REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Integrated Bar of the Philippines COMMITTEE ON BAR DISCIPLINE Dona Julia Vargas Avenue, Ortigas

Center, Pasig City, Metro Manila

Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.,
Complainant, - versus ADM. Case No. 7897 For: Disbarment

Atty. Nye N. Orquillas,
(2nd Flr., Hiyas ng Bulacan Convention Center, Capitol Compound, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan) Respondent. X-------------------------------------------------X

Position Paper & Reply
Hon. Salvador B. Hababag, Commissioner, CBC, Integrated Bar of the Philippines Your Honor, I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., complainant, respectfully SUBMIT this “Position Paper” as COMPLIANCE with the Order which undersigned received on March 16, 2009, and by way of REPLY to respondent Atty. Nye N. Orquillas’ “Position Paper” dated 16 March 2009 (which undersigned received on March 17, 2009), state, that:

I. Reply – To Respondent’s Position Paper
1. To begin with, undersigned complainant contradicts respondent Atty. Nye N. Orquillas’ (“Orquillas,” for brevity) stance, that the instant disbarment complaint 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 eyes of the law and settled jurisprudence. The Supreme Court interpreted Bar Matter No. 1132 and 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 pleadings filed by a counsel/lawyer for a party or litigant. It was never intended to apply to 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).

1

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 pleadings appearing as accused therein for themselves, hence, the impertinence of both Bar 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. NLRC," 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 Roll 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 lawyers keep 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.” Vide: [B.M. No. 1132. April 1, 2003] RE: RESOLUTION NO. 112-2002 OF THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF ILOCOS NORTE (Re: Resolution No. 112-2002 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte, Requesting to Require Lawyers to Indicate in their Pleadings their Number in the Roll of Attorneys.) - It requires all lawyers to indicate their Roll of Attorneys Number in all papers or pleadings submitted to the various judicial or quasi-judicial bodies in addition to the requirement of indicating the current Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) and the IBP Official Receipt or Life Member Number. “All pleadings, motions and papers filed in court, whether personally or by mail, 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 disciplinary action the court may take against the erring counsel who shall likewise be required to comply with the requirement within five (5) days from notice. Failure to comply with such requirement shall be a ground for further disciplinary sanction and for contempt of court." [Bar Matter No. 287] Re: Requirement that Official Receipt Number and Date of Payment of Current IBP Membership Dues be Indicated by Counsel per IBP Resolution NO. XIV-1999-63, defined on 26 September 2000 the consequences for non-compliance with the requirement for lawyers to indicate their IBP Official Receipt Number and Date of Issue in all pleadings, motions and papers filed in court as follows – etc. 2. Respondent, in page 1, par. 1 of his Position Paper, cited and relied upon the facts narrated by the Br. 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan Partial Judgment dated 18 April 2008 (in consolidated Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M-98), in support of his narration of his facts. However, said Partial Judgment was VACATED ipso facto by the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration thereof by herein complainant, as provided for by the Rules of Court.

2

3. Not only that. After the Bulacan court granted respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, the Presiding Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz FIRST reversed the dismissal and gave herein complainant (plaintiff therein) time to pay docket fees; then, Judge Thelma, for the SECOND time, corrected herself and ruled that the docket fees were fully paid, contrary to the allegations and documents submitted by respondent; Judge Cruz, therefore issued a Partial Judgment dismissing herein complainant’s case on technical grounds; then, complainant filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration which VACATED the Partial Judgment; thereafter, Judge Thelma, for the THIRD time, reversed herself, and issued the last Order dated 3 September, 2008, recalling the Partial Judgment, upon timely Motion by herein complainant; and she issued a New Order declaring the 2 consolidated cases AGAIN submitted for full decision regarding all parties therein especially defendant Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico who was not included in the Partial Judgment, due to palpable error of the Judge. COPIES of the pertinent documents to support the above-allegations are ATTACHED, 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. 5.12 and 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 the Bulacan court – a) merely relied on the Bulacan Clerk of Court’s Office’s Certification; 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 aside from being misleading to the investigation, for reasons: a) When respondent filed the 2004 Motion to Dismiss complainant’s 1998 cases and the supplemental pleading, he submitted a non-existent or even false certification regarding the required docket fees; instead of just looking at the pages of the expediente or records of the cases (that complainant fully paid all original and amended complaint docket fees in 1998), respondent devised a new method of requesting the Office of the Bulacan Clerk of Court to compute the docket 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 the Branch Clerk of Court of the 2004 Executive Judge Danilo Manalastas, was respondent’s wife, now Judge Sheila Geronimo Orquillas. These twin offices issued the certification which led to the dismissal of complainant’s 2 consolidated cases including the supplemental complaint filed against respondent’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
3

