REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Office of the Court Administrator SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M A N I L A Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant, - versus - A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2854-RTJ For: Gross ignorance of the law, etc. Judge Thelma R. Pinero-Cruz, and (Presiding Judge, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan), Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson, (Legal Researcher / OIC, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan), Respondents. X------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------X VERIFIED COMPLAINT / SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT [For: Gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct in office, gross inefficiency, malicious delay - in the administration of justice and disposition of cases, knowingly rendering the unjust Partial Judgment and interlocutory orders, Arts. 204, 206, 207, RPC, illegal exaction, graft and corruption, R.A. 3019, as amended, direct bribery, Art. 210, RPC, and disbarment from office, 139-B, Rules of Court, professional indiscretion, conducts unbecoming of a lawyer, grossly unethical behavior, specifically, to wit: Grave Violations of - i.) A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC, Amendment to Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court - SEC. 8, 1 to 4, SEC. 9, 1,4 & 6, ii.) Oath of office and her duty as attorney or counselor-at-law, Sec. 20 (a) and 27, Rule 138, iii.) Canons / Code of Judicial Conduct -“CANON 1, RULES 1.01 to 1.03, CANON 2, RULE 2.01, CANON 3, RULES 3.01, 3.02, 3.04, 3.05, CANON 10, RULE 10.01, CANON 1, RULES 1.01, 1.02, CANON 7, RULE 7.03, iv.) Code of Professional Responsibility, CHAPTER I. CANON 1, CHAPTER II. CANON 7, RULE 7.03, CANON 8, CANON 10, RULE 10.03, RULES 10.02, 10.03, CANON 11, CANON 12, Rule 12.04, the Bill of Rights (Rule of Law, and substantive due process), v.) Rule 71, Revised Rules of Court, obstruction of justice , vi.) Arts. 19, 20, 21, 27, 32, 33, 2176, 2177, 2180, NCC, vii.) R.A. 6713, Revised
Transcript
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Office of the Court Administrator
SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M A N I L A
Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant,
- versus - A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2854-RTJ For: Gross ignorance of the law, etc.
Judge Thelma R. Pinero-Cruz, and(Presiding Judge, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan),Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson,(Legal Researcher / OIC, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan), Respondents.X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
VERIFIED COMPLAINT / SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
[For: Gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct in office, gross inefficiency, malicious delay - in the administration of justice and disposition of cases, knowingly rendering the unjust Partial Judgment and interlocutory orders, Arts. 204, 206, 207, RPC, illegal exaction, graft and corruption, R.A. 3019, as amended, direct bribery, Art. 210, RPC, and disbarment from office, 139-B, Rules of Court, professional indiscretion, conducts unbecoming of a lawyer, grossly unethical behavior, specifically, to wit: Grave Violations of - i.) A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC, Amendment to Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court - SEC. 8, 1 to 4, SEC. 9, 1,4 & 6, ii.) Oath of office and her duty as attorney or counselor-at-law, Sec. 20 (a) and 27, Rule 138, iii.) Canons / Code of Judicial Conduct -“CANON 1, RULES 1.01 to 1.03, CANON 2, RULE 2.01, CANON 3, RULES 3.01, 3.02, 3.04, 3.05, CANON 10, RULE 10.01, CANON 1, RULES 1.01, 1.02, CANON 7, RULE 7.03, iv.) Code of Professional Responsibility, CHAPTER I. CANON 1, CHAPTER II. CANON 7, RULE 7.03, CANON 8, CANON 10, RULE 10.03, RULES 10.02, 10.03, CANON 11, CANON 12, Rule 12.04, the Bill of Rights (Rule of Law, and substantive due process), v.) Rule 71, Revised Rules of Court, obstruction of justice, vi.) Arts. 19, 20, 21, 27, 32, 33, 2176, 2177, 2180, NCC, vii.) R.A. 6713, Revised Administrative Code, Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, and 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court], and -
Verified Reply
[To Respondents’ COMMENTS dated May 5, 2008], with - Omnibus Motions – a) for Leave of Court to Admit these Complaints / Reply, b) for PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION of Respondents, c) to Appoint an Investigator, d) to Permit Complainant to Present Testimonial / Documentary Evidence, and e) for Early Resolution
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, and the MEMBERS, En Banc, Supreme Court, Court Administrator Justice Zenaido Elepano, andOCAD DCA Justice Antonio Dujua, Office of the Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Padre Faura, Manila
Your Honors,
I, the undersigned petitioner / complainant, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, by MYSELF and for MYSELF, as litigant / complainant in this case, AND WITH LEAVE OF COURT, most respectfully depose and say, that:CRITICAL AND UNDISPUTED FACTS: Bill of Particulars:
1. On September 28, 1998, undersigned filed with Br. 19, RTC, Malolos,
Bulacan, LRC P-405-98 verified petition to cancel adverse claim on TCT Nos.
T-328106- (M), T-316135(M), and T-316136 (M)-Bulacan; copies of - - -
a) pertinent pages 1, 4 & 5, of the Petition, b) the mother title TCT. No T-
61.582(M)-Bulacan, c) TCT Nos. T-328106(M), T-316135(M), and T-316136
(M)-Bulacan, d) “Kasunduan ng Sanglaan” dated / signed on January 5, 1995,
3. Accordingly, these LRC and Civil cases were ordered by respondent
Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz (“Judge Thelma,” for brevity), submitted for partial
judgment on 17 June, 2005 and 22 September, 2004; Vide copies of the Court
orders attached as Annexes “C-6, 6-7,” hereof.
4. However, since the LRC Petitioners Spouses Alfredo and Florentina
Trinidad, despite repeated demands by undersigned Judge Floro, failed and
refused to pay him the amount due on the contract, admitted evidence
“KASUNDUAN” of March 20, 1998, Judge Floro asked the court for LEAVE
4
to admit Supplemental and Amended Supplemental Pleadings to add these
spouses as defendants and to join issues with them to pay the sum. Judge Floro
found as reasons of their failure to pay, the critical facts that - LRC petitioner
Alfredo Trinidad suffered a stroke, while LRC petitioner, his wife, Florentina
Trinidad suffered lingering illnesses; further, their daughter Ann Trinidad was
allegedly swindled and separated from her spouse, while Ann’s daughter Bea
suffered great physical crab deformity of both legs; her brother Alfred Trinidad
was hooked on cock fighting; but considering that undersigned was appointed
Judge on November 5, 1998, the Court ordered them to hire services of counsel.
5. Thus, Atty. Nye Orquillas (“Orquillas,” for brevily) appeared as the
counsel of LRC P-405 petitioners spouses Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad. But
instead of asking the Court to cancel the adverse claim, to make clean their title,
Atty. Orquillas, in bad faith, with badges of fraud, and with greatest malice, for
money and / or attorney’s fees, did, unlawfully and feloniously, file a Motion to
Dismiss not only a) the collection or sum of money supplemental case filed by
undersigned against the Trinidads, but, surprisingly, and without any valid
ground, Atty. Orquillas even moved b) to dismiss both the above twin cases
filed by undersigned, on the sole and non-existent / false ground of non-
payment of docket fees. Copy of Atty. Orquillas’ 10 pages Motion to Dismiss
dated 1 December, 2004, is attached as Annex “D” hereof.
6. Atty. Orquillas deceived Judge Floro, inter alia, by submitting as his
Motion’s Annexes, Certificates of (alleged by him) required docket fees: which
he alleged – must have been paid by undersigned: a) P 103,156 and b) P 94,278
inter alia. Copies of the Office of Clerk of Court, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan,
assessment of docket fees for the above-twin cases are attached as Annexes “D-
1 and D-2” hereof. Despite oral and 27-pages 13 December 2004
OPPOSITION (Annex “D-3”) by undersigned, the lower court/respondent
Judge Thelma, on February 24, 2004, dismissed these twin cases due to alleged
non-payment of docket fees: a) undersigned’s October, 1998 Amended Verified
Complaint b) undersigned’s LRC Petition and c) the supplemental pleading
dated October 25, 2004. Copy of the Court dismissal order is attached as
Annex “E hereof.
5
7. Undersigned filed 37–pages Urgent Motion to Reconsider dated 22 May
2005 (Annex “E-1” hereof), insisting on the payment of correct docket fees. At
the hearing however, respondent Judge Thelma in open Court, asked the parties,
that she be allowed to UNLOAD these cases, since, according to her, her court
became a family court. Judge Floro vehemently objected, since, the Circulars
and rules expressly provide that Unloading is allowed or mandated only for
those cases which had never been tried or were only at the pre-trial stages.
Hence, respondent Judge Thelma continued with the case and heard Judge
Floro’s motions and evidence at the hearing.
OCA IPI No. 05-2157-P – “Judge Floro vs. Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson”
Cancer and Death of Respondent Judge Thelma’s Husband; Selling of Decisions in Annulment Cases; and the P 2.0 Million Pulumbaret Bribery
Judicial Notice in RTC, Malolos of Respondent Joson’s 2004 – 2008 Sale of Annulment Orders as Court Fixer, and Broker of Respondent Thelma, in the P 2.0 Million Pulumbaret Bribery / Union Bank A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2026-RTJ, “Union Bank vs. Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz”
8. By sheer accident, Judge Floro discovered on 2004-2005, and reported to
the Supreme Court, in his filed/decided case, OCA IPI No. 05-2157-P –
“Judge Floro vs. Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson,” the magnitude of corruption at
Br. 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan perpetrated by herein respondents, in order to
raise funds for the 2004 cancer and lingering illness of respondent Thelma’s
husband. Judge Floro, filed the administrative case, since respondent Ms.
Lerida Socorro-Joson (“Ms. Joson,” for brevity) failed to include Judge Floro’s
case in the calendar and reports required by the 2002 Revised Manuals of
Clerks of Court, inter alia, as those cases submitted for Decision on 2004-
2005. Judge Floro also accused respondent Mrs. Joson, of failing to submit the
required monthly, semester and annual OCAD reports.
The Honorable Supreme Court's 3rd Division’s final Resolution / fallo, dated
March 8, 2006 ruled: (against respondent Ms. Joson, and in favor of
undersigned, in A. M. OCA IPI No. 05-2157-P):
“To REMIND respondent OIC Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson to BE MORE CIRCUMSPECT and PRUDENT in the discharge of her duties …”
6
Copies of the A. M. OCA IPI No. 05-2157-P a) 18-pages Judge Floro’s
Verified Complaint-Affidavit dated March 28, 2005, b) 12-pages Judge Floro’s
Verified Supplemental Affidavit dated 4 April, filed 8 April, 2005, c)
9. The Court / respondent Thelma, therefore, made a FIRST turn around,
and issued an order, reversing the dismissal, and required undersigned to pay
the docket fees within a reasonable time, even if he already paid all the fees.
