Today is Monday, April 14, 2014

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BAN

A.M. No. 93-7-696-0 February 21, 1995 ! Re "OA#U N T. $ORROMEO, E% Re&. Cebu C'(y C)a*(er o+ ()e !(e,ra(e- $ar o+ ()e P)'&'**'!e.. RE!"#$T%"N

PER CUR AM/

%t is said that a little learnin& is a dan&erous thin&' and that he (ho acts as his o(n la(yer has a fool for a client) There (ould see* to be *ore than a &rain of truth in these aphoris*s' and they appear to find +alidation in the proceedin& at bench, at least)

The respondent in this case, ,oa-uin T) Borro*eo, is not a la(yer but has apparently read so*e la( boo.s, and ostensibly co*e to possess so*e superficial a(areness of a fe( substanti+e le&al principles and procedural rules) %ncredibly, (ith nothin& *ore than this s*atterin& of learnin&, the respondent has, for so*e si/teen 0112 years no(, fro* 1345 to the present, been institutin& and prosecutin& le&al proceedin&s in +arious courts, do&*atically pontificatin& on errors supposedly co**itted by the courts, includin& the !upre*e ourt) %n the pictures-ue lan&ua&e of for*er hief
1

been +erbally 8oustin& (ith +arious ad+ersaries in di+erse liti&ations' or in the (ords of a (ell9.no(n son&, rushin& into arenas 7(here an&els fear to tread)7 $nder the illusion that his tri+ial ac-uaintance (ith the la( had &i+en hi* co*petence to underta.e liti&ation, he has +entured to represent hi*self in nu*erous ori&inal and re+ie( proceedin&s) E/pectedly, the results ha+e been disastrous) %n the process, and possibly in aid of his inter*inable and -uite unreasonable resort to 8udicial proceedin&s, he has seen fit to co*pose and circulate *any scurrilous state*ents a&ainst courts, 8ud&es and their e*ployees, as (ell as his ad+ersaries, for (hich he is no( bein& called to account)

,ustice Enri-ue M) 6ernando, he has 7(ith all the +alor of i&norance,7

Respondent Borro*eo:s ill9ad+ised incursions into la(yerin& (ere &enerated by fairly prosaic transactions (ith three 0;2 ban.s (hich ca*e to ha+e cala*itous conse-uences for hi* chiefly because of his failure to co*ply (ith his contractual co**it*ents and his stubborn insistence on i*posin& his o(n ter*s and conditions for their fulfill*ent) These ban.s (ere< Traders Royal Ban. 0TRB2, $nited oconut Planters Ban. 0$ PB2, !ecurity Ban. = Trust o) 0!BT 2) Borro*eo obtained loans or credit acco**odation fro* the*, to secure (hich he constituted *ort&a&es o+er i**o+ables belon&in& to hi* or *e*bers of his fa*ily, or third persons) >e failed to pay these obli&ations, and (hen de*ands (ere *ade for hi* to do so, laid do(n his o(n ter*s for their satisfaction (hich (ere -uite inconsistent (ith those a&reed upon (ith his obli&ees or prescribed by la() ?hen, understandably, the ban.s refused to let hi* ha+e his (ay, he brou&ht suits ri&ht and left, successi+ely if not conte*poraneously, a&ainst said ban.s, its officers, and e+en the la(yers (ho represented the ban.s in the actions brou&ht by or a&ainst hi*) >e sued, as (ell, the public prosecutors, the ,ud&es of the Trial ourts, and the ,ustices of the ourt of Appeals and the !upre*e ourt (ho at one ti*e or another, rendered a 8ud&*ent, resolution or order ad+erse to hi*, as (ell as the ler.s of ourt and other ourt e*ployees si&nin& the notices thereof) %n the a&&re&ate, he has initiated or spa(ned in different fora the astoundin& nu*ber of no less9than fifty 0@02 ori&inal or re+ie( proceedin&s, ci+il, cri*inal, ad*inistrati+e) 6or so*e si/teen 0112 years no(, to repeat, he has been continuously clutterin& the ourts (ith his repetiti+e, and -uite baseless if not outlandish co*plaints and contentions)

%) CASES INVOLVING TRADERS ROYAL BANK (TRB)

The first ban. that ,oa-uin T) Borro*eo appears to ha+e dealt (ith (as the Traders Royal Ban. 0TRB2) "n ,une 2, 1345, he &ot a loan fro* it in the su* of P4@,000)00) This he secured by a real estate *ort&a&e created o+er t(o parcels of land co+ered by T T No) @3@31 and T T No) @34@@ o(ned, respecti+ely, by !ocorro Borro*eo9Tha.uria 0his sister2 and Teresita ?inniefred #a+arino) "n ,une 11, 1345, Borro*eo obtained a second loan fro* TRB in the a*ount of P10,000)00, this ti*e &i+in& as security a *ort&a&e o+er a parcel of land o(ned by the >eirs of Aicente A) Borro*eo, co+ered by T T No) RT941;4) Authority to *ort&a&e these three lots (as +ested in hi* by a !pecial Po(er of Attorney e/ecuted by their respecti+e o(ners) redit fro* TRB in the su* of P50,000)00, in consideration of (hich he e/ecuted a Trust Receipt 0No) @3@B502 fallin& due on ,uly 22,

Additionally, on April 2;, 1350, Borro*eo obtained a #etter of

1350) 2

Borro*eo failed to pay the debts as contracted despite de*ands therefor) onse-uently, TRB caused the e/tra98udicial foreclosure of the *ort&a&es &i+en to secure the*) At the public sale conducted by the sheriff on !epte*ber 4, 1351, the three *ort&a&ed parcels of land (ere sold to TRB as the hi&hest bidder, for P4;,@23)03)

?ithin the rede*ption period, Borro*eo *ade .no(n to the Ban. his intention to redee* the properties at their auction price) TRB *ana&er Blas ) Abril ho(e+er *ade clear that Borro*eo (ould also ha+e to settle his outstandin& account under Trust Receipt No) @3@B50 0P55,412)452, supra) Borro*eo de*urred, and this disa&ree*ent &a+e rise to a series of la(suits co**enced by hi* a&ainst the Ban., its officers and counsel, as aforestated)

A) CIVIL CASES 1) RTC Case No) R-22506' CA G)R) CV No) 0 0!5' G)R) No) "##06

"n "ctober 23, 1352 Borro*eo filed a co*plaint in the ebu ity Re&ional Trial ourt for specific perfor*ance and da*a&es a$a%&s' TRB a&( %'s )o*a) +a&a$er, B)as A-r%), doc.eted as i+il ase No) R922@01) The co*plaint sou&ht to co*pel defendants to allo( rede*ption of the foreclosed properties only at their auction price, (ith stipulated interests and char&es, (ithout need of payin& the obli&ation secured by the trust receipt abo+e *entioned) ,ud&*ent (as rendered in his fa+or on Cece*ber 20, 1354 by Branch 2; of the ebu ity RT ' but on defendants: appeal to the ourt of Appeals D doc.eted as A9E)R) A No) 0401@ D the 8ud&*ent (as re+ersed, by decision dated ,anuary 24, 1355) The ourt of Appeals held that the 7plaintiff 0Borro*eo2 has lost his ri&ht of rede*ption and can no lon&er co*pel defendant to allo( rede*ption of the properties in -uestion)7

Borro*eo ele+ated the case to this court (here his appeal (as doc.eted as E)R) No) 5;;01) By Resolution dated Au&ust 1@, 1355, this ourt:s 6irst Ci+ision denied his petition for re+ie( 7for failure ) ) ) to sufficiently sho( that the respondent ourt of Appeals had co**itted any re+ersible error in its -uestioned 8ud&*ent, it appearin& on the contrary that the said decision is supported by substantial e+idence and is in accord (ith the facts and applicable la()7 Reconsideration (as denied, by Resolution dated No+e*ber 2;, 1355) A second *otion for reconsideration (as denied by Resolution dated ,anuary ;0, 1353, as (as a third such *otion, by Resolution dated April 13, 1353) The last resolution also directed entry of 8ud&*ent and the re*and of the case to the court of ori&in for pro*pt e/ecution of 8ud&*ent) Entry of 8ud&*ent (as *ade on May 12, 1353) By Resolution dated Au&ust 4, 1353, the ourt denied another *otion of Borro*eo to set aside 8ud&*ent' and by Resolution dated Cece*ber 20, 1353, the ourt *erely noted (ithout action his *anifestation and *otion prayin& that the decision of the ourt of Appeals be o+erturned, and declared that 7no further *otion or pleadin& ) ) ) shall be entertained ) ) ) )7 2) RTC Case No) CEB " 50' CA-G)R) S. No) 22#56

The in. (as hardly dry on the resolutions 8ust *entioned before Borro*eo initiated another ci+il action in the sa*e ebu ity Re&ional ourt by (hich he atte*pted to liti&ate the sa*e issues) The action, a$a%&s' '/e &e0 TRB Bra&*/ 1a&a$er, 2a*%&'o 2a+ero , (as doc.eted as i+il ase No) EB954@0) As *i&ht ha+e been anticipated, the action (as, on *otion of the defense, dis*issed by

on the &round of res 3u(%*a'a, the only issue raised in the second action D %)e), Borro*eo:s ri&ht to redee* the lots foreclosed by TRB D ha+in& been +entilated in i+il ase No) R922@01 0,oa-uin T) Borro*eo +s) Blas ) Abril and Traders Royal Ban.2 0supra2 and, on appeal, decided (ith finality by the ourt of Appeals and the !upre*e ourt in fa+or of defendants therein)
ourt:s 8ud&*ent (as affir*ed by the ourt of Appeals in A9E)R) !P No) 22;@1) ;) RTC Case No) CEB-45"5' CA-G)R) S. No) 2"22!

"rder dated May 15, 1330, 3

The Trial

%n the *eanti*e, and durin& the pendency of i+il ase No) R922@01, TRB consolidated its o(nership o+er the foreclosed i**o+ables) ontendin& that act of consolidation a*ounted to a cri*inal offense, Borro*eo filed co*plaints in the "ffice of the ity Prosecutor of ebu a&ainst the ban. officers and la(yers) These co*plaints (ere ho(e+er, and -uite correctly, &i+en short shrift by that "ffice) Borro*eo then filed suit in the ebu ity RT , this ti*e not only a$a%&s' '/e TRB, TRB o66%*ers 2a*%&'o 2a+ero a&( Ar*e)% Bus'a+a&'e , but also a$a%&s' C%'7 .rose*u'or 2u6e)%&%'o .are3a a&( /%s ass%s'a&'s, E&r%8ue'a Be)ar+%&o a&( E9a A ) I$o', a&( '/e TRB )a07ers, 1ar%o Or'%: a&( '/e )a0, 6%r+, ;ERSINLA< ) The action (as doc.eted as i+il ase No) EB9345@) The co*plaint char&ed Prosecutors Pare8a, Belar*ino and %&ot (ith *anifest partiality and bias for dis*issin& the cri*inal cases 8ust *entioned' and faulted TRB and its *ana&er, ,a*ero, as (ell as its la(yers, for consolidatin& the titles to the foreclosed properties in fa+or of the ban. despite the pendency of ase No) R922@01) This action also failed) "n defendants: *otion, it (as dis*issed on 6ebruary 13, 1332 by the RT ) 0Branch 222 on the &round of res 3u(%*a'a0bein& identical (ith i+il ase Nos) R922@01 and EB954@0, already decided (ith finality in fa+or of TRB2, and lac. of cause of action 0as to defendants Pare8a, Belar*ino and %&ot2)

Borro*eo:s *er'%orar% petition to the ourt of Appeals 0 A E)R) !P No) 252212 (as dis*issed by that ourt:s 11th Ci+ision 0

on "ctober 1, 1332, for the reason that the proper

re*edy (as appeal)

4) RTC Case No) CEB-!0#6"' CA-G)R) S. No) 2 !00

Before ase No) EB9354@ (as finally decided, Borro*eo filed, on May ;0, 1331, still another ci+il action for the sa*e cause a$a%&s' TRB, %'s +a&a$er, 2a*%&'o 2a+ero, a&( %'s )a07ers, A''7) 1ar%o Or'%: a&( '/e ;ERSINLA< )a0 o66%*e ) This action (as doc.eted as i+il ase No) EB910;15, and (as described as one for 7Reco+ery of !u*s of Money, Annul*ent of Titles (ith Ca*a&es)7 The

case *et the sa*e fate as the others) %t (as, on defendants: *otion, dis*issed on !epte*ber 3, 1331 by the RT 0Branch 14 52 ruled that D i+il ase No)

on the &round of )%'%s pe&(e&'%a)

The RT

EB9345@ (ill readily sho( that the defendants therein, na*ely the >onorable ,ufelinito Pare8a, Enri-ueta Belar*ino, E+a %&ot, Traders Royal Ban.,

Arceli Busta*ante, ,acinto ,a*ero, Mario "rtiF and >ER!%N#A? are the sa*e persons or nearly all of the* (ho are i*pleaded as defendants in the present i+il ase No) EB910;15, na*ely, the Traders Royal Ban., ,acinto ,a*ero, Mario "rtiF and >ER!%N#A?) The only difference is that *ore defendants (ere i*pleaded in i+il ase No) EB9345@, na*ely, ity Prosecutor ,ufelinito Pare8a and his assistants Enri-ueta Belar*ino and E+a %&ot) The inclusion of the ity Prosecutor and his t(o assistants in i+il ase No) EB9345@ (as ho(e+er *erely incidental as apparently they had nothin& to do (ith the -uestioned transaction in said case) ) ) )

The ourt li.e(ise found that the reliefs prayed for (ere the sa*e as those sou&ht in i+il ase No) EB9345@, and the factual bases of the t(o cases (ere essentially the sa*e D the alle&ed fraudulent foreclosure and consolidation of the three properties *ort&a&ed years earlier by Borro*eo to TRB)

D the ,ud&e (ho pre+iously heard the case ha+in& inhibited hi*self' but this "rder of No+e*ber 11, 1331 (as, in turn, nullified by the ourt of Appeals 03th Ci+ision2, by Cecision pro*ul&ated on March ;1, 1332 in A9E)R) !P No) 24100 0Traders Royal Ban. +s) >on) elso M) Ei*eneF, etc) and ,oa-uin T) Borro*eo2, (hich decision also directed dis*issal of Borro*eo:s co*plaint)
6 7

6or so*e reason, the "rder of !epte*ber 3, 1331 (as set aside by an "rder rendered by another ,ud&e on No+e*ber 11, 1331

@) RTC Case No) CEB-6552

?hen a ne( branch *ana&er, Ronald !y, (as appointed for TRB, ebu ity, Borro*eo forth(ith *ade that e+ent the occasion for another ne( action, a$a%&s' TRB, Ro&a)( S7, a&( '/e -a&=>s a''or&e7s ? 1ar%o Or'%:, ;o&ora'o ;er+os%s%+a, 2r), <%)6re(o Na9arro a&( ;ERSINLA< 6%r+ ) This action (as doc.eted as i+il ase No) EB914@2, and described as one for 7Annul*ent of Title (ith Ca*a&es)7 The co*plaint, dated "ctober 20, 1354, a&ain in+ol+ed the foreclosure of the three 0;2 i**o+ables abo+e *entioned, and (as anchored on the alle&ed *alicious, deceitful, and i+il ase No) 22@01) "n defendant:s *otion, the trial court
1

dis*issed the case on the &round of pre*aturity, holdin& that 70a2t this point ) ) ), plaintiff:s ri&ht to see. annul*ent of defendant Traders Royal Ban.:s title (ill only accrue if and (hen plaintiff (ill ulti*ately and finally (in i+il ase No) R922@01)7
1) RTC Case No) CEB-"2#6

pre*ature consolidation of titles in TRB:s fa+or despite the pendency of

>a+in& thus far failed in his *any efforts to de*onstrate to the courts the 7*erit7 of his cause a&ainst TRB and its officers and la(yers, Borro*eo no( too. a different tac. by also suin& 0and thus also +entin& his ire on2 the *e*bers of the appellate courts (ho had ruled ad+ersely to hi*) >e filed in the ebu ity RT , i+il ase No) EB952;1, %+p)ea(%&$ as (e6e&(a&'s &o' o&)7 '/e sa+e par'%es /e /a( '/ere'o6ore -ee& su%&$ ? TRB a&( %'s o66%*ers a&( )a07ers (;ERSINLA<, 1ar%o Or'%:) ? -u' a)so '/e C/a%r+a& a&( 1e+-ers o6 '/e @%rs' D%9%s%o& o6 '/e Supre+e Cour' 0/o /a( repea'e()7 re-u66e( /%+ %& G)R) No) "##06 (SEE su--/ea( I, A, !, supra), as 0e)) as '/e 1e+-ers o6 '/e 5'/, 4'/ a&( !0'/ D%9%s%o&s o6 '/e Cour' o6 Appea)s 0/o /a( )%=e0%se +a(e (%spos%'%o&s u&6a9ora-)e 'o /%+) >is co*plaint, dated Au&ust 22, 1353, ai*ed to reco+er da*a&es fro* the defendants ,ustices for D ) ) ) *aliciously and deliberately statin& blatant falsehoods and disre&ardin& e+idence and pertinent la(s, renderin& *anifestly un8ust and biased resolutions and decisions bereft of si&natures, facts or la(s in support thereof, depri+in& plaintiff of his cardinal ri&hts to due process and a&ainst depri+ation of property (ithout said process, toleratin&, appro+in& and le&iti*iFin& the patently ille&al, fraudulent, and conte*ptuous acts of defendants TRB, 0(hich2 constitute a2 ERAAE CERE#% T%"N "6 C$TG ANC AB$!E "6 P"?ER e*anatin& fro* the people, b2 6#AERANT A%"#AT%"N! "6 T>E "N!T%T$T%"N, ARC%NA# PR%MARG R%E>T! C$E PR" E!!, ART) 24, ;2, %A%# "CE, Art) 205, REA) PENA# "CE, and R)A) ;013, for (hich defendants *ust be held liable under said la(s)

The co*plaint also prayed for recon+eyance of the 7fa.e titles obtained fraudulently by TRBB>ER!%N#A?,7 and reco+ery of 7100,000)00 *oral da*a&es' ;0,000)00 e/e*plary da*a&es' and P@,000)00 liti&ation e/penses)7 This action, too, *et a -uic. and uncere*onious de*ise) "n *otion of defendants TRB and >ER!%N#A?, the trial court, by "rder dated No+e*ber 4,

1353, 9

dis*issed the case)

4) RTC Case No) CEB-!#064 ase No) EB91;013, a$a%&s' TRB a&( '/e )a''er>s )a07ers,

