REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Third Judicial Region, Regional Trial Court of Bulacan,

Malolos City, Branch 17

Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Petitioner, - versus - Civil Case No. 1132-M-99Hon. Orlando C. Paguio, et. al., Respondents.X----------------------------------------------------------X

Verified Omnibus Motions

I. To Declare Null and Void, Sham and False Pleadings - Trial Prosecutor Felizardo S. Montero, Jr.’s September 23, 2008 A) “COMPLIANCE” & B) “MEMORANDUM” – For Provincial Prosecutor, Approved by Provincial Prosecutor Alfredo Geronimo,

II. To Direct public respondent Judge Edward D. Pacis, MTC, Marilao, Bulacan, to cease and desist from proceeding in any manner with the criminal case, and to return-transmit the entire records of the criminal case to the Office of the Public Prosecutor; and / or if the records are still with the Office of the Public Prosecutor, to direct said public respondents to forthwith obey the writ-judgment to the letters thereof, and

III. To Require-Direct the Branch Sheriff, and Public Respondents Trial Prosecutor Felizardo S. Montero, Jr.’s / Office of the Public Prosecutor Alfredo Geronimo, to explain to petitioner and to the Court,

i) Why the Writ of Execution-Judgment were disobeyed (refusal, without sufficient reason, to strictly and faithfully implement the processes),

ii) Why the Order-Writ-Judgment of the Court were not executed-enforced on time, and strictly to the letters thereof, (contra A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC dated 30 August 2005),

iii) Why these processes were circumvented amid petitioner’s corruption-disbarment charges,

iv) Why public respondent Provincial Proscecutor Alfredo Geronimo affixed his signature and approved Trial Prosecutor Felizardo S. Montero, Jr.’s September 23, 2008 “MEMORANDUM” – despite the legal prohibition and SUPERVENING absolute legal disqualification of the Office of the Public Prosecutor / Alfredo Geronimo to sign / approve and act upon petitioner’s criminal case as of July 8, 2008, when the 3 rd Division of the Supreme Court directed Geronimo’s son-in-law Atty. Nye Orquillas , to file Comment to petitioner’s landmark Disbarment A.C. No. 7897,

v) Why public respondents and Branch Sheriff should not be administratively charged with and punished for gross misconduct, disbarment, dereliction of duty, nonfeasance, graft and corruption under R.A. 3019, serious violations of - R.A. 6713, Rules 138, 139-B, 140, the Code of Professional Responsibility, Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, Section 52 B 1 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, delaying, sitting upon for more than 23 months the criminal case , unreasonable failure or neglect to perform such functions, gross inefficiency, gross neglect of duty, oppression and

vi) Why they should not be dismissed from service by the OCAD, Supreme Court and Department of Justice, for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, and

Verified Opposition

[To Trial Prosecutor Felizardo S. Montero, Jr.’s September 23, 2008 A) “COMPLIANCE” & B) “MEMORANDUM” – For Provincial Prosecutor, Approved by Provincial Prosecutor

Alfredo Geronimo] Undersigned petitioner, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., by HIMSELF and

for HIMSELF, as litigant / petitioner in this case, AND WITH LEAVE OF THIS

COURT, and by way of OPPOSITION to Trial Prosecutor Felizardo S.

Montero, Jr.’s September 23, 2008 A) “COMPLIANCE” & B)

“MEMORANDUM” – For Provincial Prosecutor, Approved by Provincial

Prosecutor Alfredo Geronimo, most respectfully avers, that:

1. All On October 15/Tuesday, 2008, Judge Floro received Trial Prosecutor

Felizardo S. Montero, Jr.’s September 23, 2008 A) “COMPLIANCE” & B)

“MEMORANDUM” – For Provincial Prosecutor, Approved by Provincial

Prosecutor Alfredo Geronimo.

2. These pleadings stated that the entire records of the criminal case was

forwarded to public respondent Public Prosecutor by Judge Edward D. Pacis,

MTC, Marilao, in his Court Order dated October 9, 2006 for the resolution of

the motion for reconsideration of Judge Floro, based on Br. 17’s Order dated

March 8, 2006.

3. From October 9, 2006 to September 23, 2008 or total of 23 months or 1

year and 11 months, petitioner had and has no idea or knowledge why the

Prosecutors and the Sheriff miserably failed in performing their sworn duties.

4. The Prosecutors needed 23 months to release a 1 ½ page

MEMORANDUM and ¾ page COMPLIANCE on September 23, 2008.

