31 SCRA 562 Legal Ethics A Lawyers Right to Criticize the Courts

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 ctually 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. It should be remembered that a petition to review the decision of the
Court of Appeals is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion; and so there is no

need to fully explain the courts denial. For one thing, the facts and the law are already
mentioned in the Court of Appeals opinion.
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.