%t appears that Borro*eo filed still another case to liti&ate the sa*e cause sub8ect of t(o 022 prior actions instituted by hi*) This (as RT
10

on the &round of res 3u(%*a'a ? the sub8ect *atter bein& the sa*e as that in i+il ase No) R922@01, decision in (hich (as affir*ed by the ourt of Appeals in A9E)R) A No) 0401@ as (ell as by this ourt in E)R) No) 5;;01 D and )%'%s pe&(e&'%a ? the sub8ect *atter bein& also the sa*e as that in i+il ase No) EB954@0, decision in (hich (as affir*ed by the ourt of Appeals in A E)R) !P No) 22;@1)
11 12

<%)6re(o Na9arro a&( 1ar%o Or'%: ) The action (as dis*issed in an "rder dated "ctober 4, 133;,

5) RTC Cr%+%&a) Case No) CBA-!4#55' CA-G)R) S. No) 2"2 5' G)R) No) !!242"

ebu ity filed an infor*ation (ith the RT of ebu 0Branch 222 a&ainst Borro*eo char&in& hi* (ith a +iolation of the Trust Receipts #a() The case (as doc.eted as ri*inal ase No) B$913;44) After a (hile, Borro*eo *o+ed to dis*iss the case on the &round of denial of his ri&ht to a speedy trial) >is *otion (as denied by "rder of ,ud&e Pa*pio A) Abarintos dated April 10, 1332) %n the sa*e order, >is >onor set an early date for Borro*eo:s arrai&n*ent and placed the case 7under a continuous trial syste* on the dates as *ay be a&reed by the defense and prosecution)7 Borro*eo *o+ed for reconsideration) ?hen his *otion (as a&ain found (ithout *erit, by "rder dated May 21, 1332, he betoo. hi*self to the ourt of Appeals on a special ci+il action of *er'%orar%, to nullify these ad+erse orders, his action bein& doc.eted as A9E)R) !P No) 2524@)
13

"n April 14, 1330 the ity Prosecutor of

>ere a&ain, Borro*eo failed) The ourt of Appeals declared that the facts did not sho( that there had been unreasonable delay in the cri*inal action a&ainst hi*, and denied his petition for bein&

(ithout *erit) 10

Borro*eo then filed a petition for re+ie( (ith this ourt 0E)R) No) 1123252, but by resolution dated ,anuary ;1, 1334, the sa*e (as dis*issed for failure of Borro*eo to co*ply (ith the re-uisites of irculars Nu*bered 1955 and 13931) >is *otion for reconsideration (as subse-uently denied by Resolution dated March 2;, 1334) a) C)ar%6%*a'or7 Co++u&%*a'%o&s 'o Borro+eo Re 71%&u'e Reso)u'%o&s7

>e ne/t filed a Manifestation dated April 1, 1334 callin& the Resolution of March 2;, 1334 7$n9 onstitutional, Arbitrary and tyrannical and a &ross tra+esty of :,ustice,:7 because it (as 7si&ned only by a *ere cler. and ) ) ) 0failed2 to state clear facts and la(,7 and 7the petition (as not resol+ed on MER%T! nor by any ,ustice but by a *ere cler.)7 15

The ourt responded (ith another Resolution, pro*ul&ated on ,une 22, 1334, and (ith so*e patience dre( his attention to the earlier resolution 7in his o(n pre+ious case 0,oa-uin T) Borro*eo +s)
16

ourt of Appeals and !a*son #ao, E)R) No) 5224;, 1 ,une 1330' 151 ! RA 12 and on the sa*e issue he no( raises)7 !aid Resolution of ,une 22, 1334, after reiteratin& that the notices sent by the ler. of ourt of the ourt E& Ba&* or any of the Ci+isions si*ply ad+ise of and -uote the resolution actually adopted by the ourt after deliberation on a particular *atter, additionally stated that Borro*eo 7.ne(, as (ell, that the co**unications 0notices2 si&ned by the ler. of ourt start (ith the openin& clause D Huoted hereunder, for your infor*ation, is a resolution of the 6irst Ci+ision of this ourt dated) IIIIIIIII,

thereby indisputably sho(in& that it is not the ler. of ourt (ho prepared or si&ned the resolutions)7 ler. of ourt ,ulieta G) arreon 0of this

This (as not, by the (ay, the first ti*e that the *atter had been e/plained to Borro*eo) The record sho(s that on ,uly 10, 1354, he recei+ed a letter fro* ourt:s Third Ci+ision2 dealin& (ith the sub8ect, in relation to E)R) No) 4424;)
11 17

The sa*e *atter (as also dealt (ith in the letter recei+ed by hi* fro* ler. of ourt #uF+i*inda C) Puno, dated April 4, 1353, and in the letter to hi* of ler. of ourt 0!econd Ci+ision2 6er*in ,) Ear*a, dated May 13, 1353) And the sa*e sub8ect (as treated of in another Resolution of this ourt, notice of (hich (as in due course ser+ed on hi*, to (it< that dated ,uly ;1, 1353, in E)R) No) 54534)
19

B) CRI1INAL CASES

Mention has already been *ade of Borro*eo:s atte*pt D (ith 7all the +alor of i&norance7 D to fasten not only ci+il, but also cri*inal liability on TRB, its officers and la(yers)

20

!e+eral other

atte*pts on his part to cause cri*inal prosecution of those he considered his ad+ersaries, (ill no( be dealt (ith here)
1) I) S) Nos) 40-!!" a&( 40-!!""

"n March 4, 1330, Borro*eo filed cri*inal co*plaints (ith the "ffice of the ebu ity Prosecutor a$a%&s' 2a*%&'o 2a+ero 0'/e& s'%)) TRB Bra&*/ 1a&a$er 2, 72o/& Doe a&( o66%*ers o6 Tra(ers Ro7a) Ba&=)7 The co*plaints 0doc.eted as %)!) Nos) 30911549552 accused the respondents of 7Estafa and 6alsification of Public Cocu*ents)7 >e clai*ed, a*on& others that the ban. and its officers, thru its *ana&er, ,acinto ,a*ero, sold properties not o(ned by the*< that by fraud, deceit and false pretenses, respondents ne&otiated and effected the purchase of the 0foreclosed2 properties fro* his 0Borro*eo:s2 *other, (ho 7in duress, fear and lac. of le&al .no(led&e,7 a&reed to the sale thereof for only P141,000)00, althou&h in li&ht of then pre+ailin& *ar.et prices, she should ha+e recei+ed P@55,0;0)00 *ore)

the ebu ity 6iscal:s office dis*issed the co*plaints obser+in& that actually, the Ceed of !ale (as not bet(een the ban. and Borro*eo:s *other, but bet(een the ban. and Mrs) Tha.uria 0his sister2, one of the ori&inal o(ners of the foreclosed properties' and that Borro*eo, bein& a stran&er to the sale, had no basis to clai* in8ury or pre8udice thereby) The 6iscal ruled that the ban.:s o(nership of the foreclosed properties (as beyond -uestion as the *atter had been raised and passed upon in a 8udicial liti&ation' and *oreo+er, there (as no proof of the docu*ent alle&edly falsified nor of the *anner of its falsification)
21

%n a ,oint Resolution dated April 11, 1330,

a) I)S) Nos) " -# 45 a&( "4-52#5

E+idently to hi&hli&ht Borro*eo:s penchant for rec.less filin& of unfounded co*plaints, the 6iscal also ad+erted to t(o other co*plaints earlier filed in his "ffice by Borro*eo D in+ol+in& the sa*e foreclosed properties and directed a&ainst respondent ban. officers: predecessors 0includin& the for*er Mana&er, Ronald !y2 and la(yers D both of (hich (ere dis*issed for lac. of *erit) These (ere< a) %) !) No) 549;43@ 0,"AH$%N T) B"RR"ME" +s) ATTG) MAR%" "RT%J and R"NA#C !G2 for 7Estafa Throu&h 6alsification of Public Cocu*ents, Ceceit and 6alse Pretenses)7 D This case (as dis*issed by Resolution dated ,anuary 13, 1355 of the ity Prosecutor:s "ffice because based on nothin& *ore than a letter dated ,une 4, 135@, sent by Ban. Mana&er Ronald !y to the lessee of a portion of the foreclosed i**o+ables, ad+isin& the latter to re*it all rentals to the ban. as ne( o(ner thereof, as sho(n by the consolidated title' and there (as no sho(in& that respondent Atty) "rtiF (as *oti+ated by fraud in notariFin& the deed of sale in TRB:s fa+or after the lapse of the period of rede*ption, or that "rtiF had benefited pecuniarily fro* the transaction to the pre8udice of co*plainant' and b) %)!) No) 53942;4 0,"AH$%N T) B"RR"ME" +s) R"NA#C !G, ET A#)2 for 7Estafa Throu&h 6alse Pretenses and 6alsification of Public Cocu*ents)7 D This

case (as dis*issed by Resolution dated ,anuary ;1, 1330) 2) I)S)Nos) ""-205 'o ""-20

an affida+it (as e/ecuted in behalf of TRB by Arceli Busta*ante, in connection (ith the for*er:s fire insurance clai* o+er property re&istered in its na*e D one of t(o i**o+ables for*erly o(ned by !ocorro B) Tha.uria 0,oa-uin Borro*eo:s sister2 and foreclosed by said ban.) %n that affida+it, dated !epte*ber 10, 1354, Busta*ante stated that 7"n 24 ,une 135;, TRB thru foreclosure ac-uired real property to&ether (ith the i*pro+e*ents thereon (hich property is located at 6) Ra*os !t), ebu ity co+ered by T T No) 54;35 in the na*e or TRB)7 The affida+it (as notariFed by Atty) Manuelito B) %nso)
22 23

?hile ,oa-uin Borro*eo:s appeal 0E)R) No) 5;;012 (as still pendin& before the !upre*e ourt,

lai*in& that the affida+it (as 7falsified and per8urious7 because the clai* of title by TRB o+er the foreclosed lots (as a 7deliberate, (ilful and blatant fasehood in that, a*on& others< ) ) ) the consolidation (as pre*ature, ille&al and in+alid,7 Borro*eo filed a cri*inal co*plaint (ith the ebu ity 6iscal:s "ffice a&ainst the affiant 0Busta*ante2 and the notariFin& la(yer 0Atty) %nso2 for
20

%t found no untruthful state*ents in the affida+it or any *alice in its e/ecution, considerin& that Busta*ante:s state*ent (as based on the Transfer ertificate of Title in TRB:s file, and thus the docu*ent that Atty) %nso notariFed (as le&ally in order)
;) O1B-VIS-"4-00!#6

7falsification of public docu*ent, false pretenses, per8ury)7 "n !epte*ber 25, 1355, the 6iscal:s "ffice dis*issed the co*plaint)

This Resolution of this ourt 06irst Ci+ision2 in E)R) No) 5;;01 dated Au&ust 1@, 1355 D sustainin& the 8ud&*ent of the ourt of Appeals 010th Ci+ision2 of ,anuary 24, 1355 in A9E)R) A No) 0401@, supra, (as *ade the sub8ect of a cri*inal co*plaint by Borro*eo in the "ffice of the "*buds*an, Aisayas, doc.eted as "MB9A%!9539001;1) >is co*plaint D a&ainst 7!upre*e ourt
25

,ustice 06irst Ci+)2 and ourt of Appeals ,ustice 010th Ci+27 D (as dis*issed for lac. of *erit in a Resolution issued on 6ebruary 14, 1330

(hich, a*on& other thin&s, ruled as

follo(s<
%t should be noted and e*phasiFed that co*plainant has re*edies a+ailable under the Rules of ourt, particularly on ci+il procedure and e/istin& la(s) %t is not the prero&ati+e of this "ffice to *a.e a re+ie( of Cecisions and Resolutions of 8udicial courts, rendered (ithin their co*petence) The records do not (arrant this "ffice to ta.e further proceedin&s a&ainst the respondents) %n addition, !ec) 20) of R)A) 1440, 7the "*buds*an Act states that the "ffice of the "*buds*an *ay not conduct the necessary in+esti&ation of any ad*inistrati+e act or o*ission co*plained of if it belie+es that 012 the co*plainant had ade-uate re*edy in another 8udicial or -uasi98udicial body'7 and !ec) 21 the sa*e la( pro+ides that the "ffice of the "*buds*an does not ha+e disciplinary authority o+er *e*bers of the ,udiciary)

%%) CASES INVOLVING ANITED COCONAT .LANTERS BANK (AC.B)

Borro*eo 0to&ether (ith a certain Mercader2 also borro(ed *oney fro* the $nited oconut Planters Ban. 0$ PB2 and e/ecuted a real estate *ort&a&e to secure repay*ent thereof) The *ort&a&e (as constituted o+er a 1229s-uare9*eter co**ercial lot co+ered by T T No) 4@150 in Borro*eo:s na*e) This sa*e lot (as after(ards sold on Au&ust 4, 1350 by Borro*eo to one !a*son K) #ao for P140,000)00, (ith a stipulation for its repurchase 0 pa*'o (e re'ro2 by hi* 0Borro*eo, as the +endor2) The sale (as *ade (ithout the .no(led&e and consent of $ PB)
26

As earlier stated,

A) CIVIL CASES

No(, 8ust as he had defaulted in the pay*ent of the loans and credit acco**odations he had obtained fro* the Traders Royal Ban., Borro*eo failed in the fulfill*ent of his obli&ations to the $ PB)

!hortly after learnin& of Borro*eo:s default, and ob+iously to ob+iate or *ini*iFe the ill effects of the latter:s delin-uency, #ao applied (ith the sa*e ban. 0$ PB2 for a loan, offerin& the property he had purchased fro* Borro*eo as collateral) $ PB (as not a+erse to dealin& (ith #ao but i*posed se+eral conditions on hi*, one of (hich (as for #ao to consolidate his title o+er the property) #ao accordin&ly instituted a suit for consolidation of title, doc.eted as i+il ase No) R921003) >o(e+er, as (ill shortly be narrated, Borro*eo opposed the consolidation prayed for) As a result, $ PB cancelled #ao:s application for a loan and itself co**enced proceedin&s foreclose the *ort&a&e constituted by Borro*eo o+er the property)

This si&naled the be&innin& of court battles (a&ed by Borro*eo not only a&ainst #ao, but also a&ainst $ PB and the latter:s la(yers, battles (hich he 0Borro*eo2 fou&ht conte*poraneously (ith his court (ar (ith Traders Royal Ban.) 1) RTC Case No) R-2!004' AC-G)R) No) CV-0 #46' G)R) No) "22 #

The first of this ne( series of court battles (as, as 8ust stated, the action initiated by !a*son #ao in the Re&ional Trial ourt of ebu 0Branch 122, doc.eted as ase No) R921003, for consolidation of title in his fa+or o+er the 1229s-uare9*eter lot sub8ect of the $ PB *ort&a&e, in accordance (ith Article 1004 of the i+il ode) %n this suit #ao (as represented by Atty) Alfredo PereF, (ho (as later substituted by Atty) Antonio Re&is) Borro*eo contested #ao:s application)

,ud&*ent (as in due course rendered by the RT 0Branch 12, >on) 6rancis Militante, presidin&2 denyin& consolidation because the transaction bet(een the parties could not be construed as a sale (ith pa*'o (e re'robein& in la( an e-uitable *ort&a&e' ho(e+er, Borro*eo (as ordered to pay #ao the su* of P140,000)00, representin& the price stipulated in the sale a re'ro, plus the a*ounts paid by #ao for capital &ains and other ta/es in connection (ith the transaction 0P10,434)@02) A904;31 D resulted in a

Both #ao and Borro*eo appealed to the ourt of Appeals) #ao:s appeal (as dis*issed for failure of his la(yer to file brief in his behalf) Borro*eo:s appeal D A 9E)R) No) Cecision by the ourt of Appeals dated Cece*ber 14, 1354, affir*in& the RT :s 8ud&*ent %& 'o'o)

The Appellate ourt:s decision (as, in turn, affir*ed by this ourt 0Third Ci+ision2 in a four9pa&e Resolution dated !epte*ber 1;, 1353, pro*ul&ated in E)R) No) 5224; D an appeal also ta.en by Borro*eo) Borro*eo filed a *otion for reconsideration on se+eral &rounds, one of (hich (as that the resolution of !epte*ber 1;, 1353 (as unconstitutional because contrary to 7!ec) 4 0;2, Art) A%%% of the onstitution,7 it (as not si&ned by any ,ustice of the Ci+ision, and there (as 7no (ay of .no(in& (hich 8ustices had deliberated and +oted thereon, nor of any concurrence of at least three of the *e*bers)7 !ince the *otion (as not filed until after there had been an entry of 8ud&*ent, Borro*eo ha+in& failed to *o+e for reconsideration (ithin the re&le*entary period, the sa*e (as si*ply noted (ithout action, in a Resolution dated No+e*ber 24, 1353) ourt and Assistant ler. of ourt 0na*ely< Attys)

Notices of the fore&oin& Resolutions (ere, in accordance (ith established rule and practice, sent to Borro*eo o+er the si&natures of the ler. of ,ulieta G) ARRE"N and Alfredo MARA!%EAN, respecti+ely2) a) RTC Case No) CEB-"6 4

6ollo(in& the sa*e aberrant pattern of his 8udicial ca*pai&n a&ainst Traders Royal Ban., Borro*eo atte*pted to +ent his resent*ent e+en a&ainst the !upre*e ourt officers (ho, as 8ust stated, had &i+en hi* notices of the ad+erse dispositions of this ourt:s Third Ci+ision) >e filed i+il ase No) EB95143 in the ebu ity RT 0 6%2 for reco+ery of da*a&es a&ainst 7Attys) ,ulieta G) arreon and Alfredo Marasi&an, Ci+ision ler. of ourt and Asst) Ci+ision ler. of ourt, Third Ci+ision, and Atty) ,ose %) %lustre, hief of ,udicial Records "ffice)7 >e char&ed the* (ith usurpation of 8udicial functions, for alle&edly 7*aliciously and de+iously issuin& biased, fa.e, baseless and unconstitutional :Resolution: and :Entry of ,ud&*ent: in E)R) No) 5224;)7

!u**onses (ere issued to defendants by RT Branch 15 0,ud&e Rafael R) GbaLeF, presidin&2) These processes (ere brou&ht to the attention of this ourt:s Third Ci+ision) The latter resol+ed to treat the *atter as an incident in E)R) No) 5224;, and referred it to the ourt E& Ba&* on April 2@, 1330) By Resolution 0issued in said E)R) No) 5224;, supra2 dated ,une 1, 1330, the ourt E& Ba&* ordered ,ud&e GbaLeF to -uash the su**onses, to dis*iss i+il ase No) EB95143, and 7not to issue su**ons or other(ise to entertain cases of si*ilar nature (hich *ay in the future be filed in his court)7 Accordin&ly, ,ud&e %baLeF issued an "rder on ,une 1, 1330 -uashin& the su**onses and dis*issin& the co*plaint in said i+il ase No) EB95143)

