Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
ADM. Case No. 7897, Position Paper

ADM. Case No. 7897, Position Paper



|Views: 2,335|Likes:
ADM. Case No. 7897, Position Paper, Nye Orquillas, 2 May, 2008, 34
ADM. Case No. 7897, Position Paper, Nye Orquillas, 2 May, 2008, 34

More info:

Published by: Judge Florentino Floro on Nov 14, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Integrated Bar of the PhilippinesCOMMITTEE ON BAR DISCIPLINE
Dona Julia Vargas Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Metro Manila
Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.,
Complainant,- versus -
ADM. Case No. 7897
Atty. Nye N. Orquillas,
Hiyas ng Bulacan Convention Center,
Capitol Compound,Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan)Respondent.X-------------------------------------------------X
Position Paper & Reply
 Salvador B. Hababag 
,Commissioner, CBC,
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Your Honor,
I, Judge
Florentino V. Floro, Jr.,
complainant, respectfully
 Position Paper 
as COMPLIANCE with the Order which undersignedreceived on March 16, 2009, and by way of 
to respondent Atty. Nye N.Orquillas’ “
 Position Paper 
” dated 16 March 2009 (which undersigned receivedon March 17, 2009), state, that:
I. Reply – To Respondent’s Position Paper
1. To begin with, undersigned complainant contradicts respondent Atty. Nye N. Orquillas’ (“
s,” for brevity) stance, that the instant disbarmentcomplaint must be dismissed on the technical ground of violation of two Bar Matters. Respondent’s argument is not only absurd but is untenable in the eyesof the law and settled jurisprudence.The Supreme Court interpreted
Bar Matter No. 1132
Bar Matter No.287
, saying that "
it was not meant to be a ground to dismiss an action or expunge from the records any pleading in which such PTR or Roll of Attorneys Number was not indicated 
."B.M. No. 1132 & Bar Matter No. 287, both apply only to court pleadingsfiled by a counsel/lawyer for a party or litigant. It was never intended to applyto a complaint filed by anybody (a lawyer, judge, private person, corporation or even an anonymous litigant), appearing in the case, for itself, himself or herself.A disbarment case can be filed even by an anonymous complainant, provided,that, as in this case, the complaint is supported by documents (Rule 139-B,Rules of Court and settled jurisprudence).
In this complaint, undersigned had filed this pleading not as counsel of or for any party litigant, but as an ordinary complainant. In the landmark case of the Oakwood mutiny, many lawyers like Senator Guingona had filed pleadingsappearing as accused therein for themselves, hence, the impertinence of bothBar Matters.In G.R. No. 158526, December 16, 2004, 447 SCRA 171, 182 (2004),"
 D.O. Plaza Management Corp. v. Co-owners Heirs of Andres Atega
," and"
Citibank, N.A. vs. NLR
," G.R. No. 159302, August 22, 2008(http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/159302.htm#_ftn6),the Supreme Court held that
the requirement to indicate counsel’s Rol Number was intended to protect the public by making it easier to detect impostors who represent themselves as members of the Bar and to help lawyerskeep track of their Roll of Attorneys Number. It was not meant to be a ground to dismiss an action or expunge from the records any pleading in which such Roll of Attorneys Number was not indicated.”
B.M. No. 1132
. April 1, 2003] RE: RESOLUTION NO. 112-2002 OF THESANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF ILOCOS NORTE (Re: Resolution No. 112-2002 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte, Requesting toRequire Lawyers to Indicate in their Pleadings their Number in the Roll of Attorneys.) - It requires all lawyers to indicate their Roll of Attorneys Numbein all papers or pleadings submitted to the various judicial or quasi-judicial bodies in addition to the requirement of indicating the current Professional TaxReceipt (PTR) and the IBP Official Receipt or Life Member Number.
“All pleadings, motions and papers filed in court, whether personally or bymail, which do not bear counsel’s Roll of Attorneys Number as herein required may not be acted upon by the court, without prejudice to whatever disciplinaryaction the court may take against the erring counsel who shall likewise berequired to comply with the requirement within five (5) days from notice. Failure to comply with such requirement shall be a ground for furthedisciplinary sanction and for contempt of court." 
Bar Matter No. 287
] Re: Requirement that Official Receipt Number andDate of Payment of Current IBP Membership Dues be Indicated by Counsel per IBP Resolution NO. XIV-1999-63, defined on 26 September 2000 theconsequences for non-compliance with the requirement for lawyers to indicatetheir IBP Official Receipt Number and Date of Issue in all pleadings, motionsand papers filed in court as follows – etc.2. Respondent, in page 1, par. 1 of his Position Paper, cited and relied uponthe facts narrated by the Br. 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan Partial Judgment dated18 April 2008 (in consolidated Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M-98), insupport of his narration of his facts. However, said Partial Judgment wasVACATED
ipso facto
by the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration thereof  by herein complainant, as provided for by the Rules of Court.
3. Not only that. After the Bulacan court granted respondent’s Motion toDismiss, the Presiding Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz FIRST reversed the dismissaland gave herein complainant (plaintiff therein) time to pay docket fees; then,Judge Thelma, for the SECOND time, corrected herself and ruled that thedocket fees were fully paid, contrary to the allegations and documentssubmitted by respondent; Judge Cruz, therefore issued a Partial Judgmentdismissing herein complainant’s case on technical grounds; then, complainantfiled a timely Motion for Reconsideration which VACATED the PartialJudgment; thereafter, Judge Thelma, for the THIRD time, reversed herself, andissued the last Order dated 3 September, 2008, recalling the Partial Judgment,upon timely Motion by herein complainant; and she issued a New Ordedeclaring the 2 consolidated cases AGAIN submitted for full decision regardingall parties therein especially defendant Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico who was notincluded in the Partial Judgment, due to palpable error of the Judge.COPIES of the pertinent documents to support the above-allegations areATTACHED, collectively marked as
 Annex A
hereof.4. Par. 2.3, page 3, in relation to par. B, page 6, par.5.4, page 7, par. 5.12and 5.14, page 10, and par. 5.22, page 12, of respondent’s Position Paper,stripped of unessential details, tersely alleged IN SUM, that – respondent Orquillas, in filing the Motion to Dismiss (dated 1 December, 2004)complainant’s consolidated cases and supplemental complaint before theBulacan court – a) merely relied on the Bulacan Clerk of Court’s Office’sCertification; b) did his duty as counsel of the Trinidads to protect their rights,and c) complainant even asked for time to pay docket fees.Respondent’s defense, a cover-up, is patently absurd and untenable asidefrom being misleading to the investigation, for reasons:a) When respondent filed the 2004 Motion to Dismiss complainant’s 1998 casesand the supplemental pleading, he submitted a non-existent or even falsecertification regarding the required docket fees; instead of just looking at the pages of the expediente or records of the cases (that complainant fully paid alloriginal and amended complaint docket fees in 1998), respondent devised a newmethod of requesting the Office of the Bulacan Clerk of Court to compute thedocket fees based on new (2004) S.C. circulars on legal fees; b) The Bulacan Office of the Clerk of Court was under Atty. Orgtega, while theBranch Clerk of Court of the 2004 Executive Judge Danilo Manalastas, wasrespondent’s wife, now Judge Sheila Geronimo Orquillas. These twin officesissued the certification which led to the dismissal of complainant’s 2consolidated cases including the supplemental complaint filed againstrespondent’s clients defendants Alfredo & Florentina Trinidad; b.1) It is shocking to the conscience of the IBP and judiciary, that respondent,who was hired and appeared as counsel for spouses Trinidads, instead of defending their rights and causes of action in (in consolidated Civil Cases Nos.P-405-98 & 938-M-98), and in the supplemental complaint, DID ask the

Activity (9)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
IsisJaneCapangpangan reviewed this
it helps a lot
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Raeia Abbygale liked this
Peter Michael Dizon liked this
Marc Ayala Majadas liked this
Romeo Malana liked this
Berteni Cataluña Causing liked this
Leopoldo De Guzman Sr. liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->