5. The Prosecutors never addressed in detail the issues raised not did they

submit reasons why they so decided, and failed to obey the Court’s writ-

judgment. There was no explanation, with statement of facts, citation of law and

jurisprudence, other than simple copy paste of the reasons cited by former

Reviewing Prosecutor Pelagia Joaquin, plus allegations that Judge Floro’s

2002-2004 Motion for Reconsideration and DOJ Petition for Review were

denied. According to them, the DOJ Resolution dismissed Judge Floro’s appeal,

but the Resolution was captioned Judge Joselito Floro, and therefore, on its

face, it is a fake and sham resolution, or misnomer. The Public Prosecutors

made a virtual mockery of justice, utter display of lust for power, the truth

being entombed in the graves of Judge Floro’s tons of detractors.

6. The fallo of the Public Prosecutors’ MEMORANDUM, states:

“Our Office had already taken the position that the said Motion for Reconsideration is not within our province to resolve, but should be addressed and acted upon by the MTC. The undersigned is constrained to maintain such position, with all due respect to the Courts, RTC and MTC.”

This was signed Trial Prosecutor Felizardo S. Montero, and approved by

Provincial Prosecutor Alfredo Geronimo on September 23, 2008. Alfredo

Geronimo is the father of Judge Sheila Geronimo, MTC, Plaridel, the wife of

Atty. Nye Orquillas, against whom Judge Floro filed a landmark full-blown

docketed Disbarment A.C. No. 7897. As of July 8, 2008, the 3rd Division of the

Supreme Court directed Geronimo’s son-in-law Atty. Nye Orquillas, to file

Comment to petitioner’s landmark Disbarment A.C. No. 7897. This is shocking

to the conscience of the entire judicial and prosecution departments.

6a.. Contrary to the above-lies, or half-truths to deceive this Court,

petitioner juxtaposes the required signed and submitted COMMENT by Public

Prosecutor Benjamin C. Medrano, dated July 30, 2007:

“Upon perusal xxx undersigned found out that the status of this case is that the entire records (Crim. Case No. 98-27027, “People vs. Judge Floro et al.”) were forwarded back to our Office in the Order of the Court dated 15 May 2000 for the Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the accused Judge Floro on the finding of probable cause made against him.

Considering that the Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration filed by

accused Judge Floro involves the determination of probable cause by our Office, then, with due respect, this Honorable Court (Br. 16), may not interfere with the functions of our Office, since the determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing an information or re-filing a case before the courts is the prerogative of our Office.”(Annex H of the Disbarment Complaint of Atty. Nye Orquillas, pages 1 & 17).

A.M. No 05-8-26-SC – MTC lost its Preliminary Investigation power

Gross Ignorance of the Law-Grave Derelictions of Duty: Comedy of Errors

7. How can Judge Pacis, MTC Marilao determine probable cause? Judge

Floro cites 2 Supreme Court Decisions and A.M. No 05-8-26-SC:

“It is noted that in the resolution dated 30 August 2005 in A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC Re: Amendment of Rules 112 and 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure by removing the conduct of preliminary investigation from judges of the first level courts, the Court ruled that all first level courts shall continue with the preliminary investigation of cases pending with them and terminate them not later than 31 December 2005. The resolution which took effect on 3 October 2005 likewise ruled that the first level courts, upon the date of effectivity of the amendments, shall no longer accept new cases for preliminary investigation.

It is worth mentioning here that lately, the Honorable Court in A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC dated 30 August 2005 has already withdrawn the power to conduct preliminary investigation from the judges of the first level courts. Insofar as the issuance of warrant of arrest is concerned, par. (b), Sec. 6, Rule 112 provides:

Sec. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. - (b) By the Municipal Trial Court. - When required pursuant to the second paragraph of section 1 of this Rule, the preliminary investigation of cases falling under the original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court may be conducted by either the judge or the prosecutor. x x x. When the investigation is conducted by the judge himself, he shall follow the procedure provided in Section 3 of this Rule. If his findings and recommendations are affirmed by the provincial or city prosecutor, or by the Ombudsman or his deputy, and the corresponding information is filed, he shall issue a warrant of arrest. However, without waiting for the conclusion of the investigation, the judge may issue a warrant of arrest if he finds after an examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers, that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody not to frustrate the ends of justice.

