G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-90-580 and A.M. No. RTJ-676. April 27, 1993.
EDUARDO R. BALAOING, complainant, vs. JUDGE LEOPOLDO CALDERON, respondent. EDUARDO R. BALAOING, complainant, vs. HON. SANTIAGO MALIWANAG, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing filed multiple administrative complaints against judges in Olongapo City and Zambales. The first complaint against Judge Jaime Dojillo was dismissed for lack of merit on September 18, 1990, and Balaoing was severely censured and warned for filing a patently unfounded and frivolous action. The second complaint against Judge Santiago Maliwanag was dismissed on December 4, 1990, and Balaoing was suspended from the practice of law for one year and fined for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, with a stern warning against similar infractions.
Notwithstanding these prior sanctions, Balaoing filed the present complaints. Against Judge Leopoldo Calderon, Jr., Balaoing alleged misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and malicious delay in the administration of justice, citing specific cases where he claimed the judge allowed postponements, delayed dispositions, and improperly quashed a writ of possession. A separate complaint also implicated Calderon’s OIC, Leonor Maniago. Against Judge Maliwanag, Balaoing reiterated earlier dismissed allegations regarding the failure to issue a writ of execution. The complaints were characterized by unsavory and offensive language, including personal insults against the judges.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing should be disciplined for filing baseless and frivolous administrative complaints against judges in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the administrative complaints for lack of merit and ORDERED the DISBARMENT of Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing, with his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
The Court found the complaints frivolous and baseless, filed with the purpose of harassing the judges and exacting vengeance for adverse judgments. Balaoing’s actions constituted a wanton disregard of the Court’s prior warnings and a violation of Canon 11, Rule 11.03, and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandate respect for the courts, prohibit scandalous or menacing language, and forbid attributing unsupported motives to judges. His persistent misconduct, despite previous censure, suspension, and fines, demonstrated his unfitness to practice law. The Court emphasized the need for ethical standards in the legal profession and held that Balaoing had utterly failed to meet the high responsibilities required of a lawyer.