Copy of the Court order dated September 7, 2005 is attached as Annex F.
2006 Supervening Legal Mootness due to Prescription of Subject Mortgage
10. Since the defendants failed to foreclose the subject real estate mortgage
or to file suit against (or demand payment from) deceased Milagros Floro on the
subject of these cases mortgage, on or before the prescriptive date of January 6,
2006, Judge Floro, on May 22 and August 8, 2007, filed Motions to cancel the
mortgage and to reconsider again the Court’s / respondent Judge Thelma’s
ruling on requirement of payment of P 199,000 docket fees. The Public
Prosecutor opposed but later withdrew opposition upon Judge Floro’s
submission of CERTIFIED COPIES of 1998 & 1999 Office of the Clerk of
Court’s Official Receipt of FULL PAYMENT of all docket and legal fees (for
these 2 cases and for all the filed petitions, complaint and amended complaint).
Copies of Judge Floro’s a) 6-pages Omnibus Motions dated May 22, 2007, b) 16-pages August 8, 2007, Verified Omnibus Motions with Reply, and c) Court orders setting the hearings of these cases, are attached as Annexes “H, H-1, & H-2,” respectively, hereof.
11. Despite court orders for Atty. Orquillas to file comment / opposition, he
disappeared; he miserably and in bad faith, further failed and refused to file any
pleading; he also failed to appear in court as required by it, to contradict or deny
undersigned’s accusations that he lied to the court, that he sold his clients’
case, and that he allowed them to loose the case, so that undersigned would not
7
be paid based on the “Kasunduan”; and worst, Atty. Orquillas refused to
cooperate to fight for his clients’ rights to have the adverse claim cancelled so
that the purchased lot / title would be made quiet; Copies of the OCC issued
official receipts of full payment of docket and all legal fees by Judge Floro, are
attached and marked collectively, as Annex “B-3”.
Modus Operandi : Another Sham and False Motion to Dismiss Judge Floro’s
cases allegedly due to non-payment of Privilege Tax Receipts by Judge Floro
12. Respondents Judge Thelma and Ms. Joson, conspired with Atty. Irineo
E. Guardiano, 80 years old (new counsel of another defendants in these cases
spouses Mariano and Ligaya Blanco’s new and third counsel; their first lawyer,
Atty. Rafael Santos, died in 2000, while their second counsel-of-record, Atty.
Donato Mabbayad resigned) --- a) to delay these 10 years cases, and to make it
appear, that b) respondents would rectify the grave INJUSTICES to Judge Floro
by denying the sham and false motion. Copies of a) Atty. Irineo E.
Guardiano’s / defendant’s Blanco’s 3 pages Motion to Dismiss dated / filed on
3, 7 December, 2008, b) Judge Floro’s 16-pages Opposition dated, filed on 4,
17, December, 2008, and c) Court order setting the hearing of these cases, are
attached as Annexes “I, I-1 and I-2,” respectively, hereof.
The instant A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2854-RTJ complaint / case, endorsed by Br.
civil cases, on technical / false grounds, that a) nobody filed any rescission
contract within 4 years from 1996, due date of mortgage, despite the obvious
fact that --- the instant cases were/are in themselves, annulment cases filed by
Judge Floro, to annul and rescind the subject voidable and rescissible mortgage
contract/adverse claim, and b) that Judge Floro’s request from Br. 10, RTC,
Malolos, Bulacan guardianship Court, to cancel on March 6, 1996 the annotated
Lis Pendens of Permanent Injunction due to death of his mother, subject ward
of the injunction, allegedly rendered moot and academic the Injunction. On its
face, the Decision is wholly inoperative, since, it did not cancel Judge Floro’s
subject titles, but the mortgage cannot also be enforced by the defendants, due
to prescription. Simultaneously, and worst, respondent Judge Thelma too late,
or belatedly inhibited herself and asked the Office of the Executive Judge to re-
raffle the cases, to another judge. Copy of the Partial Judgment dated 15 April
2008 is attached as Annex “M” hereof.
10
16. Judge Floro sensed/discovered that respondent Judge Thelma begged
her UP Class 62 classmate Executive Judge Dime, for respite or compassion,
since her 2 hands / arms are locked by respondent Ms. Joson’s a) acceptance of
P 80,000 bribe money for her husband’s hospital bill in 2004, and b) multiple
sales annulment orders and decisions since 2004, plus c) the 2004-5 P 2.0
million Pulumbaret pay-off with about one year P 100,000 monthly windfalls
duly paid to both respondents, to the damage and prejudice of the Union Bank,
inter alia, and/or other victims of respondents, as predators of INJUSTICE, due
to lust and greed for money. Judge Floro uncovered this magnitude of
corruption, when he went to the subject of those administrative/civil cases, the
Maunlad I and II Malls, Malolos, Bulacan, wherein, the tenant/s complained to
him, about the system of corruption perpetrated by respondent Ms. Joson for
respondent Judge Thelma. Copy of the Supreme Court ruling which dismissed
the administrative case against Judge Thelma is attached as Annex “G-5.”
GREEDY BUT HONORABLE: Petition to Create a Fact-Finding Team, to
Submit a Report to the Supreme Court through the Office of ACA Antonio
Dujua regarding the Judicial Notice of Respodent Ms. Joson’s Continuous
Fixing of Annulment of Marriage Cases at Br. 16, RTC, Malolos
17. By 2nd sheer accident, Judge Floro was informed on the evening of May
24, 2008, in front of Access Avenue, Malolos Internet Café, by “Jane Doe,” a
female court staff of Br. 80, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan (formerly with Br. 8, and
later with OCC, RTC, Malolos), of the immense corruption per selling
annulment of marriage cases orders and Decisions, as fixer or broker of
respondent Judge Thelma, since 2004, and this critical fact of corruption was
and is of JUDICIAL NOTICE at Malolos, such that 90% of lawyers, if asked in
confidence, would confirm Jane Doe’s statement to Judge Floro.
RESERVATION is duly made at this point, of Judge Floro’s right to present
evidence at the OCAD hearing of this case, on the bribery issues, inter alia.
11
18. Because of the carefully planned MODUS OPERANDI, Judge Floro,
upon receipt of the Partial Judgment, on April 17, Friday, 2008, forthwith, on
Saturday, April 18, 2008, filed 2-pages handwritten Petition (to annul the a)
inhibition order of Judge Thelma, and b) the order of Judge Dime for re-raffle,
and c) to transmit back all the records to respondent Judge Thelma for final
closure of all incidents. The Office of Vice-Executive Judges Herminia
Pasamba and Renato Francisco acted and GRANTED Judge Floro’s Petition,
reversing the April 16, 2008, 1/8 page approval initial/Order of Executive Judge
Petrita B. Dime who was on leave due to cancer medication at USA. Copy of
Exec. Judge H. Pasamba’s April 24, 2008 Order is attached as Annex “N.”
19. Accordingly, Judge Floro timely and forthwith filed his –
a) 18-pages April 21/22, 2008 Verified Motion For Reconsideration of the Partial Judgment and to Annul the Voluntary Inhibition so that Judge Thelma can Rectify the INJUSTICE and her gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, and violation of her oaths of office as lawyer and judge, inter alia;b) 42-pages May 19, 2008 Reply to Defendants’ Comment, andc) 12-pages Verified Omnibus Motions dated May 23, 2008.
Atty. Ireneo E. Guardiano filed his 6 pages May 12, 2008 Comment for
defendants Blancos.
Illness of Atty. Ireneo E. Guardiano .
Because of illness, Atty. Guardiano, counsel for defendants Blancos filed
a “Motion for Extension of Time to File Rejoinder and To Reset Hearings”
because of illness, and therefore, respondent Judge Thelma set the hearings of
these incidents on May 2, 12, 19, 28 and July 2, 23 and 30 2008 . At the hearing
of these motions, she objected to the Exective Judge’s order, and was stubborn
on her stance of voluntary inhibition, even if no party filed any inhibition, as
Judge Floro objected strongly to her voluntary inhibition. Further, she ruled,
that she will not decide Judge Floro’s Motion for Reconsideration, until the
OCAD issues a reply on her inserted query (on page 6 of her May 16, 2008
OCAD COMMENT, “Annex J-2”), on whether the Office of the Executive
Judge can overrule her voluntary inhibition. Judge Floro objected to her
disobedience of the Vice-Executive Judge Order dated 24 April 2008, which
12
directed her, to put a closure on these 10 years cases. Such stance of Judge
Thelma is nothing but sheer vendetta to prolong and delay Judge Floro’s cases /
sufferings. Copies of the above-pleadings, the Motion to Reset of Atty.
Guardiano, and the Court Orders are attached as Annexes “O, O-1, O-2, O-3,
O-4, and O-5”hereof.
The ACCUSATION / CHARGES
With Legal Argument and Memorandum of Law / AuthoritiesWith due respect -
2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No. 3019);
3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct;
4. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as determined by a competent court in
an appropriate proceeding;
9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;
SEC. 9. Less Serious Charges. – Less serious charges include:
1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order,
4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars;
6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of service; and
SEC. 11. Sanctions. – A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following
sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may
determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office,
including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the
forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits.”
ii.) CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT -
13
“CANON 1 A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF
THE JUDICIARY
RULE 1.01 - A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence.
RULE 1.02 - A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay.
RULE 1.03. - A judge should be vigilant against any attempt to subvert the independence of
the judiciary and should forthwith resist any pressure from whatever source intended to
influence the performance of official functions.
CANON 2 - A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF
IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES
RULE 2.01 - A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
CANON 3
A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH
IMPARTIALITY AND DILIGENCE
ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES
RULE 3.01 - A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence.
RULE 3.02 - In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the
applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism.
RULE 3.04 - A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the
inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should
avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the
courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.
RULE 3.05 - A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within
the required periods.”
iii.) Sec. 20 (a), Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court, including the Canons, to
wit:
Respondent Thelma, like all other members of the bar, failed to live up to
the standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly the following Canons, viz:
“CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court;
nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
14
Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the legal profession.”
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (June 21, 1988)“CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY - CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSIONCANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to
the discredit of the legal profession.
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.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.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper,
the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or
knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or
assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse Court processes.”
