Alpajora vs. Calayan

A lawyer who files multiple actions to harass opposing parties and counsel, attributes unsupported ill-motives to judges, misrepresents legal provisions, and grossly abuses court processes violates the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law.

Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan, as President and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Calayan Educational Foundation Inc. (CEFI), acted as "Special Counsel pro se" in an intra-corporate controversy (Civil Case No. 2007-10) filed against him and his family members before the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City. After the case was re-raffled to Ret. Judge Virgilio Alpajora, the latter issued an Omnibus Order dated July 11, 2008 creating a management committee and appointing its members for CEFI. This order prompted Calayan to file an administrative complaint against Judge Alpajora alleging ignorance of the law. When the Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint against the judge as judicial in nature, Judge Alpajora filed a counter-complaint alleging that Calayan had engaged in a systematic pattern of harassment by filing numerous baseless cases, criminal charges, and administrative complaints against opposing counsel, parties, and judges to prevent the management takeover of CEFI and to delay the proceedings.

• Atty. Calayan served as President and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Calayan Educational Foundation Inc. (CEFI) and represented himself as "Special Counsel pro se" in an intra-corporate case (Civil Case No. 2007-10) filed against him, his wife, and his daughter.
• After the case was re-raffled to Judge Alpajora, the judge issued an Omnibus Order dated July 11, 2008 creating a management committee and appointing its members for CEFI, which would result in Atty. Calayan and his family losing their positions in the foundation.
• Following the issuance of the Omnibus Order, Atty. Calayan filed an administrative complaint against Judge Alpajora, which the Supreme Court subsequently dismissed as involving judicial functions.
• Judge Alpajora alleged that Atty. Calayan filed thirteen (13) civil and special actions and two (2) related intra-corporate controversy cases before the RTC of Lucena City, violating the rule against splitting causes of action.
• Atty. Calayan filed eighteen (18) repetitious and prohibited pleadings in the intra-corporate case, apparently to delay the proceedings and prevent the management takeover of CEFI.
• He filed nine (9) criminal charges against opposing lawyers and their clients before the City Prosecutor of Lucena City.
• He filed four (4) administrative cases against opposing counsels pending before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline.
• He filed administrative cases against multiple trial court judges, including Judge Alpajora, which were dismissed because the issues raised were judicial in nature.
• In his pleadings, Atty. Calayan accused Judge Alpajora of antedating an order dated August 15, 2008, claiming the envelopes were rubber-stamped as mailed only on August 26, 2008.
• He attributed ill-motives to Judge Alpajora, accusing him of being "in cahoots" with adverse counsel, having "deplorable close ties" with them, and coaching them.
• He misquoted Rule 9 of the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies by inserting the word "exclusively" to argue that only parties could apply for a management committee, when the rule merely stated that "a party may apply."
• He misrepresented the ruling in Cortes vs. Bangalan by using it to justify his position when the case actually stood for the opposite proposition.

• Atty. Calayan filed a malicious and harassment administrative case against Judge Alpajora to intimidate the judge and delay the intra-corporate proceedings.
• Atty. Calayan demonstrated a propensity for dishonesty in his pleadings and a pattern of filing baseless, frivolous, or unfounded cases with no intention other than to harass, malign, and molest opposing parties, lawyers, and handling judges.
• Atty. Calayan repeatedly violated rules of procedure governing intra-corporate cases and maliciously misused the same to defeat the ends of justice.
• Atty. Calayan knowingly violated the rule against filing multiple actions arising from the same cause of action.
• Atty. Calayan violated Section 20(b) and (d) of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court by failing to observe respect due to courts and by seeking to mislead judges through false statements.
• Atty. Calayan violated multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rules 8.01 (abusive language), 10.01-10.03 (falsehoods and misuse of procedure), 11.03 (scandalous language), 11.04 (attributing motives to judges), and 12.02 and 12.04 (filing multiple actions and unduly delaying cases).
• The appropriate penalty is disbarment or cancellation of his license to practice law.

• The counter-complaint is barred by the doctrine of res judicata because it was integrated with the Comment/Opposition in the administrative case filed by him against Judge Alpajora, which was dismissed; thus, no disciplinary measures were leveled against him, eliminating the basis for disbarment.
• The conversion of the administrative complaint against the judge into a disbarment complaint against the complaining witness is not sanctioned by the Rules of Court on disbarment or the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline.
• The counter-complaint was unverified and thus lacked personal knowledge, proving lack of courtesy and obedience toward proper authorities.
• Judge Alpajora committed grossly unethical conduct by impleading a non-party and betrayed his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Judge Alpajora maliciously and intentionally delayed the pre-trial in violation of the Interim Rules, ignoring the special summary nature of the case.
• The allegations regarding misquoting provisions of law and misrepresenting facts were unfounded.
• The counter-complaint failed to adduce the requisite quantum of evidence to warrant disbarment or even contempt of court.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the counter-complaint against Atty. Calayan is barred by the doctrine of res judicata due to the dismissal of the administrative case against Judge Alpajora.
  • Whether the referral and re-docketing of the counter-complaint as a regular administrative case against the lawyer is procedurally proper under the Rules.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether Atty. Calayan violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing multiple harassing cases against opposing counsel and parties.
  • Whether Atty. Calayan violated his duty to respect courts by attributing unsupported ill-motives to Judge Alpajora.
  • Whether Atty. Calayan committed misrepresentation by misquoting legal provisions and jurisprudence.
  • Whether Atty. Calayan grossly abused court processes by filing multiple actions and repetitious pleadings.

