Case Digest (A.C. No. 8208) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In A.C. No. 8208, decided en banc on January 10, 2018, the Supreme Court resolved the administrative tiffs between Retired Judge Virgilio Alpajora (Complainant) and Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan (Respondent). The controversy began in Civil Case No. 2007-10 before the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City, Commercial Court, where Judge Alpajora issued on July 11, 2008 an Omnibus Order appointing a management committee for Calayan Educational Foundation, Inc. (CEFI). Displeased that the order threatened his family’s positions in CEFI, Atty. Calayan filed an administrative complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) accusing Judge Alpajora of ignorance of the law and issuance of undue order. The OCA dismissed it as judicial in nature. Judge Alpajora then filed a counter-complaint accusing Calayan of malicious prosecution, dishonesty, misquoting law and misrepresenting facts, praying for disbarment. The OCA referred this counter-complaint to the Office of the Bar C Case Digest (A.C. No. 8208) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Administrative Complaint and Counter-Complaint
- Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) an administrative complaint against Ret. Judge Virgilio Alpajora for ignorance of the law and issuance of an undue order in Civil Case No. 2007-10.
- The OCA dismissal (March 2, 2009) of Calayan’s complaint as judicial in nature prompted Alpajora to file a counter-complaint accusing Calayan of malicious and harassing litigation, dishonesty, misquoting legal provisions, and misrepresentation of facts, praying for Calayan’s disbarment.
- Underlying Intra-Corporate Case (Civil Case No. 2007-10)
- Parties: Calayan Educational Foundation, Inc. (CEFI) and its trustees vs. Atty. Calayan (who acted “special counsel pro se”), Susan S. Calayan and Deanna R. Calayan.
- Recusal Motions and Re-raffles: Presiding Judge Encomienda inhibited upon Calayan’s recusal motion; successive inhibitions by Judges Sia and de Leon-Diaz; eventual raffling to Judge Alpajora.
- July 11, 2008 Omnibus Order by Judge Alpajora: created a management committee, appointed Atty. Antonio Acyatan as receiver, and authorized reimbursement of receiver’s expenses.
- Calayan’s Litigation Tactics
- Filed thirteen (13) civil and special actions and two (2) separate intra-corporate cases splitting causes of action.
- Submitted eighteen (18) repetitious pleadings in the main case and nine (9) criminal charges against opposing lawyers and parties, plus four (4) administrative cases against counsel and judges.
- Alleged motive: frustrate take-over of CEFI management and delay or dismiss the intra-corporate case at pretrial.
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- The Office of the Bar Confidant re-docketed Alpajora’s counter-complaint as a regular administrative case against Calayan; IBP Commission on Bar Discipline conducted investigation.
- IBP Investigating Commissioner found Calayan guilty of violating Section 20, Rule 138, Rules of Court and various Canons and Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), recommending a two-year suspension.
- The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation; Calayan’s motion for reconsideration was denied (May 4, 2014); record forwarded to the Supreme Court for final action.
Issues:
- Whether Atty. Calayan’s repeated filings of civil, criminal, special and administrative actions, his misquotation of law and jurisprudence, and his attribution of unsupported ill-motives to Judge Alpajora constitute violations of the Lawyer’s Oath (Section 20, Rule 138, Rules of Court) and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- Whether the appropriate disciplinary measure is suspension from the practice of law and, if so, its duration.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)