ALPAJORA VS. CALAYAN, A.C. NO.

8208, JANUARY 10, 2018

FACTS:

1. Before the Court is a Counter-Complaint filed by complainant (Ret.) Judge

Virgilio Alpajora (Complainant) against respondent Atty. Ronaldo Antonio
V. Calayan (Respondent), which originated from an administrative
complaint filed by the latter against the former before the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) for ignorance of the law and/or issuance of
undue order. The administrative complaint against Judge Alpajora was
dismissed by the Court on the ground that the matters raised therein were
judicial in nature.

2. In his Comment/Opposition with Counter-Complaint to Discipline

Complainant, complainant charged respondent with (a) filing a malicious
and harassment administrative case, (b) propensity for dishonesty in the
allegations in his pleadings, (c) misquoting provisions of law, and (d)
misrepresentation of facts. Complainant prayed for respondent's
disbarment and cancellation of his license as a lawyer.

3. The administrative case against complainant was dismissed. The Court,

however, referred the comment/opposition with counter-complaint filed
by complainant in the administrative case against him to the Office of the
Bar Confidant (OBC) for appropriate action.

4. Respondent countered that the subject case is barred by the doctrine of

res judicata. According to him, the counter-complaint was integrated with
the Comment/Opposition of complainant in the administrative case filed
by respondent against the latter. He stressed that because no disciplinary
measures were levelled on him by the OCA as an outcome of his complaint,
charges for malpractice, malice or bad faith were entirely ruled out;
moreso, his disbarment was decidedly eliminated.16Respondent argued
that the doctrine of res judicata was embedded in the OCA's finding that
his complaint was judicial in nature.

5. Prior to this case, an intra-corporate case docketed as Civil Case No. 2007-
10 and entitled "Calayan Educational Foundation Inc. (CEFI), Dr. Arminda
Calayan, Dr. Bernardita Calayan-Brion and Dr. Manuel Calayan vs. Atty.
Ronalda A.V. Calayan, Susan S. Calayan and Deanna Rachelle S. Calayan, "
was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City designated
as commercial court and presided by Judge Adolfo Encomienda.
Respondent was President and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of CEFI.
He signed and filed pleadings as "Special Counsel pro se" for himself. Court
proceedings ensued despite several inhibitions by judges to whom the
case was re-raffled until it was finally re-raffled to complainant.
 Thereafter, complainant issued an Omnibus Order for the creation of a
management committee and the appointment of its members.
(Complainant claimed that his order was not acceptable to respondent
because he knew the import and effect of the said order - that he, together
with his wife and daughter, would lose their positions as Chairman,
Treasurer and Secretary, respectively, and as members of the Board of
Trustees of the CEFI.) That Order prompted the filing of the administrative
case against the Judge Alpajora.

6. The Investigating Commissioner concluded that respondent violated

Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Rules 8.01, 10.01 to 10.03,
11.03, 11.04, 12.02 and 12.04 of the CPR and, thus, recommended his
suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years.

7. Consequently, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution adopting

and approving the report and recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner.

8. Respondent moved for reconsideration but the same was denied.

9. Hence, the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors was transmitted to

the Court for final action.

ISSUES:

W/N respondent violated Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Rules 8.01,
10.01 to 10.03, 11.03, 11.04, 12.02 and 12.04 of the CPR.

RULING:

In this case, perusal of the records reveals that Atty. Calayan has displayed
conduct unbecoming of a worthy lawyer.

