the doctrinal rule that the protective mantle ofcontemptmayordinarily be invokedonly against scurrilous remarksormalicious innuendoeswhile a courtmullsoverapendingcaseandnotaftertheconclusionthereof,19Atty.AlmacenwouldnowseektosidestepthethrustofacontemptchargebyhisstudiedemphasisthattheremarksforwhichheisnowcalledupontoaccountweremadeonlyafterthisCourthadwrittenfinistohisappeal.Thisisofnomoment.

Therulethatbarscontemptafterajudicialproceedinghasterminated,haslostmuchof itsvitality.Forsometime,this was the prevailing view in this jurisdiction. The first stir for amodification thereof, however, camewhen, inPeoplevs.Alarcon,20 the thenChiefJusticeManuelV.Morandissentedwith theholdingof themajority,speaking thruJusticeJoseP.Laurel,whichupheldtheruleaboveadvertedto.AcompletedisengagementfromthesettledrulewaslatertobemadeinInreBrillantes,21acontemptproceeding,wheretheeditoroftheManilaGuardianwasadjudgedincontemptforpublishinganeditorialwhichassertedthatthe1944BarExaminationswereconductedinafarcicalmannerafterthequestionofthevalidityof thesaidexaminationshadbeenresolvedandthecaseclosed.Virtually, thiswasanadoptionof theviewexpressedbyChiefJusticeMoraninhisdissentinAlarcontotheeffectthatthemmaystillbecontemptbypublicationevenafteracasehasbeenterminated.SaidChiefJusticeMoraninAlarcon:

A publication which tends to impede, obstruct, embarrass or influence the courts in administeringjusticeinapendingsuitorproceeding,constitutescriminalcontemptwhichis'summarilypunishablebycourts.Apublicationwhichtendstodegradethecourtsandtodestroypublicconfidenceinthemorthatwhich tends to bring them in any way into disrepute, constitutes likewise criminal contempt, and isequallypunishablebycourts.Whatissought, inthefirstkindofcontempt,tobeshieldedagainsttheinfluenceof newspaper comments, is theallimportantdutyof the courts toadminister justice in thedecisionofapendingcase.Inthesecondkindofcontempt,thepunitivehandofjusticeisextendedtovindicatethecourtsfromanyactorconductcalculatedtobringthemintodisfavorortodestroypublicconfidenceinthem.Inthefirst thereisnocontemptwherethereisnoactionpending,asthereisnodecision which might in any way be influenced by the newspaper publication. In the second, thecontemptexists,withorwithoutapendingcase,aswhatissoughttobeprotectedisthecourtitselfanditsdignity.Courtswouldlosetheirutilityifpublicconfidenceinthemisdestroyed.

Accordingly,nocomfortisaffordedAtty.Almacenbythecircumstancethathisstatementsandactuationsnowunderconsiderationweremadeonlyafter the judgment inhisclient'sappealhadattainedfinality.Hecouldasmuchbeliableforcontemptthereforasifithadbeenperpetratedduringthependencyofthesaidappeal.

Morethanthis,however,considerationofwhetherornothecouldbeheldliableforcontemptforsuchpostlitigationutterances and actuations, is here immaterial. By the tenor of our Resolution of November 17, 1967, we haveconfronted the situation here presented solely in so far as it concerns Atty. Almacen's professional identity, hissworndutyasalawyerandhisfitnessasanofficerofthisCourt,intheexerciseofthedisciplinarypowerthemoralsinherentinourauthorityanddutytosafeguardandethicsofthelegalprofessionandtopreserveitsranksfromtheintrusions of unprincipled and unworthy disciples of the noblest of callings. In this inquiry, the pendency or nonpendencyofacaseincourtisaltogetherofnoconsequence.Thesoleobjectiveofthisproceedingistopreservethepurityofthelegalprofession,byremovingorsuspendingamemberwhosemisconducthasprovedhimselfunfittocontinuetobeentrustedwiththedutiesandresponsibilitiesbelongingtotheofficeofanattorney.