– in that respondent Judge Thelma miserably failed to be the embodiment of
competence, integrity, and independence; (due to her ardent desire and lust for
15
money and financial gain); she did not behave to promote public confidence in
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; she failed to follow the strict
mandates of Rules 138, Rules of Court, and the Bill of Rights, RULE OF
LAW, and due process.
b. conducts unbecoming of a lawyer, gross ignorance of the law, gross
misconduct, as an officer of the court and member of the Bar / legal profession,
to wit:
Respondent Thelma, with malice and bad faith, due to lust for
money, and corrupt or evil motives, conspired with Atty. Irineo E.
Guardiano and Atty. Nye Orquillas, to conduct a moro-moro or farce
trial so to speak, for money, and with motive of vengeance against
Judge Floro, due to his expose of corruption perpetrated by her and
respondent Ms. Joson. She deliberately, willfully, and feloniously
misled Judge Floro, by submitting false certificates of services,
signing sham and false interlocutory orders and the unjust and
patently erroneous decision, aside from requiring Judge Floro to pay P
199,000 not required legal / docket fees, from the Clerk of Court;
specifically, she sold these cases to defendants and Alfred Trinidad,
for money and financial gain, to let Judge Floro, to have lost the case
for quieting of their title, inter alia.
c. professional indiscretion, violation of oath of office and her duty as attorney
or counselor-at-law, which include the statutory grounds enumerated under Sec.
27 of Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court (Arrieta vs. Llosa, 282 SCRA 248),
including grossly unethical behavior, malice and bad faith in rendering unjust
orders and decision by entertaining defendants’ sham and false pleadings, inter alia.
These violations / acts and omissions of respondent definitely show her to
be wanting in moral character and probity / good demeanor or unworthy to
continue as officer of the Court, or unfit or unsafe person to enjoy the privileges
of judges and attorneys or for conducts which tend to bring reproach on the
legal profession and to the High Tribunal, or to injure it in the favorable opinion
16
of the public. She clearly demonstrated attitudes and courses of conduct wholly
inconsistent with the approved professional standards, of having failed to live
up to her duties as lawyer and judge in consonance with the strictures of the
lawyer’s oath, the cited Canons and Codes, thereby having occasioned
unwarranted sufferings, humiliations and hardships on the undersigned and on
petitioner Robert Floro. She was propelled by ill motives and malicious
intentions, coupled with greed and lust for MONEY, having failed in
conscientiously seeing to it that justice permeates every aspect of her duties and
profession, in conformity with the avowed duties of worthy members and
officers of the Bar and the Bench.
Petitioner respectfully cited the foregoing norms, code and laws, to
support his contention that – a) the April 15, 2008 Partial Judgment in the
subject twin cases should have been rendered and released by respondent Judge
Thelma on December 23, 2004 / 2005, at the very latest or least; b) and both
Atty. Nye Orquillas and Atty. Irineo E. Guardiano are both accordingly liable
with her, under these laws, civilly, (under Articles 19, 20 and 21, New Civil
Code, inter alia) criminally and administratively, due to palpable obstruction
of justice and delay of Judge Floro’s causes / cases, because of the resultant
unjust and unlawful interlocutory orders which stopped the judgment’s issuance
as of December 23, 2004.
Judge Floro’s constitutional rights to due process of law and property were
therefore violated when respondents disobeyed the Constitutional provisions,
Code of Professional Responsibility, Revised Penal Code, Rule 139-B, 138 and
140, Rules of Court, and Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, inter alia.
d. The following civil and criminal laws, inter alia, were also violated by
respondents’ promulgation and rendering of the Partial Judgment of April 15,
2008, causing damages, loss, and utter INJUSTICE to Judge Floro, to wit:
“CHAPTER 2 - HUMAN RELATIONS (n)
17
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties,
act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another,
shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the
damage.
Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee
refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for
damages and other relief against he latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary
administrative action that may be taken.
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights
and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law ;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission
constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely
separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and mat be
proved by a preponderance of evidence. The indemnity shall include moral damages.
Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission
constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and xxx a civil action for damages, entirely separate
and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action
shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence.
CHAPTER 2 - QUASI-DELICTS
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed
by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely
separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code.
18
But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
(n)
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts
or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.”
Revised Penal Code: Chapter Two - MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE
Section One. — Dereliction of duty
Art. 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. — Any judge who shall knowingly
render an unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision, shall be punished by
prision mayor and perpetual absolute disqualification.
Art. 206. Unjust interlocutory order. — Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust
interlocutory order or decree shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
period and suspension; but if he shall have acted by reason of inexcusable negligence or
ignorance and the interlocutory order or decree be manifestly unjust, the penalty shall be
suspension.
Art. 207. Malicious delay in the administration of justice. — The penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any judge guilty of malicious
delay in the administration of justice.”
Burning issue – Respondents, for money, delayed these cases for 3 years
Urgent and compelling - chilling effect on litigants' and lawyers' recourse to the Courts – first and foremost cause of extra-judicial killings
Respondents’ acts and omissions have far-reaching consequences,
because every litigant especially the pauper and less privileged have to worry
that he or she may be forced to pay huge sums or bribes to magistrates in the
Bulacan “Bulwagan ng Katarungan”, specifically to the a) MAGICIANS b)
CARDIOLOGISTS c) and Marilao, Bulacan LATIAN fixers, inter alia.
Petitioner believes in the Supreme Court’s long history of vigilance on
this matter of paramount import. Petitioner cites authority:
Judicial corruption
“On January 25, 2005, and on December 10, 2006, Philippines Social Weather Stations released the results of its 2 surveys on corruption in the judiciary; it published that: a) like 1995, 1/4 of lawyers said many/very many judges are corrupt. But (49%) stated that a judges received bribes, just 8% of lawyers admitted they reported the bribery, because they could not prove it. [Tables 8-9]; judges, however, said, just 7% call many/very many judges as corrupt[Tables 10-11];b) "Judges see some corruption;
proportions who said - many/very many corrupt judges or justices: 17% in reference to RTC judges, 14% to MTC judges, 12% to Court of Appeals justices, 4% i to Shari'a Court judges, 4% to Sandiganbayan justices and 2% in reference to Supreme Court justices [Table 15].”1
Petitioner runs to this Honorable Court with urgent and compelling
reasons: since the filing of these twin cases on 1998, undersigned was always
present in the lower court hearings or trials, while all defendants never
appeared; these cases were ordered submitted for decision on 2004 / 2005; but
suddenly, respondents MISLED Judge Floro, and maliciously delayed these
cases for 3 years. If complainant (as lawyer, judge, world-famous prophet,
psychic, healing magistrate, a Second Honors Ateneo alumni and 1983 Bar
Exams, 12th placer, 87.55%) could not obtain justice in his own town and
province, for he could hardly, by any legal means (including scholarly written
and filed court pleadings) obtain justice per the Bulacan RTC rule of law, how
can an ordinary mortal / litigant, unlike undersigned, fight in the lowest / local
courts of law?
Twin killing of COMELEC law department chiefs Alioden Dalaig and Wynne Asdala
Bakit po ba ang dami ng EJ killings and Desaparecidos? Bakit pinapatay
and mga abogado? Lately the COMELEC lost its 2 law department chiefs. It is
because of corruption in courts, per SWS surveys of 1995 / 2005: the UN Philip
Alston and FIDH Reports, the Eric G. John and G. Eugene Martin Testimonies
on March 14, 2007 at the USA Senate point to judicial corruption as ROOT of
all extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances:
Recent Events
* Twin horrible deaths happened on / circa the same day last year, January 15,
2007, that the Supreme Court of the Philippines' (logo or seal) was mysteriously burned into
halves by an almost one hour afternoon fire.[87][88] Despite different appeals by local and
international groups, the spate of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines continued. On
January 15, 2008, Reynato Puno condemned the murder of Judge Roberto Navidad,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Calbayog City, Samar, the 15th judge to be ambushed
since July 20, 1999, the 14th under the Arroyo government. On Tuesday, Catholic
missionary Rey Roda, Oblates of Marry Immaculate (OMI), 54, was shot dead at 8:30 p.m.,
when he resisted abduction attempt by unidentified 10 armed men in a chapel at ikud
Tabawan village, South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, South Ubian. In February 1997, another OMI
leader, Bishop Benjamin de Jesus was shot dead in front of the Jolo cathedral.[90] In 2006,
the Asian Human Rights Commission stated that there had been 26 priests, pastors, and
churchmen who were liquidate or were victims of violence under the Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo administration since 2001.[91] This includes 3 priests who were reported killed just
in 2007: Basilio Bautista of the Iglesia Filipina Reform Group, in Surigao del Sur, Indonesian
priest Fransiskus Madhu, in Kalinga province, and Catholic priest Florante Rigonan, in
Ilocos Norte.[92]
* On March 14, 2008, Filipino lawyer Edre Olalia (lead officer of the National
Union of Peoples’ Lawyers and the Counsels for the Defense of Liberties) brought the
Philippine case and appealed to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), in its
7th Geneva session "to stop the extrajudicial killings and abductions in the Philippines".
Philippines killings will be examined in the first UNHRC session, periodic review from April
7 to 18, along with those in 15 others of 192 member-countries.2
Shocking to the conscience of the Bulacan courts, respondents Judge
Thelma Pinero-Cruz and Ms. Joson, deceived Judge Floro, resulting from their
conspiracy in the flagrant violation of the Constitution which they swore as
lawyer, judge / court personnel, to obey, defend and implement, in the end that
they would not delay a man’s / litigant’s cause for money, inter alia. Judge
Floro cites the fundamental law:
“Section 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts. (2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself. (4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for determination, without further delay.”
Alfredo Trinidad suffered 3 grave strokes, while LRC petitioner, his wife,
Florentina Trinidad suffered lingering illnesses; further, their daughter Ann
Trinidad was allegedly swindled and separated from her spouse, while Ann’s
daughter Bea suffered great physical crab deformity of both legs; her brother
Alfred Trinidad was hooked on cock fighting;
* Fire - On April, 2008, the adjacent 2 lots, 10 meters from the subject lots of
this case, were burned (Pacheco Hardware and Milan Pawnshop).
3 Stitches
* Parenthetically, when undersigned received the DISBAMENT A.C. No. 7663
(Annex “M-5”) Dismissal En Banc Resolution – “Judge Floro vs. Senator
Miriam Santiago,” just days, Senator Miriam Santiago fell, banged her head
and underwent surgery for 3 stitches;
Senator Santiago in accident at spouse’s birthday party3 She received “three stitches. ...“MANILA, Philippines – (UPDATE) Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago has suffered a “misstep” during her husband’s birthday
3 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/metro/view/20080415-130457/Senator-Santiago-in-accident-at-spouses-birthday-partyBy Veronica Uy, INQUIRER.net, First Posted 10:48:00 04/15/2008 Video taken by INQUIRER.net reporter Veronica Uy at the Senate on April 21, 2008.
23
party at the EDSA Shangri-La Hotel, was caught off-balance, fell, and banged her head against the wall, and was immediately brought to the Cardinal Santos Medical Center, where she was treated for “minor contusions.” “Bukol lang. [It was only a lump].” “She’s OK now. Her CT [computed tomography] scan showed no additional injuries. The incident happened after the senator -- known for her colorful language -- gave a short speech for her husband, former Customs commissioner Narciso, and was coming down the makeshift stage. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago says the concussion she suffered does not affect her "thinking process," only her "thinking longevity." She says she gets "very, very dizzy" if she works continuously for more than 20 to 30 minutes.”
Argument
1. To begin with, complainant on January 30, 2008, went to the 2 nd Highest
Tribunal and asked for the issuance of the privileged Writ of Amparo, in CA-
G.R. SP No. 00015 (Annex “J”), due to a clear violation of his constitutional
rights under our present rule of law, since he thought that Amparo was the sole
remedy under the critical facts and applicable laws. However, the Court of
Appeals dismissed the case allegedly due to wrong remedy, but it, nonetheless
advised and reserved to herein complaint, the right to file an administrative case
against herein respondents. In the Amparo Petition, complainant was candid to
the Court, since he manifested that – a) respondent Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz,
UP Class 62, is a classmate of 4 incumbent Supreme Court Justices (C.J. Puno,
Ynares-Santiago, Austria Martinez and Chico-Nazario), and b) due to this
critical fact, complainant told the Court that he did not desire to bother the
Supreme Court amid his 10 years sufferings due to prevent herein respondents’
continuous harassment or threats to permanently delay his consolidated cases,
particularly the promulgation of the decision, long overdue since December,
2004 / September, 2005.
2. Complainant lamented respondents’ – a) moves to delay the cases, b)
maneuvers to submit piece-meal resolutions, and c) acts to limit justice or
censor the pleadings – which are no longer just temptations for the respondents.
Here is a reality that complainant has to expose and stop, by application of the
24
only remaining efficacious remedies: Rules 138, 139-B, and 140, Rules of
Court, discipline of judges, disbarment, filing of independent civil actions for
damages, and criminal suits in the proper forum, inter alia.
"Hi to all of yeah,
Yes, the universe had been barely discovered by mankind, until now. From the ancient times, when our ancestors lived in caves and hardly knew how to make fire, NASA and UFO scientists could not even decipher the mysteries of Mars, Jupiter and the unknown but mesmerizing space ships / aliens. Irrespective of our beliefs, theism and atheism, inter alia, what remains, is the ultimate quest, to have a glimpse of the essence, nature and virtual reality of the "violet" and "white" lights ... You need not be a scientist or Catholic to comprehend the existence of "violet" lights which flash at split thousandth or millionth of a second (because such flash transcends time and space, and therefore, is not constricted by these 2 dimensions of reality or human consciousness, or ape's wisdom, hence, the equivalent "state" and only "state" perturbs the silence).
This is not a homily in philosophy or theology, since these would only leave all of us more questions than answers. At the very heart of the matter (remember Artificial Intelligence, the movie, and "Le Petit Prince"), is the fundamental option of destiny. Before we were born, each of us were made - to hardly change what we are, what we were and what we will be. But there is no room for despair, since, this is a bright new world ... a planet of sufferings but with the rainbow at the end ... the violet light ... as Hippocrates the Father of Medicine said: the greatest pleasure in life, is release from medical pain ... Cheers and Hi Dwaine ... and all of yeah ...”4
3. This administrative case under Rules 140 and 139-B, inter alia, is
sought to stop / prevent respondents Judge Thelma and Mrs. Lerida Socorro-
Joson from "utang-utang", demanding moneys from court litigants, and,
respondent Ms. Joson, as bar flunker, from drafting decisions, sowing judicial
terrorism, doing illegal searching of vendees of her researched orders /
decisions, instead of legal researching, and, as UNQUALIFIED legal
researcher, from making the trials - farce, or moro-moro so to speak, inter alia.
Their acts of bribery and persecuting complainant and other ignorant litigants,
with her co-conspirators lawyers, tarnished the image of the judiciary.
4. The instant case also calls on this Highest Tribunal to prevent the
respondents from - effecting, and making threats, issuing unjust interlocutory
orders, resolutions and Partial Judgment, acts of harassment of complainant, by
4 http://forums.fugly.com/showthread.php?p=166941 Fugly > Fugly Discussion> General Mayhem Judge Floro how do Lepracahns fit in with the dwarves
25
converting Br. 16, RTC, Malolos Court, into a virtual market, where annulment
of marriage orders / decisions were / are continuously sold, since 2004, to
litigants who can afford. Bulacan RTC family court lawyers and litigants do
have JUDICIAL NOTICE of respondents’ SALES of these court papers, due to
greed, lust for money, and thirst for vengeance. St. Paul wrote that "death
comes from sin, and sin comes from law" - the law of greed, envy, hatred,
vengeance, vendetta, HYPOCRISY, graft and corruption, anger and bitterness -
which cause cancer, stroke, nerve and spinal disorders, accidents, horrible
deaths, lingering illnesses, extrajudicial killings and desaparecidos,
necessitating the remaining judicial remedies of the supreme penalty of twin
dismissals from service and disbarment. These twin measures are the sole
weapon against judicial HYPOCRISY and violation of the Constitution, inter
alia, by respondents Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz and Ms. Joson, due to their
unjust delay and refusal to release the decision due on December, 2004/2005,
and the unjust promulgation of a sold Partial Judgment (for P 80,000).
5. Parenthetically (in the world-famous Judgment in A.M. No. RTJ-99-
1460, March 31, 2006, entitled "OCA vs. Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr."),
Justice Minita Viray Chico-Nazario ruled (in the ratio decidendi):
"There is no indication that Judge Floro is anything but an honorable man. And, in fact, in our disposition of the 13 charges against him, we have not found him guilty of gross misconduct or acts or corruption.
Moreover, Judge Floro himself admitted that he believes in psychic visions, of foreseeing the future because of his power in psychic phenomenon. He believes in duwendes and of a covenant with his dwarf friends Luis, Armand and Angel. He believes that he can write while on trance and that he had been seen by several people to have been in two places at the same time. He has likened himself to the angel of death who can inflict pains on people, especially upon those he perceived as corrupt officials of the RTCs of Malabon. He took to wearing blue robes during court sessions, switching only to black on Fridays. His own witness testified that Judge Floro explained that he wore black from head to foot on Fridays to recharge his psychic powers. Finally, Judge Floro conducted healing sessions in his chambers during his break time.
Judge Floro’s separation from the service does not carry with it forfeiture of all or part of his accrued benefits nor disqualification from appointment to any other public office including government-owned or controlled corporations. Consequently, while Judge Floro may be dysfunctional as a judge because of the sensitive nature of said position, he may still be successful in other areas of endeavor.
26
As Judge Floros separation from the service cannot be considered a penalty, such separation does not carry with it the forfeiture of all or part of his accrued benefits nor disqualification from appointment to any other public office including government-owned or controlled corporations.
In fact, the psychological and psychiatric reports, considered as the bedrock of the finding of mental impairment against Judge Floro, cannot be used to disqualify him from re-entering government service for positions that do not require him to dispense justice. The reports contain statements/findings in Judge Floro’s favor that the Court cannot overlook in all fairness as they deserve equal consideration.
Lest we be misconstrued, we do not denigrate such belief system. However, such beliefs, especially since Judge Floro acted on them, are so at odds with the critical and impartial thinking required of a judge under our judicial system.
Psychic phenomena, even assuming such exist, have no place in a judiciary duty bound to apply only positive law and, in its absence, equitable rules and principles in resolving controversies.”5
6. Petitioner's constitutional rights to due process of law and property
were violated when respondents Judge Thelma and Ms. Joson disobeyed the
Constitutional provisions, Code of Ethics for Court personnel, Code of Judicial
Conduct, Code of Professional Responsibility, Revised Penal Code, R.A. 6713,
R.A. 3019, Rule 139-B, 138 and 140, Rules of Court, inter alia. The P 80,000
pay-off between respondents and Alfred Trinidad, son of litigants / LRC
petitioners, Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad, through counsel Atty. Nye
Orquillas, permanently locked the hands of respondents to release any valid and
just decision on the 10 year cases, putting complainant at their mercy, and
there is no longer any plain, speedy and fast remedy in the ordinary course of
law. No less than the Honorable Supreme Court's 3rd Division’s final
Resolution dated March 8, 2006 ruled: (against respondent Ms. Joson, and in
favor of undersigned, in A. M. OCA IPI No. 05-2157-P):
“To REMIND respondent OIC Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson to BE MORE CIRCUMSPECT and PRUDENT in the discharge of her duties.”
A model for all
7. The judiciary and the entire nation are watching. What comes out of
this case will become a model for other courts and other lawyers, litigants,
jurists and even law students, aspiring to be counsels, in the same situation.
This case / its outcome will influence the future of judicial destiny in our
country: Can a case be purchased by cash down payment and cash
installments? Complainant knows that if we do nothing, we help destroy
freedom, the judicial institution, and not only the property, but the very life,
liberty and destiny of Malolos City, Bulacan litigants, and the bench and the
bar, in the Bulwagan ng Katarungan. That is why complainant came to this
Court of last resort today. These are uncertain times for the judiciary. Unless we
do something about it, the next crisis situation will see journalists, lawyers,
judges, and litigants being killed not only in the open field but in the courtroom
itself, thusly:
“Man shoots three; takes hostages in Manila City Hal; Ex-mayor killed in Manila courtroom shooting; gunman escapes. A man has reportedly shot a former mayor and two other people in Manila City Hall and took hostages while inside an elevator. An initial report from radio dzMM said a lone suspect seized a gun from one of the jailguards and shot Yap and his bodyguard, Peter Villanueva. Another victim, Bella Santos, was also shot on the foot, in the fourth floor of the Manila City Hall Tuesday. After the shooting, the unidentified assailant took hostages while inside an elevator. It was not yet clear how many hostages were inside the elevator. Reports said the former mayor was in Manila City Hall to attend a hearing in Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 19. Yap was found guilty of killing former mayor Victorio Boy Cebedo of Rizal, Zamboanga del Norte, before the 1992 local elections, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Yap was reportedly a known political rival of the Cebedo family. In 2007, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling and ordered Yap 's release, citing conflicting accounts of the shooting. Yap has other pending cases.
8. This case is urgent because the respondents Judge Thelma and Ms.
Joson have unleashed a barrage of threats and warnings against complainant’s -
JUDICIAL LIBERTY, PROSPERITY, FREEDOM, and destiny: the subject
properties / titles are his own ancestral home / house and lot where he was
born on November 5, 1953, where he grew and was persecuted by respondents
since 2004 - although silent, and can be viewed only from the pages / parts of
the lower court’s Expediente. Complainant noted the threats came right after
respondents received the subject consolidated cases, and specifically upon their
28
receipts of the P 80,000 pay-off/s in 2005, the “Alfred Trinidad fighting cock”
incident.
Public’s right to know
9. Threats are easy to make. When the respondents received the cash pay-
offs, they made threats, and this is even more problematic because they have
the coercive power to back those threats, specifically, the records / annexes
hereof, carved from respondents’ papers, proved beyond reasonable doubt,
these THREATS, which are VIRTUAL REALITY in law and in fact.
10. More than judicial freedom, this case is about the right of the people,
the bench, the bar, and litigants, to information. The public / litigants suffer
when the information / DATA, about these pay-offs they need, could not be
provided or retrieved from respondent court, because of threats, censorship and
prior restraint, due to clear and present danger of FEAR of further piece-meal
VENDETTA in the subject cases. The instant OCAD investigation, will truly
reveal per examination of Mr. Alfred Trinidad, the specifics of the P 80,000
pay-off: that is, the breakdown - HOW MUCH DID RESPONDENTS JUDGE
THELMA AND JOSON RECEIVE AS GREASE MONEYS, AND HOW
MUCH WAS THE PERCENTAGE / ATTORNEY’S FEES OF ATTY. NYE
ORQUILLAS? The truth will be unveiled upon commencement of the OCAD
investigation, in due course.
Litigants / judicial rights disregarded
11. Without this Honorable Court’s urgent intervention, complainant, the
bench, the bar, litigants, journalists, will suffer grave injustice and irreparable
injury from acts that are plainly against the Constitution, since there will be no
more faith in Bulacan courts, due to magicians, brokers, fixers, cardiologists.
More importantly, in respondents’ FAMILY court, their open threats of selling
decisions / resolutions would convert the Bulacan court trials to farce, or Moro-
Moro so to speak, forcing litigants to run nowhere to, but to practice EXTRA-
JUDICIAL KILLINGS and DESAPARECIDOS, per “juez de cuchillo.”
29
Judge Floro demands the immediate resignation / dismissal of Judge Thelma and her broker, respondent Joson, to stop the E-J Killings and Abductions. There is no other alternative, or solution to the epidemic.
12. The respondents’ blatant disregard of the rights of Bulacan litigants /
complainant, especially their treatment of family court litigants and
complainant, as BEGGARS in their court, due to denied pleadings / filed
motions, prolonged appearances in hearings, participating in farce trials since
September, 1998 until May, 2008, vis-à-vis without even a single appearance by
any adverse parties / defendants therein, call for the exercise by this Honorable
Court, of its plenary power of supervision to protect basic rights and freedoms.
13. Respondent Judge Thelma is no longer dispensing justice, but was / is
engaging in sale, censorship and prior restraint of court pleadings, trials, orders
and NO JUDGMENTS resolutions, whenever there is pay-off. Litigants are
tired of paralyzing divisions, corruptions and moral bankruptcy in the judicial
department, more importantly in RTC, Bulacan. Complainant is utterly
confident that this Honorable Court / the OCAD, would take a microscopic look
into this and try to bring about the closure of these consolidated cases because
the general public and all of us are still waiting for some genuine
REPENTANCE on the part of respondents, considering the dire pains of 2004-
2005 CANCER, most painful death of her husband, and the several DIRE
PROPHECIES fulfilled due to these consolidated cases. The Supreme Court,
rules, in these recent cases:
"The Court has always impressed upon all members of the judiciary the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. The Constitution itself, under Section 15, Article VIII, mandates that lower courts have three (3) months from the date of submission within which to decide the cases or matters pending before them. Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct directs judges to "dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods." Finally, Canons 6 and 7 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics exhort judges to be prompt and punctual in the disposition and resolution of cases and matters pending before their court, to wit:6. PROMPTNESS - He should be prompt in disposing of all matters submitted to him, remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied.7. PUNCTUALITY - He should be punctual in the performance of his judicial duties, recognizing that the time of litigants, witnesses, and attorneys is of value and that if the judge is unpunctual in his habits, he sets a bad example to the bar and tends to create dissatisfaction with the administration of justice. To ensure that the mandates on the prompt disposition of judicial business are complied
30
with, this Court issued Administrative Circular No. 1 dated January 26, 1988 requiring all magistrates to act promptly on all motions and interlocutory matters pending before their courts. This was emphasized in Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15, 1999 which requires judges to scrupulously observe the periods prescribed by Section 15, Article VIII of the Constitution in the adjudication and resolution of all cases or matters submitted to their courts. Under Section 9(1), Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision is classified as a less serious charge. Under Section 11(B) of the same Rule, the penalty for such charge is suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months, or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000. In Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branches 29 and 59, Toledo City, the Court observed the factors considered in the determination of the proper penalty for failure to decide a case on time:A judge’s foremost consideration is the administration of justice. Thus, he should follow the time limit set for deciding cases.The Constitution mandates that all cases or matters filed before all lower courts shall be decided or resolved within 90 days from the time the case is submitted for decision. Judges are enjoined to dispose of the court’s business promptly and expeditiously and decide cases within the period fixed by law.[12] Failure to comply within the mandated period constitutes a serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their cases. It also undermines the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it to disrepute.[14] Decision making, among other duties, is the most important duty of a member of the bench. Under Rule 140, Section 9 (1), as amended by Administrative Matter No. 01-8-10-SC, respondent judge’s undue delay in rendering a decision is classified as a less serious offense. It carries the penalty of suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months, or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000.”6
14. Judge Thelma R. Pinero-Cruz’s April 15, 2008 Motu Proprio
Voluntary Inhibition7 is not only shocking to the conscience of the entire
Judiciary, but it is: i) an anathema to the Constitution,8 a ii) a mockery of
justice, iii) a palpable contempt of the Rule of Law, iv) a masquerade / funeral
of Veritas, and v) the BEST EVIDENCE that the Partial Judgment must be
amended / set aside under the Revised Rules of Court. Her ponencia has a
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/may2008/RTJ-08-2111.htm#_ftnref6http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/RTJ-07-2039.htmSALVADOR vs. LIMSIACO, A.M. No. MTJ-08-1695, April 16, 2008 RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), BRANCH 14, DAVAO CITY, PRESIDED OVER BY JUDGE WILLIAM M. LAYAGUE.A.M. RTJ-07-2039, April 14, 2008
7 after trial and Partial Judgment, and after her receipt of a) S.C. 2nd Division 2006 Judgment REMINDING Mrs. Socorro Joson … b) CA March 4, 2008, Writ of Amparo Decision, c) including OCAD 2 Indorsements both dated March 6, 2008, re: Judge Floro’s complaint and request for detail of OIC, Mrs. Joson;8 Juez de Cuchillo of barbaric tribes, nomads and uncivilized nations, leading to extra-judicial killings of journalists, politicians, lawyers and judges / justices.
31
chilling effect on the Faith of litigants in the 22nd Puno Court amid SWS 1995
and 2005 Surveys of Grave Corruption in the Philippine Judiciary9.”
With due respect -
Modus Operandi: Judge Thelma’s Voluntary Inhibition; Judge Floro wins the Reconsideration in another Bulacan RTC sala, but would eventually loose in the Court of Appeals, by means of 2nd pay-off to the “Dirty Dozens”
Ubi jus, ibi remedium -
Modus Operand, Legal remedies: Judge Floro’s only remedies: a) Lock the retirement benefits of Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz (who would retire at the age of 70 on July 25, 2009, with her 4 UP Class 62, incumbent S.C. Justices), until 2020, per a) this administrative case; b) if Judge Floro looses, or if Judge Thelma is sentenced to less serious penalties, then, c) to file 2-3 Motions for Reconsiderations, per the Davide-Franklin Villegas 2004 jurisprudence, and d) to file Ombudsman / Criminal suits, towards the Sandiganbayan, so that Judge Thelma would not be able to receive her retirement benefits pendente lite, hopefully until 2020, and e) Judge Floro will file the independent civil actions for damages.
Spiritual Modus Operandi: Dire Prophecies vs. Pay-offs vis-à-vis “Divine Justice” or “Godly Reprisals”
15. Respondents Judge Thelma and Ms. Joson, due to the P 80,000 pay-off,
concocted or brewed a modus operandi to run off from the fire scene: a) they
planned to release as they did released on April 15, 2008, a wholly inoperative
or seriously flawed Partial Judgment, b) so that Judge Floro would agree to the
carefully planned unloading or re-raffle of these cases, through sham and false
voluntary inhibition, c) so that, with the blessings of her classmate, Exec. Judge
Petrita B. Dime, UP Class 62, and with the compassion of other Bulacan Judges
/ Judge, to whose sala these cases would be turned over, d) eventually, Judge
Floro would secure a reversal or reconsideration of respondents’ Partial
Judgment, e) but in the end, the defendants Blancos, through counsel Atty.
