EDUARDO R. BALAOING, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE LEOPOLDO CALDERON, RESPONDENT.

This is the latest of the several administrative complaints filed
by Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing against different judges of Olongapo City and
Zambales.

The first complaint was dated February 17, 1989, entitled
“Atty. Balaoing vs. Hon. Jaime Dojillo as Judge of Municipal Trial Court
in Cities, Olongapo City, et al.” Said complaint was dismissed for lack of
merit through this Court’s Resolution dated September 18, 1990. Further, Atty. Balaoing was required to show
cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for having suppressed
certain material facts of which he was charged with knowledge, and for having
engaged in forum shopping. On September
26, 1990, Atty. Balaoing submitted his “Explanation and Motion for
Reconsideration.” In a Resolution^[1] of
the Court En Banc, said motion for reconsideration was DENIED, his explanation
was DECLARED UNSATISFACTORY and he was SEVERELY CENSURED for having instituted
a patently unfounded and frivolous administrative action, and WARNED that the
commission by him of the same or similar misconduct will be dealt with more
severely.

The second administrative complaint filed by Atty. Eduardo R.
Balaoing was against Judge Santiago Maliwanag, RTC, Branch 71, Iba, Zambales
and Clerk of Court Alberto Ariño, Sr., RTC, Iba, Zambales, charging them with
grave misconduct for their alleged failure and refusal to issue the
corresponding writ of execution (pending appeal) prayed for by complainant in
his motion filed in Civil Case No. 983-1 (CA-G.R. No. 01234), entitled “TEOFILO
ZABALA, et al. vs. EUGENIO BUENO”. The Court was disturbed by complainant Balaoing’s unrestrained use of
unsavory, even defamatory and offensive language against respondent Judge. One glaring example narrates: “x x x It is well to advise Judge Maliwanag
not to be wearing his brief (short) while in his chamber during office hours;
it is downright undignified, especially so when his body has traces of fungus,
which may have been afflicted during his 26 years as Assistant City Fiscal of
Olongapo City, a dirty city.” (This was vehemently denied by respondent
Judge.) The Court, in a Resolution^[2] En
Banc, dated December 4, 1990, resolved to:

(1)   
DISMISS the complaint;

(2)   
SUSPEND complainant from the practice of law for one (1) year;
and

(3)   
IMPOSE upon complainant a FINE of ONE THOUSAND PESOS
(P1,000.00), for Violation of the Canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, with a stern warning that subsequent similar infractions shall
be dealt with more severely.

Notwithstanding the above warnings, censure and suspension from
the practice of law for one (1) year, Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing is again before
this Court with more administrative complaints filed against not only one, but
two judges, the Honorable Leopoldo T. Calderon, Jr. and the Honorable Santiago
Maliwanag, of Olongapo City and Zambales, respectively.

On September 25, 1990, Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing filed a sworn
letter-complaint^[3]
against Judge Leopoldo T. Calderon, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 75,
Olongapo City, for misconduct, grave abuse of authority and malicious delay in the administration of
justice, allegedly committed as follows:

“Complainant alleges that in the
matter of implementing the Supreme Court Circular mandating continuous trial,
there is no way for it to succeed in so far as respondent Judge is concerned
since the latter does not follow the
Circular and merely treats it as directory; that at the start of court
sessions, it has been the practice of respondent Judge to automatically grant
postponements and deferments of the hearing of cases to a later hour whenever
his OIC, Leonor Maniago, makes a manifestation in open court that a certain
lawyer or party called up requesting that his/her case be postponed or be
called later in the day; that
respondent Judge drinks a lot with lawyers close to Mayor Gordon and
fraternizes with them openly; that with respect to respondent’s personal
driver, the latter receives his salary both from Mayor Gordon as a casual
employee and from the Supreme Court as a judicial aide; and, that respondent Judge
sanctions the set up of having his legal researcher, Jaime
Dojildo, Jr., to work under the supervision of an OIC who, according to
complainant, is grossly inefficient and a notorious swindler with no background
in law.

