REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Office of the Bar Confidant

SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M A N I L A

Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant,

- versus - A.C. NO. ______________ For: Disbarment Atty. Nye N. Orquillas, (2nd Flr., Hiyas ng Bulakan Convention Center, Capitol Compound, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan) Respondent. X-------------------------------------------------X

VERIFIED DISBARMENT COMPLAINT / LETTER-AFFIDAVIT [Under Rules 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia]

With - Motions - for Leave of Court to Admit this Complaint, for PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, and the MEMBERS, En Banc, SUPREME COURT, Padre Faura, Manila

Your Honors,

I, the undersigned petitioner, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, by MYSELF and for MYSELF, as litigant / complainant in this case, AND WITH LEAVE OF THIS 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,

e) 1994 Guardianship, Br. 10, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan Permanent Injunction,

prohibiting the disposal / mortgage of 7/12 share of Milagros Floro by

defendants, annotated at the back of the title, f) Death Certificate of Milagros

Floro, g) Guardianship Court Order canceling the annotated lien of Permanent

Injunction because of death of ward, Milagros Floro, on December 5, 1995, and

h) the March, 1998 defendants’ Affidavit of Adverse claim, are respectively

attached, as Annexes “A, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, & A-9”, as

integral part hereof. All annexes / exhibits were duly admitted by the Court.

2. On September 29, 1998, and October 8, 1998, undersigned also filed

with Br. 9, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, Civil Case No. 938-M-98, verified

petition / complaint and amended verified complaint, respectively, to annul /

cancel the mortgage contract on said 3 titles, based on the Civil Code

provisions of annulment of a) voidable contracts due to incapacity to give

consent, and consent was vitiated by fraud, undue influence, threats, mistake,

violence etc., and b) rescissible contracts, due to violation of the guardianship

court order, under Arts. 1390, 1391, in relation to 1381, par. 4, 1383 & 1389,

NCC, respectively, inter alia. These twin suits were also filed, in order to clear

or quiet the said / subject of these suits 3 titles, including TCT Nos. T-328106-

(M), which was sold by undersigned to LRC P-405 petitioners spouses Alfredo

and Florentina Trinidad. The spouses bought the lot from undersigned by virtue

of a “KASUNDUAN” dated 30 March, 1998, inter alia, and undersigned was

thereby obliged to represent the spouses in Court, and they, in turn, were bound

to pay undersigned sums of money, upon court cancellation of the adverse

claim upon their torrens title. Copies of pertinent pages 1, 6 & 7, of a) the

Verified Petition / Complaint, b) Amended Verified Complaint, and c) the

2

“Kasunduan” dated 30 March, 1998, are respectively attached, as Annexes B,

B-1& B-2. Undersigned petitioner fully paid all the legal, docket and all other

fees on all the above Petitions / Complaints / Amended Complaint as proved by

the Office of the Clerk of Court Official Receipts. Copies of all the official

receipts submitted to the Court, are collectively attached as Annex B -3 hereof.

Pre-trial, Stipulation of Facts, and Trial

a.) In the Pre-trial Order dated 19 March 1999, the Court ruled / terminated

the pre-trial and granted defendants’ Blancos’ plea and Manifestation that

“they are adopting the answer to the complaint already filed by their co-

defendant, Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico.”

b.) The Pre-Trial Brief dated 22 February 1999 of defendant Atty. Villarico

(adopted thusly by defendants Blancos) submitted the negative defense,

inter alia, of “the complaint states, and that the plaintiff has, no cause of

action against the defendants” and it also submitted the only Issues: “1.

Whether the plaintiff has cause of action against the defendants, and 2. If

the answer in the first issue is in the negative, will the defendant be

entitled to his claim enumerated in the Compulsory Counterclaim.” It

further alleged and stated that “F. Witnesses to be Presented: 1. Atty.

Vilarico and his co-defendant Jessie Floro will be presented to testify that

the complaint was merely to annoy and pester the defendants as the

complaint states no cause of action, the plaintiff has no remedy in law.”

c.) Defendants spouses Blancos’ and Villaricos’ “Answer with Compulsory

Counterclaim” dated 10 December 1998, submitted the “SPECIAL AND

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES” of – “5. The complaint states, and that the

plaintiff has, no cause of action. Xxx. 6. xxx , he was not privy to any

document signed by his co-defendants nor has he been an instrumental

witness thereto.” Defendants in the pleading, promised to present

witnesses and documents, but they miserably failed.

d.) The parties thereafter submitted the Stipulations of Facts with

Admissions, and the Court admitted the same, and the Comments.

