G.R. No. A.C. No. 9252. November 28, 2019.
EXECUTIVE JUDGE ELOIDA R. DE LEON-DIAZ, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 58, LUCENA CITY, COMPLAINANT, vs. ATTY. RONALDO ANTONIO V. CALAYAN, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainant Executive Judge Eloida R. De Leon-Diaz, on behalf of all incumbent judges of the Lucena City trial courts, sent a letter dated October 19, 2009, to the Court Administrator. The letter detailed an agreement reached during a raffle of cases on September 14, 2009, requesting the transfer of all fifteen (15) cases involving respondent Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan and his family to another venue. The judges likened these cases to a “Sword of Damocles” due to Atty. Calayan’s persistent demands for their inhibition through motions and the filing of administrative complaints against them. Atty. Calayan was accused of harassing judges by relentlessly filing unnecessary pleadings “almost every day,” leading to numerous re-raffles and unsuccessful mediation efforts. No judge in the jurisdiction wanted to handle any case involving him.
The controversy stemmed from an intra-corporate dispute (Civil Case No. 2007-10) filed by Atty. Calayan’s siblings and mother against him, his wife, and daughter concerning the family business, Calayan Educational Foundation, Inc. (CEFI). The case saw successive judges (Judge Adolfo Encomienda and Judge Virgilio Alpajora) voluntarily inhibit themselves after Atty. Calayan filed motions for recusal and administrative complaints. Judge Alpajora’s counter-complaint was converted into a separate administrative case against Atty. Calayan (A.C. No. 8208, Alpajora v. Calayan).
In her Position Paper, Judge Diaz emphasized Atty. Calayan’s disrespect towards the court, noting he had filed: two petitions before the Court of Appeals challenging her letter; administrative complaints against her, Judge Alpajora, Judge Rafael R. Lagos, Judge Guillermo Andaya, and Atty. Vincent Robles; and had sent her an advanced copy of an administrative complaint, which she viewed as a threat.
Atty. Calayan defended his actions, stating they were driven by a desire to save CEFI from the damaging effects of an onerous receivership imposed in 2007. He claimed his pleadings were not violative of any rule and cited the doctrine in In the Matter of the Proceedings for Disciplinary Action Against Atty. Almacen encouraging criticism of erring magistrates. He argued the complaint was moot as the cases had been transferred to Makati City and apologized for his overzealousness, explaining the emotional nature of the family dispute.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner recommended a penalty of Censure with a warning. The IBP Board of Governors modified this to a three-month suspension from the practice of law, which it later affirmed upon denying Atty. Calayan’s Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan should be held administratively liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath based on his conduct of indiscriminately filing pleadings, motions, and administrative cases against judges and lawyers.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Calayan is administratively liable. The Court adopted the findings of the IBP that Atty. Calayan violated Canon 8 (requiring courtesy and avoidance of harassing tactics), Rule 10.03 of Canon 10 (requiring observance of procedure and not misusing it to defeat justice), and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 (prohibiting undue delay and misuse of court processes) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as the Lawyer’s Oath.
The Court found that Atty. Calayan engaged in an indiscriminate filing of pleadings, motions, and civil, criminal, and administrative cases against several trial court judges, lawyers, and family members. His actions effectively paralyzed magistrates from administering justice and lawyers from representing their clients. His defense, relying on the right to criticize judges as recognized in Almacen, was rejected. The Court clarified that such criticism must be bona fide and not spill over into abuse, slander, or disrespect. Atty. Calayan’s conduct crossed this line, constituting intemperate and unfair criticism.
However, applying the principle against double penalty from Bautista v. Abdulwahid, the Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty. Since Atty. Calayan had already been penalized in the related administrative case Alpajora v. Calayan (A.C. No. 8208) for essentially the same misconduct, imposing another separate penalty would be inappropriate. Therefore, the Court STERNLY WARNED Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan that a similar misconduct in the future shall be dealt with more severely.