IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY.

VICENTE RAUL ALMACEN-11.03

Complaint: Reiterated and disclosed to the press the contents of his Petition to Surrender Lawyers
Certificate of Title. He indicts this Court, in his own phrase, 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."

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.

Facts: Respondent is counsel of Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. The trial court rendered judgment
against his client. Almacen received a copy of the decision. Twenty days later on he moved for its
reconsideration but did not notify the latter of the time and place of hearing on said motion. Meanwhile,
onJuly 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was ordered withdrawn by the trial court on August 30, 1966, upon verbal motion of Atty.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.

Defense: He denied the charges against him. He manifested that since this Court is "the complainant,
prosecutor and Judge," he preferred to be heard and to answer questions "in person and in an open and
public hearing" so that this Court could observe his sincerity and candor. He also asked for leave to file a
written explanation "in the event this Court has no time to hear him in person."

Held: Atty. Almacen is suspended from the practice of law until further orders.

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 professionally
answerable for a scrutiny into the official conduct of the judges, which would not expose him to legal
animadversion as a citizen.

Atty. Almacen will realize that abrasive language never fails to do disservice to an advocate and
that in every effervescence of candor there is ample room for the added glow of respect, it is our view that
suspension will suffice under the circumstances.

His demonstrated persistence in his misconduct by neither manifesting repentance nor offering
apology therefor leave us no way of determining how long that suspension should last and, accordingly,
we are impelled to decree that the same should be indefinite.

PNB vs. Piao

Facts: The CFI Manila rendered judgment in favor of PNB in a civil case regarding the collection of a
sum of money. The Court order Uy Teng Piao to deposit the amount of money within three months.
Failure to do so will result to selling of the mortgaged properties of Piao at public auction. Piao failed to
comply with the order of the Court so the sheriff of Manila sold the said properties to the PNB.

The PNB subsequently secured from Piao a waiver of his right to redeem the property and on the same
date, the bank sold one of the properties to a certain Mariano Santos.

The other parcel of the land was resold by the bank. The bank credited the defendant with the full amount
realized by it when it resold the two parcels of land. The bank brought the present action to revive the
judgment for the balance of P11,574.33, with interest at 7 per cent per annum

Complaint: One of the attorneys for the plaintiff testified that the defendant renounced his right to redeem
the parcel of land in Calle Ronquillo, Exhibit 1, because a friend of the defendant(Piao) was interested in
buying it.

Defense (Piao): Piao waived his right to redeem the land described in transfer certificate of title No. 8274
in consideration of an understanding between him and the bank that the bank would not collect from him
the balance of the judgment. It was on this ground that the trial court absolved the defendant from the
complaint. Wala ngay defense ung counsel ng PNB

Ruling: Although the law does not forbid an attorney to be a witness and at the same time an attorney in a
cause, the courts prefer that counsel should not testify as a witness unless it is necessary, and that they
should withdraw from the active management of the case.

When a lawyer is a witness for his client, except as to merely formal matters, such as the attestation or
custody of an instrument and the like, he should leave the trial of the case to other counsel, except when
essential to the ends of justice, a lawyer should avoid testifying in court in behalf of his client.

Martelino vs. Alejandro-13.02

Complaint: Adverse publicity given in the mass media to the Corregidor incident, coupled with the fact
that it became an issue against the administration in the 1969 elections, was such as to unduly influence
the members of the court-martial.

Facts: On March 18, 1968 of some Muslim recruits then undergoing commando training on the island of
Corregidor. Petitioner (Major Eduardo Marcelino) and other several members of the AFP under him were
the ones involved in the shooting incident. This incident was reported in several newspapers. Martelino
sought the disqualification Col. Alejandro, the President of the general court-martial, following the latter's
admission that he read newspaper stories of the Corregidor incident. The petitioner contended that the
case had received such an amount of publicity in the press and other news media and in fact was being
exploited for political purposes in connection with the presidential election on November 11, 1969 as to
imperil his right to a fair trial. After deliberating, the military court denied the challenge.

Defense: despite the publicity which the case had received, no proof has been presented showing that the
court-martial's president's fairness and impartiality have been impaired. On the contrary, petitioner's own
counsel expressed confidence in the "integrity, experience and background" of the members of the court.
Ruling: In contrast the spate of publicity in this case before us did not focus on the guilt of the petitioners
but rather on the responsibility of the Government for what was claimed to be a "massacre" of Muslim
trainees.

If there was a "trial by newspaper" at all, it was not of the petitioners but of the Government.
Absent here is a showing of failure of the court-martial to protect the accused from massive publicity
encouraged by those connected with the conduct of the trial either by a failure to control the release of
information or to remove the trial to another venue or to postpone it until the deluge of prejudicial
publicity shall have subsided. Indeed we cannot say that the trial of the petitioners was being held under
circumstances which did not permit the observance of those imperative decencies of procedure which
have come to be identified with due process.

Maglasang vs. People- 13.03

Complaint: Atty. Marceliano Castellano improperly filed a complaint with the Office of the President of
the Philippines, accusing all the five Justices of the Court's Second Division with "biases and/or ignorance
of the law or knowingly rendering unjust judgments or resolution."

Facts: Atty. Castellano is the counsel of defendant in "Khalyxto Perez Maglasang vs. People of the
Philippines. Due to non-compliance with the requirements of Circular No. 1-88 of the Court, specifically
the non- payment of P316.50 for the legal fees and the non-attachment of the duplicate originals or duly
certified true copies of the questioned decision and orders of the respondent judge denying the motion for
reconsideration, the Court dismissed the petition on July 26, 1989.

Castellano subsequently moved for reconsideration. This time, the amount of P316.50 was
remitted and the Court was furnished with a duplicate copy of the respondent judge's decision, and also
the IBP O.R. No. and the date of the payment of his membership dues. The motion for reconsideration did
not contain the duplicate original or certified true copies of the assailed orders. Thus, in a Resolution
dated October 18, 1989, the motion for reconsideration was denied "with FINALITY.

After 3 months, Castellano filed a complaint with the Office of the Republic of the Philippines a
complaint against the justices of the SC Second Division.

Defense: The complaint "was a constructive criticism intended to correct in good faith the erroneous and
very strict practices of the Justices concerned, as Respondents. He further disputed the authority and
jurisdiction of the Court in issuing the Resolution requiring him to show cause inasmuch as "they are
Respondents in this particular case and no longer as Justices and as such they have no more jurisdiction to
give such order."

Ruling: The Court finds Atty. Castellano guilty of CONTEMPT OF COURT and IMPROPER
CONDUCT and is fined 1,000 pesos. He is also suspended for 6 months

As a lawyer, Castellano should know that the Office of the President has no jurisdiction to
discipline, much more, remove, Justices of the Supreme Court. In filing the "complaint" against the
justices of the Court's Second Division, even the most basic tenet of our government system the
separation of powers between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative branches has been lost on
Atty. Castellano. The Supreme Court is supreme the third great department of government entrusted
exclusively with the judicial power to adjudicate with finality all justiciable disputes, public and private.
No other department or agency may pass upon its judgments or declare them 'unjust.' Consequently, and
owing to the foregoing, not even the President of the Philippines as Chief Executive may pass judgment
on any of the Court's acts.