IN RE: ALMACEN 31 SCRA 562 18 FEB 70 FACTS: Vicente Raul Almacens Petition to Surrender Lawyers Certificate of Title, filed

on Sept. 26, 1967, in protest against wha t hetherein asserts is a great injustice committed against his client by Supreme Court. He indicts SC, in his own phrase, as a tribunal peopledby 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 clients he continues, who was deeply aggrieved by this Courts unjust judgment, has become one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocricy. He ridicules the members of the Court, saying that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only bline, but also deaf and dumb. He then vows to argue the cause of his client in the peoples forum, so that people may know of the silent in justices committed by this court and that whatever mistakes, wrongs and injustices that were committed must never be repeated. He ends his petition with a prayer that: a resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the certificate of the undersigned attorney 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. The genesis of this unfortunate incident was a civil case entitled Yaptichay v. Calero, in which Atty. Almacen was counsel for the defendant. The trial court rendered judgment against his client. On June15, 1966 atty. Almacen receive a copy of the decision. Twenty days later on he moved for its reconsideration but did not notify the latter of the time and plce of hearing on said motion. Meanwhile, on July 18, 1966, the plaintiff moved for execution of the judgment. For lack of proof of service, the trial court denied both motions. To prove that he did serve on the adverse party a copy of his first motion for reconsideration, atty. Almacen filed on August 17, 1966 a second motion for reconsideration, however, was ordered withdrawn by the trial court on August 30, 1966,upon verbal motion of Atty. Almacen himself, who earlier, that is, on Aug.22, 1966 had already perfected the appeal. Motion for reconsideration was denied by Court of Appeals. HELD: Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. As a citizen and as officer of the court, a lawyer is expected not only to exercise the right, but also to consider it his duty to avail of such right. No law may abridge this right. Nor is he professionallyanswerable for a scrutiny into the official conduct of the judges, which would not expose him to legal animadversion as a citizen. Atty. Almacen is suspended from the practice of law until further orders

Regalado Daroy vs. Esteban Abecia Facts: Daroy was plaintiff in a forcible entry case. He hired Abecia as his lawyer and won. To satisfy the award for damages, a parcel of land of the defendant was sold to Daroy at an execution sale. The land was then sold to Daroys relative, who then sold it to Abecias wife. He now claims that these sales are void because Abecia forged his signature on the deeds of sale. IBP disbarred Abecia. Held: Reversed. The evidence shows that Daroy was a party to the sale at the time ot was made and did not discover it 9 years later as he claimed. He was not defrauded <real issue the parties thought that because the land had been acquired at a public sale to satisfy a judgment in a case in which respondent was complainants counsel, the latter could not acquire the land. The parties made this arrangement to circumvent Art. 1491 of the Civil Code which prevents lawyers from acquiring property and rights that may be the object of any litigation in which they may take by virtue of their profession. The prohibition in Art. 1491 does not apply to the sale of a parcel of land acquired by a client to satisfy a judgment in his favor, to his attorney was not the subject of the litigation. While judges, prosecuting attorneys, and others connected with the administration of justice are prohibited from acquiring property or rights in litigation or levied upon in execution the prohibition with respect to attorneys in the case extends only to property and rights that may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession.