FACTS:

The case involves a counter-complaint filed by Ret. Judge Virgilio Alpajora against Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan. This counter-complaint originated from an administrative complaint filed by Calayan against Alpajora for ignorance of the law and/or issuance of undue order. Alpajora then filed a counter-complaint against Calayan, alleging that Calayan filed a malicious and harassment administrative case. The case stemmed from an intra-corporate case involving Calayan Educational Foundation Inc. (CEFI) and various parties. Alpajora, as the presiding judge of the case, issued an Omnibus Order for the creation of a management committee, which prompted Calayan to file the administrative case against him. The administrative case against Alpajora was dismissed, but his counter-complaint was re-docketed as a regular administrative case against Calayan. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.

This case involves a complaint against a lawyer for his alleged misconduct in handling multiple cases related to an intra-corporate dispute. The complainant accused the respondent of filing numerous pleadings, motions, and explanations to delay the resolution of the main case and obstruct the takeover of the corporation's management. The complainant also claimed that the respondent filed criminal charges and administrative cases against opposing lawyers and their clients. The complainant asserted that the respondent committed serious and gross misconduct, violated his oath as a lawyer, repeatedly violated procedural rules, and knowingly violated the rule against filing multiple actions arising from the same cause of action. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the case was barred by the doctrine of res judicata and that the counter-complaint was unverified and lacked evidence. The Investigating Commissioner recommended a two-year suspension for the respondent, citing violations of various rules and misconduct in filing multiple actions and misrepresenting quotes from former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.

The complainant in this case filed a disciplinary action against the respondent lawyer for his disrespectful and contemptuous behavior towards the complainant during an intra-corporate controversy. The complainant alleged that the respondent made false and derogatory remarks towards him in various pleadings and communications. The complainant further argued that the respondent's behavior violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), exhibiting a lack of respect and honesty towards his fellow lawyer. The investigating commissioner found the respondent to be in violation of the complainant's rights and the CPR, noting that the respondent's behavior was disrespectful and a blatant violation of the lawyer's oath. The respondent was accused of making baseless accusations against the complainant and displaying a lack of respect for his fellow lawyer. The investigating commissioner reasoned that the respondent's actions were likely influenced by his emotional involvement in the ongoing case but noted that this emotional involvement did not excuse or justify the respondent's disrespectful behavior.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the respondent violated his ethical duties as a lawyer by filing multiple actions concerning the same subject matter or seeking substantially identical relief.

2. Whether the respondent violated his ethical duties by attributing unsupported ill-motives to the complainant.

3. Whether the respondent lawyer violated Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by attributing unsupported ill-motives to the complainant judge.

4. Whether the respondent lawyer failed to observe candor, fairness, and good faith before the court.

5. Whether the respondent lawyer misrepresented the text of a decision in violation of the CPR.

6. Whether the respondent lawyer's multiple filings were in violation of any law or rule.

7. Whether or not the respondent's filing of pleadings, motions, and cases against different trial court judges constitutes improper conduct that degrades the administration of justice.

8. Whether or not the respondent's actions violate the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

1. Yes, the respondent violated his ethical duties as a lawyer by filing multiple actions concerning the same subject matter or seeking substantially identical relief. The court found that the respondent's filing of multiple cases against the adverse parties and their counsel showed his malice in paralyzing the lawyers from protecting their clients' interests. Even if such acts were done without malice, it still demonstrated the respondent's gross indiscretion as a colleague in the legal profession. The court upheld the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors to suspend the respondent from the practice of law for two years.

2. Yes, the respondent violated his ethical duties by attributing unsupported ill-motives to the complainant. The court emphasized that lawyers are duty-bound to observe and maintain respect for the courts and judicial officers. They should refrain from attributing to a judge motives that are not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case. The respondent consistently made unsupported imputations against the complainant in his pleadings. The court found these actions disrespectful and in violation of the respondent's ethical duties as a lawyer.

3. The Court finds respondent guilty of violating Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the CPR. The respondent's unsupported allegations of the complainant judge's partiality and antedating of orders were not supported by any evidence. A lawyer is expected to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts and promote confidence in the fair administration of justice. Failure to do so undermines the stability of the judicial institution.

4. The respondent lawyer failed to observe candor, fairness, and good faith before the court. Courts are entitled to expect complete candor and honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading before them. The administration of justice would suffer if lawyers do not fulfill this duty.

5. The respondent lawyer misrepresented the text of a decision, in violation of the CPR. The lawyer misquoted a decision to justify his actions, but the cited decision actually cautions against citing a party in contempt for expressing concern on a judge's impartiality.

6. The respondent lawyer's multiple filings were not in violation of any law or rule as long as they were sufficient in form and substance and not violative of the prohibition against forum shopping. The respondent's argument that there is no limit on the number of motions, pleadings, and cases is valid, as long as they are filed in good faith and for valid causes.

7. Yes, the respondent's indiscriminate filing of pleadings, motions, and cases against different trial court judges constitutes improper conduct that degrades the administration of justice.

8. Yes, the respondent's actions violate the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

PRINCIPLES:

• Lawyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the public's faith in the legal profession.

• Disciplinary measures and proceedings can be imposed on lawyers who prejudice the rights of their clients and colleagues, and offend the due administration of justice.

• The purpose of disciplinary proceedings is to cleanse the legal profession of its undesirable members and protect the public and the courts.

• Lawyers' zeal in defending their client's cause is limited by professional rules and restrictions.

• Lawyers should observe and maintain respect for courts and judicial officers, refraining from offensive or menacing language or behavior.

• Lawyers should refrain from attributing unsupported ill-motives to judges.

• Lawyers are bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts and promote confidence in the fair administration of justice.

• Candor and honesty are essential for the expeditious administration of justice, and lawyers have a duty to satisfy that expectation.

• Courts have the power to hold parties in contempt but should exercise it judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, and for correction and preservation rather than retaliation or vindication.

• Lawyers should not misrepresent the text of a decision to support their arguments.

• A lawyer does not have an unbridled right to file pleadings, motions, and cases as he pleases. Misuse and abuse of court processes may be subject to punishment for indirect contempt.

• Lawyers are duty-bound to uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes.

• Lawyers should observe the rules of procedure and not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

• Lawyers should exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

• Lawyers must not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment, or misuse court processes.

• Lawyers have the right to criticize the acts of courts and judges in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels, provided that such criticism is bona fide and does not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.

• Intemperate and unfair criticism of courts and judges is a violation of the duty of respect to courts and may subject a lawyer to disciplinary action.

• A lawyer's duty is not solely to his client but primarily to the administration of justice. His conduct must be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics, and any means not honorable, fair, and honest is condemnable and unethical.