Under the above-quoted rule, the power or authority of the investigating judge to issue a warrant of arrest is limited to those instances where there is a necessity of placing him in custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. In the case of Mantaring vs. Roman, 254 SCRA 158, the respondent judge was reprimanded for issuing a warrant without any finding that it was necessary to place the accused in immediate custody in order to prevent a frustration of justice. And we quote:

Moreover, we think it was improper for respondent judge to have issued the warrants of arrest against complainant and his son without any finding that it was necessary to place them in immediate custody in order to prevent a frustration of justice. It is now settled that in issuing warrants of arrest in preliminary investigations, the investigating judge must: (a) have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses by searching questions and answers; (b) be satisfied that probable cause exists; and (c) that there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.

Under the above-quoted rule, the power or authority of the investigating judge to issue a warrant of arrest is limited to those instances where there is a necessity of placing him in custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.

Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.And prior to the issuance of A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC which took effect on October 3, 2005, among the officers authorized by Sec. 2, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure to conduct preliminary investigation are the city prosecutors and judges of the MTC and MCTC. As provided under Sec. 37 of

Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Judges of Metropolitan Trial Courts, except those in the National Capital Region, of Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall have authority to conduct preliminary investigation of crimes alleged to have been committed within their respective territorial jurisdictions which are cognizable by the Regional Trial Courts. x x x Provided, however, that, if after the preliminary investigation the Judge finds a prima facie case, he shall forward the records of the case to the Provincial/City Fiscal for the filing of the corresponding information with the proper court. No warrant of arrest shall be issued by the Judge in connection with any criminal complaint filed with him for preliminary investigation, unless after an examination in writing and under oath or affirmation of the complainant and his witnesses, he finds that a probable cause exists. x x x

However, as adverted to earlier, under A.M. No 05-8-26-SC, which took effect on October 3, 2005, the officers authorized to conduct preliminary investigations are the: (a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants; (b) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and (c) other officers as may be authorized by law. xxx[20] The preliminary investigation of cases falling under the original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court or Municipal Circuit Trial Court shall be conducted by the prosecutor. Xxx The above-mentioned administrative matter included the following proviso: All First Level Courts shall continue with the preliminary investigation of cases pending with them and terminate them not later than December 31, 2005. Upon the date of effectivity of these amendments, First Level Courts shall no longer accept new cases for preliminary investigation, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of courts of other levels.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the administrative case against Judge Marie Ellengrid S.L. Baliguat, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, General Santos City is DISMISSED. And in line with A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, withdrawing the power to conduct preliminary investigation from judges of first level courts, she is ADVISED to refer criminal cases filed for preliminary investigation to the Office of the City Prosecutor, General Santos City for appropriate action.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the administrative case against Judge Marie Ellengrid S.L. Baliguat, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, General Santos City is DISMISSED. And in line with A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, withdrawing the power to conduct preliminary investigation from judges of first level courts, she is ADVISED to refer criminal cases filed for preliminary investigation to the Office of the City Prosecutor, General Santos City for appropriate action.

FIRST DIVISION [A.M. No. MTJ-06-1641 [formerly a.m. oca ipi no. 05-1756-mtj], July 27, 2006] NOTAN LUMBOS, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MARIE ELLENGRID S.L. BALIGUAT; OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. JUDGE ZENAIDA L. GALVEZ et al. A.M. No. MTJ-03-1472 (Formerly A.M. No. 02-10-271-MTC)

BEHIND THE 1 ½ and ¾ pages – the TRUTH

7a. At this juncture, Judge Floro submits HARD EVIDENCE of “what is

behind the curtain of this INJUSTICE” – a supreme delay in the accused’s

constitutional right to speedy disposition of his criminal and civil cases.

TIMELINE: Death Warrant - +Judge Petrita Braga-Dime

January 29, 2008, Judge Dime entombed the bribery truth by endorsing

Judge Floro’s plea, instead to the OCAD, for UP Class ‘62’s disposal.

May 19, 2008, Judge Floro signed pages 1-2, inter alia of the SUMPA,

prophecy of death of Judge Dime.

After Judge Dime denied Judge Floro’s plea to ask Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz

to repent and confess her sins, Judge Floro called Br. 14’s staff in their office

and house, but Judge Dime prevented Judge Floro from talking with them.

Judge Floro called not less than 2 staff of Br. 14, on 3 successive dates of April

21, 22, and 23, noon time, announcing verbally Judge Dime’s timely demise

from this planet, as ruled in an En Banc meeting First Friday midnight by his 3

holy angels ridiculed as “duendes.”

January 30, 2008, Judge Floro filed the Writ of Amparo Petition against UP

Class 62 Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz and Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson

March 4, 2008, the Court of Appeals Justice Conrado Vazquez dismissed

Judge Floro’s Amparo Petition, ruling that Judge Floro’s remedy is to file

OCAD Administrative Case

April 8-10, 2008, the OCAD docketed Judge Floro’s complaint against Judge

Thelma and Ms. Joson as OCA IPI A.M. 08-2854-RTJ

April 15, 2008, REVENGE – Judge Floro lost his own 1953-1989 ancestral

home-house-lot civil-LRC case per Decision of Judge Thelma

April 24, 2008, Judges Pasamba and Francisco reversed Judge Dime’s – Judge

Thelma’s Re-raffle-Voluntary Disqualification, and returned the 10 years case

of Judge Floro to Judge Thelma

June 12, 2008, Chief Justice Puno endorsed to the OCAD, Judge Floro’s 200

pages complaint with 250 annexes against Judge Thelma and Ms. Joson, for P

80,000 bribery, etc. to the OCAD

July 7, 2008, Disbarment A.C. No. 7897, the 3rd Division of the Supreme

Court directed Provincial Prosecutor Alfredo Geronimo’s son-in-law Atty. Nye

Orquillas, to file Comment to petitioner’s disbarment

July 10, 2008, Judge Dime died and Judge Thelma talked to Justice Minita

Nazario at the wake, where IPP President and Judge Floro’s nemesis Atty. Pete

Principe discussed Judge Floro’s “duendes”

August 4, 2008, Judge Thelma and Ms. Joson filed 1 ½ pages Comment to the

450 pages Judge Floro pleading

September 3, 2008, Judge Thelma stated that she followed-up the records

and status of Br. 17 and MTC Meycauayan-MTC Marilao criminal case

of Judge Floro; Judge Thelma reversed herself, and ruled that Judge Floro’s

Motion for Reconsideration of her April 15, 2008 Decision is superseded by

the New Order submitting the 10 years cases of Judge Floro for Decision

against Atty. Villarico and all parties except the Trinidads

September 9 and August 12, 2008, Judge Floro’s 200 pages bribery-

disbarment-administrative cases against the Big CA 5, Justices Conrado

Vasquez, Reyes, Sabio, Bruselas and Vidal were dismissed for lack of

merit – A. M. No. 08-8-11-CA (Annex A, collectively)

8. In the Order dated 8 March 2008, this Honorable Court ruled that:

“Pending the process of executing and enforcing the Decision dated May 15, 2000, prayer (ii) is premature. Disobedience by the public respondents must never be based on mere conclusion but must be established by evidence, considering the punitive consequence, thereof, i.e. contempt.”

The Meralco No Bail Warrant of Arrest – Estafa

Judge Floro cites the landmark Meralco estafa case, which defines the power

and duties of judge on preliminary investigation and essential ingredient of

estafa or other deceits:1

“In an order dated October 6, Judge Franco Falcon of the Pasig Regional Trial Court Branch 71 dismissed Nasecore’s complaint, saying it failed to prove the respondents had committed the crime alleged of them. In its complaint Nasecore accused Meralco of illegally declaring as income some P889 million in consumers' money -- representing interest earned by meter and bill deposits collectively known as "customers' deposits." Nasecore lawyers maintained that the Department of Justice (DoJ) was right to file the case against Meralco before the Pasig court on the basis of the complaint of the consumers’ group.

In court filings, Nasecore argued that the Supreme Court had affirmed in a number of its decisions the mandate given government prosecutors to investigate and determine if probable cause exists to file a case in court. Previously, a DoJ panel, headed by Cagayan de Oro regional state prosecutor Jaime Umpa, said it found enough evidence to warrant the filing of the syndicated estafa charges, a non-bailable offense, against the Meralco officers. Judge Franco Falcon of Pasig

1 http://www.inquirer.net/specialfeatures/power/view.php?db=1&article=20081013-166158

Nasecore to pursue fraud case vs MeralcoOctober 13, 2008 14:25:00 DJ Yap Philippine Daily Inquirer

http://www.inquirer.net/specialfeatures/power/view.php?db=1&article=20081010-165786No estafa: Court junks suit vs MeralcoOctober 10, 2008 23:47:00 DJ Yap Philippine Daily Inquirer

Regional Trial Court Branch 71 threw out the complaint by the National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms (Nasecore) against Meralco’s directors, saying it failed to prove the crime. In a 12-page order dated October 6 but released Thursday, the court said there was no basis to issue arrest warrants against Meralco chair Manuel Lopez and 16 other officers who were charged, “there being no finding of probable cause.” The case stemmed from an allegation by Nasecore that Meralco illegally declared as income some P889 million in consumers’ money—representing interest earned by meter and bill deposits collectively known as “customers’ deposits. “Meralco was not formed with the intention to carry out unlawful acts and to defraud people,” the judge said. The court added that the complaint was left with no leg to stand on since no evidence had been presented showing any acts of misappropriation or conversion on the part of Meralco. The judge added, quoting a Supreme Court decision, that “prior demand should be made by the offended party on the accused to comply with the obligation before the latter may be charged criminally.” “The absence of the essential element of demand is very fatal to the case of the private complainants because there would be no showing or evidence that Meralco has reneged on its obligation to refund the meter and bill deposits to the prejudice of the private complainants,” Falcon said. “Clearly the lack of demand is not negligible. The complaint is reduced to a litany of baseless and malicious accusations, and at the very least, downright premature,” he said.”

Bar by former judgment, law of the case and res judicata:

Mockery of Justice by consistent refusal to dismiss the 10 years case against Judge Floro – palpable delay, injustice and lust for money, the essence of bribery, judicial corruption and VENDETTA

9. The Honorable Supreme Court ruled that:

“A judgment is the foundation of a writ of execution which draws its vitality therefrom (Monaghon v. Monaghon, 25 Ohio St. 325). An officer issuing a writ of execution is required to look to the judgment for his immediate authority.”

(Sydnor v. Roberts, 12 Tex. 598); FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 104133 April 18, 1995 SPOUSES EMILIO ABINUJAR et al., vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS et al.)

“It must be stressed that the duty to execute a writ is mandatory and ministerial. As a ministerial officer, a sheriff performs the duties of the office in the context of a given set of facts in a prescribed manner, and without regard to the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done.

The order of the court must be executed strictly to the letter, leaving the sheriff with no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. This is so because final judgments of the courts become empty victories for the prevailing parties if not immediately enforced.”

(Duenas v. Mandi, G.R. No. L-65889, June 30, 1987, 151 SCRA 530, 543. Sismaet v. Sabas, A.M. No. P-03-1680, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 241, 247-248. Sayson v. Luna, A.M. No. P-04-1829, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 502, 505. Mendoza v. Sheriff IV Tuquero, 412 Phil. 435, 442 (2001), citing Moya v. Bassig, 138 SCRA 49, 52-53 - [A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1489-P. August 23, 2006] CARLOS G. SALDUA v. REYNALDO A. PASCUAL, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), BRANCH 64, MAKATI CITY First Division)

“Unless restrained by a court to the contrary, sheriffs should see to it that the execution of judgments is not unduly delayed. It is a hornbook doctrine that when

a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it in accordance with its mandate.”

(Onquit v. Binamira-Parcia [297 SCRA 354] Marisga-Magbanua vs. Villamar V, 305 SCRA 132). “The rule is that those involved in the administration of justice from the highest official to the lowest clerk must live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in the public service.”(Office of the Court Administrator vs. Galo, 314 SCRA 705).

“Well settled is the rule that when writs are placed in the hands of sheriffs, it is their ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute them in accordance with their mandate.

Their duty is purely ministerial; they are to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter. Their function is not discretionary. And, good faith on their part, or lack of it, in proceedings to properly execute their mandate would be of no moment, for they are chargeable with the knowledge that being officers of the court tasked therefore, it behooves them to make due compliances. Their unreasonable failure or neglect to perform such function constitutes inefficiency and gross neglect of duty.

Sheriffs are officers of the court who serve and execute writs addressed to them by the court, and who prepare and submit returns of their proceedings. As officers of the court, they must discharge their duties with great care and diligence. They have to perform faithfully and accurately what is incumbent upon them and show at all times a high degree of professionalism in the performance of their duties.

As public officers who are repositories of public trust, sheriffs have the obligation to perform the duties of their office “honestly, faithfully and to the best of their abilities.” They must always hold inviolate and invigorate the tenet that a public office is a public trust. As court personnel, their conduct must be beyond reproach and free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary. They must be circumspect and proper in their behavior. They must use reasonable skill and diligence in performing their official duties, especially when the rights of individuals may be jeopardized by neglect. They are ranking officers of the court entrusted with a fiduciary role. They play an important part in the administration of justice and are called upon to discharge their duties with integrity, reasonable dispatch, due care and circumspection. Anything less is unacceptable.

