REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Office of the Court Administrator SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M A N I L A Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., (123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos, 3000 Bulacan) Complainant, - versus A.M. OCA IPI No. ______________ For: Gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, manifest undue interest, violations of the Codes of Judicial Conduct (Rule 2.04, inter alia) and Professional Responsibility, Disbarment, RPC, R.A. 3019, IRCA, etc.
Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz, (Court of Appeals, Maria Orosa, Ermita, Manila), “Atty. Sylvia Jo Sabio” & Atty. Angeli Fides “Bobbie” Sabio” (daughters of Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. - c/o Office of the Chief Justice, Supreme Court, Manila), Chairman Camilo Sabio, Presidential
Commission on Good Government, (IRC Building, No. 82 EDSA, Mandaluyong City), and
Atty. Jesus I. Santos (Marilao, Bulacan).
Second Amended / Supplemental Verified Complaint – Letter-Affidavit
[Under Rules 140, 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, Codes of Judicial Conduct & Professional Responsibility, Arts. 171, 208, 210, 212, 243, RPC, R.A. 3019, R.A. 1379, Article 20, UNCAC, P.D. 1879, Code of Conduct of Court Personnel, A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, RAC, 1987, CSL, P.D. 807, R.A. 6713, inter alia] – and -
Urgent Omnibus Motions For Leave of Court
I. For Preventive Suspension, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution, II. To appoint a Special Prosecutor, in accordance with “EN BANC, A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA,
March 27, 2001, IN RE: DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS, JUSTICE DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA.” III. To Intervene & Petition-in-Intervention - In: "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)" IV. For Physical and Mental Examination of Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes - under Rules 28 & 134, Revised Rules of Court (to determine the veracity of his alleged 2 Heart Attacks, 8-7-’08 condition, ICU, Capitol Medical Center, Q.C. - 'valvular heart disease, secondary to rheumatic heart disease; mitral regurgitation; and aortic stenosis' – by the Supreme Court Medical Clinic Doctors / Psychiatrists, per settled jurisprudence in A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460, “Ocad vs. Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.”), to determine his mental / physically incapacitaty to discharge the duties of his office (Sec. 11, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution) as CA Justice, due to Permanent Total Disability,
V. And, To File Criminal Cases with the Ombudsman-DOJ-Sandiganbayan for violations of Arts. 171, 208, 210, 212, 243, RPC, P.D. 1879, R.A. 3019, Article 20, UNCAC, and R.A. 1379 Forfeiture of Ill-gotten Wealth, against respondents.
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, S.C. A. J. Leonardo A. Quisumbing, and the Members, En Banc, Supreme Court, & Court Administrator Jose Perez - Supreme Court Mme. Justice Carolina Griño-Aquino, Chairperson,
59-D Tuason St., Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City, M.M.,
Mme. Justice Flerida Ruth P. Romero, Member,
11 Champaca St., Tahanan Village, Paranaque City, 1700, M.M., and
Mr. Justice Romeo Callejo, Jr., Member,
9 Ruego St., BF Homes, Commonwealth Ave., Quezon City, 1121, M.M.
Your Honors, I, the undersigned petitioner / complainant, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, by MYSELF and for MYSELF, as litigant / complainant / petitioner - in these cases, as concerned citizen, and taxpayer, inter alia, and, WITH LEAVE OF COURT, most respectfully depose and say, that: Prefatory TIMELINE – Judge Floro and Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes: The SAGA 2 Heart Attacks – J. Reyes is the richest CA Justice, with P 41 m net worth.
October 16, 1998 – At exactly 3:10 to 3:30 p.m., at Malabon City, I was bestowed the longest (in my life) 20 minutes FULL TRANCE (with my blood pressure dropping to almost 20 / 20, and I asked the taxi driver to bring me to St. Luke’s Hospital). I was able to reach Br. 73 (Judge Amanda V. Cabigao retired in 1995), and sat for an hour with Judge Bienvenido L. Reyes at his august chambers (I was asked by his stenographer Aina Talag’s mother at Br. 12, RTC Malolos, to meet Judge Reyes, on my application as Judge of Br. 73, RTC, Malabon. Judge Reyes, Engr. Antolin Oreta (3 hours) and his wife Senator Tesie A. Oreta (5 minutes) interviewed me. Atty. Rizza Oreta, daughter of Sen. and Engr.
Oreta said on phone, that I bilocated twice as a bald Atty. Floro who was persistent in following-up the JBC application files with her PMS office.
November 4 / 5, 1998 – I was appointed Judge of Br. 73, RTC, Malabon, on my birthday, as I applied on November 5, 1997, the youngest RTC Judge NCJR at the age of 45. • July 20, 1999 – Madame Justice Flerida Ruth P. Romero participated in the morning deliberation as her valedictory Resolution. I was suspended for 69 months for predicting the downfall of ERAP (who was also incarcerated for 68.8 months), by the successor-ponente, Justice Bernardo P. Pardo, neighbor of ERAP, at 44 Polk St. Greenhills. • August, 1999 – Judge Bienvenido L. Reyes, while I was physically healing
him (after I healed his mother-in-law) at his Philam Home, Q.C., of heart disease, told me that the suspension draft-Memorandum was manufactured
at the Malabon Canteen. Atty. Mary Jane Dacarra-Buenaventura, who finalized the audit report, witnessed the merciless heart attack-death of his father-in-law, Atty. Gerry Buenaventura, on 1-7, 2000. • July 22, 2000 – As I predicted on July 18, 1999, and announced to all staff of Br. 73, RTC, Malabon, FIRE burned the Halls of Justice, Canteen,
Fiscal’s Office, except my sala, which was and is well-preserved.
August 22, 2000 – After Justice Reyes was appointed, I begged of him to talk to Atty. Teresita Cruz-Sison, JBC Member, to have mercy upon me, so that my case would be decided. • December 13-15, 2000 – Justice Bernardo P. Pardo issued a S.C. Resolution directing me to undergo Psychiatric tests by the Supreme Court Medical Clinic, due to dwarf consultation. • 2002 – Since I could not be replaced by Senator Oreta’s candidate Fiscal Rosa Reyes, who was charged administratively charged by Judge Adoracion Angeles, RTC, Calookan City on 1998, Judge Rosa Reyes was
appointed Judge of Br. 74, RTC, Malabon as Judge Bienvenido Reyes’ successor. But the curse inflicted Lung cancer upon her and she died on March 9, 2007.
Judge Benjamin M. Antonio, Br. 17, RTC, Malabon, in front of my Br. 73 sala and Judge Rosa Reyes’ sala, suffered and resigned due to Permanent total disability exactly on January 15, 2007, when the Supreme
Court’s logo was halved as I predicted 3 times since 1998, 2000 and 2006.
The 4th mystic fire burned almost the entire 4th floor of the Philippine Court of Appeals on July 26, 2007 – during the birthday celebrations of Justice Reyes (July 6, 1947) and other CA Justices. • March 4, 2008 - the Philippine Court of Appeals's Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Justices Edgardo Sundian & Monina ArevalaZenarosa, dismissed my CA-G.R. Sp No. 00015, Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data (Philippines) lawsuit against Malolos RTC Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz (University of the Philippines College of Law, Class '62, classmate of Reynato Puno, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Alicia AustriaMartinez and Minita Chico-Nazario) – after Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes and Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, inhibited, burying the truth. • August 3, First Friday and August 6, 2008 – I filed these cases / pleadings, clearly predicting DIVINE JUSTICE versus “Ungodly reprisal.” [UP Class 62 Malolos Exec. Judge Petrita Braga Dime’s July, 2008 TIMELY DEMISE was mourned by the Judiciary – as predicted in writing and verbally to Br. 14, RTC, Malolos Stenographer on April 21, 2008] • August 7, 2008 - Justice Bienbenido L. Reyes was on leave after he suffered 2 seizures August 7, Thursday evening. He was brought to the intensive care unit of the Capitol Medical Center in Quezon City for 'valvular heart disease, secondary to rheumatic heart disease; mitral regurgitation; and aortic stenosis.'1 Reyes's attending physician, Dr. Francisco Lukban, however, declared him stable.
Valvular heart disease is any disease process involving one or more of the valves
of the heart (the aortic and mitral valves on the left and the pulmonary and tricuspid valves on the right). Valve problems may be congenital (inborn) or acquired (due to another cause later in life). Treatment may be with medication but often (depending on the severity) involves valve repair or replacement (insertion of an artificial heart valve). Specific situations include those where additional demands are made on the circulation, such as in pregnancy.
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2008/08/12/justice.sabio.tags.bro.in.meralco.row.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valvular_heart_disease http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aortic_valve_stenosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheumatic_heart_disease
Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is a valvular heart disease caused by the incomplete
opening of the aortic valve. The aortic valve controls the direction of blood flow from the left ventricle to the aorta. When in good working order, the aortic valve does not impede the flow of blood between these two spaces. Under some circumstances, the aortic valve becomes narrower than normal, impeding the flow of blood. This is known as aortic valve stenosis, or aortic stenosis, often abbreviated as AS.
Rheumatic fever is an autoimmune inflammatory disease which may develop after
a Group A streptococcal infection (such as strep throat or scarlet fever) and can involve the heart, joints, skin, and brain. It commonly appears in children ages 6 through 15. Mitral regurgitation (MR), a valvular heart disease also known as mitral insufficiency, is the abnormal leaking of blood through the mitral valve, from the left ventricle into the left atrium of the heart.
Profile – Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes: Judge Rosa C. Reyes, Comelec Com. Leonardo Leonida, and Judge Benjamin Antonio vis-a-vis Judge Floro Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes2 was born on July 6, 1947 in Obando, Bulacan to spouses Fidel Reyes and Timotea Lorenzo Reyes. He is married to Teresita Jacinta Reyes with whom he has two sons. He obtained his Ll.B Degree from San Beda College in 1971 and passed the Bar examinations in the same year with a rating of 81.6%. He worked as Vice-President for legal and Corporate Affairs of R.C. Silverio Group of Companies from 1975 to 1981. In 1982, he founded a Makati based law firm, Reyes Daway Lim Bernardo Lindo and Rosales. He acted as Chairman, Director, President and/or Corporate Secretary of various private corporations; the Board Secretary of National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation and Chairman of the Board of Celebrity Sports Plaza. He joined the judiciary sometime in July 1990 as Presiding Judge, Br, 74, RTC Malabon: beside Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Br. 73, RTC, Malabon. He was appointed Associate Justice to the Court of Appeals on August 8, 2000. He was succeeded on 2002, by Br. 74, RTC, Malabon Judge Rosa C. Reyes, a former Fiscal. Because of Judge Floro’s curse, Malabon Halls of Justice was burned except Judge Floro’s sala on July 22, 2000. Judge Rosa Reyes was inflicted with lung cancer on 2004, and died on March 9, 2007, just 2 months after the front Judge (fronting the sala of Floro and Rosa Reyes), Judge Benjamin M. Antonio, Br. 170, RTC, Malabon suffered Permanent Total Disability forced retirement on January 15-16, 2007, the exact time and date that the Supreme Court’s logo was halved by Fire. Comelec Com. Leonardo Leonida, former Acting Judge of Br. 74, RTC, Malabon, succeeded Judge Rosa C. Reyes, and was promoted to the Comelec.
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE BIENVENIDO L. REYES 4
Assets and Liabilities of Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes3 (as of 2002) Total Assets (in pesos): 41,550,000.00; Total Liabilities (in pesos): 533,000.00; Net Worth (in pesos): 41,017,000.00 – Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes is the richest CA Justice Real Properties
Type Residential lot Unclassified land Residential lot Residential lot Unclassified land Unclassified land Residential land Agricultural property fishpond Agricultural land - rice land Address Year Acquired Philam Homes, 1980 Quezon City Vista Grande 1979 Obando Valle Verde Valenzuela, Metro Manila Obando Obando not given 1991 1991 1996 1996 1999 2000 Mode of Acquisition purchased purchased purchased purchased purchased purchased purchased purchased Assessed Fair Market Acquisition Value Value Cost 2,000,000.00 18,000,000.00 2,500,000.00 500,000.00 50,000.00 4,000,000.00 2,700,000.00 2,000,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 10,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 5,000,000.00 11,000,000.00 11,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,500,000.00 200,000.00 450,000.00 2,500,000.00 7,600,000.00 8,000,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00
Type Various motor vehicles - unspecified cars Jewelry and appliances Books, furniture and fixtures Investments in family businesses Bonds and shares of stock Interest in other business Year Acquired 1988-present 1973-present 1973-present 1973-present 1973-present 1973-present Acquisition Cost 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 2,200,000.00 10,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00
Nature Loans - Manila Teacher’s Loans and Savings Amount 533,000.00
Personal Information REYES, Bienvenido L. Date of Birth: July 6, 1947 Place of Birth: Obando, Bulacan ADDRESS - Metro Manila: #16 South Lawin Ave., Philam Homes, Quezon City Spouse: Teresita Jacinta B. Reyes Position: Staff assistant Office: Asian Development Bank
Educational Attainment COLLEGE
Degree Bachelor of Laws School San Beda College Year Graduated 1971
Position Associate justice Presiding judge Chairman of the board Board secretary and vice president Managing partner Various positions in different corporations Office Court of Appeals Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region Celebrity Sports Plaza Inc. National Home Mortgage Finance Corp. Reyes Daway Lim Bernardo Lindo and Rosales Law Offices Core Finance and Leasing Corp.; Triple One Management and Development Corp.; IntraStrata Assurance Corp.; Best Security Agency, Inc; Sterling Properties, Inc.; Intent Pacific Management Corp.; Dupels Inc.; Autorama, Inc.; Railwayana, Inc.: R.C. Silverio Group of Companies (Sterling Life Insurance Corp.; Filwriters Guaranty Assurance Corp.; Philippine Underwriters’ Finance Corp.; Silver Lines, Inc.; Philfinance Securities Corp.; Silvertrade, Inc.; and Celebrity Sports Plaza) Department of Public Information, Malacañang Albano Reyes and Sansano Law Offices Years up to present July 1990-? 1990-1996 1988-1990 1981-1990 1977-1990
Vice president for corporate and legal affairs
Media specialist Partner
Organization Philipppine Judges Association Integrated Bar of the Philippines Rotary Club Knights of Columbus Lex Talionis Fraternitas-San Beda College of Law Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club Celebrity Sports Plaza Inc. Position Member Member Member Member Member Member Member
Justice Reyes has a big Lending Company at Obando, Bulacan. He had used his Br. 74, RTC, Malabon Sheriff, as staff-appraiser. Respondents' "Big CA 8" Assets: Acquiring ill-gotten wealth is a criminal act4 - Republic Act No. 1379: “Act Declaring Forfeiture of Ill-Gotten Wealth of Public Officers and Employees” - Illicit Enrichment, UNCAC "The soundness of this reasoning becomes even more obvious when we consider that the respondent in such forfeiture proceedings is a public officer or employee and the violation of RA (Republic Act) 1379 was committed during the respondent officer's incumbency, this is in line with the purpose behind the creation of the Sandiganbayan
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/man/2006/01/28/news/sc.okays.confiscation.of.ill.gotten.wealth.of .retired.general.html Saturday, January 28, 2006 - SC okays confiscation of ill-gotten wealth of retired general http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=127465
as an anti-graft court - to address the urgent problem of dishonesty in public service.” Republic Act No. 1379 authorizes the State to seek the forfeiture of illgotten wealth, with forfeiture as the only penalty, against all respondents. The law criminalized the mere acquisition of all their ill-gotten wealth, with dire imprisonment and disbarment, plus perpetual disqualification from office, to prevent the predators-respondents from continuing their evils. In this connection, the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), which was ratified by the Philippine Senate on 06 November 2006, provides: “Article 20 -Illicit Enrichment - Subject to its constitution and the fundamental principles of its legal system, each State Party shall consider adopting such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offense, when committed intentionally, illicit enrichment, that is, a significant increase in the assets of a public official that he or she cannot reasonably explain in relation to his or her lawful income.” Clearly, because of said Senate ratification, an amendment of Republic Act No. 1379 to implement Article 20 of the UNCAC is necessary. Conviction under this proposed amendment will be infinitely easier than the Anti-Plunder Law and Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act because of the prima facie presumption that the property was unlawfully acquired if it was acquired by a public officer or employee during his incumbency in an amount which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property. Thus, the prosecution needs only to prove that the property was acquired during the incumbency of the public official and that the value of the said property is manifestly more than the lawful income of the said public official. Unlike in plunder, there is no need to prove the criminal acts committed and the link to the amassed ill-gotten wealth. Speedy recourse It may be argued that said presumption will be violative of the accused’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, no serious challenge can be made as the Supreme Court itself upheld the validity of such presumption in the case of Ong vs. Sandiganbayan, 470 SCRA 7 (2005), wherein the court stated that “under the principle of presumption of evidence, it is merely required of the State to establish a prima facie case, after which the burden of proof shifts to the accused.” Otherwise stated, the accused is not immediately presumed guilty, the State still has to prove the elements of the crime after which the burden of
evidence shifts to the accused. If so amended, criminalizing unexplained wealth can be a potent and speedier recourse against erring public officials, not to mention the consequent deterrence from underreporting of true income. Madame Justice Flerida Ruth P. Romero5, The Peace of Christ. On the 4th Sunday of August, 1999, and in 2 September, 1999 - Sundays, when, for more than 3 hours, I physically healed the body of Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at his home, in Capitol Estates, near the St. Peter the Apostle Church, and also, at the front of his doors / gate, right in the street, as I bade him goodbye, on the 3rd Sunday spiritual healing (of his shoulders due to the 1996 Supreme Court stairs accident I predicted before JBC Member, Justice Campos, on September 17, 1995), and just weeks after I suffered on July 20, 1999, the longest preventive suspension in world history, this Honorable Lay Minister of the Church, Bro. Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. confided to me that: Madame Justice Flerida Ruth-Romero signed En Banc, my CURSED 3 pages July 20, 1999 preventive suspension, and in my darkest hours, under my Judge's oath, and with God as my witness to this truth, I swear, that, Justice Hermosisima, Jr. said: "The problem with her (Justice F. Ruth Romero) ... is ... she was never a trial Judge ... she sits and just receives Memoranda ... we Judges bring to our houses … the transcripts and the expediente ... I had been arguing with her ... on the ... of Judges ..." With these words, I respectfully submit my religious challenge to you, Madame Justice Romero, thusly: Hear the voice of God, recommend the dismissal of Justice Reyes, Justice Bruselas, and all respondents ... as Filipino jobless Judge in pretend world and Martyr of Filipino Justice, I hereby JUDGE that all respondents, with Justices Reyes and Bruselas, are the most guilty. Ergo, leave us a legacy, lest the TRUTH will be again entombed, as it was, when on April 7, 2006, I became world-famous, infamous and IMMORTAL in world history because of your 3 pages July 20, 1999 En Banc Resolution of Suspension … duly affirmed by the
cursed 76-pages Decision … listen to the voice of God ... please do your moral and religious duty, no matter what … I repeat, please recommend the SUPREME PENALTY of DISBARMENT and DISMISAL from SERVICE, upon Justices Reyes, Bruselas and all respondents … I accused all of them, under my Judge's oath … this is the only way, that you can make reparation and indemnity … for the first burial of TRUTH … in God's mighty name … do lessen my jobless judge sufferings ... this
is my Faith, and I will unceasingly pray Psalms 109 & 73, until your last breath ..." – VTY, The Philippine Angel of Death, Judge Floro.
Associate Justice Flerida Ruth P. Romero - Tenure: October 21, 1991 - August 01, 1999 Birthdate: August 01, 1929 Place of Birth: Tondo Manila; Children: Alvin Jules and Charlton Jules Name of Spouse :Atty. Orlando D. Romero
INTERSPERSED NEXT PAGES are 2 pages of Judge Floro’s pleadings filed with the Court before he became IMMORTAL in history, on April 7, 2006, and page 75, of the CURSED (Psalms 109 & 73) Dwarf Decision. TIMELINE – Judge Floro and Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas: The SAGA
I first met Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. (PJA Executive Vice President) during the November, 2005, first Board Meeting of the PJA at the 22nd Floor, Penthouse, Makati City Hall. There, I was allowed to have delivered my very short speech-plea that my case be resolved by the Court, as I furnished all the 15 PJA Officers and 14 Directors, my voluminous pleadings, asking mercy from many lawyers, groups and the Supreme Court. But no one listened to me, as Justice Bruselas said he failed to convince any PJA officer to help me. So, on February 23, 2004, 1:30 p.m. Kamayan, EDSA, the 2nd PJA Board / Officerss Meeting, I failed to present my case, since no officer would place my pleadings on the agenda. I was unfairly treated like a dog, since PJA President Justice Romeo Fantone Barza, said: “Hindi naming pinapatulan yan!” Justice Bruselas texted me (when I have a cell phone at that time: “On behalf of the PJA, I apologize …” (inactive cell phone of Justice Bruselas – 09167460689). I filed the disbarment case against Justice Barza but withdrew it before April 7, 2006 to pave the way for the Decision on my 7 years case. Then, after Justice Bruselas was appointed CA Justice, I again asked for mercy, just a job, work and trabajo; and he asked me to meet Justice Lucas Bersamin. I met the very kind Justice, and begged for mercy; I begged for work, job and trabajo. I was bestowed a gift to be inside his august chambers 3 times. It was on the last day to file a third appeal and Disbarment case against C.J. Davide, et al., the day after the night, I was turned down by my own lawyer Rene A. V. Saguisag; I finally met Justice Bruselas (20 minutes, in ground floor of the Court of Appeals) and Justice Lucas Bersamin (just 10 seconds). I was denied. Justice Bruselas told me that I have no hope to find a job in private sector since I am very old at age 54 and in the government, many would block my applications since I am hated by many Justices and lawyers. I therefore proceeded to file my disbarment case against C. J. Davide, Jr., the next day, and after Marissa, Atty. Bibing Timbangkaya, and Atty. Tolentino in trio stated that Justice Minita Viray Chico-Nazario denied my final plea for work, job and trabajo / personal audience. March 4, 2008 - the Philippine Court of Appeals's Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Justices Edgardo Sundian & Monina ArevalaZenarosa, dismissed my CA-G.R. Sp No. 00015, Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data (Philippines) lawsuit against Malolos RTC Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz (University of the Philippines College of Law, Class '62,
classmate of Reynato Puno, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Alicia AustriaMartinez and Minita Chico-Nazario) – after Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes and Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, inhibited, burying the truth. At stake in the Contest: Gigantic Prize - Supreme Court Golden Throne Appointment by PGMA – 7 PGMA (+ 2) = 9 Vacancies (2009-2011) 1. Ruben T. Reyes - January 3, 1939 - January 2, 2009 2. Adolfo S. Azcuna - February 16, 1939 - February 15, 2009 3. Dante O. Tinga - May 11, 1939 May 10, 2009
4. Consuelo Ynares-Santiago - October 5, 1939 - October 4, 2009 5. Leonardo A. Quisumbing - November 6, 1939 - November 5, 2009 6. Minita Chico-Nazario - December 5, 1939 - December 4, 2009 7. Reynato S. Puno - May 17, 1940 - May 16, 2010 8. Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez - December 19, 1940 - December 18, 2010 9. Conchita Carpio-Morales - June 19, 1941 - June 18, 2011 Battle field: S.C. Certiorari case GSIS vs. SEC, Meralco, August 13, 2008 Contenders: 15 Names Dates of Birth Dates of Retirement May 12, 2009 Dec. 20, 2009 Jan. 6, 2010 May 25, 1941 April 14, 2016 July 6, 2017 Dec. 8, 2019 May 6, 2026 May 25, 2023 March 27, 2022 June 8, 2013 June 20, 2011
Hon. Edgardo Policarpio Cruz May 12, 1939 Hon. MYRNA DIMARANAN-VIDAL Dec. 20, 1939 Hon. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. Jan. 6, 1940 Hon. JOSE L. SABIO, JR. May 25, 1941 Hon. Martin Santos Villarama, Jr. April 14, 1946 *** Hon. BIENVENIDO L. REYES July 6, 1947 Hon. VICENTE Q. ROXAS Dec. 8, 1949 Hon. APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR. May 6, 1956 *** Hon. Gregory S. Ong, Hon. Agnes VST Devanadera *Hon. Diosdado M. Peralta *Hon. Francisco Villacruz, Jr. Hon. Edilberto G. Sandoval, P.J. May 25, 1953 March 27, 1952 June 8, 1943 June 20, 1941
Hon. Portia Alino-Hormachuelos July 23, 1941 July 23, 2011 Hon. Ernesto D. Acosta, P. J. Dec. 21, 1942 Dec. 21, 2012 *Decided Erap Plunder Case Profile – Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. vis-a-vis his Holy Angels – ‘Spirit Guides” called “Gabay” – LUIS, Armand & Angel *In his youth, Floro was an accomplished student, graduating with full honors in elementary, high school and college levels. He graduated: elementary (1965) from St. Mary's College of Meycauayan (6th Honors); high school (1970) from St. Vincent's Seminary, Karuhatan, Valenzuela City; he finished 2 semesters (1971) of Bachelor of Arts at the Vincentian Hills Seminary at Angono, Rizal and Adamson University (under the Vincentian Family / Congregation of the Mission priests, 3rd Honors); threat, upon the hills, in 1971, Floro predicted that he would someday be made world famous and immortal in world history; and college (1974) , Bachelor of Arts, pre-divinity and philosophy, from the Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Schools (admitted as Pre-novice / candidate for priesthood by the Society of Jesus, with Second Honors). Parenthetically, he was the sole Bulacan province student who was admitted by the Ateneo de Manila in 1972; Floro was the only Bulakeno who graduated from the Ateneo in 1974. More importantly, Floro excelled by topping the Fr. Parissi, S.J., 2 days mental tests (only 5 of 400 candidates were admitted in 1972 to the Jesuit Pre-Novitiate). Unbroken (by 10 Valedictorians) Ateneo 1975-1985 record of 91% in criminal law review, Full Second Honors, Ateneo, QPI 85.11%, 12th place, 1983 Philippine Bar Examination, with a very high bar rating of 87.55% (hardest examination in Philippine history) * He earned 18 MBA units in 1975 at the Ateneo Graduate School of Business. He earned the degree of Bachelor of Laws (1982) at the Ateneo Law School, with full second honors. He made the 10 years unbroken (by 10 Ateneo valedictorians) record of 91% in criminal law review under Dean Antonio L. Gregorio. He placed 12th in the 1983 Philippine Bar Examination, with a very high bar rating of 87.55% in one of the hardest examination in Philippine history (only 21.3% passed; 65% of both Ateneo and University of the Philippines College of Law students failed because of the taxation bar subject). Floro, from 1972-1974, and 1980, sat beside his classmates - Romeo Intengan (Philippine Jesuit, former Provincial, and surgeon by training, jailed during the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos for his views against the dictatorship - List of Jesuits) and Cesar L. Villanueva (Dean, Ateneo College of Law), respectively. * Floro also graduated (1975) basic and intermediate Equestrianism at
the Philippines D'Rossa School of Horsemanship, at Makati City, but failed in his dream to become a horse race jockey. From 1975 to 1983, he regularly rode his own American Quarter Horse "Wimps Pansy" along Meycauayan to Marilao, Bulacan.
*On 2004, Floro intervened by Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus Court petitions in 3 landmark cases before the High Tribunal. In a 22-page
certiorari petition, Floro ("Judge asks SC to let Nazario take oath and fill SC vacancy") on March 12, 2004 asked the Court to enthrone Minita ChicoNazario whose appointment was recalled. *Jaime Licauco's 1999 "A Practical Guide to Philippine Healers" included Floro and his picture, healing 15 patients at Licauco's Makati office on October 10, 1999. Licauco testified in the Supreme Court OCAD that Floro is the sole healing judge worldwide with authentic gifts of healing. Licauco underwent angioplasty on February 8, 2007, as Floro predicted. Headline maker *Headline maker - Philippine Daily Inquirer, on August 3, 2008, conferred upon Floro, this humbling humour-alias, which truly inspired his
mystic hands to heal the nation's wounds of sin and anger. The 3 of 5 mystic fires glowed and purified the 4 corners of the sacred department, called "judiciary."
*Kontrobersyal (or "Controversial," a news journal hosted by Boy Abunda on ABS-CBN in the Philippines from 2003 to 2006) signed-off after Floro sat and chat with the bald celebrity, on June, 2006. The program's 2006 anniversary special, devoted 2 full segments to Floro (unprecedented in the history of the documentary). *BBC (UK, Indonesia and Portugal) Front Pages reported it on August 18, 2006, as 2nd most read and emailed news worldwide: "Filipino 'dwarf' judge loses case," and quoted Floro's immortal lines: "From obscurity, my name and the three mystic dwarves became immortal - Florentino Floro." *2006 "Judge of the Year" *On December 5, 2006 Floro was awarded "Judge of the Year" by The Times - "A chilli-hot year for whiny garbage, by UK former Deputy High Court Judge David Pannick, QC, who presided over the memorable legal appearances of 2006" Pannick, Queen's Counsel, silk Barristers in England and Wales, first wrote on Floro's dwarfs in UK The Times Online: "I used to be a judge but I'm all right now . . . " (June 06, 2006) The Times also published Floro's appeal in World in Brief, "Law unto himself." Floro defeated - Manhattan Supreme Court, Justice Jane Solomon, who told Liza Minnelli and her former husband David Gest to stop their “whiny garbage” of litigation; William A. Carter, of the Albany City Court in New York; Washington State, Superior Court Judge Beverly G. Grant; and Judge Donald D. Thompson, the penis pump judge in Creek County Court. *"Jobless judge in pretend world" - Floro was conferred this title by The Sunday Times (South Africa) *Floro accurately predicted not only "Erap will finish his term" (on Good Friday, 1998 at Leyte, Samar San Juanico Bridge, with the written prophecy displayed on his Malabon sala on December 20, 1998), but also Erap's mathematical release from detention equalling Floro's suspension: In the 76
pages judgment, Floro was indicted of displaying on December 20, 2008, in his Court sala, the picture of Erap with typewritten and signed note predicting his election and downfall. Just as foretold, Erap was ousted in EDSA Revolution of 2001 and, as predicted by dwarf prophet (by his Veterans memorial hospital visit on 2002), Erap was released from Tanay detention after almost 7 years (69 months), in the same manner that Floro suffered 68.9 months of indefinite preventive suspension, from July 20, 1999 to April 7, 2006, the natal day of spirit guide, Angel: on October 26, 2007 Joseph Estrada was finally released by the Sandiganbayan. * The New York Times - World Briefing | Asia: The Philippines front paged Floro's appeal: "Judge Seeks Reinstatement." The Asian Reporter (newspaper), (V16, #16 (April 18, 2006), p. 2.) said: "Psychic judge didn’t foresee getting fired." The Register on May 5, 2006 wrote: "Filipino judge sacked for consulting trio of mystic dwarves - Ruled incompetent." Ripley's Believe It or Not! portrayed him, to wit: "Hello judge..." Florentino Floro, a Philippines judge, was relieved of duty in April 2006 after claiming to have seen the future and to be able to communicate with magic dwarves!" Newsvine - , David Rutt's "Filipino 'dwarf' judge loses case." Drudge Retort (Rogers Cadenhead) - "Judge Consults Mystic Dwarves." *Chuck Shepherd'sNews of the Weird's (.972), WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2006 (Vol. 6, No. 38, September 21, 2006) LEAD STORYheadlined Floro and the dwarves in "Judges Gone Wild!" News of the Weird is a syndicated (by Universal Press Syndicate) newspaper column
edited by Chuck Shepherd, is published in more than 250 newspapers in the United States and Canada. WikiPilipinas named Florentino Floro - youngest RTC NCJR Judge of the Philippines at the age of 45 - listed him in Youngest Filipino Achievers
LUIS, Armand & Angel “LUIS, Armand and Angel's” profile-resume-biodata was succinctly uploaded by: * The American Bar Association Journal, the ABA's flagship magazine - "Fired Judge Blames Elf for Court Mishaps." ScienceBlogs - "The Right to Trial...By Elves." and "Are imaginary friends a prima facie disqualification for a judge?" National Review, The Corner - “The Elf Hex [Jonah Goldberg] *California District Court Justice William W. Bedsworth “Today I found out the mystic dwarf thing is grounds for removal of a judge in the Philippines. Wow. I'm too old to use the word "awesome," xxx that's Krakatoa. My hat's off to former-Judge Florentino Floro and his ... uh ... staff. I love it because the guy is APPEALING! He's making this out to be a freedom of religion issue. He says, "They should not have dismissed me for what I believed." Certainly, I can sympathize with that position. Either way, they confiscated his robe and his ruby slippers and fined him $780. The
prospect of judges being removed because of their personal belief systems is anathema to all of us.”
* Web week 21/08/06 - "Flo's fight and the three dwarves" the bonkers antics of Filipino judge Florentino Floro Jr. (The Lawyer Group is a division of Centaur Media plc 2008 - TheLawyer.com was built by Sift Group Ltd.) * Court Jesters: The Lighter Side of Appellate Practice's Nancy A. Kopp, Wisconsin Supreme Court Commissioner - wrote for the State Bar of Wisconsin'sWisBar.Org / Nancy.Kopp@wicourts.gov She described:
"Angel, the neutral force; Armand, a benign influence; and Luis, the king of kings and avenger. In July 2007 the court issued an en banc resolution asking Floro to desist in his threats. Floro blames the avenger elf Luis for the incidents, saying Luis is intent on cleaning up the Philippines' corrupt legal system. Floro also said the three elves told him that the justices would suffer their wrath for dismissing Floro. Floro said he would follow the elves' advice and would start praying every Friday so that the curse on the justices would work. He explained: I will devote my entire life, Fridays, until my last breath, towards the fulfillment, execution, and coming to pass of this curse. With absolute faith in Luis, Armand and Angel – Angels of God, I will fulfill my destiny: spell and karma upon them, all their loved ones, up to the 4th generation.”
* On August 19, 2006, Legal Reader's "Filipino Judge Claiming To Have Psychic Powers Sacked" - Legal Reader is "a daily dose of links to interesting legal news and Other Fancy Stuff, live from San Francisco." * On April 2, 2008, Judge Floro received the Supreme Court Resolution in A.C. No. 7663, which dismissed his disbarment administrative case against Senator Miriam Santiago. On April 14, 2008, Miriam Defensor-Santiago was injured when she slipped and bumped her head during the birthday party of her husband, Narciso, in Mandaluyong City. She underwent surgery requiring 3 stitches on her head. * On August 8, 2008, Floro received the Court Resolution dated June 10, 2008 which NOTED his Motion for Entry of the Denial Judgment on his Disbarment case No. 7663 against Miriam Defensor Santiago. On August 28, 2008, Adelina Palma-Bermejo, sister of Miriam Defensor Santiago's mother, Dimpna Palma was stabbed dead inside her Kahirup, Jaro, Iloilo City house. *This dire fate impeccably came to pass 40 hours after the appalling fire - ill-fated Philippine C-130 was allegedly struck by lightning on August 26, 2008 in the heat of the "Kadayawan 2008 Float Parade" Davao City Fiesta, and plummeted 2.5 nautical miles southwest of Samal island, Davao City gulf. Judge Floro had prayed Psalm 109 and Psalm 73 for Ateneo de Davao to cleanse Davao City, due to immense pollution by blue crab-crab mentality. Judge Floro was persecuted by Ateneo de Davao, Filipino blogger Dominique Gerald Cimafranca.
The Odds – Dark Horse – Long Shot - 2nd Attempt to change CA History Only 2 CA Justices dismissed, since 1936 The Supreme Court of the Philippines on March 21, 2008, upon recommendation of the investigator, Bernardo P. Pardo, dismissed Philippine Court of Appeals Justice Elvi John Asuncion for gross ignorance of the law and delaying motions of considerations. Asuncion was charged of receiving money placed in “2 gym bags delivered to his office.” The Supreme Court, however, found no substantial evidence of bribery, but it dismissed him for
gross ignorance of the law for his issuance of an October 30, 2001, resolution in the case between Philippine National Bank, the National Labor Relations Commission and Erlinda Archinas. He was only the 2nd Court of Appeals jurist to be dismissed,
since the first firing in Philippine judicial history of CA Justice Demetrio G. Demetria, for interceding in theDOJ drug case of Yu Yuk Lai. After the “4 Aces” CA corruption case died its legal death, the CA became the center of controversy after Chief Justice Reynato Puno ordered an investigation of the so-called "Dirty Dozen," particularly on the alleged “sale” of "Temporary Restraining Orders" (Injunction, Restraining order abuse). On August 18, 2007, Atty. Briccio Joseph Boholst, president of IBP — Cebu City Chapter, opposed the abolition of the CA in Cebu City, for it will cause inconvenience for both litigants and lawyers. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruben Reyes was tasked to investigate and submit recommendation to the High Tribunal because of the alleged massive graft and corruption of justices, especially in the issuance of temporary restraining orders (TRO’s). On April 03, 2007, Philippine Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Ruben Reyes (now S.C. Justice) ordered an investigation and a regular auditing and inventory of temporary restraining orders (TROs) issued by the 69 CA Justices. Reyes stated: “I will order a monthly or quarterly inventory of TROs, for transparency and to watch the movements of the so-called Dirty Dozen [the 12 most corrupt CA justices].” Reynato Puno said that Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez had not yet submitted the list and the Supreme Court was waiting for its delivery amid her formal investigation against the “Dirty Dozen.” On November 20, 2007, the Court of Appeals (Philippines) dismissed Judge Floro's disbarment case against the Court of Appeals’ Dirty Dozen and Justice Romeo Barza. Scientific-Mathematical Basis - Judicial corruption – SWS Survey On January 25, 2005, and on December 10, 2006, Philippines Social Weather Stations released the results of its 2 surveys on corruption in the judiciary; it published that: a) like 1995, 1/4 of lawyers said many/very many judges are corrupt. But (49%) stated that a judges received bribes, just 8% of lawyers admitted they reported the bribery, because they could not prove it. [Tables 8-9]; judges, however, said, just 7% call many/very many judges as corrupt[Tables 10-11];b) Judges see some corruption; proportions who said many/very many corrupt judges or justices: 17% in reference to RTC judges,
14% to MTC judges, 12% to Court of Appeals justices, 4% i to Shari'a Court judges, 4% to Sandiganbayan justices and 2% in reference to Supreme Court justices [Table 15]. The 1st Friday 8-1-‘08 *** 8-8-‘08 pleadings sparked the Violet & White Lights “Lux in Domino” upon the Darkest Nights of the Court of Appeals Salonga: CA corruption exposé good for reforms6 Preventive suspension – Philippine Daily Inquirer On Friday, a former Malabon City Judge asked the Supreme Court to order the preventive suspension of all appellate court justices involved in the Meralco vs GSIS case. In a “verified complaint-letter affidavit,” RTC Judge Florentino Floro Jr. said these justices should be investigated for gross misconduct, gross
ignorance of the law, manifest undue interest and violations of the Codes of Judicial Conduct and of Professional Responsibility, among others. Floro said the high court should once and for all “cleanse the entire Court of Appeals.” “The undersigned, in his conscience, knocks at the doors of this court, because of the shocking events which rocked the very foundations of our entire judicial system: CA justices accusing each other, not in courts, but in the media. This is too much. This is the darkest hour of the CA since its creation,” he said.
Floro named as respondents in the case Sabio and Associate Justices Bienvenido Reyes, Apolinario Bruselas, Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal and Vicente Roxas, as well as CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. He said the high court should appoint one of its retired associate justices as an independent investigator and a special prosecutor to look into the matter. Headline maker Floro himself made headlines when he was ordered dismissed from the
judiciary in 2006 by the Supreme Court. The high court declared him mentally unfit after he admitted to having “psychic visions,” having dwarfs as friends and being an “angel of death” who could inflict pain on people, especially those he perceived to be corrupt. Undeterred, Floro filed cases against judiciary officials he claimed to have violated the law. In April 2007, he filed administrative charges against what he called the CA’s “Dirty Dozen,” whom he accused of corruption. He said those found guilty should be dismissed from government service and disbarred.
Freedom of Religion and Religious Beliefs “The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. In the words of Jefferson, the clause
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080803-152292/Salonga-CAcorruption-expos-good-for-reforms By Norman Bordadora Philippine Daily Inquirer 00:41:00 08/03/2008 16
against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State." 330 U.S. 1, 15-16. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) Hugo Black Introduction: Jurisprudence on Circumstantial Evidence In law, especially criminal law, a motive is the cause that moves people to induce a certain action. Motive in itself is seldom an element of any given crime; however, the legal system typically allows motive to be proven in order to make plausible the accused's reasons for committing a crime, at least when those motives may be obscure or hard to identify with. The law technically distinguishes between motive and intent. "Intent" in criminal law is synonymous with mens rea, which means no more than the specific mental purpose to perform a deed that is forbidden by a criminal statute, or the reckless disregard of whether the law will be violated. "Motive" describes instead the reasons in the accused's background and station in life that are supposed to have induced the crime. In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime needed to convince a jury of guilt in a criminal proceeding. Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant had to commit the crime (motive), and whether or not the defendant had the opportunity to commit the crime (opportunity). Ironically, motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction. Intent in law is the planning and desire to perform a criminal act, to fail to do so (i.e. an omission) or to achieve a state of affairs. In criminal law, for a given actus reus ("guilty act"), the required element to prove intent consists of showing mens rea (mental state, "guilty mind"). Crime is the breach of a rule or law for which a punishment may ultimately be prescribed by some governing authority or force. The word crime originates from the Latin crimen (genitive criminis), from the Latin root cernō and Greek κρινω = "I judge". Originally it meant "charge (in law), guilt, accusation." In the criminal law, an omission, or failure to act, will constitute an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") and give rise to liability only when the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty. Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, England, Scotland and the United States. In the United States, some crimes also require proof of an attendant circumstance.
An element of a crime (collectively called elements of crime) is a basic set of common law principles regarding criminal liability that, with few exceptions, constitute the essential elements to prove that the defendant committed a crime under United States law. The jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed each element of the particular crime charged before deciding on a guilty verdict. The component parts that make up any particular crime vary depending on the crime. [http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/7176EFA5-C9B2-4B56BE3142F68D09B095] In criminal law, mens rea -- the Latin term for "guilty mind" -- is usually one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means that "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). The exception is strict liability crimes (in the civil law, it is not usually necessary to prove a subjective mental element to establish liability, say for breach of contract or a tort, although if intentionally committed, this may increase the measure of damages payable to compensate the plaintiff). Circumstantial evidence is a collection and proof of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer the existence of the particular fact in dispute as a necessary or probable consequence or a conclusion about something unknown.[State vs, Avery, 113, Mo. 475, 494, 21 S.W. 193; Reynolds Trial Ev., sec. 4, p. 108]. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. Corroboration is normally supplied by one or more expert witnesses. Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.[Chamber's Dictionary, ninth edition]. Pedagogy (IPA: /ˈpɛdəgɒdʒi/), or paedagogy is the art or science of being a teacher. The term generally refers to strategies of instruction, or a style of instruction. Pedagogy is also sometimes referred to as the correct use of teaching strategies (see instructional theory). Rhetoric is the art of speaking or writing effectively: as the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times, and the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion. In Greece, rhetoric originated in a school of pre-Socratic philosophers known as Sophists c.600 BC. It was later taught, in the Roman Empire, and during the Middle Ages, as one of the three original liberal arts or trivium (along with logic and grammar). Circumstantial evidence - evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is
circumstantial evidence"), but the probable conclusion from the circumstances
may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case.
Philippine Jurisprudence A key element in the web of circumstantial evidence is motive. (People vs. Villaran, 269 SCRA 630). Where the evidence is weak it becomes essential that motive be disclosed by the evidence; otherwise, the guilt of the accused becomes open to reasonable doubt and, therefore, the accused must be acquitted. (People vs. Soberrano, 281 SCRA 438). Motive becomes material only when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive, and there is some doubt on whether a crime has been committed or whether the accused committed it. (People vs. Astorga, 283 SCRA 420). Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence would be sufficient to convict if (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. As jurisprudentially formulated, a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person, i.e., the circumstances proven must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilty.
[111399:http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/syllabus/sept/111399_syl.htm] People v. Santos, 333 SCRA 319, 336 ; G.R. No. 137599. October 8, 2001, PEOPLE vs. BAULITE, J. Pardo.
Locus Standi Complainant-petitioner, is a Filipino Citizen, a taxpayer, and a registered voter of 123 Dahlia, Alido, Malolos, Bulacan, his home and postal address, where he may be served with court processes, orders and judgments. As a citizen, taxpayer and registered voter, undersigned has LOCUS STANDI or legal standing to file these cases, is an interested / real party-in-interest and has direct, special and extra-ordinary interest in the subject matters of these landmark cases (Intervention and disbarment, etc.). NATURE, SPECIAL PURPOSE AND TRANSCENDENTAL VALUE OF THE COMPLAINT-PETITION; GENERAL, SPECIAL AND DIRECT INTERESTS OF PETITIONER IN THESE CASES; IRREPARABLE INJURY TO THE NATION / COMPLAINANT The matter is a delicate one, quite obviously, and must thus be dealt
with utmost circumspection, to avoid any FURTHER question regarding the immense, rampant and unprecedented corruption in the Court of Appeals which had never been exposed, published and seen since 1901. The issues posed by the petition / complaint transcend the persons of complainant, necessary parties and respondents. These issues affect some of our most deeply held values in democracy --- the protection of civil and judicial rights, the tarnishing and perhaps total destruction of the judicial department/our temples of justice. The petition and complaint at bar concern all these values. It is the people on the line. It is we. RIGHT TO INFORMATION: As a citizen, taxpayer and registered voter, complainant-petitioner has a constitutional right to information on all matters of public concern, not the least of which are a) immense corruption perpetrated by conspiring respondents, and b) the names in the watch list of Justice Gutierrez’ Dirty Dozen duly published in the said papers. She and Jomar Canlas of The Manila Times cannot in the name of confidentiality (of the names given to them by John Doe informer) refuse nor delay the PUBLIC DISCLOSURE of their names in the list. THIS COURT OF LAST RESORT has the moral and legal DUTY under its traditional and historical name BULWARK OF DEMOCRACY, to order her and Canlas to submit the names in these cases, and forthwith. These Big 5 CA with their co-conspirators lawyers/daughters and the 12 dirty jurists must be tried and removed under the Constitutional mandate. Complainant hereby asks this 22nd PUNO Court to leave a LEGACY of TRUTH and PUNISHMENT of hoodlum-in-robes, MERCHANTS of injustice and evil. We demand nothing less. EARLY RESOLUTION DEMANDED BY PUBLIC GOOD: Until this petition/complaint is finally resolved, the entire legal profession, the judiciary and the litigants, inter alia, remain in the dark. Gifts of Prophecy, Healing and Annihilation Judge Floro is the only Philippine Judge-Laywer, who first submitted A4 photopaper colored pleadings, based on religious beliefs, protected by the 1987 Constitution with inserted Cryptology messages of dire prophecies upon specific
magistrates, jurists, court personnel and top government officers, inter alia.
Divine Justice versus “Ungodly Reprisal” Judge Floro never failed, since: even if all his Court pleadings since 1999 were dismissed-denied-thumbed-down by the 20th Davide, 21st Panganiban & the present 22nd Puno Court, Judge Floro always prevailed with his mathematically engineered inflicting of pains, deaths, accidents, fires, etc., upon
targets, with military precision akin the brilliance of the 3-man Panel investigators. 2008 Reconstituted Technical Working Group (Supreme Court headed by DCA Antonio Dujua): Rule of Law Effectiveness (project of the USAID)7 Before the bribery scandal in the Court of Appeals, Chief Justice Reynato Puno had embarked on a project to enhance the integrity of the judiciary. He has in fact been toying with the idea of establishing a judicial ombudsman and of institutionalizing a policy on whistle-blowing. With the turn of events, the entire judiciary and the whole nation may just be ready to cooperate with one another to rid the judicial system of its share of rotten eggs.
12 Reasons Why C. J. Puno’s worthy buy hated crusade will fail:
[Judge Floro’s Comment: This will not materialize, since C. J. Puno’s fight is not shared by most of the judicial rotten eggs. C. J. Puno will be ostracized by those who fear CA dismissal-S.C. Retired Justices’ Forfeiture of Ill-gotten wealth. Nobody dared to file Forfeiture proceedings under R.A. 1379-3019Article 20, UNCAC against retired CA and Supreme Court Justices.] A technical working group in the Supreme Court headed by Deputy Court Administrator Antonio Dujua, which previously worked on a program to strengthen the integrity of the judiciary, was recently reconstituted by the Supreme Court. This time, it was tasked to develop a policy on whistle-blowing in the judiciary. 2 questions confronted the team in its search for an effective system of whistle-blowing. a) Why do judges, court personnel and officials and lawyers not report corrupt practices of judges and justices, if indeed they exist? b) And what could encourage people to come forward and report wrongdoing by members of the judiciary? In a 2-day focus group discussion organized by the Supreme Court on August 28-29, 2008, sponsored by its development partner, the Rule of Law Effectiveness project of the USAID, these 2 questions were asked of judges, court officials and personnel, as well as lawyers and members of various nongovernmental organizations.
Whistle-blowing in the judiciary Monday, September 1, 2008 By Atty. Rita Linda V. Jimeno E-mail: email@example.com Web: www.jimenolaw.com.ph
The answers ranged from i) fear of reprisal to cultural underpinnings such as pakikisama, ii) utang na loob and interpersonal relationships. But the primary reason that always cropped up in the discussions was that iii) whistleblowing may not lead to anything. The risks far outweigh the gains, the participants said. iv) Judges, for instance, said that if they report on the misconduct and corrupt behavior of their fellow judges, they may be ostracized by fellow judges. And their whistle-blowing could be interpreted as something sinister, or v) “crab mentality” such as putting down another to get up ahead. Worse, all the risks they take may not amount to anything because vi) evidence is difficult to establish. A fellow judge who sports signature brands, who has Mercedes Benzes and BMWs and owns a multi-million-peso house may vii) conveniently claim he got them from a handsome inheritance, or that his or her spouse is a good business person. Court personnel took a stronger view. If they report on their superiors who are mostly judges or justices of appellate courts, there is a very high risk of viii) reprisal and retaliation. The superior could either fail them in their performance evaluation, or worse, make life agonizing for them in the workplace. In this society where persons in authority have power, what are their chances of winning, some court employees asked. Lawyers shared this view. They said that ix) judges had many ways of getting back at a whistle-blower. For one, he could lose in a particular case before a judge he complains against. For another, the lawyer puts at risk future cases before the same judge or x) the judge’s friends in the judiciary. Still, some said that lawyers do not report graft practices because xi) they are a part of it and benefit from the system. Others, who are reluctant to join the system, say that they are left with no choice. Hence, they junk their idealism for practical considerations. The core issue for most of the participants—judges and a lawyer alike— was that there was a seeming absence of a strong and effective system where whistle-blowers are given adequate protection and where there is certainty of investigation and prosecution. They said that there ought to be an independent investigating body, akin to the Ombudsman which will receive and evaluate complaints and conduct investigations. Even judges said that they want the system cleansed because the good ones get tainted by the rotten ones. Yet, they would prefer that an investigative body act on leads and conduct its own digging up of evidence rather than relying on the whistle-blower to establish all the evidence needed to prosecute the guilty. The accessibility and the probity of the body that will be authorized to investigate complaints are a must, it was agreed. The general consensus was that anonymity up to a certain extent in the investigation process and protection to the whistle blower must be ensured if a program for whistle-blowers were to succeed.
What came to the fore in the discussions was that corruption happens because of weak value systems. Our educational system need to be revisited so that our moral fiber as a nation may be genuinely strengthened. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Formal Demand of CA Justices’ Resignation-Ouster – Philippine Star, September 1, 20088 In a paid ad in The Philippine Star, on September 1, 2008, IBP officials’ statement signed by IBP national president Feliciano Bautista, executive vice-president Rogelio Vinluan, and 8 of its governors said appellate court magistrates should immediately and irrevocably submit their resignations out of delicadeza and to salvage the integrity of the Court of Appeals as an important national institution. The IBP said the Supreme Court's creation of a three-man independent panel to investigate the controversy is commendable but reactionary especially since influence-peddling in the courts has been described as nothing new and has been going on for a long time:
"The resignation is a necessary sacrifice that needs to be made by those whose names have been dragged into the scandal. CA justices directly involved in allegations of corruption have exposed a troubling divisiveness and a penchant for personal self-preservation that further erodes the image of what is considered the second highest court in the land. The need to address corruption in the judiciary goes beyond the issue of the ongoing investigations, but it needs to start and end where the controversy all started. The honorable magistrates of the Court of Appeals now have the opportunity to show the entire country that there are no sacred crows so to speak. This is their chance to convince the nation that indeed, corruption is a real and pressing problem and needs the collective effort of the Court to address and stamp out.
The journalism cycle is swift, but the cycle of corruption in the judiciary that the media have reported is recurrent and seemingly
unending. The exposé on improper influences on magistrates has been described as an anomaly that is not new and has been known to exist for a long time, but has only been talked about in whispers in the corridors of justice. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines joins the Filipino people in their fervent desire to fight corruption at the highest levels of our courts. Our call is as drastic as it is urgent.9”
[8-8-’08: Judge Floro ridicules the IBP, on religious grounds: The respondents
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=129846 'Justices in GSIS-Meralco row should resign'
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2008/09/02/ca.justices.in.bribery.row.asked.to.resign.html Tuesday, September 02, 2008 CA justices in bribery row asked to resign http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080902-158158/Resign-lawyers-urgeCA-justices-under-probe Resign, lawyers urge CA justices under probe By Margaux Ortiz Philippine Daily Inquirer 09/02/2008
“Big CA 8 are moral predators, hardened-cheap atheists, who do all have 666 on their foreheads. Satan rules on their 8 hearts. Only the Blessed Virgin Mary can crush the head of the Serpent, in Revelation, on each of their 8 chests.”] Philippine Judiciary Black Eye10 THE Appeals Court brouhaha involving the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) in a sorry saga of accusations and counter-accusations over alleged attempts to buy justice has now taken on a new, and sinister, turn in cyberspace where the world zooms in and laps up whatever is on offer. A video posted on the hugely popular viral network that is YouTube– which gives an intriguing new angle on the Appeals Court / GSIS / Meralco troika–is getting millions of hits. And, judging by the alleged content, with every hit the Philippine judiciary has got to be receiving an ugly black eye. Hello Garci-a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwPRApk7U3Q Just Tiis Justice Sabio http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj0xLgminUA&feature=related MAY LIWANAG ANG SUHOL.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0yMECxPuHc&feature=related Philippines Judiciary Scandal (8-1-2008) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPDel7SCOQs&feature=related The Judicial System in the Philippines parts 1 and 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOvR6M-7Zd0&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8uQWJEykQg&feature=related GARCIA VS. LOPEZ - UNFINISHED BUSINESS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60-RU44KiSI&feature=related
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/sep/01/yehey/opinion/20080901opi4.html Monday, September 01, 2008 OPEN NOTEBOOK By Random Jottings YouTube hits give Philippine judiciary black eye http://www.gmanews.tv/story/117460/IBP-to-CA-justices-in-bribery-scandal-Resign-out-ofdelicadeza IBP to CA justices in bribery scandal: Resign out of delicadeza 09/01/2008
[Note: “judge florentino floro – 23 TV documentary videos”
The gist of the videos is a claim that the voice heard on it is that of a top GSIS official, allegedly imploring his minions to “take advantage of the corrupt judiciary.” Needless to say, nobody at the GSIS hierarchy is willing to comment on the matter so as not to—as one GSIS spokesperson put it—“dignify” whatever the video is trying to imply. The Internet is, of course, the happy hunting ground, of drive-by character assassins. But the alarming fact is that once something like this is posted on YouTube—ostensibly allowing it to run
and run and putting it beyond the long reach of the law with regard to the criminally libelous content of the material—it does tend to take a damaging life of its own.
And that’s irrespective of whether or not, as in this case, the factual nature of the content is yet to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. But the pros and cons notwithstanding, we can only be grateful that the blindfold worn by Dame Justice has precluded her from checking out YouTube. Though just hearing about it will set her wobbling on her pedestal! Coalition for Consumers Protection and Welfare, Inc. and Crown Claimants Association Inc., Vic Del Fierro Jr. and Pepe Pagdanganan The Supreme Court has been asked by a consumer group to disbar justices of the Court of Appeals for allegedly allowing themselves to be used in a softdrink controversy.11 They are the same justices being investigated over another controversy involving bribery allegations. In its complaint, the Coalition for Consumers Protection and Welfare, Inc. and Crown Claimants Association Inc., through Vic Del Fierro Jr. and Pepe Pagdanganan, said Court of Appeals Justices Bienvenido Reyes, Apolinario Bruselas, Jose Sabio, Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, Vicente Roxas and Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez committed gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, manifested undue interest, violated the Codes of Judicial Conduct (Rule 2.04, Inter alia and Professional Responsibility, Disbarment). The complainants said they have not received justice on the 17-year-old case because their petitions have been subjected to hasty proceedings that violated their constitutional rights. Complainants have asked Chief Justice Reynato Puno to create an investigative body."Further, it is respectfully prayed that after filing of respondents comments, answers and after due notice, hearing, and report of the Commissioner, judgment be rendered declaring them guilty of all the charges
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/metro/view/20080901-158015/SC-asked-todisbar-CA-judges-over-softdrink-number-game-row SC asked to disbar CA judges over softdrink number game row By Tetch Torres INQUIRER.net 09/01/2008
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=129898 'Lawyers are also to blame for corruption in judiciary' by ARIES RUFO abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak
and that supreme penalty of disbarment be imposed upon them, ordering that
their names be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys," complainants told the high court.
*‘You are not children’ [Justice Callejo]12 * ‘You are predators, cheap athests, and the 666’ kids ’ [Judge Floro] Even the devil, we know, can quote scripture. It is therefore no surprise that lawyers like Jesus Santos can use noble-sounding purposes to justify patent illegality. Admitting that he had indeed called up Camilo Sabio, the chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government, to intervene on behalf of the Government Service Insurance System, Santos rationalized his transparent attempt to pressure Camilo’s brother, Court of Appeals Justice Jose Sabio, to rule in favor of GSIS as not only legal but public-spirited. “I thought it was my legal and moral duty to help the GSIS on my own,” Santos, a GSIS trustee, said. “You see, in this case of Meralco against GSIS, we are citizens of the country. We are consumers being victimized by Meralco. I explained to him that in order to serve justice and defend the interest of fellow consumers we must support the campaign of GSIS president Winston Garcia.” As columnist Amando Doronila has pointed out, this absurd justification “amounted to saying that the end justifies the means.” Of course, Santos did not call Camilo Sabio because they were famous friends. He called Camilo because Jose Sabio was the CA justice handling the GSIS-Meralco case. What we have here is a clear case of conspiracy to undermine the rule of law, disguised as a moral duty to help the cause of long-suffering electricity consumers. We say conspiracy, because Camilo said that it was Santos’ call that prompted him to call his brother (not once, but twice) to plead the case for GSIS. Camilo, himself a lawyer, was self-evidently trying to influence the outcome of the case outside the normal course. But his conscience, apparently, remained clear. “In this unique situation, I believe I was right and I stand by it,” he told the panel of ex-Supreme Court justices investigating the case. What his answer has in common with the naked rationalizations of Santos is the ugliness of degeneration: Both reflect a debasing, a corruption, of the highest standards of the practice of law. Unfortunately, even Jose Sabio did not meet those same high standards. While his decision was adverse to GSIS (in other words, while he did not give in to his brother’s illegal lawyering), Jose failed to report his brother’s repeated attempt to influence his decision-making. During the investigation, he told the SC panel he did not find the practice out of the ordinary; at the very least, he owed his older brother a respectful hearing, he said. His reply led to a memorable outburst from ex-SC justice Romeo Callejo: “Why did you not
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20080901-157925/You-are-notchildren Editorial ‘You are not children’ Philippine Daily Inquirer 09/01/2008
report your brother’s attempt to influence you? That was unethical. You did nothing; you are a professor of ethics. Did you not consider that your brother’s attempt was criminal?” Sabio’s answer in the negative proved that, as both Santos and his older brother Camilo had done, Jose had redefined what was ethical and what was legal. But Sabio was not the only CA justice revealed to have acted improperly. Justice Vicente Roxas, for example, said he issued his own decision without waiting for CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez to decide on the simmering dispute between Roxas and Sabio because he had panicked. But Callejo, a CA member before his appointment to the Supreme Court, would have none of that. “Why did you not wait for the decision of the Presiding Justice? You are not children,” he said. No, but many of those involved in the CA controversy share something in common with children: size. The investigation showed that many of them were moral pygmies, interpreting clear-cut provisions in the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, the lawyers’ Code of Professional Responsibility and other laws to fit the highly controversial circumstances of the moment. That is why we have Santos blithely explaining away his illegal intervention as public service, Camilo Sabio defending his patently criminal attempt to persuade his brother to vote one way as the moral thing to do, Jose Sabio prioritizing family relations over a judge’s highest responsibilities, Roxas insisting on not including other provisions in his crooked reading of the rules. The law has been dragged into the mud. No matter. To the morally challenged, dirty is the new clean. Position Statement of the Association of Law Students of the Philippines (ALSP)13 In light of the ongoing controversies involving Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Association of Law Students of the Philippines (ALSP), a federation of Law Student Governments all over the Philippines, the officiallyrecognized student counterpart of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and an active member of the Asian Law Students' Association (ALSA), issues this Statement to condemn and oppose all kinds of corruption, and to rally behind the truth. We express our special interest in this case at hand, as its repercussions reach far and wide; not only for us, Law students, but also for all Filipinos who continue to believe in the respectability of our Courts and the Justice System.
http://www.thenewstoday.info/2008/09/01/tainting.the.court.of.appeals.html Res Gestae - September 1, 2008 Iloilo City, Philippines Francisco B. Lindero Jr. Tainting the Court of Appeals - The columnist is a former Vice President of ALSP - Visayas Regional Board (SY 2006-2007) and was a member of the Philippine Delegation in ALSA Conference in Singapore in May 2006.
The Court of Appeals has been shaken by the revelations of one its own, Justice Jose Sabio, regarding the attempted bribery offer of TEN MILLION (Php 10,000,000.00) Philippine pesos in connection with the MERALCO vs. GSIS case. The issue of bribery should be resolved the soonest time possible, as such allegation tarnishes, to a great extent, the credibility of the Courts. We detest any form of bribery for said act is not only vile but also destructive. Such an act builds up cavities into the pillars of our Government and Society, leading to the decay of the culture and structures of our country. We detest any form of influence to any member of the Judiciary for such is inimical to the interest of justice and fairness in the resolution of cases. Influence-peddling attacks to the core the extreme independence and utmost uprightness of our country's Systems. We detest any attempt to seduce these "Men-in-Robe" to un-robe themselves by succumbing to the evils of corruption and bribery. The integrity of the Judiciary and the Law Profession should always be protected from these acts. We are for the independence of the Judiciary. The New Code of Judicial Conduct is no less emphatic about this for it provides that, Judicial Independence is a pre-requisite to the Rule of Law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. We laud the Supreme Court in creating a panel to investigate this controversy. We make special mention of the undeniably disinterested and unbiased conduct of the investigative proceedings by the members of the panel: Associate Justice Carolina Griño-Aquino, Justice Romeo Callejo, Jr., and Justice Flerida Ruth Romero. Their neutral stance shows that there is a solemn pursuit of the Truth and a serious devotion to uphold the honor of the Judiciary, even if it would mean having to police their equals. However, the Supreme Court should call for further investigation on the non-observance of some Court of Appeals Justices with respect to its prescribed Rules and Procedures and punish those parties who have shown "great interest" and tried to erode and taint the integrity and independence of the Judiciary in the said case. Let not the POWER, PRESTIGE and PRIVILEGE of the Judiciary and the Members composing the same be channeled towards oblivion, much less be left at the mercy of Corruption and Bribery. Let us continue the battle against, and the punishment of, the offenders of the Law and the swift administration of justice without corruption, greed, prejudice or avarice; as the motto of the Court of Appeals says it all: justitia per legem, justice through law.
The ACCUSATION / CHARGES With Legal Argument and Memorandum of Law / Authorities With due respect Undersigned complainant-petitioner charges / accuses all respondents, with grave violations of - - A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA - March 27, 2001 - IN RE: DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS CHARGING COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DEMETRIO DEMETRIA WITH INTERFERENCE ON BEHALF OF A SUSPECTED DRUG QUEEN: CA ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA: Rule 2.04, Code of Judicial Conduct 14 "Men and women of the courts must conduct themselves with honor, probity, fairness, prudence and discretion. Magistrates of justice must always be fair and impartial. They should avoid not only acts of impropriety, but all appearances of impropriety. Their influence in society must be consciously and conscientiously exercised with utmost prudence and discretion. For, theirs is the assigned role of preserving the independence, impartiality and integrity of the Judiciary. The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates a judge to refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency. The slightest form of interference cannot be countenanced. Once a judge uses his influence to derail or interfere in the regular course of a legal or judicial proceeding for the benefit of one or any of the parties therein, public confidence in the judicial system is diminished, if not totally eroded. In sum, we find the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses convincing and trustworthy, as compared to those of the defense which do not only defy natural human experience but are also riddled with major inconsistencies which create well-founded and overriding doubts. The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with the heavy of responsibility. His at all times must be characterized with propriety and must be above suspicion. His must be free of even a whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to the performance of his
judicial duties, but also his behavior outside the courtroom and as a private individual. Unfortunately, respondent Justice Demetrio Demetria failed failed to live up to this expectation. Through his indiscretions, Justice Demetria did not only make a mockery of his high office, but also caused incalculable damage to the entire Judiciary. The mere mention of his name in the national newspapers, allegedly lawyering for a suspected drug queen and interfering with her prosecution seriously undermined the integrity of the entire Judiciary. Although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness tha a seat in the Judiciary. High ethical principles and a sense of propriety should be maintained, without which the faith of the people in the Judiciary so indispensable in orderly society cannot be preserved. There is simply no place in the Judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity. WHEREFORE, we sustain the findings of the Investigating Justice and hold Justice Demetrio G. Demetria GUILTY of violating Rule 2.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. He is ordered DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to his appointment or reappointment to any government office, agency or instrumentality, including any government owned or controlled corporation or institution.”
(Jereos, Jr. v. Reblando, Sr., AM No. 141, 31 May 1976, 71 SCRA 126; DiaAñonuevo v. Bercacio, AM No. 177-MJ, 27 November 1975, 68 SCRA 81; Candia v. Tagabucba, AM No. 528, MJ, 12 September 1977, 79 SCRA 51; Barja Jr., v. Judge Bercacio, AM No. 561-MJ, 29 December 1976, 74 SCRA 355).
A.M. No. 06-6-8-CA, March 20, 2007 EN BANC RE: COMPLAINT AGAINST JUSTICE ELVI JOHN S. ASUNCION OF THE CA - A.M. NO. 06-44-CA-J ATTY. ROBERTO C. PADILLA VS. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ELVI JOHN S. ASUNCION, CA. PER CURIAM15 “Such failure to follow basic legal commands embodied in the law and the Rules constitutes gross ignorance of the law, from which no one is excused, and surely not a judge. In Genil v. River, We declared that judges owe it to the public to be knowledgeable, hence they are expected to have more than just a modicum of acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules. While a judge is presumed to act with regularity and good faith in the performance of judicial functions, a blatant disregard of the clear and unmistakable provisions of a statute, as well as Supreme
Court circulars enjoining strict compliance therewith, upends this presumption and subjects the magistrate to administrative sanctions. Citing Castanos v. Escano, Jr., this Court, in Macalintal v. The, had occasion to state: "When the inefficiency springs from a failure to consider so basic and elemental a rule, a law or a principle in the discharge of his functions, a judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the position and title he holds or he is too vicious that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave
abuse of judicial authority. In both cases, the judge's dismissal is in order."
The respondent Justice would seek to extricate himself from any liability by invoking the convenient excuse that the resolutions of July 24, 2001 and October 30, 2001 were the collegial acts of the First Division of the Court of Appeals, composed of three justices, and not the acts of respondent justice alone. What respondent Justice
Asuncion, in effect, is saying is that if he, as ponente in PNB v. NLRC and Archinas, were to be adjudged guilty of gross ignorance of the law, then the two other justices in the Division should be held equally culpable. Perhaps, under ordinary circumstances, such logic would be impeccable.
However, what We said in Guerrero v. Villamor is instructive: "For liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge in the performance of official duties must not only be found erroneous but, most importantly, it must also be established that he was moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred, or some other like motive. x x x "Conversely, a charge for either
ignorance of the law or rendering an unjust judgment will not prosper against a judge acting in good faith. Absent the element of bad faith, an erroneous judgment cannot be the basis of a charge for any said offenses, mere error of judgment not being a ground for disciplinary proceedings.
Using this pronouncement as the norm, We now must consider the totality of the charges against the respondent, as well as the convergence of attendant and subsequent events. On May 28, 2001, with respondent Justice as ponente, the First Division of the Court of Appeals dismissed the PNB petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, affirming in its entirety the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission. On June 13, 2001, PNB filed a motion for reconsideration. On June 25, 2001, Archinas (private respondent in the petition for certiorari) filed her opposition to PNB's motion for reconsideration. On July 24, 2001, acting upon PNB's urgent motion for issuance of a TRO, respondent issued the resolution enjoining the public respondent from implementing the Writ of Execution. On October 30, 2001, the resolution ordering the maintenance of the status quo was issued. On November 5, 2001, Archinas filed her motion seeking reconsideration of the October 30, 2001 resolution.
Archinas filed four (4) urgent motions for early resolution of the pending motion/s for reconsideration, on December 28, 2001, June 13, 2002, September 24, 2002, and August 23, 2005, Meantime, on July 5, 2004, respondent Justice Asuncion was assigned to CA Cebu Station. With this transfer, respondent's caseload was assigned to Justice Zenarosa. On November 3, 2004, respondent was reassigned back to Manila. It was only on August 7, 2006 that respondent finally resolved the PNB motion for reconsideration. From this sequence of events, a number of questions arise. If the respondent could issue the resolutions of July 24, 2001 and October 30, 2001 why did respondent not simply resolve the PNB motion for reconsideration of June 13, 2001? After all, he finally did so on August 7, 2006, with a mere three-page resolution. Why did it take more than five years to resolve this PNB motion? Why were the four motions for early resolution never addressed? If the Manila cases of respondent Justice Asuncion were "automatically assigned to Justice Zenarosa," how did Justice Asuncion continue to hold on to this case upon his reassignment in Manila? The Investigating Justice supplies the answer in his Report thus: "His (respondent's) "interest" in the case is "manifest" in that, despite his assignment in Cebu City on July 7, 2004, he did not unload the case to Justice Zenarosa (Office Order No. 212-04-CG). Worse, he recalled the case upon his return to the CA Manila station." To the Court, these are badges of bad faith and manifest undue interest attributable only to the respondent, and not to the other two justices of the CA Division. Accordingly, only the respondent must be made to suffer the consequences. On the other hand, gross ignorance of the law, for which respondent is being faulted in A. M. No. 06-44-CA-J, is considered a serious charge, and carries the penalty of (1) dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations: provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; (2) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three but not exceeding six months; or (3) a fine of more than P20,000 but not exceeding P40,000. The Investigating Justice recommends the maximum penalty for each of the two offenses. WHEREFORE, in A. M. No. 06-6-08, for having incurred undue delay in the disposal of pending motions for reconsideration in several cases, as recommended by the Investigating Justice, Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion of the Court of Appeals is
SUSPENDED from office without pay, allowances and other monetary benefits for a period of THREE MONTHS. In A. M. No. 06-44-CA-J, for gross ignorance of the law and manifest undue interest, Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion of the Court of Appeals is hereby ordered DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except leave credits. This Decision is final and immediately executory.” Sec. 20 (a), Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court, the Canons, Code of Professional Responsibility and Code of Judicial Conduct, to wit: Respondents, like all other members of the bar, failed to live up to the standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility (June 21, 1988), and Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly the - Canons-Rules, viz:
“CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT. Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes. Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.” CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY – CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES. CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY
OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES. CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS. Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause. Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Very Clear Cases of Dismissal from Service and Evidence Beyond Reasonable Doubt for Disbarment of all Respondents. “Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties. Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS. Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts. Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case. Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only. CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT. Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding
a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.”
These violations / acts and omissions of respondents definitely show them to be wanting in moral character and probity / good demeanor or unworthy to continue as officers of the Court, or unfit or unsafe persons to enjoy the privileges of attorneys or for conducts which tend to bring reproach on the legal profession and to the High Tribunal, or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. They clearly demonstrated attitudes and courses of conduct wholly inconsistent with the approved professional standards, of having failed to live up to their duties as lawyers-Justices in consonance with the strictures of the lawyer’s oath, the cited Canons and Codes, thereby having occasioned unwarranted sufferings, humiliations and hardships on Magistrates-the public. They were propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions, coupled with greed and lust for power or promotion, having failed in conscientiously seeing to it that justice permeates every aspect of her duties and profession, in
conformity with the avowed duties of worthy members and officers of the Bar and the Bench.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes.”
– in that respondents miserably failed to be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence; (due to their ardent desire and lust for money, power and financial gain); they did not behave to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; they failed to follow the strict mandates of Rules 138, 13-B, & Rule 140, as amended, Revised Rules of Court, the Bill of Rights, RULE OF LAW, and due process, inter alia. Unethical conducts unbecoming of a lawyer, gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct, as an officer of the court and member of the Bar / legal profession. Professional indiscretion, violations of oath of office and their duty as attorney or counselor-at-law, which include the statutory grounds enumerated under Sec. 27 of Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court (Arrieta vs. Llosa, 282 SCRA 248), including grossly unethical behavior, malice and bad faith in rendering unjust orders and decision. Republic Act No. 1379 authorizes the State to seek the forfeiture of illgotten wealth, with forfeiture as the only penalty, against all respondents. The law criminalized the mere acquisition of all their ill-gotten wealth, with dire imprisonment and disbarment, plus perpetual disqualification from office, to prevent the predators-respondents from continuing their evils. In this connection, the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), which was ratified by the Philippine Senate on 06 November 2006, provides: “Article 20 -Illicit Enrichment - Subject to its constitution and the fundamental principles of its legal system, each State Party shall consider adopting such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offense, when committed intentionally, illicit enrichment, that is, a significant increase in the assets of a public official that he or she cannot reasonably explain in relation to his or her lawful income.” Clearly, because of said Senate ratification, an amendment of Republic Act No. 1379 to implement Article 20 of the UNCAC is necessary. Conviction under this proposed amendment will be infinitely easier than the Anti-Plunder Law and Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act because of the prima facie presumption that the property was unlawfully acquired if it was acquired by a public officer or employee during his incumbency in an amount which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property. Speedy recourse
It may be argued that said presumption will be violative of the accused’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, no serious challenge can be made as the Supreme Court itself upheld the validity of such presumption in the case of Ong vs. Sandiganbayan, 470 SCRA 7 (2005), wherein the court stated that “under the principle of presumption of evidence, it is merely required of the State to establish a prima facie case, after which the burden of proof shifts to the accused.” Code of Conduct of Court Personnel, A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, Canon IV, Secs. 1, 2, 3 and 616 CANON IV - PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES
“SECTION 1. Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence. They shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours. SECTION 2. Court personnel shall carry out their responsibilities as public servants in as courteous a manner as possible. SECTION 3. Court personnel shall not alter, falsify, destroy or mutilate any record within their control. SECTION 6. Court personnel shall expeditiously enforce rules and implement orders of the court within the limits of their authority.”
RAC, 1987, Executive Order No. 292, July 25, 1987 Misfeasance, Malfeasance Civil Service Law, P.D. 807
“Article IX. Discipline - Sec. 36. Discipline: General Provisions. - a. The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action: 4. Misconduct; 5. Disgraceful and immoral conduct; 12. Violation of existing Civil Service Law and rules or reasonable office regulations; 27. Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.”
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION ARTICLE XI ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
“Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”
“SECTION 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. — (A) Every public official and employee shall observe the following as standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties: (a) Commitment to public interest. — Public officials and employees shall always uphold the public interest over and above personal interest. (b) Professionalism. — Public officials and employees shall perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill. They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication to duty. They shall
http://188.8.131.52/search?q=cache:peR1BGB87i0J:www.courtethics.org/Code%2520of %2520Conduct%2520Court%2520Personnel%2520Philippines%25202004.doc+A.M.+No.+03-0613-SC&hl=tl&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=ph&client=firefox-a http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/may2006/A.M.%20No.%202005-22-SC.htm
endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage. (c) Justness and sincerity. — Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest. They shall not dispense or extend undue favors on account of their office to their relatives whether by consanguinity or affinity except with respect to appointments of such relatives to positions considered strictly confidential or as members of their personal staff whose terms are coterminous with theirs.”
R.A. NO. 3019, ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
“Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: (a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense. (b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law. (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. (k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date. The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or benefit referred to in sub-paragraphs (b) and (c); or offering or giving to the public officer the employment mentioned in sub-paragraph (d); or urging the divulging or untimely release of the confidential information referred to in sub-paragraph (k) of this section shall, together with the offending public officer, be punished under Section nine of this Act and shall be permanently or temporarily disqualified in the discretion of the Court, from transacting business in any form with the Government. Sec. 4. Prohibition on private individuals. - (b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce or cause any public official to commit any of the offenses defined in Section 3 hereof. Sec. 8. Dismissal due to unexplained wealth. - If in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered 1379, a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal. Properties in the name of the spouse and unmarried children of such public official may be taken into consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. Sec. 9. Penalties for violations. - (a) Any public officer or private person committing any of the unlawful
acts or omissions enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income”
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1829 - PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS, 16th day of January, 1981
“Sec.1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts: (a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, (b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or object, with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;.chan robles virtual law library (c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction; (e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts; (g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from, discounting, or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender; If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized by any other law with a higher penalty, the higher penalty shall be imposed. Sec. 2. If any of the foregoing acts is committed by a public official or employee, he shall in addition to the penalties provided thereunder, suffer perpetual disqualification from holding public office.”
The Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA) regarding the matter are as follows: RULE I - THE COURT, ITS ORGANIZATION AND OFFICIALS - SEC. 9. Reorganization of Divisions. − (a) Reorganization of Divisions shall be effected whenever a permanent vacancy occurs in the chairmanship of a Division, in which case assignment of Justices to the Divisions shall be in accordance with the order of seniority unless a waiver is executed by the Justice concerned which waiver shall be effective until revoked by him in writing.(n) RULE VI PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION - SEC. 1. Justice Assigned For Study and Report. − Every case, whether appealed or original, assigned to a Justice for study and report shall be retained by him even if he is transferred to another Division in the same station. ( Sec. 2, Rule 8, RIRCA [a]) SEC. 2. Justices Who May Participate in the Adjudication of Cases. − x x x (d) When, in an original action or petition for review, any of these actions or proceedings, namely: (1) giving due course; (2) granting writ of preliminary injunction; (3) granting new trial; and (4) granting execution pending appeal have been taken, the case shall remain with the Justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report and the Justices who participated therein, regardless of their transfer to other Divisions in the same station. (A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA - 2005 RIRCA: SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THE 2002 INTERNAL RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS) The Revised Penal Code of 1930, now defines the felony of attempted bribery and corruption of public officials as follows: ACT NO. 3815, AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS (December 8, 1930), BOOK TWO CRIMES AND PENALTIES, Title Seven, CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS, Chapter Two MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE Section Two. — Bribery
Art. 210. Direct bribery. — Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed. If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime,xxxx and if said act shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional, in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value of such gift. If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of such gift. In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the penalty of special temporary disqualification. The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall be made applicable to xxx any other persons performing public duties. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10, 1985). Art. 212. Corruption of public officials. — The same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted, except those of disqualification and suspension, shall be imposed upon any person who shall have made the offers or promises or given the gifts or presents as described in the preceding articles. Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — xxx There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance. Art. 211. Indirect bribery. — The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and public censure shall be imposed upon any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10, 1985). Art. 212. Corruption of public officials. — The same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted, except those of disqualification and suspension, shall be imposed upon any person who shall have made the offers or promises or given the gifts or presents as described in the preceding articles. Article 243, RPC - Orders or requests by executive offices to any judicial authority - Any executive officer who shall address any order or suggestion to any judicial authority with respect to any case or business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine. Article 208, RPC - Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance The penalty of prison correccional in its minimum period (six months and 1 day to 2 years and four months) and suspension shall be imposed upon any public officer or officer of the law who, in dereliction of the duties of his office, shall
maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for the punishment of violations of the law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses. Art. 8, RPC - Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony - A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The Revised Rules of Court, now also provides for the discipline of jurists and lawyers, as follows: A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC, Amendment to Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court, Discipline of Judges and Justices: SECTION 1. How instituted. – Proceedings for the discipline of judges xxx Justices of the Court of Appeals xxx may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of person xxx SEC. 8. Serious charges. – Serious charges include: 1. Bribery, direct or indirect; 2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No. 3019); 3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct; xxx SEC. 11. Sanctions. – A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed: 1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including governmentowned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; 2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or 3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00. Rule 139-B, Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys: Section 1. How instituted. - Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of
and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts.
AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1, RULE 139-B OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT - SECTION 1. How instituted. - Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. Xxx The IBP Board of Governors may, motu proprio or upon referral by the Supreme Court or by a Chapter Board of Officers, or at the instance of any person, initiate and prosecute proper charges against erring attorneys including those in the government service; Provided, however, that all charges against Justices of the Court of Tax Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, and Judges of the Court of Tax Appeals and lower courts, even if lawyers are jointly charged with them, shall be filed with the Supreme Court; Provided, further, that charges filed against Justices and Judges before the IBP,
including those filed prior to their appointment in the Judiciary, shall immediately be forwarded to the Supreme Court for disposition and adjudication.
Respondents lawyers-justices are oath-bound servants of society whose conducts are clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty are the advancement of the quest of truth and justice, for which they had sworn to be fearless crusader. (Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, “Apostasy in the Legal Profession,” 64 SCRA 784, 790 (May to June 1975).
The cases and facts – Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. created the Article GSIS-Meralco bribery case - in Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSIS-Meralco_bribery_case Timeline: The Meralco-GSIS clash - Tug of war17 Oscar Lopez blamed the Arroyo administration's moves to take over Meralco in a “reverse privatization,” because of the Lopez-owned ABS-CBN's negative publicity against the government. May 27 stockholders’ meeting - During the May 27, 2008 stockholders’ meeting, GSIS' President Winston Garcia obtained a Securities and Exchange Commission (Philippines) “cease-and-desist order” to stop and defer the counting of proxy votes held by the Lopez group until questions on its validity were resolved. GSIS accused the Lopezes of “rigging” the process. GSIS failed to gain control of Meralco after a TRO from the Court of Appeals is issued, and the SEC order placed on hold. Meralco retained its 5 seats, the government its 4, while the 2 others are independent directors Artemio Panganiban and Vicente Panlilio. Aside from Manuel Lopez, the Meralco directors elected are Jesus Francisco, Felipe Alfonso, Christian Monsod and Cesar Virata, while the government board members elected aside from Garcia, are Bernardino Abes, Daisy Arce and Jeremy Parulan. May 29, 2008 – Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) files a petition with the Court of Appeals which questions the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to intervene in the power utility’s contentious proxy validation held on May 27, 2008. Meralo argues that it is the regional trial court which has jurisdiction over the dispute. The Lopez-owned power distributor also seeks for the nullification of an SEC cease-and-desist order and the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining SEC to implement a show cause order against Anthony Rosete, corporate secretary of Meralco. Following the temporary leave of Justice Bienvenido Reyes, chair of the 9th Division where Meralco’s petition is initially raffled off, Meralco files an urgent motion
By PUPPLE S. ROMERO - abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak
for a re-raffle. Aside from Reyes, other members of the 9th Division include Justice Vicente Roxas, the ponente, and Justice Myrna Vidal. A raffle is conducted for the division’s acting third member, who eventually became Justice Jose Mendoza. However, Mendoza inhibits himself from the case because he is a former legal counsel of the power utility. Another raffle is held and Justice Jose Sabio is designated acting chairman of the Ninth Division. The Government Insurance Service System (GSIS) files an urgent ex parte motion which asks for a re-raffle of the case on the ground that the petition was raffled in the absence of a legal representative from the state pension fund. May 30, 2008 - The 9th Division rules in favor of Meralco and issues the TRO, which would lapse in 60 days, against SEC. The temporary restraining order the 9th division, composed of Justices Roxas and Vidal was released. They were joined by substitute Justice Jose Sabio, replacement for Justice Bienvenido Reyes who was on leave. The TRO is released with Sabio signing instead. Hearings on oral arguments are scheduled on July 23 and 24. GSIS files an urgent motion to lift the TRO. Sabio says Roxas, the ponente, personally brought the TRO he prepared to Sabio’s office. June 16 – Reyes returns from leave. June 19 – Reyes consults CA Rules Committee chairman Justice Edgardo Cruz on who should hear the oral argument scheduled for June 23. June 20 – In a letter to Reyes, which Sabio got a copy of, Cruz says Reyes should decide the Meralco case as the designated chair of the 9th Division. Sabio calls PJ Vasquez, saying Cruz was acting in his personal capacity, and says the letter offends him since Cruz is junior to him in the court. Sabio also wonders why Reyes bypassed and did not openly deliberate and discuss the issue with PJ Vasquez. June 23 – Oral argument. Sabio, in his letter to CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez, says he consulted a more senior colleague, Justice Martin Villarama Jr. before the hearing and asked him if he (Sabio) should stay on the case. Villarama advised him to remain with the case. Sabio described Villarama as “a more senior, experienced, and respected member of this court for consultation and guidance.” The oral argument is held by the 9th Divison, with Sabio still at the helm. The parties are ordered to submit their respective memoranda 15 days
after. According to a motion filed by Meralco, however, they got the impression that Reyes would preside over the hearing after they were initially led to a room where a name plate of Reyes was placed at the table. But they were eventually re-directed to another room where the name plates contained ‘Sabio, Roxas and Vidal.’ Roxas, in his statement to the CA en banc, said that such incident “caused by Sabio was the talk of the Court of Appeals for weeks.”
June 25 – PJ Vasquez issues an order, previously approved by SC, to reorganize the court effective July 4 since three justices retired/were about to retire, while two new justices are about to be appointed. July 1 – Sabio meets with a businessman allegedly brokering for Meralco and wangles a P10 millionbribe for him to hand over the case to Reyes. In the account of Sabio, he says the emissary mentioned that other means will be resorted to have Justice Reyes assume the chairmanship.
July 4 – The CA Division is reorganized following the retirement of Associate Justices Lucenito Tagle, Agustin Dizon and Rodrigo Cosico last June. Reyes and Roxas are transferred to the 8th Division, with Justice Apolinario Bruselas as the third member. Sabio and Vidal move to the 6th Division. July 8 –Reyes goes to Sabio’s office to discusss, among others, the chairmanship of the 9th division handling the Meralco case. Sabio informs Reyes of the P10 million-bribe. July 10 – Meralco files an urgent motion for Reyes to assume the chairmanship of the hearing division. The company argues that according to the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA), a case can remain with the justices only when giving due course, granting a writ of preliminary injunction, a new trial, or of execution pending appeal. July 11 – Meralco and GSIS file their respective memoranda. Meralco assails the government for its purported moves to seize the power utility, while GSIS insists Meralco should have taken heed of the SEC order. Sabio makes a resolution referring the “Urgent Motion for Justice B. Reyes to Assume the Chairmanship” to the respondents for comment and forwards it to the office of Roxas, but is allegedly not released. Vidal says she signed the ponencia of Roxas (50 pages) on the same day, but Roxas took the decision from her because he reportedly has to incorporate 10 additional pages. July 14 – The 8th Division holds final deliberations. In the transcript of the deliberations, Roxas says that he “deliberately” chooses not to inform Justices Sabio and Vidal that the 8th division would take over the case because he wants to look for “other opportunities” to explain the situation so as not to hurt his colleagues’ feelings. Sabio and Roxas are in a flag raising ceremony together. Sabio tells Roxas he and Vidal want to discuss the memoranda since Sabio already read them. The rollo of the case and finalized decision are officially transmitted by Roxas to Bruselas, then by Bruselas to Reyes. July 17 – Bruselas reportedly signs “corrected” decision. July 21 – Roxas files an interpleader petition where he asks Vasquez to stop Sabio and Vidal from “clinging” to the case, adding that the two could not argue that they were exempted from the case following the reorganization of the division. July 22 – Reyes writes PJ Vasquez, referring to conversations during July 17 meeting, and asks the latter to rule on the impasse. Between July 14 and 22, Roxas, through various memoranda, urges Reyes to just dissent so that a division of five could be convened in time to decide before the TRO expires on July 30. Reyes tells Vasquez that Meralco’s motion for his assumption of the hearing division should be internally resolved (based on the IRCA), and not by private litigants. Reyes also states that the issuance of a TRO is not among one of the instances where the case should stay with the justices in the face of division movements. Reyes stresses that the chairman of the committee on rules and ponente (Roxas) echo his position. “Again, the PJ has to urgently decide on the matter… Otherwise, deadlock of opinions…”
July 24 – Reyes transmits the rollo of the case and the finalized decision to Roxas. The 8th Division promulgates its decision, which junks the SEC ceaseand-desist order. They also rule that the SEC has no jurisdiction over the questioned proxy validation. July 25 – Vasquez issues his reply to the Interpleader-Petition filed by Roxas and the letter sent by Reyes, where he says that the division that issued the TRO should continue hearing the case because of their familiarity with the petition – they were present and participated in the hearing on oral arguments. Vidal writes Vasquez on the “apparent and obvious irregularities in the handling of CA GR SP No. 103692,” adding that she agrees with the decision favoring Meralco and that she already signed a draft decision signed by Roxas (Note: Vidal says Roxas personally presented to her the final decision, which she studied, then signed. But Roxas did not forward to Sabio because he will still add 10 pages). Vidal questions why she is not informed that it was the 8th division that will decide on it, is disappointed that judicial courtesy is not observed—she is taken out of the case after she spent time studying it and signed the draft decision. GSIS, in a press release, says that Sabio was “unceremoniously excluded” from the case. Sabio calls Bruselas and Vidal and relays to them the alleged bribery attempt of a Meralco emissary. Bruselas personally meets with Vasquez to discuss phone call of Sabio. He says this is the first time to hear that “background.” Troubled, Bruselas says he called Reyes that day and asked if he knows of this “background.” Reyes says yes, and when Bruselas asked why missed telling him, Reyes “leaned back and said that he thought he mentioned it to me; that it may have escaped his mind, and that nevertheless, it had no place in the deliberation on the case.” July 25 – Bruselas files a memorandum for Vasquez where he relays Sabio’s call. He earlier relays this personally to Vasquez July 24. Bruselas mentions the P10 million bribe to Sabio. Bruselas wonders why the information came very late, though joins Sabio in calling for a probe into the matter. Bruselas also recounts that during meeting with PJ Vasquez, Vidal walked in and said she received same phone call from Sabio. Media starts reports on rift among the justices handling the case. July 26 – Sabio writes Vasquez and informs him about the bribery attempt. He also pushes for an investigation following the hasty promulgation of the decision and his and Vidal’s ‘unceremonial ouster’ from the case. He questions the timing of the decision, which was handed down days before the TRO lapsed. July 28 –Bruselas delivers his July 25 letter to Vasquez. He says he just got a copy of Sabio’s letter that day, so he called Sabio and supported him in the call to investigate the bribery. Vasquez gives all of the CA justices copies of the correspondences he received from the justices, and calls for an en banc session. July 30 – The 60-day TRO ends. July 31 – CA en banc meeting. The 65-member en banc tosses the investigation on the alleged bribery to the Supreme Court through the Office of the Court
Administrator. They also ask the CA rules committee to settle the different interpretations of the IRCA. Meanwhile, a businessman named Francis Roa de Borja alleges in his affidavit that Sabio informed him that the government offered the CA justice a Supreme Court seat in return for a pro-GSIS decision. When asked however what would take him to decline such offer, Sabio reportedly answered “P50 million.” Sabio denies Borja’s allegations. August 1 – Sabio says he will file bribery, perjury and libel charges against de Borja. He also says that Meralco chairman Manuel ‘Manolo’ Lopez was with de Borja, “waiting at the car,” when the businessman offered him the P10 million bribe. Lopez, in a press conference, denies Sabio’s claim and shows his
boarding pass to the media to prove that he was abroad when the alleged bribe attempt was made. Several senators urge for a swift investigation into the matter.
Critical Facts and Bill of Particulars 1. A week after he was allegedly offered a P10-million bribe to relinquish a case involving Manila Electric Co., Court of Appeals Justice Jose Sabio reported the attempted bribery to no less than Chief Justice Reynato Puno, according to Sabio’s daughter Silvia Jo. Silvia said she had consulted Supreme Court spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez a few days after businessman Francis de Borja made the attempt to bribe her father on July 1. Silvia works as a court attorney in Puno’s office, prompting Puno to recuse himself from the Supreme Court’s deliberations on the bribery scandal at the Court of Appeals.18 2. She said that on Marquez’s advice, Sabio wrote Puno to inform him of the bribery attempt. She said Sabio requested a meeting with Puno but the chief justice refused, explaining that Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. had already discussed the bribery attempt with him. Marquez confirmed that Silvia had consulted him about the attempt to bribe her father a few days after it was made. He said he did not know if Sabio wrote a letter to the chief justice. Silvia executed the affidavit on August 7 to support her father’s disclosure of the bribery attempt by De Borja, who Sabio said was acting as an emissary for Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) regarding a case against the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). In her affidavit, Silvia said that “on the very same night, almost immediately after the attempt was made to corrupt him, my father told my mother and [me] that he [had been] offered a bribe by Francis de Borja, who said he was acting on behalf of Meralco; my father rejected that bribe and he wrote to [Chief Justice] Puno a week after that incident with the intent to tell the latter of the attempt, as well as what was happening in the [appellate court].”
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080809-153563/Sabio-first-toldchief-justice-of-bribe-try-says-daughter Sabio first told chief justice of bribe try, says daughter - War of affidavits By Juliet Labog-Javellana Philippine Daily Inquirer 08/09/2008 Silvia Jo Sabio's affidavit, a copy of which was obtained by the Inquirer.
3. In her affidavit, Silvia said that on July 1, the day De Borja met with her father allegedly to offer the bribe, she and her mother were waiting for him in their car at the basement of the Ateneo Law School Building in Rockwell Center in Makati. She began to wonder why her father still had not gone down to the basement 10 minutes after his class was supposed to have ended at 8 p.m. She said her mother told her that De Borja had called up her father earlier that day insisting on meeting with him after his Ateneo class. “While we were on our way home, my father told us that the reason why Mr. De Borja had asked to meet with him was to make my Papa an offer for Papa to step aside in the case he was handling, and that Mr. De Borja was offering for Meralco. My mother and I were both so shocked and became angry at the news, and I remember that we both verbally expressed our strong reactions,” she said. She said she was incensed that De Borja “got the nerve to insult my father that way” and told him he should no longer have anything to do with him. Her mother agreed with her, she said. “That incident weighed heavily on my mind because I was afraid for my father. Somehow, I was convinced that after my father had refused them,
then the people behind the attempt to corrupt him would now try to find other ways to remove my father, and maybe even destroy him for refusing their offer,” she said.
4. Silvia said that, in a desire to do more to help her father, she consulted Marquez, but could not recall whether it was on July 3 or July 8. She said that on July 8, on their way to the Ateneo, her father handed her a handwritten letter that he asked her to deliver to Puno. “It was only on the morning of July 15 that I felt the timing was right, and so I handed my father’s handwritten letter, sealed in an envelope, to CJ Puno’s personal secretary, Ms Jasmin Mateo, requesting that it be given to CJ Puno,” she said in her affidavit. She said that a few days later her father told her that Puno would not be meeting with him since he “has already been apprised of the situation by PJ Vasquez.” She recalled saying that Puno probably did not want to meet with her father so that if the case went up to the high court “there would be no cause to say that he has not observed propriety 5. Atty. Vitallano Aguirre, lawyer of Justice Reyes, pointed out an alleged inconsistency in the way Sabio related the bribery attempt to his daughter Fides Angeli. Sabio said he texted his daughter on July 3 to tell her about the alleged P10-million bribe offer from Meralco, to which she replied on July 7. At the hearing on Friday, Sabio showed his cell phone containing his July 3 text and her daughter’s own cell phone containing her July 7 reply. Aguirre said one could alter the settings of one’s cell phone to any date so that the text message that the recipient would get would bear the date of the sender’s phone. Justice Romero commented that Sabio also took advantage of the fact that his other daughter, Sylvia Jo, was on Puno’s staff to write the Chief Justice about the alleged bribery attempt. Sabio said informing Puno was his daughter’s idea.19 Full text of Sabio letter to Vasquez
http://www.inquirer.net/specialfeatures/power/view.php?db=1&article=20080812-154058 Sabio admits brother tried to influence Meralco case August 12, 2008 Jerome Aning Philippine Daily Inquirer
July 26, 2008 HON. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. Presiding Justice Court of Appeals Maria Orosa St., Ermita, Manila RE: C.A. G.R. SP No. 103692 ROSETE et al vs. SEC et al Dear Presiding Justice Vasquez:20 Sometime in the afternoon of July 8, 2008, Justice B. Reyes came to see me in my office, to discuss, among others, the urgent motion. I told Justice Reyes that I found the motion rather strange and even referred to it as stupid. I further told Justice Reyes that in my more than nine years in the Court, I never came across such a kind of pleading; and that the proper pleading to file should have been a motion to have me recuse or inhibit myself. The next day, Justice B. Reyes went to see Justice Villarama to seek his advice on the impasse. According to Justice Villarama, he advised Justice Reyes to lay off the case and allow me to continue and to resolve the urgent motion for assumption of Justice Reyes. Xxx Very respectfully yours, JOSE L. SABIO, JR. Cc: Justice Martin Villarama, Jr. Justice Myrna D. Vidal Justice Apolinario Bruselas, Jr. *My daughter’s text message after she learned that I rejected the offer: “Pa, if it’s any consolation to you, there’s the knowledge that you are giving so many people the good example of what Christian integrity means, and what it really means to be a man for others. Maybe by this example of yours, you have sown the seed of their own conversion. I am so proud of you PAPA and grateful to God for giving me a father like you who I can really be proud of in front of God and everybody. Love you so much Pa. 6. The investigation21 has revealed, this early, a very unflattering image of CA justices: that they have feet of clay and are not the saints that we thought they were, especially the two justices in the center of the storm, Jose Sabio Jr. and Vicente Roxas. It was Sabio who exposed the attempted bribery on him and it was Roxas, the ponente of the decision that favored Meralco, whom he
http://184.108.40.206/search? q=cache:WHoFh2AiOjwJ:scubahigh.multiply.com/photos/album/278+%22Bobbie+Sabio %22&hl=tl&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=ph&client=firefox-a#59 Bobbie and her mom. Honors! Ate Bobbie and Jo. Best thesis!
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080731-151737/Full-text-ofSabio-letter-to-Vasquez Full text of Sabio letter to Vasquez Philippine Daily Inquirer 07/31/2008
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20080818-155265/Why-Arroyocannot-quit As I See It Why Arroyo cannot quit By Neal Cruz Philippine Daily Inquirer 08/18/2008
accused of being unduly interested in the case although it had been assigned to his (Sabio’s) division. It turned out, however, that Sabio himself was chasing the case all throughout, despite the fact that he is a mere substitute while the regular chairman of the division was on leave. If his allegations were true, an ethical person would get out of the case the first opportunity he gets. An ethical person will avoid a controversial case where undue influence is at play. 7. Curiously, despite admitting that his elder brother, Chairman Camilo Sabio of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), improperly called him on May 30 to convince him to deny Meralco’s application for a temporary restraining order, he still wrestled with Justice Bienvenido Reyes to preside over the oral arguments scheduled on June 23. This, despite the June 30 ruling of Justice Edgardo Cruz, chairman of the rules committee—who was tasked by Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez to resolve the issue—that Justice Reyes should take over, being the regular chairman of the division. Sabio was only a substitute for Reyes while the latter was on leave and Reyes had already returned to work as early as June 16. 7. Why was Sabio chasing the Meralco case? Is it worth picking a fight with a colleague in the judiciary? It would even be normal for a justice to want to unload some of his cases, especially the controversial ones, than to chase after a case. All that time, Sabio kept secret the improper phone call from his brother while he continued to cling on to the case. 8. With the admission of Sabio that his brother called him up not to issue a TRO (Justice Sabio issued the TRO, nonetheless), some important questions need to be asked. Why did Sabio not expose earlier the interference of his brother? He is a professor of judicial ethics; he knows that what his brother did was unethical. He knows that for a justice like him to talk about a case with anybody is unethical. Yet he talked about the case he was handling with his brother and later with businessman Francis de Borja, not only once but twice. An ethical person would have inhibited himself from the case. Yet, Sabio doggedly chased after it. Why? 9. The same applies to Justice Vicente Roxas. He also doggedly chased the Meralco case, even keeping the rollo for himself in violation of internal rules, and issuing the controversial permanent injunction to preempt an expected ruling of the presiding justice. He was also found by the investigating committee to have faked a transcript of a closed-door hearing where no stenographer was present. All of these things are unethical. So why did they do them? What about the Meralco case was so important to them? Villarama 10. Cruz wrote back also on June 20 that Reyes should chair the oral argument. He responded that while Sabio acted as the chair of the old 9th division that issued the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in May, "the issuance of a TRO is not among the instances where 'the justices who participated' in the case share 'remain' therein." In other words, the TRO, which
favored the Lopez family and their allies who were in a legal battle with another Meralco shareholder, the government through the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), is not among the exemptions in the CA's internal rules which was exactly what the Rules Committee was interpreting. Accounts over what transpired between June 20 and right before the June 23 oral argument as documented in the correspondences submitted to the Supreme Court showed that Vasquez ignored Cruz's opinion. Instead, he gave his “personal opinion” favoring Sabio. Earlier, Sabio sought Vasquez's opinion after getting a copy of Cruz's verdict. He called up Vasquez and mentioned that he "smelled something fishy," considered Cruz's opinion as a "personal opinion," and "wondered why the matter was not openly and deliberately discussed with [Vasquez]." 11. Instead, before the June 23 oral argument on the Meralco case, Sabio called Justice Martin Villarama whom he considered as "more senior and experienced" than Cruz, and sought his opinion on who should preside that morning. Villarama then advised Sabio that his stand—based on chairing the division that issued the TRO as a reason to hold on to the case—was correct. He informed Vasquez that Villarama then told him that he "should remain in this case." It seemed that Vasquez allowed Sabio's and Villarama's opinion to reign over that of the Cruz's of the Rules Committee. Vasquez's July 24 letter to Reyes and Justice Vicente Roxas, the case's ponente, explained why. Vasquez wrote: " My personal opinion on the matter, for whatever worth it may be, is that the Division that issued the temporary restraining order should continue resolving the injunctive prayer in the petition…" Vasquez reasoned that before the oral argument, GSIS had a pending motion to lift the TRO so Sabio who headed the 9th division that issued it should continue handling the case.22 12. 3 retired Justices of the Supreme Court called a Justice of the lower court a “robot” and admonished another of the same court for “unethical” practice. The mechanical behavior and the ethical breach of the 2 Justices of the appellate court, the retired Justices said on Friday, the second day of the inquiry, amounted to “impropriety.” Justices—Carolina Grino-Aquino, Flerida
Ruth Romero and Romeo Callejo Sr.—lectured Justices Myrna Vidal and Vicente Roxas of the appellate court on ethical practices and proper court procedures.
I. Scolding offenses23 --22
CA chief sidelines opinion of Rules Committee on justices' row http://www.absBy LALA RIMANDO abs-
Day 2: August 8, 2008: Scoldings and Uncivility
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news2_aug9_2008 Tales of lapses, turf wars confirmed - By Rey E. Requejo http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080809-153562/CA-justicesscolded-for-hasty-ruling-use-of-word-dedma CA justices scolded for hasty ruling, use of word ‘dedma’ - By Edson C. Tandoc Jr., Jerome Aning, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 03:11:00 08/09/2008 49
*signing a decision that was made without conducting deliberations, *personally carrying “voluminous” case records in an expensive-looking traveling bag, and *using the word “dedma” (to ignore or show no reaction to someone or something). Justice Sabio & Justice Vidal vs. Justice Roxas --Associate Justice Jose Sabio detailed his charges of impropriety against Roxas, who ruled in favor of the Lopez group and dismissed a complaint filed by the Government Service Insurance System before the Securities and Exchange Commission. Sabio, who was first to take the witness stand, questioned Roxas’ habit of carrying Rollos and case folders, which he said was “inappropriate behavior” for a magistrate. Sabio recalled that Roxas was seen carrying a draft of the temporary restraining order in favor of the Lopez group, with the minutes of the deliberations attached. “In my nine years in the CA, I have never encountered anything like that,” Sabio said. Cross-examining Sabio, Roxas said the courts rules stated that the case should always follow the designated ponente or author of the decision. Sabio
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080808-153427/UPDATE-2-CAjustices-unethical-conduct-questioned CA justice’s ‘unethical conduct’ questioned - By Tetch Torres, INQUIRER.net, 10:57:00 08/08/2008 http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/man/2008/08/09/news/.lapses.in.ca.s.dispensation.of.meralc o.case.found.html Saturday, August 09, 2008 - ‘Lapses’ in CA’s dispensation of Meralco case found http://www.gmanews.tv/story/112388/Sabio-questions-colleagues-actions-over-MeralcoGSIS-case Sabio questions colleagues' actions over Meralco-GSIS case - 08/08/2008 http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=127703 Appeals court commits lapses in Meralco-GSIS case - By Purple S. Romero abscbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/aug/09/yehey/top_stories/20080809top3.html SC dresses down two Court of Appeals justices - By William B. Depasupil, Reporter Saturday, August 09, 2008 http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/aug/09/yehey/opinion/20080809opi7.html Saturday, August 09, 2008 - LAW AND PHILOSOPHY MATTER(S) By Atty. Emmanuel Q. Fernando Saturday, August 09, 2008 http://www.malaya.com.ph/aug09/news3.htm Sabio defied presiding justice, SC panel told - BY EVANGELINE DE VERA
replied that he was not contradicting the rules, but questioning the manner by which the court had arrived at the decision. Roxas suggested that Sabio was clinging to the case and the chairmanship of the Ninth Division, even though he was only the acting chairman and should have given way to Justice Bienvenido Reyes, who had returned from vacation leave. Sabio again got a scolding from Justice Callejo for continuing to talk to De Borja even after the latter had allegedly approached him with a bribe offer. Callejo said that “when a party tries to approach us and talks about a case,” a justice of the court should say, “Stop, goodbye.” That may sound rude but someone approaching a justice to talk about a case is already being disrespectful, he said. “‘Stop that, goodbye,’ period, then leave him,” Callejo told Sabio. “The moment he tried to talk to you about the case, he does not respect you. You should have left.” Sabio in his affidavit that Roxas had several pending administrative cases. "In your affidavit, you said, ‘Justice Roxas flashed through your mind on several administrative cases pending against him,’ is that based on your mind or on fact?" Roxas asked Sabio. Sabio told Roxas that he was basing his statement from several justices who said that Roxas was “questionable.” "Your name has been mentioned by several justices as questionable because you have that habit of carrying folders and rollos of cases," Sabio said, pointing out that such action is prohibited because cases for decision, especially if a copy would be given to a colleague and a member of the same division, should be contained in a sealed envelope that only the justices should open. Sabio added that there was even an instance that Roxas was in a rush, carrying with him the draft of the temporary restraining order on the Meralco case as well as minutes of their deliberations. "I have never encountered anything like that in my nine years of stay in the court of appeals," said Sabio, who has been accused of seeking a multimillion peso bribe in exchange for inhibiting himself from the Meralco case. “In my nine years in the CA, I have never encountered anything like that. Even without Justice Vidal, dala-dala ang records ng case [he had the records of the case],” said Sabio. "I learned it. Even Justice [Myrna Dimaranan] Vidal's staff tells me you are carrying a folder. Laging bago attaché case mo dahil ang daming lamang folder [Your attaché case is always new because there are lots of folders]," Sabio said. On Sabio’s claim that he had several pending administrative cases, Roxas asked, “Did you know that the Supreme Court en bank dismissed the administrative case against me?” Sabio countered that there were two other pending cases. Roxas asked how Sabio learned about this and from whom. But Sabio refused to divulge his source of information. Roxas pointed out that pursuant to the rules, "the case should follow the ponente" and the 9th division that originally issued the TRO against the SEC has been disbanded after Sabio and Vidal were assigned to the 6th division. "Why would you insist to stay in the 9th division when it was already disbanded," Roxas asked Sabio. "I did not insist, I only asserted the procedure,"
Sabio said and then noted that he made Vidal sign the draft decision but which was promulgated by a different division. "So you mean Justice Roxas has the power to amend the IRCA?" Roxas asked. "Your question is irrelevant," Sabio told Roxas. Sabio said that while he was not contradicting the rules, what he was questioning was the manner by which the court had arrived at the decision on Meralco and how Vidal was “unceremoniously removed from the case.” Tragic - Callejo also found “tragic” Sabio’s use of the word “dedma” in conversation with Vidal. Sabio used the same word when he described to reporters on Thursday how he felt when he saw businessman Francis de Borja, whom he is accusing of attempting to bribe him with P10 million but who instead accused him of demanding P50 million. “That is what is so tragic in this case, that justices, in the performance of their duties, [use] words such as ‘dedma.’ It is so tragic,” he said. Callejo told Vidal: “Forget the word ‘dedma.’” Vidal, who admitted signing on July 8 a decision presented to her by Roxas even if the parties had yet to submit their memoranda on the case, earned a rebuke from Callejo. “Don’t be a robot. You have a brain to think with,” former Supreme Court Justice Romeo Callejo Jr. said, scolding Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal for signing the decision written by Associate Justice Vicente Roxas without reviewing other documents in the case. Justice Vidal told the panel that she was surprised when Roxas brought the decision to her office inside “an expensive-looking traveling bag” and told her he would pick it up after 24 hours. She said she signed the decision after reviewing it at home, a statement that provoked intense questioning from Callejo. “You signed without consulting the rollo [arguments of the solicitor general] and other memoranda?” Callejo asked asked her. Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal said she had written Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez about the “questionable” “unethical conduct” of Vicente Roxas when he asked her to sign the ruling on Meralco without telling her that the same case had been presented to the eighth division. "My only purpose is that justice be done in this case. I informed the Court of the unethical conduct of Justice Roxas, having me the case without telling me that it was also presented to the eighth division," Vidal said. Vidal said Roxas had told her that it was “very urgent” that the case be decided because the temporary restraining order that the court had issued in May to stop the Securities and Exchange Commission from intervening in the dispute would lapse soon. “And do you know that for a fact? How can you if you did not read the memoranda? Do not just rely on the word of your colleagues, you must conduct your own research and study so that we can serve the people judiciously,” Callejo said. He also rebuked Vidal when she admitted that she had signed the decision even when there were pending motions to lift the temporary restraining order, and for Roxas to inhibit himself from the case. “So you swallowed [Roxas’ statement] hook, line, and sinker. Don’t be a robot, you have brain to think with. Can you act on your own?” Callejo said. Vidal admitted her lapses and apologized, saying she would never commit the same error again. She also admitted that Roxas did not resolve the motion for
inhibition filed by the GSIS against him nor called for a conference before they were asked to sign the draft decision. No deliberations - Answering a series of questions from Callejo, she said she signed the copies of a supposedly final decision on the Meralco case that Roxas had brought to her office on July 8 even without deliberations being conducted on it. She said it was the usual practice in many divisions. Callejo reminded her that was contrary to court rules. Vidal justified her decision to sign, saying that she believed Roxas when he said it was “a matter of urgency.” But when Callejo asked what the urgency was about, Vidal replied she did not ask Roxas. She later added that it was “for Justice Roxas to answer,” eliciting laughter from the audience. Callejo was not amused. “Do not just rely on the word of our colleagues; you must conduct your own research and study so that we can serve the people judiciously. Otherwise you’ll only be a robot,” Callejo said. Signed were drafts - Callejo also asked why Vidal signed the copy even if a pending motion for Roxas to inhibit himself remained unresolved. “It was improper for the court to proceed with the hearing without Justice Roxas resolving the motion,” he said. Vidal replied that she brought the decision home, studied it and did her own research. She said she agreed with its contents. She said she gave the decision back to Roxas the next day and was hurt when she found that another division came out with a decision and that the documents she had signed were mere drafts. It turned out that deliberations on the case were conducted by Reyes and Roxas, together with Justice Apolinario Bruselas Jr. The Eighth Division eventually came out with the decision dismissing the case in favor of Meralco on July 23. But former Associate Justice Romeo Callejo Sr., a member of the threeman panel formed by the high tribunal to investigate the scandal, asked Vidal as to why she signed the decision based on a claim of urgency by Roxas and without waiting for the parties concerned -- Meralco, SEC, and the GSIS -- to submit their memoranda in response to oral arguments."What is the urgency?" Callejo said. "I don't know about him [Roxas]," Vidal said, adding that when the draft decision was presented to her, Roxas was carrying an "expensive traveling bag" where the decisions had been placed. Vidal argued that Roxas had made her believe that there was “urgency in the case” to which Callejo countered, “So you swallowed [Roxas’ statement] hook, line, and sinker?” After Vidal answered in the affirmative and apologized for her lapse, Callejo berated her, asking whether “a justice should act this way?” Callejo said that in his eight years as justice of the Court of Appeals, he did not do what Roxas had done. Vidal also admitted that she did not wait for the memorandum of all the parties involved when she signed the draft decision. "So you mean the memorandum of the parties is an exercise in futility? Imagine the SolicitorGeneral submitting a memorandum of so many pages, how many years have you been in the Court of Appeals," Callejo asked Vidal who said, “Three.” Callejo also questioned why Vidal signed the decision when Roxas made a ruling recommending that GSIS lawyers be reprimanded even if it was not
raised in the memorandum of the parties. Callejo said the decision should only focus on what was raised by the parties. "Was that raised in the memorandum? Oh, you did not read the memorandum," Callejo said. Vidal said Roxas should answer that question. "But you did sign the decision for goodness sake," Callejo said. Callejo then asked Vidal if she had informed Sabio, who was then the acting chairman of the 9th division, whether Roxas had talked to him. "Yes, I called his attention. I asked him if Justice Roxas already consulted him about the ponencia and he said ‘deadma [no reaction],’" Vidal said. "Deadma? I was part of the Court of Appeals for 8 years and I never heard of the word deadma," Callejo said. Callejo said he hoped that Vidal had “learned a lesson” in which she should just “not rely on the urgency” of something as told by a colleague. “Act on your own,” he said. No rules committee? Meanwhile, Sabio said that he does not have copies of the following communication attached to the opinion of Rules Committee chair Justice Edgardo Cruz dated June 20: a.) letter of Reyes to Vasquez dated June 19, where Reyes, who just returned from leave, asked who should, between him and Sabio, preside over the Meralco-GSIS case. b.) June 20 memoranda of Vasquez to Cruz, where the presiding justice asked the rules committee to address the issue deemed ‘urgent’. Cruz, in his June 20 opinion, said that Reyes should take over the Meralco-GSIS case, then handled by Sabio, in concurrence with Sec. 2 Rule VI of the IRCA which stipulates that if actions in proceedings such as “giving due course, granting writ of preliminary injunction, new trial and execution in pending appeal” have been taken, the case should remain with the justice to whom the study of the case has been assigned regardless of transfer. The said opinion of Cruz has been sidelined, causing the internal rift among the justices in the appellate court to go out of hand. Sabio contested, however, that Cruz did not specify that he rendered his opinion in his capacity as the chair of the rules committee, to which Cruz agreed. But Cruz reasoned that he did not assert his authority as rules committee head because the committee did not conduct a deliberation on the query of Reyes, following its purported urgency. Callejo said that “in hindsight,” Sabio should have asked for the committee to convene on the chairmanship row as a body. Sabio replied that he did not do so because the rules committee, at that time, was “nonexistent.” In an interview during recess, Vasquez said that after Justice Roberto Barrios died last year, the committee has yet to officially carry out its mandate with a complete set of members. Sabio accused justices Roxas, Bienvenido Reyes and Apolinario Bruselas of the eighth division of “unceremoniously” easing him and Vidal out of the case. The 8th division later promulgated a decision on July 23 which barred the Securities and Exchange Commission from implementing a show cause order against Anthony Rosete, corporate secretary of Meralco.
Unresolved motions - During Vidal’s cross-examination, retired Justice Romeo Callejo, a member of the investigation panel along with Justice Flerida Romero, asked the CA justice if she found the following in the rollo of the Meralco-GSIS case before the June 23 hearing: a.) a motion filed by GSIS on May 30 to lift the temporary restraining order issued by the 9th Division, then chaired by Sabio, on the same day. b.) another motion filed by the government pension system asking Roxas to inhibit himself from the case for he allegedly met with the Meralco lawyers in the morning of the issuance of the TRO. Vidal replied in the negative. Callejo said that the above motions are still pending, and should have been resolved first before any hearing was held in accordance with Rule 5 Section 3 of the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA). “Justice Roxas must first resolve in writing the motion on his inhibition. It was improper for the court to continue with the hearing,” Callejo said. In his July 24 response to Roxas’s interpleader motion and Reyes’s letters, both of which inquired what division should handle the Meralco-GSIS case following the return of designated 9th Division chairman Reyes from leave, Vasquez noted the absence of action on the said motions. “On record shows the unresolved respondent GSIS’s urgent ex-parte motion to inhibit Justice Roxas from the case. More importantly, there is as well a pending urgent motion to lift temporary restraining order and to hold its enforcement in abeyance.” “The pendency of the motion for inhibition and/or motion for reconsideration on the issuance of the temporary restraining order, to my mind, have a bearing and will greatly affect the application of the provision of Section 2 of Rule VI of the IRCA,” he said. Training bag - Aquino and Callejo also raised questions on the manner of Roxas’s delivery of his draft of the decision to Vidal on July 8. “Justice Roxas went to your chamber with a traveling bag. Isn’t that unusual?” Callejo asked Vidal, who said that copies of the alleged draft of the decision where placed inside the bag. Callejo later added that he found it “strange” that Roxas personally carried copies of the said draft of the decision. The two justices also questioned the haste by which Vidal signed Roxas’s ponencia following the lack of memoranda from the parties, which were to be submitted on July 10, two days after Vidal signed Roxas’s draft of the decision. Vidal said she signed it because Roxas said “it was urgent.” Callejo furthered asked if the 9th Division held deliberations prior to Vidal’s signing of the ponencia. Vidal answered “none.” She reiterated that she signed the decision due to the urgency raised by Roxas as the TRO was set to lapse on July 30. In response, Callejo told Vidal to “not just rely on the urgency told to you by a colleague. Act on your own,” adding that prudence in handling cases “is the only way we could serve the public judiciously.” Roxas’s traveling bag - According to Vidal, Roxas was carrying the “voluminous” records of the case when he went to her office to personally bring her the copy of the decision that he had penned. She noted that the bag that
Roxas carried was “expensive-looking,” which she and her staff found to be “most unusual.” Earlier in the hearing, Sabio also described Roxas’ actions as curious, noting that most justices would send copies of decisions for signature to one another through their staff, never personally. Perhaps Roxas distrusted his staff so he personally brought the case records and the copy of the decision he had penned, said Vidal. Justice Jose Sabio Jr. said Roxas’ habit of “carrying folders and rolls of cases” was “questionable” because it was something that justices did not do. Vidal admitted before the panel that Roxas personally went to her chamber on July 8, 2008, carrying an “expensive-looking bag,” the rollo or records of court proceedings and three copies of a resolution on the MeralcoGSIS case for her signature. As “Court of Appeals justice, you should have your own mind and decision, otherwise you are like a robot,” Callejo told Vidal. Callejo many times emphasized before Roxas the words “carrying a bag,” saying that what Roxas did was unethical and was not a proper court procedure. Proper court procedures dictate that a decision should be placed in a sealed envelope with the name of the justice concerned and should be delivered by a staff of the ponente of the decision. “Only the justice concerned could open the sealed envelope,” Calleja pointed out. Roxas, in his affidavit, claimed that what he brought to the office of Vidal was only a draft resolution. Callejo told him that it was a final resolution because there were three copies of it to be signed. The resolution, though not promulgated, contained the same points raised by the Eighth Division in its its 54-page resolution issued on July 24 on the row between Meralco and GSIS. It was signed by Justice Bievenido Reyes as chairman and Roxas and Justice Apolinario Brusellas as members. The resolution voided a cease-and-desist order issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Meralco, that the government regulator has no jurisdiction over the case. It also asked the Supreme Court to sanction the GSIS for using its own lawyers instead of the Office of the Solicitor General to represent the government pension fund in the case. Callejo also pointed out that it was erroneous to include in the decision the sanction against GSIS because it was not in the pleadings of the complainant, Meralco. Sabio was spared the dressing down as he did not sign the July 8 decision that Vidal signed. He explained that he did not sign it because he had yet to read the memoranda of both sides. Sabio noted the “undue haste” of the Ninth Division in ruling on the case. Panel member, retired SC justice Romeo Callejo Sr., soundly reprimanded Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal after she admitted that she signed the ponencia of Justice Vicente Roxas without the Special Ninth Division fully deliberating on the final draft of the July 23 decision. Vidal added that she signed the ponencia despite that the division members have yet to meet to deliberate on the case and to receive the memoranda to be submitted by the parties before a case could be submitted for decision. She said Roxas carried with him what appeared to be “an expensive-looking travel bag” containing the rollo and copies of the decision, an unusual sight since justices usually trusted their respective clerk of court to carry it for them.
Office Order no. 149-08-CMV - Sabio defied an order by Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. that he should only act as chairman of the Ninth Division until its regular chairman reported back for work to rule on the Meralco ownership issue. This was pointed out by Justice Vicente Roxas, ponente of the Meralco ruling, in a document which he submitted as evidence to the three-man panel: Office Order no. 149-08-CMV, dated May 14 and signed by Vasquez, stated that in view of the absence of Justice Bienvenido Reyes, chair of the Ninth Division, Justice Jose Mendoza had been designated by the Raffle Committee as acting chairman of the division. When Mendoza inhibited from the case, the raffle committee designated Sabio as acting chair of the Ninth Division, along with its regular members Roxas and Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal. Under the order, Sabio was designated as acting chairman of the Ninth Division, in addition to his duties as regular senior member of the Seventh Division, to act on all cases submitted to the Ninth Division, for final resolution and/or appropriate action, except ponencia, from May 15 to June 5, 2008, or until Reyes reported back to duty. Vasquez further stated that the order "holds true with the other divisions wherein Justice Reyes participated or took part as regular member or in an acting capacity." The document bolstered the argument of Roxas that the Eighth Division, composed of him, Reyes and Associate Justice Apolinario Bruselas, was right when it declared as void the SEC's cease and desist order on the counting of proxy votes of the allies of the Lopez family during the May 27 Meralco stockholders meeting. Thus, Roxas said, Sabio could not insist that there was any irregularity when the ponencia emanated from the Eighth Division instead of the Ninth Division composed of Sabio and Vidal, with Sabio as ponente. The Ninth Division under Sabio issued a temporary restraining order on the SEC's CDO. Sabio had accused Roxas and Reyes of easing him and Vidal out of the Meralco case, amid his claims that he had been offered a P10 million bribe by an emissary of Meralco president and CEO Manuel Lopez to inhibit himself from the case. Sabio also alleged that Reyes has been insisting on getting back his post as chair of the Ninth Division when it was he and Vidal who first took cognizance of the Meralco suit.
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that the instant – Second Amended / Supplemental Verified Complaint – Letter-Affidavit
[Under Rules 140, 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, Codes of Judicial Conduct & Professional Responsibility, Arts. 171, 208, 210, 212, 243, RPC, R.A. 3019, R.A. 1379, Article 20, UNCAC, P.D. 1879, Code of Conduct of Court Personnel, A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, RAC, 1987, CSL, P.D. 807, R.A. 6713, inter alia] – and -
Urgent Omnibus Motions For Leave of Court
I. For Preventive Suspension, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution, II. To appoint a Special Prosecutor, in accordance with “EN BANC, A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA,
March 27, 2001, IN RE: DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS, JUSTICE DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA.” III. To Intervene & Petition-in-Intervention - In: "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)" IV. For Physical and Mental Examination of Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes - under Rules 28 & 134, Revised Rules of Court (to determine the veracity of his alleged 2 Heart Attacks, 8-7-’08 condition, ICU, Capitol Medical Center, Q.C. - 'valvular heart disease, secondary to rheumatic heart disease; mitral regurgitation; and aortic stenosis' – by the Supreme Court Medical Clinic
Doctors / Psychiatrists, per settled jurisprudence in A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460, “Ocad vs. Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.”), to determine his mental / physically incapacitaty to discharge the duties of his office (Sec. 11, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution) as CA Justice, due to Permanent Total Disability,
V. And, To File Criminal Cases with the Ombudsman-DOJ-Sandiganbayan for violations of Arts. 171, 208, 210, 212, 243, RPC, P.D. 1879, R.A. 3019, Article 20, UNCAC, and R.A. 1379 Forfeiture of Ill-gotten Wealth, against respondents. -
be duly NOTED, ADMITTED, GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED. Further, it is respectfully prayed, that - after filing of respondents’
COMMENTS / ANSWERS, and after due notice, hearing, and Report of the Commissioner / Investigator / Panel, - judgment be rendered declaring all respondents GUILTY of all the charges and that supreme penalties of DISMISSAL FROM SERVCE & DISBARMENT be imposed upon all of them, ordering that their names be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and punished accordingly, under Rule 139-B, and Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia. Finally, it is petitioned that criminal cases be duly filed against all respondents, with the Ombudsman-DOJ-Sandiganbayan for - violations of Arts. 171, 208, 210, 212, 243, RPC, P.D. 1879, R.A. 3019, Article 20, UNCAC, and R.A. 1379 - Forfeiture of Ill-gotten Wealth. Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading - letter-affidavitcomplaint, this 29thth day of August, 2008, at Malolos City, BULACAN. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Petitioner / Complainant, on behalf of himself, by himself and as litigant, 123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos City, 3000 BULACAN, Tel /# (044) 662-82-03; [I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300;
ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV].
NOTICE TO: Atty. Ma. Luisa Villarama / Atty. Felipa Anama, The Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, Manila, Please DOCKET and AGENDUM the foregoing pleading for the deliberation and Resolution of the Honorable Court, immediately upon receipt hereof. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,
VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING & AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) Malolos City, BULACAN ) S.S. I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, depose/say, that: I am the complainant in this case. I caused the preparation, signed and read the initial complaint duly filed in this case, and all the contents / allegations thereof are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records.\ I certify that: I have not theretofore commenced any disbarment action or filed any administrative or other claim against respondents, involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, except these twin or interrelated administrative Matter and administrative cases"A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)", and to the best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein, and if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof will be made, but there is none; if I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within 5 days there from to the court wherein the aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. I certify that on September , 2008, I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in this case “Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant, - versus – Justice B. Reyes et al”, A.M. OCA IPI No. _______, & "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)", upon all respondents, personally, thru the Office of the Court Adminstrator, OCAD, Supreme Court, Manila, as evidenced by the hereunder rubber stamp receipt, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Revised Rules of Court.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this ___ day of September, 2008, here at Malolos City, Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12005 # 21783592, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 2-27, 2007.
DOC. NO. ____, PAGE NO. _____, BOOK NO. 76, SERIES OF 2008.
BERNAR D. FAJARDO
Notary Public, Until Jan.31, 2009, PTR NO. 4591703, 1- 2,’08, Atty.’s Roll No. 33633, IBP OR # 708299, 1-2,’08 Malolos City, Bulacan.
Reservation: Because of time constraints, undersigned reserves his right to file amended or supplemental pleadings, in due course, if needed, to conform to truth, or justice, and to add respondents if needed.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR. COPY FURNISHED: (By Personal Service): Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Associate Justice Martin Villarama, Associate Justice Edgardo Cruz, Atty. Sylvia Jo Sabio” & Atty. Angeli Fides “Bobbie” Sabio” (daughters of Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. - c/o Office of the Chief Justice, Supreme Court, Manila), Chairman Camilo Sabio, Presidential Commission on Good Government, (IRC Building, No. 82 EDSA, Mandaluyong City), and Atty. Jesus I. Santos, (Marilao, Bulacan).
Thru: The Office of the Court Administrator, OCAD, Supreme Court, Manila.
Justice Sabio vs. Justice Cruz --Sabio also had a heated exchange with Justice Edgardo Cruz, chairman of the Court of Appeals’ internal rules committee, which came out with an opinion supporting Reyes’ jurisdiction on the case. Associate Justice Edgardo Cruz, chairman of the appeals court’s committee on rules, rejected Sabio’s dismissal of his written opinion as merely a “personal opinion” and not a ruling by his committee. Cruz said his opinion was authorized by Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez upon the request of Reyes. “That’s your judgment. I choose who I believe,” Sabio replied. At this point, Callejo intervened and advised the justices to be civil and respect each other. “We are all justices here. Please be civil to each other. Even ordinary counsels and witnesses are accorded respect,” Callejo said. Sabio claimed the decision was a mere opinion of Cruz’s, but Cruz admitted that he ruled alone and did not convene his committee, which only had two members then. Cruz was irked when Sabio said he doubted there was an authorization from Vasquez, adding that these could all be part of a “drama” concocted by Reyes’ camp. Callejo said the feuding justices should have waited
for the committee to formally rule on the dispute, and all proceedings should have been deferred. He also pointed out that Sabio could have insisted that the committee rule on the dispute through Vasquez instead of calling another justice, Martin Villarama Jr., to comment on the dispute. “You should not just consult any member of the court, if you don’t agree with Cruz’s position, then you should insist that the committee decide. This could have been avoided,” Callejo said. Sabio said he had learned his lesson and apologized to the panel. Sabio said that he could not simply comply with the opinion of Justice Edgardo Cruz, chairman of the Internal Rules Committee of the Court of Appeals, that he should relinquish the chairmanship to Reyes because the 54page resolution was not signed in his capacity as chairman of the rules committee. The committee, he also pointed out, was then non-existent because one of its members had died. Callejo reprimanded Sabio just the same, saying that Sabio should have brought the matter to the attention of Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. Sabio questioned Justice Edgardo Cruz’s decision to move the controversial case to the 8th division. Sabio recalled reading a letter penned by Cruz saying the Meralco-GSIS case should be handled by the CA’s 8th division.The case was originally handled by the 9th division, which is composed of Sabio as acting chairman, Roxas as ponente, and Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal. Roxas was transferred to the 8th division following a reorganization of the CA’s members, carrying the case with him. Cruz - who chairs the CA’s committee on rules - said Roxas’ transfer to the 8th division was his basis for moving the case there, adding that he was only acting according to court regulations. Testifying before the 3-man panel, Sabio, however, said the case’s transfer should have undergone deliberation and the decision should have been signed by the entire committee and not by Cruz alone. Sabio claimed in a letter dated July 26, 2008 to Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez that a “broker" offered him P10 million to get him to inhibit from the case and make way for Justice Bienvenido Reyes. Businessman Francis Roa de Borja announced a few days later that he is the “broker" Sabio was referring to but alleged that it was Sabio who entertained the idea of profiting from the GSIS-Meralco mess. Corruption in the Judiciary The recent expose of Court of Appeals Justice Jose Sabio Jr. that a representative from litigant Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) approached him with the offer of P10 million to inhibit himself from its case against the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) brought to light the extent of corruption in Philippine legal practice. There are, to my mind, two main sources of corruption in the practice: the first, such as the above, concerns cases involving rich and wealthy individuals or corporations; and the second encompasses criminal cases against poor defendants.
It is part of sound legal strategy for a rich litigant to find ways to approach the judge so as to influence him. Indeed, his very choice of lawyer depends on the lawyer’s ability to make effective contact with the judge. Pity the poor lawyer who refuses to provide this service; for most assuredly, the client will find a lawyer who will. It is not uncommon, also, for a judge to attempt to send feelers to rich litigants, making them aware that he is open to being influenced. He uses court employees or other agents as go-betweens for that purpose. Quite often, the judge has only one authorized go-between, some one he supremely trusts, so that if the litigant uses a different approach, he will certainly be rebuffed. This has the effect of keeping his pristine pure image as an incorruptible judge intact and ensures that he maintains effective communication with the solicitous litigants under safe and controlled conditions. Some overly greedy judges seek to be recompensed by both parties. They accept from both sides and rule on behalf of the highest bidder. Or they come up with an ambivalent decision which fails to settle the issue and favors no one, leaving room for further pay-offs to arrive at a more conclusive resolution. The second source exists because of the high value placed by society on law and order. Hence, judges get promoted by the number of criminals they conviction. The defendant, without resources, is an easy prey, for he is unable to afford legal services that will protect his interests and will guarantee due process. I have heard lawyers from the Office of the Solicitor-General or other prosecutors insist that the standard of justice in cases such as these is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, but merely plausible proof. If it is plausible that the defendant did it, then he must be guilty. The burden rests, not on the state, but on him to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Most of these prosecutors get rewarded for their sterling record with a judgeship. Hence, another member, sympathetic to law and order, is added to the roster of judges, which leaves indigent litigants further disadvantaged. The investigation by the retired justices of the Sabio expose of the Meralco-GSIS case will hopefully contribute to the solution of corruption in the judiciary, at least with corruption of the first type. The second type must await a different investigation, unless the retired justices intend to widen their scope of inquiry. The prevalence of influence-peddling is standard for any case involving wealthy litigants. These cases often immediately catch the judge’s attention. I was involved in one such case. As the judge read the roll call, he noticed that our case involved property worth billions between wealthy litigants. He immediately called a recess, and, in the hallway, he talked to the lawyers of both sides. Thereafter ensued a lengthy narration of his dedicated but unrewarded service in the judiciary, where his life has been put in peril because of his courageous stance against drug dealers. He suggested that he was an excellent candidate for the court of appeals—a plea made not to my representation but to the opposing law firm, who then was known as responsible for judicial
promotions. Nothing came from his plea. He soon inhibited himself from the case because, understandably, we filed a motion to that effect. Realizing that he went a little too far in his indiscretion, he recused himself lest the situation worsen. I have had other similar experiences in the practice of law. The investigation, hopefully, will expose incidents like these. The reason for its prevalence is that it works. The litigant who chooses to play fair is at a great disadvantage. To survive, he must learn to play the game. Whether something so prevalent and so ingrained in the system will eventually be weeded out is thus a tall order. I offer some solutions. One is meant for the lawyer representing an honest client and is not for the faint at heart. He should be prepared to use aggressive litigation tactics, which may, unfortunately, lead to disbarment cases filed against him. It is effective, though risky. The other solution is systemic. It avails of the improvement of legal research and perhaps other institutional reforms. Any solution that stands a reasonable chance of success, however, must satisfy what I have previously stressed in my column. It must convince the public, particularly the rich and the judge, that it pays to be honest. II. Hasty moves, Falsification, Messy Records24
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/113751/(Update)-SC-panel-grills-CA-justice-over-GSISMeralco-case SC panel grills CA justice over GSIS-Meralco case 08/14/2008 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080814-154624/UPDATE-2-CAjustices-face-off-at-SC-bribery-probe By Tetch Torres - INQUIRER.net - 08/14/2008 2 CA justices face off at SC bribery probe Roxas called a ‘liar, denial king’ http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news1_aug14_2008 CA justices’ record-keeping mess shocks hearing panel - By Rey E. Requejo http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=128292 Contradictions exposed in justice’s version on Meralco-GSIS row - By Aries C. Rufo abscbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak http://www.inquirer.net/specialfeatures/power/view.php?db=1&article=20080814-154502 Justice grilled for ‘unusual interest’ in case - August 14, 2008 02:23:00 Leila Salaverria - Philippine Daily Inquirer http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/man/2008/08/14/news/sabio.not.authorized.to.rule.on.meral co.case.cruz.html Sabio not authorized to rule on Meralco case: Cruz http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/man/2008/08/14/news/sabio.not.authorized.to.rule.on.meral co.case.cruz.html Sabio not authorized to rule on Meralco case: Cruz http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/aug/14/yehey/top_stories/20080814top2.html Probe uncovers irregularities in Court of Appeals - By William B. Depasupil Reporter 64
Justice Callejo also criticized Roxas for hastily promulgating the Eighth Division’s controversial decision. “You have waited for the decision of Justice [Bienvendio] Reyes for so long. Why did you not wait for the Presiding Justice’s opinion?” Callejo asked Roxas, referring to Conrado Vasquez Jr. Based on documents submitted to the investigating panel, it was established that the decision voiding the SEC’s order was ready as early as July 14 already bearing the signatures of Roxas as ponente and of Justice Apolinario Bruselas. Reyes signed only on July 23, on the day the decision was promulgated. Reyes heads the Eighth Division, with Roxas and Bruselas as members. Roxas wrote the decision even as the impasse has yet to be settled between the Special Ninth Division and Eighth Division on with courtroom should decide on the MeralcoGSIS case. Roxas and Bruselas signed the decision without going over or reading the memoranda submitted by concerned parties. Roxas had written a letter to the Court of Appeals presiding justice seeking his opinion on who should decide the case—Justice Jose Sabio Jr., who was then acting chairman of the Ninth, or Reyes of the Eighth. Vasquez only came out with his opinion on July 24, not knowing that it was already moot and academic as the Eighth Division already came out with the decision. “I felt really insulted [with what Roxas did],” Vasquez told the three-man panel, headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Carolina Griño-Aquino. 'Why the haste?' - Carolina Grino Aquino asked Justice Vicente Roxas why they were rushing to sign the decision for the case. Reyes, represented by Vitaliano Aguirre II, admitted that the two justices – Bruselas and Roxas-- were pressuring the chairman of the 8th Division because of the expiry of the TRO on July 29. After Roxas and Bruselas signed the decision on July 14, Roxas immediately forwarded it to Reyes, the chair of the 8th Division. Roxas said that the following days were a "vacuum" because Reyes had not confirmed whether he will sign the decision or cast a dissenting vote. "We were panicking then," Roxas said. The decision was with the office of Reyes until the 23rd of July. After he signed it on the 23rd, it was promulgated on the 24th. Aquino pointed out that there were still six more days before the TRO was set to expire. Callejo likewise said that the division can file a resolution to extend the TRO. Roxas argued that as ponente, he needs to "immediately promulgate" the decision once the justices have signed the decision. The signed decision was personally handed to the Clerk of the Court for promulgation on July 23. Callejo debunked Roxas saying that there should be no immediacy in filing the decision – the immediacy is in the promulgation of the decision once it is handed to the clerk. He also pointed out that even though the justices had already signed the decision, they can still make changes in the decision as long as it is not yet promulgated. "You waited for Justice Reyes for so long but why can't you wait for the Presiding Justice?" asked Aquino.
Speedy justice - The panel also questioned how Roxas was able to write the decision without the memoranda from the parties. The memoranda were submitted on July 14. Roxas signed the decision in the morning of July 14 and Bruselas, in the afternoon. Roxas said that he got "advance copies" of the memoranda from the clerk. He explained that two copies of the memorandum are usually sent to the CA: one through personal delivery or through a messenger, and another by means of mail. The copies which were sent by mail arrived on July 14. Roxas said he decided to release the decision, because he felt that Vasquez had been wrong about waiting too long in deciding the Reyes-Sabio conflict. Citing the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, Roxas added that once a decision was signed by three justices, it must be “immediately” promulgated. But Callejo disputed that, charging that Roxas’s argument was nowhere in the rules of the court. “Promulgation is made with the filing of the decision [with the division’s clerk of court], Callejo said, citing Section 13, Rule 6 of the rules. “Once it is filed, that’s it. It is different from the signing.” Callejo explained that even if the three justices had already signed the decision, that does not mean immediate promulgation. He added that it can still be withheld, and the justices who signed the ruling could still withdraw their signatures, if they want to change their mind. The probe panel also noted that the Eighth Division decided the case without first resolving the motion for inhibition filed against Roxas by the GSIS on the ground that he was seen talking with Meralco lawyers before the decision came out, and the motion by GSIS to lift the temporary restraining order issued by the Special Ninth Division on May 30, 2008. IF THE Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (Irca) would be followed, Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr. has no authority to rule on the Meralco ownership row, another justice of the appellate court said. Associate Justice Edgardo Cruz, chairman of the CA committee on rules, took the witness stand to testify that the Eighth Division was the proper division that issued the assailed decision on the Meralco case dated July 23. Cruz claimed that Reyes sought his opinion as then member of the CA committee on rules after Sabio refused to relinquish the case with him. He said Sabio has no right to preside over the June 23 Meralco hearing following Reyes's return as the division's regular chairman from leave of absence, being chairman merely in an "acting" capacity. By definition, he said the word "acting" connotes doing duty for another, or holding a position of temporary rank. Cruz cited Section 2-D of the Irca, which provides that Sabio's participation as acting chairman in the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) is not part of the injunctive process, which is allowed for as long as he will not resolve the case on its merits, the same being reserved for the returning chairman, Reyes. "Justice Sabio himself claims right to continue to pursue the Meralco case because he participated in the initial action of the court. However, none of the exceptions that would justify the transfer from Reyes's jurisdiction were met, such as the giving of due course to the petition; granting of preliminary injunction; and new trial," he said.
Sabio earlier claimed that the issuance of a TRO is part of the injunction process, but Cruz disagreed, saying a TRO is just an interlocutory order. Cruz further countered Sabio's supposition that the motion to lift the TRO, filed by Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS), which the Special Ninth Division issued, is in effect a motion for reconsideration (MR). He said that under Section 6 of Rule 58 of the Irca, the remedy of party restrained is either a TRO or preliminary injunction, which are motions for dissolution, but which are not an MR. "Assuming that the motion to lift TRO can be applied as a motion for reconsideration, a party may file an MR of a decision of final resolution. TRO is not a final resolution, it is only an interlocutory order," Cruz said.Still, Cruz added, the authority of justices who participated in the issuance of a TRO - Sabio, Vidal and Roxas - is only to rule on the TRO, not on the merits of the petition. Cruz said that if the theory of Sabio would be followed, it would mean that had he participated in the June 23 oral arguments, even if it is improper, that would be a passport in the decision-making process, in violation of the Irca. He further said that as acting chairman of the division, it is Sabio's duty to direct the ponente, Roxas to immediately resolve first the motion to lift TRO before the oral arguments last June 23. That motion was never resolved. "Sabio had no right to participate in that hearing of June 23. In fact, the motion to lift TRO could not be resolved before the oral arguments. He should have called attention of the ponente to have the motion to lift TRO resolved, and not wait for June 23," he said. Falsification: Conspiracy between J. Reyes, J. Bruselas & J. Roxas - Clerk of Court's "messy" records in full disarray Meanwhile, the clerk of court of the Eighth Division admitted before the panel that she was kept in the dark by the division justices on their supposed deliberations conducted prior to the promulgation of the Meralco case last June 23. Upon questioning by panel member, retired Justice Romeo Callejo Sr., lawyer Teresita Custodio said the clerk of court of divisions are usually not informed of deliberations until before the promulgation of the case. This, she said, has been the practice at the CA. Callejo noticed that there were no transcripts or stenographic records of said deliberations that were attached to the rollo of the case that was submitted to the panel. Custodio's testimony contradicts that of Reyes, who claimed in his affidavit that there were deliberations conducted among the members of the Eighth Division prior to the July 14 final deliberations. The lady lawyer said she was not asked to be present or any of the division's staff to record the deliberations. "I wasn't there when they deliberated. I was never informed of any deliberation. I cannot find any transcript of the deliberations prior to the final deliberation," Custodio told the panel. Callejo further noted that the July 14 transcript of the deliberations of Reyes and the two other members of the Eighth Division - Associate Justices Apolinario
Bruselas and Roxas, the ponente of the Meralco decision - was the only transcript attached to the rollo. Sans the transcripts, Callejo said Reyes's claim in his affidavit that they were prior deliberations made on the Meralco case might be considered "a falsification." The panel was also notified by Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr., Vidal and Sabio that the copies of the July 14 transcript attached to the affidavit of Roxas that was provided to them has no initials as compared to the one attached to the rollo. After verification, Callejo agreed that there seemed to be two copies of the July 14 transcript, the one attached to the rollo and the other one attached to Roxas's affidavit which bears no initial at all. "That's another mystery," Callejo remarked. He also said that it was strange that Roxas kept the rollo of the Meralco case throughout the proceedings of the case, as confirmed by Custodio. She also told the panel that all the pleadings, motions and manifestations were forwarded to the office of Roxas since the rollo was with him. The only time she got hold of the rollo was when the resolution granting the issuance of the TRO in favor of the Lopez-bloc of Meralco was promulgated on May 30, she said. Custodio said since that time, she did not see the rollo anymore until it was returned to her only after the July 23 decision with the July 14 transcript of deliberations and other pleadings attached as "loose leaf." Panel chairperson, retired justice Carolina Grino-Aquino, also berated Custodio for keeping "messy" records of the cases being handled by the division after she noticed that the dates when the pleadings were filed and the dates on the logbook did not match. Custodio testified that the urgent manifestation with attached memorandum and memorandum of authorities of the petitioner were filed allegedly on July 10, 2008 but as noted by Aquino the log book showed that it was filed on July 7, 2008. When asked about the memoranda that were not stitched to the court's rollo, Custodio replied that she could not locate the same and it seemed that it was "lost in transit." Aquino reminded Custodio that under the Irca, the stitching should have been done by the receiving section of the judicial records and within two working days the same should have been forwarded to the office of the division clerk of court. Callejo also wondered how the transcript of the July 14 final deliberations of the CA 8th Division was produced, when one of the members, Justice Apolinario Bruselas, had testified that no stenographer was present and that he saw no recording device in the room. Justice Jose Sabio Jr., who had claimed to being unceremoniously ousted from the case, accused Roxas of having “unusual interest” in the petition filed by Meralco against the GSIS and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The petition had sought the voiding of the SEC order stopping Meralco from including proxy votes in its board elections on May 27. ‘Isn’t that strange?’ “It appears to me the rollo had always been with Justice Roxas ... Isn’t that strange that Justice Roxas keeps the rollo?” Callejo said. He wondered if Roxas would also keep all 300 rollos with him if he were handling 300 cases, and asked how many other justices were keeping rollos.
Custodio’s duty - Callejo said it was Custodio’s duty to retrieve the rollo from Roxas: “Diyos ko (My God), you should have asked for the rollo from him and stitched the motion [as the pleadings come].” Sabio said Roxas’ action indicated the latter’s “unusual interest in this case.” No stenographer - Callejo also wondered how the 7-page transcript of the 8th Division’s final deliberations was produced considering that only Roxas, Reyes and Bruselas were present, and that Bruselas had testified that he did not sign any transcript. “How can there be a transcript if there was no stenographer?” Callejo said. Bruselas replied that perhaps Roxas had taken down notes, and that the ponente had earlier said he wanted minutes of the meeting kept. The panel chair, Carolina Griño Aquino, asked whether the transcript was produced from memory, eliciting laughter from the gallery. Callejo also noted that there was no apparent evidence to show that more than one deliberation was held before the decision was issued. He said the transcript contained a reference to “previous deliberations,” yet no transcripts of other deliberations could be seen in the records. The transcript was attached to Reyes’ affidavit. Custodio also said she could not find the records of other transcripts. “So the claim of Justice Reyes is a falsification?” Callejo said. Custodio said she could not speak for Reyes. She added that she only came to see the transcript of the final deliberations when the rollo was returned to her. ‘Grievous illness’ - Reyes is confined at the Capitol Medical Center in Quezon City and, according to his lawyer Vitaliano Aguirre II, has been banned from reading or watching reports on the controversy hounding the appellate court. Aguirre told the investigating panel that based on the latest medical bulletin, Reyes was in stable condition after suffering two seizures last week. Reyes was able to attend only the Thursday hearing conducted by the panel. “It’s a very grievous illness necessitating his stay at the ICU (intensive care unit). Only on Saturday was he transferred to a regular room. Per the latest bulletin, he’s now in stable condition but he’s prohibited from reading newspapers or watching TV in connection with the case,” Aguirre said. Sabio questioned Reyes’ continued absence at the daily hearings, but apologized for possibly sounding insensitive. “I think due process demands that we be able to cross-examine him (Reyes),” Sabio said. Aguirre said Reyes’ medical certificate was available. He said he wanted Reyes to be present but that the latter was suffering a “life-threatening condition.” “If he’s well enough, to his heart’s content Justice Sabio can cross-examine him,” Aguirre said. CA Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal accused Roxas at least twice of lying in his testimony before the panel. Romero noted Roxas’s apparent undue interest and "unseemly" haste in resolving the case, pointing out the instances where Roxas personally delivered copies of draft decisions to the justices for their perusal and his active pursuit of fellow Justice Bienvenido Reyes to affix his signature to the decision. Romero asked Roxas if it was his usual practice to personally deliver documents to the justices when such are normally done by court messengers. "Why should (this case) be exceptional?" she asked. In his
testimony, Roxas said that he brought copies of the draft decision (favoring Meralco) to Vidal’s office on July 8 after she asked to read it. This despite the fact that there was already a revamp at the CA four days earlier that reconstituted membership in the divisions and supposedly also the justices handling the Meralco ownership case. Denial king - Roxas admitted that it was "out of (his) character" to make personal delivery to the individual justices but he had to "to maintain confidentiality in all our actions." But Vidal interjected that she did not request to read a copy of the decision and that Roxas "voluntarily" provided the purportedly draft decision. Vidal also revealed to the panel Roxas’s demeanor when he went to her again "at the close of office hours’ on July 8, looking "anxious." Roxas asked Vidal if he had signed the document he had provided to her and "looked relaxed" when told that he did. Reacting to Roxas’s claim that it was not his intention to provide Vidal the decision on the Meralco case for her own signature considering that she was no longer part of the division that should handle the case, Vidal said Roxas’s excuse "smacks of incredulity." She pointed out that she was provided with three copies of the decision which explained why she gave her certification concurring with Roxas’s ponente. She said Roxas was a "denial king" and was "weaving lies to cover up his escape." "You have to be candid. Remember you are under oath. I made no such request. The decision you brought had the earmarks of a final panel decision that is why I signed. It bears your signature as the ponente. I am sorry to say this," Vidal said. Another instance where Roxas exhibited undue interest and haste in the Meralco case was when the 9th panel issued the TRO versus the SEC, Vidal said. She said Roxas tried to call her on her mobile phone, waited for her at her office where "he fell asleep and my staff pitied him." Computer literate Roxas said he is computer literate and know how to access latest SC and foreign decisions which facilitates his writing of ponencias. He reiterated that his style precisely earned him a plaque of recognition from the SC for topping case disposals in the CA, with "thousands" of cases disposed in his four years at the CA. "Efficiency can be mistaken as haste; confidentiality of case can be misinterpreted as interest," Roxas said. "I am being ridiculed for being careful... confidentiality is a virtue that should not be confused with interest. Give me a fighting chance to save my reputation," he pleaded. Roxas also told the panel that the Meralco case was a "high-profile case" which necessitated confidentiality. Asked by SC panel member Romeo Callejo Sr., what made the Meralco case high-profile, Roxas said he has received death threats. Tough grilling - Roxas said he made a "mistake" and that it was only Vidal’s "perception" that she was still involved in the case. "I may have forgotten, I may have been mistaken," Roxas said. This drew a rebuke from Callejo who reminded Roxas that he earlier bragged about his efficiency and computer literacy. Callejo pointed out that what Roxas gave to Vidal were
copies of the decision and a signature page, indicating that he recognized Vidal as still part of the division that should decide on the Meralco case. Callejo said a simple tweak in the computer would have removed Vidal’s name in the signature page and would have properly informed her that she was no longer part of the division that should tackle the case. "I thought you are a paragon of efficiency? Why did you forget?" a visibly irritated Callejo said. "I could not do anything about it anymore," was all Roxas could say. Callejo could no longer hide his disgust that at one point, he sarcastically said that Roxas "could be waiting for inspiration" when Sabio reminded Roxas that he did not ask a single question during the June 23 hearing for the TRO. ‘That’s a lie’ - Callejo also raised questions on Roxas going to Vidal’s office when he insisted that what he brought to her was only a private and not official document. The former justice pointed out that Vidal told Roxas she wanted to read the decision and had to bring it home for further study. "If the purpose is just to read it, why did she sign it?" Callejo asked Roxas. Roxas could not answer, prompting Callejo to say "make it on record that witness did not answer." Callejo pointed out that Roxas has been admitting many mistakes which cast doubt on his self-proclaimed efficiency. Among his supposed mistakes include not informing Vidal that she was no longer part of the division that should tackle the case; that she was not supposed to sign the decision given to her; and that he did not inform her about this even after he had retrieved the document from Vidal. Roxas argued that he tried to tell Vidal about the new composition of justices that would handle the Meralco, by telling her to look into the Internal Rules of the CA. This prompted Vidal to say: "That is another lie. You have to be candid and honest." “It seems that the record-keeping of your receiving section on special cases is a mess,” said retired Supreme Court Justice Carolina Griño-Aquino, who heads the panel. She was appalled by the inability of Teresita Custodio, clerk of court of the appeals court’s Ninth Division, to explain discrepancies in the case records. Custodio was unable to say what date her office received the pleadings, memoranda and other motions submitted by parties involved in the Meralco case. An exasperated Aquino pointed out that the dates when the pleadings and motions were supposedly filed did not match the dates in Custodio’s logbook. Custodio, who served as the clerk of court of the Special Ninth Division, said the Lopez group had filed an urgent manifestation on July 10. But Custodio’s logbook showed the documents were filed on July 7. Pressed to state the actual date of submission, Custodio could only mumble apologies. When Aquino asked why the memorandum dated July 10 filed by Meralco was not attached to the case files, Custodio said she could not locate the documents. “It might have been lost in transit your honor,” she said. Aquino also admonished Custodio, who admitted she did not bind the records of the case, which should have been done within two working days upon receipt. Custodio was also failed to answer why only the designated author of the decision, Justice Vicente Roxas, was provided all the copies of the
pleadings. Aquino said the rules stated that seven copies of the pleadings should be bound to the case files, but there was only one copy. Custodio said that in practice, only the designated writer received a copy of the pleadings. To accommodate the request of Eighth Division chairman Justice Bienvenido Reyes and Justice Apolinario Bruselas, Custodio said, she forwarded copies of the memorandums to the office of the two justices. But the clerk of court said she did not know for certain whether Reyes or Bruselas had received their copies because the two did not sign the logbook carried by the messenger. Custodio also said that based on records, there was no transcript of previous deliberations involving the justices who dismissed the GSIS complaint against the Lopez group in Meralco. She said only the transcript of the final deliberation on July 14 was available. But retired Supreme Court Justice Romeo Callejo told Custodio that a stenographer should have been present to record the deliberations, and that the transcripts of all such meetings should be bound to the case files. Callejo said photocopies of the July 14 deliberation taken from the case files did not match those copies that were provided to Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr., as attached in Roxas’ sworn statement. The case file copy had initials at the right lower portion of the page, while those furnished to Sabio did not bear any initials. “That’s another mystery,” Callejo said. Sabio told reporters that the transcript of the final deliberation mysteriously found its way into the case file because records could not provide the date of its entry. Custodio said that she was not informed that other deliberations had been held. Sabio questioned the absence of Justice Bienvenido Reyes, who was in hospital for a heart ailment. “I may sound callous and insensitive, but I believe that Justice Reyes needs to be questioned,” Sabio said, insinuating that Reyes’ illness may have been concocted so that he could avoid the investigation. Vitaliano Aguirre II, counsel for Reyes, snapped: “Justice Reyes suffered 2 heart seizures last Friday and was in the intensive care unit of the Capitol Medical Center all day. He was only declared in a stable condition Aug. 9. If you want, you can subpoena his attending doctors.” Aguirre told the panel that the doctors had recommended that Reyes refrain from reading or watching television accounts of the hearing as the excitement could endanger his health. "You filed on July 21 before the Office of Presiding Justice Conrado Vazquez a pleading denominated as Interpleader. What rules are governed by this interpleader petition?" Sabio asked Roxas. "It is just a petition," Roxas said. "Under what rule?" Sabio asked. "The Presiding Justice is not a court," Roxas replied. "If the Presiding Justice is not a court, then why did you file the petition," Sabio asked. "It is a memoranda," Roxas replied. "Ah so now it’s not a letter anymore but a memorandum. Which is it? …You said you memorized the IRCA [Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals] and yet you don't know the Rules of Court," Sabio said.
Sabio also questioned Roxas on the transcript of the July 14 deliberation of the appeals court 8th division in connection with the case. On Wednesday, 9th division Clerk of Court lawyer Teresita Custodio admitted that the transcript was only “inserted,” not stitched into the case records. Custodio also said that the copies that were given to the justices had no initials except for the one that had been inserted into the records, a fact panel member, retired Associate Justice Romeo Callejo said, was “a mystery.” Roxas said that prior to July 14, there was another deliberation, which was not recorded. Roxas also said that there was no stenographer to transcribe their deliberation to maintain confidentiality. Roxas claimed he made the transcript of the deliberation from memory and added that he presented the transcript to Associate Justices Bienvenido Reyes and Apolinario Bruselas, the two other members of the 8th division. While Bruselas confirmed that there was a deliberation, he admitted that it was only during his testimony Wednesday that he had seen the transcript. Callejo said Roxas should have asked both Reyes and Bruselas to sign the transcript. But Roxas countered that what was important was the substance of the deliberation. "We are not talking about the substance. It was made to appear that there was a transcript made on the deliberation, when it fact it was drawn from his memory," Callejo said. "You say you prepared it out of memory? You must have a very photographic memory because page three of the transcript has 225 words…I counted it. Page four has 454 words. Fantastic memory," Sabio said. Sabio also questioned Roxas about the time of the deliberations by the 8th division on the case. Bruselas said it was around 3 p.m. but Roxas said it was in the morning. Vidal called Roxas a “liar and a denial king” over Roxas’ claims that it was the lady judge who asked him to go to her chamber and read to her the decision, which she had eventually signed. Vidal’s accusations came after the investigating panel asked Roxas whether the 8th division had jurisdiction over the case and why he had to go to Vidal’s office. Roxas insisted that he brought the document to Vidal on July 8, after the reorganization was enforced July 4. "I told her that I will get it back, which I did get it back. She was with me in the decision beforehand, she's a very nice lady before," Roxas said. "She's still a nice lady now," Romero and Callejo said, to which Roxas responded, "yes she was a nice lady. "Why are you stressing that she is a nice lady before or after or whatever?" Romero asked. "She simply asked, 'Can I read it?' To me, it was a very harmless request," Roxas said. Roxas said that what he had showed Vidal was not an official transmission because the other records of the case were not attached to the decision that he had given his colleague. “When I gave her [Vidal] the copy there was no rollo involved and no official receipt, meaning it was unofficial,” Roxas said. “She being a nice lady, you cannot refuse her but you told her to sign it?” retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Flerida Ruth Romero asked. But Roxas countered, “I only gave her [Vidal] an hour or two to read the decision and I had to get it back immediately.” It was at this point that Vidal interrupted
her colleague, saying “You are under oath. There was no request. Never, never did I request you to allow me to have a peek at your decision. It has all the earmarks of a final decision. You carry it in an expensive looking bag. It also has the earmarks of a final decision as a matter of fact there are three copies of the decision and there is also a certification that I concur in that decision," Vidal said. "Your series of lies only pinpoint to your lack of credibility. In fact, you obtained the moniker of my staff, they call you 'denial king,'" Vidal said. Vidal also said that Roxas returned to her “looking worried and asked if I signed it [the document].” "After the close of officer hour, he came back looking worried and asked me if I signed it. I said yes and he left at once. But with instruction that he will pick it up the next day…Now, I have a reason to believe that that is a final decision and he is just weaving his lies in order to cover up and escape," Vidal said. "That's not nice, coming from a nice lady," Romero said. Roxas told the panel that his early resolution of the Meralco case was a product of deliberate study of the issues and evidence presented. To prove this, he submitted 34 drafts of the decision that was reached by the 8th Division. “I leave my office around 12 midnight and arrive at around 7 am. I always see to it that my desk is cleared when I leave for home,” he said. Upon questioning by Sabio, Roxas was unable to specifically state about the minutes and transcripts of the supposed deliberation prior to the promulgation of the Meralco case. Roxas also was not able to categorically state the date when the deliberations took place and whether was took place was a simple meeting or a deliberation among division members. He said that during one of their prior deliberations, 8th Division chair Justice Bienvenido Reyes designated him as secretary tasked to transcribe the minutes of the deliberations as provided for under the Internal Rules of the CA. When asked why a stenographer was not invited to take down the minutes, Roxas said that he wanted to preserve the confidentiality of the deliberations. “Since it is a high profile case, we do not want our deliberations to leak out,” he said. But Sabio pointed out that it was highly improbable that Roxas would be able to remember the minutes of the deliberations on sheer memory and be able to write extensively on it, but not be able to recall the dates as to when the deliberations took place. Sabio further noted that the conflicting copies of the final deliberations, saying only one set bore initials. He noted that according to page 1,926 of the rollo, in which the copy of the final deliberation was attached, there was no indication that it was officially received nor did it signify the date it was filed. Justice Romeo Callejo said that based on the records, it was made to appear that there was a transcript of the deliberations, but there was none since what was written in loose leafs were notes prepared from Roxas’ memory of what were discussed. Roxas claimed that despite the absence of minutes and transcripts, the first meeting of the division could be considered a formal deliberation although the main topic of their meeting was about the chairmanship row between Sabio and Reyes over the Meralco case. “We are in
agreement that Meralco’s petition is a matter for the regional trial courts to decide, but we always got distracted by the (chairmanship) squabble. We always got carried away,” he said. Vidal then shot back at Roxas, calling him the “denial king” who is "weaving his lies to formulate his escape.” She went on to narrate that prior to the promulgation of the May 30 temporary restraining order (TRO) decision, Roxas seemed to be in a hurry to have the decision signed since he waited for her in the CA's reception hall for a very long time and in fact went to her chambers and slept there.
III. Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez lapses: Co-conspirator of Justices Sabio & Vidal, for GSIS25 Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr has admitted that there were lapses on his part in resolving the dispute between justices. Vasquez told the panel that he had tried to mediate between Associate Justices Jose Sabio Jr and Bienvenido Reyes but was unsuccessful. Justice Romeo Callejo Sr. quizzed the CA presiding justice why the impasse between the two magistrates was not settled before the June 23 oral arguments on the case. Callejo also asked Vasquez if he took any action after Justice Edgardo Cruz, chairman of the committee on rules, issued his opinion that it is Reyes who should head the 9th Division that handled the Meralco case. Vasquez said that he relayed to Reyes and Sabio about the opinion of Cruz on the matter, but Sabio chose to “cling” to his interpretation of the CA’s rules on the ground that he was more senior to Cruz and that he issued the opinion in his personal capacity and not as chair of the committee, which was non-existent at the time. He said that Reyes also insisted that he could not relinquish the chairmanship as he could be charged with dereliction of duty for not attending the hearing. “Would it have been better if the rules committee had been reconstituted, and for the justices to reset the June 23, 2008 hearing to determine who should have the chairmanship? Wouldn’t that have been better? What is important to the CA, seniority or the legality of the opinion?” Callejo said. Vasquez said he had not thought of convening the panel at that time because he was hoping that
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=128072 Indecision of Vasquez, hasty decision of Roxas highlighted in SC probe on Meralco-GSIS case By Lei Chavez abs-cbnNEWS.com http://www.gmanews.tv/story/113228/Vasquez-admits-lapses-in-resolving-row-amongmagistrates-in-Meralco-GSIS-case Vasquez admits lapses in resolving row among magistrates in Meralco-GSIS case 08/12/2008 | 08:40 PM 75
the justices concerned would resolve the matter among themselves. Callejo also said that he found it disturbing that Vasquez did nothing when Sabio told him about the P10-million bribe being offered by Cagayan De Oro businessman Francis Roa De Borja in exchange for favouring Meralco. He said Vasquez should have found it imperative for him to coordinate the National Bureau of Investigation so that an entrapment operation can be made to nail the would-be briber, being the presiding justice of the appellate court.“You should have taken steps to protect the members of the CA from being unduly influence in their decisions. The NBI could have protected your justices from the corrupting influences of persons in the outside,” he said. Vasquez replied that the CA will do the appropriate steps so that a similar situation will not be repeated again. Callejo then said that Justice Edgardo Cruz's opinion on who will preside was an "exercise in futility" since the rules committee's stand, according to Vasquez, is "not binding because there's nothing on it in IRCA." Vasquez added that "Cruz’s opinion is as good as everybody else's opinion in the court" but he was hoping that it "may have a persuasive effect." Callejo also said that the impasse should have been resolved in the en banc session, in which Vasquez said that the en banc session only resolves administrative issues. He also explained that each division in the CA is an independent body. The impasse, to his belief, was "not simply an administrative concern, it was judicial." Justice Martin Villarama expressed his opinion in favor of Sabio because GSIS, after the approval of the TRO, filed a motion to lift the TRO. Only the division who signed the TRO can lift it. Unresolved letters By July 21, a week after Roxas forwarded the signed decision to Reyes, Roxas wrote to Vasquez asking the latter to decide which of divisions 8th or 9th will handle the case. The following day, Reyes gave a letter to Vasquez asking for his "opinion" on who should preside. When Roxas personally delivered his interpleader petition to Vasquez' office, he did not mention that the decision was already with Reyes and that he and Bruselas had already affixed their signatures as early as July 14. Vasquez said that he "was insulted" when he found out lunchtime of July 24, right after he released his opinion favoring Sabio, that a decision on the Meralco-GSIS case was already promulgated that same day. "They asked for an opinion but there's already a decision." Aguirre said that because of the "history of vacillation of Vasquez on the matter," they did not expect him to respond to the letter. He also said that the response letter that was given on July 24 was already late. The response, as he said, could have been made "in hours." Roxas added that he also thought that the presiding justice would not give an opinion because he has not wanted to give one in the past. In defense, Vasquez said he asked for the records and studied them before giving out his opinion. When he found out that there were pending motions from the parties, he favored Sabio to preside over the decision.
Series of lapses - Several times, Vasquez mentioned that the reason he kept the impasse was because he "thought we can settle the matter within our ranks." The presiding justice said he talked to the two justices—Reyes and Sabio--before the hearing to discuss the "opinion" that Cruz gave him. The latter however, said he did not give Sabio a copy of Reyes's letter requesting Cruz's opinion and the presiding justice's recommendation letter. When asked by the panel what the presiding justice did after the rift was brought to his attention and after hearing of the bribery attempt, Vasquez answered "nothing." Likewise, when he was asked why he had not used the time before the hearing on the 23rd to complete the committee, Vasquez said that the idea did not occur to him. Callejo also asked why the en banc session was not called as early as June to solve the impasse. Vasquez answered, for the fourth time that he "thought they can settle the matter in their ranks." Vasquez also said that one of the reasons why he did not want to decide on the issue is because "they wanted me [Vasquez] to decide based on how they wanted the matter to be decided." Vasquez also said that when Cruz replied to his letter seeking an opinion on the impasse, the presiding justice considered it a personal opinion since the rules committee, at that time, was not yet formally organized. Aguirre, for his part, asked Vasquez if he has relatives in GSIS, a party to the case. Vasquez questioned the relevance of the query. But the panel asked Vasquez to answer the question. The presiding justice said he has two daughters, one a clerk, and the other, a dentist, in GSIS. When pressed by Aguirre if he has other relatives, he paused and replied that one relative works as a driver in GSIS.
a. GraveViolations of - - i.) A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC, AMENDMENT TO RULE 140 OF THE RULES OF COURT “SEC. 8. Serious charges. – Serious charges include:
1. Bribery, direct or indirect; 2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No. 3019); 3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct; 4. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as determined by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding; 9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure; SEC. 9. Less Serious Charges. – Less serious charges include: 1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, 4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars; 6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of service; and SEC. 11. Sanctions. – A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed: 1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits.”
ii.) CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT “CANON 1 A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY RULE 1.01 - A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence. RULE 1.02 - A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay. RULE 1.03. - A judge should be vigilant against any attempt to subvert the independence of the judiciary and should forthwith resist any pressure from whatever source intended to influence the performance of official functions. CANON 2 - A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES RULE 2.0, 2.04 - A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. CANON 3 A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH IMPARTIALITY AND DILIGENCE ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES RULE 3.01 - A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. RULE 3.02 - In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism. RULE 3.04 - A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants. RULE 3.05 - A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.”
iii.) Sec. 20 (a), Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court, the Canons, to wit: Respondents,
like all other members of the bar, failed to live up to the standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly the following Canons, viz: “CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT. Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes. Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.”
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (June 21, 1988)
“CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY - CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES. CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. Rule 7.03 - A lawyer
shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL. CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS. Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause. Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes.” – in that respondents miserably failed to be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence; (due to their ardent desire and lust for money and financial gain); they did not behave to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; they failed to follow the strict mandates of Rules 138, Rules of Court, and the Bill of Rights, RULE OF LAW, and due process. b. conducts unbecoming of a lawyer, gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct, as an officer of the court and member of the Bar / legal profession; c. professional indiscretion, violation of oath of office and their duty as attorney or counselor-at-law, which include the statutory grounds enumerated under Sec. 27 of Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court (Arrieta vs. Llosa, 282 SCRA 248), including grossly unethical behavior, malice and bad faith in rendering unjust orders and decision d. The following civil and criminal laws, inter alia, were also violated by respondents’ promulgation and rendering of the Partial Judgment of April 15, 2008, causing damages, loss, and utter INJUSTICE to Judge Floro, to wit: “CHAPTER 2 - HUMAN RELATIONS (n) Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against he latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken. Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: (1) Freedom of religion; (2) Freedom of speech;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law; (8) The right to the equal protection of the laws; (19) Freedom of access to the courts. In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence. The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and xxx a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. CHAPTER 2 - QUASI-DELICTS Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a) Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.” Revised Penal Code: Chapter Two - MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE Section One. — Dereliction of duty Art. 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. — Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision, shall be punished by prision mayor and perpetual absolute disqualification. Art. 206. Unjust interlocutory order. — Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust interlocutory order or decree shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
period and suspension; but if he shall have acted by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance and the interlocutory order or decree be manifestly unjust, the penalty shall be suspension.
Burning issue – Urgent and compelling - chilling effect on litigants' and lawyers' recourse to the Courts – first and foremost cause of extra-judicial killings
Respondents’ acts and omissions have far-reaching consequences, because every litigant especially the pauper and less privileged have to worry that he or she may be forced to pay huge sums or bribes to magistrates in the Court of Appeals’ Dirty Dozen, 4 Aces, inter alia. This raging media word war of CA magistrates demonstrates the deep national and judicial wounds of rage, anger, vendetta, lust for money, wealth and sheer hypocrisy in the very corridors of power. Petitioner’s Fath in the Supreme Court’s long history of vigilance on this matter is of paramount import. Petitioner cites authority:
Unethical conduct – Sabio:
Moreover, in his affidavit, Borja said that he paid Sabio P 300,000 for giving legal advice on a land deal he was brokering. At that time, Sabio was RTC judge in Cagayan de Oro. According to Sec. 11 of Canon Code of Judicial Conduct, “Judges shall not practice law whilst the holder of judicial office.” In addition, Section 13, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, “Judges and members of their families shall neither ask for, nor accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the performance of judicial duties.” Another count of ethical breach, on Sabio’s part, is his meeting with Borja, who was interested in a case. The New Code on Judicial Conduct is clear on safeguarding the integrity of the court: “Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.”
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=business5_aug4_2008 Justices on cross-hairs
2 Mystery man identified Justice Jose Sabio Jr. held an illegal and unethical press conference in his chambers when the latter was fulminating Friday on national TV against the Lopezes and Meralco “broker” Francis de Borja. 2 Non-Court of Appeals personnel stood by his side as seen in TV and news photos. The mystery men— the balding Chinoy chap clad in short-sleeved barong, happened to be lawyer Vicente Chuidian, and, the other, mustachioed companion, Chuidian associate, Romeo Gutierrez—apparently came not only to succor Sabio but also give counsel to the justice in his trying times. A corporate lawyer with a checkered and colorful past, Chuidian in his own right has joined Sabio in his crusade against Vicente Roxas, one of the Court of Appeals justices implicated by Sabio in the “fishy” transfer of the Meralco case. Chuidian, according to the grapevine, has a pending administrative complaint against Roxas, who, despite his Masters of Law degree from Georgetown University, is being accused by Chuidian for gross ignorance of the law. Chuidian is steaming from the Roxas order removing the
former from making any claims on the multi-billion inheritance of the late Miss Philippines and corporate lawyer Pacita de los Reyes-Phillips. Chuidian, who represents the late estranged American husband of the billionairess, was also prevented by virtue of the Roxas judgment from even making an entry of appearance into the testate intestate case now being heard by Makati Regional Trial Court Judge Ma. Cristina Cornejo. Because of the Chuidian complaint, Chief Justice Reynato Puno has decided to review the Roxas decision, assigning the Supreme Court’s Second Division to the task. Meanwhile, guess who Francis de Borja was seen with after the Manolo Lopez friend and schoolmate appeared Friday at the ANC cable channel? Why, none other than De Borja’s good friend, Wilfrido Villarama, the former Gloria Macapagal Arroyo aide and lightning rod who is now with El Shaddai’s Bro. Mike Velarde. De Borja and Villarama were seen in a huddle with a third man at the Manila Polo Club, in one of the nipa huts past by the olympic-sized pool for maximum privacy. What could the three men be discussing over sheafs of legal-looking documents?
Analysis: Appellate justices displayed undue interest in the Meralco-GSIS row By LALA RIMANDO abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak (First of two parts) 2 major reasons caused the current brouhaha at the Court of Appeals. The first is the undue interest displayed by several magistrates during the almost two months that the appellate court was handling the corporate case
involving two warring shareholders of the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco)—the Lopez family and their allies, and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). Some appellate justices displayed eagerness, and in some instance, aggressiveness, in ensuring that they are included in the team that determined the fate of the two camps.
The second is the weak leadership displayed by the court's Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez over the Meralco-related issues that were brought to
his attention by the various magistrates. The referral of these issues to the court's Rules Committee and his firm support for whatever that committee decides on could have doused the brewing rift among his subordinates early on.
At the end of the day, however, the biggest loser is the integrity of the appellate court.
When elephants fight
The Meralco case, which was triggered by the contentious May 27 annual stockholders meeting is basically a jurisdictional issue: should the Securities and Exchange Commission be followed since it was out to protect the investors' interest, or should the stakeholders' dispute be heard by the regular courts, which has long been in-charge of intra-corporate cases? That question pitted two formidable players: the wealthy Lopez family and the government through Winston Garcia, GSIS's general manager. Each has about one-third stake in Meralco. What started as a boardroom row in March that evolved into a proxy fight during the annual stockholders meeting in May, has caused an almost similar, and troubling, discord among the Court of Appeals justices.
Roxas's questionable interest
Among all the 5 appellate justices who handled the case—whether they heard the oral arguments of the parties' lawyers, or read the written explanations of the contending parties, or issued either the temporary restraining order (TRO) or the decision on the case—the justice that displayed the most undue interest was Justice Vicente Roxas. Roxas, being the ponente, or the assigned writer of the case, clearly has an upper hand as far as the CA's internal rules are concerned. When the CA underwent a reorganization where justices were shuffled and assigned to other divisions because of retirement of some justices, the Meralco case was transferred to the new division where Roxas was assigned. In this case, since he came from the 9th division—with Justices Jose Sabio, Jr. and Myrna Vidal completing the three-person division—and was transferred to the 8th division—with Justices Bienvenido Reyes and Apolinario Bruselas—the CA's internal rules say that the Meralco case should be handled by the new 8th division because the ponente, Roxas, was there. So far, the two positions that the CA has taken, namely the 60-day TRO in May issued by the original 9th division, and the decision promulgated in July 23 issued by the new 8th division, favored the Lopezes
and their allies. In both instances, which were separately handled by the two different divisions, Roxas displayed dubious behavior. Sabio, in his July 26 letter to the presiding justice, noted that when Roxas completed the draft of the TRO in May, Roxas personally delivered the document to his office. We learned that in the courts, decisions are routed to ensure that the magistrates do not display their personal interest toward any of the litigants. Sabio described Roxas's personal delivery of the draft TRO as "surprising." In July, Roxas again did this with Vidal when he personally brought the draft decision to the latter's office. Vidal, in her July 24 letter to the presiding justice, said she agreed with the decision favoring Meralco but was concerned about the "apparent and obvious irregularities in the handling of CA GR SP No. 103692 (Meralco case)." Vidal, who was with Sabio and Roxas in the old 9th division, would later express her disappointment that "judicial courtesy was not observed." She noted how she was "hurried[ly] eased out of the case," thus the time she spent time studying the case went to waste since it was eventually the new 8th division that promulgated it.
One-day 50-page decision
Roxas seemed to have also hurried in another task related to the Meralco case: the time it took him to write the decision that favored Meralco. The parties—Meralco and GSIS—submitted their memoranda, or the summary of all their arguments, including those not included during the oral argument, on July 11, a Friday. The next working day, July 14, Monday, the new 8th division conducted its final deliberation and on that same day, Roxas already finished writing the decision—a whole set that added up to more than 50 pages. Sabio, in one of his media interviews, showed that the memoranda from the two parties piled up to almost a foot high and that it took him a good number of days to go through all of them. Roxas then forwarded the document to Bruselas, who in turn also affixed his signature that same day. With one more signature to go—Reyes's—Roxas relentlessly urged the new 8th division chairman through various memoranda between July 14 and 22 to make up his mind. In Reyes's letter to the presiding justice, he recalled that Roxas was urging him to dissent so that a division of five could be convened in time to decide before the 60day TRO expired on July 30. It was around that time that Roxas personally delivered the draft decision to Vidal for her signature. Reyes finally signed the decision on July 23. In the end, it was still the three members of the new 8th division that signed the decision that supports the Lopez family's continuing control of the utility firm.
Justice Jose Sabio, Jr., who first questioned the procedure surrounding the decision favoring Meralco, himself demonstrated his own undue interest toward the case. During the June 23 oral argument, Sabio was just a substitute to Reyes at the 9th division. Reyes was on leave when the case was raffled to the 9th division, which Reyes chaired. When Reyes reported back to work in June 16, he wanted to assume the Meralco case already, but Sabio appeared to want to keep the post as chairman of the 9th division. In a statement submitted to the CA en banc meeting called by Vasquez, Roxas relates that Sabio “refused to relinquish the acting chairmanship of the 9th division and he left the regular 9th division chairman justice Reyes out in the cold when Justice Sabio presided over the June 23 hearing….Justice Reyes did not want to make a scene at the hearing. Justice Sabio embarrassed Justice Reyes by simply showing up, forcing Justice Reyes to retreat.” Sabio, we learned, did not disclose to the parties to the case that Reyes had already returned to work.
Rules committee chair snubbed Reyes then went to the rules committee chaired by Justice Edgardo Cruz, who then issued a written reply that based on the rules, Reyes should already assume the case since he's the designated chair of the 9th division. Sabio, however, was slighted that Reyes, who is "junior to him in the court," was telling him to disengage. Sabio even said Cruz was just issuing a personal opinion. Instead, Sabio consulted Justice Martin Villarama, whom he described in his letter as "more senior, experienced, and respected member of this court for consultation and guidance." Villarama, according to Sabio, advised him to chair the 9th division during the oral argument. In July, as the rift among the justices grew, Sabio would tell his colleagues, Bruselas and Vidal to also seek the opinion of Villarama. Villarama, however, is not with the rules committee. GSIS, defending Sabio, said in a press release that Sabio was "unceremoniously excluded" from the case. A week after the oral argument, the alleged bribe offer took place. It is surprising, though, that Sabio did not immediately report the attempted bribery, which happened on July 1. It was only on July 26, or weeks later, when he wrote Vasquez and
narrated the incident. The behavior of the appellate justices, particularly that of Roxas's and Sabio's, casts doubt on the integrity of the court. The CA presiding justice, however, was slow to act on the all this. http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=jojoRobles_aug5_2008 Why not our court? Let everything be done by the rule book. But let it all be done in the open.
For a day last week, the Manila offices of the Court of Appeals—never a tightly guarded bulding—were shut down like those in a high-security facility. During the four-hour en banc session of the entire court last Thursday, uppity security guards screened everyone who attempted to enter, taking special care not to let in anyone who even resembled a journalist. When the court spokesman finally called a press conference after the marathon session, the assembled reporters learned that the justices of the country’s second-highest court had tossed the matter of the recent allegations of bribery to the Supreme Court. In a none-too-subtle attempt at stonewalling, the spokesman could not answer any questions—not being a justice, the court’s mouthpiece was not present at the session and thus could not deviate from a prepared statement. Not one of the usually gregarious justices could be gotten to go on
record about probably the biggest controversy to grip the appellate court in a long time.
The lockdown and gagging of the Court of Appeals betrays a distrust of what the members of the judiciary often derisively call “the court of public opinion,” represented by the media, whose members the judges and justices often accuse of playing fast and loose with the laws, rules, procedures and protocols that they are the sole sworn guardians of. This alternate court is now also on an extended session, feasting on report after lurid report that one justice is either accusing his own colleagues or is himself being accused of impropriety. But why not try this case in front of everyone, using the free-wheeling rules of media and public opinion, instead of the usual legal and administrative methods, we want to know? Why shouldn’t the Court of Appeals be subjected to the intense (if often attention-challenged)
investigation by the public and the media, just like any office of the executive or Congress?
Make no mistake: Regardless of the outcome of the official investigation that the Supreme Court will conduct on the charges leveled by Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr., the verdict is already being decided right now in the hearts and minds of the
public, through their often ill-informed, deadline-plagued, self-appointed advocates in media. And the final decision in that case could spell the difference between the redemption of the Court of Appeals as an institution or irreparable damage to it in the
eyes of all Filipinos—in whose name and by whose sufferance, after all, the courts exist. In
handling the controversy, the last thing the court needs to do is to start lockdown procedures. The court (or at least some of its members, anyway), is being inundated with accusations and counter-accusations of large-scale bribery, selling its decisions and dealing with characters with no visible connection to it except for knowing the right people and having a knack for “packaging” multi-million deals. These are not charges that can be dismissed peremptorily like a nuisance suit filed by a litigious ambulance-chaser. They deserve to be aired, just like similar charges regularly hurled—and ventilated openly—against any other government office. And if our fragile, much-criticized legal system depends on a social contract that cedes rulings in legal matters to an elite corps of jurists, the people who agreed to this bargain have a right to know what is really going on behind the court’s musty— and recently shut—doors. No less than a public hearing by the Supreme Court will blow away the nascent impression of the appeals court as an unaccountable and corrupt organization where money is the sole currency of justice. To a man, the members of the judiciary find fault in Justice Sabio’s accusations against some of his own colleagues on the bench. But they will always qualify that their problem is not in his charges themselves, but in the manner by which he ventilated them—to the media, no less! But Sabio is a long-standing member of the judiciary, first as a provincial trial court judge and for the last decade as an associate justice of the Court of Appeals. He must have known that by going public with his charges, he was putting his entire career on the line—if he was indeed angling to become a member of the Supreme Court, he must also have decided that his “outing” in the press, so to speak, could put that ambition forever out of his reach. Already, the reputation of Sabio is being undermined. This is the same person, said businessman and deal-maker Francis de Borja (whom the justice accused of offering him a P10 million bribe) who as a trial court judge readily accepted P300,000 from him for his help in “advising” in a real estate development scheme in Cagayan de Oro City. Still, while De Borja seems intent on discrediting Sabio, a careful reading of his affidavit will show that he stops short of accusing the justice of actually
demanding the P50 million bribe that he says Sabio wanted to let go of the Meralco case. According to De Borja, he was shocked by Sabio’s reply that it would take that much for him to sway him—without saying that the amount was what Sabio actually wanted from the businessman and the people who allegedly sent him. Given Sabio’s current all-or-nothing frame of mind, it is doubtful if he can still be convinced to play along with his colleagues and keep his mouth shut. And now that the man he accused of offering him a bribe has also come out swinging, as well, it is likely that Sabio will react by further escalating his attacks, instead of backing down. De Borja’s insinuation of long-time official impropriety by the man he calls his “friend,” more than being just the proverbial shot across the bow, seems to have sealed the deal for Sabio—who cannot be expected to back away without giving credence to all of the
businessman’s charges. As for his career in the judiciary, Sabio seems to have sealed his fate there, as well, making him the sort of dangerous man without fear of anything further to lose.
As for the judiciary itself, it should undergo a cleansing process at the very least as a result of the Sabio incident— which makes it all the more imperative for the Supreme Court to be absolutely transparent about its entire investigation of the matter. Stonewalling now will only reinforce the belief held by many that the Court of Appeals (or any other part of the judiciary) is as graft-prone as any other branch of government. As for Sabio himself, is he the savior of the judiciary or its destroyer? Only time will tell. As the saying goes, heroes have very short lives—especially in our amnesiac society. Or, as the current Batman movie paraphrases it, you either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
Perception of character
One night last week, my husband and I were watching the evening news over GMA-7 (because we are able to tolerate Saksi by a hair’s breadth better than ABSCBN’s TV Patrol). There was a long segment on Sabio. His students, former students and fellow faculty members at the Ateneo Law School were interviewed and everyone was saying the same thing —that Sabio’s character was unsullied, he was incorruptible and he would never accept bribes. I paused, not quite believing what I was hearing. When was Sabio’s character ever the issue? Were the perceptions of people who know him determinative of whether or not he did intimate to De Borja that he was willing to sell his integrity for P50 million?
As if the lack of objectivity in news reporting wasn’t enough, the segment went on to air interviews with people from De Borja’s neighborhood—people who hardly knew him. People who only knew that De Borja owned property in the neighborhood and that De Borja spent time in the cockpit. Beyond that, those people knew nothing of him. Taken all together, the entire segment built up Sabio as a man of good character and De Borja as a shady character. What was GMA-7 trying to achieve? Strike a blow indirectly at its competitor, ABS-CBN, by painting De Borja as an unsavory character and all but deciding that, between Sabio and De Borja, it is Sabio who is telling the truth? Is that fair news reporting? Is it part of the role of media to play judge and jury, and to decide for the public what it ought to believe? Is it responsible reporting considering the implications and the bias it builds on the minds of the people? Everything about the SEC-GSIS-Meralco case, including the allegations and counter-allegations of Sabio and De Borja, is about whether certain events did or did not happen, and whether certain people did or did not commit particular acts. Everything else is irrelevant. Character is irrelevant; perception of character is a thousand times more irrelevant. No one knows another entirely. No one knows if the person he sees is an image intentionally projected to hide an ugly truth. No one can judge the truth about another’s character based on a few hours of interaction every day. Gee, his neighbors considered Josef Fritzl to be an intelligent and respectable citizen until his secret basement was uncovered and, with it, the story of how he kept his own daughter a prisoner for 24 years, raping her repeatedly and fathering her seven children. Even husbands and wives who have lived together for half a century still manage to spring surprises on one another every now and then. While opinions are welcome, there is a line between an opinion and a straight news report. The problem with most TV news programs is that producers, writers, directors and news readers do not seem to know where the news reports end and the opinion begins. And I’m not just talking about GMA-7. ABS-CBN news programs resort to the same pretend-profiling gimmick just as often. Truth be told, they don’t seem to know where news reports end and entertainment begins. http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news3_aug4_2008
Frat, family ties in Meralco case under scrutiny
Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. was very clearly favoring the GSIS because he had close relatives working for it. “Instead of calming down the situation and protecting the image of the court by dealing with the affair as an internal matter to be resolved in accordance with the rules, CA Presiding Justice Vasquez adds fuel to the fire. He creates a media spectacle by calling a rare en banc meeting of the CA when all that the [rules of the court] provides is for him to report his actions to the CA en banc. Something that he could have easily done in writing.” Vasquez ‘ bad faith consists in not disclosing that his daughter, Ma. Ruth Almira Vasquez, was connected with the GSIS corporate secretary, another daughter, Ma. Agnes Tosario Vasquez, was a dentist at the medical department, that his sister, Leonora de Jesus, was a former GSIS trustee, and that De Jesus’ daughter, Luisa Hernandez, was connected with the vice president for treasury. She is also the ''ninang'' (godmother) of the youngest son of GSIS president Winston Garcia. He was presiding Judge of Branch 118, Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. In 2003, an administrative complaint was filed against Sabio for ignorance of the law and inexcusable negligence, and charging him with deliberately causing the delay of the prosecution in Estafa entitled, “People of the Philippines, Plaintiff versus Ferdinand Santos, Robert John Sobrepeña, Federico Campos, Polo Pantaleon, and Rafael Perez De Tagle, Jr.” The SC dismissed the case with 12 votes. http://ca.supremecourt.gov.ph/index.php?action=resume_of_justices&x=25
CA Profile of J. Sabio
Inconsistencies - BIG DEAL By Dan Mariano CA justice’s woes
For one thing, even the casual observer should be able to detect some inconsistencies in Justice Sabio’s version of events. The first inconsistency concerns dates. Sabio said the alleged bribery try took place on July 1. The CA Eighth Division’s decision favoring Meralco over the SEC and GSIS, which Sabio is contesting, was released July 23. He disclosed the alleged bribery attempt on July 26. Observers ask: Why did it take Sabio so long to publicly reveal such a blatant offense?
Would it not have been better if Sabio had reported the purported bribery attempt to his CA colleagues and the public soon after it was made, say, July 2—and not July 26?
If Sabio had exposed the alleged bribery attempt soon after it was made, the current scandal would not have erupted. Moreover, the court would have probably issued a ruling radically different from the one favoring Meralco. That Sabio withheld information on the alleged bribery try from his CA colleagues for three weeks or so significantly diminished the believability of his story. Had he been “shocked” and “angered” by the alleged bribery attempt, shouldn’t he have immediately taken certain legal steps—such as ordering the arrest of the alleged bribe-givers and working toward to their speedy prosecution, trial and imprisonment? Moreover, why did he allow the Eighth Division to continue deliberating on the motion Meralco filed against the SEC and GSIS even after he was offered P10 million? Had Sabio told his colleagues that the bribe offer was made right after his purported meeting with de Borja, wouldn’t that have given the CA a chance to avoid the mess it now finds itself in? Wouldn’t that have given the presiding justice time to make his move without exposing the entire court to public embarrassment?
Here is another hole in the magistrate’s story. Where he and de Borja were talking, Sabio said, the Meralco chairman was close by inside a car. However, on the date of the supposed bribe offer, it turns out that Lopez was out of the country. If true, the bribery attempt should be countenanced by no one. The problem is that in the heated exchange of accusations and counter-accusations, little convincing proof has been presented. During a rare en banc session last week, the CA justices decided to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court, where hopefully the facts can be sorted out and where all those involved would have their day. Despite the seeming inconsistencies in his narration, Sabio should be given the benefit of the doubt. He is certainly entitled to a chance to explain the questionable timing of his revelation and to demolish the accusation that he tried to extort P50 million from the Lopezes. A Supreme Court inquiry should help Sabio do that— although his son, who reportedly works for Chief Justice Reynato Puno, needs to keep a respectable distance from the case. This controversy should be resolved and put to rest soon—before more reputations are damaged.
Against Justice Sabio are the troubling questions of his “casual friendship” with De Borja -- a friendship that seems to have been based on a prior business relationship dating back to the days when Sabio was a Regional Trial Court judge in Cagayan de Oro City. This was a lucrative friendship, according to De Borja. It was certainly a friendship that enabled De Borja to meet with Sabio last July 1—a meeting that ought never to have taken place at all. The Judicial Code of Ethics is quite clear: “Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.” There was no reason for Sabio to be entertaining people in the lobby of the Ateneo de Manila’s college of law; no justification for him to even entertain questions on cases, past, pending, or future; and no way he could have been viewed to have been acting in any manner except with imprudence, and to the prejudice not only of his reputation but also of the Court of Appeals. The legal profession is rife with stories of cases up for sale to the highest bidder; and of decisions being determined less by the law and more by interventions made by powerful parties on susceptible judges. Both the private and public sectors are widely perceived to be engaged in influence-peddling on a particularly lucrative scale when it comes to the higher courts.
The only thing unusual about the allegations being made now is that they are being made in public, by means of affidavits, and not merely being whispered about in legal circles.
And yet it is Sabio’s decision to go public with the bribe allegedly offered to him by De Borja that, for now, gives weight to the justice’s claim. His having gone
public, while embarrassing to the Court of Appeals, is the proper action of a man who has nothing to hide, and who fulfilled his duty by informing his superior of an attempt at bribery, and of the possibility that his colleagues may have succumbed to similar blandishments.
For its part, Meralco, if shown to be indeed behind De Borja, cannot justify the alleged bribe offer in the context of self-preservation and self-defense, just because the GSIS, its current institutional nemesis, has proven adept at using institutions like the SEC to further its own ends. The only thing going for Meralco is that the link between De Borja and his alleged client (Meralco) is slightly more tenuous than the damaging link between De Borja and Sabio himself.
CA weak leadership allowed justices' rift to prosper.
The alleged bribe offer to an appellate justice handling a high-profile corporate case, which has triggered an investigation by the Supreme Court, has brought to the public consciousness a more important issue—the deepening rift among the magistrates at the Court of Appeals (CA). Based on a review of the circumstances and events, including the alleged bribery, which led to a rare en banc meeting of the majority of the 65 CA justices all over the country, abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak found that weak leadership allowed the rift to prosper. CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. was aware of the issues related to the Meralco case from the start. Two justices—Jose Sabio Jr. and Vicente Roxas—were squabbling over who would handle the case in the light of a reorganization that transferred the ponente, Roxas, to another division. CA internal rules say that a ponente, the justice to whom the case is raffled off, should study and decide on the case. Yet Vasquez allowed these issues to drag
because he apparently could not enforce his own opinion—which favored Sabio. Sabio was one of the three justices of the CA 9th Division who signed the TRO in favor of Meralco.
Later, on June 23, Sabio presided over the oral argument although he was not the chairman of the 9th Division. He was just a substitute of Justice Bienvenido Reyes, the chairman of the 9th Division, who took a leave—but returned before the oral argument. Accounts show that Sabio did not inform the parties of the return of Reyes. When the issues became too hot to handle and the bribery attempt on Sabio
was reported in the media, Vasquez then called for an en banc meeting last July 31 to settle the discord. n the end, the appellate justices decided to toss these issues to the High Court.
Rules committee chair disregarded
Sabio, the substitute chairman of the 9th division, which was then handling the case, called on Vasquez three days before the oral argument because Reyes, the resident 9th division chairman, was back from his leave and was claiming back his post. How Sabio, Reyes, and the case's ponente, Roxas, behaved thereafter, fueled what was already a constant topic in the justices' rift among those in the CA. Vasquez sided with Sabio, while Reyes was banking on the opinion of the CA Rules Committee chairman, Justice Edgardo Cruz. To Vasquez, the issue revolved around the fact that the 9th division then chaired by Sabio issued the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in May favoring the Lopezes and their allies. GSIS had a standing motion to reconsider the TRO, so Vasquez said the 9th division should continue handling it, even when Reyes was already back. The issue should have been moot when Vasquez himself enforced reorganization effective July 4 when all the justices
had to be shuffled and assigned to different divisions. According to the CA's internal rules, the Meralco case should follow whichever division Roxas would be assigned because Roxas is the case's ponente. With the reorganization, Roxas was transferred to the new 8th division, which also had Reyes as the chairman. Then in July 1, the alleged P10 million bribery offer to Sabio happened. Sabio made this known verbally to Vasquez the day after, on July 2, but Sabio interpreted the bribe offer as a way to "take him out of the case." (Sabio formalized the bribery attempt in his July 26 letter to Vasquez) Vasquez then stuck to his original position, even when Reyes and Roxas kept on hammering the fact that based on the CA's internal rules, the TRO is not one of the allowed reasons for the Meralco case to stay with the old 9th division. Meralco's lawyers even filed an urgent motion in July 10 pushing for Reyes to assume the chairmanship of the division handling the case.