• Procedural:
  • The Court rejected the res judicata argument, ruling that the dismissal of the administrative case against the judge did not preclude the investigation of the counter-complaint against the lawyer, as the latter involves different parties, issues, and causes of action.
  • The Court held that the referral of the counter-complaint to the Office of the Bar Confidant and its subsequent re-docketing as a regular administrative case was procedurally proper and within the Court's administrative powers.
• Substantive:
  • The Court found Atty. Calayan guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
  • Harassing Tactics: The filing of multiple civil, criminal, and administrative cases against opposing parties and their counsels manifested malice in paralyzing lawyers from protecting their clients' interests and constituted gross indiscretion, violating the duty to maintain respect for the courts and to employ means consistent with truth and honor.
  • Unsupported Ill-Motives: Atty. Calayan violated Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the CPR by attributing to Judge Alpajora baseless allegations of antedating orders and being "in cahoots" with adverse counsel without any supporting evidence.
  • Misrepresentation: Atty. Calayan misquoted Rule 9 of the Interim Rules by claiming "exclusivity" when the provision used the permissive "may," and misrepresented the ruling in Cortes vs. Bangalan, violating Rules 10.01 and 10.02 of the CPR.
  • Abuse of Process: The indiscriminate filing of pleadings, motions, and multiple actions violated Rules 10.03 and 12.04 of the CPR regarding misuse of rules to defeat the ends of justice and unduly delaying cases.
  • Penalty: The Court suspended Atty. Calayan from the practice of law for two (2) years with a stern warning that repetition would warrant a more severe penalty.

• Res Judicata in Administrative Proceedings — The dismissal of an administrative complaint against a judge does not bar the subsequent investigation of a counter-complaint against the complaining lawyer, as the causes of action, parties, and issues are distinct.
• Duty of Respect for Courts (Canon 11, CPR) — Lawyers must observe and maintain the respect due to courts and judicial officers, and must refrain from attributing to judges motives not supported by the record or having no materiality to the case (Rule 11.04).
• Candor and Fairness to Courts — Lawyers have a fundamental duty of complete candor and honesty toward courts; the administration of justice would gravely suffer if lawyers mislead courts through false statements or misrepresentations.
• Limits on Criticism of Judges (In Re: Almacen) — While lawyers may criticize judges in properly respectful terms through legitimate channels, such criticism must be bona fide and must not spill over the walls of decency and propriety; intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts.
• Abuse of Court Processes — Lawyers do not possess an unbridled right to file pleadings and motions; they must observe the rules of procedure and not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice (Rule 10.03), and must not file multiple actions arising from the same cause (Rule 12.02) or unduly delay cases (Rule 12.04).
• Primary Duty to Administration of Justice — 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, and his conduct must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics.

• "Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in law, but also known to possess good moral character."
• "A case for disbarment or suspension is not meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case, but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts."
• "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."
• "Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them."
• "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."
• "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."

• In Re: Almacen (142 Phil. 353) — Cited for the principle that criticism of courts must be bona fide and within the bounds of decency and propriety; distinguished because respondent's criticism was intemperate and unfair.
• Cortes vs. Bangalan (379 Phil. 251) — Cited by respondent but misrepresented; the Court noted it actually cautions judges against citing parties in contempt for retaliation, contrary to respondent's argument.
• Spouses Amatorio vs. Attys. Dy Yap and Siton-Yap (755 Phil. 336) — Cited for the principle that membership in the bar is a privilege requiring good moral character beyond mere legal learning.
• Avida Land Corporation vs. Atty. Argosino (A.C. No. 7437, August 17, 2016) — Cited regarding the professional rules that impose limits on a lawyer's zeal and hedge it with necessary restrictions.
• Judge Madrid vs. Atty. Dealca (742 Phil. 514) — Cited regarding the importance of respect for courts to guarantee the stability of the judicial institution.
• Chavez vs. Viola (273 Phil. 206) — Cited for the duty of candor and honesty toward courts as essential for the expeditious administration of justice.
• Social Security Commission vs. Court of Appeals (482 Phil. 449) — Cited for the rule that "may" is permissive and confers discretion, contrary to respondent's argument that it was exclusive.
• Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. Bohol vs. Florido (635 Phil. 176) — Cited for the principle that a lawyer's duty is primarily to the administration of justice, not to the client, and that any means not honorable, fair, and honest is condemnable and unethical.

• Section 20(b) and (d), Rule 138, Rules of Court — Duties of attorneys to observe and maintain respect due to courts and to employ means consistent with truth and honor, never seeking to mislead judges.
• Rule 71, Section 3(c) and (d), Rules of Court — Indirect contempt for any abuse of or unlawful interference with court processes, or any improper conduct tending to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.
• Rule 139-B, Section 12(b), Rules of Court — Procedure requiring the IBP Board of Governors to transmit its findings and recommendations to the Supreme Court for final action in disciplinary cases.
• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Duty to uphold the constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for law and legal processes.
• Rule 8.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibition against using abusive, offensive, or improper language in professional dealings.
• Rules 10.01, 10.02, and 10.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibitions against falsehoods, misquoting or misrepresenting contents of papers or texts of decisions, and misuse of rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice.
• Canon 11 and Rules 11.03 and 11.04, Code of Professional Responsibility — Duties to observe respect for courts and to abstain from scandalous language or behavior, and prohibition against attributing to judges motives not supported by the record.
• Canon 12 and Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Code of Professional Responsibility — Duties to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, prohibition against filing multiple actions arising from the same cause, and prohibition against unduly delaying cases or misusing court processes.