9 On January 25, 2005, and on December 10, 2006, Philippines Social Weather Stations released the results of its 2 surveys on corruption in the judiciary; it published that: a) like 1995, 1/4 of lawyers said many/very many judges are corrupt. But (49%) stated that a judges received bribes, just 8% of lawyers admitted they reported the bribery, because they could not prove it. [Tables 8-9]; judges, however, said, just 7% call many/very many judges as corrupt[Tables 10-11];b) "Judges see some corruption; proportions who said - many/very many corrupt judges or justices: 17% in reference to RTC judges, 14% to MTC judges, 12% to Court of Appeals justices, 4% i to Shari'a Court judges, 4% to Sandiganbayan justices and 2% in reference to Supreme Court justices [Table 15].http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Extrajudicial_Killings_and_Desaparecidos#Judicial_corruption
32
Irineo E. Guardiano and the Trinidads counsel Atty. Nye Orquillas, would act as
FIXERS in the Court of Appeals, to broker these cases, so that their eventual Appeal
would prosper, by means of second pay-offs to the so-called “Dirty Dozens”
16. Complainant Judge Floro, discovered respondents’ modus operandi:
Judge Floro in his “Motion for Reconsideration” (Annex “O”) pointed this
stunning “Joke only decision” of respondents, when Judge Floro pointed that:
respondent Judge Thelma gravely erred in ruling that – the Partial Judgment
dated 15 April 2008 (Annex “M”), particularly Pars. 3-4, page 6, thereof, inter
alia, is contrary to law and jurisprudence:
“New Civil Code, CHAPTER 7, VOIDABLE CONTRACTS Art. 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties: (1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a contract; (2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud. These contracts are binding, unless they are annulled by a proper action in court. They are susceptible of ratification. (n)Art. 1391. The action for annulment shall be brought within four years.This period shall begin: in cases of intimidation, violence or undue influence, from the time the defect of the consent ceases. In case of mistake or fraud, from the time of the discovery of the same. And when the action refers to contracts entered into by minors or other incapacitated persons, from the time the guardianship ceases. (1301a)”
17. Contrary to the respondents’/ lower Court’s ratio decidendi above-cited
that no action was filed for annulment of the mortgage contract within 4 years,
undersigned complainant filed these cases to annul said contract at the earliest
opportunity. Based on a) the FINDINGS OF FACT by the Court on pages 2-5,
Partial Judgment, April 15, 2008, and based on its citation of admitted Exhibits
A to G / sub-markings (annexes A to G / sub-markings of the Petition = pages
133 to 154, records), the CRITICAL FACTS, which the Court disregarded, are:
i) the Court Injunction was issued by the Guardianship Court, Br. 10, RTC,
Malolos, Bulacan against the disposal or encumbrance of the subject lands /
titles in these cases belonging to Milagros Floro, and the Order was annotated at
the back of the said titles on January 14, and February 4, 1994, respectively, ii)
further, undersigned personally notified, by registered mails with return card,
33
notice of the said lien and injunction, to all respondents, per admitted exhibits,
as will be further discussed hereunder: Exhibits A-8 and A-8-1 (4 pages
petitioner’s Manifestation-Letter Notice dated July 21, 1993, with the registry
receipts, both originals = pages 111 to 114, records; marked on September 13,
2004, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan); iii) respondents’ rescisscible and
voidable mortgage contract was signed by Joselito Floro and Milagros Floro on
January 5, 1995, despite said injunction lien and notice; iv) the cases for
injunction, annulment of said mortgage, LRC case for cancellation of adverse
claim, and amended complaint for cancellation of mortgage based on cited
Articles 1381, 1389, 1390 and 1391, NCC, inter alia, were duly filed on time at
the earliest opportunity, upon discovery, by undersigned on September, 1998,
and October 2, 1998 respectively. Respondents, therefore, are registrants with
full knowledge of the injunction and were encumbrancers in bad faith.
18. In G.R. No. 107432 July 4, 1994, CAUSAPIN vs. CA, the Supreme
Court ruled that: "an action to annul a deed of conveyance or contract based on
minority or lack of capacity to enter into the deed must be brought within four
years from the time such incapacity ceases." In G.R. No. 126000 October 7,
1998, MWSS vs. CA, the Court likewise ruled that: "a contract where consent is
given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud, is
voidable" 2. Contracts "where consent is vitiated by mistake, violence,
intimidation, undue influence or fraud" are voidable or annullable; Concepts of
Voidable Contracts. — Voidable or anullable contracts are existent, valid, and
binding, although they can be annulled because of want of capacity or vitiated
consent of the one of the parties, but before annulment, they are effective and
obligatory between parties. Hence, it is valid until it is set aside and its validity
may be assailed only in an action for that purpose. The four year prescriptive
period under Art. 1391 of the New Civil Code will apply. This article provides
that the prescriptive period shall begin in the cases of intimidation, violence or
undue influence, from the time the defect of the consent ceases", and "in case of
mistake or fraud, from the time of the discovery of the same time”.
34
19. Complainant also pointed respondents’ / lower Court’s grave error and
ignorance of law / procedures also, in ruling that undersigned’s request to
cancel the registered lien of injunction (at the back of the titles, per granted Br.
10, RTC, Malolos Order directing the Branch Register of Deeds to cancel said
titles annotations on March 6, 1996), did result in mooting the prohibition on
encumbrance or disposal by respondents, for reasons: a) Milagros Floro died on
December 5, 1995, due to Schizophrenia (par. 7, page 4, Partial Judgment,
Exh. A/sub-markings), because of this mortgage which ruined her health, as
discussed hereunder; b) the death of Milagros Floro rendered moot, the
guardianship proceedings, and not the injunction, but the lien was correctly
erased; c) respondents Blancos already violated the mortgage prohibition on
January 5, 1995, or more than one year, after the cancellation of the entries at
the back of the title; having knowledge of the court prohibition, the mortage
was therefore voidable under said laws, d) at the time of the signing of the
mortgage, Milagros Floro was so sick and could not have known what she was
doing, as will be discussed hereunder.
Wikipedia and other notable references define this mental disease which
affected the subject mortgage:
‘Schizophrenia10 (pronounced /skɪtsəfriniə/), from the Greek roots schizein (σχίζειν, "to split") and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-, "mind"), is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental illness characterized by impairments in the perception or expression of reality, most commonly manifesting as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions or disorganized speech and thinking in the context of significant social or occupational dysfunction. Onset of symptoms typically occurs in young adulthood, with approximately 0.4–0.6% of the population affected. Diagnosis is based on the patient's self-reported experiences and observed behavior.
No laboratory test for schizophrenia currently exists. The disorder is primarily thought to affect cognition, but it also usually contributes to chronic problems with behavior and emotion. People diagnosed with schizophrenia are likely to be diagnosed with comorbid conditions, including clinical depression and anxiety disorders; the lifetime prevalence of substance abuse is typically around 40%. Social
10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia
Brown S; Inskip H, Barraclough B (2000). "Causes of the excess mortality of schizophrenia".
Br J Psychiatry 177: 212-7. PMID 11040880. Retrieved on 2008-02-24.
35
problems, such as long-term unemployment, poverty and homelessness, are common and life expectancy is decreased; the average life expectancy of people with the disorder is 10 to 12 years less than those without, owing to increased physical health problems and a high suicide rate.”
20. Complainant also pointed respondents’ / lower Court’s grave error,
therefore, in failing to annul the subject void mortgage, not only because of the
Court injunction but it further closed its legal eyes to the CRITICAL FACT -
duly proved by admitted and uncontradicted documentary evidence (Exhibits A
to G/sub-markings) and supported by unrebutted testimonial evidence (since
respondents, all of them, failed to appear in Court to present their evidence,
despite repeated Orders of the Court, that is, waiver to present evidence, as will
be discussed hereunder) - that Milagros Floro, at the time of the mortgage was
incapacitated, very sick, and never knew what she was signing, and such
mortgage caused her death, which death, also caused the deaths and pains of all those
who persecuted undersigned, due to the biblical curse under Psalms 109 and 73.
21. Respondents gravely erred, and were guilty of gross ignorance of
the law, in failing to annul the subject void mortgage, and in disregarding
undersigned’s May 25, 2008 OMNIBUS Motions (Annexes “H, H-1, & H-2”)
to declare the January 5, 1996 mortgage MOOT since, it can no longer be
enforced or foreclosed due to prescription. Complainant pointed to respondents
that the duly filed amended (October 2, 1998 - Annexes B, B-1, B-2 and B-3)
pleading for annulment was the real / proper action to cancel or rescind the said
voidable and moot contract of mortgage, causing the titles of undersigned to be
free from all liens and encumbrances under the law / rules.
22. Complainant, accordingly, lamented and told respondents / the Court,
of the gravely injustice in her ruling that –
“How can this Partial Judgment be defended in a court of law? It
left hanging the titles! Undersigned’s titles were never cancelled,
while the respondents’ mortgage lien was declared existent, but
respondents, since 2006 could no longer foreclose the same, since the
contract of mortgage prescribed. It is therefore, a pure comedy of
36
errors, tempting undersigned not to appeal the case but to just ask for
clarification. If the Court will not stop the criminal proceedings, what
will be the agenda of the prosecution? Nothing, nada and no
mortgage, no estafa, and no evidence can be admitted to convict. The
court further ignored the elementary rule of law and jurisprudence
that an encumbrancer or mortgagee with knowledge of the lien /
injunction is a transferee with knowledge and in bad faith.
Respondents Blancos entered into the contract with full knowledge of
the injunction and the dying condition of the mortgagor Milagros
Floro. Such being the legal situation, respondents Blanco’s interests
and alleged but never proved in Court adverse claim not only expired,
but were never born in law; they never existed in legal fact, and they
lost all their rights, if any, against undersigned and Milagros Floro.
Their remaining right to go after Joselito Floro also prescribed on
2006, since they slept on their rights, by abandoning the court
proceedings, despite repeated Court orders to present evidence. Ergo,
the Court in this regard, further gravely erred in ruling that the civil
aspect was included in the criminal case. Such could have had
happened were it not for the filing of respondents Blancos of
answers / with counterclaims in these cases; with their participation,
thru Atty. Rafael Santos, Atty. Donato Mabbayad and Atty. Irineo
Guardiano, per pleadings with duly signed and approved
STIPULATIONS OF FACTS, the Blancos opted to fight in these
cases; but they were declared by the Court to have abandoned their
rights to submit evidence, to cross-examine undersigned and to rebut
the evidence.”
Voluntary Inhibition: First in the Bulacan Court History: So that
Respondent Judge Thelma R. Pinero-Cruz could escape the P 80,000 pay-
off scandal, which would be “multo” of virtual “ghost” upon her July 25,
2009 retirement benefits and S.C. clearances applications.
37
23. Judge Floro, in the Motion for Reconsideration, begged with folded
arms, and supplicant knees upon respondent Judge Thelma, classmate of 4
God/Goddess of Faura, thusly:
“Ako po ay nagsusumamo sa inyo Ginang Hukom na magtika,
maghugas nang ating mga kasalanan, bilang isang Bansa, upang
mahilom ang sugat dahil sa ‘korupsyon’. Bilang ka-mag-aral ng
tanyag na UP Class ‘62 (C.J. PUNO, NAZARIO, YNARES-
SANTIAGO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, at DIME), ipamalas mo po sa
amin, na ikaw ay hindi lamang patas at makatarungan, datapwat,
mukhang malinis sa harap ng mata ng mga nagsasakdal at
nasasakdal. Sapul nang hawakan (2004), dinggin at hatulan ninyo
ang mga kasong ito (1998-2008), hindi ako nagdemanda nang
kriminal o administratibo laban sa iyo, kahit nanalo ka laban sa
UnionBank. Dahil ba ako’y nagsampa ng administratibong kaso
laban sa iyong OIC/legal researcher, sapat na ba ito para talikuran
mo ang sinumpaang katungkulan mong tutuparin lahat ang utos ng
Batas at Konstitusyon, upang lahat kami ay mabigyan ng hustisya?
