Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In re: Almacen
Facts:
Vicente Raul Almacen surrendered his license and insists that his name be stricken
from the roll of attorneys in protest against what he therein asserts is a great
injustice committed against his client by Supreme Court. He ridiculed the members
of the court and gave so many defamatory remarks such as they are not only
blind, but also deaf and dumb. The reason why Almacens client lost the case was
because he failed to indicate the time and place in his motion for reconsideration
which is critical to make the pleading legally effective pursuant to Rule 13 of the
Rules of Court.
Issues:
Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined because of his actions.
Ruling:
Yes. It is expected of a lawyer to act with proper conduct and be respectfully to the
high courts at all times for he is just not a mere citizen but rather a member of the
legal profession. His scrutiny and contemptuous criticisms are uncalled for. As a
veteran lawyer, he should have known that a motion for reconsideration which
failed to notify the opposing party of the time and place of trial is a mere scrap of
paper and will not be entertained by the court. He has only himself to blame and he
is the reason why his client lost. Almacen was suspended indefinitely.
In re: Cunanan
Facts:
Congress passed R.A. No. 972 or also known as The Bar Flunkers Act in 1952. The
said act fixed the passing marks of bar examinations from 1946 up to 1955. This is
because of the varying difficulty of the exams and the strictness of grading during
the mentioned years. Albino Cunanan, a bar candidate himself assailed the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 972.
Issue:
Whether or not The Bar Flunkers Act is unconstitutional.
Ruling:
Yes. Because only the Judiciary has the original and exclusive power to decide on
who will be members of the Philippine Bar. Such Act also contradicts to the
provisions enshrined in the Rules of Court governing admission to the bar, "in order
that a candidate (for admission to the Bar) may be deemed to have passed his
examinations successfully, he must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent
in all subjects, without falling below 50 per cent in any subject." (Rule 127, sec. 14,
Rules of Court).