Undoubtedly, this iswellwithin our authority to do.By constitutionalmandate,22 our is the solemn duty, amongstothers,todeterminetherulesforadmissiontothepracticeoflaw.InherentinthisprerogativeisthecorrespondingauthoritytodisciplineandexcludefromthepracticeoflawthosewhohaveprovedthemselvesunworthyofcontinuedmembershipintheBar.Thus

11/10/2015 G.R. No. L-27654


Thepowertodisciplineattorneys,whoareofficersofthecourt,isaninherentandincidentalpowerincourtsof record,andonewhich isessential toanorderlydischargeof judicial functions.Todeny itsexistenceisequivalenttoadeclarationthattheconductofattorneystowardscourtsandclientsisnotsubject to restraint. Such a view is without support in any respectable authority, and cannot betolerated.Anycourthavingtherighttoadmitattorneystopracticeandinthisstatethatpowerisvestedinthiscourthastheinherentright, intheexerciseofasoundjudicialdiscretiontoexcludethemfrompractice.23

This,because theadmissionofa lawyer to thepracticeof law isa representation toall thathe isworthyof theirconfidenceandrespect.Somuchsothat

...whenever it ismade to appear to the court that an attorney is no longerworthy of the trust andconfidence of the public and of the courts, it becomes, not only the right, but the duty, of the courtwhichmadehimoneofitsofficers,andgavehimtheprivilegeofministeringwithinitsbar,towithdrawthe privilege. Therefore it is almost universally held that both the admission and disbarment ofattorneys are judicial acts, and that one is admitted to the bar and exercises his functions as anattorney,notasamatterofright,butasaprivilegeconditionedonhisownbehaviorandtheexerciseofajustandsoundjudicialdiscretion.24

Indeed, in this jurisdiction, thatpower to removeorsuspendhas risenabovebeingamere inherentor incidentalpower.IthasbeenelevatedtoanexpressmandatebytheRulesofCourt.25

Ourauthorityanddutyinthepremisesbeingunmistakable,wenowproceedtomakeanassessmentofwhetherornottheutterancesandactuationsofAtty.Almacenhereinquestionareproperlytheobjectofdisciplinarysanctions.

The proffered surrender of his lawyer's certificate is, of course, purely potestative on Atty. Almacen's part.Unorthodoxthoughitmayseem,nostatute,nolawstandsinitsway.Beyondmakingthemereoffer,however,hewentfarther.Inhaughtyandcoarselanguage,heactuallyavailedofthesaidmoveasavehicleforhisvicioustiradeagainst thisCourt. The integrated entirety of his petition bristleswith vile insults all calculated to drive homehiscontemptforanddisrespecttotheCourtanditsmembers.Picturinghisclientas"asacrificialvictimatthealtarofhypocrisy,"hecategoricallydenouncesthejusticeadministeredbythisCourttobenotonlyblind"butalsodeafanddumb."Withunmitigatedacerbity,hevirtuallymakesthisCourtanditsmemberswithverbaltalons,imputingtotheCourttheperpetrationof"silent injustices"and"shortcut justice"whileatthesametimebrandingitsmembersas"calloused topleasof justice."And, true tohisannounced threat toargue thecauseofhisclient "in thepeople'sforum,"hecausedthepublicationinthepapersofanaccountofhisactuations,inacalculatedefforttostartlethepublic,stiruppublicindignationanddisrespecttowardtheCourt.Calledupontomakeanexplanation,heexpressedno regret, offerednoapology. Instead,with characteristic arrogance, he rehashedand reiteratedhis vituperativeattacks and, alluding to the Scriptures, virtually tarred and feathered the Court and its members as inveteratehypocritesincapableofadministeringjusticeandunworthytoimposedisciplinarysanctionsuponhim.

ThevirulencesoblatantlyevidentinAtty.Almacen'spetition,answerandoralargumentationspeaksforitself.Theviciouslanguageusedandthescurrilousinnuendoestheycarriedfartranscendthepermissibleboundsoflegitimatecriticism.Theycouldneverserveanypurposebuttogratifythespiteofanirateattorney,attractpublicattentiontohimselfand,moreimportantofall,bringthisCourtanditsmembersintodisreputeanddestroypublicconfidenceinthem to the detriment of the orderly administration of justice. Odium of this character and texture presents noredeemingfeature,andcompletelynegatesanypretenseofpassionatecommitmenttothetruth.Itisnotawhitlessthan a classic example of grossmisconduct, gross violation of the lawyer's oath and gross transgression of theCanonsofLegalEthics.Assuch,itcannotbeallowedtogounrebuked.Thewayfortheexertionofourdisciplinarypowersisthuslaidclear,andtheneedthereforisunavoidable.