This is because in serving the court’s writs and processes and in implementing the orders of the court, sheriffs cannot afford to err without affecting the efficiency of the process of the administration of justice. Sheriffs are at the grassroots of our judicial machinery and are indispensably in close contact with litigants, hence their conduct should be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court, for the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel.

All told, no position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from the occupant than the judicial office. Those connected with the dispensation of justice bear a heavy burden of responsibility. Clerks of Court, in particular, must be individuals of competence, honesty and probity, charged as they are with safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings. This Court has consistently held that persons involved in the administration of justice ought to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in the public service. It bears stressing that the behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with a high degree of

responsibility. Their conduct must, at all times, not only be characterized by propriety and decorum, but must also be above suspicion.For, we cannot countenance any act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.

As this Court has said more than once, execution is the fruit and end of the suit and is the life of law. A judgment that is left unexecuted is nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing party. The failure to issue and implement a writ of execution in appropriate cases may be classified as simple neglect of duty which has been defined as the failure of an employee to give one’s attention to a task expected of him. It signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. It is censurable under the Civil Service Rules. Under Section 52 B 1 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense punishable by suspension from office for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.

Thus, in Ayo v. Violago-Isnani, we found respondent clerk of court guilty of simple neglect of duty for causing the delay in the implementation of the writ of execution and suspended him from office for one (1) month and one (1) day. In Alvarez v. Martin, we found a sheriff guilty of “failure/refusal to perform official duty” for failing to implement a writ of execution and suspended him for three (3) months without pay. In another case, we found the same sheriff guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to implement writs of execution in several civil cases and imposed against him a fine of P10,000.00. Consistent with recent rulings and it appearing that this is the first infraction committed by both respondents Clerk of Court Atty. Analiza M. Luna and Sheriff Victor R. Hernandez, we find the suspension of three (3) months sufficient penalty for simple neglect of duty. IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondents ATTY. ANALIZA M. LUNA, Clerk of Court, and VICTOR R. HERNANDEZ, Sheriff IV, both of the RTC of Tagaytay City, Branch 18, are found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty for failing to perform an official duty, and are hereby SUSPENDED for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS each without pay. They are STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of similar infractions will be dealt with more severely.”

SECOND DIVISION ADELAIDA ESCOBAR VDA. DE LOPEZ, vs. ATTY. ANALIZA M. LUNA, et al. A.M. NO. P-04-1786 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1341-P) C.J. Puno, Francisco v. Cruz, A.M. No. P-93-990 and A.M. No. P-94-1042, 8 September 2000, 340 SCRA 76, 85; Onquit v. Binamira-Parcia, A.M. MTJ-96-1085, 8 October 1998, 297 SCRA 354, 364. Garcia v. Yared, A.M. No. P-01-1492, 20 March 2003, 399 SCRA 331. Capacete v. Arellano, A.M. No. P-03-1700, 23 February 2004, 423 SCRA 323; Eduarte v. Ramos, A.M. No. P-94-1069, 9 November 1994, 238 SCRA 36, 40; Remollo v. Garcia, A.M.. No. P-98-1276, 25 September 1998, 296 SCRA 77. Chupungco v. Cabusao, A.M. No. P-03-1758, 10 December 2003, 417 SCRA 365. Aquino v. Lavadia, A.M. No. P-0101483, 20 September 2001, 365 SCRA 441. Villanueva-Fabella v. Judge Lee, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1518, 15 January 2004, 419 SCRA 440. Vda. de Velayo v. Ramos, A.M. No. P-99-1332, 17 January 2002, 374 SCRA 1, 6. Biglete v. Maputi, A.M. No. P-00-1407, 15 February 2002, 377 SCRA 1, 5. Morta v. Judge Bagagñan, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1513, 12 November 2003. Pecson v. Sicat, A.M. No. P-98-1280, 19 October 1998, 298 SCRA 122. Ventura v. Concepcion, A.M. No. P-00-1431, 27 November 2000, 346 SCRA 14, 8. Abanil v. Ramos, Jr., A.M. No. P-98-1270, 27 November 2000, 346 SCRA 20, 24. Tiongco v. Molina, A.M. No. P-00-1373, 4 September 2001, 364 SCRA 294. Ibid. Lobregat v. Amoranto, A.M. No. P-04-1781, 18 February 2004, 423 SCRA 195. Trinidad v. Paclibar, A.M. No. P-03-1673, 25 August 2003, 409 SCRA 434. Abalde v. Roque, Jr., A.M. No. P-02-1643, 1 April 2003, 400 SCRA 210. Villanueva-Fabella v. Judge Lee, supra at 24. Re: Memorandum dated 27 September 1999 of Ma. Corazon M. Molo, Officer-in-Charge, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator on the Dishonesty and grave misconduct of Datu Alykhan T. Amilbangsa, Clerk of Court, Bongo, Tawi-Tawi, Adm. Matter No. SCC-00-6-P, 16 October 2003, 413 SCRA 521. Caña v. Santos, A.M. No. 93-10-1269-RTC, 8 July 1994, 234 SCRA 17. Alpeche v. Bato, A.M. No. P-02-1592, 16 October 2003, 413 SCRA 530; Caguioa v. Flora, A.M. No. P-01-1480, 28 June 2001, 360 SCRA 12. Solidbank Corporation v. Capoon, Jr., A.M. No. P-98-1266, 15 April 1988, 289 SCRA 9. Llamado v. Ravelo, A.M. No. P-92-747, 16 October 1997, 280 SCRA 597. Vda. de Velayo v. Ramos, A.M. No. P-99-1332, 17 January 2002, 374 SCRA 1, 6. Report on the Financial Audit in RTC, General Santos City, A.M. No. 96-1-25-RTC, 18 April 1997, 271 SCRA 302; Ang v. Asis, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1590, 15 January 2002, 373 SCRA 91, 99; Ayo v. Violago-Isnani, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1445, 21 June 1999, 308 SCRA 543; Marisga-Magbanua v. Villamor, A.M. No. P-991297, 29 March 1999, 305 SCRA 132, among others; Ayo v. Violago-Isnani, supra at

