RET. JUDGE VIRGILIO ALPAJORA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RONALDO ANTONIO V. CALAYAN, RESPONDENT.

Alpajora versus Calayan

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment or suspension, and it reaches the Supreme Court by a most unusual route. Retired Judge Virgilio Alpajora, the complainant, was the trial judge who had been hearing an intra-corporate controversy involving the Calayan Educational Foundation. Atty. Ronaldo Antonio Calayan, the respondent, was the president and chairman of that foundation and a party in that corporate case. When the judge issued an order creating a management committee, the lawyer filed an administrative complaint against him. That complaint was dismissed because the matters raised were judicial in nature. But the judge's comment and counter-complaint were referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant, re-docketed as a regular administrative case, and investigated by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The case matters because it fixes the limits of a lawyer's zeal: the right to litigate is not a license to harass opposing counsel, to impute unsupported motives to a judge, or to misquote the law and the decisions of the Court.

Procedural History

The respondent filed an administrative complaint against Judge Alpajora before the Office of the Court Administrator for ignorance of the law and issuance of an undue order. The Supreme Court dismissed that complaint in March 2009 on the ground that the matters raised were judicial in nature. The Court, however, referred the judge's comment and counter-complaint to the Office of the Bar Confidant for appropriate action. The Office of the Bar Confidant re-docketed the counter-complaint as a regular administrative case, and the Court required the respondent to comment. The Court then referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation. After a mandatory conference, the Investigating Commissioner found the respondent liable and recommended suspension from the practice of law for two years. The Board of Governors adopted and approved that recommendation and later denied the respondent's motion for reconsideration. Pursuant to the Rules of Court, the Board's resolution and the whole record were transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.

Facts

The Calayan Educational Foundation was embroiled in an intra-corporate case before the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City, sitting as a commercial court. The respondent was its president and chairman of the board of trustees, and he signed and filed pleadings as special counsel for himself. The case passed from one judge to another. Presiding Judge Adolfo Encomienda inhibited himself after the respondent moved to recuse him, following the appointment of a receiver. Executive Judge Norma Chionglo-Sia also inhibited herself because she was about to retire. The case was finally raffled to Judge Alpajora.

Judge Alpajora then issued an omnibus order creating a management committee and appointing its members. The respondent did not accept that order, because its effect was that he, his wife, and his daughter would lose their positions as chairman, treasurer, and secretary, and as members of the board of trustees. The respondent filed the administrative complaint against the judge, which the Supreme Court dismissed as involving judicial matters.

In his counter-complaint, the judge alleged that the respondent had filed thirteen civil and special actions before the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City, two related intra-corporate cases in violation of the rule against splitting causes of action, eighteen repetitious and prohibited pleadings before his sala, nine criminal charges against opposing lawyers and their clients, and four administrative cases against opposing counsel before the Integrated Bar. The respondent did not deny these filings. He explained that he acted out of desperation and an earnest desire to save the foundation from further damage. The Investigating Commissioner found that the respondent had also misrepresented a dissenting opinion as the thesis of a former Chief Justice, and had attributed to the judge ill motives unsupported by any evidence.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of serious and gross misconduct for filing numerous civil, criminal, and administrative actions against opposing parties and their counsel.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of attributing to the complainant judge motives not supported by the record or having no materiality to the case.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violating his duty of candor, fairness, and good faith before the court, and of failing to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Applicable Provisions

Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

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.

This canon anchors the finding that the respondent repeatedly imputed unsupported ill motives to the complainant judge.

Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

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

This rule is the exact standard the respondent violated when he accused the judge of antedating an order, of close ties with adverse counsel, and of coaching them.

Rule 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Canon 10, Rule 10.03 — A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

This rule governs the respondent's indiscriminate filing of pleadings and cases.

Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Canon 12 — A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

This canon is the measure against which the respondent's flood of filings was weighed, because those filings delayed rather than expedited the case.

Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Canon 12, Rule 12.04 — A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a Judgment or misuse Court processes.

This rule completes the standard on the misuse of court processes.

Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies provides:

SECTION 1. Creation of a Management Committee. — As an incident to any of the cases filed under these Rules or the Interim Rules on Corporate Rehabilitation, A PARTY MAY APPLY for the appointment of a management committee for the corporation, partnership or association, when there is imminent danger of: x x x

The respondent misread this provision, arguing that only a party may apply and that the court cannot act on its own, when the word may is permissive and confers discretion.

Section 3 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides:

Rule 71, Section 3. Indirect Contempt to be Punished After Charge and Hearing. — After charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt: x x x (c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt under Section 1 of this Rule; (d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice; x x x

This provision supplies the outer limit on a lawyer's right to file, showing that abuse of court processes may be punished.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent displayed conduct unbecoming of a worthy lawyer. While a lawyer has a duty to defend his client's cause with utmost zeal, professional rules impose limits on that zeal. The filing of cases against adverse parties and their counsel manifested malice in paralyzing the lawyers from exerting their utmost effort to protect their client's interest. Even assuming the acts were done without malice, they showed gross indiscretion as a colleague in the legal profession.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent was guilty of attributing unsupported ill motives to the complainant. As officers of the court, lawyers are duty-bound to observe and maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers, and must refrain from attributing to a judge motives not supported by the record or having no materiality to the case. The respondent's bare allegations of antedating, of close ties, and of coaching were unsupported by any evidence. The date of mailing on an envelope is not the date of issue of the order.

On the third issue, the Court held that the respondent failed to observe candor, fairness, and good faith, and failed to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. His reliance on the word exclusively in the Interim Rules was an attempt to mislead the Court, because may is permissive and confers discretion. His citation of a decision that cautioned judges against contempt was contradictory to his own position, since he misrepresented the text of that decision. His indiscriminate filing of pleadings, motions, civil and criminal cases, and administrative cases against judges ran counter to the speedy disposition of cases and degraded the dignity and integrity of the courts. A lawyer does not have an unbridled right to file pleadings, motions, and cases as he pleases.

Doctrine

Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is bestowed on individuals who are not only learned in law but also known to possess good moral character. Lawyers must act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, to promote the public's faith in the legal profession. A disbarment or suspension case is not meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case, but to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts.

A lawyer's zeal is not unlimited. Under Rule 10.03 and Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure, shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice, shall not unduly delay a case, and shall not misuse court processes. Under Canon 11 and Rule 11.04, a lawyer shall observe and maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers, and shall not attribute to a judge motives not supported by the record or having no materiality to the case. Under Canon 12, a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. The word may in a procedural rule is permissive and confers discretion, and it does not exclude the courts from acting when the circumstances warrant.

Disposition

The Court adopted the findings of the Investigating Commissioner and the recommendation of the Board of Governors, found the respondent guilty, and suspended Atty. Ronaldo Antonio Calayan from the practice of law for two years.

Remember This

The single line to memorize is that a lawyer's zeal is hedged by professional rules, and he may not harass opposing counsel, impute unsupported motives to a judge, or misuse court processes. Examiners use this case in legal ethics on Canon 11 and Rule 11.04, on the duty to assist in the speedy administration of justice, and on the principle that disbarment proceedings protect the public and the courts rather than grant relief to a complainant.