Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-90-580, RTJ-676)
Facts:
The case involves Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing as the complainant against two judges: Hon. Leopoldo T. Calderon, Jr. and Hon. Santiago Maliwanag. The administrative complaints were filed on September 25, 1990, and October 5, 1990, respectively. Balaoing had a history of filing multiple administrative complaints against judges in Olongapo City and Zambales, with the first complaint dated February 17, 1989, against Judge Jaime Dojillo, which was dismissed for lack of merit on September 18, 1990. Following this, Balaoing was severely censured for filing a frivolous complaint and warned against future misconduct.
In his complaints against Judge Calderon, Balaoing accused him of misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and malicious delay in the administration of justice. He alleged that Calderon disregarded the Supreme Court Circular mandating continuous trial, granted postponements without valid reasons, and engaged in unprofessional conduct, including drinking with lawyers. Balaoi...
Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-90-580, RTJ-676)
Facts:
Background of Complaints:
Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing filed multiple administrative complaints against judges in Olongapo City and Zambales. The first complaint, filed on February 17, 1989, against Judge Jaime Dojillo, was dismissed for lack of merit. Atty. Balaoing was severely censured and warned for filing frivolous complaints and engaging in forum shopping.Second Complaint Against Judge Maliwanag:
Atty. Balaoing filed a second complaint against Judge Santiago Maliwanag and Clerk of Court Alberto Arino, Sr., alleging grave misconduct for failing to issue a writ of execution in a civil case. The complaint was dismissed, and Atty. Balaoing was suspended from the practice of law for one year and fined P1,000 for using offensive language and violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.Third Complaint Against Judge Calderon:
Atty. Balaoing filed a third complaint against Judge Leopoldo Calderon, Jr., alleging misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and malicious delay in the administration of justice. The complaint included allegations of improper conduct, such as granting postponements without merit, fraternizing with lawyers, and delaying case dispositions.Specific Allegations Against Judge Calderon:
- Failure to follow the Supreme Court Circular on continuous trial.
- Granting postponements based on phone calls from lawyers.
- Delaying the disposition of several cases, including Civil Case No. 418-0-88, Sp. Proc. No. 285, Civil Case No. 157-0-89, and Civil Case No. 253-0-90.
- Preventing the implementation of a writ of possession in a foreclosure case.
Judge Calderon’s Defense:
- Denied allegations of misconduct and explained his actions were based on legal grounds, such as the redemption period in the foreclosure case.
- Denied allegations of drinking with lawyers and improper conduct.
- Stated that he followed the Mandatory Continuous Trial Scheme and disposed of cases in accordance with the Rules of Court.
Consolidated Complaint Against Judge Maliwanag:
Atty. Balaoing also filed a complaint against Judge Maliwanag for gross ignorance of the law, which was dismissed for lack of specific factual allegations.
Issue:
- Whether the administrative complaints filed by Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing against Judges Leopoldo Calderon, Jr. and Santiago Maliwanag have merit.
- Whether Atty. Balaoing’s conduct in filing multiple frivolous complaints and using offensive language violates the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- Whether Atty. Balaoing should be disbarred for his repeated misconduct and failure to adhere to ethical standards.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaints for lack of merit. Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing was disbarred, and his name was ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. The Court found that his complaints were baseless, frivolous, and filed with the intent to harass the judges. His conduct violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canon 11, which requires lawyers to maintain respect for the courts and judicial officers.
Ratio:
Frivolous and Baseless Complaints:
The Court found that Atty. Balaoing’s complaints were based on personal interpretations of the law rather than material facts supported by evidence. His repeated filing of unfounded complaints clogged the Court’s dockets and was deemed an abuse of the judicial process.Violation of Ethical Standards:
Atty. Balaoing’s use of offensive and defamatory language against the judges, as well as his failure to adhere to the Code of Professional Responsibility, demonstrated his unfitness to practice law. His actions were contrary to the duties of a lawyer to maintain respect for the courts and judicial officers.Disbarment as a Consequence:
The Court emphasized that the legal profession requires ethical standards and respect for the rule of law. Atty. Balaoing’s repeated misconduct, including filing baseless complaints and using scandalous language, warranted disbarment to uphold the integrity of the legal profession.