45; Junio v. Egay-Eviota, A.M. No. P-92-746, 29 March 1994, 305 SCRA 132; Philippine Retirement Authority v. Rupa, G.R. No. 140519, 21 August 2001, 363 SCRA 480, 486-487; Supra at 45; A.M. No. P-03-1724, 18 September 2003, 411 SCRA 248; Aquino v. Martin, A.M. No. P-03-1703, 18 September 2003, 411 SCRA 242.

A.M. No 05-8-26-SC vis-à-vis Justice Baldos’ ratio decidendi squarely ruling on the submitted issues on preliminary investigation – resolution of Judge Floro’s Motion for Reconsideration

Judge Floro reproduces hereunder and next pages, Justice Baldos’ terse ponencia:

RELIEF

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

the –

Verified Omnibus Motions

I. To Declare Null and Void, Sham and False Pleadings - Trial Prosecutor Felizardo S. Montero, Jr.’s September 23, 2008 A) “COMPLIANCE” & B) “MEMORANDUM” – For Provincial Prosecutor, Approved by Provincial Prosecutor Alfredo Geronimo,

II. To Direct public respondent Judge Edward D. Pacis, MTC, Marilao, Bulacan, to cease and desist from proceeding in any manner with the criminal case, and to return-transmit the entire records of the criminal case to the Office of the Public Prosecutor; and / or if the records are still with the Office of the Public Prosecutor, to direct said public respondents to forthwith obey the writ-judgment to the letters thereof, and

III. To Require-Direct the Branch Sheriff, and Public Respondents Trial Prosecutor Felizardo S. Montero, Jr.’s / Office of the Public Prosecutor Alfredo Geronimo, to explain to petitioner and to the Court,

i) Why the Writ of Execution-Judgment were disobeyed (refusal, without sufficient reason, to strictly and faithfully implement the processes),

ii) Why the Order-Writ-Judgment of the Court were not executed-enforced on time, and strictly to the letters thereof, (contra A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC dated 30 August 2005),

iii) Why these processes were circumvented amid petitioner’s corruption-disbarment charges,

iv) Why public respondent Provincial Proscecutor Alfredo Geronimo affixed his signature and approved Trial Prosecutor Felizardo S. Montero, Jr.’s September 23, 2008 “MEMORANDUM” – despite the legal prohibition and SUPERVENING absolute legal disqualification of the Office of the Public Prosecutor / Alfredo Geronimo to sign / approve and act upon petitioner’s criminal case as of July 8, 2008, when the 3 rd Division of the Supreme Court directed Geronimo’s son-in-law Atty. Nye Orquillas , to file Comment to petitioner’s landmark Disbarment A.C. No. 7897,

v) Why public respondents and Branch Sheriff should not be administratively charged with and punished for gross misconduct, disbarment, dereliction of duty, nonfeasance, graft and corruption under R.A. 3019, serious violations of - R.A. 6713, Rules 138, 139-B, 140, the Code of Professional Responsibility, Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, Section 52 B 1 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, delaying, sitting upon for

more than 23 months the criminal case , unreasonable failure or neglect to perform such functions, gross inefficiency, gross neglect of duty, oppression and

vi) Why they should not be dismissed from service by the OCAD, Supreme Court and Department of Justice, for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, and