Complainant
further alleges that respondent Judge has been maliciously delaying the
disposition of several cases pending in his sala.

a.      
Civil Case
No. 418-­0-88, where complainant is the counsel for the plaintiff, was filed in 1988. Since the respondent Judge allowed the defendants to keep on
postponing the hearings, to date, the case remains pending, without any
hearing, for more than one (1) year;

b.      
Sp. Proc. No. 285, where complainant is the
counsel for the Petitioner, the case was submitted for decision on (sic)
September 1989. To date, no decision
has yet been rendered on the case to the prejudice of the petitioner who is now
very old and sickly;

c.      
In Civil Case No. 157-0-89, where complainant is
the plaintiff, respondent Judge in cahoots with his Deputy Sheriff, unlawfully
prevented the implementation of the
Writ of Possession;

d.      
In Civil Case No. 253-0-90, where complainant is
the Petitioner, the application for the
immediate issuance of mandatory
injunction was filed on April 27, 1990. To date, the same has not yet been acted upon by the respondent
Judge.”^[4]

A second letter-complaint^[5] dated
October 5, 1990, was again filed by Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing against the same
Judge Leopoldo T. Calderon, Jr. and his Officer-in-Charge (OIC) Leonor Maniago
charging them both with misconduct, grave abuse of authority and malicious
delay in the administration of justice relative to Civil Case No. 201-0-­89,
entitled “Eduardo R. Balaoing vs. The Estate of Eufemio Bueno,” and
Civil Case No. RTC 327-1 entitled “Joaquina Vda. de Balaoing and Eduardo
R. Balaoing vs. Santiago Maliwanag and Romeo Enriquez.” Complainant
Balaoing, who is the plaintiff in both cases, alleges that respondent Judge
abused his authority by refusing to declare in default the defendants in the
above-entitled cases despite their repeated failure to attend the pre-trial
conferences and to submit their pre-trial briefs. Complainant further avers that at the scheduled hearing, on
October 5, 1990, respondent Judge did not call complainant’s case, and was told
only three (3) hours later that the reason was because of the motion filed by
him for respondent Judge’s inhibition, which the latter allegedly refused to
resolve.

With respect to the other
respondent OIC Leonor Maniago, complainant Balaoing alleges that when he came
out of the courtroom, he was castigated by the former for allegedly calling her
notorious, swindler, insane, etc.

Respondent Judge Leopoldo
T. Calderon, Jr. filed his Comment^[6] on November 13, 1991. He asserts that the present administrative
complaint filed against him by complainant Balaoing was precipitated by
incidents in Civil Case No. 190-0-89 entitled “Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing
vs. Eliseo Gavilan, et al.” for Damages, wherein defendant Gavilan
defaulted. All the other cases
mentioned in the letter-complaint were allegedly included to merely embellish
the charges.

The factual backdrop of the Gavilan case
shows that complainant Balaoing won in a foreclosure case against one Eliseo
Gavilan. After the foreclosed
properties (a house and lot) were sold in a public auction, where complainant
Balaoing was the highest bidder, a Certificate of Sale was issued and the same
was registered. Respondent Judge,
however, allegedly prevented the implementation of the writ of possession, to
the prejudice of complainant Balaoing. In his Comment, respondent Judge explained that the reason why he
quashed the writ of possession he earlier issued in favor of complainant
Balaoing was due to the fact that Gavilan’s widow, Alice, and her children,
were residing in the foreclosed properties and, more importantly, the period to
redeem the said properties had not yet expired. This action of respondent Judge
allegedly infuriated complainant Balaoing,
hence, his filing of several suits, one after the other, against respondent
Judge, namely:

“a) a Motion for Inhibition of respondent Judge
in the Gavilan case and in the other cases mentioned in his present
administrative complaint, alleging, among other things, that respondent Judge
is guilty of “mental dishonesty” and “grossness of ignorance of
the law;”

b)     
a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, to prevent
respondent Judge from further acting in the Gavilan case and to nullify
the Order of the Quashal of the Writ of Possession rendered in his favor;

c)     Civil
Case No. 425-0-90, entitled “Balaoing vs. Judge Leopoldo Calderon,
Jr.,” for Damages, the causes of action of which were anchored on the
events that transpired in the Gavilan case; and

d)     
a Petition to
cite respondent Judge in contempt filed with the Court of Appeals for expunging
his motion for inhibition.

When the redemption
period in the Gavilan case had expired without the heirs redeeming the
property, respondent Judge issued a writ of possession in favor of complainant Balaoing. But up to the present time, complainant
Balaoing has not yet taken possession of the same, showing thereby his apparent
disinterest.

As to the application of complainant Balaoing for a writ of
injunction and restraining order in Civil Case No. 253-0-90, respondent Judge
explains that before he could finish hearing the evidence of the parties in
support of and in opposition to the petition for issuance of the ancillary writ
prayed for, complainant Balaoing filed another Motion for Inhibition of
respondent Judge to hear his cases. Nevertheless, respondent Judge denied the motion for the issuance of the
writ prayed for failure of complainant Balaoing to show a clear right over the
property and that irreparable injury would visit him if the writ would not be
issued.

With regard to the charge of grave misconduct, respondent Judge
vehemently denies the same. Thus,

“7.1 The charge that the undersigned drinks
“whisky like water” is a canard. The undersigned is not a habitual imbiber of liquor as he suffers from
an occasional high blood pressure and migraine. Since undersigned became a judge, he never “patronized”
with any lawyer.

7.2        
The undersigned applies the Mandatory Continuous Trial Scheme
in his cases. If there were occasional
lapses, it was because of the abnormal case load which is now more than 500 cases.

7.3        
Court Aide Antonio Faustino does not receive any compensation
from the City Government. He was,
before being appointed by the Supreme Court to such a position, a casual
employee of the City government. Upon
his assumption to his present duty, he ceased to receive compensation from any
other source.

xxx                                                            xxx                                                           xxx

7.5
  Atty. Jaime Dojillo was the duly
appointed researcher in my sala. When
he was promoted as Assistant Clerk of Court, upon his request, the Executive
Judge allowed him to do researches for me. He is now a Trial Attorney in the PAO.

8.   The
undersigned has conducted the trial of cases and had disposed of the same
consistent with the Rules of Court and various Supreme Court rulings and
circulars. x x x”^[7]

Other respondent OIC Leonor Maniago adopted the allegations in
respondent Judge’s Comment, and alleged further that she has “faithfully
performed her duties and obligations under the law to administer justice in
accordance with her authority and without any impartiality (sic) whatsoever.”^[8]

Consolidated with this administrative case is A.M. No. R-676-RTJ,
entitled “Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing vs. Hon. Santiago Maliwanag,”
wherein the former charges the latter with gross ignorance of the law for
allegedly issuing a patently unjust order.

Respondent Judge Maliwanag, in his Comment dated September 2,
1986, denied the charge and alleged among others, that his order was issued
based on jurisprudence, equity and justice, in order to prevent an unjust and
inequitable execution of the judgment and an injustice perpetrated by a lawyer
on the unlearned and poor couple from the barrio.