Bulacan Court to dismiss his clients’ LRC Petition to cancel adverse claim annotated upon the back of the subject title bought by the Trinidads, and worst, respondent even DID ask the Court to dismiss the Trinidad’ cause of action to annul the mortgage in said consolidated Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M98; as a result of respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, his clients, the Trinidads LOST in the legal battle, since the adverse claim’s cancellation was thus denied by the Court with the dismissal; b.2) Worst, respondent never filed any pleading afterwards, since 2004 until today, to defend his clients’ rights: to have the adverse claim on their titles cancelled in consolidated LRC Case Nos. P-405-98 & C.C. No. 938-M-98; the result? Respondent’s clients the Trinidads, because of the dismissal of their 1998 LRC Petition, practically and legally lost the P 3.2 million value of the subject house and lot (they paid for), due to the mortgage lien thereon; so, who will buy the lot, who will rent the house, and how can the heirs or children of the Trinidads use, enjoy, transfer or abuse their property rights over the subject house and lot, with the permanent adverse claim annotated thereon since 1998, or for 11 years now! b.3) Under the law and rules on legal ethics, particularly the Code of Professional responsibility, respondent, under his oath of office as attorney or counsel of record of the Trinidads, is bound to: i) cause the cancellation of the adverse claim, b) object to the payment of any sum of money to herein complainant, or plaintiff therein, based on any valid ground, such as, compensation, ambiguity, etc.; but instead, respondent, to the damage and prejudice of his clients, the Trinidads, permanently made the subject house and lot bought by the Trinidads from herein complainant, plaintiff therein, without any value in law and if fact, thereby, violating his oath of office and the laws; c) When Judge Cruz dismissed all the consolidated cases, complainant asked for time to pay the docket fees due on the supplemental complaint filed against respondent’s clients the Trinidads, even if complainant had already fully paid the 1998 docket fees on the 2 consolidated cases and amended pleadings; d) Complainant was the counsel of record of respondent’s client, the Trinidads at the time of the filing of the 2 consolidated cases in September, 1998, until complainant was appointed RTC, Br. 73, Malabon Judge on November 4/5, 1998, whereby, by operation of law, the attorney client relationship ceased; e) From 1998 until today, 2009, all the defendants in the 2 consolidated cases never appeared despite having filed some pleadings. Judge Thelma gave them all the time to appear and present evidence and cross-examine plaintiff, complainant herein but they all failed; f) In 2004, when Judge Thelma ordered all the cases submitted for Partial Judgment, complainant had knowledge that: the sum of money due to be paid, based on a March, 1998 contract of 1998, to complainant, had been used by respondent’s clients the Trinidads’ children, for cockfighting and business, which failed due to estafa. The sum of P 2 million that should be paid to complainant (based on the contract which was admitted in evidence by the
4