3

e.) During all the pre-trial and trials / hearings of motions, only undersigned

Judge Floro appeared, testified and submitted unrebutted evidence, while

all defendants failed to be present, even once; further, they failed to cross-

examine Judge Floro, and the Court ordered that all the defendants had

waived their rights to cross-examine Judge Floro. Furthermore, they

failed to submit any witness or documentary evidence to rebut Judge

Floro’s admitted testimonial and documentary evidence, as they

promised, despite several court orders for them to do so.

f.) The Court admitted Judge Floro’s duly offered Exhibits “ A to I -sub-

markings ”, for all the purposes offered, as defendants failed to rebut them,

due to their complete ABSENCE in all proceedings, from 1998 until

today. The Court finally declared that all defendants had waived their

rights to present evidence.

Copies of a) the Br. 9, RTC, Malolos, Pre-trial Order dated 19 March 1999,

b) the Pre-Trial Brief dated 22 February 1999 of defendant Atty. Villarico

and the Defendants Blancos’ / Villaricos’ ANSWER WITH COMPULSORY

COUNTERCLAIM dated 10 December 1998, c) the Parties’ Stipulations of

Facts with Admissions, and d) the Court Orders dated August 12, 2004,

September 13 & 22, 2004, and 17 June, 2005, are attached as ANNEXES “C,

C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, & C-7,” respectively hereof.

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

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

4

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.

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,

5

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 …”

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)

6

respondent, Mrs. Joson’s 3-pages COMMENT dated 21 April 2005, d) OCAD

1st Indorsement dated 3 April 2005, and e) Judge Floro’s 8-pages Reply Supplemental

Affidavit dated 29 April 2005, f) March 16, 2005, S.C. 2nd Division Resolution on

A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2026-RTJ, and g) Code of Conduct of Court Personnel, are

attached as Annexes “G, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4 & G-5,” respectively, hereof.

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

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

7

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.

14, RTC, Malolos Bulacan, Executive Judge Petrita Braga Dime

The supervening event of Judge Floro’s accidental and destined discovery of

the P 80,000 pay-off and bribery committed by co-conspirators Alfred

Trinidad and respondents Judge Thelma and Ms. Joson .

13. Judge Floro, during the 2nd to the last quarter of 2007, found that herein

LRC Petitioners spouses Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad’s son Alfred Trinidad

blocked the right-of-way common to the subject lots of these cases, by his

fighting cocks and cock houses, which made it so dirty and muddy or

impassable. At Meycauayan, Bulacan Jollibee afternoon meeting, Alfred

Trinidad offered to Judge Floro, per his secretary, Ms. Belen Gomez,

settlement, thusly: he would remove the nuisance, on the condition of full

payment by Judge Floro, of P 80,000, reduced to P 60,000, which Alfred

admitted as “2005 GASTOS SA CASO,” or bribe cash moneys he paid to

respondent Mrs. Joson, for Judge Thelma (so that these cases would be delayed

8

by respondents Judge Thelma and Ms. Joson, in consideration of the 2005

dismissal of Judge Floro’s cases, so that the Trinidads, would no longer pay

Judge Floro the amount they are obliged to pay, based on the duly admitted

Exh. H, “KASUNDUAAN” dated March 30, 2008).

14. Additional condition of the bribe money was: Judge Floro would

eventually loose by technicalities, so that even if Judge Floro would appeal the

cases to the higher courts, it would eventually take many long years, and the

Trinidads would be spared from paying the sums due to Judge Floro based on

the admitted Exhibit / contract.

15. This supervening discovery of bribery, caused Judge Floro’s immediate

filing of a) the Writ of Amparo Case CA-G.R. SP No. 00015, on January 30,

2008, b) the 5-pages Letter-Complaint to Executive Judge Petrita B. Dime (now

the instant docketed case OCA IPI No. 08-2854-RTJ), and c) the pending full-

blown Disbarment case A.C. No. 7897, Third Division, Supreme Court.

Copies of a) March 4, 2008 CA-G.R. SP No. 00015 Resolution in the Writ of

Amparo case, b) 1st Indorsement of 08 April, 2008 of OCAD, docketing OCA

IPI No. 08-2854-RTJ, c) the 7 pages Comment of Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz

thereto dated 16 May 2008, d) 4 pages May 5, 2008 Comment of respondent

Ms. Joson, e) 3 pages May 5, 2008 letter of respondent Judge Thelma to OCA

DCA A. Dujua and f) 15 pages Disbarment case dated 2 May 2008, A.C. No.

7897, 3rd Division of the Supreme Court, by Judge Floro versus Atty. Nye N.

Orquillas, are attached as Annexes “J, J.a, J-1, J-2, J—3, J-4 & J-5,”

respectively, as part hereof, and for reference.