Nauunawaan ko po, ang sakit, dalamhati at mga kasawian na tinamo
ninyo buhat ng hawakan ninyo itong kasong ito. Ang iyong kabiyak ay
pumanaw at dama rin namin ang mapait at malupit na pagpanaw at
pighati ng marami pang gaya niya (Luzviminda Puno, Lirio Bautista
Victorino, Hilario Davide, Sr., Jorge at Jose Davide, at sangkatutak
na mga mahal sa buhay). Ako po ay umaasa na hahatulan ninyo ng
ganap ang kasong ito, ng TAPOS at hindi nakabitin, dahil, ano mang
hatol ay maari pa namang apilahan sa Court of Appeals. Kung
TAKOT at alinlangan dahil sa “UNGODLY REPRISALS” (Nazario
at Puno, “Ocad v. Judge Floro,” A.M. RTJ-99-1460, July 12, 2006)
ang bumabagabag sa inyo gabi-hating-gabi, ako naman ay
nagpapasalamat sa UP Class ’62 ninyo, dahil sila ang lumagda
upang ako ay maging “jobless” walang work, trabajo o job, sa isang
mundong balatkayo. Utang na loob ko sa mga kaiskwela ninyo po,
ang aking katahimikan at pagsampalataya sa May-kapal. Walang
38
bisa ang SUMPA (Salmo 109 at 73) sa hudikatura, dahil, ayon kay
Minita Nazario, PINAL akong hinatulan bilang ANGHEL NG
KAMATAYAN na komukunsulta sa 3 DWENDE, at Diyos lang ang
magpaparusa sa mga tiwaling Hukom. Dahil, dito po, isinulat at
ipinahayag ko sa Court of Appeals (Writ of Amparo kaso para
matapos na ang SUMPANG kasong mga ito), na wala akong balak
magdemanda laban sa iyo HABANG (HANGGANG 2009) dahil 4 na
mga kamag-aral mo ang hahatol dito, datapwat, hiniling ko tuwing
HATING-GABI na sana, kayo po ay magtika at ipahayag sa Paring
Katoliko ang inyong mga kasalanan, dahil wika ni Pope Benedict
XVI, na kahit si San Pedro ay ubod nang sama at makasalan. Huwag
po kayong matakot na ako ay magiging TINIK o PUWING sa inyong
RETIREMENT benefits sa susunod na mga taon. Sinong mahistrado
ang papatol sa akin, upang mapigil ang pagbayad sa inyo ng
pinaghirapan ninyo, kung kayo po ay talagang patas, matino,
kagalang-galang na mahistrado … Binibigyan KO po kayo mula sa
aking PUSO, ng isa pang pagkakataon upang ipakita sa UNION
BANK at iba pang nagkanulo sa inyo, na KASINUNGALIN ang mga
bintang nila sa inyo. Basbasan nawa kayo na Poong Maykapal
hanggang sa inyong huling sandali. Gumagalang, ngayong Biyernes,
hating-Gabi, Ika-18 ng Abril, 2008. Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.”
Unconstitutional - UNJUST ORDER: Violation of Substantive Due Process
24. If these cases under respondent are re-raffled, it will only delay the
resolution of the motion for reconsideration (Rule 37 limits to 30 days the
rendition of the resolution), since the new Judge would have to read voluminous
TSNs, Exhibits and record / pleadings, filed since 1998. Undersigned submitted
additional ARGUMENT to point to the fact that respondents really sold the
Orders and Partial Judgment, to wit:
The respondents / her Court went beyond the agreed upon and submitted (at the
pre-trial) stipulations of facts, ISSUES of law and fact, only to deprive Judge
Floro of his only home / lots / titles, without due process of law.
39
25. On the respondents’ / her Court’s ratio decidendi or ground to support
her decision, on the Br. 10, RTC, Malolos’ March 6, 2006 Order to cancel the
annotated liens of TRO / Permanent Injunction, on the subject title, per Entry
No. 356173 (M), (admitted Exh. A-sub-markings), Judge Floro had repeatedly
stated and pleaded that he and his brothers were the ones who petitioned the
cancellation of said liens, since under the law, Guardianship ended upon the
death of their mother, Milagros V. Floro, on December 5, 1995, and
accordingly, she could no longer be prevented from disposing the subject title.
But said Order of cancellation did not in any manner render moot and academic
the prohibition versus defendants Blancos, since the latter did violate said
injunction on January 5, 1995, date of their signing the mortgage contract, and
within the prohibited injunction period of 1994 until December 5, 1995.
26. Besides, the 30 days period for the existence of the adverse claim,
already expired, as it is no longer exists, in fact and law (and it is the duty of
this respondent Judge Thelma to cancel the same, summarily, lest she be
additionally adjudged with dismissal from service due to her utter gross
ignorance of elementary LRC rules and procedures.
Gross Ignorance of elementary Rules / laws on Sales, Mortgage, Intestate
Estate, Loan, Prescription of actions, contracts and obligations, aside from
patent obstructions of justice and violation of the oaths of lawyers / judge, inter
alia , and rendition of a most unjust decision which deprived Judge Floro /
petitioners of his / their own home / lots / titles, without due process of law,
through intentional and malicious delay of dispensation of justice per baseless
technicalities and dilatory sham and false pleadings.
27. The subject of the cases before respondents, is only: the 7/12 pro-
indiviso (and 1/12 of Joselito V. Floro) share of deceased Milagros V. Floro, in
the subject lot, mortgaged on January 5, 1995 to defendants Blancos, to secure
her and Joselito’s Mutuum or loan (admitted Exh. A to I-sub-markings). Judge
Floro has no debt whatsoever to Blancos.
40
28. The Kasunduan put a deadline of January 6, 1996, as final date to pay
the sum, and same date is the start of the running of the prescriptive period to a)
demand payment from her, and / or b) to foreclose the mortgage. No demand or
suit was made / filed upon her, to collect the loan, and no foreclosure of
mortgage, was filed even after the 10 years period, or on the final prescriptive
date of 10 years, or on January 6, 2006. Beside laches and estoppels in pais
already and long time ago set in. What are then the right and remedies of defendants
Blancos which were lost and prescribed on January 6, 2006? The law provides:
“RULE 86 -CLAIMS AGAINST ESTATESec. 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. - If not filed, barred; exceptions. All claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract, express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and expenses for the last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against the decedent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice; otherwise they are barred forever, except that they may be set forth as counterclaims in any action that the executor or administrator may bring against the claimants. Where an executor or administrator commences an action, or prosecutes an action already commenced by the deceased in his lifetime, the debtor may set forth by answer the claims he has against the decedent, instead of presenting them independently to the court as herein provided, and mutual claims may be set off against each other in such action; and if final judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant, the amount so determined shall be considered the true balance against the estate, as though the claim had been presented directly before the court in the administration proceedings. Claims not yet due or contingent, may be approved at their present value.
Sec. 7. Mortgage debt due from estate. - A creditor holding a claim against the deceased secured by mortgage or other collateral security, may abandon the security and prosecute his claim in the manner provided in this rule, and share in the general distribution of the assets of the estate; or he may foreclose his mortgage or realize upon his security, by action in court, making the executor or administrator a party defendant, and if there is a judgment for a deficiency, after the sale of the mortgaged premises, or the property pledged, in the foreclosure or other proceeding to realize upon the security, he may claim his deficiency judgment in the manner provided in the preceding section; or he may rely upon his mortgage of other security alone, and foreclose the same at any time within the period of the statute of limitations, and in that event he shall not be admitted as a creditor, and shall receive no share in the distribution of the other assets of the estate; but nothing herein contained shall prohibit the executor or administrator from redeeming the property mortgaged or pledged, by paying the debt for which it is held as security, under the direction of the court, if the court shall adjudge it to be for the best interest of the estate that such redemption shall be made.
“CHAPTER 2, SIMPLE LOAN OR MUTUUM Art. 1953. A person who receives a loan of money or any other fungible thing acquires the ownership thereof, and is bound to pay to the creditor an equal amount of the same kind and quality. (1753a)Art. 1955. The obligation of a person who borrows money shall be governed by the provisions of Articles 1249 and 1250 of this Code. Art. 2125. In addition to the requisites stated in Article 2085, it is indispensable, in order that a mortgage may be validly constituted, that the document in which it
41
appears be recorded in the Registry of Property. If the instrument is not recorded, the mortgage is nevertheless binding between the parties.
Title XVI. - PLEDGE, MORTGAGE AND ANTICHRESIS CHAPTER 1 PROVISIONS COMMON TO PLEDGE AND MORTGAGEArt. 2085. The following requisites are essential to the contracts of pledge and mortgage: (3) That the persons constituting the pledge or mortgage have the free disposal of their property, and in the absence thereof, that they be legally authorized for the purpose. Art. 1231. Obligations are extinguished:Other causes of extinguishment of obligations, such as annulment, rescission, fulfillment of a resolutory condition, and prescription, are governed elsewhere in this Code. (1156a) Art. 1142. A mortgage action prescribes after ten years. (1964a)Art. 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues: (1) Upon a written contract; (2) Upon an obligation created by law; Art. 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court, when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. (1973a) CHAPTER ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF CONTRACTS GENERAL PROVISIONSArt. 1318. There is no contract unless the following requisites concur: (1) Consent of the contracting parties;Art. 1330. A contract where consent is given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud is voidable. (1265a)”
29. It is not only gross ignorance of the cited laws, inter alia, but sheer
stupidity and weirdness, for respondents and defendants to claim that the filing
of a criminal case in MTC Meycauayan, Bulacan, against Judge Floro and
Joselito Floro, resulted in tolling of stopping, the running of the prescriptive
period, to collect the loan from Milagros Floro or to foreclose her 7/12 share
mortgaged share, by merely arguing that the civil aspect versus Milagros Floro
was impliedly instituted therein. The loan or debt / alleged obligation of
Milagros Floro (assuming only arguendo, that the loan and mortgage
Kasunduan was not infirm and annulable), should have been collected per letter
of demand and more importantly, by filing a collection suit, to her not to Judge
Floro or anybody, after January 6, 1996, the due date. Since she died on
December 5, 1995, defendants Blancos’ only right and remedy are: a) to file a
claim in the intestate estate court in a special proceeding they should have
commenced until 2006, and / or b) foreclose the property by extra-judicial or
judicial foreclosure before January 6, 2006. On January 7,2006, defendants
Blancos lost all their legal rights over the 7/12 property and the remaining right
42
for these defendants is moral, if any, which is no longer enforceable due to the
supervening death and insolvency of her estate.
