Case Summary (A.C. No. 8208)
Investigatory and IBP Referral Process
After requiring Calayan to comment, the Court in September 2009 referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation. A mandatory conference was conducted, followed by verified position papers from both parties. The IBP Investigating Commissioner reviewed the records, evidence, and arguments before preparing a report.
Complainant’s Allegations Against Respondent
Alpajora alleged that Calayan pursued a litigious strategy—filing multiple civil, special, and criminal actions against judges, counsel, and opposing parties—to harass and delay the resolution of the intra-corporate dispute. He charged Calayan with gross misconduct, abusing court processes, filing duplicative actions in violation of the rule against splitting causes of action, and misquoting law to mislead judicial officers.
Respondent’s Defenses and Objections
Calayan invoked res judicata, arguing that the SC’s dismissal of his initial complaint precluded further discipline. He contended the counter-complaint lacked verification, was procedurally improper, and constituted improper retaliation. He denied bad faith, asserted his filings were in good faith to protect CEFI, and claimed a lawyer’s unrestricted right to file pleadings vigorously.
Findings of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that Calayan:
- Filed multiple civil and criminal actions with malice to paralyze opposing counsel.
- Misrepresented jurisprudence by quoting dissent as binding thesis.
- Abused recourse to courts by filing duplicative actions in violation of Canon 12 and Rule 12.02.
- Attributed unsupported ill-motives to the judge in breach of Canon 11 and Rule 11.04.
These acts merited suspension for two years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation and denied Calayan’s motion for reconsideration.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis
The Court emphasized that bar membership is a privilege conditioned on integrity, candor, and respect for due process. Lawyers must refrain from abusive, harassing tactics and must not mislead courts or disparage judicial officers without factual support. Professional zeal is limited by ethical rules promoting the speedy and orderly administration of justice. Calayan’s repeated, duplicative filings and unfounded imputations undermined these standa
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 8208)
Procedural Antecedents
- Complainant (Ret.) Judge Virgilio Alpajora filed a counter-complaint against Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan, respondent, after CBA Calayan’s administrative charge for “ignorance of the law” and issuance of an undue order was dismissed by the Supreme Court (Resolution, March 2, 2009).
- Respondent’s original administrative complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) was dismissed as judicial in nature.
- The OCA referred complainant’s Comment/Opposition with Counter-Complaint against respondent to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), which re-docketed it as a regular administrative complaint.
- The Supreme Court’s Resolution (June 3, 2009) required respondent to comment; subsequent referral to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) (September 9, 2009) led to an IBP mandatory conference and verified position papers from both parties.
Facts and Antecedent Corporate Litigation
- An intra-corporate case (Civil Case No. 2007-10) was filed by certain Calayan family members against Atty. Calayan and others before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City, Commercial Court.
- Complainant Alpajora first received the case after a series of recusals and inhibitions by other judges, precipitated by respondent’s motions to recuse for alleged undue delay, ignorance of the law, and gross inefficiency.
- Upon raffle to Judge Alpajora, he issued an Omnibus Order (July 11, 2008) creating a management committee and appointing its members, directing the court-appointed receiver to continue duties and allow reimbursement.
- Atty. Calayan, anticipating loss of his positions in CEFI, filed multiple civil, special, and criminal actions and thirteen special actions and two related intra-corporate suits, as well as administrative complaints against other judges.
Issues Presented
- Whether respondent’s repeated filings of cases and pleadings against judges, opposing parties, and lawyers constituted gross misconduct, abuse of judicial process, and misrepresentation of facts or law.
- Whether respondent attributed unsupported motives to Judge Alpajora and thereby violated the respect due to the courts.
- Whether respondent’s counter-complaint against Alpajora was in proper form under the Rules on disbarment and IBP procedures.
- What disciplinary measures, if any, should be imposed for respondent’s conduct in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, the Rules of Court, and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Position of Complainant
- Alleged that respondent filed a malicious and harassing administrative case, exhibited propensity for dishonesty, mi