16. Meanwhile, respondent Judge Thelma / the Court made a SECOND

turn around, reversing her / its latest FIRST reconsideration order, by issuing an

Order, as the Court / respondent Judge Thelma admitted its / her glaring and

UNJUST ignorance of the law and bad faith. After about 4 years of suffering,

Judge Floro got from respondent Judge Thelma this UNJUST and dilatory

ruling that undersigned already paid all the docket fees (contrary to the lies

submitted by Atty. Orquillas): instead of deciding these cases, respondent Judge

Thelma again delayed the decision due since 2004, and without any reason. She

9

set the cases anew for hearing, on 22 November 2007, without any agenda.

Copy of the court Order dated 22 October, 2008, is attached as Annex “K.”

14. Respondent Judge Thelma / the court however, denied the sham and

false, new Motion to Dismiss filed by Atty. Ireneo E. Guardiano, as it noted and

granted undersigned’s filed opposition – grounded on the critical fact that

undersigned never appeared as lawyer, but as mere litigant for himself.

Respondent Judge Thelma / the court therefore, on March 31, 2008, ordered

these twin cases submitted, again, for decision, thereby reiterating its 2004 and

2005 Orders, and further ruled that these cases were submitted for decision as

of 2004 and 2005. Copy of the Order is attached as Annex “L” hereof.

The April 15, 2008 Partial Judgment

15. On April 15, 2008, respondent Judge Thelma rendered and released the

6 pages challenged Partial Judgment. It dismissed Judge Floro’s twin LRC /

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.

18. Because of the carefully planned MODUS OPRANDI, Judge Floro,

upon receipt of the Partial Judgment, on April 17, Friday, 2008, forthwith, on

11

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, and

c) 12-pages Verified Omnibus Motions dated May 23, 2008.

Atty. Ireneo E. Guardiano filed his 6 pages May 12, 2008 Comment for

defendants Blancos.

Respondent Judge Thelma set the hearings of these incidents on May 2,

12, 19, 28 and July 23, 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 Executive Judge Order dated 24

April 2008, which 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 / suffering.

12

Copies of the above-pleadings 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 -

Undersigned complainant charges / accuses respondent Judge Thelma

Pinero-Cruz --- with ---

a. GraveViolations of - - -

i.) A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC, AMENDMENT TO RULE 140 OF THE RULES

OF COURT -

“SEC. 8. Serious charges. – Serious charges include:

1. Bribery, direct or indirect;

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 -

“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.

13

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.

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.

14

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

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.

15

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

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

16

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)

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.

17

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.

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.”

18

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

19

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

1 Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Extrajudicial_Killings_and_Desaparecidos#Judicial_corruption

20

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.”

 

Timeline - Dire Events

2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Extrajudicial_Killings_and_Desaparecidos#Recent_Events

21

(From the time of filing of these cases on September 28 / 29, 1998)

* FIRE - On Holy Monday, 1998, the next adjacent lot / house (about 20

meters from the subject titles/lots of these 2 cases) was burned, and Judge

Floro’s relatives – Paula Floro, Rosalina and Emiliana Floro, were all roasted /

charred beyond recognition; this happened barely a month when defendants

annotated the subject adverse claim at the back of the subject titles (Annex A

and B-sub-markings);

* Murder - On December 17, 1998, just 3 months after the filing of these

cases, the first extra-judicial killing in RTC Malolos happened with the

horrible murder of Atty. Rodolfo Pasamba (at Kamayan Restaurant, Dakila,

Malolos, Bulacan) husband of incumbent Judge Herminia Pasamba, Vice

Executive Judge, Br. 81, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan;

* Accidents - Br. 9, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan +Judge Roy D. Masadao (first

Judge that handled the instant lower court case C.C. No. 938-M-98, September,

1998) fell on a horse and failed to finish his gubernatorial campaign in Tabuk,

Kalinga Apayao; his son Dominic suffered broken legs in a basketball game

when Judge Floro passed by at Alido, Malolos, Bulacan;

* Death - +Atty. Rafael Santos, first counsel of record of defendants Blancos,

in subject consolidated cases - LRC P-405 / C.C. No. 938-M-98 died during the

pendency of these cases (before Br. 80, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, Judge Cesar

Casanova);

* Cancer - Judge Cesar Casanova’s +mother died of lingering illness due to

METASTASIS when petitioner’s motion was denied by him;

* P 100 million FIRE - Defendants’ spouses Mariano and Ligaya Blanco’s

Eastern Tanning Tannery at Bancal, Meycauayan, Bulacan, was burned and

uninsured, the spouses lost P 100 million; his brother Mayor Tinoy Blanco was

disqualified, while Mariano / Tinoy Blanco both lost the Meycauayan, Elections

twice;

Triple Cancer Epidemic – Divine Justice - “Godly Reprisals”

22

Br. 16, RTC, Judge Thelma R. Pinero-Cruz’s husband died of CANCER,

2004 / 2005, long illness;

* Br. 9, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan +Judge Roy D. Masadao (who first handled

and inhibited in these cases) died of CANCER on 2005, when Judge Thelma

issued the unjust orders due to respondent Atty. Orquillas’ false motion (Annex

D) which delayed petitioner’s cases for 3 years;

Br. 14, RTC, Executive Judge Petrita Braga Dime suffered CANCER,

2004 - present, and is undergoing medication, here and abroad;

* Massive Strokes - Respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas’ clients - LRC petitioner

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 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

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

“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.”