Verified Opposition

[To Trial Prosecutor Felizardo S. Montero, Jr.’s September 23, 2008 A) “COMPLIANCE” & B) “MEMORANDUM” – For Provincial Prosecutor, Approved by Provincial Prosecutor

Alfredo Geronimo]

be duly noted, considered, resolved and GRANTED, in the ordinary course of

law and the 1987 Constitution.

Other reliefs and remedies, just and equitable under the circumstances are

likewise prayed for.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading, this 17rd day, of

October, 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 of Hearing

To:

The Office of Provincial Prosecutor, Alfredo Geronmo,Public respondent,c/o Br. 17, RTC, Tial Prosecutor, Felizardo S. Montero, Jr.Malolos City, Bulacan,

By Registered Mail with Return Card: upon: Explanation: due to distance and lack of messenger, copies of this pleading with annexes are sent by registered mail with return card to:

Atty. Donato Mabbayad,Counsel of Record for private respondents,Mariano and Ligaya Blanco,Poblacion, Meycauayan City,3020 Bulacan,

Hon. Edgar D. Pacis,c/o The Branch Clerk of Court / OIC, Mr. Roland M. Halili,

Metropolitan Trial Court, Br. 1,Meycauayan City, 3020 Bulacan

Hon. Edgar D. Pacis,c/o The Branch Clerk of Court / OIC, Municipal Trial Court,Marilao, Bulacan

The Branch Clerk of Court, Br. 17, RTC, Maolos Bulacan

GREETINGS:

Please take NOTICE that undersigned will submit the instant motions-opposition, etc. to

the Honorable Court for hearing and resolution, at 9:00 a.m. on October 24-Friday, 27, 28,

Novermber 3 and 4, 2008, or soon thereafter that undersigned may be heard. Undersigned

was informed that the Presiding Judge is on leave on October 24 and 27, while the Fiscal is

present only on Mondays and Tuesdays, amid the Supreme Court circular that Motions

should preferably be set on Fridays, and also amid the 10 days 3 days notice under Rule 15,

Rules of Court.

Accordingly, it is requested that the Clerk of Court send Notices of Hearing on the dates

the Presiding Judge and the Fiscal would be present, and that the notices be sent my personal

service at the expense of undersigned by the process server. Thanks.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.

VERIFICATION & AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE  

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

Malolos City, BULACAN                  ) S.S.

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

            I am the petitioner-movant in this case. I caused the preparation, signed and read the instant pleading, and all the contents / allegations thereof are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records.\

          I certify that on October 17, 2008, I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in this case “Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant, - versus – O. Paguio et al ”, Civ. Case No,. 1132-99, by personal service on respondent Office of Provincial Prosecutor, and on private respondent M. Blanco’s counsel Atty. D. Mabbayadd and MeTC Br. I Meycauayan, Bulacan, Judge E. Pacis, by registered mail with return card and explanation, as evidenced by the hereunder rubber receipt marks and initials, and the attached registry receipts hereunder, 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 17th day of October, 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. , 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):

The Office of Provincial Prosecutor, Alfredo Geronmo,Public respondent,c/o Br. 17, RTC, Tial Prosecutor, Felizardo S. Montero, Jr.Malolos City, Bulacan,

By Registered Mail with Return Card: upon: Explanation: due to distance and lack of messenger, copies of this pleading with annexes are sent by registered mail with return card to:

Atty. Donato Mabbayad,Counsel of Record for private respondents,Mariano and Ligaya Blanco,Poblacion, Meycauayan City,3020 Bulacan,

Hon. Edgar D. Pacis,c/o The Branch Clerk of Court / OIC, Mr. Roland M. Halili, Metropolitan Trial Court, Br. 1,Meycauayan City, 3020 Bulacan

Hon. Edgar D. Pacis,c/o The Branch Clerk of Court / OIC, Municipal Trial Court,Marilao, Bulacan