Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Canon 11
Canon 11
FACTS:
The incident before the Court refers to charges for contempt against
Atty. J. Cezar Sangco, counsel for the petitioners Spouses Jose and
Lutgarda Sangalang. (G.R. No. 71169.)
FACTS:
• Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen’s filed a "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's
Certificate of Title," in protest against what he therein asserts is "a great
injustice committed against his client by this Supreme Court."
• This stemmed from the denial of his petition for review in the case of
Yaptinchay vs Calero. His MR was rejected by the CA because it did not
contain a notice of time and place of hearing. The SC, by minute
resolution, denied his appeals to review the case. His own negligence
caused the forfeiture of the remedy of appeal, which, incidentally, is not a
matter of right.
• He indicts this Court as a tribunal "peopled by men who are calloused
to our pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable
decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with
impunity."
• His client, who was deeply aggrieved by this Court's "unjust judgment,"
has become "one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy."
• He reiterated and disclosed to the press the contents of the
aforementioned petition. Atty Almacen said he did it to expose the
tribunal's "unconstitutional and obnoxious" practice of arbitrarily
denying petitions or appeals without any reason. Because of the
tribunal's "short-cut justice," Almacen deplored, his client was
condemned to pay P120,000, without knowing why he lost the case.
• He ended his petition with a prayer that
... a resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the
certificate of the undersigned attorney and counsellor-at-law IN
TRUST with reservation that at any time in the future and in
the event we regain our faith and confidence, we may retrieve
our title to assume the practice of the noblest profession.
• “Nonetheless we decided by resolution to withhold action on his
petition until he shall have actually surrendered his certificate.
Patiently, we waited for him to make good his proffer. No word
came from him. So he was reminded to turn over his certificate,
which he had earlier vociferously offered to surrender, so that
this Court could act on his petition. To said reminder he
manifested "that he has no pending petition in connection with
Case G.R. No. L-27654, Calero vs. Yaptinchay, said case is now
final and executory;" that this Court's resolution did not require
him to do either a positive or negative act; and that since his
offer was not accepted, he "chose to pursue the negative act.””
The Court said:
• Well-recognized is 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. The reason is that:
“An attorney does not surrender, in assuming the important place accorded to him in
the administration of justice, 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. (In re Ades, 6 F Supp. 487) .”