In a Memorandum to then Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan, dated
September 12, 1990, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended the
dismissal of Atty. Balaoing’s complaint against Judge Maliwanag on the ground
that the same failed “to specifically show and prove the facts
constituting the charge of gross ignorance of the law. The allegations of the complainant are not
only laconic and general but they are also based on mere and personal
interpretations of the complainant on the law instead of material allegations
of facts.”^[9]

As shown above, herein complainant Balaoing has a penchant for
filing administrative charges against judges, in whose sala he has pending
cases, whenever the latter render decisions or issue orders adverse to him
and/or his clients. In Bagamasbad
vs. Judge de Guzman, Jr.,^[10] We
have already admonished lawyers to be more prudent in filing administrative
charges against members of the judiciary. It is true that “The lawyer owes ‘entire devotion to the interest
of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the
exertion of his utmost learning and ability’ x x x. No fear of judicial disfavor or public unpopularity should restrain
him from the full discharge of his duty. x x x But it is steadfastly to be borne in mind that the great trust of
the lawyer is to be performed within and not without the bounds of the law. The office of attorney does not permit, much
less does it demand for him for any client, violation of law or any manner of
fraud or chicanery. He must obey his
own conscience and not that of his client.”^[11]
Here, complainant Balaoing went out of bounds when he filed his baseless and
frivolous administrative complaints against respondent Judges Calderon and
Maliwanag, with no other plain and clear purpose than to harass respondent
Judges, and thus, exact vengeance on them for rendering adverse judgments
against him and his clients.

These acts of complainant Balaoing run counter to the explicit
mandate of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:

CANON
11   –       A
LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL
OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.

                               xxx                          xxx                    xxx

Rule
11.03     –       A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the Courts.

Rule
11.04     –       A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported
by the record or have no materiality to the case.

We have painstakingly reviewed the records of these cases and
find the present administrative complaints of Atty. Balaoing against Judge
Calderon, Jr. and his OIC Leonor Maniago, and against Judge Maliwanag, just as
frivolous and baseless as the previous ones. Like before, his present complaints are based on his personal
interpretation of the law and not on material allegations of fact,
substantiated by solid evidence. This
We cannot countenance.

Complainant Balaoing’s wanton disregard of Our stern warning not
to again file baseless and frivolous complaints which only clog the already full dockets of this Court instead of serve
the ends of justice, and his adamant refusal to abide by the above-quoted
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility which serve to regulate a
lawyer’s conduct in this jurisdiction, have shown complainant Balaoing’s unfitness to hold the license to
practice law. The Philippines abounds
in lawyers. But as Justice Malcolm puts
it, “the Philippines do not need so-called
lawyers who x x x have no ethical standards, and who are a disgrace to a great
and noble profession. x x x (F)or what
is needed in the Philippines is not a greater quantity, but a finer quality, of
professional men and women, x x x who have a sincere understanding of the high
requirements of the legal profession x x x.”^[12]
Complainant Balaoing has utterly
failed to live up to the duties and responsibilities of a member of the legal
profession.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the administrative
complaints are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Complainant Eduardo R. Balaoing is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this decision be furnished to the Bar Confidant and
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and spread on the personal records of
complainant. This decision is
immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, and Quiason, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing v. Hon. Jaime Dojillo as Judge of Municipal
Trial Court in Cities, Olongapo City, et al., A.M. No. MTJ-89-268, Resolution
En Banc, December 4, 1990.

^[2]
Eduardo R. Balaoing vs. Judge Santiago Maliwanag, RTC, Branch 71, Iba
Zambales and Clerk of Court Alberto Ariño, Sr., Office of the Clerk of Court,
RTC, Iba Zambales, A.M. No. RTJ-89-330, Resolution En Banc, December 4, 1990.

^[3]
Rollo, p. 69.

^[4]
Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, pp. 1-2.

^[5]
Rollo, p. 429.

^[6]
Rollo, p. 1376.

^[7]
Comment, pp. 13-14.

^[8]
Rollo, p. 1375.

^[9]
Memorandum for Hon. Marcelo B. Fernan Re: Administrative Matter No. R-676-RTJ, p. 3.

^[10]
Administrative Matter Mo. RTC-88, 237, November 7, 1989, En Banc, Minute
Resolution.

^[11]
Canons of Professional Ethics,
II, No. 15 par. 3.

^[12]
G. MALCOLM, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS 5 (1949).