Court without objection), was, instead used by the Trinidad’s children Ann Trinidad for failed business, while Alfred Trinidad has invested the money in buying fighting cocks and lost most of them in the Meycauayan Cockpit. Hence, complainant filed a supplemental complaint against the Trinidads who were warned by the Bulacan court to appear and hire a lawyer; at the time, when the court process Server Leo served the court summons on the Trinidads, defendant Alfredo Trinidad suffered 2-3 major strokes and had been bedridden ever since, while Florentina Trinidad had been on and off the hospital and had since been on and off suffering lingering illnesses; The Trinidads last appearance in their consolidated Bulacan cases was in 1998, and they never ever appeared due to their illnesses; g) Hence, respondent was hired and filed the subject of this case’s Motion to Dismiss; since the Trinidads were and are disabled, only Mr. Alfred Trinidad and his sister Mrs. Gigi Trinidad appeared in Court before the serving of Court summons; due to this factual backdrop, there could be no chance why the defendants Trinidads could have filed a case against respondent; h) It was only by mere accident that complainant had discovered some of these facts, during a visit of the ancestral house and lot subject of the Bulacan case in Meycauayan, Bulacan (where complainant lived since birth in 1953-1989); as stated, Mr. Alfred Trinidad blocked the entire road right of way owned by complainant servicing the 2 other subject lots, with his fighting cocks and teepees; and he refused to clear the same, except on the condition expressly conveyed to undersigned through Ms. Belen Gomez (complainant’s maid and secretary) to reimburse Mr. Alfred of P 80,000 reduced to P 60,000, which Mr. Alfred had said he paid respondent as attorneys fees and bribe to Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson and Judge Thelma Cruz; i) Because of respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, in 2004, complainant’s 2 consolidated cases had not been even fully decided until today, since Judge Thelma Cruz had filed with the Supreme Court a request for extension of time to render judgment which was due on December 3, 2008; usually the S.C. grants 3 months extension, but on March 3, 2009, the cases were still undecided, while Judge Cruz will retire at the age of 70 on July 25, 2009; TO REPEAT, from September, 1998 until today, 2009, despite the fact that all the defendants in the subject Bulacan cases never appeared despite court orders, and only complainant as plaintiff therein appeared and finished his evidence in 2004, complainant suffered the 11 years pain of “justice delayed, justice denied” by sheer technicality, violation of respondent’s oath of office, falsification of documents and bribery. Copies of the pertinent OCAD/SC pleadings and Orders in the 350-pages BRIBERY administrative cases filed by complainant against respondents Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz and Branch Clerk of Court Lerida Socorro-Joson are ATTACHED and marked collectively as Annex B hereof.

II. Position Paper

5

The contents, allegations and argument, including the supporting documents (Annexes) of complainant’s disbarment complaint and all other pleadings filed are herein REPRODUCED and made integral part hereof. Facts Stripped of unessential details, and avoiding repetition of submissions of facts in other pleadings, the FACTS of this case is as follows: 1. TCT No. T-328106 (M), 1/3 of complainant Judge Floro’s 723 sq.m. Meycauayan, Bulacan ancestral house-lot (the front, bounded by the road), was sold by complainant to spouses Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad, in 1997-1998; the spouses obliged themselves to pay the balance stated in the March 30, 1998 “Kasunduan,” upon promulgation of the required court order to cancel the annotated adverse claim of real estate mortgage on the subject title they bought. Part of the “Kasunduan,” among others, is the obligation of complainant to file in court the necessary actions/cases to cancel the 1998 adverse claim and clear the subject title/lot of the mortgage adverse lien, especially by means of proper court appearances/pleadings by complainant; 2. Accordingly, complainant performed his obligations in the “Kasunduan” by filing the said 2 Bulacan consolidated Cases Nos. LRC P-405-98 & C.C. 938-M-98, on September, 1998, paying in full all the docket and legal fees required on all the original and amended pleadings. Meanwhile, complainant was appointed RTC Judge of Malabon City on November 5, 1998, hence the consequential legal termination of the client-lawyer relationship with the Trinidads, who never appointed any counsel in these cases; 3. From 1998 until today, 2009, all the defendants in the 2 consolidated cases never appeared despite having filed some pleadings. Judge Thelma gave them all the time to appear, present evidence and cross-examine plaintiff, complainant herein, but they all failed; 4. In 2004, when Judge Thelma ordered all the cases submitted for Partial Judgment, complainant acquired knowledge that: the sum of money due to be paid to complainant, based on the March 30, 1998 “Kasunduan,” had been used by respondent’s clients the Trinidads’ children, for cockfighting and business (which failed due to estafa). The sum of P 2 million that should be paid to complainant (based on the contract which was admitted in evidence by the Court without objection), was, instead used by the Trinidad’s children Ann Trinidad for failed business, while Alfred Trinidad had invested the money in buying fighting cocks and lost most of them in the Meycauayan Cockpit. Hence, complainant filed a supplemental complaint against the Trinidads who were warned by the Bulacan court to appear and hire a lawyer; during the time, when the court process Server Leo B. Ebina served on 2004, the court summons on the Trinidads, defendant Alfredo Trinidad suffered 2-3 major strokes and had been bedridden ever since, while Florentina Trinidad had been on and off the hospital and had since been on and off suffering lingering illnesses; the Trinidad’s last appearance in these consolidated Bulacan court cases was in
6

