6. In Re: Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 19 Jul FACTS: Atty.

Vicente Raul Almacen filed a Petition to Surrender the Lawyers 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 Atty. Almacen should be given disciplinary actions for his acts. HELD: YES. Indefinite suspension imposed. RATIO: It has been pointed out by the Supreme Court that there is no one to blame but Atty. Almacen himself because of his negligence. Even if the intentions of his accusations are so noble, in speaking of the truth and alleged injustices,so as not to condemn the sinners but the sin, it has already caused enough damage and disrepute to the judiciary. Since this particular case is sui generis in its nature, a number of foreign and local jurisprudence in analogous cases were cited as benchmarks and references. Between disbarment and suspension, the latter was imposed. Indefinite suspension may only be lifted until further orders, after Atty. Almacen may be able to prove that he is again fit to resume the practice of law.

7. Enrique Zaldivar vs Raul Gonzalez On June 25, 2012 166 SCRA 316 Legal Ethics Contemptuous Language Duty of a Lawyer Zaldivar was the governor of Antique. He was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Gonzales was the then Tanodbayan who was investigating the case. Zaldivar then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus assailing the authority of the Tanodbayan to investigate graft cases under the 1987 Constitution. The Supreme Court, acting on the petition issued a Cease and Desist Order against Gonzalez directing him to temporarily restrain from investigating and filing informations against Zaldivar.

Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and he filed criminal informations against Zaldivar. Gonzalez even had a newspaper interview where he proudly claims that he scored one on the Supreme Court; that the Supreme Courts issuance of the TRO is a manifestation theta the rich and influential persons get favorable actions from the Supreme Court, [while] it is difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given due course. Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt against Gonzalez. The Supreme Court then ordered Gonzalez to explain his side. Gonzalez stated that the statements in the newspapers were true; that he was only exercising his freedom of speech; that he is entitled to criticize the rulings of the Court, to point out where he feels the Court may have lapsed into error. He also said, even attaching notes, that not less than six justices of the Supreme Court have approached him to ask him to go slow on Zaldivar and to not embarrass the Supreme Court. ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzalez is guilty of contempt. HELD: Yes. The statements made by respondent Gonzalez clearly constitute contempt and call for the exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. His statements necessarily imply that the justices of the Supreme Court betrayed their oath of office. Such statements constitute the grossest kind of disrespect for the Supreme Court. Such statements very clearly debase and degrade the Supreme Court and, through the Court, the entire system of administration of justice in the country. Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. What Gonzalez seems unaware of is that freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interests. One of these fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. There is no antinomy between free expression and the integrity of the system of administering justice. Gonzalez, apart from being a lawyer and an officer of the court, is also a Special Prosecutor who owes duties of fidelity and respect to the Republic and to the Supreme Court as the embodiment and the repository of the judicial power in the government of the Republic. The responsibility of Gonzalez to uphold the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice is heavier than that of a private practicing lawyer. Gonzalez is also entitled to criticize the rulings of the court but his criticisms must be bona fide. In the case at bar, his statements, particularly the one where he alleged that members of the Supreme Court approached him, are of no relation to the Zaldivar case. The Supreme Court suspended Gonzalez indefinitely from the practice of law.

8. Montecillo and del Mar vs Francisco Gica et al On June 22, 2012 60 SCRA 234 Legal Ethics Lawyers Duty to the Courts Contemptuous Language Jorge Montecillo was accused by Francisco Gica of slander. Atty. Quirico del Mar represented Montecillo and he successfully defended Monteceillo in the lower court. Del Mar was even able to win their counterclaim thus the lower court ordered Gica to pay Montecillo the adjudged moral damages. Gica appealed the award of damages to the Court of Appeals where the latter court reversed the same. Atty. Del Mar then filed a motion for reconsideration where he made a veiled threat against the Court of Appeals judges intimating that he thinks the CA justices knowingly rendered an unjust decision and judgment has been rendered through negligence and that the CA allowed itself to be deceived. The CA denied the MFR and it admonished Atty. Del Mar from using such tone with the court. Del Mar then filed a second MFR where he again made threats. The CA then ordered del Mar to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt. Thereafter, del Mar sent the three CA justices a copy of a letter which he sent to the President of the Philippines asking the said justices to consider the CA judgment. But the CA did not reverse its judgment. Del Mar then filed a civil case against the three justices of the CA before a Cebu lower court but the civil case was eventually dismissed by reason of a compromise agreement where del Mar agreed to pay damages to the justices. Eventually, the CA suspended Atty. Del Mar from practice. The issue reached the Supreme Court. Del Mar asked the SC to reverse his suspension as well as the CA decision as to the Montecillo case. The SC denied both and this earned the ire of del Mar as he demanded from the Clerk of the Supreme Court as to who were the judges who voted against him. The Supreme Court then directed del Mar to submit an explanation as to why he should not be disciplined. Del Mar in his explanation instead tried to justify his actions even stating that had he not been convinced that human efforts in [pursuing the case] will be fruitless he would have continued with the civil case against the CA justices. In his explanation, del Mar also intimated that even the Supreme Court is part among the corrupt, the grafters and those allegedly committing injustice. Del Mar even filed a civil case against some Supreme Court justices but the judge who handled the case dismissed the same. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Del Mar should be suspended. HELD: Yes. Atty. Del Mar, by his contemptuous acts is in violation of his duties to the courts. As an officer of the court, it is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily the high esteem and regard towards the court so essential to the proper administration of justice. It is manifest that del Mar has scant respect for the two highest Courts of the land when on the flimsy ground of alleged error in deciding a case, he proceeded to challenge the integrity of both Courts by claiming that they knowingly rendered unjust judgment. In short, his allegation is that they acted with intent and malice, if not with gross ignorance of the law, in disposing of the case of his client.