Wemustoncemorestressourexplicitdisclaimerofimmunityfromcriticism.LikeanyotherGovernmententityinaviabledemocracy,theCourtisnot,andshouldnotbe,abovecriticism.ButacritiqueoftheCourtmustbeintelligentand discriminating, fitting to its high function as the court of last resort. And more than this, valid and healthycriticism is by nomeans synonymous to obloquy, and requires detachment and disinterestedness, real qualitiesapproachedonly throughconstant striving toattain them.Anycriticismof theCourtmust, possess thequalityofjudiciousnessandmustbeinformedbyperspectiveandinfusedbyphilosophy.26

Itisnotaccuratetosay,norisitanobstacletotheexerciseofourauthorityinthepremises,that,asAtty.Almacenwouldhaveappear,themembersoftheCourtarethe"complainants,prosecutorsandjudges"allrolledupintooneinthisinstance.Thisisanuttermisapprehension,ifnotatotaldistortion,notonlyofthenatureoftheproceedingathandbutalsoofourroletherein.

Accentshouldbelaidonthefactthatdisciplinaryproceedingslikethepresentaresuigeneris.Neitherpurelycivilnorpurelycriminal,thisproceedingisnotanddoesnotinvolveatrialofanactionorasuit,but isratheraninvestigationbytheCourtintotheconductofitsofficers.27Notbeingintendedto.inflictpunishment,itisinnosenseacriminalprosecution.Accordingly, there isneitheraplaintiffnoraprosecutor therein Itmaybe initiatedby theCourtmotuproprio.28Publicinterestisitsprimaryobjective,andtherealquestionfordeterminationiswhetherornottheattorneyisstillafitpersontobeallowedtheprivilegesassuch.Hence,intheexerciseofitsdisciplinarypowers,theCourtmerelycallsuponamemberoftheBartoaccountforhisactuationsasanofficeroftheCourtwiththeendinviewofpreservingthepurityofthelegal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession ofmemberswho by theirmisconducthaveprovedthemselvesno longerworthytobeentrustedwiththedutiesandresponsibilitiespertainingtotheofficeofanattorney.29Insuchposture,therecanthusbenooccasiontospeakofacomplainantoraprosecutor.

11/10/2015 G.R. No. L-27654


Undeniably,themembersoftheCourtare,toacertaindegree,aggrievedparties.AnytiradeagainsttheCourtasabody isnecessarilyand inextricablyasmuchsoagainst the individualmembersthereof.But in theexerciseof itsdisciplinary powers, the Court acts as an entity separate and distinct from the individual personalities of itsmembers. Consistently with the intrinsic nature of a collegiate court, the individual members act not as suchindividualsbut.onlyasadulyconstitutedcourt.Theirdistinctindividualitiesarelostinthemajestyoftheiroffice.30Sothat,inaveryrealsense,iftherebeanycomplainantinthecaseatbar,itcanonlybetheCourtitself,nottheindividualmembers thereof as well as the people themselves whose rights, fortunes and properties, nay, even lives, would beplacedatgravehazardshouldtheadministrationofjusticebethreatenedbytheretentionintheBarofmenunfittodischargethesolemnresponsibilitiesofmembershipinthelegalfraternity.

Finally, thepower toexcludepersons from thepracticeof law isbutanecessary incidentof thepower toadmitpersonstosaidpractice.Byconstitutionalprecept,thispowerisvestedexclusivelyinthisCourt.Thisdutyitcannotabdicatejustasmuchasitcannotunilaterallyrenouncejurisdictionlegally investeduponit.31Sothatevenif itbeconcededthatthememberscollectivelyareinasensetheaggrievedparties,thatfactalonedoesnotandcannotdisqualifythemfromtheexerciseofthatpowerbecausepublicpolicydemandsthatthey.,actingasaCourt,exercisethepowerinallcaseswhichcallfordisciplinaryaction.Thepresentissuchacase.Intheend,theimaginedanomalyofthemergerinoneentityofthepersonalitiesofcomplainant,prosecutorandjudgeisabsolutelyinexistent.

