Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 125 views

    Case 15 - Re Proceedings For Disciplinary Action Against Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen (Pia Angelica Diaz)

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    Vicente Raul Almacen filed a petition to surrender his law license in protest of what he viewed as an unjust judiciary. He had lost a case due to a technicality and his appeals were dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that Almacen should face disciplinary action. Minute resolutions are necessary for the Court to function effectively. While lawyers can respectfully criticize courts, Almacen's remarks were insolent, contemptuous, and derogatory, crossing the line of proper criticism. Intemperate attacks violate the duty of respect owed to courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case 15 - Re Proceedings For Disciplinary Action Against Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen (Pia Angelica Diaz)

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    125 views1 page
    Vicente Raul Almacen filed a petition to surrender his law license in protest of what he viewed as an unjust judiciary. He had lost a case due to a technicality and his appeals were dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that Almacen should face disciplinary action. Minute resolutions are necessary for the Court to function effectively. While lawyers can respectfully criticize courts, Almacen's remarks were insolent, contemptuous, and derogatory, crossing the line of proper criticism. Intemperate attacks violate the duty of respect owed to courts.

    Original Title

    Case 15 - Re Proceedings for Disciplinary Action Against Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen (Pia Angelica Diaz)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Vicente Raul Almacen filed a petition to surrender his law license in protest of what he viewed as an unjust judiciary. He had lost a case due to a technicality and his appeals were dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that Almacen should face disciplinary action. Minute resolutions are necessary for the Court to function effectively. While lawyers can respectfully criticize courts, Almacen's remarks were insolent, contemptuous, and derogatory, crossing the line of proper criticism. Intemperate attacks violate the duty of respect owed to courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    125 views1 page

    Case 15 - Re Proceedings For Disciplinary Action Against Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen (Pia Angelica Diaz)

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    Vicente Raul Almacen filed a petition to surrender his law license in protest of what he viewed as an unjust judiciary. He had lost a case due to a technicality and his appeals were dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that Almacen should face disciplinary action. Minute resolutions are necessary for the Court to function effectively. While lawyers can respectfully criticize courts, Almacen's remarks were insolent, contemptuous, and derogatory, crossing the line of proper criticism. Intemperate attacks violate the duty of respect owed to courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Pia Angelica Diaz

    IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY. VICENTE RAUL ALMACEN
    G.R. No. L-27654 February 18, 1970

    Facts:

    Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen filed a “Petition to Surrender the Lawyer’s Certificate of Title” to the Supreme Court as
    a sign of his protest as against to what he call a tribunal “peopled by people who are calloused to our pleas for
    justice…”. He also expressed strong words as against the judiciary like “justice… is not only blind, but also deaf and
    dumb.” . The petition rooted from the case he lost due to the absence of time and place in his motion in the trial
    court. His appeal was dismissed in the Court of Appeals by reason of jurisprudence. In a petition for certiorari in
    the Supreme Court, it was again dismissed thru a minute resolution. With the disappointments, he thought of this
    sacrificial move. He claimed that this petition to surrender his title is only in trust, and that he may obtain the title
    again as soon as he regained confidence in the justice system.

    Issue:

    Whether or not Almacen should be given disciplinary action.

    Ruling:

    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 court’s denial. For one
    thing, the facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals’ opinion.

    On Almacen’s 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.

    You might also like