Del Mar was then suspended indefinitely. 9. PEOPLE v JARDIN 124 SCRA 167GUTIERREZ JR; August 17, 1983 NATURE Criminal Procedure av2010 page 107 Prof. Rowena Daroy Morales Petition for certiorari on decision of CFI Quezon dismissing the criminal cases against accused Demetrio Jardin because his constitutional right tospeedy trial was allegedly violated. FACTS - The criminal prosecutions originated from a letter-complaint of the Provincial Auditor of Quezon requesting the Provincial Fiscal to file the necessary criminal action under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code against Demetrio Jardin for malversation of public funds thru falsification of public documents on six counts. (1967) - {This case is full of delaying tactics} -PI 1: accused moved to postpone 4 times, and failed to appear every time. - PI was nevertheless conducted. And the six criminal informations were filed in CFI.AR 1: accused moved to postpone 4 time, never appeared; counsel asked for reinvestigation on the ground that the accused was not given the opportunity to present his defense during the preliminary investigation. Court granted motion.PI 2: accused moved to postpone many times, failed still to appear. When he finally appeared with his counsel, they asked for 15 days to file memorandum. The memorandum was never filed, so the investigating fiscal filed a manifestation before the court that the records of these cases be returned and the trial on the merits of the same be set. - The court transferred the case to new branch of CFI Quezon without acting on manifestation. Arraignment date was set. -AR 2: more postponements at instance of accused; moved for reinvestigation again. Court granted. -PI 3: reset because no show. Counsel then asked for 5 days to file written sworn statement of accused as defense. No statement was submitted so the records of the case were returned to court. A date was set for arraignment. -AR 3: accused asked for postponement. -Arraignment finally happened on Sept 8, 1970. Accused pleaded NOT GUILTY and asked fo rtrial to be postponed. On postponed date, accused asked for another postponement. - Oct 1970, accused and counsel were at trial; but no one appeared for prosecution, except for a state witness. Counsel moved (orally) for dismissal, invoking accused right to a speedy trial. Court granted motion and dismissed the cases. ISSUES 1. WON accused can invoke right to speedy trial 2. WON this appeal places the accused in double jeopardy HELD 1. NO- The respondent court committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the cases and in basing the dismissal on the constitutional right of the accused to speedy trial. -The right to a speedy trial means that the accused is free from vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays, its salutary objective being to assure that an innocent person may be free from anxiety and expense of a court litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt determined within the shortest possible

time compatible with the presentation and consideration of whatever legitimate defense he may interpose. -The delays in the prosecution of the offenses were all caused by the accused so he cannot invoke constitutional right to speedy trial. By his own deliberate acts, he is deemed to have waived or abandoned his right to a speedy trial2. NO -The dismissal of the criminal cases against the accused by the respondent court on the ground that his right to speedy trial had been violated was devoid of factual and legal basis. -In order that the protection against double jeopardy may inure to the benefit of an accused, the following requisites must be present in the first prosecution:(a) a valid complaint or information;(b) a competent court;(c) the defendant had pleaded to the charge; and(d) the defendant was acquitted, or convicted, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. -The last requisite is not present because the order of the CFI judge was null and void. Dispositive Petition granted. The criminal cases are reinstated and the proper regional trial court is ordered to proceed with all deliberate speed in these cases. 10. De Bumanglag vs. Bumanglag Facts: Esteban T. Bumanglad, the respondent, was found by the Court in its decision of September 24, 1973 guilty of gross immoral conduct and ordered his suspension from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years; Respondent filed several motions for reconsideration but the same were denied; As a result of such denial, the respondent wrote a petition to the President of the Philippines that he promulgate(s) a decree that the order of suspension by the Supreme Court be set aside and that your humble self be allowed to become an active member of the New Society. The respondent alleged in the same petition that he was deprived of due process of law; The Clerk of Court, by way of an indorsement from the Assistant Executive Secretary, received a copy of the petition and was requested to comment and/or appropriate action on the subject matter; However, in a subsequent letter to the President the respondent retracted and acknowledged his non observance of protocol of separation of powers; In the end, the respondent asked for an apology from the members of the Honorable Court. Issues: (1) Whether or not respondent may be disciplined for gross ignorance of the law and of the Constitution in not observing the protocol of separation of power by asking the President to set aside by decree the decision of the Court imposing suspension upon the respondent (2) Whether or not a decision duly promulgated by the Supreme Court may be set aside by a Presidential Decree Held:

(1) Respondent is hereby administered a reprimand for gross ignorance of the law and of the Constitution in having asked the President to set aside by decree the Court's decision which suspended him for two years from the practice of law, with warning that the commission of any transgression in the future of his oath and duties as a member of the bar will be severely dealt with. (2) Since respondent has apologized for his "big mistake" and now appreciates that under the fundamental principle of separation of powers enshrined in both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, a decision of this Court may not be set aside by the President, the Court is disposed to view his misconduct and/or ignorance with liberality and will administer a reprimand with warning of severe action on any future transgressions, considering respondent's unenviable record.