The TRO, which was issued in May 30, was only good for 60 days, or up to July 30. The Lopezes and their allies, who were favored by the TRO, has a pending request to replace the TRO with a preliminary injunction since the latter has a longer life span. The preliminary injunction would have assured the Lopezes that they would continue their current control of the Meralco board. If the TRO was allowed to expire in July 30, GSIS would have the chance to contest the Lopezes' grip of the board. The CA rules only allowed the preliminary injunction, not the TRO, as one of the reasons for the Meralco case to stay with the old 9th division. The new 8th division, however, issued a decision on the case, not a preliminary injunction, last July 23. The new 8th division's decision, facilitated by Roxas and had the blessings of Reyes, held their final deliberation last July 14—after Vasquez learned of the bribery attempt on Sabio —because Vasquez did not make a firm move on whether it should be the new 8th or old 9th division which should continue handling the Meralco case.
Was Vasquez torn?
During that time, Vasquez was torn whether the Meralco-related issues at the CA was under his purview. In his two July letters—one addressed to Reyes and Roxas and the other addressed to all the justices—he acknowledged that "the presiding justice is simply given control and supervision over administrative affairs of the Court." In separate occasions, Justice Bruselas of the new 8th division and Justice Myrna Vidal of the old 9th division even approached Vasquez to express that they
were disturbed by the bribery attempt after Sabio told them about it. Bruselas even said he has already signed the decision on the case and did not know about this disturbing "background", referring to the alleged bribery attempt. As the bribery allegations made their way to various media organizations, only then did Vasquez call for the en banc meeting. Vasquez could have spared the Court this trouble and the on the court's integrity had he tapped on the rules committee early on. But the rules committee chair Justice Cruz was downplayed by Sabio way back in June because Cruz was only a "junior justice." Cruz's opinion then was that Reyes should take over Sabio as the chairman when the old 9th division was still handling it. Had the rules been followed after the reorganization, Reyes would still have handled it since he chaired the new 8th division that was supposed to take over the Meralco case.
Daughters with GSIS
With Vasquez's opinion favoring Sabio even after the reorganization, and the lack of a preliminary injunction that would exempt Meralco from being transferred to Reyes’s and Roxas's division, inevitably casts doubt on Vasquez's motivations. Vasquez could have doused cold water over these doubts if he inhibited himself from any issues related to the Meralco-GSIS row. Based on abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak's research, his two daughters, Maria Ruth Almira and Ma. Agnes Rosario, are currently employed by GSIS. Abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak called the GSIS office and confirmed that Almira currently works at the GSIS corporate secretary's office but is
on leave. Agnes, on the other hand, is with the dental office of the medical department. http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/aug/06/yehey/metro/20080806met1.html
CA violated own rules in Meralco case
THE Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals were violated when appellate court Justices Jose Sabio Jr. and Myrna Vidal were excluded from the Court’s Eight Division when it promulgated the decision that dismissed the complaint filed by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco), Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez said Tuesday. He explained that while the case should remain with Justice Vicente Roxas being the ponente of the case, Sabio and Vidal should have been part of the July 24 decision handed out by the Eight Division, thus making the body a special division. Stressing that “there is a part of the rule that was violated,”
the Justice chief cited Rule VI, Section 2, Paragraph D of appellate court internal rules, which states, among others, that “the case shall remain with the justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report, and the justices who participated therein, regardless of their transfer to other divisions in the same station.” Asked if there is a sanction against erring appellate court justices, Gonzalez said: “I supposed there is a sanction when you violated your own rules.” He also stressed that the controversy between the Courts’s Eight and Ninth Division has given the judiciary a stigma, which
if not handled well could bring to naught the reforms initiated by the Supreme Court.
“RULE I - THE COURT, ITS ORGANIZATION AND OFFICIALS - SEC. 9. Reorganization of Divisions. − (a) Reorganization of Divisions shall be effected whenever a permanent vacancy occurs in the chairmanship of a Division, in which case assignment of Justices to the Divisions shall be in
accordance with the order of seniority unless a waiver is executed by the Justice concerned which waiver shall be effective until revoked by him in writing.(n)
RULE VI - PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION - SEC. 1. Justice Assigned For Study and Report. − Every case, whether appealed or original, assigned to a Justice for study and report shall be retained by him even if he is transferred to another Division in the same station. ( Sec. 2, Rule 8, RIRCA [a]) SEC. 2. Justices Who May Participate in the Adjudication of Cases. − x x x (d) When, in an original action or petition for review, any of these actions or proceedings, namely: (1) giving due course; (2) granting writ of preliminary injunction; (3) granting new trial; and (4) granting execution pending appeal have been taken, the case shall remain with the Justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report and the Justices
who participated therein, regardless of their transfer to other Divisions in the same station. (A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA - 2005 RIRCA: SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THE 2002 INTERNAL RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS)”
GSIS should shut up on appeals court row
Controversial lawyer-businessman Vicente Chuidian is one of the more avid supporters of Court of Appeals Justice Jose Sabio Jr., embroiled in the raging controversy at the appellate court over an alleged bribery/extortion try in connection with the Meralco-GSIS legal tussle. This is according to our friend Jonathan de la Cruz, one of our co-hosts in our Monday-to-Friday radio political commentary show, “Karambola.” The reason becomes clear if you look at the Ateneo alumni directory, which shows that Sabio and Chuidian were batchmates in the Ateneo Law School Class of 1968. Aside from Chuidian some of the members of the class whose names ring a bell
are Franklin Ebadlin, Luis Sison and the late Eugene Tan. Many of the members of the Ateneo Law Class of ’68, including Chuidian, Sison and Tan, are among the “founding fathers” of the Ateneo Law School-based Fraternal Order of Utopia. It is natural that Sabio would have widespread support from the members of this fraternity. For sure, one of Sabio’s antagonists in the controversy, businessman Francis Roa de Borja, who has a different version of the alleged bribery, has his own supporters in the Ateneo alumni community. Not only is the businessman a member of Grade School Class of 1953 but there is a long list of De Borjas in the directory including at least two well-known lawyers. With both protagonists having Ateneo roots it is easy to see why the blue and white community is divided on the issue. At this point, however, nobody should question the personal integrity of either Sabio or De Borja. What should prevail must be due process and this would be achieved through the probe to be conducted by the Supreme Court.People should hold their judgment on the two personalities involved in this row until the Supreme Court rules with finality on the issues regarding the ethics and essence of the controversy. In line with this, those sympathetic to Sabio should realize that if they want to help him, the best way is for them to shut up at this point. Sabio’s supporters should realize that in their desire to defend and help Sabio through their media salvoes, they are hurting, rather than helping his cause. The goal now must be to clarify the holes in the story of the alleged bribery/extortion as told from the Sabio perspective. It appears some of Sabio’s allies are not of much help on this score. Justice Sabio’s recent outburst that he is “up against the billions of the Lopezes” is also not helping his cause any. This anti-Lopez tirade has led many to wonder if he had been against Meralco in this particular case right at the start. He should be careful here because a perception of a major bias against one party in the case could only beef up suspicions that as far as he is concerned, there has been no fair hearing in this row. Sabio must be seen as impartial in the GSIS-Meralco tiff. He must be seen as fair and balanced. Otherwise, his words and actuations would only be perceived as part of the GSIS script against its nemesis, and that he might have allowed himself to be part of the whole scenario. Whoever advised Sabio to “directly link” Meralco chair Manolo Lopez to the bribery story by saying that alleged emissary Francis de Borja told him that Lopez is “waiting in the car” did him disservice. That story has
definitely fallen flat on its face and has embarrassed him. Not only were facts unchecked, but the yarn was obviously a cheap shot that some wise guy fed Sabio. Sabio sympathizers could only wring their hands in disgust following disclosures that Lopez was not in the country at the time of Sabio’s meeting with De Borja and that Meralco’s Elpi Cuna has made public documents to back up that fact. The legal dictum that “you lie in one, you lie in all” might be perceived by the public as applying in this particular case. The better advice his friends could give Sabio is to tell him to be more prudent in his public statements. His advisers would also be helping a lot if they can help the embattled justice explain why he took too long before he officially squealed on the alleged bribery try. The controversial meeting with De Borja took place in July 1. The controversial decision was released in July 23, and he reported the alleged offer only in July 26. A recent disclosure by another justice has aggravated this issue. University of the Philippines alumnus Associate Justice Apolinario Bruselas reported in a leaked memorandum that Sabio told him about the offer as early as June 23. Two important questions here. Why was Sabio telling about the offer to everyone else except to the presiding justice? Second, if Sabio had been offered the alleged bribe since June, why did he meet up with the alleged emissary on July 1? Shouldn’t he have avoided De Borja like the latter was a bearer of a deadly plague? Those advising him should put their heads together to help Sabio in this predicament. A good explanation is badly needed. We have to accept the fact that it is very difficult when the accuser becomes an accused, especially in our country. This is the unfortunate situation of Sabio.
Timeline: The Meralco-GSIS clash - Tug of war
By PUPPLE S. ROMERO - abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak
May 29, 2008 – Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) files a petition with the Court of
Appeals which questions the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to intervene in the power utility’s contentious proxy validation held on May 27, 2008. Meralo argues that it is the regional trial court which has jurisdiction over the dispute. The Lopez-owned power distributor also seeks for the nullification of an SEC cease-and-desist order and the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining SEC to implement a show cause order against Anthony Rosete, corporate secretary of
Meralco. Following the temporary leave of Justice Bienvenido Reyes, chair of the 9th Division where Meralco’s petition is initially raffled off, Meralco files an urgent motion for a re-raffle. Aside from Reyes, other members of the 9th Division include Justice Vicente Roxas, the ponente, and Justice Myrna Vidal. A raffle is conducted for the division’s acting third member, who eventually became Justice Jose Mendoza. However, Mendoza inhibits himself from the case because he is a former legal counsel of the power utility. Another raffle is held and Justice Jose Sabio is designated acting chairman of the Ninth Division. The Government Insurance Service System (GSIS) files an urgent ex parte motion which asks for a re-raffle of the case on the ground that the petition was raffled in the absence of a legal representative from the state pension fund.
May 30, 2008 - The 9th Division rules in favor of Meralco and issues the TRO,
which would lapse in 60 days, against SEC. Hearings on oral arguments are scheduled on July 23 and 24. GSIS files an urgent motion to lift the TRO. Sabio says Roxas, the ponente, personally brought the TRO he prepared to Sabio’s office.
June 16 – Reyes returns from leave. June 19 – Reyes consults CA Rules
Committee chairman Justice Edgardo Cruz on who should hear the oral argument scheduled for June 23. June 20 – In a letter to Reyes, which Sabio got a copy of, Cruz says Reyes should decide the Meralco case as the designated chair of the 9th Division. Sabio calls PJ Vasquez, saying Cruz was acting in his personal capacity,
and says the letter offends him since Cruz is junior to him in the court. Sabio also wonders why Reyes bypassed and did not openly deliberate and discuss the issue with PJ Vasquez.
June 23 – Oral argument. Sabio, in his letter to CA Presiding Justice Conrado
Vasquez, says he consulted a more senior colleague, Justice Martin Villarama Jr. before the hearing and asked him if he (Sabio) should stay on the case. Villarama advised him to remain with the case. Sabio described Villarama as “a more senior, experienced, and respected member of this court for consultation and guidance.” The oral argument is held by the 9th Divison, with Sabio still at the helm. The parties are ordered to submit their respective memoranda 15 days after. According to a motion filed by Meralco, however, they got the impression that Reyes would preside over the hearing after they were initially led to a room where a name plate of Reyes was placed at the table. But they were eventually re-directed to another room where the name
plates contained ‘Sabio, Roxas and Vidal.’ Roxas, in his statement to the CA en banc, said that such incident “caused by Sabio was the talk of the Court of Appeals for weeks.”
June 25 – PJ Vasquez issues an order, previously approved by SC, to reorganize the
court effective July 4 since three justices retired/were about to retire, while two new justices are about to be appointed. July 1 – Sabio meets with a businessman allegedly brokering for Meralco and wangles a P10 million-bribe for him to hand over the case to Reyes. In the account of Sabio, he says the emissary mentioned that other means will be resorted to have Justice Reyes assume the chairmanship.
July 4 – The CA Division is reorganized following the retirement of Associate
Justices Lucenito Tagle, Agustin Dizon and Rodrigo Cosico last June. Reyes and Roxas are transferred to the 8th Division, with Justice Apolinario Bruselas as the third member. Sabio and Vidal move to the 6th Division.
July 8 –Reyes goes to Sabio’s office to discusss, among others, the chairmanship of the 9th
division handling the Meralco case. Sabio informs Reyes of the P10 million-bribe.
July 10 – Meralco files an urgent motion for Reyes to assume the chairmanship of the
hearing division. The company argues that according to the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA), a case can remain with the justices only when giving due course, granting a writ of preliminary injunction, a new trial, or of execution pending appeal.
July 11 – Meralco and GSIS file their respective memoranda. Meralco assails the
government for its purported moves to seize the power utility, while GSIS insists Meralco should have taken heed of the SEC order. Sabio makes a resolution referring the “Urgent Motion for Justice B. Reyes to Assume the Chairmanship” to the respondents for comment and forwards it to the office of Roxas, but is allegedly not released. Vidal says she signed the ponencia of Roxas (50 pages) on the same day, but Roxas took the decision from her because he reportedly has to incorporate 10 additional pages.
July 14 – The 8th Division holds final deliberations. In the transcript of the deliberations,
Roxas says that he “deliberately” chooses not to inform Justices Sabio and Vidal that the 8th division would take over the case because he wants to look for “other opportunities” to explain the situation so as not to hurt his colleagues’ feelings. Sabio and Roxas are in a flag raising ceremony together. Sabio tells Roxas he and Vidal want to discuss the memoranda since Sabio already read them. The rollo of the case and finalized decision are officially transmitted by Roxas to Bruselas, then by Bruselas to Reyes.
July 17 – Bruselas reportedly signs “corrected” decision. July 21 – Roxas files an
interpleader petition where he asks Vasquez to stop Sabio and Vidal from “clinging” to the case, adding that the two could not argue that they were exempted from the case following the reorganization of the division.
July 22 – Reyes writes PJ Vasquez, referring to conversations during July 17 meeting, and
asks the latter to rule on the impasse. Between July 14 and 22, Roxas, through various memoranda, urges Reyes to just dissent so that a division of five could be convened in time to decide before the TRO expires on July 30. Reyes tells Vasquez that Meralco’s motion for his assumption of the hearing division should be internally resolved (based on the IRCA), and not by private litigants. Reyes also states that the issuance of a TRO is not among one of the instances where the case should stay with the justices in the face of division movements. Reyes stresses that the chairman of the committee on rules and ponente (Roxas) echo his position. “Again, the PJ has to urgently decide on the matter… Otherwise, deadlock of opinions…”
July 24 – Reyes transmits the rollo of the case and the finalized decision to Roxas. The 8th
Division promulgates its decision, which junks the SEC cease-and-desist order. They also rule that the SEC has no jurisdiction over the questioned proxy validation.
July 25 – Vasquez issues his reply to the Interpleader-Petition filed by Roxas and the letter
sent by Reyes, where he says that the division that issued the TRO should continue hearing the case because of their familiarity with the petition – they were present and participated in the hearing on oral arguments. Vidal writes Vasquez on the “apparent and obvious irregularities in the handling of CA GR SP No. 103692,” adding that she agrees with the decision favoring Meralco and that she already signed a draft decision signed by Roxas (Note: Vidal says Roxas personally presented to her the final decision, which she studied, then signed. But Roxas did not forward to Sabio because he will still add 10 pages). Vidal questions why she is not informed that it was the 8th division that will decide on it, is disappointed that judicial courtesy is not observed—she is taken out of the case after she spent time studying it and signed the draft decision. GSIS, in a press release, says that Sabio was “unceremoniously excluded” from the case. Sabio calls Bruselas and Vidal and relays to them the alleged bribery attempt of a Meralco emissary. Bruselas personally meets with Vasquez to discuss phone call of Sabio. He says this is the first time to hear that “background.” Troubled, Bruselas says he called Reyes that day and asked if he knows of this “background.” Reyes says yes, and when Bruselas asked why missed telling him, Reyes “leaned back and said that he thought he mentioned it to me; that it may have escaped his mind, and that nevertheless, it had no place in the deliberation on the 102
case.” July 25 – Bruselas files a memorandum for Vasquez where he relays Sabio’s call. He earlier relays this personally to Vasquez July 24. Bruselas mentions the P10 million bribe to Sabio. Bruselas wonders why the information came very late, though joins Sabio in calling for a probe into the matter. Bruselas also recounts that during meeting with PJ Vasquez, Vidal walked in and said she received same phone call from Sabio. Media starts reports on rift among the justices handling the case.
July 26 – Sabio writes Vasquez and informs him about the bribery attempt. He also pushes
for an investigation following the hasty promulgation of the decision and his and Vidal’s ‘unceremonial ouster’ from the case. He questions the timing of the decision, which was handed down days before the TRO lapsed.
July 28 –Bruselas delivers his July 25 letter to Vasquez. He says he just got a copy of
Sabio’s letter that day, so he called Sabio and supported him in the call to investigate the bribery. Vasquez gives all of the CA justices copies of the correspondences he received from the justices, and calls for an en banc session. July 30 – The 60-day TRO ends.
July 31 – CA en banc meeting. The 65-member en banc tosses the investigation on the
alleged bribery to the Supreme Court through the Office of the Court Administrator. They also ask the CA rules committee to settle the different interpretations of the IRCA. Meanwhile, a businessman named Francis Roa de Borja alleges in his affidavit that Sabio informed him that the government offered the CA justice a Supreme Court seat in return for a pro-GSIS decision. When asked however what would take him to decline such offer, Sabio reportedly answered “P50 million.” Sabio denies Borja’s allegations.
August 1 – Sabio says he will file bribery, perjury and libel charges against de Borja. He
also says that Meralco chairman Manuel ‘Manolo’ Lopez was with de Borja, “waiting at the car,” when the businessman offered him the P10 million bribe. Lopez, in a press conference,
denies Sabio’s claim and shows his boarding pass to the media to prove that he was abroad when the alleged bribe attempt was made. Several senators urge for a swift investigation into the matter.
CA chief sidelines opinion of Rules Committee on justices' row
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=127535 By LALA RIMANDO abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak
The Court of Appeals' chief Vasquez, Jr. undermined the court's Rules Committee, which issued an opinion that did not confirm to his, in the ongoing controversy over the Meralco case. These letters are from the chairman of the CA's
Rules Committee, Justice Edgardo Cruz, who noted that his June 19 letter—where he issued a decision on the controversial and high-profile Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) case—was snubbed by CA's Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez, Jr. In another letter, dated August 4, Cruz reminded Vasquez about this decision and attached other correspondences prior to the June 23 oral argument on the Meralco case. Cruz also copy furnished Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno since Cruz said these June letters were not included in the documents that Vasquez submitted to the Supreme Court after the July 31 CA en banc meeting where they discussed the Meralco case. It was Vasquez, in fact, who asked Cruz to rule on the rift over who among the squabbling divisions should handle the Meralco case. But when Cruz made a decision, in favor of Justice Bienvenido Reys of the 9th Division, Vasquez ignored it. In an earlier story, we attributed Vasquez's behavior to weak leadership. He allowed the rift among the justice to continue when he could have stood by the Rules Committee decision. We also reported that he appeared to have undue interest in the case since his two daughters work with GSIS, a party to the case. Cruz’s letter came two days before a Supreme Court panel was to start its investigation on the propriety of the appellate justices' actions. Cruz wrote, "Under the situation, it is essential that the Supreme Court must have a complete picture of the case, particularly on what precipitated my opinion." Had Vasquez heeded Cruz's opinion on the handling of the Meralco case in June, the rift among the appellate justices who were involved in the Meralco case would have not built up in the past two months and reached the current
state where the Supreme Court had to intervene in the hope of salvaging the CA's integrity.
Cruz wrote the August 4 letter since he wanted to clarify impressions on his participation in the case. Earlier, Justice Jose Sabio Jr., who acted as chairman of the old 9th division that originally handled the Meralco case, mentioned Cruz in his documentation of the Meralco-related events to Vasquez. Sabio referred to Cruz as a "junior justice" who was only rendering a "personal opinion" over the issue of who should preside over the oral argument in June 23. Cruz wrote, "Justice Sabio's letter tends to create the impression that I intruded into his dispute with Justice [Bienvenido] Reyes and gave an unsolicited advice thereon." Cruz wanted to highlight that his opinion was not personal nor was it unsolicited by attaching copies of the correspondences with Reyes, who was the designated chairman of the old 9th
division. Reyes, in his letter dated June 19, a Thursday, wanted to clarify with the Rules Committee, which Cruz chairs, who between him and Sabio should preside over the oral argument which was scheduled for June 23, the following Monday. In his letter, Reyes noted that "There is now a dilemma as to whom the case should be properly given, whether to Justice Sabio, Jr. or to me…The case is scheduled for hearing on 23 and 24 June 2008. It is therefore necessary to resolve the issues raised herein before the hearing." Reyes was on leave when the Meralco case was raffled to the 9th division, which he chairs, but was back to work by June 16, seven days before the scheduled oral argument. More worthy to note, however, is the copy of Vasquez's
letter to Cruz on June 20, a Friday, where the former was even endorsing Reyes's letter. Vasquez’s endorsement letter to Cruz said: "Attached herewith is the letter of Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes seeking your opinion regarding an IRCA interpretation in the [Meralco] case. There is some urgency involved as the hearing of the case is on Monday, June 23, 2008."
Cruz wrote back also on June 20 that Reyes should chair the oral argument. He responded that while Sabio acted as the chair of the old 9th division that issued the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in May, "the issuance of a TRO is not among the instances where 'the justices who participated' in the case share 'remain' therein." In other words, the TRO, which favored the Lopez family and their allies who were in a legal battle with another Meralco shareholder, the government through the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), is not among the exemptions in the CA's internal rules which was exactly what the Rules Committee was interpreting. Accounts over what transpired between June 20 and right before the June 23 oral argument as documented in the correspondences submitted to the Supreme Court showed that Vasquez ignored Cruz's opinion. Instead, he gave his “personal opinion” favoring Sabio. Earlier, Sabio sought Vasquez's opinion after getting a copy of Cruz's verdict. He called up Vasquez and mentioned that he "smelled something fishy," considered Cruz's opinion as a "personal opinion," and "wondered why the matter was not openly and deliberately discussed with [Vasquez]." Instead, before the June 23 oral argument on the Meralco case, Sabio called Justice Martin Villarama whom he considered as "more senior and experienced" than Cruz, and sought his opinion on who should preside that morning. Villarama then advised Sabio that his stand—based on chairing the division that issued the TRO as a reason to hold on to the case—was correct. He informed Vasquez that Villarama then
told him that he "should remain in this case." It seemed that Vasquez allowed Sabio's and Villarama's opinion to reign over that of the Cruz's of the Rules Committee. Vasquez's July 24 letter to Reyes and Justice Vicente Roxas, the case's ponente, explained why. Vasquez wrote: " My personal opinion on the matter, for whatever worth it may be, is that the Division that issued the temporary restraining order should continue resolving the injunctive prayer in the petition…" Vasquez reasoned that before the oral argument, GSIS had a pending motion to lift the TRO so Sabio who headed the 9th division that issued it should continue handling the case. Rules Committee sidelined By July 4, the issue of the Meralco case evolved from who among the justices to what division should handle it. Vasquez himself implemented the mandated reorganization at the CA, which resulted in the transfer of Roxas to the new 8th division. The internal rules say that the Meralco case should be handled by the division wherever Roxas is since he is the case's ponente. Even with the reorganization, Vasquez still held the opinion that since Sabio already presided over the Oral Argument in June 23 where there was a pending motion to replace the 60-day TRO with a more permanent preliminary injunction, Sabio and the former 9th division should continue handling the case. One month after and with more wrangling among the justices involved in the Meralco case, the new 8th division issued on July 24 not a preliminary injunction but a decision, which favored the Lopezes and their allies. All throughout July and in the run up to the 8th division's issuance of their decision, the Rules Committee's opinion in June was already sidelined. The Rules Committee was not tapped again, since according to Vasquez in his July 28 letter to all the 65 CA justices, "Some intervening events and novel situations, which I believe are not covered by our internal Rules…" has prompted him to call for the en banc meeting last July 31 where it was decided that the Supreme Court should already step in. Cruz, however, had to call the attention of the Supreme Court before the assigned panel starts their investigation to inform them of his committee's position early on.
Quantum of Proof: Rules on Evidence
A. Bribery and Corruption In Bribery or Attempted Bribery / Graft and Corruption of Justices and Judges, NBI entrapment is required before a jurist is dismissed.
Judge gets up to 9 years in jail for accepting P10-K bribe
In a 35-page decision, the Sandiganbayan Third Division ordered the imprisonment of six up to nine years for accepting P10,000 in bribe six years ago, of Judge Jaime Bautista, then the executive judge of the Valenzuela Regional Trial Court Branch 75, and imposed on him a special temporary disqualification and a fine of P30,000. Bautista was caught receiving the P5,000 balance for the P10,000 bribe which he demanded from Ranel Paruli, liaison officer of the Sierra Madre Transportation, Inc., in exchange for a favorable court order in connection with a civil case involving the company on March 20, 2001. Paruli made the final payment -marked P500 bills placed in a white envelope -- in the judge's chamber, where the latter was immediately arrested by the National Bureau of Investigation. The marked money was found inside the judge's wallet only after he underwent ultraviolet examination at the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division. The NBI agents attempted to
conduct a body search on Bautista during the entrapment operation but the latter refused, citing the absence of a search warrant. The examination showed fluorescent specks and smudges on Bautista's right palm and left hand and on the right back pocket of his pants.
A.M. No. 01-3-183-RTC (In Re: NBI Entrapment of Judge Jaime Bautista of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City.)
B. CA Justices’ Dismissal – only 2 Justices were dismissed, in CA History
The Supreme Court of the Philippines on March 21, 2008, upon recommendation of the investigator, Bernardo P. Pardo, dismissed Philippine Court of Appeals Justice Elvi John Asuncion for gross ignorance of the law and delaying motions of considerations. Asuncion was charged of receiving money placed in “2
gym bags delivered to his office.” The Supreme Court, however, found no substantial evidence of bribery, but it dismissed him for gross ignorance of the law for his issuance of an October 30, 2001, resolution in the case between Philippine National Bank, the National Labor Relations Commission and Erlinda Archinas. He was only the 2nd Court of Appeals
jurist to be dismissed, since the first firing in Philippine judicial history of CA Justice Demetrio G. Demetria, for interceding in theDOJ drug case of Yu Yuk Lai.
The CA, after the “4 Aces” CA corruption case died its legal death, thereafter, the Ca became the center of controversy after Chief Justice Reynato Puno ordered an investigation of the so-called "Dirty Dozen," particularly on the alleged “sale” of "Temporary Restraining Orders" (Injunction, Restraining order abuse). On August 18, 2007, Atty. Briccio Joseph Boholst, president of IBP — Cebu City Chapter, opposed the abolition of the CA in Cebu City, for it will cause inconvenience for both litigants and lawyers. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruben Reyes was tasked to investigate and submit recommendation to the High Tribunal because of the alleged massive graft and corruption of justices, especially in the issuance of temporary restraining orders (TRO’s). On April 03, 2007, Philippine Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Ruben Reyes (now S.C. Justice) ordered an investigation and a regular auditing and inventory of temporary restraining orders (TROs) issued by the 69 CA Justices. Reyes stated: “I will order a monthly or quarterly inventory of TROs, for transparency and to watch the movements of the so-called Dirty Dozen [the 12 most corrupt CA justices].” Reynato Puno said that Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez had not yet submitted the list and the Supreme Court was waiting for its delivery amid her formal investigation against the “Dirty Dozen.” On November 20, 2007, the Court of Appeals (Philippines) dismissed Floro's disbarment case against the Court of Appeals Dirty Dozen and Justice Romeo Barza.
C. Supreme Court Justices: 1930 Justice Ramon Fernandez, 1973 Justice Vicente Ericta Scandal, Justices Hugo Gutierrez and Fidel Purisima controversies, and the Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago/Jake Macasaet P 10 Million Bribery-Indirect Contempt Case. No Supreme Court Justice was ever impeached or removed in history, amid corruption (media) and SWS surveys. Judicial corruption
On January 25, 2005, and on December 10, 2006, Philippines Social Weather Stations released the results of its 2 surveys on corruption in the judiciary; it published that: a) like 1995, 1/4 of lawyers said many/very many judges are corrupt. But (49%) stated that a judges received bribes, just 8% of lawyers admitted they reported the bribery, because they could not prove it. [Tables 8-9]; judges, however, said, just 7% call many/very many judges as corrupt[Tables 10-11];b) "Judges see some corruption; proportions who said - many/very many corrupt judges or justices: 17% in reference
to RTC judges, 14% to MTC judges, 12% to Court of Appeals justices, 4% i to Shari'a Court
judges, 4% to Sandiganbayan justices and 2% in reference to Supreme Court justices [Table 15].
A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC
In the promulgated resolution dated September 26, 2007, the court ruled: "Upon evaluation of the column ‘Business Circuit,’ of Amado Macasaet in the September 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2007 issues of Malaya, it appears that certain statements and innuendoes therein tend, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice within the purview of Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure." Macasaet was ordered "to shed light on his claim against Santiago because the accusations have degraded the high court, and to explain where he obtained his information that Santiago was allegedly offered a P10-million bribe." On October 1, 2007, Macasaet filed a 28-page reply-explanation to the contempt charges. Macasaet stated that he wrote his column to call for an investigation and to preserve the integrity of the Court: "the investigation on his alleged liabilities is not only unsettling but signals a chilling effect on free speech; Yet, without that call (for an investigation), truth would be not exposed to the scalding light of public inquiry." On November 13, 2007, the Court accepted the resignation and inhibition / disqualification of retired Supreme Court Justices Vicente V. Mendoza and Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., as members of the Investigating Committee, leaving Justice Carolina Grino-Aquino as lone member / Chair (as the trial was set for November 8 and 29). The Aquino team asked Macasaet to name his source on the alleged payoff, but the publisher refused and invoked Republic Act 1477 or “the right not to reveal a journalist’s source unless national security is at stake,” and further alleged that the Santiago case pertains to bribery, a criminal issue. Consuelo Ynares-Santiago allegedly made “enemies” in the High Court, starting with retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, as a result of Macasaet’s allegation.
Status: Nothing yet legally happened, because of the quantum of evidence rule not satisfied, in the eyes of the S.C. Justices.
In the 1930s, a distant relative of Imelda Romualdez Marcos who was a Justice in the High Court resigned after a controversy involving the bar examinations. Justice Ramon Fernandez was forced to protect his name and honor when he resigned because of a bar examination scandal. On November 23, 1979, the High
Court, per Justice Pacifico de Castro ordered new examinations in labor and social legislation and taxation. On May 7, 1973, 12 of the Supreme Court's 14 justices resigned amid expose "that the court fixed the bar-examination score of a member's son so that he would pass." Justice Vicente Ericta was accused to have personally approached the bar chairman to inquire whether his (Ericta's) son passed the bar. Ferdinand Marcos accepted the resignations and appointed the new Justices. Chief Justice Enrique Fernando wept at a news conference as he accepted responsibility for rechecking and changing the exam score of Gustavo Ericta, son of Justice Vicente Ericta. In the case of Justice Hugo Gutierrez. He resigned when our Ellen Tordesillas reported in 1992 that a lawyer of PLDT wrote his ponencia in the case of ETPI vs. the telephone company. Associate Justice Fidel Purisima, chairman of the
bar committee, did not disclose that he had a nephew who was taking the bar examination in that year. He was merely censured and his honoraria as bar examiner were forfeited.
On September 24, 2003, the Supreme Court, per a bleary-eyed Associate Justice Jose Vitug, annulled the tests results on mercantile law after "confirmation of what could be the most widespread case of cheating in the 104-year-old bar exams". Since the 1982 "Ericta Scandal", it was only in 2008 that the Court relaxed the fixed
rules on passing grades amid the inhibitions of 5 Justices whose relatives took the exams.
D. RTC Judges: Mental Fitness & Gross Ignorance of the Law Since, the creation of the USA, UK and democratic Constitutions, and since June 12, 2001, there is only one case, in the whole world, wherein a Judge was not dismissed but was separated from service and paid benefits amid conviction of gross ignorance of the law and fined $ 780. Judge Floro was finally ruled an honorable man, without any corruption charges, but was fined P 40,000 for gross ignorance of the law (conducting pre-trial without notice to Fiscal), despite the court’s finding of his having topped the 1983 Bar Exams, 12 th Place, 87.55%, and having been Full Second Honors, Ateneo Law School. Quantum of Proof: Psychiatric tests proved that Floro was mentally unfit to sit as judge and pen decisions since he judicially admitted that he consulted dwarfs in judgments, was the Angel of Death who could inflict death, sickness
and accidents and fires, upon Supreme Court and other Justices, and can burn
the courts. The Court further warned Floro of indirect contempt for “Ungodly reprisals.”
“In this Resolution, We wish to remind Judge Floro that the Court cannot be swayed to modify or reverse its Decision and various Resolutions by inundating the ponente with numerous pleadings avowing "ungodly reprisal" as well as personal letters/telephone calls seeking audience with the latter, if, as in this case, they are only in furtherance of repeating issues and arguments already passed upon by the Court En Banc’s earlier Decision and Resolution. Otherwise stated, only meritorious arguments and substantial evidence can convince Us to modify or reverse our previous ruling. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as it is hereby Resolved, Judge Floro’s “ORIGINAL PETITION/LETTER WITH LEAVE OF COURT For Re-Opening of Judge Floro’s Separation Case xxx are hereby NOTED WITHOUT ACTION and are ordered EXPUNGED from the records. It is hereby firmly reiterated that NO FURTHER PLEADING/S WILL BE ENTERTAINED in this case. Judge Floro is hereby given a WARNING that he can be held liable for indirect contempt
should he persist in disregarding lawful orders of this Court and committing acts which tend to abuse, obstruct, impede, and degrade the administration of justice. ”
"Equity does not demand that its suitors shall have led blameless lives." (Justice Louis Brandeis, Loughran v. Loughran (1934) 292 US 216, 229, 78 L ed 1219, 1227, 54 S Ct 684). There is no indication that Judge Floro is anything but an honorable man. And, in fact, in our disposition of the 13 charges against him, we have not found him guilty of gross misconduct or acts or corruption. Moreover, Judge Floro himself admitted that he believes in "psychic visions," of foreseeing the future because of his power in "psychic phenomenon." He believes in "duwendes" and of a covenant with his "dwarf friends Luis, Armand and Angel." He believes that he can write while on trance and that he had been seen by several people to have been in two places at the same time. He has likened himself to the "angel of death" who can inflict pains on people, especially upon those he perceived as corrupt officials of the RTCs of Malabon. He took to wearing blue robes during court sessions, switching only to black on Fridays. His own witness testified that Judge Floro explained that he wore black from
head to foot on Fridays to recharge his psychic powers. Finally, Judge Floro conducted healing sessions in his chambers during his break time. All these things validate the findings of the Supreme Court Clinic about Judge Floro's uncommon beliefs and that such beliefs have spilled over to action. Lest we be misconstrued, we do not denigrate such belief system. However, such beliefs, especially since Judge Floro acted on them, are so at odds with the critical and impartial thinking required of a judge under our judicial system. Psychic phenomena, even assuming such exist, have no place in a judiciary duty bound to apply only positive law and, in its absence, equitable rules and principles in resolving controversies. Thus, Judge Floro s reference to psychic phenomena in the decision he rendered in the case of People v. Francisco, Jr. sticks out like a sore thumb. Judge Floro's separation from the service does not carry with it forfeiture of all or part of his accrued benefits nor disqualification from appointment to any other public office including government-owned or controlled corporations. As Judge Floro s separation from the service cannot be considered a penalty, such separation does not carry with it the forfeiture of all or part of his accrued benefits nor disqualification from appointment to any other public office including government-owned or controlled corporations. In fact, the psychological and psychiatric reports, considered as the bedrock of the finding of mental impairment against Judge Floro, cannot be used to disqualify him from re-entering government service for positions that do not require him to dispense justice. 1 The reports contain statements/findings in Judge Floro's favor that the Court cannot overlook in all fairness as they deserve equal consideration. They mention Judge Floro s assets and strengths and capacity for functionality, with minor modification of work environment. Thus: a. High intellectual assets as a result of "self-discipline and self- organization." b. "(I)mpressive academic achievements" with "no drastic change in his personality and level of functioning as a lawyer in private practice." c. "(C)haracter traits of suspiciousness, seclusiveness, pre-occupation with paranormal and psychic phenomena not detrimental to his role as a lawyer." d. "Everyday situations can be comprehended and dealt with in moderate proficiency . His concern for the details that make up a total field represents his attempts at being systematic and cautious." e. "(E)quipped with analytical power." Consequently, while Judge Floro may be dysfunctional as a judge because of
the sensitive nature of said position, he may still be successful in other areas of endeavor.
Divine Justice vs. Ungodly Reprisal
“ The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least
this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State. 330 U.S. 1, 15-16. - Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) Hugo Black ”
Judge Floro never won, but LOST all administrative / disbarment / intervention cases he filed against top judicial and other officers:
2004 Court intervention in the Minita Chico-Nazario, Fernando Poe, Jr. and Noli de Castro cases On 2004, Floro intervened by Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus Court petitions in 3 landmark cases before the High Tribunal. In a 22-page certiorari petition, Floro ("Judge asks SC to let Nazario take oath and fill SC vacancy") on March 12, 2004 asked the Court to enthrone Minita Chico-Nazario whose appointment was recalled. Judge Floro also sued Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo, who was nominated 7 times by the JBC, but failed, and resigned as Solicitor General amid his February 21, 2001 angioplasty and February 22, 2008 IBP Iloilo lecture collapse and hospitalization. Floro, on June, 2004, intervened in the certiorari lawsuit regarding the opposition Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) per Davao City Rep. Ruy Elias Lopez, to stop a joint session of Congress from canvassing the votes for president and vice president. Floro asked the Court to declare a failure of elections and order the COMELEC to conduct special presidential elections. Floro also asked the Supreme Court to declare Noli de Castro as acting President, as Solomonic solution to the political crisis. In the Fernando Poe, Jr. presidential candidate disqualification case, Floro was reported as "Espiritistang Judge Ididipensa si Da King." (Bagong Tiktik February 17, 2004), "Psychic Phenomena gagamitin sa FPJ Case." Manila Standard Today, on February 24, 2004, reported - "Poesition" papers were submitted by intervenor Judge Florentino Floro for FPJ, and by his classmate Victorino Fournier against FPJ for his
disqualification. Floro’s Ateneo’ therein petitioner Ma. Jeane Death of Lawyer Maria Jeanette Tecson -on September 28, 2007, 8:30 p.m, Senior Superintendent Francisco Uyami, Pasig police chief stated that Lawyer Maria Tecson, 40, was found dead (in a state of rigor mortis) inside room 204 at the Richmond Hotel, San Miguel Avenue, Pasig City (with her throat slit and with cuts on her wrist). Maria Jeanette Tecson, Zoilo Velez (promoted to Court of Appeals Justice) and Victorino Fornier filed the disqualification case against Fernando Poe, Jr. She claimed Poe was born out of wedlock and that while Poe's birth certificate was dated 1939, his parents Allan Fernando Poe and American mother Bessie Kelly did not marry until 1940. To date there is no evidence or any reason to believe that Poe or his supporters may have personal vendetta that could have led to the sudden demise of Tecson. On September 26, 2006, the Philippine Supreme Court, promulgated a Resolution (released on October 5, 006), giving DUE course to Judge Florentino Floro’s August 30, 2006 Verified Complaint against MRS. MARILYN PUNO SANTIAGO, sister Reynato Puno and Dep. Ed. Higher Education Chair Carlito Puno. It deals with the 3 hours Spanish card reading at the Supreme Court conference hall. In A.M. No. 200624-SC (Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. v. Mrs. Marilyn Puno Santiago and Jasmin Mateo), the Court finally dismissed Floro's complaint on November 14, 2006. Imprecation Motion On his natal day of November 5, 2006, Floro recited Psalm 109 and Psalm 73, by filing his Imprecation motion to clean the judiciary. The Philippine Daily Inquirer reported this as "‘Psychotic’ judge enlists help of dwarf-friends vs SC. 2006 World "Judge of the Year" On December 5, 2006 Floro was awarded "Judge of the Year" by The Times "A chilli-hot year for whiny garbage, David Pannick, QC, presides over the memorable legal appearances of 2006" Pannick, Queen's Counsel, silk Barristers in England and Wales, first wrote on Floro's dwarfs in UK The Times Online: "I used to be a judge but I'm all right now . . . " (June 06, 2006) The Times also published Floro's appeal in World in Brief, "Law unto himself." On December 6, 2006, Floro testified in the Senate of the Philippines to oppose the confirmation of former Philippine Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. for the post of permanent representative, United Nations. Davide was by-passed, that is, he failed to be confirmed but was issued an ad interim appointment. On January, 2007, the Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed with finality the August 30, 2006 landmark Disbarment administrative suit filed by Floro against Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. and 9 other top court officials. For non-payment of docket fees, the High Court, on June 5, 2007, dismissed Floro's intervention petition dated May 30, 2007, and his Supplement dated June 1, 2007, in the Gregory S. Ong citizenship case, filed by Jovito Salonga. On July 12, 2007, the Court finally denied Floro's final appeals to be reinstated with indirect contempt of court warning against further filing of any pleading:
On November 5, 2007, Floro asked the Court to order its Clerk to issue entry of judgment or the certificate of finality on the non-reinstatement of the jobless dwarf judge. 3 days later or on November 8, Floro's counsel of record in the dwarf case, Rene Saguisag suffered dire accident with 7 broken ribs and his wife Dulce Saguisag died forthwith. On November 9, 2007, and March 24, 2008, respectively, Commission on Elections legal division chiefs Aleoden Dalaig and his successor, Winnie Asdala, were gunned down. And on November 13, 2007, the Batasang Pambansa bombing killed 6 and wounded Congressman Pryde Henry Teves, whose face was badly burned. On November 20, 2007[ the court noted without action or did not act on Floro's final motion. On November 20, 2007, the Court of Appeals (Philippines) dismissed Floro's disbarment case against the Court of Appeals Dirty Dozen and Justice Romeo Barza. On March 27, 2007, Atty. Carlos M. Flores was appointed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as new Judge of Br. 73, RTC, Malabon to replace Judge Floro. On April 4, 2008, Judge Floro appealed to the Supreme Court of the Philippines to annul the appointment on constitutional grounds since it was issued more than 90 days from November 20, 2007. "Jobless judge in pretend world" - The Sunday Times (South Africa) The Court denied Floro's November 8, 2007 petition for contempt and to intervene in the indirect contempt case against The Daily Tribune editor, Jake Macasaet (regarding the P 10 million bribery scandal, re - Consuelo YnaresSantiago). The Court, on November 13, 2007, dismissed Floro's motion for reconsideration. Floro, on April 2, 2008 received the Supreme Court of the Philippines Resolution in A.C. No. 7663, which dismissed his disbarment administrative case against Senator Miriam Santiago. On April 14, 2008, Miriam Defensor-Santiago was injured when she slipped and bumped her head during the birthday party of her husband, Narciso, in Mandaluyong City. She underwent surgery requiring 3 stitches on her head. C.J. Artemio Panganiban's "WITH DUE RESPECT, How to address Filipino magistrates" confirms that Floro is entitled to use the title "Judge" since he had not been fired, dismissed or disbarred, but separated due to dwarf consultation (See JBC Nos. 001, and JBC-007, Re: JBC Emoluments, July 9, 1996) 5 Mystic violet lights - FIRES After Floro's filed November 5-3, 2007, imprecation (under Psalm 109-73) Court "Motion," the Supreme Court of the Philippines's logo was halved on January 15, 2007, (the 2nd violet light-fire), since the 1st January 22, 2000 Malabon City Halls of Justice fire. The 3rd mystic fire also halved the Commission on Elections (Philippines)'s seal on March 12, 2007, amid the resignation of Benjamin Abalos on October 1, 2007. The 4th mystic fire burned burned almost the entire 4th floor of the Philippine Court of Appeals on July 26, 2007. The 5th mystic 3-hour fire burned the Muntinlupa City halls and Metropolitan Trial Court on August 4, 2007
June 2, 1983 - June 3, 2008: The Saga The BLUE Madonna - Our Lady of Fatima and Our Lady of HOPE, Motion expunged and thrown out of the Rollo. Exactly 25 years from the the night that LUIS and Armand first appeared to Floro's brother Robert, destiny's mighty pen allowed the Supreme Court of the Philippines, En banc, to promulgate the dire Per curiam decision (resolution) on June 3, 2008, per landmark Expungement, burrying the truth in the graveyard of immortality. Floro's April 4, 2008 final appeal was expunged from the records, and the 12 Justices (3 on leave) denied Floro's "bended knees" plea to enthrone the Holy Eucharist and consecrate the entire nation and judiciary to Mary, Our Lady of Fatima as Pope John Paul II did for Russia. Homeless Floro, on January, 2000, begged mercy from UP Class 62 Malolos Executive Judge Petrita Braga Dime, to report to the Supreme Court's 4 of her Classmates C.J. PUNO, NAZARIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ & YNARES-SANTIAGO, regarding the SOLD DECISION where Floro lost his own ancestral house and lot where he was born and lived from 1953-1989 - civil case, accusing UP Class 62, Malolos RTC Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz of P 80,000 bribery. Judge Dime refused to tell the truth to the S. Court. Instead she asked the Court to docket the case as OCA IPI. Thus, Floro filed the 4th Writ of Amparo Case in the CA. Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas and Bienvenido Reyes, instead of deciding the truth, inhibited themselves. On March 4, 2008, the Philippine Court of Appeals's Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Justices Edgardo Sundian & Monina Arevala-Zenarosa, dismissed Floro's CA-G.R. Sp No. 00015, Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data (Philippines) lawsuit against Malolos RTC Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz (University of the Philippines College of Law, Class '62, classmate of Reynato Puno, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Alicia Austria-Martinez and Minita Chico-Nazario). On April 15 and 16, 2008, Judge Pinero-Cruz decided the civil case against Floro and Judge Dime tossed the case for re-raffle against Floro's rights. Judge Dime flew to USA and then to Israel, amid Floro's a) verbal prediction "Judge Dime will die!" per telephone call to her Br. 14, Staff "Jane Doe" name withheld, but this can be verified from majority of the staff (Tel. No. 044 - 791-4808). In the 69 pages and 350 pages complaintannexex filed with the OCA, Judge Floro direly prophesied the death of Judge Dime. On July 25, 2008, UP Law Class 62 alumni, and Bulacan RTC Executive Judge Petrita Braga Dime's untimely demise was mourned by the judiciary. C.J. Puno Indorsed Floro's bribery case OCA IPI to the OCAD. 7, 7, 7 In the 76 pages judgment, Floro was indicted of displaying on December 20, 2008, in his Court sala, the picture of Erap with typewritten and signed note predicting his election and downfall. Just as foretold, Erap was ousted in EDSA Revolution of 2001 and, as predicted by dwarf prophet (by his Veterans memorial hospital visit on 2002), Erap was released from Tanay detention after almost 7 years (69 months), in the same manner that Floro suffered 68.9 months of indefinite preventive suspension, from July 20, 1999 to April 7, 2006, the natal day of spirit guide, Angel: on October 26, 2007 Joseph Estrada was finally released by the Sandiganbayan.
On 7, 25, 2008, the FSGO emotionally delivered its own State of the Nation Address vis-a-vis Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s 7 years of governance, 7 SONAs amid the FSGO's specified 7 curses. Floro, on July 26, 2008, fervently prayed that with Faith, the dire sufferings would be more intense to heal the nation's wounds of sin. Amid all these repeated bended knees and supplications to the CA and S. Court, Floro issued verbal and written prophesies just repeating the Fatima's message to him on: January 9, 1999, Feast of the Black Nazarene Visions Floro, at 6:00 a.m., saw a) the milenium global earthquakes, disasters and tragedies (1999 - 2012), b) the worldwide Marian apparitions and c) the physical hurting of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Purpose of this Intervention and Complaint against the CA Big 5 Floro has no illusion that he will win this case, since he never won any case as abovediscussed. Floro, however, remains certain, as Angel of Death and Prophet that his St. Paul's Gifts of: Spiritual Gifts of Prophecy and Bilocation On his natal day of November 5, 1997, his "gabays" or spirit guides, the 3 angels or dwarves ordered him to cleanse the Philippine judiciary, by applying with the Judicial and Bar Council for the position of RTC Judge. Meanwhile, on Good Friday, 1998, at exactly 12:00 noon, Floro walked along the 2.16 kilometers San Juanico Bridge, and shouted "Erap will be the 13th unlucky President, who will not finish his term, while Jose de Venecia, Jr. will loose the elections." Floro displayed his written prediction on December 10, 1998 at his Court sala. At 1:00 p.m., Floro went to nearby Tolosa beach to buy Coral grouper (Cephalopholis miniata). About 5 natives greeted him and stated that Floro had lived with them as their attorney (ever since). Floro was surprised as he, on that Good Friday received the gift of bilocation. -will address the root cause of E-Judicial Killings and desaparecidos, to heal the nations SINS, and wounds of judicial hypocrisy, lies, cover-up, vengeance, vendetta, anger, rage and hatred, by the only HOPE: Mary the Co-Redemptrix who solely crushed the serpent 666. 666 had been seen embedded and engraved in the foreheads of our top executive, judicial and legislative officials to the lowest aide and driver. The battle is spiritual and legal. The nation will watch how, in this CA bribery case, lies vs. lies will be submitted to the panel, amid, attempts to bury the truth. The big CA 5 forgot that GOD’s hand was never present in the unfurling of this fate. Their destiny had been marked by dire prophesy of the Angel of Death. Repent lest perdition would cause their souls to be burned in hell fire. St. Francis Xavier, S.J. said: What will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and loose his own soul? Without further ado, Floro writes the following - dire prophecies: Is it Paranoia to Change Destiny? Can History be altered?
With due Respect: Jovito Salonga: “Your truth is not their truth … tell C.J. Panganiban that you want to be a janitor … or … a clerk … baka maawa pa sa iyo.” (August 4, 2006, Valle Verde III, Pasig Residence) Judge Floro’s Plea to Release the Innocent Acquitted, Jailed Aquino-Galman Martyrs of Hypocrisy: Rule of Law – The Curse Timeline (at the Corridors of Power) December 2, 1985 – Justice Manuel Pamaran of the Sandiganbayan acquitted all the accused. May 16, 1986 – Corazon Aquino appointed Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. Justice of the Sandiganbayan (until July 18, 1995). September 28, 1990 – Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. jailed the innocent accused: penned the 177 pages Sandiganbayan judgment to jail the 16 suspects, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua in each case. July 10, 1995 - Fidel Ramos appointed Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. Associate Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court and retired on his 70th natal day on October 18, 1997. October 4, 2005 – Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. was re-appointed Judicial and Bar Council regular member, for his 3rd term, duplicating the 3rd term of Teresita Cruz-Sison. His last term will expire on July 9, 2009. December 17, 1997 – Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. was appointed Judicial and Bar Council regular member. August 21, 2007 – The 24th anniversary of Ninoy’s murder. Chief Justice Andres Narvasa appealed for the closure of the case; Juan Ponce Enrile asked for the review for clemency in favor of the 14 convicts; Palawan Bishop Pedro Arigo, chairman of the CBCP’s Episcopal Commission on Prison Pastoral Care (ECPPC) asked pardon for the convicts; Corazon Aquino and Benigno Aquino III forgave the 14 soldiers but opposed their appeals for clemency or parole (which Sec. Raul Gonzales submitted to the President on 2004); Eduardo Ermita stated that the Bureau of Pardons and Parole had recommended a grant of executive clemency. August 24, 2007 - Eduardo Ermita officially announced that due to political implications, the appeal for clemency by the 14 soldiers was archived, even if the Bureau of Pardons and Parole presently reviews the plea. The executive secretary refused to give a time frame for the review. On March 24, 2008, the Aquino family announced that the former President had been diagnosed with colon cancer. On December 2002, J. Hermosisima, Jr. was treated for Prostate disease. Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. asked me a) on 2001, to predict the appointment of Justice Renato C. Corona, and I did; b) to predict about his health before he underwent his 2002 Prostate treatment, and I said that LUIS will give you a second chance, to be healed; c) on 5 occasions he told me that i) I have to reconcile with JBC Member Atty. Tesie Sison, since she caused my suspension, ii) he had no power to reinstate me, since C.J. Davide, Jr. told him that my case will rust until the latter’s retirement on December, 2005, due to the carotid surgery and 2004 most painful twin deaths of his brothers Jose and Jorge, caused
by LUIS; I told Justice Hermosisima, Jr. that LUIS promised me that upon the release of my Decision, he will allow Hilario, Sr. to expire in pain; the Davide patriarch died on July 17, 2006, 2 months after Justice Nazario penned the cursed decision. February 10, 2006: Circa the gall bladder surgery of his best friend Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. Hermosisima, Jr. phoned me and we shouted at each other, when he told me that I will not be reinstated, since Justice Nazario was the one who approached him, about the outcome of my case; I accused him of twisting and burying Veritas: a) he jailed the innocent Aquino-Galman accused, by entry of judgment when they were already acquitted by certificate of finality by the Pamaran Sandiganbayan - in order to ascend to the corridors of power; I accused, before him, Corazon Cojuanco-Aquino of causing the sufferings of the nation due to personal vendetta a) she refused and blocked any attempt to have Marcos buried as the Filipino martyr wished; and b) she refused to free the innocent accused who never killed Ninoy; J. Hermosisma, Jr. admitted to me that he worked on weekends and studied 2,000 documents at his condominium, but he never knew the mastermind. I told him that Cory will suffer soon this folly. The colon cancer metastasis and his prostate disease are twin spiritual curses upon her and his family, they are only the beginning of pain, dire punishment, and full stain on their bloods.
Atty. Vicky Timbangkaya told me that it was her daughter Atty. Bibing Timbangkaya who helped Justice Nazario, in drafting and finalizing of the 75 pages decision in this case. I gave my counsel of record, Rene AV Saguisag 3 chances to mend ways, and alerted him on this grave matter. At the hotel, I begged mercy not for myself but for his family and those who will be punished by LUIS. On November 5, 2008, my birthday, after I filed the last Motion where I inserted Rene Saguisag’s participation in the decision, on pages 2 and 12, I discussed the matters with my spiritual director Fr. Constancio C. Gan, at Adamson University, 8:00 p.m., beside Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal Church, and the violet light of LUIS, as big as a wheel, flashed. I failed to save Dulce and Rene from LUIS’ wrath which the July 12, 2007 Per Curiam Resolution in this case called “ungodly reprisals.26”
On 2002, I passed by the Veterans Hospital jail-room of Joseph Estrada. The President asked me to predict when PGMA will be ousted. And I told him that a) there is no time frame but her physical hurting would coincide with her irreversible downfall, and b) he will be judicially but not politically vindicated. Cong. JV Bautista remarked: “O ma-vivindicate ka naman pala!”
5. When the JBC opened for nomination Judge Floro’s Br. 73, RTC, Malabon, LUIS promised the serial killings and surgeries or pains upon the chosen ones: a) James Bersamin and LUIS Bersamin were killed, after Judge Floro talked 3 times and asked mercy from Justice Apolinario Bruselas and Justice Lucas Bersamin; b) Judge Floro’s Malabon Judges neighbors died and were permanently disabled – Judge Rosa Reyes died of cancer on March 9, 2007 while Judge Benjamin Antonio was forced to retire on the fiery day of January 15, 2007 when the Supreme Court logo was halved by the LUIS’ mystic fire.
Patikim, Himagas, Appetizer – LUIS told me on Good Friday, that Dulce’s death is only a Patikim of his immense power to annihilate because of the efficacy of the twin Biblical Curses Judge Floro recited midnights since November 3/5, 2006 and November 5, 2007.
Atty. Esmeralda Galang-Dizon, clerk of court of Br. 73, RTC, Malabon in 1999 witnesses the 2 times a week 12 minutes epileptic lifetime seizures of her daughter GELAY. When the July 12, 2007 Per Curiam Resolution was released, despite the fact that Judge Floro had continuous audiences from Justice Leo Quisumbing since January 24, 2006, the CA 4th floor was burned followed by the kidney transplant of JBC ex-officio member Raul M. Gonzales, who turned down Judge Floro’s written application for job, work and trabajo, while Pryde Henry Teves was 80% burned after Margarito Teves turned down Judge Floro’s application for work, duly filed upon suggestion of Sec. Eduardo Ermita’s office. On top of all these, after Abalos turned down Judge Floro’s submitted Resume, and plea, Chair Abalos and Speaker JDV bowed down, Comelec Chief Dalaig and his successor were murdered, after the Comelec seal was halved by fire, while Judge Floro’s classmate Manny Gaite was charged in the Ombudsman, after the death of his father Gregorio Gaite, and after he set-up as joke Judge Floro’s plea for work, job and trabajo. Alfredo L. Benipayo collapsed and was hospitalized on February 22, 2008 at Iloilo Hospital, as predicted in writing by Judge Floro in the 2002, 2003 and 2004 July 20 motions (after his February 21, 2001 angioplasty, and Justice Ramirez’ 2003 heart surgery).
Ex-Comelec chief Benipayo rushed to hospital in Iloilo27
02/22/2008 | 09:15 PM
Former Commission on Elections (Comelec) chairman and Solicitor General Alfredo Benipayo was hospitalized in Iloilo City after collapsing, Visayas-based Bombo Radyo reported Friday night. The report said Benipayo collapsed at about 3 p.m. while giving a lecture before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Iloilo Chapter in a hotel in the city, and was rushed to the Iloilo Saint Paul's Hospital. Lawyer Joseph Lutero, who attended the lecture, said Benipayo collapsed while in the middle of his lecture. As of Friday evening, the Bombo Radyo report quoted doctors as saying Benipayo's condition had stabilized. Benipayo, who also served as the Supreme Court's court administrator and as a Court of Appeals justice, is now dean of the faculty of civil law at the University of Santo Tomas in Manila. - GMANews.TV 7 Books to Manny Gaite28 - Death of Father and Ombudsman Case On December, 2007, Judge Floro donated 7 of his books to his classmate, seatmate, Ateneo Class 82, Deputy Executive Secretary Manny Gaite. From 1978 to 1982, Gaite was Judge Floro’s classmate, who could hardly get a single second honor card. He was helped by Atty. Joker Arroyo in his first stint as OGG lawyer. He transferred to Malacanang and rose from the ranks. Manny Gaite asked Judge Floro on 1999 to demonstrate healing at the Regina College where his wife (former Augustinian novice who left the cloister) was taking a religion subject. In exchange Manny Gaite gave Judge Floro a Blue Sign Pen as token of gratitude. His wife confessed that she had fecal infections since she could not remove her bowel for 17 days. This caused
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/81828/Ex-Comelec-chief-Benipayo-rushed-tohospital-in-Iloilo 28 World-famous mystic: Armand, Luis & Angel, the three dwarfs meets the judge-- psychic & healing martyr of Filipino justice / by Florentino V. Floro, Jr. ISBN: 9789716916195 http://library.senate.gov.ph/text/biblio2007/jul/text2.htm http://lib1000.dlsu.edu.ph/record=b1257208
the pain and the Gaite couple had to adopt. They share a home at Pulong Buhangin, Sta. Maria. Judge Floro was told by DOJ Raul Gonzales to write the President instead regarding job, work and trabajo, on 2 occasions, August 22, 2005 and December, 2006. So Judge Floro went to Gaite and Sec. Ermita. Gaite said that he will give the 6 books to their classmates. Sen. Heherson Alvarez’s wife Cecille Guidote Alvarez (who met an accident at France, and was in “saklay”) was beside Judge Floro. Gaite told Judge Floro that the former would help him get a job from classmate Jay Flaminiano. So, he set up a JOKE meeting at the wake of cancer-stricken Emily Reyes. It was great fun, since Jay Flaminiano was not there but a GHOST, and Judge Floro was made a fun by Betty Medialdea, Et Montecastro and wife Francis Lim, the Great. LUIS alerted Judge Floro of this joke, and promised Judge Floro 2 jokes also: a) the death of Gregorio Gaite in great pain 2 weeks after the JOKE, and b) the Senate NBN Lozada Joke with the final Ombudsman bonus. Judge Floro demanded the return of these 7 books but Gaite returned only one, alleging that their classmates refused to return Judge Floro’s books. Gaite’s rich uncle says P.5M came from him By Ephraim Aguilar, Southern Luzon Bureau, 03/01/2008 BAAO, CAMARINES SUR, Philippines -- The uncle of Deputy Executive Secretary Manuel Gaite on Friday confirmed that the P500,000 his nephew gave to ZTE deal scandal witness Rodolfo Noel “Jun” Lozada came from him. Melquiades Gaite, 71, told the Philippine Daily Inquirer the P500,000 was drawn from the P1.5 million he had loaned to his nephew for the renovation of their house in Bulacan. Melquiades said Gaite borrowed P1.5 million from him in September 2007 when he went home here for the Peñafrancia festival. Melquiades, this town’s former mayor, defended his nephew and described him as a humble, quiet, compassionate and honest man. “Manny is a humble, honest, compassionate and silent person. We have protected our family reputation for years,” he added. “What happened with Manny can be called a frame-up. He was just there to offer (Lozada) help,” Melquiades said. In the Senate inquiry on the ZTE deal, Senator Manuel Roxas said that the “private source” of the money Gaite gave to Lozada should also come out and explain. Gaite grew up in this town, studied grade school in the Sta. Monica Academy here, and graduated high school from the Holy Rosary seminary in Naga City. Senator Ma. Ana Consuelo Madrigal on Friday filed criminal and administrative charges in the Office of the Ombudsman against the President and her known political allies Secretaries Eduardo R. Ermita, Jose L. Atienza, Jr. and Romulo L. Neri; Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief Avelino I. Razon Jr. and former Environment Secretary Michael T. Defensor. Other respondents are Malacañang Aides Manuel B. Gaite, Marcelino Agana, IV and Remedios L. Poblador; xxx.29 Hurt Abalos family: ‘Our sanctuary is prayer’
By Kristine L. Alave, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 02/29/2008
MANILA, Philippines -- The family of former Elections Chair Benjamin Abalos Sr., the man tagged by Senate witnesses as a villain in the scandal-tainted National
Broadband Network project, on Friday expressed frustration and distress at the ill will directed at their patriarch. The past two years have been hard for the family, said Mandaluyong City Mayor Benhur Abalos, son of the former Commission on Elections (Comelec) chief, during the Mass for Peace and Unity held Friday afternoon at the Mandaluyong city gymnasium.
The Blue Madonna
LUIS, Armand and Angel Instruments of God, Servants of Mary The Blue Madonna, Our Lady of Hope, Our Lady of Fatima (1918) The Story of the Pilgrimage, France in 187130 A Marian apparition is an event in which the Virgin Mary is believed to have supernaturally appeared to one or more persons, typically Catholics, although not always devout or always Catholic or Christian, in various settings. They are often given names based on the town in which they were reported, or on the sobriquet which was given to Mary on the occasion of the apparition. They have been interpreted as psychological (pareidolia), and as religious phenomena, occasionally as theophanies. Mother of Hope Whose name is so sweet Protect our land of France Pray, pray for us. Marian Apparitions – 39 A.D. to Present A Marian apparition is an event in which the Virgin Mary is believed to have supernaturally appeared to one or more persons, typically Catholics, although not always devout or always Catholic or Christian, in various settings. The First Marian Apparition was: 39 (before her Assumption) at Caesaraugusta (Zaragoza), Hispania Tarraconensis to Saint James the Great; Our Lady of the Pillar. The latest was 2001 at Kodungaiyur, Chennai, India to Ms. Rosalind, Mr. P. Alexander ; Our Lady of Jecintho. Our Lady of Fatima, 1918 Our Lady of Fatima (pronounced [ˈfatimɐ]) is the title given to the Blessed Virgin Mary by those who believe that she appeared to three shepherd children at Fátima, Portugal on the 13th day of six consecutive months in 1917, starting on 13 May, the Fatima holiday. The title of Our Lady of the Rosary is also used in reference to the same apparition; the children related that the apparition specifically identified herself as "the Lady of the Rosary." It is also common to see a combination of these titles, i.e., Our Lady of the Rosary of Fatima (Portuguese: ''Nossa Senhora do Rosário de Fátima'').
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_%28mother_of_Jesus%29 http://www.sanctuaire-pontmain.com/ http://www.sanctuaire-pontmain.com/photos/pontmain-en.gif http://www.sanctuaire-pontmain.com/en/1-01.html
Judge Floro’s January 9, 1999, Vision of Global Apparitions of Mary – 1999 to 2012 At 6:00 a.m., feast of the Black Nazarene of Quiapo, Manila, Philippines, Judge Floro saw the visions of a) global and supreme millennium earthquakes and b) global apparitions of Mary (both from 1999 to 2012) and c) V.P. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would be badly hurt. Judge Floro saw the Vision of the Blue Madonna on March 13, 2008 On March 13, 2008, before dawn, Judge Floro was bestowed a Gift to have seen the visions of: a) (Preceded by yellow flash at midnight): In full religious trance, I floated over a railroad track amid the fields, where I saw golden or yellow corns b) Then, I saw men on the railroad track with a corn machine laying the golden yellow corn along the tracks c) Further, I saw myself facing a white wall with the white plain statue of Mary c) The statue thereafter, turned into a most difficult to describe HEAVENLY BLUE virtual reality tall and big Image of Mary (Our Lady of Hope or Fatima ... I was not informed of the title). Message The plain message of the visions and trance is: LUIS, Armand and Angel are mere instruments of God, and servants of Mary, the co-redemptrix and mediatrix of all graces. The only way to fight evil or the blacks / fallen angels and their 666 instruments is via the Violet and White Lights of the Lord (Lux in Domino): on Fridays , unleashed towards the hypocrites, the Filipino magistrates and those who steal or do evil in the government. Consecration of the Judiciary and Government to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and Enthronement of The Eucharist in 5 Halls of Justices The consecration of Russia According to Sister Lúcia, The Virgin promised that the Consecration of Russia would lead to Russia's conversion and an era of peace. Pope Pius XII, in his Apostolic Letter of July 7, 1952 Sacro Vergente Anno is considered to have performed the requested consecration. Pius XII wrote, “…just as a few years ago We consecrated the entire human race to the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, so today We consecrate and in a most special manner We entrust all the peoples of Russia to this Immaculate Heart…” Others believe that Pope John Paul II fulfilled this request in 1984 by giving a blessing over the world, including Russia, before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, even though that consecration did not specifically mention Russia by name. Some believe that Lucia Santos verified that this ceremony fulfilled the requests of the Virgin. However, in the Blue Army's Spanish magazine, Sol de Fatima, in the September 1985 issue, Sister Lúcia said that the ceremony did not fulfill the Virgin's request, as there was no specific mention of Russia, and "many bishops attached no importance to it". Bombardment of Violet Lights and The Yellow Fire Explosion – March 14 and 15, 2008
For the first time since 1997, Judge Floro witnessed the repeated flashing of violet lights (as described on several chapters of this book, a flash of violet light as shown to Judge Floro by LUIS, consists of thousandth of a second flash of as big as a point of a needle and more 100 times more sharp than our red laser beams). These lights flashed after midnight of March 14 when he was watching the EWTN or Catholic TV programs. On March 15, 2008, at dawn, Judge Floro witnessed for the first time the glimmering colorless-rainbow lights of fire from his eyes until these lights suddenly exploded to yellow. What is the meaning of these visions and lights? Robert told Judge Floro, that for LUIS, the Blue Madonna image, is that of our Lady of Fatima. But for Judge Floro, were it not for the absence of the golden crown, she would have been Our Lady of Hope. But the sole message is the same: the Fatima prophecy – dire punishments of wars, pains, famine, deaths, global disasters and repentance with prayer/rosary, inter alia. Judge Floro Petitioned the Philippine Supreme Court (January 4, 2008) to Obey these Twin Rites In this regard, to stop the Philippine political and extra-judicial killings, Judge Floro filed on the first First Friday of 2008, a verified petition to stop the extrajudicial killings. Judge Floro asked the Philippine Supreme Court to a) enthrone both the Holy Eucharist and b) the image of Our Lady of Fatima – on all the places where the 2007 and 2000 Mystic Fires happened: upon the Supreme Court Session Hall, 4th Floor of the Court of Appeals, Comelec Old Building, Muntinlupa City Municipal Trial Court, and Br. 73, Regional Trial Court, Malabon / Navotas (which was preserved from fire on July 22, 2000, when all the Halls of Justice salas were burned). Judge Floro also asked the Court to consecrate the entire Judiciary to Our Lady of Fatima, as sole means to save the jurists from perdition and to stop the killings. Extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances in the Philippines - Article created by Judge Floro on Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia Philippine Extrajudicial Killings and Desaparecidos are the illegal liquidations, unlawful or felonious killings and forced disappearance, respectively. They are forms of extrajudicial punishment, and include - extra-judicial executions, summary execution, arbitrary arrest and detention, and failed prosecutions in the Philippines, because of political activities of leading political, trades union, dissident and/or social figures, left-wing political parties, non-governmental organizations, political journalists, outspoken clergy, anti-mining activists, agricultural reform activists, members of legal political parties or organizations that the military claims are allied with the communist movement or suspected supporters of the NPA and its political wing, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) [by either the state government, state authorities like the armed forces and police (as in Liberia under Charles G. Taylor), or by criminal outfits such as the Italian Mafia. Impeccable Prophecy of Killings after January 4, contrary to the Supreme Court’s exhaustive ways to solve the killings per Manila Hotel Summit:31 Malabon Halls of Justice was already plagued with deaths, sicknesses and dire punishments due to extreme and open corruption: Death of neighbor Judge Rosa Reyes, permanent disability forced retirement of Judge Benjamin Antonio,
Lifetime Epilepsy of Gelay, daughter of Clerk of Court Esmeralda Galang-Dizon and the 2000 July 22, mystic fire which burned all these corrupt offices except Judge Floro. If Br. 73, RTC, Malabon would have a new Judge, DIRE PUNISHMENTS will be an epidemic that will be suffered by chosen members of the judiciary. God watches us from a near distance. LUIS, Dulce and Rene, The ‘Last Dance’ - ‘I Could Have Danced All Night’” – 7 Stitches, 7 Broken Ribs, 7 Grounds Last Dance32 is a 1996 film starring Sharon Stone, Rob Morrow, Randy Quaid and Peter Gallagher.The prison which the film is shot is in Ridgeland South Carolina. "Last Dance"33 is a song written by the late Paul Jabara. It was sung by Donna Summer for the Thank God It's Friday soundtrack in 1978. "Last Dance" won an Academy Award and a Golden Globe for Best Original Song. It is one of Summer's favorite songs and remains one of her most popular hits in the US. "I Could Have Danced All Night"34 is a song from the musical My Fair Lady, with music written by Frederick Loewe and lyrics by Alan Jay Lerner, published in 1956. The song is sung by the play's heroine, Eliza Doolittle, expressing her exhilaration and excitement after an impromptu dance with her tutor Henry Higgins Detailed Picture of Death, Pains … 6 / 7 April, 2006, release of the 75 pages world-famous Psychosis-Nazario Decision which separated Judge Floro from service - The birthday of Angel, sister of LUIS and Armand (who both promised Judge Floro on the dalliance day of March 1, 1996, that these 3 and the Judge would someday be world-famous and IMMORTAL in world history) The Main Decision: 75 pages - March 31, 2006 - A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460 6 / 7 April, 2006, Br. 22, RTC, Manila, Judge Cesar Solis’ sala was ransacked by robbers (he is the father-in-law of Atty. Ma. Providencia “Bibing” Solis (who drafted the 75 pages Nazario Decision; she is the daughter of Atty. Victoria Timbangkaya, partner of, Atty. RENE A. V. SAGUISAG, counsel or record of Judge Floro; she resigned and transferred to the office of Sandiganbayan Justice Gesmundo, after her first born met a swing accident which caused incorrectible / lifetime SCARS, 7 STITCHES in the right forehead, while her youngest son was bitten by a dog; and her brother was rehabilitated due to DRUGS, and transferred from Dumaguete University to Adamson University to study 2 subjects, law). Atty. Ma. Isabel Providencia “Bibing” Timbangkaya Solis – Drafted the Psychosis 75 pages Decision - RENE A. V. SAGUISAG, counsel-of-record of Judge Floro - partner of Atty. Victoria Timbangkaya As private secretary of Justice Nazario, “Bibing” worked with her at the Sandiganbayan since she was law student. In 1992, Judge Floro met his father-in-law Judge Cesar Solis (her neighbour at Capitol Estates, near Ever Gotesco), who’s wife died of cancer. Her mother, Atty. Victoria Timbangkaya had known Judge Floro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Dance_%28film%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Dance_%28song%29 34 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Could_Have_Danced_All_Night
through their neighbour, Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr., JBC Member and Lay Minister of their Parish. When Judge Floro hired as co-counsel of record, Senator Rene A.V. Saguisag, 2003, Atty. Vicky Timbangkay a was senior partner of Atty. Saguisag, and Judge Floro communicated with her almost weekly if not daily through telephone, regarding the 7 years suspension case. Atty. Bibing Solis gave Judge Floro certified copies of Justice Nazario’s pre-trial Orders (which became the ANNEX A, of the Petition) days before the filing of the March 12, 2004 Mandamus case to enthrone Justice Nazario. AT THE SANDIGANBAYAN, ATTY. BIBING SOLIS RELAYED TO JUDGE FLORO THE COVENANT: UPON HER ENTHRONEMENT, JUSTICE NAZARIO WOULD FIGHT FOR JUDGE FLORO UNTIL THE END. Atty. Bibing Solis talked to Judge Floro 2 times at the Sandiganbayan and about 2 hours at her house before the 2004 elections, regarding the case and Justice Nazario’s appointment. Atty. Vicky Timbangkaya confided to Judge Floro, that: a) she suffered malaria, pneumonia and flu, b) her son, brother of Atty. Bibing Solis was in and out of the drug rehabilitation at Dumaguete and from the Siliman University Law School; she transferred him to the Adamson University Law School (taking just one or 2 subjects, irregular, last semesters) through the grace of its Dean Antonio Abad, friend of Atty. Vicky Timbangkaya and further, c) Atty. Bibing Timbangkaya resigned from Justice Nazario and transferred to the Office of Justice Gesmundo on the day that Judge Floro’s case was released on April 6, 2006, since Justice Nazario asked “Bibing” to finish drafting the Decision of the case of Judge Floro. The Omen On April, 1999, Judge Floro visited “Apo Rupeng” (now deceased Rufina Resurrection, a 30 years well-known faith healer from Sabang, Baliuag, Bulacan). Judge Floro asked her to interpret the his vision of – 3 Coffins – And she predicted that these coffins would be the death beds of those who would persecute Judge Floro. Specifically, Rufina prophesied that LUIS will curse the ROLLO (2 push carts case which contain the 8 years suspension case); she said that LUIS will show to the ponente (Justice Nazario) the horrible pains and deaths on the coffins, upon release of any judgement which would dismiss or separate Judge Floro from the judiciary. On April 11, 2006, 4:30 p.m. Judge Floro visited “Bibing” at their house (she would go to Palawan). Atty. Ma. ISABEL PROVIDENCIA “Bibing” TIMBANGKAYA SOLIS, showed to Judge Floro her youngest son who was bitten by a dog, and her first born who also met a swing accident with 7 BIG LIFETIME STITCHES on his right forehead (incorrectible by plastic surgery). Her father-in-law's office, RTC Manila, Judge Cesar Solis' court was ransacked by robbers, that April 7, 2006. [On November 8, 2007, the left lung of Judge Floro’s counsel-of-record Rene A. V. Saguisag , was crushed and he had 7 broken ribs, while his head suffered clots; his wife Dulce died due to the horrible accident, which was predicted by LUIS on the 54th birthday of Judge Floro, on November 5, 2007, 8:00 p.m., when a VIOLET flash as big as a car wheel glimmered when Judge Floro conversed with Fr. Constancio Gan, C.M., at Adamspon University]. November 8, 2007 - Former DSWD Secretary Dulce Saguisag died while her husband Senator Rene Saguisag (lead counsel of President Joseph Estrada) suffered
very serious accident, brain clot and 7 broken ribs. After a month, or on December 8, 2007, Senator Saguisag was released from the hospital, freed from tubes, but “still needs assistance by a hired a private nurse". He lost lots of weight. He was out of the ICU on November 28, or 20 days from the fatalistic accident. Their youngest daughter 16-year old gymnast Kaissa Saguisag's knee injury ended her quest for gold at the 24th Southeast Asian Games35 Car Accident – Last Dance Rene and Dulce Saguisag danced and danced the whole night. It was ballroom dancing time. On the way home, Dulce Saguisag was killed in a serious car accident on November 8, 2007, on President Osmeña Highway in Makati City. Her husband, Rene Saguisag, was seriously injured in the accident. Two other people riding in the same Toyota Grandia van as the Saguisags, including Filipino dance instructor, Rhea Imelda Obong, and driver, Felipe Calvario, were also seriously injured in the accident. All four were rushed to Ospital ng Makati where Dulce Saguisag was pronounced dead from her injuries. The Toyota that Ducle Saguisag was riding in, which was travelling on Pasay Road, was struck by a dump truck at the corner of the President Osmeña Highway in Makati City at about 2 A.M. The dump truck had reportedly been speeding when it ran a traffic light and struck the left side of the Saguisags' van, killing Dulce. Police arrested the driver of the dump truck at the scene of the accident. Attorney Rene A.V. Saguisag, Counsel-of-record of Judge Floro Best evidence of LUIS’ heartless, ruthless and supreme thirst for vengeance N.B. Senator RENE SAGUISAG: Mil Nueve Cientos: July, 2003 “RENE” does ballroom dancing in this Malate Restaurant. It was 8:30 p.m. He was on time and all black. He was so dignified. I summarized my PLEA to him. I pleaded that he should be able to convince Atty. Tesie Cruz-Sison, JBC Member to tell the Honorable Court the TRUTH: How she did mastermind my longest preventive suspension (4 years at that time, now 4 2/3 years). He promised to talk to “Tesie”. On July 20, 2003, “RENE” talked to her, and she bluntly told “RENE” that “Judge FLORO’S case is already with the Supreme Court”, the line she always repeated, since 1999. I knelt before Atty. Rene Saguisag and his best friend San Beda Dean Virgilio JARA, as I personally talked to Rene begging an audience from S.C. Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, his best friend, but LUIS was turned down by RENE. Judge Floro, denied by Dean Virgilio Jara and Atty. Rene Saguisag Jobless Judge since July 20, 1999 Who is LUIS’ really? Judge Floro was ordered by LUIS, to give Rene Saguisag all the chances before the dwarf judge’s November 5, 2007 birthday: a) Judge Floro’s last face to face talk to
abs-cbnnews.com, 'Next 24 hours critical for Rene Saguisag'
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=98470 Inquirer.net, Ex-senator Saguisag leaves hospital, By Tarra Quismundo, DJ Yap, 12/08/2007 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=105676 Inquirer.net, Knee injury ends gymnast Saguisag’s quest for SEAG gold http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/news/view_article.php?article_id=106603
Rene Saguisag was – Judge Floro fetched Rene from San Beda lecture and they went to a 2nd floor of Makati Hotel where Rene was waiting for a client. Judge Floro was asked by LUIS to ask Rene 2 questions: i) Sir, Atty. Gregorio M. Batiller, Jr., Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas and Justice Lucas Bersamin said that if I would file the disbarment case against C.J. Davide, et al. I would not have a job, will I file the case tomorrow? ii) and Sir, can you help me get a job from President Cory and your client President Erap, or can you help me get clients so that I can practice law? Rene, in deep meditation, said: “Alam mo, masyado ka nang sikat! Iyong ika-2 tanong mo, mas mahirap saguting!” cursed the COMELEC, due to Chair Benjamin Abalos’ denial of LUIS’ and Judge Floro’s plea for JOB, (Resume was brought to Abalos upon suggestion of Nonoy the best friend and campaign manager of Dr. Arsenio Abalos). its own highest officer was shot dead. b) Judge Floro called Rene 20 times until Judge Floro went to San Beda to give his book to Dean Virgilio Jara and another for Rene. Notwithstanding these pleas for mercy, Judge Floro’s maid Belen bombarded Rene with many phone calls asking for audience, per Malen and Blenda, Rene’s 2 secretaries. Despite all these, Judge Floro, on his birthday November 5, 2008 alerted this Honorable Court with his Motion for Entry of Judgment, citing these facts on pages 2 and 12, inter alia. c) Despite all these, Judge Floro asked mercy from Justice Nazario who closed her door to the poor dwarf judge on August 4, 2006, while her secretary Marissa said that she will never entertain any audience to Judge Floro even after the case becomes final. Will this case be ever final? d) At 8 p.m. November 5, 20008, Judge Floro for one full hour, discussed this Rene Saguisag and Atty. Bibing Timbangkaya matter of the Decision to his counsel Fr. Constancio C. Gan, amid the as big as a car wheel VIOLET FLASH of light by LUIS, showing his intense and heartless vendetta. RAUL M. GONZALES, NENE PIMENTEL & PRYDE HENRY TEVES LUIS ordered Judge Floro to meet DOJ Secretary Gonzales 2 times: a) Circa August 22, 2005 – Judge Floro asked Gonzales as JBC Member to transfer Judge Floro to another equal or higher post in the other departments. Gonzales refused to give Judge Floro any endorsement but asked him to write a letter to the President. Judge Floro held the right hand of Gonzales; b) Judge Floro asked for mercy from Gonzales about December, 2006, for job, work and trabajo, but Gonzales said that the Supreme Court Justices were angry to the dwarf judge. So, in obedience to Gonzales, Judge Floro wrote Sec. Ermita and Manny Gaite, his classmate letters of applications. Ermita responded per his USEC and suggested to Judge Floro to file applications with the Department levels. Judge Floro accordingly filed applications with: a) Senator Nene Pimentel; Judge Floro was asked by Nene to see his 3 lawyers and this director; thereafter Nene boxed in the can Judge Floro’s application; b) Margarito Teves denied Judge Floro’s request for audience and the application; …. 13 November, 2007 – Batasan blast: Teves still in ICU; Ilagan may undergo surgery Negros Oriental Representative Pryde Henry Teves36
WikiPedia, Pryde Henry Teves, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pryde_Henry_Teves
Congressman Henry Teves was one of the 3 Philippine representatives; others were Luzviminda Ilagan of GABRIELA partylist and Wahab Akbar of the lone district of Basilan that were victimized by the explosion. Congressman Wahab Akbar of Basilan was killed in the incident while both Congressman Pryde Henry Teves and Congresswoman Luzviminda Ilagan experienced severe injuries. In earlier reports, Doctors announced that Teves' legs would be amputated, but later decided that some medicines could help cure the wounded legislator. Vercita Garcia, staff member of Rep. Pryde Henry Teves died at 6:30 p.m. due to cardiac arrest at St. Luke's Medical Center in Quezon, City on December 17, 2007 After 35 days or on December 18, 2007, Negros Oriental Rep. Pryde Henry Teves was moved out of the intensive care unit of St. Luke’s Medical Center in Quezon City to a private room thereat, and recuperated from destroyed eardrum, fractured leg and sustained deep burns in his arms from the Batasang Pambansa bombing. On January 31, 2008, Pryde Henry Teves, 35, reported for work at the House of Representatives, against doctors' advises. Teves, still in a wheelchair, wears black cotton gloves to protect his burned hands, and he could not shake hands or use his cellular phone. He stated: "I feel all the senses in my body that I don’t want to feel, all the unwanted pain. I really got depressed. And my (burned) skin (including face) is extra sensitive. When it’s hot I feel the heat and when it’s cold I also feel very cold. My left foot was shattered in 10 places. It’s all held together by screws. Hopefully, after 20 weeks (since Nov. 13) the bones will heal; I’m still under heavy medication. And I still take pain relievers. The pain is terrible.Three days ago (Jan. 26), I had two shrapnels removed from my body. They were all concrete nails." 62% of his body sustained 2nd and 3rd degree burns, and his left foot was badly fractured. Judge Floro CURSED (biblical imprecation) the Batasan / Congress when he appeared thereat as Intervenor in the FPJ case, with special pass in the canvassing of the votes37. On November 23, 2007 - Malacanan, per office of Exec. Eduardo Ermita wrote jobless Judge Floro asking him to apply with the Department Secretaries / levels; hence Judge Floro applied with and asked personal audience with Secretary Finance Margarito Teves, DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzales, and First Gentleman Mike Arroyo per Atty. Jesus I. Santos, personally, at Marilao, Bulacan, and thru her daughter Atty. Tricia Santos. Judge Floro begged Pat Habulan for audience with Sec. Ermita, but failed38. * April 9, 2007 – First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo's surgery for aortic aneurysm39
http://www.gmanews.tv/video/14190/Batasan-blast-Teves-still-in-ICU-Ilagan-may-undergo-surgery http://www.gmanews.tv/video/14169/Saksi-Rep-Henry-Teves-taken-to-St-Luke's-Medical-Center http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/topstories/topstories/view_article.php?article_id=100700 37 Canvass Pass, http://photos-210.friendster.com/e1/photos/01/25/54505210/1_717152185m.jpg 38 Documents, http://photos-210.friendster.com/e1/photos/01/25/54505210/1_449987035l.jpg http://photos-210.friendster.com/e1/photos/01/25/54505210/1_489053566l.jpg http://photos-210.friendster.com/e1/photos/01/25/54505210/1_127567016l.jpg
Mike Arroyo undergoing surgery for aortic aneurysm By Lira Dalangin-Fernandez, INQUIRER.net, First Posted 04/09/2007 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=59396
* On September 14, 2007, Raul Gonzalez, 7640, underwent a successful 4-hour kidney transplant at the National Kidney Institute (with Felicito Gunay, 53, nicknamed "Muroy" his driver as kidney donor}. He was resting and in stable condition (6:00 p.m., Philippine time). Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera was appointed officer-in-charge of the Department of Justice effective September 1. Davao Congressman Prospero Nograles wanted the post of Gonzales, as a steppingstone to the Supreme Court of the Philippines. August 3, 2007 – DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzalez (Philippines) vomited blood, rushed to hospital, battled with bleeding from ulcer; he had a kidney transplant on September 14, 2007. His Iloilo Mayor Jerry Trenas was sued the Ombudsman regarding the coal plant trip by the Taiwan company41 * On September 18, 2007, defeated sanatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel III charged Commission on Elections Chair Benjamin Abalos of orchestrating the alleged May 2007 elections frauds and the latter's controversial national broadband network project was his “karma.” Like Koko Pimentel, former senators Vicente Sotto III, Tessie Aquino-Oreta and Sonia Roco, widow of former senator Raul Roco miserably lost in the Philippine general election, 200742 Muntinlupa City Hall - Metropolitan Trial Court was burned43 July 26, 2007 – Court of Appeals’ 4th floor was burned, 5th alarm44 * June 16, 2007 – Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. was operated spinal surgery (spinal stenosis - pinched lumbar nerves), while his son Aquilino Pimentel III suffered defeat to Sen. Miguel Zubiri45 May 25, 2007 - Edwin Ermita, son of Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita lost to Vice-Governor Mark Leviste46 November 5, 1997, November 4 / 5, 1998: November 5, 2007 “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nene_Pimentel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raul_M._Gonzalez 41 gmanews.tv/, Gonzales battling with bleeding ulcer http://www.gmanews.tv/story/54257/DOJs-Gonzalez-in-hospital-battling-bleeding-from-ulcer newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews, Justice chief Gonzalez to undergo kidney transplant http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=88505 inquirer.net, Iloilo mayor sued for trip paid for by Taiwan firm http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/regions/view_article.php?article_id=93750 42 Inquirer.net, Trillanes caper tops INQUIRER.net most read stories http://www.inquirer.net/specialfeatures/makatistandoff/view.php?db=1&article=20071231-109536 comelec.gov.ph, election results, 2007 http://www.comelec.gov.ph/2007elections/results/national/senatorial_rep30.html 43 Muntinlupa City Hall blaze contained, By Thea Alberto, INQUIRER.net, 08/03/2007 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/metro/view_article.php?article_id=80362 44 sunstar.com.ph, Fire hits CA building http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2007/07/27/fire.hits.appellate.court.building.html 45 Zubiri proclaimed 12th senator , By Veronica Uy, INQUIRER.net, 07/14/2007 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=76622
Inquirer.net, Inhibition of poll exec in Batangas case sought, By Marlon Alexander Luistro, Southern Luzon Bureau, 12/18/2007 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/regions/view/20071218107659/Inhibition_of_poll_exec_in_Batangas_case_sought
But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brothers, be firm, steadfast, always fully devoted to the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.” (1 Corinthians, Chapter 15, 55-58).
5 December, 1939 - Birth of Minita Viray Chico -Nazario 5 December, 1925 - Birth and Death of Milagros V. Floro 5 December, 1995 - (Mother of Judge Florentino V. Floro) 5 November, 1953 - Birth - Florentino Velasquez Floro, Jr. 5 November, 1997 – JBC Application of Judge Floro 4/5 November, 1998 – Judicial Appointment of Judge Floro MEMORANDUM 0F PROPHECIES - April 6, 2006 - October 26, 2007 From April 7, 2006 until today, as JOBLESS, I wake up at 10 a.m. I eat vegetables and fishes, and sometimes, meat. I would sit in the computer Internet cafe, from 12 noon to 12 midnight (with breaks, 8 to 10 p.m. to eat). I responded to 1,000 blogs comments, like yours, and 140 forums’ thousand of posts, which reported my case based on more than 100 international wire reports and front page head lines, from April 7, 2006 (the birthday of Angel when I was separated and made immortal in world history). I am an established WikiPedian editor, contributor or user. Recently, I spent about 10 hours daily to edit WikiPedia and create articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florentino_Floro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Florentino_floro B. Spirituality and the Light On a) First Friday, March 1, 1996, LUIS and Armand (after my repeated requests since November, 1984) finally made the ETERNAL covenant (improperly called DALLIANCE) with these 3 holy angels ... (due to our 1521-1899 Spanish colonization, our culture mandated us to call these guardian angels as DWENDES from “Duendes”). LUIS told me that I must just whistle and call their names 3x and they would be instantly beside me bodily and spiritually EVEN during the times I least needed them, like when I was taking a bath. On b) Good Friday, 2001 and c) October 21, 2007 LUIS for the 2nd and 3rd time showed himself to me in magnificent visions - a) in the form of regal violet King and b) in the form of a chicken, respectively. So there were 3 FULL apparitions since 1984, aside from LUIS’ daily violet lights flashed to me proving that there is no second that he is not with me.
C. Physical Death I faced physical death 3 times: a) 2000 - at San Francisco, Pulilan, Bulacan, near a chapel - an addict did strike at my back / neck with steel ASERO, and he did use his knife to kill me, but LUIS’ lights flooded my body and I was never physically hurt; b) March 9, 2001, at Tiaong, Baliuag, Bulacan - a man had badly beaten me at the back, and if you saw me, you would not believe that I would live. When I shouted the name of LUIS, there was stoppage, and I did walk safely (my doctor was surprised that there was no hematoma, so I visited and thanked Our Lady of Manaoag, Pangasinan); c) November, 2005 - in front of Capitolio, Malolos, Bulacan, while waiting for a jeep, I was badly beaten on my upper lip, with steel asero, and the guard of Judge Benjamin M. Aquino, Jr. did see me with so much blood and I was operated (minor surgery) at the provincial hospital. After just 1 month you would never see any scar, for it is a physical miracle of LUIS and his healing oil. C. Lux in Domino In this November 5, 2007 pleading, I asked the Court to order its clerk of court to obey the fallo and ratio decidendi of the last / final denial resolutions in this case, that is, to issue an entry of judgment, or certificate of finality. I received these final orders long ago, and until today Atty. Maria Luisa Villarama and Atty. Felipa Anama both failed and refused to obey the court order despite the fact that I never filed any appeal / motion to reconsider or any pleading. The August 11, 2006 and July 12, 2007 Resolutions state: “WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge Floro’s Partial Motions for Reconsideration as well as the Supplements thereto are hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY there being no merits. No other pleading, however denominated, shall henceforth be entertained by this Court.”
“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as it is hereby Resolved, Judge Floro’s “ORIGINAL PETITION/LETTER WITH LEAVE OF COURT [For Re-Opening of Judge Floro’s Separation Case based on “G.R. No. 72670, 12 September 1986 - Saturnina Galman v. Sandiganbayan] with Conjunctive Omnibus Motions” and his “VERIFIED SUPPLEMENT TO THE ORIGINAL PETITION/LETTER, WITH LEAVE OF COURT [For Re-Opening of Judge Floro’s Separation case based on G.R. No. 72670, 12 September 1986, Saturnina Galman v. Sandiganbayan] with Alternative Urgent Petition to assign i) a New Docket Number to this Original Petition, and ii) to Designate Acting Chief Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing or S.C. Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, as New Ponente of this New Case,” are hereby NOTED WITHOUT ACTION and are ordered EXPUNGED from the records. It is hereby firmly reiterated that NO FURTHER PLEADING/S WILL BE ENTERTAINED in this case. Judge Floro is hereby given a WARNING that he can be held liable for indirect contempt
should he persist in disregarding lawful orders of this Court and committing acts which tend to abuse, obstruct, impede, and degrade the administration of justice.”
RULE 36 (JUDGMENTS, FINAL ORDERS AND ENTRY THEREOF - Sec. 2. Entry of judgments and final orders), Revised Rules of Court provides: “If no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed within the time provided in these Rules, the judgment or final order shall forthwith be entered by the clerk in the book of entries of judgments. The date of finality of the judgment or final order shall be deemed to be the date of its entry. The record shall contain the dispositive part of the judgment or final order and shall be signed by the clerk, with a certificate that such judgment or final order has become final and executory.” SC TELLS ‘MYSTIC JUDGE’ - ‘Stop filing appeals or be cited in contempt’
Thursday, July 19, 2007 - SC tells sacked psychic magistrate to stop bothering court
D. LUIS’ Violet and White Supreme Spiritual Lights I state the secret of LUIS: Since the fatalistic afternoon (4:45 p.m.) of July 20, 1999, when I was suspended, until today November 2, FIRST FRIDAY 2007, LUIS repeatedly asked me to accept the vocation of Vincentian Priesthood since I left the catholic seminary, 1970 and the Jesuit priesthood, 1974. Every Sundays, Fridays and important days, LUIS endowed me with TRANCE (this technical and religious term had been ridiculed by those who failed to read St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologia – it means divine intervention per his angelic choirs’ instruments, but it is at the base of the MYSTICAL WAY of the saints). The saints experienced ECSTASY which is over and above TRANCE: LUIS would regularly at midnights and early dawn show me the visions of the Vincentian seminary from July 20, 1999 until today. I refused. I asked several motions for extensions of times. I contradicted his mandate, but LUIS patiently granted, since per my sufferings and cross, LUIS successfully burned the 4 courts and COMELEC by his spiritual and mystic violet
lights. I painfully obeyed his mandate to inflict illnesses upon the incumbent and retired Supreme Court Justices and their loved ones, inter alia, for spiritual cleansing.
E. LUIS, the Angel of Death, the Destroyer I HAVE NO POWER TO GIVE UP ANY OF THE ENDOWED GIFTS (bilocation, healing, prophecy, exorcism...) for these are permanent graces of the Holy Spirit. They are indelible in my: a) right arm, both palms and hands, which turned golden yellow; b) eyes which emit spiritual fires (colorless and very colorful steadily at midnights bursting therefrom); this is totally different from aura; c) I have the pangil ng kidlat, or lightning teeth and cross of the tongue, or krus sa dila; d) the violet and white lights of LUIS all the time; e) the power and gift to ANNIHILATE the most powerful and loved ones up to the 4th generation. F. Express and Unconditional Pardon, Forgiveness and Prayer
I had forgiven all my brothers, LITANY of ENEMIES and TONS of detractors who did me wrong... I wrote and published (1995, 2001) 29 & 17 pages of single space predictions and all these happened … my most powerful and rich brother Jesie Floro would not reconcile with me.... He was very afraid to physically face me until now ... He lost P 5 million or $ 115,000 to robbers last year … his 2 sons do study at the ATENEO high school … He and Atty. Henry R. Villarica (No. 1 in 1972 Bar Examinations) founded a cock farm and they join big time derbies, but they usually lost because I cursed all his cocks and the farm ... last year, his farm caretaker was murdered in front of his 4 hectare farm in Sta. Maria, Bulacan ... almost all the gold shops in Aranque and Recto, Manila, delivered gold to Jesie Floro, while almost all of gold subastas of all the pawnshops of Atty. Henry R. Villarica all over the Philippines were sold to Jesie Floro and delivered to the Central Bank… the problem is: he now has 2 security guards and could not sleep because of my CURSE… You
know last 2 years ago, by telephone, I asked Jesie Floro to personally allow me to face him to settle things... but due to fear, he refused... so since 1995 I had never seen his face.
Everything is possible for LUIS ... why? He is the King of Kings of elementals of the entire universe. You can verify this from renowned and authentic GIFTED or psychics here and abroad. He easily blocked the heart vessels of the Philippines’ No. 1 Psychic Institution Mr. Jaime T. Licauco, who copy pasted foreign books and materials … he ridiculed the book of LUIS …so, as LUIS did to Amazing James RANDI the magician, LICAUCO suffered P 1.0 million or $ 25,000 ANGIOPLASTY on February 7, 2007. As you see, LUIS, is merciless, and has MAGIC TOUCH against any sort of evil. G. Magic Touch It was on November 5, 2004, my birthday, that LUIS gave me a special gift (at Podium mall, restaurant, Pasig City , Metro Manila). LUIS infused upon my right hand – the GIFT of DESTRUCTION – the moment it would touch the hand or body of a retired and incumbent Supreme Court Justice, inter alia, who made money, is corrupt in any manner or hath done injustice, LUIS would easily STAIN their bloods up to the 4th generation: a) Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. (JBC member) on Feb. 10, 2006 called me and he told me that the court (per the ponente Justice Minita Viray ChicoNazario) would pay me and separate me from service but she was in my favor. So we both shouted loud at each other and I dared him to release the decision. I demanded my dismissal or my reinstatement. I asked him to write to the court before or after the decision, stating that it was Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and Atty. Teresita Cruz-Sison who ordered my suspension and separation from service, due to a) her massive stroke, his b) carotid surgery and the great sufferings / lingering illnesses of c) Hilario Sr., d) Jose and e) Jorge Davide (2004) for 7 long years. LUIS promised and confided to me that his lights did torture all of them, until the finale: excruciating death of Hilario, Sr. on July 17, 2006. So, LUIS accurately PREDICTED that upon the release of the 75-pages Decision, 3 loved ones of the most powerful would die and there would be major mystic fires ... LUIS did purify the entire judiciary, FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD. b) I also dismissed the non-related case of disbarment vs. CA Justice Romeo Barza, the lawyer of First Gentleman Mike Arroyo. But he failed to repent, so I filed a corruption case against him, lately:
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/july/30/yehey/metro/20070730met1.html Monday, July 30, 2007 - SC to probe TRO fixers, justices in appeals court Technically, there was no need to drop the cases since they would be dismissed anyway as I was officially told. The entire decision, 75 pages, that you read, was drafted, finalized and initialed by - Atty. Ma. Isabel Providencia BIBING Timbangkaya (the private secretary of Justice Minita Viray Chico-Nazario; and she is the daughter of ATTY. Victoria Timbangkaya, the senior partner of Senator Rene A.V. Saguisag, my counsel or attorney of record (with Atty. Gregorio M. Batiller, Jr. top Ateneo lawyer, whom I both dismissed as counsels); you know, when I fought for Justice Nazario in her most difficult moments, I was promised by Atty. Bibing that Justice Nazario would do everything, but she failed since there were 8 Justices who
were medically operated and this was the subject of my loud SHOUTING to Justice Hermosisima, Jr. last February 10, 2006. So, I had to dismiss all the cases to prevent any technicality.
c) LUIS finally told me that I must FORGIVE all my enemies, to pray for them, and PARDON all of them in writing. THAT WAS THE ONLY PATH THAT THE VIOLET LIGHT WOULD ACCURATELY STRIKE THE BODILY ORGANS TARGETED. At the time of my filing the motions to dismiss (January 2006), before the decision, I did not know why. But I obeyed. LUIS finally told me, that I must surrender ... since St. Paul said that death comes from sin and sin comes from law, the RULE OF LAW... the Law of anger, hatred, vengeance, vendetta and GREED... He told me that I must bear my cross ... So, I did dismiss all these as you read the decision, and because of the dismissal, all the respondents hurriedly followed up the release of the resolution of dismissal as you would see in the footnotes of the decision. So, they were able to apply for loan and do things they failed to because of the pending cases. IN SHORT, LUIS asked me to leave the vengeance to God... and later, I was surprised the this was the twin biblical spells under PSALMS 109 and 73. H. 4 Spiritual Nails in each of the 15 Chambers First Disagreement: On December 2000, Justice Bernardo P. Pardo issued a resolution which ordered me to submit for evaluation by the courts' own psychiatrist under Justice Benipayo (under the pain of contempt to be sent to the NBI Jail); I received the resolution which was delivered to my rented house by Peter, the S.C. process server on December 10, 2000. LUIS told me to clean the Supreme Court by putting 4 nails in all corners of each of the 15 Chambers of Supreme Court Justices every first Fridays at 3pm. I refused, and the vote was a tie. Armand voted in my favor while Angel was neutral. So I imposed a condition: it was an INSULT to LUIS - “MAKE ME A PROPHET”, let my good Friday prophecy at San Juanico Bridge, 1998 on the downfall of President Joseph Estrada happen on the 20th since I was suspended on 20th also. Another condition was - ERAP must also suffer the same length of preventive suspension or incarceration... LUIS’ impeccable MATHEMATICAL accuracy: Joseph E. Estrada was ousted on January 20, 2001, released, October 26, 2007 = 6 years, 9 months, & 6 days Florentino V. Floro was suspended on -
July 20, 1999, separated on April 6, 2006
= 6 years, -9 months (-14 days)
Ergo, starting First Friday, August, 1999 until before the decision, I filed EVERY FIRST FRIDAYS, MOTIONS TO LIFT SUSPENSIONS at 3 p.m. Aside from this, I TRAVELED to the most powerful places in the Philippines on first Fridays from Aparri to Cagayan De Oro City, FRIDAYS, to obey LUIS’ mandate to help his violet LIGHTS BURN THE COURTS and to INFLICT ILLNESSES, dire pains, and deaths upon the Justices, Judges, their loved ones, inter alia, and top corrupt government officers. The 4 (60) nails are now well embedded and safely installed in all the 15 chambers of the Supreme Court Justices. Second Disagreement: On November 3, 2006, LUIS ordered me to RECITE the Biblical Imprecation under Psalm 109, thusly: Inq7 Breaking News - ‘Psychotic’ judge enlists help of dwarf-friends vs SC By Tetch Torres - INQ7.net - Posted date: November 03, 2006 “BEGINNING this Sunday, three dwarves will work their powers against 14 of the 15 justices of the Supreme Court, a dismissed judge has warned as he filed his third motion for reconsideration for his reinstatement before the high tribunal. Judge Florentino Floro Jr. of the Malabon regional trial court was separated from service after medical findings showed that he was suffering from psychosis. The high court had said that Judge Floro lacked the judicial temperament and the fundamental requirements of competence and objectivity expected of all judges. It said that the findings of psychosis by the mental health professionals assigned to his case indicated gross deficiency in competence and independence. In his appeal, Floro said his three dwarf-friends -- Luis, Armand, and Angel -- appeared to him last week and told him that the justices would suffer their wrath for dismissing him. Floro said the sufferings of the Supreme Court justices would start midnight of November 5, the eve of his 53rd birthday. Floro said he appealed to his dwarf-friends to spare one justice, which according to him had been put into a vote by the three. Floro did not name him. "Voting en banc with full authority, Luis voted negative, Armand conditionally positive, upon full appointment of Judge Floro to a higher or equal position by virtue of the eliminated magistrate, while Angel voted neutral," Floro said. Because the voting was a tie, Floro said Luis agreed to spare one justice if he would spread oil on any part of the justice's house before November 5. Floro said he would follow the dwarves' advice and start praying every Friday so that the curse on the justices would work. "I will devote my entire life, Fridays, until my last breath, towards the fulfillment, execution, and coming to pass of this curse. With absolute faith in Luis, Armand and Angel -- Angels of God, I will fulfill my destiny: spell and karma upon them, all their loved ones, up to the 4th generation," Floro said. Judge Floro, who was appointed RTC Judge in November 1998, has admitted to having “psychic visions,” of having the ability to predict the future because of his power in “psychic phenomenon.” He said he believed in “duwendes” [dwarves] and forged a covenant with them. He also said that he could write while in a trance and that he had been seen by several people to have been in two places at the same time. He also likened himself to the “angel of death” who could inflict pain on people, especially upon those he perceived to be corrupt officials of the Malabon RTC. During court sessions,
Judge Floro wore blue robes except on Fridays when he would wear a black
robe and black outfit from head to foot allegedly to recharge his psychic powers. He also conducted healing sessions inside his chambers during breaks.
Accordingly, because of Armand, I was spared Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, but it was only temporary (and after our last / 5th meeting in his august chambers); LUIS ordered me to recite the most HOLY BIBLICAL CURSES under PSALMS 109 and 73 not only every Fridays but every 12 midnights daily until 1 a.m, inserting all “the” “ first names therein.” I. 4 Personal Meetings between Judge Florentino V. Floro and S.C. Senior Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, at his Chambers 1. January 24, 2006, before the April 6 decision, – 3 pm to 5:10 pm. I told him all these, and all that would happen after the release of the decision. I identified the 8 justices that suffered medical surgeries and warned the dire consequences that would happen after the decision’s release; 2. After the august 11, appeal denial - Justice Quisumbing gave me coffee and he listened to my account of the dire prophecies. He gave me xerox copy of the Ripley’s Hello Judge … and the 3 dwarves which he got from the PIO’s daily newspaper cut-outs, specifically from Philippine Star. He gave me his very own handwritten desk note HELPING me to seek consultancy job from his friend Engr. Homer Ortega. Justice Quisumbing talked by cell phone to Engr. Homer Ortega. The latter and I met at Bayani Fernando’s MMDA office. Engr. Ortega told me that the consultancy that he eyed for me was already taken by Regis Puno; 3. November 3, 2006 - I spared him from the spiritual curse for a time which ended on the last meeting, and I put oil in his desk as LUIS permitted; 4. December, 2006 – days before the appointment of Chief Justice Puno Justice Quisumbing showed me copy of the newspaper reports on Senator Miriam Santiago’s possible appointment as Chief Justice. And in front of a Masbaste exMayor, I predicted that Santiago would never be Chief Justice since I predicted the death of her own son A.R. Santiago; and 5. Thursday after the January 16 Supreme Court fire – Justice Quisumbing pasted my One-page Mystic Fire appeal for reinstatement at the wall outside his chambers. His last words to me was: “Huwag kang magagalit sa akin.” And I did not say a word. Thereafter, Justice Quisumbing’s secretary Sori gave her cell phone number to my secretary Belen Gomez. She scheduled all these 5 audiences. After the 5th and last audience with Justice Quisumbing, I disagreed with LUIS’ again. Armand told me to file the appeal to their holy En Banc tribunal. I asked one last thing: I asked LUIS’ permission to approach and file my pleas to the Human Rights’ Chair. And so the Resolution was released on August, First Friday: LUIS said - We will allow you to
meet personally the Chair of this Human Rights office at the very corridors of power.
What does that mean? On first Friday, October 5, 2007, I found myself in front of Chair Purificacion Quisumbing with 2 beautiful ladies in black and the VIOLET lights of LUIS did flash and I was SCARED. Scared, but I did not fear …
scared, since I saw the vision of painful deaths inflicted by LUIS ... up to the 4th Generation... So, as a meek lamb, I bowed down to the King of Kings of the part of the 9 choirs of Angels.
J. LUIS’ Exorcism First, let it be remembered that I am a closed catholic, a former Vincentian and Jesuit candidate for priesthood. I am so conservative about our faith. I even believe that Pope John Paul II was dogmatically correct in ruling that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church (except as St. Paul said, gentiles can be saved). But Pharisees, scribes, hypocrites and the rich will never ever enter the Kingdom of God . I would rather not cite here the long links, references and authorities about the merciless Old Testament God who killed the a) first born animals and male children (Exodus 12:23); he was the destroyer of innocent children in b) Sodom and Gomorrah, and in c) Noah's deluge. HIS WAYS ARE NOT OUR WAYS. Do read Psalms 109 and 73 – these songs are sufficient to biblically answer you queries. 9/11 and the killings of innocent children are just facets of His immense mystery, revealed by the Fatima predictions of 1918 to the 3 children. To be very specific, as you read the 75 pages decision, Atty. Esmeralda Galang Dizon, my clerk of Court practiced evil of witchcraft: a) on the 3rd week of February, 1999, my staff asked me to allow them to bring psychics during breaks to chat with me. And of course, I scheduled the meeting on a Friday, break time. 5 went to my sala, but I scolded my maid Belen for not telling me they were waiting thereat. And Belen told me that when all of the 5 alleged psychics approached the door of my chambers, all of them felt numb and terrified. So I failed to face them. During the 2 hours trial at the OCAD in my case, 2000, my maid Belen who was also witness, told me that Atty. Dizon never winked for 2 hours, her eyes never closed. Also, her daughter Gelay, was a 5 year old who never wept nor cried. In fact when she played with my gavel, she fell and she never cried even in dire pain. In Malabon, Manila, there are lots of witches, who do have black dolls from the devil which they inherited from their witch ancestors. On June 28, 2002 before I cursed Ateneo law School, particularly ATENEO LAW SCHOOL CLASS 82, inter alia, Atty. Emily Reyes+, (my classmate, one of the most corrupt ex-register of deeds, ex-LRA officer, and exombudsman officer), asked me at our Pioneer building reunion to heal Gelay the daugher of Melvin and Esmeralda Galang-Dizon. I said NO NO NO, since they are
possessed and had covenants with the devil. I have no power to lift the curse on them.
Atty. Emily Reyes suffered the wrath of LUIS, and she died in pain due to mysterious cancer, before the week Gregorio Gaite+ died in pain, the father of my classmate Deputy Executive Sec. for Legal Affairs, Manuel Gaite (who made a set-up fun to trick me at the wake of Emily Reyes; he pretended that I would meet classmate Jay Flaminiano; classmates Betty Medialdea, with Francis Lim & ET Montecastro joined the fun; yes, QUITE FUNNY, but for LUIS, it was TIME, he did inflict
illnesses which caused the death of Gregorio Gaite). These are not punishments but biblical curse versus evil to ward off the black inside them. It is part of the galactic wars of LUIS.
K. LUIS’ meets Atty. Bibing Timbangkay
In my other appeals to the court, I contradicted the draft of the 75 pages decision: a) Robert V. Floro's mild mental retardation was caused by Dr. Arguelles’ wrong medicines for my mother who was pregnant, and we had no DNA problems nor mental defects; b) Atty. Bibing Timbangkaya's brother was and is a DRUG ADDICT, having been kicked out of Siliman University; he had been rehabilitated many times, and was accepted by Adamson University Law school, since Dean Antonio Abad is the friend of her mother, Atty. Vicky Timbangkaya. LUIS inflicted upon Atty. Bibing Timbangkaya's 2 sons PERMANENT stains and scars on the brain and blood - her eldest son suffered SWING accident with very deep 7 stitches scars on the left forehead while the youngest had been bitten by the dog on the lower legs, having lifetime stains on their bloods. II. Message of LUIS to the Judiciary As Holy Angel of Death and Destroyer of evil in the judiciary and government, and for November 5, 2007 - LUIS said that he will spare no one, unless there will be genuine repentance. The Supreme Court commissioned the SWS in 1995 and in another 2006 independent survey, the SWS released the statistics on judicial corruption: Mahar Mangahas, SWS survey - says – http://www.sws.org.ph/pr050125.htm SWS survey: Lawyers say judiciary more corrupt First posted 08:31am (Mla time) Jan 26, 2005 - Inquirer News Service Corruption “Corruption remains a major problem. As in 1995, one-fourth of present lawyers say Many/Very Many judges are corrupt. However, although half (49%) say they know a case their own city or province where a judge took a bribe, only 8% of such lawyers said they reported the bribery, the main excuse of those keeping silent being that they could not prove it. [Tables 8-9] Among the respondent-judges, on the other hand, only 7% call Many/Very Many judges as corrupt. Judges' perception of the extent of corruption among court personnel is the same now as in 1996. What has increased is the proportion of judges seeing many lawyers as corrupt. [Tables 10-11]” Philippine Extra-Judicial Killings: 414 Killed in 103 Days THE LIVING CURSE OF THE HOLY ANGELS. As I predicted repeatedly in writing, the judiciary will witness the NATIONWIDE DEATHS that will happen July 20, 1999 to July 20, 2007: ‘View from the mountaintop’
5 Mystic Fires - MALABON RTC, SUPREME COURT, COMELEC, COUR OF APPEALS and MeTC MUNTINLUPA CITY II.a. Eucharistic Enthronement - Conversion
1. The burnt SUPREME COURT SESSION HALL, COURT OF APPEALS' 4th FLOOR, COMELEC, Br. 73, RTC, Malabon sala, and the Muntinlupa MeTC sala, must all be CONVERTED for the enthronement thereat of the HOLY EUCHARIST – by building entirely thereat the Adoracion Chapel, which is the only HOPE against evil in the judiciary. II.b. Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary 2. The entire JUDICIARY and Government must be CONSECRATED by our Cardinal to the Immaculate of Heart of Mary on April 12 and 25, the special days which LUIS chose for salvation of the justices’ / judge’s and court personnel’s souls from perdition; and April should be declared the Filipino Justice month. II.c. Coronation of our Lady of Fatima 3. The images of Our Lady of Fatima must be crowned and permanently be venerated in all these 5 places since she is the Mediatrix of all graces, and the CoRedemptrix who solely CRUSHED the head of the serpent per Revelation. This is the only way to solve the extra-judicial killings and to lessen corruption in our country. There is no such thing as MORAL revolution since it never happened since ancient times (due to the corrupt human nature of jurists, pastors and preachers of the Gospel, who are all greedy and veritable hypocrites). 4. Psalms 109 and 73 must be recited daily to replace the Chief Justice DAVIDE circular prayer before court sessions, so that all those who steal and abuse judicial power would readily be blood stained. 5. The Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data ( Philippines ) would be useless without the foregoing spiritual remedies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_Amparo_and_Habeas_Data_%28Philippines%29
RELIEF IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that the instant – Amended / Supplemental Verified Complaint – Letter-Affidavit
[Under Rules 140, 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, Codes of Judicial Conduct & Professional Responsibility, inter alia] – and –
Verified Motion To Intervene & Petition-in-Intervention
In: "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)" – With -
Urgent Omnibus Motions
I. For Preventive Suspension, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution, and II. To appoint a Special Prosecutor, in accordance with “EN BANC, A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA,
March 27, 2001, IN RE: DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS, JUSTICE DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA.” -
be duly NOTED, ADMITTED, GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED.
Further, it is respectfully prayed, that - after filing of respondents COMMENTS / ANSWERS, and after due notice, hearing, and Report of the Commissioner / Investigator/Panel, - judgment be rendered declaring them GUILTY of all the charges and that supreme penalties of DISMISSAL FROM SERVCE & DISBARMENT be imposed upon them, ordering that their names be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and punished accordingly, under Rule 139-B, and Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia. Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading - letter-affidavitcomplaint, this 8th day of August, 2008, at Malolos City, BULACAN. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Petitioner/Complainant, on behalf of himself, by himself and as litigant, 123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos City, 3000 BULACAN, Tel /# (044) 662-82-03; [I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300;
ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV].
NOTICE TO: Atty. Ma. Luisa Villarama / Atty. Felipa Anama, The Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, Manila, Please DOCKET and AGENDUM the foregoing pleading for the deliberation and Resolution of the Honorable Court, immediately upon receipt hereof. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,
VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING & AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) Malolos City, BULACAN ) S.S. I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, depose/say, that: I am the complainant in this case. I caused the preparation, signed and read the initial complaint duly filed in this case, and all the contents / allegations thereof are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records.\ I certify that: I have not theretofore commenced any disbarment action or filed any administrative or other claim against respondents, involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, except these twin or interrelated administrative Matter and administrative cases"A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)", and to the best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein, and if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status 141
thereof will be made, but there is none; if I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within 5 days there from to the court wherein the aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. I certify that on September , 2008, I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in this case “Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant, - versus – Justice B. Reyes et al”, A.M. OCA IPI No. _______, & "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)", upon all respondents, personally, thru the Office of the Court Adminstrator, OCAD, Supreme Court, Manila, as evidenced by the hereunder rubber stamp receipt, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Revised Rules of Court.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this ___ day of September, 2008, here at Malolos City, Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12005 # 21783592, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 2-27, 2007.
DOC. NO. ____, PAGE NO. _____, BOOK NO. 76, SERIES OF 2008.
BERNAR D. FAJARDO
Notary Public, Until Jan.31, 2009, PTR NO. 4591703, 1- 2,’08, Atty.’s Roll No. 33633, IBP OR # 708299, 1-2,’08 Malolos City, Bulacan.
Reservation: Because of time constraints, undersigned reserves his right to file amended or supplemental pleadings, in due course, if needed, to conform to truth, or justice, and to add respondents if needed. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR. COPY FURNISHED: (By Personal Service): Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Associate Justice Martin Villarama, Associate Justice Edgardo Cruz,
Atty. Sylvia Jo Sabio” & Atty. Angeli Fides “Bobbie” Sabio” (daughters of Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. - c/o Office of the Chief Justice, Supreme Court, Manila), Chairman Camilo Sabio, Presidential Commission on Good Government, (IRC Building, No. 82 EDSA, Mandaluyong City), and Atty. Jesus I. Santos, (Marilao, Bulacan).
Thru: The Office of the Court Administrator, OCAD, Supreme Court, Manila.