LasttoengageourattentionisthenatureandextentofthesanctionsthatmaybevisiteduponAtty.Almacenforhistransgressions.Asmarkedoutby theRulesofCourt, thesemayrangefrommeresuspensionto total removalordisbarment.32Thediscretiontoassessunderthecircumstancestheimposablesanctionis,ofcourse,primarilyaddressedto the sound discretion of the Court which, being neither arbitrary and despotic nor motivated by personal animosity orprejudice, shouldever be controlledby the imperativeneed that thepurity and independenceof theBarbe scrupulouslyguardedandthedignityofandrespectduetotheCourtbezealouslymaintained.

That themisconductcommittedbyAtty.Almacen isofconsiderablegravitycannotbeoveremphasized.However,heedingthesterninjunctionthatdisbarmentshouldneverbedecreedwherealessersanctionwouldaccomplishtheenddesired,andbelievingthatitmaynotperhapsbefutiletohopethatinthesoberlightofsomefutureday,Atty.Almacen will realize that abrasive language never fails to do disservice to an advocate and that in everyeffervescenceofcandorthereisampleroomfortheaddedglowofrespect,itisourviewthatsuspensionwillsufficeunder thecircumstances.Hisdemonstratedpersistence inhismisconductbyneithermanifesting repentancenorofferingapologythereforleaveusnowayofdetermininghowlongthatsuspensionshouldlastand,accordingly,weare impelled to decree that the same should be indefinite. This, we are empowered to do not alone becausejurisprudencegrantsusdiscretiononthematter33butalsobecause,evenwithoutthecomfortingsupportofprecedent,itisobviousthatifwehaveauthoritytocompletelyexcludeapersonfromthepracticeoflaw,thereisnoreasonwhyindefinitesuspension,which is lesser indegreeandeffect,canberegardedas fallingoutsideof thecompassof thatauthority.ThemeritofthischoiceisbestshownbythefactthatitwillthenbelefttoAtty.Almacentodetermineforhimselfhowlongorhowshortthatsuspensionshalllast.For,atanytimeafterthesuspensionbecomeseffectivehemayprovetothisCourtthatheisonceagainfittoresumethepracticeoflaw.

ACCORDINGLY,ITISTHESENSEoftheCourtthatAtty.VicenteRaulAlmacenbe,asheishereby,suspendedfromthepracticeoflawuntilfurtherorders,thesuspensiontotakeeffectimmediately.

Letcopiesofthisresolution.befurnishedtheSecretaryofJustice,theSolicitorGeneralandtheCourtofAppealsfortheirinformationandguidance.

Concepcion,. C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Teehankee, Barredo and Villamor JJ.,concur.

Fernando,J.,tooknopart.

Footnotes

1DocketedasCivilCase8909onSeptember17,1965intheCourtofFirstInstanceofRizal.

2Seee.g."MountingDiscontentagainsttheSupremeCourt'sMinuteResolution,"32LawyersJ.p.325"LackofMeritResolutionsareObnoxious,"31LawyersJ.p.329.

3Intheyears1966,1967and1968,thisCourtrejectedbyminuteresolutions803,682and848petitions,respectively,andresolvedbyextendeddecisionsorresolutions584,611and760cases,respectively.Fortheperiodcoveringthefirstsixmonthsoftheyear1969,thisCourtrejectedbyminuteresolutions445petitions,andresolvedbyextendeddecisionorresolutions279cases.

4U.S.vs.Bustos,37Phil.731(1918)InreGomez,43Phil.376Salcedovs.Hernandez,61Phil.736(Malcolm,J.,dissenting)Austriavs.Masaquel,G.R.L22536,Aug.31,1967Cabansagvs.Fernandez,etal.,G.R.L8974,Oct.18,1957.

5InreGomez,supra.

6InreGomez,supraInreLozanoandQuevedo,54Phil.801(1930)InreAbistado57Phil.668(1932)Peoplevs.AlarconInreContemptProceedings,Mangahas,69Phil.265(1939).SeePennekampv.StateofFlorida,328U.S.331,90L.ed.1295InreBozorth,118A.2d432Inre

11/10/2015 G.R. No. L-27654


Jameson,340Pac.2d432(1959)InrePryor,26Am.Rep.474Hillvs.Lyman,126NYS2d286Caigv.Hecht,68L.ed.293(ConcurringopinionofJusticeTaft).

7Strebelv.Figueras,96Phil.321(1954).

8Statev.BeePub.Co.,83N.W.204,Sullivan,J.SeealsoStateexrelAtty.Gen.v.CircuitCt.,72N.W.193.

9InreJameson,340Pac.2d432(1959).

10U.S.vs.Bustos,37Phil.731(1918)InreGomez,43Phil.376Cabansagv.Fernandez,L18974,Oct.18,1957Austriavs.Masaquel,L22536,Aug.31,1967ReTroy(1920),111Atl.723Stateexrel.Atty.Gen.v.CircuitCt.(1897),65Am.St.Rep.90Goonsv.State,134N.E.194Statevs.Sweetland,54N.W.415Hillvs.Lyman,126NYS2d286CaseofAustin,28Am.Dec.657.

11StateBoardofExaminersv.Hart,116N.W.212,17LRA(NS)585RePryor,26Am.Rep.747ExParteSteinman,40Am.Rep.637CaseofAustin,28Am.Dec.657Brannonv.State,29So.2d918MedgarEversv.State,131So.2d653ReAdes,6F2d467.

12"Ajudgeasapublicofficial,"saidJusticeThornalinStatev.Calhoon,102So.2d604,"isneithersacrosanctnorimmunetopubliccriticismofhisconductinoffice."

13InreBozorth,118Atl.432:"TheharshandsometimesunfoundedcriticismofthemembersofanyofthethreebranchesofourGovernmentmaybeunfortunatelotofpublicofficials...,butithasalwaysbeendeemedabasicprinciplethatsuchcommentmaybemadebythepublic....Norshouldthejudicialbranch...enjoyanymoreenviableconditionthantheothertwobranches."

InBridgesv.California,86L.ed.192,Mr.JusticeBlack,speakingforthemajority,said:"...anenforcedsilence,however,limited,solelyinthenameofpreservingthedignityofthebench,wouldprobablyengenderresentment,suspicion,andcontemptmuchmorethanitwouldenhancerespect."Mr.JusticeFrankfurter,whowrotetheminorityopinion,said:"Judgesaspersons,orcourtsasinstitutions,areentitledtonogreaterimmunityfromcriticismthanotherpersonsorinstitutions.Justbecausetheholdersofjudicialofficeareidentifiedwiththeinterestofjusticetheymayforgettheircommonhumanfrailtiesandfallibilities.Therehavesometimesbeenmartinetsuponthebenchastherehavesometimesbeenwieldersofauthoritywhohaveusedtheparaphernaliaofpowerinsupportofwhattheycalledtheirdignity.Thereforejudgesmustbekeptmindfuloftheirlimitationsandoftheirultimatepublicresponsibilitybyavigorousstreamofcriticismexpressedwithcandorhoweverblunt"Amancannotbesummarilylaidbytheheelsbecausehiswordsmaymakepublicfeelingmoreunfavorableincasethejudgeshouldbeaskedtoactatsomelaterdate,anymorethanhecanforexcitingpublicfeelingagainstajudgeforwhathealreadyhasdone."...Courtsandjudgesmasttaketheirshareofthegainsandpainsofdiscussionwhichisunfetteredexceptbylawsoflibel,byselfrestraint,andbygoodtaste.Windsofdoctrineshouldfreelyblowforthepromotionofgoodandthecorrectionofevil.Norshouldrestrictionsbepermittedthatcrampthefeelingoffreedomintheuseoftongueorpenregardlessofthetemperofthetruthofwhatmaybeuttered."

14Sec.3,Rule138.

15Sec.20(b),Rule138.

16Seee.g.ReChopac,66F.Supp.,whereanattorneywassuspendedforthreeyearsforwritingajudgealetterinwhichhesaidthatthejudgeinsigninganordertook"advantageofyourofficetorulewithpassionandvehemence."AlsoPeoplev.Green,3P.65,whereanattorneywasdisbarredforstoppingajudgeuponthestreetandaddressedabusive,insultinglanguagetohim.SeealsoJohnsonv.State,44So.671InreMcCowan,170P.1101Statev.Calhoon,102,2d604ReHuppe,11Pac.2d793Statev.Rhodes,131NW2d118ReRogers,212Pac.1034InreGriffin,1NYS7InreWilkes,3NYS753ReManheim,99NYS87ReGreenfield,262NYS2d349InreKlein,262NYS2d416InreSmith,36A130.

17InreHumphrey,163P.60InreThatcher,89N.E.39InSnyder'sCase,76ALR666ReTroy,111A.723Statev.Sprigs,155P.2d285.

18Medinavs.Rivera,66Phil.151InthematteroftheIntestateEstateofRosarioOlba,ContemptproceedingsagainstAntonioFranco,67Phil.312,315Peoplevs.Carillo,77Phil.579Peoplevs.Venturanza,etal.,85Phil.211,214DeJoya,etal.vs.CFIofRizal,99Phil.907,914Sisonvs.Sandejas,L9270,April29,1959Paragasvs.Cruz,L24438,July30,1965Cornejovs.Tan,85Phil.772,775.

19InreGomez,43Phil.376InreLozano,54Phil.801InreAbistado,57Phil.668Peoplevs.Alarcon,69Phil.1965Cornejovs.Tan,85Phil.772,775.Statevs.Dist.Court,151Pac.2d1002InreShannon,27Pac.352Stateexrel.Gricevs.Dist.Court,97Pac.1032Westonvs.Commonwealth,77S.E.2d405Statevs.Kaiser,13P.964Statevs.BeePub.Co.83N.W.204Pattersonvs.Colorado.51L.ed.879ReHart,116N.W.212.

2069Phil.265.

11/10/2015 G.R. No. L-27654


2142O.G.59.

22ArticleVIII,Section12,Constitution.

23ReSimpson,83N.W.541.

24ReThatcher,89N.E.39,84.

25Section27,Rule138,RulesofCourt.

26SeeNormanDorsen,FrontiersofCivilLiberties,pp.6061Griswold,"OfTimeandAttitudes,"74HarvardLawReview,81,94PaulA.Freund,TheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates,(1961)pp.176177seealsoFreund,OnLawandJustice(1968)ch.4.

27InreMontagneandDominguez,3Phil.577DeDurant,10Ann.Cas.1913,1220.

28Statevs.Peck,91Atl.274286FairfieldCountyBarvs.Taylor,22Atl.441.

29ExParteTyler,40Pac.33,34Treadwell'scase,7Pac.724Delesvs.Aragona,March28,1969,27SCRA634,644,andthecasesthereincited.

30Sarcosvs.Castillo,etal.,L29755,January21,1969.

31Cf.Radiowealth,Inc.vs.Agregado,47O.G.,No.12(Supp)pp.87,89,citingCooley,ConstitutionalLimitations,Vol.2,P.870Perfectovs.Meer,85Phil.552,553ExparteAlabamaStateBarAss'n.,8So.768.

32Section27,Rule138,RulesofCourt.

33Melvillevs.Wettengel,57Pa.2d699Peoplevs.Winogard,287Pac.864Peoplevs.Kelly,285Pac.767Peoplevs.Harris,112N.E.978Peoplevs.Anderson,112N.E.273InreGullickson,181Atl.716Haitmanekvs.Turano,158A.878Grimsellvs.Wilcox,98A.799Statesvs.Kern,233N.W.629InreBorchardt,192N.E.383Statevs.Trapley,259Pac.783Statevs.Jennings,159S.E.627InreJacobson,126S.E.2d346Mulveyvs.O'Niell,44Atl.2d880StateexrelOklahomaBarAss'nvs.Hatcher,209Pac.2d873ClevelandBarAss'nvs.Wilkerson,156N.E.2d136N.E.2d136InreEddy,292N.Y.S.619.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

in re almacen (legprof)

Documents