A.C. No. 8208 - Alpajora vs. Calayan

Case Summary (A.C. No. 8208)

Petitioner

Retired Judge Virgilio Alpajora — the complainant before the IBP and the filer of the counter-complaint alleging misconduct by Atty. Calayan in the form of malicious and harassing administrative filings, dishonesty in pleadings, misquotation of law, and misrepresentation of facts; he sought disbarment and cancellation of Respondent’s law license.

Respondent

Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan — President and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Calayan Educational Foundation, Inc. (CEFI), who represented himself as “Special Counsel pro se” in multiple intra-corporate proceedings and who originally filed an administrative complaint against Judge Alpajora.

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Administrative complaint against Judge Alpajora dismissed by Supreme Court Resolution dated March 2, 2009.
OBC re-docketed Judge Alpajora’s counter-complaint and, by Resolution dated June 3, 2009, required Respondent to comment.
Court’s Resolution dated September 9, 2009 referred the matter to the IBP for investigation.
IBP Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation finding multiple violations and recommending suspension.
IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation (Resolution dated September 28, 2013).
IBP denied Respondent’s motion for reconsideration (Resolution dated May 4, 2014).
Supreme Court decision adopted IBP recommendation and ordered suspension for two years (A.C. No. 8208; decision promulgated Jan. 10, 2018).

Applicable Law and Professional Standards

The Court applied rules and standards invoked in the record: Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (duties of attorneys), provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (including Rules 8.01; 10.01–10.03; 11.03–11.04; 12.02; 12.04), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court on contempt, and Section 12(b), Rule 139-B on IBP Board recommendations to the Supreme Court. Because the decision was rendered in 2018, the governance and standards are addressed against the background of the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the supreme law.

Antecedents and Factual Background

An intra-corporate case (Civil Case No. 2007-10) involving CEFI was originally before another RTC branch; several recusals and inhibitions followed after Respondent moved to recuse judges, resulting in the case eventually being raffled to Judge Alpajora. Judge Alpajora issued an Omnibus Order dated July 11, 2008 creating a management committee and appointing its members; the trial court also allowed the receiver Atty. Antonio Acyatan to continue in his duties and to be reimbursed. Respondent reacted by filing numerous civil, criminal and administrative pleadings relating to the same dispute.

Complainant’s Allegations (Judge Alpajora)

Judge Alpajora alleged that Respondent (1) filed a malicious and harassing administrative case against him after issuance of the Omnibus Order; (2) demonstrated a pattern of filing repetitious and prohibited pleadings (eighteen in his sala and multiple cases elsewhere) and splitting causes of action by filing related intra-corporate suits; (3) filed nine criminal complaints and multiple administrative cases against opposing counsels and judges; and (4) engaged in misconduct contrary to Section 20, Rule 138 and various Canons and Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent’s Position and Defenses

Respondent contended the counter-complaint against him was barred by res judicata given the OCA’s finding that his original administrative complaint against Judge Alpajora was judicial in nature and therefore dismissed. He asserted the conversion of his complaint into a disciplinary case was improper, criticized the procedural sufficiency of the counter-complaint (alleging lack of verification), and maintained that his filings were bona fide, aimed at protecting CEFI, and within his rights to pursue remedies, including criticisms of judges. He denied malice and argued the evidence was insufficient for disbarment or contempt.

IBP Investigation: Findings of the Investigating Commissioner

The Investigating Commissioner concluded Respondent violated Section 20, Rule 138 and multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Key findings included: admission or judicial notice that Respondent filed multiple civil and criminal cases against opposing counsel and parties; misrepresentation by citing a dissent as a thesis; tendency to allege unsupported criminality and fraud against the judge and opposing counsel; abuse through filing of multiple actions on substantially identical relief; and imputations of ill motive against Judge Alpajora unsupported by the record. Although mitigating circumstances (emotional involvement, direct interest) were noted, the Investigating Commissioner recommended a two-year suspension.

IBP Board of Governors’ Action

The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation and, upon denial of Respondent’s motion for reconsideration, transmitted the record and its resolution to the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 12(b), Rule 139-B for final disposition.

Issues Presented to the Court

The central disciplinary issues were whether Respondent’s conduct (multiple and repetitious filings, accusations against the judge unsupported by record, misquotations and misrepresentations, and use of judicial processes in a manner inconsistent with truth and honor) violated professional duties under the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and what penalty, if any, should be imposed.

Court’s Analysis: Limits on Zeal and Filing of Multiple Actions

The Court recognized a lawyer’s duty to defend clients zealously but emphasized that zeal has limits under professional rules. The record showed Respondent filed numerous civil, criminal, and administrative actions involving the same subject matter and parties, which the IBP found to be malicious or at least grossly indiscreet and obstructive to administration of justice. The Court cited Rule 71 (indirect contempt), Canons 1, 10 and 12 of the CPR, and specific CPR rules which prohibit misuse of process and filing multiple actions arising from the same cause, and held that Respondent’s pattern of filings frustrated speedy disposition and degraded court dignity.

Court’s Analysis: Attributing Unsupported Motives to the Judge

The Court held that lawyers must maintain respect for courts and judicial officers and must not attribute motives to a judge that are unsupported by the record. Respondent repeatedly accused Judge Alpajora of partiality, coaching adverse counsel, and antedating orders; the Court found these allegations lacked evidentiary support (e.g., envelope mailing dates do not establish date of issuance) and therefore violated Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the CPR by imputing unsupported ill motives to a judge.