       Judge Floro begs this Honorable Court to pursue relentlessly the truth

behind the respondents’ administrative and criminal acts. These events or

“Godly reprisals” are dire OMEN which spiritually warns that the judiciary

could ill afford another similar legal controversy, in RTC, Bulacan.

Moral bankruptcy

      That the judicial order is accused too often of moral bankruptcy with nary

an exception is a sad sign of the general cynicism and frustration of our nation.

Most unfortunately, there does not seem to be any way of achieving closure.

For the process and results of standard democratic and judicial inquiries,

sometimes including those by higher Courts, are received with skepticism and

cynicism. We have to confess that corruption is in truth our greatest shame as a

people. Corruption was / is at its worst, leading to  extrajudicial executions of

judges, the latest of which is the January 15, 2008 murder of Judge Navidad,

inter alia, and petitioner’s very own former clerk of court, Br. 73, RTC,

Malabon, former PAO and incumbent Malolos, Bulacan Fiscal Julio Taloma,

who was gunned down in Petitioner’s home town, Meycauayan, Bulacan, on

2005.

Same old problems

         They are the same old problems, or variations of them, which have been

plaguing our nation and Bulacan for years on end, through successive political

and judicial administrations. Nothing or very little seems to have been done

about them. In them we see the all too patent subordination of the common

good to private good. Putting oneself before the interests of the general public

24

had been the basic fault in the country’s political and judicial culture. AND

CORRUPTION cannot be punished except by entrapment, since this is our

rules on evidence and criminal law procedure’s requirements.

A final word. On April 7, 2006, after 7 long years of sufferings due to the July

20,1999 longest suspension in world history, I became and is now jobless in

pretend world. On April 15, 2008, respondent Judge Thelma deprived me of my

only ancestral home lot where I lived since I was born (in 1953 until 1989). In

her May 5 Comment, respondent Judge Thelma accused me of lies, and she

wanted all of me: my title as lawyer. AMEN.

RELIEF

  

            IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that

the instant VERIFIED DISBARMENT COMPLAINT / LETTER-

AFFIDAVIT [Under Rules 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia,

With - Motions - for Leave of Court to Admit this Complaint, for

PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution]

against respondent, Atty. Nye Orquillas, be duly NOTED, ADMITTED,

GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED. 

25

            Further, it is respectfully prayed, that - after filing of respondent’s

COMMENT / ANSWER, and after due notice, hearing, and Report of the

Commissioner / Investigator, - judgment be rendered declaring him GUILTY

of all the charges and that supreme penalty of DISBARMENT be imposed

upon him, ordering that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and

punished accordingly, under Rule 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia.

Special Prayer:

            Furthermore, petitioner most respectfully petitions this Court – to SUSPEND Atty. Nye Orquillas, pendent elite, from the practice of law, indefinitely and until further orders from this Honorable Court, and that the suspension should take effect immediately.

 Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading - letter-affidavit-complaint, this First Friday 2 nd   day of May,   2008 , at Malolos City , BULACAN.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,Petitioner, 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. Christina Layusa, The Office of the Bar Confidant,Atty. Ma. Luisa Villarama / Atty. Felipa Anama,The Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, Manila,

Please DOCKET and AGENDUM the foregoing pleading for the deliberation and Resolution of the Honorable Court, immediately upon receipt hereof.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

& AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

Malolos City, BULACAN                  ) S.S.

      I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, depose/say, that:

26

            I am the complainant in this case. I caused the preparation, signed and read the initial complaint duly filed in this case, and all the contents / allegations thereof are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records.\

           I certify that: I have not theretofore commenced any disbarment action or filed any administrative or other claim against respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas, 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, and if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof will be made, but there is none; 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 5 days there from to the court wherein the aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

          I certify that on May 2, 2008, I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in this DISBARMENT case “Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant, - versus –Atty. Nye Orquillas ”, A.C. No. _______, upon respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas, by personal service, at his office address, 2nd Flr., RTC Compound Bldg., Capitolyo, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan, as evidenced by the signature / initial receipt, as hereunder indicated, after his name and address, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Rules of Court.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 2nd day of May, 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. 146, PAGE NO. 31, 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):

Atty. Nye N. Orquillas,Respondent,2nd Flr., Hiyas ng Bulakan Convention Center,RTC Compound Bldg., Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan

and –

Judicial and Bar Council, c/o the SECRETARIAT, Supreme Court, Manila

 

 

27

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28

    

7.          

                

29