In re Almacen G.R. No.

L-27654 (In the Matter of Proceedings for Disciplinary Action

against Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen vs. Virginia Yaptinchay)

Facts of the Case:

Atty. Almacen was the counsel of Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. They lost in a civil case but
Almacen filed for a Motion for Reconsideration. He notified the opposing party of said motion but
failed to indicate the time and place of hearing of said motion.

He appealed to the Court of Appeals but motion was denied. He filed an appeal on certiorari before
the Supreme Court which outrightly denied his appeal in a minute resolution.

Atty. Almacen called such minute resolution as unconstitutional. He filed before the Supreme Court
a petition to surrender his lawyer’s certificate as he claimed that it was useless to continue practicing
his profession when members of the high court are men who are calloused to pleas for justice, who
ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the
Constitution with impunity.

He argues that due to the minute resolution, his client was made to pay P120,000.00 without knowing
the reasons why and that his client became “one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy”.

He also contends that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only
blind, but also deaf and dumb. The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacen’s petition as
the Court wanted to wait for Almacen to actually surrender his certificate. Almacen, however, did not
surrender his lawyer’s certificate though he now argues that he chose not to.

Issue:

Does Almacen deserve disciplinary action?

Court Ruling:

YES. In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that minute resolutions are needed because the Supreme
Court cannot accept every case or write full opinion for every petition they reject. The Supreme Court
must decide “only on cases which present questions whose resolutions will have immediate importance
beyond the particular facts and parties involved”.

The Supreme Court regarded Almacen’s criticisms as uncalled for. His right to criticize the decision
of the courts has always been encouraged, but it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the wall of
decency and propriety.
Tan vs. Sabandal, 206 SCRA 473 (1992)
DOCTRINES:

 The practice of law is not a matter of right.

 No moral qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness or candor.
FACTS:
Respondent Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but was denied to take his oath in view of the
finding of the Court that he was guilty of unauthorized practice of law. Since then, he had filed numerous
petitions for him to be allowed to take his lawyer's oath.

Acting to his 1989 petition, the Court directed the executive judge of the province where Sabandal is
domiciled to submit a comment on respondent's moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. In compliance
therewith, the executive judge stated in his comment that he is not aware of any acts committed by the
respondent as would disqualify him to from admission to the Bar. However, he added that respondent has
a pending civil case before his court for cancellation/reversion proceedings, in which respondent, then
working as Land Investigator of the Bureau of Lands, is alleged to have secured a free patent and later a
certificate of title to a parcel of land which, upon investigation, turned out to be a swampland and not
susceptible of acquisition under a free patent, and which he later mortgaged to the bank. The mortgage
was later foreclosed and the land subsequently sold at public auction and respondent has not redeemed
the land since then.

The case was however been settled through amicable settlement. The said amicable settlement canceled
the OCT under Free Patent in the name of Sabandal and his mortgage in the bank; provided for the
surrender of the certificate of title to the RD for proper annotation; reverted to the mass of public domain
the land covered by the aforesaid certificate of title with respondent refraining from exercising acts of
possession or ownership over the said land. Respondent also paid the bank a certain sum for the loan
and interest.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent may be admitted to the practice of law considering that he already
submitted three (3) testimonials regarding his good moral character, and his pending civil case has been
terminated.

HELD:
His petition must be denied.

Time and again, it has been held that practice of law is not a matter of right. It is a privilege bestowed
upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral
character.

It should be recalled that respondent worked as Land Investigator at the Bureau of Lands. Said
employment facilitated his procurement of the free patent title over the property which he could not but
have known was a public land. This was manipulative on his part and does not speak well of his moral
character. It is a manifestation of gross dishonesty while in the public service, which cannot be erased by
the termination of the case and where no determination of guilt or innocence was made because the suit
has been compromised. This is a sad reflection of his sense of honor and fair dealings.
Moreover, his failure to reveal to the Court the pendency of the civil case for Reversion filed against him
during the period that he was submitting several petitions and motions for reconsiderations reveal his lack
of candor and truthfulness.

Although, the term "good moral character" admits of broad dimensions, it has been defined as "including
at least common dishonesty." It has also been held that no moral qualification for membership is more
important than truthfulness or candor.