The Resolution of ,une 1, 1330 27

or resolutions of the

e/plained to Borro*eo in no little detail the nature and purpose of notices sent by the ourt E& Ba&* or the Ci+isions, in this (ise<

ler.s of

ourt of decisions

This is not the first ti*e that Mr) Borro*eo has filed char&esBco*plaints a&ainst officials of the ourt) %n se+eral letter co*plaints filed (ith the courts and the "*buds*an, Borro*eo had repeatedly alle&ed that he 7suffered in8ustices,7 because of the disposition of the four 042 cases he separately appealed to this ourt (hich (ere resol+ed by *inute resolutions, alle&edly in +iolation of !ections 4 0;2, 1; and 14 of Article A%%% of the 1354 onstitution) >is in+ariable co*plaint is that the resolutions (hich disposed of his cases do not bear the si&natures of the ,ustices (ho participated in the deliberations and resolutions and do not sho( that they +oted therein) >e li.e(ise co*plained that the resolutions bear no certification of the hief ,ustice and that they did not state the facts and the la( on (hich they (ere based and (ere si&ned only by the ler.s of ourt and therefore 7unconstitutional, null and +oid)7 /// /// /// The ourt re*inds all lo(er courts, la(yers, and liti&ants that it disposes of the bul. of its cases by *inute resolutions and decrees the* as final and e/ecutory, as (ere a case is patently (ithout *erit, (here the issues raised are factual in nature, (here the decision appealed fro* is in accord (ith the facts of the case and the applicable la(s, (here it is clear fro* the records that the petition is filed *erely to forestall the early e/ecution of 8ud&*ent and for non9co*pliance (ith the rules) The resolution denyin& due course al(ays &i+es the le&al basis) As e*phasiFed in I& Re< <e&*es)ao Laure'a, 145 ! RA ;52, 414 M1354N, 7MTNhe ourt is not :duty bound: to render si&ned Cecisions all the ti*e) %t has a*ple discretion to for*ulate Cecisions andBor Minute Resolutions, pro9%(e( a )e$a) -as%s %s $%9e&, dependin& on its e+aluation of a case7 ) ) ) This is the only (ay (hereby it can act on all cases filed before it and, accordin&ly, dischar&e its constitutional functions) ) ) ) ) ) ) 0?2hen the ourt, after deliberatin& on a petition and any subse-uent pleadin&s, *anifestations, co**ents, or *otions decides to deny due course to the petition and states that the -uestions raised are factual, or no re+ersible error in the respondent court:s decision is sho(n, or for so*e other le&al basis stated in the resolution, there is sufficient co*pliance (ith the constitutional re-uire*ent ) ) ) 0of !ection 14, Article A%%% of the onstitution 7that no petition for re+ie( or *otion for reconsideration shall be refused due course or denied (ithout statin& the le&al basis thereof72) 6or a pro*pt dispatch of actions of the ourt, *inute resolutions are pro*ul&ated by the ourt throu&h the ler. of ourt, (ho ta.es char&e of sendin& copies thereof to the parties concerned by -uotin& +erbati* the resolution issued on a particular case) %t is the ler. of ourt:s duty to infor* the parties of the action ta.en on their cases -uotin& the resolution adopted by the ourt) The ler. of ourt ne+er participates in the deliberations of a case) All decisions and resolutions are actions of the ourt) The ler. of ourt *erely trans*its the ourt:s action) This (as e/plained in the case D E)R) No) @1250, 7Rhine Mar.etin& orp) +) 6eli/ Era+ante, et al),7 (here, in a resolution dated ,uly 1, 1351, the ourt said D 7MMNinute resolutions of this ourt denyin& or dis*issin& un*eritorious petitions li.e the petition in the case at bar, are the result of a thorou&h deliberation a*on& the *e*bers of this ourt, (hich does not and cannot dele&ate the e/ercise of its 8udicial functions to its ler. of ourt or any of its subalterns, (hich should be .no(n to counsel) ?hen a petition is denied or dis*issed by this ourt, this ourt sustains the challen&ed decision or order to&ether (ith its findin&s of facts and le&al conclusions) Minute resolutions need not be si&ned by the *e*bers of the ourt (ho too. part in the deliberations of a case nor do they re-uire the certification of the hief ,ustice) 6or to re-uire *e*bers of the ourt to si&n all resolutions issued (ould not only unduly delay the issuance of its resolutions but a &reat a*ount of their ti*e (ould be spent on functions *ore properly perfor*ed by the ler. of ourt and (hich ti*e could be *ore profitably used in the analysis of cases and the for*ulation of decisions and orders of i*portant nature and character) E+en (ith the use of this procedure, the ourt is still stru&&lin& to (ipe out the bac.lo&s

accu*ulated o+er the years and *eet the e+er increasin& nu*ber of cases co*in& to it) ) ) ) b) RTC CIVIL CASE NO) CEB-(650!) 6 50' G)R) No) "5055

%t is no( necessary to di&ress a little and ad+ert to actions (hich, (hile ha+in& no relation to the $ PB, TRB or !BT , are rele+ant because they (ere the predicates for other suits filed by ,oa-uin Borro*eo a&ainst ad*inistrati+e officers of the !upre*e ourt and the ,ud&e (ho decided one of the cases ad+ersely to hi*) ase No) EB91@01) "n

The record sho(s that on or about Cece*ber 11, 1354, Borro*eo filed a ci+il action for da*a&es a&ainst a certain Tho*as B) Tan and Mar8e* Phar*acy, doc.eted as i+il ,anuary 12, 1355, the trial court dis*issed the case, (ithout pre8udice, for failure to state a cause of action and pre*aturity 0for non9co*pliance (ith P)C) 1@052)

?hat Borro*eo did (as si*ply to re9file the sa*e co*plaint (ith the sa*e ourt, on March 15, 1355) This ti*e it (as doc.eted as i+il ase No) EB91440, and assi&ned to Branch 14 of the RT of ebu presided by >on) Mario CiFon) A&ain, ho(e+er, on defendants: *otion, the trial court dis*issed the case, in an order dated May 25, 1355) >is first and second *otions for reconsideration ha+in& been denied, Borro*eo filed a petition for re+ie( before this ourt, doc.eted as E)R) No) 540@4 0,oa-uin T) Borro*eo +s) To*as Tan and Non) Mario CiFon2)

%n a Resolution dated Au&ust ;, 1355, the ourt re-uired petitioner to co*ply (ith the rules by sub*ittin& a +erified state*ent of *aterial dates and payin& the doc.et and le&al research fund fees' it also referred hi* to the itiFens #e&al Assistance "ffice for help in the case) >is petition (as e+entually dis*issed by Resolution of the !econd Ci+ision dated No+e*ber 21, 1355, for failure on his part to sho( any re+ersible error in the trial court:s 8ud&*ent) >is *otion for reconsideration (as denied (ith finality, by Resolution dated ,anuary 15, 1353)

Borro*eo (rote to Atty) 6er*in ,) Ear*a 0 ler. of ourt of the !econd Ci+ision2 on April 24, 1353 once *ore re*onstratin& that the resolutions recei+ed by hi* had not been si&ned by any ,ustice, set forth no findin&s of fact or la(, and had no certification of the hief ,ustice) Atty) Ear*a replied to hi* on May 13, 1353, pointin& out that 7the *inute resolutions of this ourt denyin& dis*issin& petitions, li.e the petition in the case at bar, (hich (as denied for failure of the counsel andBor petitioner to sufficiently sho( that the Re&ional Trial ourt of ebu, Branch 14, had co**itted any re+ersible error in the -uestioned 8ud&*ent Mresolution dated No+e*ber 21, 1355N, are the result of a thorou&h deliberation a*on& the *e*bers of this ourt, (hich does not and cannot dele&ate the e/ercise of its 8udicial function to its ler. of ourt or any of its subalterns) ?hen the petition is denied or dis*issed by the ourt, it sustains the challen&ed decision or order to&ether (ith its findin&s of facts and le&al conclusions)7

Borro*eo ob+iously had learned nothin& fro* the e/tended Resolution of ,une 1, 1330 in E)R) No) 5224;, supra0or the earlier co**unications to hi* on the sa*e sub8ect2 (hich had so clearly pointed out that *inute resolutions of the ourt are as *uch the product of the Me*bers: deliberations as full9blo(n decisions or resolutions, and that the inter+ention of the ler. consists *erely in the *inisterial and routinary function of co**unicatin& the ourt:s action to the parties concerned) c) RTC Case No) CEB-4052

?hat Borro*eo did ne/t, e+idently s*artin& fro* this latest 8udicial rebuff, yet another in an already lon& series, (as to co**ence a suit a&ainst !upre*e ourt 0!econd Ci+ision2 ler. of ourt 6er*in ,) Ear*a and Assistant ler. of ourt To*asita Cris) They (ere the officers (ho had sent hi* notices of the unfa+orable resolutions in E)R) No) 540@4, supra) >is suit, filed on ,une 1, 1330, (as doc.eted as ase No) EB93042 0Branch 5, >on) Bernardo !alas presidin&2) Therein he co*plained essentially of the sa*e thin& he had been harpin& on all alon&< that in relation to E)R) No) 310;0 D in (hich the !upre*e ourt dis*issed his petition for 7technical reasons7 and failure to de*onstrate any re+ersible error in the challen&ed 8ud&*ent D the notice sent to hi* D of the 7unsi&ned and unspecific7 resolution of 6ebruary 13, 1330, denyin& his *otion for reconsideration D had been si&ned only by the defendant cler.s of court and not by the ,ustices) Accordin& to hi*, he had thereupon (ritten letters to defendants de*andin& an e/planation for said 7patently un8ust and un9 onstitutional resolutions,7 (hich they i&nored' defendants had usurped 8udicial functions by issuin& resolutions si&ned only by the* and not by any ,ustice, and (ithout statin& the factual and le&al basis thereof' and defendants: 7(anton, *alicious and patently abusi+e acts7 had caused hi* 7&ra+e *ental an&uish, se+ere *oral shoc., e*barrass*ent, sleepless ni&hts and (orry'7 and conse-uently, he (as entitled to *oral da*a&es of no less than P20,000)00 and e/e*plary da*a&es of P10,000)00, and liti&ation e/penses of P@,000)00)

"n ,une 5, 1330, ,ud&e Renato ) Cacudao ordered the records of the case trans*itted to the !upre*e ourt confor*ably (ith its Resolution dated ,une 1, 1330 in E)R) No) 5224;, entitled 7,oa-uin T) Borro*eo +s) >on) ourt of Appeals and !a*son9#ao,7 supra D directin& that all co*plaints a&ainst officers of that ourt be for(arded to it for appropriate action) 21

Borro*eo filed a 7ManifestationBMotion7 dated ,une 24, 1330 as.in& the ourt to 7rectify the in8ustices7 co**itted a&ainst hi* in E)R) Nos) 5;;01, 54333, 54534, 44245 and 540@4) This the ourt ordered e/pun&ed fro* the record 0Resolution, ,uly 13, 13302) 2) RTC Case No) R-2!""0' CA-G)R) CV No) !045!' G)R) No) " "4

Borro*eo also sued to stop $ PB fro* foreclosin& the *ort&a&e on his property) %n the ebu ity RT , he filed a co*plaint for 7Ca*a&es (ith %n8unction,7 (hich (as doc.eted as i+il ase No) R9 21550 0,oa-uin T) Borro*eo +s) $nited oconut Planters Ban., et al)2) Na*ed defendants in the co*plaint (ere AC.B, E&r%8ue @arraro&s 0AC.B Ce-u Bra&*/ 1a&a$er) a&( Sa+so& K) Lao) $ PB (as represented in the action by Atty) Canilo Ceen, and for a ti*e, by Atty) >onorato >er*osisi*a 0both bein& then resident partners of A RA #a( "ffice2) #ao (as represented by Atty) Antonio Re&is) "nce a&ain, Borro*eo (as rebuffed) The ebu RT 0Br) 11, ,ud&e Aaleriano R) To*ol, ,r) presidin&2 dis*issed the co*plaint, upheld $ PB:s ri&ht to foreclose, and &ranted its counterclai* for *oral da*a&es in the su* of P20,000)00' attorney:s fees a*ountin& to P10,000)00' and liti&ation e/penses of P1,000)00) A No) 103@1) That ourt, thru its Ninth Ci+ision 0per MartineF, 2), po&e&'e, (ith de la 6uente and Pe, 22),

Borro*eo perfected an appeal to the ourt of Appeals (here it (as doc.eted as A9E)R) concurrin&2, dis*issed his appeal and affir*ed the Trial ourt:s 8ud&*ent)

Borro*eo filed a petition far re+ie( (ith the !upre*e ourt (hich, in E)R) No) 54534 dis*issed it for insufficiency in for* and substance and for bein& 7lar&ely unintelli&ible)7 Borro*eo:s *otion for reconsideration (as denied by Resolution dated ,une 2@, 1353) A second *otion for reconsideration (as denied in a Resolution dated ,uly ;1, 1353 (hich directed as (ell entry of 8ud&*ent 0effected on Au&ust 1, 13532) %n this Resolution, the ourt 06irst Ci+ision2 said< The ourt considered the Motion for Reconsideration dated ,uly 4, 1353 filed by petitioner hi*self and Resol+ed to CENG the sa*e for lac. of *erit, the *otion ha+in& been filed (ithout 7e/press lea+e of court7 0!ection 2, Rule @2, Rules of ourt2 apart fro* bein& a reiteration *erely of the a+er*ents of the Petition for

Re+ie( dated April 14, 1353 and the Motion for Reconsideration dated May 2@, 1353) %t should be noted that petitioner:s clai*s ha+e already been t(ice re8ected as (ithout *erit, first by the Re&ional Trial ourt of ebu and then by the ourt of Appeals) ?hat petitioner desires ob+iously is to ha+e a third rulin& on the *erits of his clai*s, this ti*e by this ourt) Petitioner is ad+ised that a re+ie( of a decision of the ourt of Appeals is not a *atter of ri&ht but of sound 8udicial discretion and (ill be &ranted only (hen there is a special and i*portant reason therefor 0!ection 4, Rule 4@2' and a petition for re+ie( *ay be dis*issed su**arily on the &round that 7the appeal is (ithout *erit, or is prosecuted *anifestly for delay or the -uestion raised is too unsubstantial to re-uire consideration7 0!ection ;, Rule 4@2, or that only -uestions of fact are raised in the petition, or the petition other(ise fails to co*ply (ith the for*al re-uisites prescribed therefor 0!ections 1 and 2, Rule 4@' ircular No) 19552) Petitioner is further ad+ised that the first sentence of !ection 14, Article A%%% of the 1354 onstitution refers to a (e*%s%o&, and has no application to a reso)u'%o& as to (hich said section pertinently pro+ides that a resolution denyin& a *otion for reconsideration need state only the le&al basis therefor' and that the resolution of ,une 21, 1353 denyin& petitioner:s first Motion for Reconsideration dated May 2@, 1353 does indeed state the le&al reasons therefor) The plain and patent si&nification of the &rounds for denial set out in the Resolution of ,une 21, 1353 is that the petitioner:s ar&u*ents D ai*ed at the settin& aside of the resolution denyin& the petition for re+ie( and conse-uently brin&in& about a re+ie( of the decision of the ourt of Appeals D had failed to persuade the ourt that the errors i*puted to the ourt of Appeals had indeed been co**itted and therefore, there (as no cause to *odify the conclusions set forth in that 8ud&*ent' and in such a case, there is ob+iously no point in reproducin& and restatin& the conclusions and reasons therefor of the ourt of Appeals) Pre*ises considered, the ourt further Resol+ed to C%RE T ENTRG "6 ,$CEMENT)

"n Au&ust 1;, 1353 Borro*eo (rote to Atty) Estrella ) Pa&tanac, then the ler. of ourt of the ourt:s 6irst Ci+ision, denouncin& the resolution abo+e *entioned as 7a #%TANG "6 #%E!, EAA!%"N!, and AB!$RC !E#69!ERA%NE #"E% fro* a !upre*e ourt deluded and drun. (ith po(er (hich it has for&otten e*anates fro* the people,7 aside fro* bein& 7patently $N "N!T%T$T%"NA# for absence of si&natures and facts and la(< ) ) ) and characteriFin& the conclusions therein as 7the hei&ht of ARR"EAN E and ARB%TRAR%NE!! assu*in& a K%NE9#%KE ANC EAEN E"C9#%KE P"?ER totally at +ariance and contradicted by ) ) ) "N!T%T$T%"NA# pro+isions ) ) )7 To the letter Borro*eo attached copies of 012 his 7"pen #etter to the "*buds*an7 dated Au&ust 10, 1353 protestin& the ourt:s 7issuin& $N!%ENEC, $N!PE %6% , and BA!E#E!! :M%N$TE RE!"#$T%"N!':7 022 his 7"pen #etter of ?arnin&7 dated Au&ust 12, 1353' and 0;2 a co**unication of Co*in&o M) Hui*lat, Ne(s "*buds*an, Phil) Caily %n-uirer, dated Au&ust 10, 1353) >is letter (as ordered e/pun&ed fro* the record because containin& 7false, i*pertinent and scandalous *atter 0!ection @, Rule 3 of the Rules of ourt2)7 Another letter of the sa*e il., dated No+e*ber 4, 1353, (as si*ply 7N"TEC (ithout action7 by Resolution pro*ul&ated on Cece*ber 1;, 1353) ;) RTC Case No) CEB-5"52' CA G)R) S. No) !55!4' G)R) No) "5444

%n arrant disre&ard of established rule and practice, Borro*eo filed another action to in+alidate the foreclosure effected at the instance of $ PB, (hich he had unsuccessfully tried to pre+ent in ase No) EB921550) This (as i+il ase No) EB945@2 of the ebu ity RT 0,oa-uin T) Borro*eo +s) $ PB, et al)2 for 7Annul*ent of Title (ith Ca*a&es)7 >ere, $ PB (as represented by Atty) #aurence 6ernandeF, in consultation (ith Atty) Ceen)

"n Cece*ber 21, 1354, the ebu ity RT 0Br) A%%, >on) Eeneroso A) ,uaban, presidin&2 dis*issed the co*plaint on the &round of )%'%s pe&(e&'%a and ordered Borro*eo to pay attorney:s fees 0P@,000)002 and liti&ation e/penses 0P1,000)002)

Borro*eo instituted a *er'%orar% action in the ourt of Appeals to annul this 8ud&*ent 0 A E)R) !P No) 14@132' but his action (as dis*issed by the Appellate ourt on ,une 4, 1355 on account of his failure to co*ply (ith that ourt:s Resolution of May 1;, 1355 for sub*ission of certified true copies of the Trial ourt:s decision of Cece*ber 21, 1354 and its "rder of 6ebruary 21, 1355, and for state*ent of 7the dates he recei+ed ) ) ) 0said2 decision and ) ) ) order)7

Borro*eo (ent up to this ourt on appeal, his appeal bein& doc.eted as E)R) No) 54333) %n a Resolution dated "ctober 10, 1355, the !econd Ci+ision re-uired co**ent on Borro*eo:s petition for re+ie( by the respondents therein na*ed, and re-uired Borro*eo to secure the ser+ices of counsel) "n No+e*ber 3, 1355, Atty) ,ose #) erilles entered his appearance for Borro*eo) After due proceedin&s, Borro*eo:s petition (as dis*issed, by Resolution dated March 1, 1353 of the !econd Ci+ision for failure to sufficiently sho( that the ourt of Appeals had co**itted any re+ersible error in the -uestioned 8ud&*ent) >is *otion for reconsideration dated April 4, 1353, a&ain co*plainin& that the resolution contained no findin&s of fact and la(, (as denied) a) RTC Case No) CEB-"! "

Predictably, another action, i+il ase No) EB95145, (as co**enced by Borro*eo in the RT of ebu ity, this ti*e a&ainst the Trial ,ud&e (ho had lately rendered 8ud&*ent ad+erse to hi*, 2u($e Ge&eroso 2ua-a&) Also i*pleaded as defendants (ere $ PB, and ;o&) A&(res Nar9asa ('/e& C/a%r+a&, @%rs' D%9%s%o&), Es're))a G).a$'a&a* a&( 1ar%ssa V%))ara+a ('/e&, respe*'%9e)7, C)er= o6 Cour' a&( Ass%s'a&' C)er= o6 Cour' o6 '/e @%rs' D%9%s%o& 2, and others) ,ud&e Eer*an E) #ee of Branch 1@ of said ourt D to (hich the case (as raffled D caused issuance of su**onses (hich (ere in due course ser+ed on !epte*ber 22, 1353, a*on& others, on said defendants in and of the !upre*e ourt) %n an E& Ba&* Resolution dated "ctober 2, 1353 D in E)R) No) 54333 D this ourt, re-uired ,ud&e #ee and the ler. of ourt and Assistant ler. of ourt of the ebu RT to sho( cause (hy no disciplinary action should be ta.en a&ainst the* for issuin& said su**onses)

!hortly thereafter, Atty) ,ose #) erilles D (ho, as already stated, had for a ti*e represented Borro*eo in E)R) No) 54333 D filed (ith this ourt his (ithdra(al of appearance, alle&in& that there (as 7no co*patibility7 bet(een hi* and his client, Borro*eo D because 7Borro*eo had been filin& pleadin&s, papers' etc) (ithout ) ) ) 0his2 .no(led&e and ad+ice7 D and declarin& that he had 7not ad+ised and ) ) ) 0had2 no hand in the filin& of 0said2 i+il ase EB 5145 before the Re&ional Trial ourt in ebu) "n the other hand, ,ud&e #ee, in his 7 o*pliance7 dated "ctober 2;, 1353, apolo&iFed to the ourt and infor*ed it that he had already pro*ul&ated an order dis*issin& i+il ase No) EB95145 on *otion of the principal defendants therein, na*ely, ,ud&e Eeneroso ,uaban and $nited oconut Planters Ban. 0$ PB2) Atty) erilles: (ithdra(al of appearance, and ,ud&e #ee:s co*pliance, (ere noted by the ourt in its Resolution dated No+e*ber 23, 1353) 4) RTC Case No) CEB-# 5' CA-G)R) CV No) 0504 ' G)R) No) 25"

The transaction in+ol+ed a parcel of land of Borro*eo:s .no(n as the 7!an ,ose Property7 0T T No) ;445@2) Borro*eo sued #ao and another person 0Mariano #o&arta2 in the ebu Re&ional Trial ourt on the theory that his contract (ith the latter (as not an absolute sale but an e-uitable *ort&a&e) The action (as doc.eted as ase No) EB9;44) ,ud&*ent (as rendered a&ainst hi* by the Trial ourt 0Branch 122 declarin& +alid and bindin& the purchase of the property by #ao fro* hi*, and the subse-uent sale thereof by #ao to #o&arta) Borro*eo appealed to
29

%t is &er*ane to ad+ert to one *ore transaction bet(een Borro*eo and !a*son K) #ao (hich &a+e rise to another action that ulti*ately landed in this ourt)

the ourt of Appeals, but that 10, 1351)

ourt, in

A9E)R)

A No) 04034, affir*ed the Trial ourt:s 8ud&*ent, by Cecision pro*ul&ated on "ctober

Borro*eo ca*e up to this ourt) on appeal, his re+ie( petition bein& doc.eted as E)R) No) 44245) By Resolution of the !econd Ci+ision of March 11, 1354, ho(e+er, his petition (as denied for the reason that 7a2 the petition as (ell as the doc.et and le&al research fund fees (ere filed and paid late' and 0b2 the issues raised are factual and the findin&s thereon of the ourt of Appeals are final)7 >e *o+ed for reconsideration' this (as denied by Resolution dated ,une ;, 1354)

>e thereafter insistently and persistently still sou&ht reconsideration of said ad+erse resolutions throu&h +arious *otions and letters, all of (hich (ere denied) "ne of his letters D %&'er a)%a co*plainin& that the notice sent to hi* by the ler. of ourt did not bear the si&nature of any ,ustice D elicited the follo(in& reply fro* Atty) ,ulieta G) arreon, ler. of ourt of the Third Ci+ision, dated ,uly 10, 1354, readin& as follo(s< Cear Mr) Borro*eo< This refers to your letter dated ,une 3, 1354 re-uestin& for a copy of the actual resolution (ith the si&natures of all the ,ustices of the !econd Ci+ision in ase E)R) No) 4424; (hereby the *otion for reconsideration of the dis*issal of the petition (as denied for lac. of *erit) %n connection there(ith, allo( us to cite for your &uidance, Resolution dated ,uly 1, 1351 in E)R) No) @1250, Rhine Mar.etin& orp) +) 6eli/ Era+ante, ,r), et al), (herein the !upre*e ourt declared that 70*2inute resolutions of this ourt denyin& or dis*issin& un*eritorious petitions li.e the petition in the case at bar, are the result of a thorou&h deliberation a*on& the *e*bers of this ourt, (hich does not and cannot dele&ate the e/ercise of its 8udicial functions to its ler. of ourt or any of its subalterns, (hich should be .no(n to counsel) ?hen a petition is denied or dis*issed by this ourt, this ourt sustains the challen&ed decision or order to&ether (ith its findin&s of facts and le&al conclusions)7 %t is the ler. of ourt:s duty to notify the parties of the action ta.en on their case by -uotin& the resolution adopted by the ourt) Aery truly yours, ,$#%ETA G) ARRE"N

B) CRI1INAL CASES

,ust as he had done (ith re&ard to the cases in+ol+in& the Traders Royal Ban., and si*ilarly (ithout foundation, Borro*eo atte*pted to hold his ad+ersaries in the cases concernin& the $ PB cri*inally liable) 1) Case No' O1B-VIS-"4-00!"! in i+il ase No) 21550,

Borro*eo filed (ith the "ffice of the "*buds*an 0Aisayas2 on Au&ust 15, 1353, a co*plaint a&ainst the hair*an and Me*bers of the !upre*e ourt:s 6irst Ci+ision' the Me*bers of the Ninth Ci+ision of the ourt of Appeals, !ecretary of ,ustice !edfrey "rdoLeF, $ndersecretary of ,ustice !il+estre Bello %%%, and ebu ity Prosecutor ,ufelinito Pare8a, char&in& the* (ith +iolations of the Anti9Eraft and orrupt Practices Act and the Re+ised Penal ode)
30 31

%n relation to the dispositions *ade of Borro*eo:s appeals and other atte*pts to o+erturn the 8ud&*ent of the RT

the "ffice of the "*buds*an dis*issed Borro*eo:s co*plaint, opinin& that the *atters therein dealt (ith had already been tried and their *erits deter*ined by different courts includin& the !upre*e ourt 0decision, ,une 21, 1353, in E)R) No) 543542) The resolution %&'er a)%a stated that, 76inally, (e find it unreasonable for co*plainant to dispute and defiantly refuse to ac.no(led&e the authority of the decree rendered by the hi&hest tribunal of the land in this case) ) ) )7
2) Case No) O1B-VIS-40-005!"

By Resolution dated ,anuary 12, 1330,

A second co*plaint (as filed by Borro*eo (ith the "ffice of the "*buds*an 0Aisayas2, dated ,anuary 12, 1330, a&ainst Atty) ,ulieta arreon, ler. of ourt of the Third Ci+ision, !upre*e ourt, and others, char&in& the* (ith a +iolation of R)A) ;013 0and the onstitution, the Rules of ourt, etc)2 for supposedly usurpin& 8udicial functions in that they issued !upre*e ourt resolutions
32

%n a Resolution dated March 13, 1330, the "ffice of the "*buds*an dis*issed his co*plaint for 7lac. of *erit7 declarin& %&'er a)%a that 7in all the -uestioned actuations of the respondents alle&ed to constitute usurpation ) ) ) it cannot be reasonably and fairly inferred that respondents really (ere the ones renderin& the*,7 and 7it is not the prero&ati+e of this office to re+ie( the correctness of 8udicial resolutions)7
33

0actually, notices of resolutions2 in connection (ith E)R) No) 5224; (hich did not bear the 8ustices: si&natures)

%%%) CASES INVOLVING SECARITY BANK B TRAST CO) (SBTC)

A) CIVIL CASES

1) RTC Case No) 2!6!5' CAG)R) No) 206! ' G)R) No) 45 64

The third ban.in& institution (hich ,oa-uin T) Borro*eo en&a&ed in runnin& court battles, (as the !ecurity Ban. = Trust o*pany 0!BT 2) 6ro* it Borro*eo had obtained fi+e 0@2 loans in the a&&re&ate su* of P153,121)13, consolidated in a sin&le Pro*issory Note on May ;1, 1343) To secure pay*ent thereof, !u**a %nsurance orp) 0!u**a2 issued a perfor*ance bond (hich set a li*it of P200,000)00 on its liability thereunder) A&ain, as in the case of his obli&ations to Traders Royal Ban. and $ PB, Borro*eo failed to dischar&e his contractual obli&ations) >ence, !BT brou&ht an action in the ebu ity RT a&ainst Borro*eo and !u**a for collection) (as represented by Atty) Ed&ar Eica, (ho later (ithdre(

The action (as doc.eted as i+il ase No) R92111@, and (as assi&ned to Branch 10, ,ud&e #eonardo aLares, presidin&) Plaintiff !BT and (as substituted by the la( fir*, >ER!%N#A?) The latter appeared in the suit throu&h Atty) ?ilfredo Na+arro)

,ud&*ent by default (as rendered in the case on ,anuary @, 1353' both defendents (ere sentenced to pay to !BT , solidarily, the a*ount of P4;1,441);2' 2@O thereof as attorney:s fees 0but in no case less than P20,000)002' and P@,000)00 as liti&ation e/penses' and the costs) A (rit of e/ecution issued in due course pursuant to (hich an i**o+able of Borro*eo (as le+ied on, and e+entually sold at public auction on "ctober 13, 1353 in fa+or of the hi&hest bidder, !BT )

"n 6ebruary @, 1330, Borro*eo filed a *otion to set aside the 8ud&*ent by default, but the sa*e (as denied on March 1, 1330) >is Motion for Reconsideration ha+in& li.e(ise been denied, Borro*eo (ent to the ourt of Appeals for relief 0 A9E)R) No) 201142, but the latter dis*issed his petition) 6ailin& in his bid for reconsideration, Borro*eo appealed to this ourt on *er'%orar% D his appeal bein& doc.eted as E)R) No) 34413) "n !epte*ber 14, 1330, this ourt dis*issed his petition, and subse-uently denied (ith finality his *otion for reconsideration) Entry of ,ud&*ent (as *ade on Cece*ber 21, 1330)

>o(e+er, as (ill no( be narrated, and as *i&ht no( ha+e been anticipated in li&ht of his history of recalcitrance and bellicosity, these proceedin&s did not si&nify the end of liti&ation concernin& Borro*eo:s aforesaid contractual co**it*ents to !BT , but only *ar.ed the start of another con&eries of actions and proceedin&s, ci+il and cri*inal concernin& the sa*e *atter, instituted by Borro*eo) 2) RTC Case No) CEB-426

?hile E)R) No) 34413 (as yet pendin& in the !upre*e ourt, Borro*eo co**enced a suit of his o(n in the ebu RT a$a%&s' SBTC' '/e )a07ers 0/o represe&'e( %' %& C%9%) Case No ) R-2!625 ? ;ERSINLA<, A''7) <%)6re(o Na9arro, A''7) E($ar G%*a' a&( e9e& '/e 2u($e 0/o 'r%e( a&( (%spose( o6 '/e su%', ;o& ) Leo&ar(o CaCares) >e deno*inated his action, doc.eted as i+il ase No) EB9 3214, as one for 7Ca*a&es fro* Cenial of Cue Process, Breach of ontract, 6raud, $n8ust ,ud&*ent, (ith Restrainin& "rder and %n8unction)7 >is co*plaint accused defendants of 7(anton, *alicious and deceitful acts7 in 7conni+in& to deny plaintiff due process and defraud hi* throu&h e/cessi+e attorney:s fees,7 (hich acts caused hi* &ra+e *ental and *oral shoc., sleepless ni&hts, (orry, social e*barrass*ent and se+ere an/iety for (hich he sou&ht pay*ent of *oral and e/e*plary da*a&es as (ell as liti&ation e/penses)

By "rder dated May 21, 1331, the RT of ebu ity, Branch 11 0>on) Eodardo ,acinto, presidin&2 &ranted the de*urrer to e+idence filed by defendants and dis*issed the co*plaint, holdin& that 7since plaintiff failed to introduce e+idence to support ) ) ) 0his2 causes of action asserted ) ) ), it (ould be superfluous to still re-uire defendants to present their o(n e+idence as there is nothin& for the* to contro+ert)7 2) RTC Case No) CEB-!055"' CA-G)R) CV No) #405

Nothin& daunted, and runnin& true to for*, Borro*eo filed on ,uly 2, 1331 still another suit a$a%&s' '/e sa+e par'%es ? SBTC, ;ERSINLA<, a&( 2u($e CaCares ? -u' &o0 %&*)u(%&$ 2u($e
30

(ho had rendered the latest 8ud&*ent a&ainst hi*) This suit, doc.eted as i+il ase No) EB9104@5, (as, accordin& to Borro*eo, one 7for Ca*a&es 06or $n8ust ,ud&*ent and "rders, Cenial of E-ual Protection of the #a(s Aiolation of the onstitution, 6raud and Breach of ontract2)7 Borro*eo faulted ,ud&es aLares and ,acinto 7for the (ay they decided the t(o cases 0 AR92111@ = EB N") 32142,7 and contended that defendants co**itted 7(anton, *alicious, and un8ust acts7 by 7conni+in& to defraud plaintiff and deny hi* e-ual protection of the la(s and due process,7 on account of (hich he had been 7caused untold *ental an&uish, *oral shoc., (orry, sleepless ni&hts, and e*barrass*ent for (hich the for*er are liable under Arts) 20, 21, 24, and ;2 of the i+il ode)7

Go(ar(o 2a*%&'o,

The defendants filed *otions to dis*iss) By "rder dated Au&ust ;0, 1331, the RT of ebu ity, Branch 1@ 0,ud&e Eer*an E) #ee, ,r), presidin&2 dis*issed the co*plaint on &rounds of res 3u(%*a'a, i**unity of 8ud&es fro* liability in the perfor*ance of their official functions, and lac. of 8urisdiction) ourt of Appeals, (hich doc.eted it as A9E)R) A No) ;3044)

Borro*eo too. an appeal to the

%n the course thereof, he filed *otions to cite Atty) ?ilfredo 6) Na+arro, la(yer of !BT , for conte*pt of court) The *otions (ere denied by Resolution of the ourt of Appeals 0!pecial 4th Ci+ision2

dated April 1;, 133;) 35

!aid the

ourt<

!tripped of their dispara&in& and inte*perate innuendoes, the sub8ect *otions, in fact, proffer nothin& but a star. difference in opinion as to (hat can, or cannot, be considered res 3u(%*a'a under the circu*stances) /// /// ///

By their distinct disdainful tenor to(ards the appellees, and his apparent penchant for ar$u+e&'u+ a( /o+%&e& , it is, on the contrary the appellant (ho precariously treads the acceptable li*its of ar&u*entation and personal ad+ocacy) The ourt, *oreo+er, ta.es particular note of the irresponsible leaflets he ad*its to ha+e authored and finds the* hi&hly reprehensible and needlessly dero&atory to the di&nity, honor and reputation of the ourts) That he is not a licensed la( practitioner

is, in fact, the only reason that his other(ise contu*acious beha+ior is presently accorded the patience and leniency it probably does not deser+e) onsiderin& the te*pera*ent he has, by far, e/hibited, the appellant is, ho(e+er, sufficiently (arned that si*ilar displays in the future shall accordin&ly be dealt (ith (ith co**ensurate se+erity)

%A) OT;ER CASES

A) RTC Case No) CEB-20 5' CA-G)R, CV No) !5 0' G)R) No) 4"424

"ne other case arisin& fro* another transaction of Borro*eo (ith !a*son K) #ao is pertinent) This is ase No) EB92344 of the Re&ional Trial ourt of ebu) %t appears that so*eti*e in 1343, Borro*eo (as &ranted a loan of P11@,000)00 by the Philippine Ban. of o**unications 0PB o*2 on the security of a lot belon&in& to hi* in !an ,ose !treet, ebu ity, co+ered by T T No)

#ater, Borro*eo obtained a letter of credit in the a*ount of P;4,000)00 fro* Republic Planters Ban., (ith !a*son #ao as co9 *a.er) Borro*eo failed to pay his obli&ations' #ao a&reed to, and did pay Borro*eo:s obli&ations to both ban.s 0PB o* and Republic2, in consideration of (hich a deed of sale (as e/ecuted in his fa+or by Borro*eo o+er t(o 022 parcels of land, one of (hich (as that *ort&a&ed to PB o*, as abo+e stated) #ao then *ort&a&ed the land to PB o* as security for his o(n loan in the a*ount of P240,000)00)

;445@) 36

Borro*eo subse-uently sued PB o*, so*e of its personnel, and !a*son #ao in the ebu Re&ional Trial ourt alle&in& that the defendants had conspired to depri+e hi* of his property) ,ud&*ent (as rendered a&ainst hi* by the Trial ourt) Borro*eo ele+ated the case to the ourt of Appeals (here his appeal (as doc.eted as A9E)R) A No) 14440) "n March 21, 1330, said ourt rendered 8ud&*ent affir*in& the Trial ourt:s decision, and on 6ebruary 4, 1331, issued a Resolution denyin& Borro*eo:s *otion for reconsideration) >is appeal to this ourt, doc.eted as E)R) No) 35323, (as &i+en short shrift) "n May 23, 1331, the ourt 06irst Ci+ision2 pro*ul&ated a Resolution denyin& his petition for re+ie( 7for bein& factual and for failure ) ) ) to sufficiently sho( that respondent court had co**itted any re+ersible error in its -uestioned 8ud&*ent)7

!tubbornly, in his *otion for reconsideration, he insisted the notices of the resolutions sent to hi* (ere unconstitutional and +oid because bearin& no si&natures of the ,ustices (ho had ta.en part in appro+in& the resolution therein *entioned)

B) RTC Case No) CEB-!!52"

?hat (ould see* to be the latest 8udicial dispositions rendered a&ainst Borro*eo, at least as of date of this Resolution, are t(o orders issued in i+il ase No) EB911@25 of the Re&ional Trial ourt at ebu ity 0Branch 152, (hich (as yet another case filed by Borro*eo outlandishly founded on the theory that a 8ud&*ent pro*ul&ated a&ainst hi* by the !upre*e ourt 0Third Ci+ision2 (as (ron& and 7un8ust)7 %*pleaded as defendant in the action (as for*er hief ,ustice Marcelo B) 6ernan, as hair*an of the Third Ci+ision at the ti*e in -uestion) "n Au&ust ;1, 1334 the presidin& 8ud&e, >on) Ealicano ") Arries&ado, issued a Resolution %&'er a)%a dis*issin& Borro*eo:s co*plaint 7on &rounds of lac. of 8urisdiction and res 3u(%*a'a)7 >is >onor *ade the follo(in& pertinent obser+ations< ) ) ) 0T2his ourt is of the (ell9considered +ie( and so holds that this ourt has indeed no 8urisdiction to re+ie(, interpret or re+erse the 8ud&*ent or order of the >onorable !upre*e ourt) The acts or o*issions co*plained of by the plaintiff a&ainst the herein defendant and the other personnel of the hi&hest ourt of the land as alle&ed in para&raphs 1 to 12 of plaintiff:s co*plaint are certainly beyond the sphere of this hu*ble court to consider and pass upon to deter*ine their propriety and le&ality) To try to re+ie(, interpret or re+erse the 8ud&*ent or order of the >onorable !upre*e ourt (ould appear not only presu*ptuous but also conte*ptuous) As ar&ued by the la(yer for the defendant, a careful perusal of the alle&ations in the co*plaint clearly sho(s that all *aterial alle&ations thereof are directed a&ainst a resolution of the !upre*e ourt (hich (as alle&edly issued by the Third Ci+ision co*posed of fi+e 0@2 8ustices) No alle&ation is *ade directly a&ainst defendant Marcelo B) 6ernan in his personal capacity) That bein& the case, ho( could this ourt -uestion the (isdo* of the final order or 8ud&*ent of the !upre*e ourt 0Third Ci+ision2 (hich accordin& to the plaintiff hi*self had issued a resolution denyin& plaintiffs petition and affir*in& the #o(er ourt:s decision as reflected in the 7Entry of ,ud&*ent)7 Perhaps, if there (as such +iolation of the Rules of ourt, due process and !ec) 14, Art) 5 of the onstitution by the defendant herein, the appropriate re*edy should not ha+e been obtained before this ourt) 6or an inferior court to re+erse, interpret or re+ie( the acts of a superior court *i&ht be construed to a certain de&ree as a sho( of an unco**on co**on sense) #o(er courts are (ithout super+isin& 8urisdiction to interpret or to re+erse the 8ud&*ent of the hi&her courts)

Borro*eo:s *otion for reconsideration dated !epte*ber 20, 1334 (as denied 7for lac. of sufficient factual and le&al basis7 by an "rder dated No+e*ber 1@, 1334)

A) AD1INISTRATIVE CASE No) #5##

A) Co+p)a%&' A$a%&s' La07ers o6 /%s Cour' A(9ersar%es

Borro*eo also initiated ad*inistrati+e disciplinary proceedin&s a&ainst the la(yers (ho had appeared for his ad+ersaries D $ PB and !a*son K) #ao D in the actions abo+e *entioned, and others) As already *entioned, these la(yers (ere< Messrs) #aurence 6ernandeF, Canilo Ceen, >onorato >er*osisi*a, Antonio Re&is, and Alfredo PereF) >is co*plaint a&ainst the*, doc.eted as Ad*inistrati+e ase No) ;4;;, prayed for their disbar*ent) Borro*eo a+erred that the respondent la(yers conni+ed (ith their clients in 012 *aliciously *isrepresentin& a deed of sale (ith pa*'o (e re'ro as a &enuine sale, althou&h it (as actually an e-uitable *ort&a&e' 022 fraudulently depri+in& co*plainant of his proprietary ri&hts sub8ect of the Ceed of !ale' and 0;2 defyin& t(o la(ful ourt orders, all in +iolation of their la(yer:s oath to do no falsehood nor consent to the doin& of any in ourt) Borro*eo alle&ed that respondents PereF and Re&is falsely atte*pted to consolidate title to his property in fa+or of #ao)

B) A&s0er o6 Respo&(e&' La07ers

The respondent la(yers denounced the disbar*ent co*plaint as 7absolutely baseless and nothin& but pure harass*ent)7 %n a pleadin& dated ,uly 10, 1330, entitled 7 Co++e&'s a&( Cou&'er 1o'%o& 'o C%'e 2oa8u%& Borro+eo %& Co&'e+p' o6 Cour' '7 ,uly 10, 1330, filed by the %nte&rated Bar of the Philippines ebu ity hapter, si&ned by Co*ero ) EstenFo 0President2, ,uliano Neri 0Aice9 President2, $lysses Antonio ) Gap 0Treasurer2' 6elipe B) Aelas-ueF 0!ecretary2, oraFon E) Aalencia 0Cirector2, Air&ilio $) #ainid 0Cirector2, Manuel A) Espina 0Cirector2, %ldefonsa A) GbaLeF

0Cirector2, !yl+ia E) Al*ase 0Cirector2, and Ana Mar E+an&elista P) Bati&uin 0Auditor2) The la(yers *ade the follo(in& obser+ations< %t is ironic) ?hile *en of the le&al profession re&ard *e*bers of the ,udiciary (ith deferential a(e and respect so*eti*es to the e/tent of co(erin& before the *i&ht of the courts, here is a non9la(yer (ho, (ith &leeful abandon and un*iti&ated insolence, has cast aspersions and sho(n utter disre&ard to the authority and na*e of the courts) And la(yers included) 6or indeed, it is +ery unfortunate that here is a non9la(yer (ho uses the instru*ents of 8ustice to harass la(yers and courts (ho crosses his path *ore especially if their actuations do not confor* (ith his (hi*s and caprices)

Ad+ertin& to letters publicly circulated by Borro*eo, %&'er a)%a char&in& then hief ,ustice Marcelo B) 6ernan (ith supposed infidelity and +iolation of the constitution, etc), the la(yers (ent on to say the follo(in&< The conduct and state*ent of Borro*eo a&ainst this >onorable ourt, and other *e*bers of the ,udiciary are clearly and &rossly disrespectful, insolent and conte*ptuous) They tend to brin& dishonor to the ,udiciary and sub+ert the public confidence on the courts) %f unchec.ed, the scurrilous attac.s (ill under*ine the di&nity of the courts and (ill result in the loss of confidence in the country:s 8udicial syste* and ad*inistration of 8ustice) ) ) ) 0!2o*ethin& should be done to protect the inte&rity of the courts and the le&al profession) !o *any baseless bad*outhin& ha+e been *ade by Borro*eo a&ainst this >onorable ourt and other courts that for hi* to &o scot9free (ould certainly be de*oraliFin& to *e*bers of the profession (ho afforded the court (ith all the respect and estee* due the*)

!ubse-uently, in the sa*e proceedin&' Borro*eo filed another pleadin& protestin& the alle&ed 7refusal7 of the ebu ity hapter of the %nte&rated Bar of the Philippines to act on his disbar*ent cases 7filed a&ainst its *e*bers)7 ) De*%s%o& o6 '/e IB.

"n March 25, 1334, the National E/ecuti+e Cirector, %BP 0Atty) ,ose A&uila Erapilon2 trans*itted to this ourt the notice and copy of the decision in the case, reached after due in+esti&ation, as (ell as the correspondin& records in se+en 042 +olu*es) !aid decision appro+ed and adopted the Report and Reco**endation dated Cece*ber 1@, 133; of Atty) Manuel P) #e&aspi, President, %BP, ebu ity hapter, representin& the %BP o**ission on Bar Ciscipline, reco**endin& dis*issal of the co*plaint as a&ainst all the respondents and the issuance of a 7(arnin& to Borro*eo to be *ore cautious and not be precipitately indiscri*inate in the filin& of ad*inistrati+e co*plaints a&ainst la(yers)7 37

A%) SCARRILOAS <RITINGS

6or*in& part of the records of se+eral cases in this ourt are copies of letters 07open7 or other(ise2, 7circulars,7 flyers or leaflets harshly and -uite un(arrantedly dero&atory of the *any court 8ud&*ents or directi+es a&ainst hi* and defa*atory of his ad+ersaries and their la(yers and e*ployees, as (ell as the 8ud&es and court e*ployees in+ol+ed in the said ad+erse dispositions D so*e of (hich scurrilous (ritin&s (ere ad+erted to by the respondent la(yers in Ad*) ase No) ;4;;, supra) The (ritin& and circulation of these defa*atory (ritin& (ere apparently underta.en by Borro*eo as a parallel acti+ity to his 78udicial ad+entures)7 The ourt of Appeals had occasion to refer to his 7apparent penchant for ar$u+e&'u+ a( /o+%&e&7 and of the 7irresponsible leaflets he ad*its to ha+e authored ) ) ) 0(hich (ere found to be2 hi&hly reprehensible and needlessly dero&atory to the di&nity, honor and reputation of the ourts)7

%n those publicly circulated (ritin&s, he calls 8ud&es and la(yers i&norant, corrupt, oppressors, +iolators of the onstitution and the la(s, etc)

!o*eti*e in ,uly, 1330, for instance, he (rote to the editor of the 7Caily !tar7 as re&ards the reported confer*ent on then hief ,ustice Marcelo B) 6ernan of an 7A(ard fro* the $ni+ersity of Te/as for his contributions in upholdin& the Rule of #a(, ,ustice, etc),7 stressin& that 6ernan 7and the !upre*e ourt persist in renderin& rulin&s patently +iolati+e of the onstitution, Cue Process and Rule of #a(, particularly in their issuance of so9called Minute Resolutions de+oid of 6A T or #A? or !%ENAT$RE! ) ) )7 >e sent a copy of his letter in the !upre*e ourt)

>e circulated an 7"PEN #ETTER T" ! 8ustices, 6ernan,7 declarin& that he had 7suffered %N,$!T% E after %N,$!T% E fro* you (ho are s(orn to render TR$E ,$!T% E but done the opposite, ANC %N!TEAC "6 RE T%6G%NE T>EM, labeled *y cases as :fri+olous, nuisance, and harass*ent suits: (hile failin& to refute the irrefutable e+idences therein ) ) )'7 in the sa*e letter, he specified (hat he considered to be so*e of 7the terrible in8ustices inflicted on *e by this ourt)7

%n another letter to hief ,ustice 6ernan, he obser+ed that 7; years after EC!A, your pled&es ha+e not been fulfilled) %n8ustice continues and as you said, the courts are a&ents of oppression, instead of bein& sa+iours and defenders of the people) The saddest part is that 0referrin& a&ain to *inute resolutions2 e+en the !upre*e ourt, the court of last resort, *any ti*es, sanctions in8ustice and the tra*plin& of the rule of la( and due process, and does not co*ply (ith the onstitution (hen it should be the first to uphold and defend it ) ) ) )7 Another circulated letter of his, dated ,une 21, 1353 and captioned, 7"pen #etter to !upre*e ourt ,ustices Marcelo 6ernan and Andres Nar+asa,7 repeated his plaint of ha+in& 7been the +icti* of *any ) ) ) :Minute Resolutions: ) ) ) (hich in effect sanction the theft and land&rabbin& and arson of *y properties by TRACER! R"GA# BANK, $N%TEC " "N$T P#ANTER! BANK, ANC one T"MA! B) TAN D all (ithout statin& any 6A T or #A? to support your dis*issal of ) ) ) 0*y2 cases, despite your fir* assurances 0,ustice 6ernan2 that you (ould cite *e such facts or la(s 0durin& our tal. in your house last March 12 13532'7 and that 7you in fact ha+e no such facts or la(s but si*ply (ant to ra* do(n a *ost un8ust Rulin& in fa+or of a (ron&ful party) ) ) )7

%n another flyer entitled in bi& bold letters, 7A Eo+:t That #iesP Blatant atte*pt to fool peopleP7 he *entions (hat he re&ards as 7The blatant lies and contradictions of the !upre*e ourt, A to support the land&rabbin& by Traders Royal Ban. of Borro*eos: #ands)7 Another flyer has at the center the caricature of a person, seated on a throne *ar.ed Traders Royal Ban., surrounded by such state*ents as, 7!a TRB para .a*i ay royalty) Na.a( at na.a(P Ka(at Ka(atP TRB ?%## !TEA#P7 etc !till another 7circular7 proclai*s< 7!o the public *ay .no(< !upre*e ourt *inute resolutions (Bo facts, la(, or si&natures +iolate the onstitution7 and ends (ith the ad*onition< 7!upre*e ourt, ,ustice 6ernan< !T"P A%"#AT%NE T>E >ARTER)7 31

"ne other 7circular7 reads< ! , NARAA!A D TGRANT!PPP D "CC#ER! "6 R""K!P

D A%"#AT"R "6 #A?! by< ,"AH$%N B"RR"ME" NARAA!A:s ! has denied bein& a CE!P"T nor has it shielded R""K! in the 8udiciary) Addin& 7The ! RA 0! Reports2 (ill attest to this continuin& +i&ilance "f the supre*e ourt)7 These are la*e, co(ardly and self9ser+in& denials and another 7self9e/oneration7 belied by e+idence (hich spea. for the*sel+es 0 Res Ipsa Lo8u%'or2 0s%*2 D the ! RA itself) %t is pure and si*ply TGRANNG (hen Nar+asa and associates issued $N!%ENEC, $N #EAR, !?EEP%NE 7Minute Resolutions7 de+oid of #EAR 6A T! and #A?! in patent +iolation of !ecs) 40;2, 14, Art) 5 of the onstitution) %t is precisely throu&h said TGRANN% A#, and $N "N!T%T$T%"NA# sha* rulin&s that Nar+asa = o) ha+e "CC#EC R""K! li.e crony ban. TRB, $ PB, and !BT , and throu&h said fa.e resolutions that Nar+asa has #%EC or sho(n %EN"RAN E of the #A? in rulin& that "N!%ENAT%"N %! NE E!!ARG %N R%E>T "6 RECEMPT%"N 0ER 5;;012) Throu&h said despotic resolutions, NARAA!A = ") ha+e sanctioned $ PBBA RA:s defiance of court orders and na.ed land &rabbin& D ?hat are these if not TGRANNGQ 0ER 543332) ?as it not tyranny for the ! to issue an Entry of ,ud&*ent (ithout first resol+in& the *otion for reconsideration 0E)R No) 5224;2) ?as it not tyranny and abuse of po(er for the ! to order a case dis*issed a&ainst ! cler.s 0 EBA951432 and declare 8ustices and said cler.s 7i**une fro* suit7 D despite their failure to file any pleadin&Q ?ere Nar+asa = o) not in fact tra*plin& on the rule of la( and rules of court and C$E PR" E!! in so doin&Q 0ER No) 5224;2) TGRANT! (ill ne+er ad*it that they are tyrants) But their acts spea. for the*sel+esP NARAA!A = A!!" < AN!?ER ANC RE6$TE T>E!E !ER%"$! >AREE! "R RE!%ENPP %MPEA > NARAA!A R %!!$%NE $N!%ENEC, !?EEP%NE, $N #EAR, $N "N!T%T$T%"NA# 7M%N$TE RE!"#$T%"N!7 A%"#AT%AE "6 !E !) 40;2, 14, ART) 5, onstitution R A%"#AT%NE R$#E! "6 "$RT ANC C$E PR" E!! %N "RCER%NE T>E #ATTER:! 6A%#$RE T" 6%#E P#EAC%NE!' >EN E %N CE6A$#T A!E AEA%N!T ! #ERK! 0 EB951432 C%!M%!!EC CE!P%TE

R "RR$PT%"N ANCB"R ER"!! %EN"RAN E "6 T>E #A? %N R$#%NE, T>AT "N!%ENAT%"N %! NE E!!ARG %N R%E>T "6 RECEMPT%"N, "NTRAC% T%NE #A? ANC ! :! "?N R$#%NE! D T" A##"? R"NG BANK TRB T" !TEA#! #"T! ?"RT> P; M%##%"N R "NC"N%NE R"NG BANK $ PB:! CE6%AN E "6 T?" #A?6$# "$RT "RCER! ANC !TEA#%NE "6 T%T#E "6 PR"PERTG ?"RT> P4 M%##%"N R BE%NE ,$CEE ANC A ,$!T% E! $!EC AT T>E !AME T%ME ANC PREC% TAB#G ES"NERAT%NE >%M!E#6 ANC 6E##"? "RR$PT

R CE #AR%NE >%M!E#6, ,$!T% E!, and e+en MERE #ERK! T" BE %MM$NE 6R"M !$%T ANC $N9A PE"P#E and RE6$!%NE T" AN!?ER ANC RE6$TE >AREE! AEA%N!T >%M!E#6

"$NTAB#E T" T>E

,"AH$%N T) B"RR"ME" Mabolo, ebu ity Te) 49@19 43)

A%) I11EDIATE ANTECEDENTS O@ .ROCEEDINGS AT BAR

A) Le''er o6 Ce-u C%'7 C/ap'er IB., (a'e( 2u&e 2!, !442

opies of these circulars e+idently found their (ay into the hands, a*on& others, of so*e *e*bers of the ebu ity hapter of the %nte&rated Bar of the Philippines) %ts President thereupon addressed a letter to this ourt, dated ,une 21, 1332, (hich 012 dre( attention to one of the* D that last -uoted, abo+e D 7 ) ) ) )sent to the %BP ebu ity hapter and probably other officers ) ) ) in ebu,7 described as containin& 7hi&hly libelous and defa*atory re*ar.s a&ainst the !upre*e ourt and the (hole 8ustice syste*7D and 022 in behalf of the hapter:s 7officers and *e*bers,7 stron&ly ur&ed the ourt 7to i*pose sanctions a&ainst Mr) Borro*eo for his conde*nable act)7

B) Reso)u'%o& o6 2u)7 22, !44#

Actin& thereon, the ourt E& Ba&* issued a Resolution on ,uly 22, 133;, re-uirin& co**ent by Borro*eo on the letter, notice of (hich (as sent to hi* by the "ffice of the ler. of resolution pertinently reads as follo(s< /// /// ///

ourt) The

The records of the ourt disclose %&'er a)%a that as early as April 4, 1353, the Actin& ler. of ourt, Atty) #uF+i*inda C) Puno, (rote a four pa&e letter to Mr) Borro*eo concernin& E)R) No) 5;;01 0,oa-uin T) Borro*eo +s) Traders Royal Ban. Mreferred to by Borro*eo in the 7circular7 ad+erted to by the relator herein, the %BP ebu ity hapterN2 and t(o 022 other cases also filed (ith the ourt by Borro*eo< E)R) No) 44245 0,oa-uin T) Borro*eo +) !a*son #ao and Mariano #o&arta2 and E)R) No) 540@4 0,oa-uin T) Borro*eo +) >on) Mario CiFon and To*as Tan2, all resol+ed ad+ersely to hi* by different Ci+isions of the ourt) %n that letter Atty) Puno e/plained to Borro*eo +ery briefly the le&al principles applicable to his cases and dealt (ith the *atters *entioned in his circular) The records further disclose subse-uent ad+erse rulin&s by the ourt in other cases instituted by Borro*eo in this ourt, %)e), E)R) No) 54534 0,oa-uin T) Borro*eo +) ourt of Appeals, et al)2 and No) 5224; 0,oa-uin T) Borro*eo +) ourt of Appeals and !a*son #ao2, as (ell as the e/istence of other co**unications *ade public by Borro*eo reiteratin& the ar&u*ents already passed upon by the court in his cases and conde*nin& the court:s re8ection of those ar&u*ents) Actin& on the letter dated ,une 21, 133; of the ebu ity hapter of the %nte&rated Bar of the Philippines thru its abo+e na*ed, President, and ta.in& account of the related facts on record, the ourt Resol+ed< 12 to REH$%RE< 0a2 the ler. of ourt 012 to C" KET the *atter at bar as a proceedin& for conte*pt a&ainst ,oa-uin T) Borro*eo instituted at the relation of said ebu ity hapter, %nte&rated Bar of the Philippines, and 022 to !ENC to the ity !heriff, ebu ity, notice of this resolution and copies of the hapter:s letter dated ,une 21, 133; to&ether (ith its anne/es' and 0b2 said ity !heriff of ebu ity to A$!E PER!"NA# !ERA% E of said notice of resolution and a copy of the hapter:s letter dated ,une 21, 133;, to&ether (ith its anne/es, on ,oa-uin T) Borro*eo at his address at Mabolo, ebu ity' and 22 to "RCER said ,oa-uin T) Borro*eo, (ithin ten 0102 days fro* receipt of such notice and the %BP hapter:s letter of ,une 21, 133; and its anne/es, to file a co**ent on the letter and its anne/es as (ell as on the other *atters set forth in this resolution, ser+in& copy thereof on the relator, the ebu ity hapter of the %nte&rated Bar of the Philippines, Palace of ,ustice Buildin&, apitol, ebu ity) !" "RCEREC) 1) A''7) .u&o>s Le''er o6 Apr%) 5, !4"4

ler. of ourt Puno:s letter to Borro*eo of April 4, 1353, referred to in the first para&raph of the resolution 8ust *entioned, e/plained to Borro*eo for perhaps the second ti*e, precisely the principles and established practice relati+e to 7+%&u'e reso)u'%o&s7 a&( &o'%*es '/ereo6, treated of in se+eral other co**unications and resolutions sent to hi* by the !upre*e ourt, to (it< the letter recei+ed
39

ler. of ourt ,ulieta G) arreon 0of this ourt:s Third Ci+ision2 0in relation to E)R No) 4424; 2 the letter to hi* of ler. of ourt 0!econd Ci+ision2 6er*in ,) Ear*a, dated May 13, 1353, and three resolutions of this ourt, notices of (hich (ere in due course ser+ed on hi*, to (it< that dated ,uly ;1, 1353, in E)R) No) 54534' that dated ,une 1, 1330 in E)R) No) 52244 0151 ! RA 12, and that dated ,une 11, 1334 in E) R) No) 112325)
00 01 02 03

by hi* on ,uly 10, 1354, fro*

) Borro+eo>s Co++e&' o6 Au$us' 2 , !44#

%n response to the Resolution of ,uly 22, 133;, Borro*eo filed a o**ent dated Au&ust 24, 133; in (hich he alle&ed the follo(in&< 12 the resolution of ,uly 22, 133; 0re-uirin& co**ent2 +iolates the onstitution (hich re-uires 7si&natures and concurrence of *a8ority of *e*bers of the >i&h ourt'7 hence, 7a certified copy duly si&ned by ,ustices is respectfully re-uested'7 22 the hief ,ustice and other Me*bers of the ourt should inhibit the*sel+es 7since they cannot be the Accused and ,ud&e at the sa*e ti*e, ) ) ) 0and2 this case should be heard by an i*partial and independent body'7 ;2 the letter of Atty) #e&aspi 7is not +erified nor si&ned by *e*bers of said 0%BP ebu hapter2 Board' ) ) ) is +a&ue, unspecific, and s(eepin&7 because failin& to point out 7(hat particular state*ents in the circular are alle&edly libelous and conde*nable'7 and does not appear that Atty) #e&aspi has authority to spea. or file a co*plaint 7in behalf of those accused in the 7libelous circular'7 42 in *a.in& the circular, he 0Borro*eo2 7(as e/ercisin& his ri&hts of freedo* of speech, of e/pression, and to petition the &o+ern*ent for redress of &rie+ances as &uaranteed by the onstitution 0!ec) 4, Art) %%%2 and in accordance (ith the accountability of public officials'7 the circular *erely states the truth and as.s for 8ustice based on the facts and the la(' ) ) ) it is not libelous nor disrespectful but rather to be co**ended and encoura&ed' ) ) ) Atty) #e&aspi ) ) ) should specify under oath (hich state*ents are false and lies'

@2 he 7stands by the char&es in his circular and is prepared to support the* (ith pertinent facts, e+idence and la('7 and it is 7incu*bent on the >on) hief ,ustice and *e*bers of the >i&h ourt to either refute said char&es or dispense the 8ustice that they are duty bound to dispense)

C) Reso)u'%o& o6 Sep'e+-er #0, !44#

After receipt of the co**ent, and desirin& to accord Borro*eo the fullest opportunity to e/plain his side, and be reprsented by an attorney, the ourt pro*ul&ated the follo(in& Resolution on !epte*ber ;0, 133;, notice of (hich (as a&ain ser+ed on hi* by the "ffice of the ler. of ourt) ) ) ) The return of ser+ice filed by !heriff ,essie A) Belar*ino, "ffice of the ler. of ourt Re&ional Trial ourt of ebu ity, dated Au&ust 21, 133;, and the o**ent of ,oa-uin Borro*eo, dated Au&ust 24, 133;, on the letter of President Manuel P) #e&aspi of the relator dated ,une 21, 133;, are both N"TEC) After deliberatin& on the alle&ations of said o**ent, the ourt Resol+ed to ERANT ,oa-uin T) Borro*eo an additional period of fifteen 01@2 days fro* notice hereof (ithin (hich to en&a&e the ser+ices or other(ise see. the assistance of a la(yer and sub*it such further ar&u*ents in addition to or in a*plification of those set out in his o**ent dated Au&ust 24, 133;, if he be so *inded) !" "RCEREC)

E) Borro+eo>s Supp)e+e&'a) Co++e&' o6 O*'o-er !5, !442

Borro*eo filed a 7!upple*ental o**ent7 dated "ctober 1@, 1332, reiteratin& the ar&u*ents and alle&ations in his o**ent of Au&ust 24, 133;, and settin& forth 7additional ar&u*ents and a*plification to ) ) ) 0said2 o**ent,7 9%:)< 12 the %BP and Atty) #e&aspi ha+e failed 7to specify and state under oath the alle&ed :libelous: re*ar.s contained in the circular ) ) )' 0they should2 be ordered to file a AER%6%EC "MP#A%NT ) ) )0failin& in (hich, they should2 be cited in conte*pt of court for *a.in& false char&es and (astin& the precious ti*e of this >i&hest ourt by filin& a baseless co*plaint' 22 the alle&ations in their circular are not libelous nor disrespectful but 7are based on the TR$T> and the #A?7, na*ely< a2 7*inute resolutions7 bereft of si&natures and clear facts and la(s are patent +iolations of !ecs) 40;22, 1;, 14, Art) A%%% of the onstitution' b2 there is no basis nor thruth to this >on) ourt:s affir*ation to the Appelate ourt:s rulin& that the undersi&ned 7lost7 his ri&ht of rede*ption price, since no less than this >on) ourt has ruled in *any rulin&s that "N!%ENAT%"N %! $NNE E!!ARG in ri&ht of rede*ption' c2 this >on) ourt has deplorably condoned crony ban.s TRB and $ PB:s frauds and defiance of court orders in E)R) Nos) 5;;01 and 545334 and 54333)

6) Borro+eo>s D1a&%6es'a'%o&D o6 No9e+-er 26, !44#

Borro*eo after(ards filed a 7Manifestation7 under date of No+e*ber 21, 133;, ad+ertin& to 7the failure of the %BP and Atty) #e&aspi to substantiate his char&es under oath and the failure of the concerned ,ustices to refute the char&es in the alled&ed 7libelous circular7 and, construin& these as 7and ad*ission of the thruth in said circular,7 theoriFed that it is 7incu*bent on the said ,ustices to rectify their &ra+e as (ell as to dis*iss Atty) #e&aspi:s baseless and false char&es)7

A%%) T;E COART CONCLASIONS

A) Respo&(e&'>s L%a-%)%'7 6or Co&'e+p' o6 Cour'

$pon the indubitable facts on record, there can scarcely be any doubt of Borro*eo:s &uilt of conte*pt, for abuse of and interference (ith 8udicial rules and processes, &ross disrespect to courts and

>e has stubbornly liti&ated issues already declared to be (ithout *erit, obstinately closin& his eyes to the *any rulin&s rendered ad+ersely to hi* in *any suits and proceedin&s, rulin&s (hich had beco*e final and e/ecutory, obdurately and unreasonably insistin& on the application of his o(n indi+idual +ersion of the rules, founded on nothin& *ore than his personal 0and -uite erroneous2 readin& of the onstitution and the la(' he has insulted the 8ud&es and court officers, includin& the attorneys appearin& for his ad+ersaries, needlessly o+erloaded the court doc.ets and sorely tried the patience of the 8ud&es and court e*ployees (ho ha+e had to act on his repetitious and lar&ely unfounded co*plaints, pleadin&s and *otions) >e has (asted the ti*e of the courts, of his ad+ersaries, of the 8ud&es and court e*ployees (ho ha+e had the bad luc. of ha+in& to act in one (ay or another on his un*eritorious cases) More particularly, despite his attention ha+in& been called *any ti*es to the e&re&ious error of his theory that the so9called 7*inute resolutions7 of this ourt should contain findin&s of fact and conclusions of la(, and should be si&ned or certified by the ,ustices pro*ul&atin& the sa*e, he has *ulishly persisted in +entilatin& that self9sa*e theory in +arious proceedin&s, causin& *uch loss of ti*e, annoyance and +e/ation to the courts, the court e*ployees and parties in+ol+ed)
05

8ud&es and i*proper conduct directly i*pedin&, obstructin& and de&radin& the ad*inistration of 8ustice) 00

1) A&'e&a-%)%'7 o6 .ro66ere( De6e&ses

The first defense that he proffers, that the hief ,ustice and other Me*bers of the ourt should inhibit the*sel+es 7since they cannot be the Accused and ,ud&e at the sa*e ti*e ) ) ) 0and2 this case should be heard by an i*partial and independent body, is still another illustration of an entirely un(arranted, arro&ant and reprehensible assu*ption of a co*petence in the field of the la(< he a&ain uses up the ti*e of the ourt needlessly by in+o.in& an ar&u*ent lon& since declared and ad8ud&ed to be untenable) %t is a/io*atic that the 7po(er or duty of the court to institute a char&e for conte*pt a&ainst itself, (ithout the inter+ention of the fiscal or prosecutin& officer, is essential to the preser+ation of its di&nity and of the respect due it fro* liti&ants, la(yers and the public) ?ere the inter+ention of the prosecutin& officer re-uired and 8ud&es obli&ed to file co*plaints for conte*pts a&ainst the* before the prosecutin& officer, in order to brin& the &uilty to 8ustice, courts (ould be inferior to prosecutin& officers and i*potent to perfor* their functions (ith dispatch and absolute independence) The institution of char&es by the prosecutin& officer is not necessary to hold persons &uilty of ci+il or cri*inal conte*pt a*enable to trial and punish*ent by the court) All that the la( re-uires is that there be a char&e in (ritin& duly filed in court and an opportunity to the person char&ed to be heard by hi*self or counsel) The char&e *ay be *ade by the fiscal, by the 8ud&e, or e+en by a pri+ate person) ) ) )7 06

>is clai* D that the letter of Atty) #e&aspi 7is not +erified nor si&ned by *e*bers of said 0%BP ebu hapter2 Board' ) ) ) is +a&ue, unspecific, and s(eepin&7 because failin& to point out (hat particular state*ents in the circular are alle&edly libelous and conde*nable'7 and it does not appear that Atty) #e&aspi has authority to spea. or file a co*plaint 7in behalf of those accused in the :libelous: circular7 D is in the pre*ises, plainly nothin& but superficial philosophiFin&, deser+in& no serious treat*ent)

E-ually as superficial, and sophistical, is his other contention that in *a.in& the alle&ations clai*ed to be contu*acious, he 7(as e/ercisin& his ri&hts of freedo* of speech, of e/pression, and to petition the &o+ern*ent for redress of &rie+ances as &uaranteed by the onstitution 0!ec) 4, Art) %%%2 and in accordance (ith the accountablity of public officials)7 The constitutional ri&hts in+o.ed by hi* afford no 8ustification for repetitious liti&ation of the sa*e causes and issues, for insultin& la(yers, 8ud&es, court e*ployees' and other persons, for abusin& the processes and rules of the courts, (astin& their ti*e, and brin&in& the* into disrepute and disrespect)

B) Bas%* .r%&*%p)es Go9er&%&$ '/e 2u(%*%a) @u&*'%o&

The facts and issues in+ol+ed in the proceedin& at bench *a.e necessary a restate*ent of the principles &o+ernin& finality of 8ud&*ents and of the para*ount need to put an end to liti&ation at so*e point, and to lay do(n definite postulates concernin& (hat is percei+ed to be a &ro(in& predilection on the part of la(yers and liti&ants D li.e Borro*eo D to resort to ad*inistrati+e prosecution 0or institution of ci+il or cri*inal actions2 as a substitute for or supple*ent to the specific *odes of appeal or re+ie( pro+ided by la( fro* court 8ud&*ents or orders) 1) Reaso& 6or *our's' 2u(%*%a) ;%erar*/7

ourts e/ist in e+ery ci+iliFed society for the settle*ent of contro+ersies) %n e+ery country there is a *ore or less established hierarchical or&aniFation of courts, and a *ore or less co*prehensi+e syste* of re+ie( of 8ud&*ents and final orders of lo(er courts)

The 8udicial syste* in this 8urisdiction allo(s for se+eral le+els of liti&ation, %)e), the presentation of e+idence by the parties D a trial or hearin& in the first instance D as (ell as a re+ie( of the 8ud&*ents of lo(er courts by hi&her tribunals, &enerally by consideration ane( and +entilation of the factual and le&al issues throu&h briefs or *e*oranda) The procedure for re+ie( is fi/ed by la(, and is in the +ery nature of thin&s, e/clusi+e to the courts) 2) .ara+ou&' Nee( 'o e&( L%'%$a'%o& a' So+e .o%&'

%t is (ithal of the essence of the 8udicial function that at so*e point, liti&ation *ust end) >ence, after the procedures and processes for la(suits ha+e been under&one, and the *odes of re+ie( set by la( ha+e been e/hausted, or ter*inated, no further +entilation of the sa*e sub8ect *atter is allo(ed) To be sure, there *ay be, on the part of the losin& parties, continuin& disa&ree*ent (ith the +erdict, and the conclusions therein e*bodied) This is of no *o*ent, indeed, is to be e/pected' but, it is not their (ill, but the ourt:s, (hich *ust pre+ail' and, to repeat, public policy de*ands that at
07 01

As obser+ed by this ourt in R/ee+ o6 '/e ./%)%pp%&es 9) @errer, a 1314 decision, a party 7*ay thin. hi&hly of his intellectual endo(*ent) That is his pri+ile&e) And he *ay suffer frustration at (hat he feels is others: lac. of it) This is his *isfortune) !o*e such fra*e of *ind, ho(e+er, should not be allo(ed to harden into a belief that he *ay attac. a court:s decision in (ords calculated to 8ettison the ti*e9honored aphoris* that courts are the te*ples of ri&ht)7
;) 2u($+e&'s o6 Supre+e Cour' No' Re9%e0a-)e

so*e definite ti*e, the issues *ust be laid to rest and the court:s dispositions thereon accorded absolute finality)

The sound, salutary and self9e+ident principle pre+ailin& in this as in *ost 8urisdictions, is that 8ud&*ents of the hi&hest tribunal of the land *ay not be re+ie(ed by any other a&ency, branch, depart*ent, or official of Eo+ern*ent) "nce the !upre*e ourt has spo.en, there the *atter *ust rest) %ts decision should not and cannot be appealed to or re+ie(ed by any other entity, *uch less
09

re+ersed or *odified on the &round that it is tainted by error in its findin&s of fact or conclusions of la(, fla(ed in its lo&ic or lan&ua&e, or other(ise erroneous in so*e other respect)

This, on

the indisputable and unsha.able foundation of public policy, and constitutional and traditional principle)

%n an e/tended Resolution pro*ul&ated on March 12, 1354 in I& Re< <e&*es)ao Laure'a ? in+ol+in& an atte*pt by a la(yer to prosecute before the Tanod bayan 7*e*bers of the 6irst Ci+ision of this ourt collecti+ely (ith ha+in& .no(in&ly and deliberately rendered an :un8ust e/tended *inute Resolution: (ith deliberate bad faith in +iolation of Article 204 of the Re+ised penal ode 7) ) ) and for deliberatly causin& 7undue in8ury7 to respondent ) ) ) and her co9heirs because of the 7un8ust Resolution7 pro*ul&ated, in +iolation of the Anti9Eraft and orrupt Practices Act ) ) ) D the follo(in& pronounce*ents (ere *ade in reaffir*ation of established doctrine< 50 ) ) ) As aptly declared in the hief ,ustice:s !tate*ent of Cece*ber 24, 1351, (hich the ourt hereby adopts %& 'o'o, 70%2t is ele*entary that the !upre*e ourt is supre*e D the third &reat depart*ent of &o+ern*ent entrusted e/clusi+ely (ith the 8udicial po(er to ad8udicate (ith finality all 8usticiable disputes, public and pri+ate) No other depart*ent or a&ency *ay pass upon its 8ud&*ents or declare the* 7un8ust)7 %t is ele*entary that 70A2s has e+er been stressed since the early case of Ar&e(o 9s)L)ore&'e 015 Phil) 2@4, 21; M1311N2 7controllin& and irresistible reasons of public policy and of sound practice in the courts de*and that at the ris.

of occasional error, 8ud&*ents of courts deter*inin& contro+ersies sub*itted to the* should beco*e final at so*e definite ti*e fi/ed by la(, or by a rule of practice reco&niFed by la(, so as to be thereafter beyond the control e+en of the court (hich rendered the* for the purpose of correctin& errors of fact or of la(, into (hich, in the opinion of the court it *ay ha+e fallen) The +ery purpose for (hich the courts are or&aniFed is to put an end to contro+ersy, to decide the -uestions sub*itted to the liti&ants, and to deter*ine the respecti+e ri&hts of the parties) 0#uFon Bro.era&e o), %nc) +s) Mariti*e Bld&), o), %nc), 51 ! RA ;0@, ;119;142 /// /// /// %ndeed, resolutions of the !upre*e ourt as a colle&iate court, (hether an e& -a&* or di+ision, spea. for the*sel+es and are entitled to full faith and credence and are beyond in+esti&ation or in-uiry under '/e sa+e pr%&*%p)e o6 *o&*)us%9e&ess o6 e&ro))e( -%))s o6 '/e )e$%s)a'ure ) 0$)!) +s) Pons, ;4 Phil) 423' Eardiner, et al) +s) Paredes, et al), 11 Phil) 115' Mabana& +s) #opeF Aito, 45 Phil) 12 The !upre*e ourt:s pronounce*ent of the doctrine that 70%2t is (ell settled that the enrolled bill ) ) ) is conclusi+e upon the courts as re&ards the tenor of the *easure passed by on&ress and appro+ed by the President) %f there has been any *ista.e in the printin& of the bill before it (as certified by the officers of on&ress and appro+ed by the E/ecuti+e Mas clai*ed by petitioner9i*porter (ho unsuccessfully sou&ht refund of *ar&in feesN D o& 0/%*/ 0e *a&&o' spe*u)a'e, 0%'/ou' 3eopar(%:%&$ '/e pr%&*%p)e o6 separa'%o& o6 po0ers a&( u&(er+%&%&$ o&e o6 '/e *or&ers'o&es o6 our (e+o*ra*'%* s7s'e+ D the re*edy is by a*end*ent or curati+e le&islation, not by 8udicial decree7 is fully and reciprocally applicable to !upre*e ourt orders, resolutions and decisions, +u'a'%s +u'a&(%s) 0 asco Phil) he*ical o), %nc) +s) Ei*eneF, 4 ! RA ;44, ;@0) 0 itin& Pri*icias +s) Paredes, 11 Phil) 115, 120' Mabana& +s) #opeF Aito, 45 Phil) 1' Macias +s) o*elec, ; ! RA 12) The ourt has consistently stressed that the 7doctrine of separa'%o& o6 po0ers calls for the eEe*u'%9e, )e$%s)a'%9e a&( 3u(%*%a) (epar'+e&'s -e%&$ )e6' a)o&e 'o (%s*/ar$e '/e%r (u'%es as '/e7 see 6%' 7 0Tan +s) Macapa&al, 4; ! RA 1442) %t has thus *aintained in the sa*e (ay that the 8udiciary has a ri&ht to e/pect that neither the President nor on&ress (ould cast doubt on the *ainsprin& of its orders or decisions, it should refrain fro* speculatin& as to alle&ed hidden forces at (or. that could ha+e i*pelled either coordinate branch into actin& the (ay it did) The concept of separation of po(ers presupposes *utual respect by and bet(een the three depart*ents of the &o+ern*ent) 0Tecson +s) !alas, ;4 ! RA 24@, 25192542) 4) @%&a) a&( EEe*u'or7 2u($+e&'s o6 Lo0er Cour's No' Re9%e0a-)e E9e& -7 Supre+e Cour'

%n respect of ourts belo( the !upre*e ourt, the ordinary re*edies a+ailable under la( to a party (ho is ad+ersely affected by their decisions or orders are a *otion for ne( trial 0or reconsideration2 under Rule ;4, and an appeal to either the ourt of Appeals or the !upre*e ourt, dependin& on (hether -uestions of both fact and la(, or of la( only, are raised, in accordance
51

E/ceptionally, a re+ie( of a rulin& or act of a court on the &round that it (as rendered (ithout or in e/cess of its 8urisdiction, or (ith &ra+e abuse of discretion, *ay be had throu&h the special ci+il action of *er'%orar% or prohibition pursuant to Rule 1@ of the Rules of ourt)

(ith fi/ed and fa*iliar rules and confor*ably (ith the hierarchy of courts)

>o(e+er, should 8ud&*ents of lo(er courts D (hich *ay nor*ally be sub8ect to re+ie( by hi&her tribunals D beco*e final and e/ecutory before, or (ithout, e/haustion of all recourse of appeal, they, too, beco*e in+iolable, i*per+ious to *odification) They *ay, then, no lon&er be re+ie(ed, or in any(ay *odified directly or indirectly, by a hi&her court, not e+en by the !upre*e ourt, *uch less by any other official, branch or depart*ent of Eo+ern*ent) 52

) A(+%&%s'ra'%9e C%9%) or Cr%+%&a) A*'%o& a$a%&s' 2u($e) No' Su-s'%'u'e 6or Appea)' .ros*r%-e( -7 La0 a&( Lo$%*

No(, the ourt ta.es 8udicial notice of the fact that there has been of late a re&rettable increase in the resort to ad*inistrati+e prosecution D or the institution of a ci+il or cri*inal action D as a substitute for or supple*ent to appeal) ?hether intended or not, such a resort to these re*edies operates as a for* of threat or inti*idation to coerce 8ud&es into ti*orous surrender of their prero&ati+es, or a reluctance to e/ercise the*) ?ith risin& fre-uency, ad*inistrati+e co*plaints are bein& presented to the "ffice of the ourt Ad*inistrator' cri*inal co*plaints are bein& filed (ith the "ffice of the "*buds*an or the public prosecutor:s office' ci+il actions for reco+ery of da*a&es co**enced in the Re&ional Trial ourts a&ainst trial 8ud&es, and 8ustices of the ourt of Appeals and e+en of the !upre*e ourt) 1) Co++o& Bas%s o6 Co+p)a%&'s A$a%&s' 2u($es

D %)e), 8ud&*ents or orders (hich are alle&edly not in accord (ith the e+idence, or (ith la( or 8urisprudence, or are tainted by &ra+e abuse of discretion D thereby causin& in8ustice, and actionable and co*pensable in8ury to the co*plainants 0in+ariably losin& liti&ants2) Resolution of co*plaints of this sort -uite ob+iously entails a co**on re-uire*ent for the fiscal, the "*buds*an or the Trial ourt< a re9%e0 of the decision or order of the respondent ,ud&e or ,ustice 'o (e'er+%&e %'s *orre*'&ess or erro&eous&ess, as basic pre*ise for a pronounce*ent of liability)
53

Many of these co*plaints set forth a co**on indict*ent< that the respondent ,ud&es or ,ustices re&(ere( +a&%6es')7 u&3us' 3u($+e&'s or %&'er)o*u'or7 or(ers

2) EE*)us%9%'7 o6 Spe*%6%* .ro*e(ures 6or Corre*'%o& o6 2u($+e&'s a&( Or(ers

The -uestion then, is (hether or not these co*plaints are proper' (hether or not in lieu of the prescribed recourses for appeal or re+ie( of 8ud&*ents and orders of courts, a party *ay file an ad*inistrati+e or cri*inal co*plaint a&ainst the 8ud&e for rendition of an un8ust 8ud&*ent, or, ha+in& opted for appeal, *ay nonetheless si*ultaneously see. also such ad*inistrati+e or cri*inal re*edies)

Ei+en the nature of the 8udicial function, the po(er +ested by the onstitution in the !upre*e ourt and the lo(er courts established by la(, the -uestion sub*its to only one ans(er< the

ad*inistrati+e or cri*inal re*edies are neither alternati+e nor cu*ulati+e to 8udicial re+ie( (here such re+ie( is a+ailable, and *ust (ait on the result thereof)

!i*ple reflection (ill *a.e this proposition a*ply clear, and de*onstrate that any contrary postulation can ha+e only intolerable le&al i*plications) Allo(in& a party (ho feels a&&rie+ed by a 8udicial order or decision not yet final and e/ecutory to *ount an ad*inistrati+e, ci+il or cri*inal prosecution for un8ust 8ud&*ent a&ainst the issuin& 8ud&e (ould, at a *ini*u* and as an indispensable first step, confer the prosecutor 0or "*buds*an2 (ith an incon&ruous function pertainin&, not to hi*, but to the courts< the deter*ination of (hether the -uestioned disposition is erroneous in its findin&s of fact or conclusions of la(, or both) %f he does proceed despite that i*pedi*ent, (hate+er deter*ination he *a.es could (ell set off a proliferation of ad*inistrati+e or cri*inal liti&ation, a possibility here after *ore fully e/plored)

!uch actions are i*per*issible and cannot prosper) %t is not, as already pointed out, (ithin the po(er of public prosecutors, or the "*buds*an or his deputies, directly or +icariously, to re+ie( 8ud&*ents or final orders or resolutions of the ourts of the land) The po(er of re+ie( D by appeal or special ci+il action D is not only lod&ed e/clusi+ely in the ourts the*sel+es but *ust be e/ercised in accordance (ith a (ell9defined and lon& established hierarchy, and lon&9standin& processes and procedures) No other re+ie( is allo(ed' other(ise liti&ation (ould be inter*inable, and +e/atiously repetiti+e)

These principles (ere stressed in I& Re< <e&*es)ao Laure'a, supra) 50 Respondents should .no( that the pro+isions of Article 204 of the Re+ised Penal ode as to 7renderin& .no(in&ly un8ust 8ud&*ent,7 refer to an indi+idual 8ud&e (ho does so 7in any case sub*itted to hi* for decision7 and e+en then, it is not the prosecutor (ho (ould pass 8ud&*ent on the 7un8ustness7 of the decision rendered by hi* but the proper appellate court (ith 8urisdiction to re+ie( the sa*e, either the ourt of Appeals andBor the !upre*e ourt) Respondents should li.e(ise .no( that said penal article has no application to the *e*bers of a colle&iate court such as this ourt or its Ci+isions (ho reach their conclusions in consultation and accordin&ly render their collecti+e 8ud&*ent after due deliberation) %t also follo(s, conse-uently, that a char&e of +iolation of the Anti9Eraft and orrupt Practices Act on the &round that such a collecti+e decision is 7un8ust7 cannot prosper) /// /// /// To sub8ect to the threat and ordeal of in+esti&ation and prosecution, a 8ud&e, *ore so a *e*ber of the !upre*e ourt for official acts done by hi* in &ood faith and in the re&ular e/ercise of official duty and 8udicial functions is to sub+ert and under*ine that +ery independence of the 8udiciary, and subordinate the 8udiciary to the e/ecuti+e) 76or it is a &eneral principle of the hi&hest i*portance to the proper ad*inistration of 8ustice that a 8udicial officer in e/ercisin& the authority +ested in hi*, shall be free to act upon his o(n con+ictions, (ithout apprehension of personal conse-uences to hi*self) #iability to ans(er to e+eryone (ho *i&ht feel hi*self a&&rie+ed by the action of the 8ud&e (ould be inconsistent (ith the possession of this freedo*, and (ould destroy that independence (ithout (hich no 8udiciary can be either respectable or useful)7 0Bradley +s) 6isher, 50 $) !) ;;@2) /// /// /// To allo( liti&ants to $o -e7o&( '/e Cour'>s reso)u'%o& and clai* that the *e*bers acted 7(ith deliberate bad faith7 and rendered an 7un8ust resolution7 in disre&ard or +iolation of the duty of their hi&h office to act upon their o(n independent consideration and 8ud&*ent of the *atter at hand (ould be to (es'ro7 '/e au'/e&'%*%'7, %&'e$r%'7 a&( *o&*)us%9e&ess of such colle&iate acts and resolutions and to disre&ard utterly the presu*ption of re&ular perfor*ance of official duty) To a))o0 su*/ *o))a'era) a''a*= 0ou)( (es'ro7 '/e separa'%o& o6 po0ers a&( u&(er+%&e '/e ro)e o6 '/e Supre+e Cour' as '/e 6%&a) ar-%'er o6 a)) 3us'%*%a-)e (%spu'es ) Cissatisfied liti&ants andBor their counsels cannot (ithout +iolatin& the separation of po(ers *andated by the onstitution reliti&ate in another foru* the final 8ud&*ent of this ourt on le&al issues sub*itted by the* and their ad+ersaries for final deter*ination to and by the !upre*e ourt and (hich fall (ithin the 3u(%*%a) po0er to deter*ine and ad8udicate eE*)us%9e)7 +ested by the onstitution %& '/e Supre+e Cour' and in such inferior courts as *ay be established by la()

This is true, too, as re&ards 8ud&*ents, other(ise appealable, (hich ha+e beco*e final and e/ecutory) !uch 8ud&*ents, bein& no lon&er re+ie(able by hi&her tribunals, are certainly not re+ie(able by any other body or authority) ;) O&)7 Cour's Au'/or%:e(, u&(er @%Ee( Ru)es 'o De*)are 2u($+e&'s or Or(ers Erro&eous or A&3us'

To belabor the ob+ious, the deter*ination of (hether or not a 8ud&e*ent or order is un8ust D or (as 0or (as not2 rendered (ithin the scope of the issuin& 8ud&e:s authority, or that the 8ud&e had e/ceeded his 8urisdiction and po(ers or *aliciously delayed the disposition of a case D is an essentially 8udicial function, lod&ed by e/istin& la( and i**e*orial practice in a hierarchy of courts and ulti*ately in the hi&hest court of the land) To repeat, no other entity or official of the Eo+ern*ent, not the prosecution or in+esti&ation ser+ice or any other branch' nor any functionary thereof, has co*petence to re+ie( a 8udicial order or decision D (hether final and e/ecutory or not D and pronounce it erroneous so as to lay the basis for a cri*inal or ad*inistrati+e co*plaint for renderin& an un8ust 8ud&*ent or order) That prero&ati+e belon&s to the courts alone) 4) Co&'rar7 Ru)e Resu)'s %& C%r*u%'ous&ess a&( Lea(s 'o A-sur( Co&se8ue&*es

Pra&*atic considerations also preclude prosecution for supposed rendition of un8ust 8ud&*ents or interlocutory orders of the type abo+e described, (hich, at botto*, consist si*ply of the accusation that the decisions or interlocutory orders are seriously (ron& in their conclusions of fact or of la(, or are tainted by &ra+e abuse of discretion D as distin&uished fro* accusations of corruption, or i**orality, or other (ron&doin&) To allo( institution of such proceedin&s (ould not only be le&ally i*proper, it (ould also result in a futile and circuitous e/ercise, and lead to absurd conse-uences)

Assu*e that a case &oes throu&h the (hole &a*ut of re+ie( in the 8udicial hierarchy' %)e), a 8ud&*ent is rendered by a *unicipal trial court' it is re+ie(ed and affir*ed by the proper Re&ional Trial ourt' the latter:s 8ud&*ent is appealed to and in due course affir*ed by the ourt of Appeals' and finally, the appellate court:s decision is brou&ht up to and affir*ed by the !upre*e ourt) The prosecution of the *unicipal trial court 8ud&e (ho rendered the ori&inal decision 0for .no(in&ly renderin& a *anifestly un8ust 8ud&*ent2 (ould appear to be out of the -uestion' it (ould *ean that the "ffice of the "*buds*an or of the public prosecutor (ould ha+e to find, at the preli*inary in+esti&ation, not only that the 8ud&e:s decision (as (ron& and un8ust, but by necessary i*plication that the decisions or orders of the Re&ional Trial ourt ,ud&e, as (ell as the ,ustices of the ourt of Appeals and the !upre*e ourt (ho affir*ed the ori&inal 8ud&*ent (ere also all (ron& and un8ust D

*ost certainly an act of supre*e arro&ance and +ery e+ident superero&ation) Pursuin& the proposition further, assu*in& that the public prosecutor or "*buds*an should ne+ertheless opt to underta.e a re+ie( of the decision in -uestion D despite its ha+in& been affir*ed at all three 0;2 appellate le+els D and thereafter, disa&reein& (ith the +erdict of all four 042 courts, file an infor*ation in the Re&ional Trial ourt a&ainst the Municipal Trial ourt ,ud&e, the fate of such an indict*ent at the hands of the !andi&anbayan or the Re&ional Trial ourt (ould be fairly predictable)

E+en if for so*e reason the Municipal Trial ourt ,ud&e is con+icted by the !andi&anbayan or a Re&ional Trial ourt, the appeal before the !upre*e ourt or the ourt of Appeals (ould ha+e an ine+itable result< &i+en the antecedents, the +erdict of con+iction (ould be set aside and the correctness of the 8ud&*ent in -uestion, already passed upon and finally resol+ed by the sa*e appellate courts, (ould necessarily be sustained)

Moreo+er, in such a scenario, nothin& (ould pre+ent the Municipal Trial ,ud&e, in his turn, fro* filin& a cri*inal action a&ainst the !andi&anbayan ,ustices, or the Re&ional Trial ourt ,ud&e (ho should con+ict hi* of the offense, for .no(in&ly renderin& an un8ust 8ud&*ent, or a&ainst the ,ustices of the ourt of Appeals or the !upre*e ourt (ho should affir* his con+iction)

The situation is ridiculous, ho(e+er the circu*stances of the case *ay be *odified, and re&ardless of (hether it is a ci+il, cri*inal or ad*inistrati+e proceedin& that is a+ailed of as the +ehicle to prosecute the 8ud&e for supposedly renderin& an un8ust decision or order) @) .r%+or(%a) Re8u%s%'es 6or A(+%&%s'ra'%9e Cr%+%&a) .rose*u'%o&

This is not to say that it is not possible at all to prosecute 8ud&es for this i*propriety, of renderin& an un8ust 8ud&*ent or interlocutory order' but, ta.in& account of all the fore&oin& considerations, the indispensable re-uisites are that there be a 6%&a) (e*)ara'%o& -7 a *o+pe'e&' *our' %& so+e appropr%a'e pro*ee(%&$ o6 '/e +a&%6es')7 u&3us' */ara*'er o6 '/e */a))e&$e( 3u($+e&' or or(er, and there be also e9%(e&*e o6 +a)%*e or -a( 6a%'/, %$&ora&*e or %&eE*usa-)e &e$)%$e&*e, o& '/e par' o6 '/e 3u($e %& re&(er%&$ sa%( 3u($e+e&' or or(er ) That final declaration is ordinarily contained in the 8ud&*ent rendered in the appellate proceedin&s in (hich the decision of the trial court in the ci+il or cri*inal action in -uestion is challen&ed)

?hat i**ediately co*es to *ind in this connection is a decision of ac-uittal or dis*issal in a cri*inal action, as to (hich D the sa*e bein& unappealable D it (ould be unreasonable to deny the !tate or the +icti* of the cri*e 0or e+en public9spirited citiFens2 the opportunity to put to the test of proof such char&es as they *i&ht see fit to press that it (as un8ustly rendered, (ith *alice or by deliberate desi&n, throu&h ine/cusable i&norance or ne&li&ence, etc) E+en in this case, the essential re-uisite is that there be an authoritati+e 8udicial pronounce*ent of the *anifestly un8ust character of the 8ud&*ent or order in -uestion) !uch a pronounce*ent *ay result fro* either 0a2 an action of *er'%orar% or prohibition in a hi&her court i*pu&nin& the +alidity of the' 8ud&*ent, as ha+in& been rendered (ithout or in e/cess of 8urisdiction, or (ith &ra+e abuse of discretion' e)$), there has been a denial of due process to the prosecution' or 0b2 if this be not proper, an ad*inistrati+e proceedin& in the !upre*e ourt a&ainst the 8ud&e precisely for pro*ul&atin& an un8ust 8ud&*ent or order) $ntil and unless there is such a final, authoritati+e 3u(%*%a) declaration that the decision or order in -uestion is 7un8ust,7 no ci+il or cri*inal action a&ainst the 8ud&e concerned is le&ally possible or should be entertained, for (ant of an indispensable re-uisite)

C) 2u($es 1us' -e @ree 6ro+ I&6)ue&*e or .ressure

,ud&es *ust be free to 8ud&e, (ithout pressure or influence fro* e/ternal forces or factors) They should not be sub8ect to inti*idation, the fear of ci+il, cri*inal or ad*inistrati+e sanctions for acts they *ay do and dispositions they *ay *a.e in the perfor*ance of their duties and functions) >ence it is sound rule, (hich *ust be reco&niFed independently of statute, that 8ud&es are not &enerally liable for acts done (ithin the scope of their 8urisdiction and in &ood faith)

To hold other(ise (ould be nothin& short of harass*ent and (ould *a.e his position doubly unbearable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the la( in the process of ad*inisterin& 8ustice can be infallible in his 8ud&*ent) The error *ust be &ross or patent, deliberate and *alicious, or incurred (ith e+ident bad faith' it is only in these cases that ad*inistrati+e sanctions are called for as an i*perati+e duty of the !upre*e ourt)
55 56 57

This ourt has repeatedly and unifor*ly ruled that a 8ud&e *ay not be held ad*inistrati+ely accountable for e+ery erroneous order or decision he renders)

As far as ci+il or cri*inal liability is concerned, e/istin& doctrine is that 78ud&es of superior and &eneral 8urisdiction are not liable to respond in ci+il action for da*a&es for (hat they *ay do in the
59

Based on !ection 3, Act No) 130, the doctrine is still &ood la(, not inconsistent (ith any subse-uent le&islati+e issuance or court rule< 7No 8ud&e, 8ustice of the peace or assessor shall be liable to a ci+il action for the reco+ery of da*a&es by reason of any 8udicial action or 8ud&*ent rendered by hi* in &ood faith, and (ithin the li*its of his le&al po(ers and 8urisdiction)7

e/ercise of their 8udicial functions (hen actin& (ithin their le&al po(ers and 8urisdiction)7 51

E/ception to this &eneral rule is found in Article ;2 of the i+il ode, pro+idin& that any public officer or e*ployee, or any pri+ate indi+idual, (ho directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, +iolates or in any *anner i*pedes or i*pairs any of the enu*erated ri&hts and liberties of another person D (hich ri&hts are the sa*e as those &uaranteed in the Bill of Ri&hts 0Article %%% of the onstitution2' D shall be liable to the latter for da*a&es) >o(e+er, such liability is not de*andable fro* a 8ud&e unless his act or o*ission constitutes a +iolation of the Penal ode or other penal statute) But a&ain, to the e/tent that the offenses therein described ha+e 7un8ust 8ud&*ent or 7un8ust interlocutory order7 for an essential ele*ent, it need only be reiterated that prosecution of a 8ud&e for any of the* is sub8ect to the *a9ea' already *entioned< that such prosecution cannot be initiated, *uch less *aintained, unless there be a final 8udicial pronounce*ent of the un8ust character of the decision or order in issue)

E) A6'er0or(

onsiderin& the fore&oin& antecedents and lon& standin& doctrines, it *ay (ell be as.ed (hy it too. no less than si/teen 0112 years and so*e fifty 0@02 &rossly unfounded cases lod&ed by respondent Borro*eo in the different run&s of the ,udiciary before this ourt decided to ta.e the present ad*inistrati+e *easure) The i*position on the ti*e of the courts and the unnecessary (or. occasioned by respondent:s crass ad+enturis* are self9e+ident and re-uire no further elaboration) %f the ourt, ho(e+er, bore (ith hi* (ith ,obian patience, it (as in the hope that the repeated rebuffs he suffered, (ith the attendant lectures on the error of his (ays, (ould so*eho( seep into his understandin& and deter hi* fro* further forays alon& his *is&uided path) After all, as has repeatedly been declared, the po(er of conte*pt is e/ercised on the preser+ati+e and not the +indicti+e principle) $nfortunately the ourt:s forbearance had no effect on hi*)

%nstead, the continued leniency and tolerance e/tended to hi* (ere read as si&ns of (ea.ness and i*potence) ?orse, respondent:s irresponsible audacity appears to ha+e influenced and e*boldened others to 8ust as fla*boyantly e*bar. on their o(n &roundless and insultin& proceedin&s a&ainst the courts, born of affected bra+ado or sheer e&ocentris*, to the e/tent of e+en in+ol+in& the le&islati+e and e/ecuti+e depart*ents, the "*buds*an included, in their assaults a&ainst the ,udiciary in pursuit of personal a&endas) But all thin&s, &ood or bad, *ust co*e to an end, and it is ti*e for the ourt to no( dra( the line, (ith *ore pro*ptitude, bet(een reasoned dissent and self9see.in& pretense) The ourt accordin&ly ser+es notice to those (ith the sa*e conceit or delusions that it (ill henceforth deal (ith the*, decisi+ely and fairly, (ith a fir* and e+en hand, and resolutely i*pose such puniti+e sanctions as *ay be appropriate to *aintain the inte&rity and independence of the 8udicial institutions of the country)

?>ERE6"RE, ,oa-uin T) Borro*eo is found and declared E$%#TG of constructi+e conte*pt repeatedly co**itted o+er ti*e, despite (arnin&s and instructions &i+en to hi*, and to the end that he *ay ponder his serious errors and &ra+e *isconduct and learn due respect for the ourts and their authority, he is hereby sentenced to ser+e a ter* of i*prison*ent of TEN 0102 CAG! in the ity ,ail of ebu ity and to pay a fine of "NE T>"$!ANC PE!"! 0P1,000)002) >e is (arned that a repetition of any of the offenses of (hich he is herein found &uilty, or any si*ilar or other offense a&ainst courts, 8ud&es or court e*ployees, (ill *erit further and *ore serious sanctions)

%T %! !" "RCEREC)

Nar9asa, C)2), @e)%*%a&o, .a(%))a, B%(%&, Re$a)a(o, Da9%(e, 2r), Ro+ero, Be))os%))o, 1e)o, Fu%aso&, V%'u$, Kapu&a&, 1e&(o:a a&( @ra&*%s*o, 22 ), *o&*ur)

.u&o, 2), 'oo= &o par')

Foo(!o(e. 1 Barrera +) Barrera, ;4 ! RA 35, 101' Peo +) atolico, ;5 ! RA ;53, 404) 2 SEE !ub9>ead %, A, 4, I&6ra) ; Per ,ud&e Beni&no E) Ea+iola, Branch 3, RT , ebu) 4 Ra*ireF, 2), po&e&'e, (ith (ho* concurred 6rancisco 0 eFar2 and Aailoces, 22) @ ,ud&e Renato ) Cacudao, presidin&)

1 ,ud&e elso M) Ei*eneF, Branch @) 4 Euin&ona, 2), po&e&'e, (ith (ho* concurred ,a+ellana and %*perial, 22) 5 Branch 24, >on) Priscila !) A&ana, presidin&) 3 Per ,ud&e ,ose P) Bur&os, Branch 14) 10 Per ,ud&e 0no( A Associate ,ustice2 Eodardo ,acinto)

11 SEE !ub9>ead %, A, 1, supra) 12 SEE !ub9>ead %, A, 2, supra) 1; SEE !ub9>ead %, supra) 14 Cecision dated May 21, 133;< Austria9MartineF, 2), po&e&'e, (ith (ho* concurred Puno and Ra*ireF, 22) 1@ As e+ery la(yer .no(s, the ler. of ourt of a Ci+ision or of the officer in the Ci+ision or ourt, ne/t only to the ,ustices) 11 !ub9>ead %%, A, 1, %&6ra) 14 !ub9>ead %%, A, 4, %&6ra !ub9>eads A%, B, 1, and %%, A, 1,c, %&6ra) 15 !ub9>eads A%, B, 1, and %%, A, 1, c, %&6ra, respecti+ely) 13 !ub9>ead %%, A, ;, %&6ra) 20 See sub9head %, A, ;, supra DBecause TRB consolidated its o(nership o+er the foreclosed i**o+ables durin& the pendency of i+il ase No) R9 ourt E& Ba&* %s, o6 *ourse, &o' a 7+ere *)er=,7 but the hi&hest ad*inistrati+e

22@01, Borro*eo filed cri*inal co*plaints in the "ffice of the ity Prosecutor of ebu a&ainst the ban. officers and la(yers, (hich (ere ho(e+er, and -uite correctly, &i+en short shrift by that "ffice) 21 Per ;rd Assistant 6iscal Enri-ueta Ro-uillano9Belar*ino) 22 See sub9head %, A, 1, supra) 2; See sub9head %, supra) 24 By resolution of 6iscal Rodulfo T) $&sal, appro+ed by ity 6iscal ,ufelinito R) Pare8a) 2@ Per %n+esti&ator Mario E) a*o*ot, reco**ended for appro+al by Cirector %A A) A) Aarela, and appro+ed by ,uan M) >a&ad, Ceputy "*buds*an, Aisayas) 21 %n the third para&raph of this opinion) 24 #i.e the letter (ritten to Borro*eo, dated 2u)7 !0, !4" , !ub9head A, 1, @, supra) 25 Ro))o E)R) 5224;) 23 This concerned a fourth ban., the Philippine Ban. of ;0 !ub9head %%, A ,;, supra) ;1 ?ritten by 6elicito ) #ato8a, Asso) Eraft %n+esti&ation "fficer %%, and appro+ed by ,uan M) >a&ad, C"MB) o**unications)

;2 SEE !ub9>ead %%, A, 1, supra) ;; SEE also sub9head %%, A, 2, supra) ;4 ,ud&e ,acinto has, to repeat, since been pro*oted to the ourt of Appeals) ;@ Ro))o, Aol) A%%, p) 11@) ;1 SEE !ub9>ead %%, A, @, supra) ;4 Curin& the entire period that the ad*inistrati+e case (as pendin& 01330 to 13342, Borro*eo (rote an unceasin& strea* of letters, leaflets, flyers to %BP, harshly critical of the courts and the la(yers (ho had in one (ay or9another ta.en *easures ad+erse to hi*) "ne of the last (as an 7"PEN #ETTER to %BP Pre/y Manuel #e&aspi7 dated April 13, 1334) ;5 There are at least ten 0102 other such)7circulars, flyers, or letters in the record, all a*ountin& *ore or less the sa*e errors and defa*atory i*putations) ;3 !ub9>ead %%' A, 1, %&6ra) 40 !ub9>eads A%, B, 1, and %%, A, 1 *, %&6ra, respecti+ely) 41 !ub9>ead %%, A, ;, %&6ra) 42 !ub9>ead %%, A, 1, a, %&6ra) 4; !ub9>ead %, A, 4, supra) 44 Rule 41, !ec, 0c2 and 0d2, Rules of ourt) 4@ SEE !ub9head %%, A, 1, a, supra)

41 Peo +) AenturanFa, et al), 35 Phil) 211, cited in Ea+ieres +) 6alcis, 13; ! RA 143, 110 013312' see a)so 6ernandeF +) >on) Bello, 104 Phil) 1140) 44 Earbo +) ourt of Appeals, 221 ! RA 2@0, E)R) No) 100444, !epte*ber 10, 133;' E!%! +) Eines, 213 ! RA 424, E)R) No) 5@24;, March 3, 133;' Eesul&on +) N#R , 213 ! RA @11, E)R) No) 30;43, March @, 133;' Para*ount %nsurance orporation +) ,apson, 211 ! RA 543, E)R) No) 1504;, ,uly 23, 1332' achola +) A, 205 ! RA 431, E)R) No) 34522, May 4, 1332' Enri-ueF +) A, 202 ! RA 454, E)R) No) 5;420, "ctober 4, 1331' Al+endia +) %A , 151 ! RA 2@2, E)R) No) 421;5, ,anuary 22, 1330' Tur-ueFa +) >ernando, 34 ! RA 45;, E)R) No) #9@1121, April ;0, 1350' #ee Bun Tin& +) Ali&aen, 41 ! RA 411, E)R) No) #9;0@2;, April 22, 1344) 45 20 ! RA 441, 444) 43 A&ainst 8ud&*ents of the !upre*e ourt since ob+iously no appeal to a hi&her court or authority is possible, the only re*edies are those set forth in the Rules of ourt, particularly Rule @1 in relation to Rules @2 and @;, (ith re&ard to ci+il cases and proceedin&s, and Rule 12@ in relation to Rule 124, in respect of cri*inal cases) SEE alalan& +) Re&ister of Ceeds, 205 ! RA 21@, E)R) No) 4121@, April 22, 1332' Tan +) ourt of Appeals 133 ! RA 212 E)R) No) 342;5, ,uly 1@, 1331' hurch Assistance Pro&ra* +) !ibulo, 141 ! RA 405 E)R) No) 41@@2, March 21, 1353' Aer +) Huetulio, 11; ! RA 50, E) R) No) 44@21, ,une 23, 1355 An& Pin& +) RT of Manila, 1@4 ! RA 44, E)R) No) 4@510, !epte*ber 14, 1354' Air9,en !hippin& and Marine !er+ices, %nc) +) N#R , 12@ ! RA @44, E)R) Nos) #9@501192, No+e*ber 15) 135;' Tu&ade +) A 5; ! RA 221' Barrera +) Barrera, ;4 ! RA 35, E)R) No) #9;1@53, ,uly ;1, 1340' Albert +) 6%, 2; ! RA 345, E)R) No #92;1;1, May 23 1315' !ho8i +) >ar+ey, 4; Phil) ;;;013222' SEE a)so oncurrin& "pinion of EutierreF ,) in Enrile +) !alaFar, 151 ! RA 214, E)R) Nos) 3211; and 32114, ,une @, 1330) @0 145 ! RA ;52, 4149415) @1 A&ainst a final and e/ecutory 8ud&*ent, the e/traordnary, e-uitable re*edy of relief fro* 8ud&*ent under Rule ;5 *ay be a+ailed of, or in e/tre*e situations, an action to annul the 8ud&*ent on the &round of e/trinsic fraud) @2 Miranda +) A, 141 ! RA ;02, E)R) No) #9@3;40, 6ebruary 11, 1351, citin& Malia +) %A , 1;5 ! RA 111, E)R) No) #911;3@, Au&ust 4, 135@' astillo +) Conato, 1;4 ! RA 210, E)R) No) #9402;0, ,une 24, 135@' Bethel Te*ple, %nc) +) Eeneral ouncil of Asse*blies of Eod, %nc), 1;1 ! RA 20;, E)R) No) #9;@@1;, April ;0, 135@' %nsular Ban. of Asia and A*erica E*ployees: $nion 0%BAAE$2 +) %ncion&, 1;2 ! RA 11;, E)R) No) #9@241@, "ctober 2;, 1354 and the cases cited therein pertainin& to 7i**utability of 8ud&*ents'7 >eirs of Pedro Eu*inpin +) A, 120 ! RA 154, E)R) No) #9;4220, 6ebruary 21, 135;' o**issioner of %nternal Re+enue +) Aisayan Electric o), 13 ! RA 131, E)R) No) #924321, March ;1, 1314' Ca-uis +) Bustos, 34 Phil) 31;' !a(it +) Rodas, 4; Phil) ;10) @; Articles 2049201 of the Re+ised Penal ode define and penaliFe offenses (hich ha+e 7un8ust 8ud&*ent7 or 7un8ust interlocutory order7 for an essential ele*ent) @4 145 ! RA 25;, 415, 413, 4209421@@ Rodri&o +) Hui8ano, etc), 43 ! RA 10 0!ept) 3, 13442) @1 #opeF +) orpus, 45 ! RA ;44 0Alu&) ;1, 13442' Pilipinas Ban. +) Tirona9#i(a&, 130 ! RA 5;4 0"ct) 15, 13302) @4 HuiFon + BaltaFar, ,r), 1@ ! RA 23; 0,uly 2@, 134@2) @5 AlFua, et) al +) ,ohnson, 21 Phil) ;05, ;21) @3 The old ode of i+il Procedure)

The #a(phil Pro8ect 9 Arellano #a( 6oundation