30. Even a first year law student, but not a bar flunker, would easily
know, that filing of criminal case against anybody including Judge Floro,
Joselito Floro, inter alia, is not a demand, suit, or foreclosure of mortgage to
collect the loan of Milagros Floro, nor to foreclose her mortgaged share. More
importantly, it is basic and elementary rule of law, that the civil is impliedly
instituted in the criminal, especially in estafa or fraud cases, but, with the
underlined exception in remedial law, that such civil aspect is removed from the
criminal court or case, if the complainant / defendants Blancos, joined herein, or
filed counterclaim / answer, in these LRC and civil / special civil actions, or
civil cases, to annul the mortgage. And they never filed docket fees, making
their claims or rights under the loan and mortgage dead and barred, forever.
Such is the essence of Judge Floro’s “SUMPA,” the Catholic Biblical curse
which changes the tides of time and destiny of the wicked. AMEN+.
The ACCUSATION / CHARGES
With Legal Argument and Memorandum of Law / AuthoritiesWith due respect -
"Respondent should be the role model of her co-employees to act speedily and with dispatch on assigned tasks to avoid the clogging of the court's docket, and thereby assist in the administration of justice without undue delay. She should be reminded that prompt disposition of the court's business and expeditious disposition of cases can be attained only through efficient case-flow management by the judge and his personnel, especially the branch clerk. Considering that the main case has already been pending for more than two (2) years, respondent should, with more reason, exert extra effort to have the case resolved. Time and again, we have emphasized the heavy burden and responsibility with which court personnel are saddled in view of their exalted positions as keepers of public faith. They must be constantly reminded that any impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of official functions must be avoided. We condemn and would never countenance any conduct, act or omission, on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice, which would violate the norms of public accountability and diminish, or even just tend to diminish, the faith of the people in the Judiciary. Corollarily, under the Code of Conduct of Court Personnel, A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC,court employees are required at all times to
43
perform their official duties properly and with diligence, and to commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours. Consequently, respondent's negligence in the performance of her duties warrants disciplinary action"(SAGA DESIGN, INC. vs.ATTY. EMELINE B. CABAHUG, A.M. No. P-06-2244, December 6, 2006)
“Public service requires integrity and discipline. For this reason, public servants must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and dedication to duty. By the very nature of their duties and responsibilities, government employees must faithfully adhere to, hold sacred and render inviolate the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust; that all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. Nevertheless, the Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that court personnel must not only be, but also be perceived to be, free from any impropriety -- with respect not only to their duties in the judicial branch, but also to their behavior anywhere else.”[A.M No. P-04-1925. December 16, 2004, COURT PERSONNEL OF THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-San Carlos City vs. OSCAR LLAMAS]
RELIEF
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that
the instant -
VERIFIED COMPLAINT / SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
[For: Gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct in office, gross inefficiency, malicious delay - in the administration of justice and disposition of cases, knowingly rendering the unjust Partial Judgment and interlocutory orders, Arts. 204, 206, 207, RPC, illegal exaction, graft and corruption, R.A. 3019, as amended, direct bribery, Art. 210, RPC, and disbarment from office, 139-B, Rules of Court, professional indiscretion, conducts unbecoming of a lawyer, grossly unethical behavior, specifically, to wit: Grave Violations of - i.) A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC, Amendment to Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court - SEC. 8, 1 to 4, SEC. 9, 1,4 & 6, ii.) oath of office and her duty as attorney or counselor-at-law, Sec. 20 (a) and 27, Rule 138, iii.) Canons / Code of Judicial Conduct -“CANON 1, RULES 1.01 to 1.03, CANON 2, RULE 2.01, CANON 3, RULES 3.01, 3.02, 3.04, 3.05, CANON 10, RULE 10.01, CANON 1, RULES 1.01, 1.02, CANON 7, RULE 7.03, iv.) Code of Professional Responsibility, CHAPTER I. CANON 1, CHAPTER II. CANON 7, RULE 7.03, CANON 8, CANON 10, RULE 10.03, RULES 10.02, 10.03, CANON 11, CANON 12, Rule 12.04, the Bill of Rights (Rule of Law, and substantive due process), v.) Rule 71, Revised Rules of Court, obstruction of justice, vi.) Arts. 19, 20, 21, 27, 32, 33, 2176, 2177, 2180, NCC, vii.) R.A. 6713, Revised Administrative Code, Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, and 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court], and -
Verified Reply
[To Respondents’ COMMENTS dated May 5, 2008], with - Omnibus Motions –
44
a) for Leave of Court to Admit these Complaints / Reply, b) for PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION of Respondents, c) to Appoint an Investigator, d) to Permit Complainant to Present Testimonial / Documentary Evidence, and e) for Early Resolution
be duly Noted, given due course and granted . It is finally prayed that the
instant administrative case / matter be IMMEDIATELY RESOLVED in view
of its importance and merit. It is also prayed that respondents Judge Pinero-
Cruz and Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson be directed to file another COMMENT
and Reply to the instant pleading forthwith .
In the interim, specifically, upon filing hereof, it is further prayed to this
Honorable Court / Office of the Court Administrator that peremptory
Protection Orders be issued, a) ORDERING respondent Judge Thelma
Pinero-Cruz to cease and desist from further acting in any manner to delay the
promulgation of the Resolutions on complainant’s pending Motion for
Reconsideration / Omnibus Motions (Annexes “O, O-1, O-2, O-3, O-4, and O-
5”) hereof, to put closure on all pending incidents before her, since 2004,
considering that the subject cases were pending since 1998, b) ORDERING her
and respondent Ms. Lerida Socrro-Joson to rectify her 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
and latest 2008 falsified certificates of services, from said dates until May,
2008, and d) ORDERING the Branch Clerk of Court / OIC, respondent Mrs.
Lerida Socorro-Joson to obey the 3rd Division S.C. Decision against her, in A.
M. OCA IPI No. 05-2157-P - specifically to Order her to Include in the
monthly Reports, inter alia, the said cases of Judge Floro, as those submitted
for Decision as of said dates , December, 2004 and September, 2005 .
SPECIFICALLY, it is prayed to this Honorable Court / OCAD, to
forthwith, appoint a Lawyer, Branch Clerk of Court, for Br. 16, RTC,
Malolos, Bulacan, and in the meantime to detail / transfer respondent Mrs.
Lerida Socorro-Joson to the OCC, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, in the interest
of public service since she is a bar flunker, who is absolutely disqualified to
be a legal researcher (thereby placing in jeopardy the destiny of litigants,
detention prisoners and the bar / bench, because of her gross ignorance of
the law / procedures and for having absolutely tarnished the image of
45
judiciary because of clear graft and corruption, under R.A. 3019, violation of the
Code of Conduct for court personnel and R.A. 6713, inter alia, in the end) -
TO STOP THE EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS and DESAPARECIDOS;
specifically, the 15th Judge Navidad and Fr. Rey Roda were mercilessly
gunned down on the very day/s of January 15 / 16, 2008 (when the Supreme
Court’s Logo was halved by fire on 2007 January 15) (since the UN Philip
Alston Report stated that litigants have no more recourse since the courts
are very corrupt according to the 2005 and 1995 twin SWS surveys, inter
alia; and without even mentioning the predicted FIRES that burned RTC,
Malabon, except undersigned,s sala on January 22, 2000, and the prophesied
Triple / Mystic Fires that burned the entire 4th floor Court of Appeals, the
halved logo of the COMELEC and the Muntinlupa MeTC court on 2007).
It is finally prayed to this Honorable Court, to call the attention of Chief
Puno / Supreme Court regarding the existence of a) the Magicians, b)
Cardiologists, c) Latian and the immense corruption practiced here at RTC,
Malolos City, which is shocking to the conscience of the judiciary.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading – verified motion, this
____ day, of ________, 2008, at Malolos City, Bulacan.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,
Complainant, on behalf of himself, by himself and as litigant,123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos City, 3000 BULACAN,
Tel /# (044) 662-82-03; [I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300; ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV].
NOTICE
TO: Atty. Maria Luisa Villarama, Clerk of Court, c/o Atty. Felipa Anaman, Asst. Clerk of Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, Manila
Please AGENDUM / SUBMIT the instant pleading to the Ponente / OCAD DCA in-charge of this case, immediately upon receipt hereof.
46
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,Complainant
VERIFICATION / Certification of Non-Forum Shopping / AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )Malolos City, BULACAN ) S.S.
I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., complainant, under oath, depose / say, that:
I am the complainant in this administrative case. I caused the preparation, read and signed the instant pleading, and all the contents / allegations thereof are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records.
I hereby CERTIFY that on ___________, 2008, I personally served copies of this pleading with all annexes in these cases entitled “Judge Floro vs. Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz and Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson”, OCA IPI No. 08-2854-RTJ by personal service, upon both respondents, to wit:
Judge Thelma R. Pinero-Cruz, (Presiding Judge, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan), andMrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson,(Legal Researcher / OIC, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan), respondents,
specifically, by undersigned’s delivering personally, copies to respondents offices, by undersigned’s leaving copies with their clerks or with persons having charge thereof / receiving clerks, as proved by the rubber stamp receipts / the signatures, after the names, hereunder, on the original copy hereof, in accordance with Rule 13, Rules of Court, inter alia.
I hereby CERTIFY (a) that I have not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; A. M. OCA IPI No. 05-2157-P against respondent Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson was already decided with finality on March 8, 2006 and is no longer pending; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, I will file a complete statement of the present status thereof, but there is none; and (c) if I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within five (5) days there from to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this _____day of ___________, 2008, here at Malolos City, Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12005 # 21783592, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 2-27, 2007.
DOC. NO. _____, PAGE NO. ____,
47
BOOK NO. 76, SERIES OF 2008. BERNAR D. FAJARDO Notary Public, Until Jan.31, 2009, PTR NO. 4591703, 1- 2,’08, Atty.’s Roll No. 33633, IBP OR # 708299, 1-2,’08 Malolos City, Bulacan.
COPY FURNISHED:(By Personal Service):
Judge Thelma R. Pinero-Cruz, and(Presiding Judge, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan),Respondent, and
![RTJ GASKETS [ENG] - cpisefa.com · RTJ GASKETS ntas CPI-RM / G-ST ... will be necessary do a thermal treatment to the RTJ ... RING JOINTS TG30 - TG31 según ASME (ANSI) B16.20, API](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5b8b06bc7f8b9a70768b92ef/rtj-gaskets-eng-rtj-gaskets-ntas-cpi-rm-g-st-will-be-necessary-do.jpg)