Harassing tactics against opposing counsel

As noted by the IBP Investigating Commissioner, respondent did not deny filing
several cases, both civil and criminal, against opposing parties and their counsels.
The Court is mindful of the lawyer's duty to defend his client's cause with utmost
zeal. However, professional rules impose limits on a lawyer's zeal and hedge it
with necessary restrictions and qualifications. The filing of cases by respondent
against the adverse parties and their counsels, as correctly observed by the
Investigating Commissioner, manifests his malice in paralyzing the lawyers from
exerting their utmost effort in protecting their client's interest. Even assuming
arguendo that such acts were done without malice, it showed respondent's gross
indiscretion as a colleague in the legal profession.
Unsupported ill-motives attributed to a judge
Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the CPR state that: Canon 11 - A lawyer shall observe
and maintain the respect due to the Courts and to judicial officers and should
insist on similar conduct by others. xxx Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to
a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.
As officers of the court, lawyers are duty-bound to observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and judicial officers. They are to abstain from offensive
or menacing language or behavior before the court and must refrain from
attributing to a judge motives that are not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case. Here, respondent has consistently attributed unsupported
imputations against the complainant in his pleadings. However, these bare
allegations are absolutely unsupported by any piece of evidence. Respondent did
not present any proof to establish complainant's alleged partiality or the
antedating. The date of mailing indicated on the envelope is not the date of issue
of the said order. The Court finds respondent guilty of attributing unsupported
ill-motives to complainant. It must be remembered that all lawyers are bound to
uphold the dignity and authority of the courts, and to promote confidence in the
fair administration of justice. It is the respect for the courts that guarantees the
stability of the judicial institution; elsewise, the institution would be resting on a
very shaky foundation. Hence, no matter how passionate a lawyer is towards
defending his client's cause, he must not forget to display the appropriate
decorum expected of him, being a member of the legal profession, and to
continue to afford proper and utmost respect due to the courts.
Failure to observe candor, fairness and good faith before the court; failure
to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice
It cannot be gainsaid that candidness, especially towards the courts, is essential
for the expeditious administration of justice. Courts are entitled to expect only
complete candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing and pleading before
them. A lawyer, on the other hand, has the fundamental duty to satisfy that
expectation. Otherwise, the administration of justice would gravely suffer if
indeed it could proceed at all. A judge may not hold a party in contempt of court
for expressing concern on his impartiality even if the judge may have been
insulted therein. While the power to punish in contempt is inherent in all courts
so as to preserve order in judicial proceedings and to uphold the due
administration of justice, judges, however, should exercise their contempt
powers judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, and with the end in view
of utilizing their contempt powers for correction and preservation not for
retaliation or vindication. As correctly pointed out by the Investigating
Commissioner, the jurisprudence quoted precisely cautions a judge against citing
a party in contempt, which is totally contradictory to the position of respondent.
He misrepresented the text of a decision, in violation of the CPR. Atty. Calayan's
indiscriminate filing of pleadings, motions, civil and criminal cases, and even
administrative cases against different trial court judges relating to controversies
involving CEFI, in fact, runs counter to the speedy disposition of cases. It
frustrates the administration of justice. It degrades the dignity and integrity of
the courts. A lawyer does not have an unbridled right to file pleadings, motions
and cases as he pleases. Limitations can be inferred from Rule 71, Section 3 (c)
and (d) [Indirect Contempt to be Punished After Charge and Hearing.] and Canon
11 , Canon 10, Rule 10.032 , Canon 123 and Canon 12, Rule 12.044 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Respondent justifies his filing of administrative cases
against certain judges, including complainant, by relying on In Re: Almacen
(Almacen). He claims that the mandate of the ruling laid down in Almacen was to
encourage lawyers' criticism of erring magistrates.66 In Almacen, however, it did
not mandate but merely recognized the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the
court and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through
legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. In addition, the Court therein
emphasized that these criticisms are subject to a condition that it shall be bona
fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm
exists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander of courts
and the judges thereof, on the other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross
violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct that subjects a
lawyer to disciplinary action. Indubitably, the acts of respondent were in
violation of his duty to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of
justice and judicial officers and his duty to never seek to mislead the judge or any
judicial officer. In his last ditch attempt to escape liability, respondent apologized
for not being more circumspect with his remedies and choice of words. He
admitted losing objectivity and becoming emotional while pursuing the cases
involving him and the CEFI. The Court, however, reiterates that a lawyer's duty, is
not to his client but primarily to the administration of justice. To that end, his
client's success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to, and must always, be
scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and
honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to
his client's cause, is condemnable and unethical. For having violated the CPR and
the Lawyer's Oath, respondent's conduct should be meted with a commensurate
penalty.
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS and APPROVES the Resolution of the IBP.
Accordingly, Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan is found GUILTY of violating The
Lawyer's Oath and The Code of Professional Responsibility and he is hereby
ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years.