Court’s Analysis: Candor, Misrepresentation, and Misquotation

The Court found instances of misquotation and misrepresentation by Respondent, including

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 8208)

Procedural posture and nature of the case

This is an administrative disciplinary proceeding re-docketed from a comment/opposition with a counter-complaint originally filed by Ret. Judge Virgilio Alpajora (Complainant) in an administrative complaint that Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan (Respondent) filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
The administrative complaint that Respondent filed against Judge Alpajora was dismissed by the Court in a Resolution dated March 2, 2009, on the ground that the matters raised were judicial in nature.
Complainant thereafter filed a Comment/Opposition with Counter-Complaint to Discipline Complainant, charging Respondent with: filing a malicious and harassment administrative case; propensity for dishonesty in pleadings; misquoting provisions of law; and misrepresentation of facts, and prayed for Respondent’s disbarment and cancellation of his license.
The Court referred the counter-complaint to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), which re-docketed it as a regular administrative case against Respondent and recommended that Respondent be required to submit his comment.
Subsequent Court resolutions noted Respondent’s comment and referred the administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation; a mandatory conference before the IBP ensued and both parties were directed to submit verified position papers.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation; the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved it and recommended a two-year suspension. The Board denied Respondent’s motion for reconsideration. Pursuant to Rule 139-B, Section 12(b) of the Rules of Court, the IBP Resolution with the whole record was transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.
The Supreme Court, in a decision penned by Justice Gesmundo, adopted and approved the IBP findings and recommendation and ordered Respondent suspended from the practice of law for two years, with a stern warning.

Antecedent civil litigation (context of the administrative actions)

The administrative and disciplinary matters arose from an intra-corporate commercial case: Civil Case No. 2007-10, entitled “Calayan Educational Foundation Inc. (CEFI), Dr. Arminda Calayan, Dr. Bernardita Calayan-Brion and Dr. Manuel Calayan vs. Atty. Ronaldo A.V. Calayan, Susan S. Calayan and Deanna Rachelle S. Calayan,” filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City designated as commercial court.
Respondent was President and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of CEFI and signed and filed pleadings as “Special Counsel pro se” for himself.
The case underwent several inhibitions and re-rafflings of presiding judges: Presiding Judge Adolfo Encomienda presided initially, then voluntarily inhibited after Respondent filed an Urgent Motion to Recuse and a Supplement citing undue delay, gross ignorance of the law and gross inefficiency following the appointment of Atty. Antonio Acyatan as receiver.
The case was re-raffled to Executive Judge Norma Chionglo-Sia (who inhibited due to impending retirement), referred to Executive Judge Eloida R. de Leon-Diaz for re-raffle, and was finally raffled to Complainant (Ret. Judge Alpajora).
Complainant issued an Omnibus Order dated July 11, 2008 creating a management committee and appointing its members; that order prompted the administrative complaint by Respondent against Complainant.
The trial court, in the intra-corporate proceedings, resolved that Atty. Acyatan continue to discharge his duties as receiver with powers and authority as court-appointed receiver and authorized the foundation to pay the receiver’s reimbursement expenses and professional charges.
Complainant claimed that Respondent opposed the Omnibus Order because Respondent, his wife and daughter would lose their positions as Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary, respectively, and as members of the Board of Trustees of CEFI.

Complainant’s position and allegations against respondent

Complainant alleged he partially tried and heard Civil Case No. 2007-10 and later voluntarily inhibited himself from it after Respondent filed an administrative complaint against him.
Complainant traced earlier recusation efforts: Presiding Judge Encomienda inhibited after Respondent’s motions to recuse; subsequent re-rafflings and inhibitions left the case finally with Complainant.
Complainant asserted that Respondent’s administrative complaint was precipitated by Complainant’s Omnibus Order (July 11, 2008) that effectively changed the management of CEFI.
Complainant alleged Respondent filed numerous repetitive and vexatious pleadings: thirteen civil and special actions before the RTC of Lucena City after records were transmitted and after Complainant had inhibited; two related intra-corporate controversy cases violating the rule against splitting causes of action; and eighteen repetitious and prohibited pleadings before Complainant’s sala.
Complainant alleged that Respondent’s repeated filings and motions aimed to harass, malign and molest opposing parties, their counsel and the handling judges, to prevent the takeover of CEFI management and to dismiss the case at pre-trial.
Complainant disclosed that Respondent filed nine criminal charges against opposing lawyers and their clients before the City Prosecutor of Lucena City, and four administrative cases against opposing counsels pending before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline.
From the foregoing, Complainant asserted Respondent committed: serious and gross misconduct; violations of the lawyer’s oath and Section 20(b) and (d) of Rule 138, Rules of Court (failure to observe respect due to courts; employing means inconsistent with truth and honor); repeated violations of procedural rules governing intra-corporate cases and misuse of such rules to defeat ends of justice; and violations of the rule against filing multiple actions arising from the same cause.

Respondent’s position and defenses

Respondent contended the counter-complaint was barred by res judicata, arguing it was integrated with Complainant’s Comment/Opposition in the original administrative case A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2968-RTJ which the Court dismissed as judicial in nature; because no disciplinary measures were imposed on Complainant, Respondent argued charges of malpractice, malice or bad faith were ruled out.
Respondent argued the conversion of the administrative complaint against a judge into a disbarment complaint against the complaining witness was improperly done to deflect charges away from Complainant.
Respondent asserted the counter-complaint was not sanctioned by Rules of Court on disbarment and the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, and further claimed it was unverified and thus lacked personal knowledge.
Respondent accused Complainant of committing