In re Almacen

Summary

This landmark disciplinary case involved Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen's unprecedented attack on the Supreme Court after losing appeals in a civil case. Almacen's motion for reconsideration lacked proper notice of hearing, making it defective and causing his appeal to be dismissed as untimely. Frustrated by adverse rulings, he filed a dramatic 'Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate' containing vitriolic language calling Supreme Court members 'calloused to pleas for justice' and describing justice as 'not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.' He publicized these attacks through press statements. The Supreme Court emphasized that while lawyers have the right to criticize judicial decisions, such criticism must remain within bounds of decency and propriety. Almacen's statements far exceeded legitimate criticism, serving only to gratify spite and undermine public confidence in the judiciary. The Court suspended him indefinitely from law practice, establishing important precedent on the limits of attorney criticism of courts and the profession's ethical obligations.