1998, and they never ever appeared due to their illnesses; since the Trinidads were and are disabled, only Mr. Alfred Trinidad and his sister Mrs. Gigi Trinidad appeared in Court before the serving of Court summons; due to this factual backdrop, there could be no chance why the defendants Trinidads could have filed a case against respondent; 5. Hence, respondent was hired by the spouses Trinidads, and filed the subject of this case’s Motion to Dismiss; because of respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, in 2004, complainant’s 2 consolidated cases had not been even been fully decided until today, since Judge Thelma Cruz had filed with the Supreme Court a Request for Extension of time to render judgment which was due on December 3, 2008; usually the S.C. grants 3 months extension, but on March 3, 2009, the cases were still undecided, while Judge Cruz will retire at the age of 70 on July 25, 2009. Issues Complainant has raised the issues in the instant complaint and reproduces them herein: whether or not respondent violated his oaths of office, and therefore, must be disbarred? Argument Respondent “Orquillas,” as counsel-of-record of Spouses Alfredo & Florentina Trinidad, as officer of the court, is bound by his sworn Oath of Office and the Code of Professional Responsibility, to defend said clients. Respondent even presented and filed in Court his June, 2005 Suplemental Manifestation with his Annexed contract of attorney-client relationship in consolidated Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M-98, and the supplemental complaint, duly signed and thumb marked (by the Trinidad spouses). As their attorney-at-law, respondent is specifically mandated by the Rules, to have filed in the Bulacan Court, all the pleadings necessary to cancel the 1998 annotated adverse claim and clear the Trinidad’s purchased subject title/lot of the mortgage lien claimed by defendants Mariano/Ligaya Blanco. As stated, the Trinidads bought the lot/title from complainant, having paid sums of money with obligations to pay the agreed balance based on the “Kasunduan” upon court cancellation of the adverse claim. With the annotation of the adverse claim since 1998 until today, the Trinidads’s title remains under a cloud of legal doubt and uncertainty, and as a result, they cannot freely and legally sell, transfer, encumber or dispose of the same to any encumbrancer for value, because of the superior lien of the adverse claimant, the Blancos. The Supreme Court held that: “The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest of a person over a part of real property, and serves as a notice and warning to third parties dealing with the said property that someone is claiming an interest over it or has a better right than the registered owner thereof.” [Sajonas v. CA, 258 SCRA 79, 91, July 5, 1996].
7

Sworn Duty of Respondent – Clear Violation: Client’s Case Sold Respondent must, perforce, be ordered by the Court/IBP to explain why, until today, he still, miserably have failed to file the necessary Motion to Reconsider the Bulacan Court’s Orders which dismissed the Trinidad’s LRC/Civil Case to cancel both the adverse claim and annul the mortgage lien upon their purchased lot/title. It is very clear from the facts admitted by the Bulacan Court, that complainant and the Trinidads offered admitted and unrebutted evidence, which proved that the adverse claim and the mortgage must be cancelled/annulled, especially since all the defendants failed to appear, cross-examine complainant and present evidence. Because of the respondent’s 2004 Motion to Dismiss all consolidated Cases Nos. LRC P-405-98 & C.C. 938-M-98, and the supplemental complaint, complainant and respondent’s clients the Trinidads, had to suffer the 5 years delay amid the highly irregular dismissals of his and the Trinidads’ cases. Not only that. Complainant had to file several letters to the Bulacan Executive Judge (now deceased) Petrita Braga Dime, so that these Bulacan court cases would be decided by Judge Cruz. Since 2005, complainant started flooding the Executive Judge’s office with letters pleading this matter of no decision in these consolidated cases since 1998. On January 29, 2008, complainant wrote Judge Dime to require Judge Cruz to decide these cases. But Judge Cruz, due to accepted BRIBE money, refused, since her hands were tied. So, complainant filed a Writ of Amparo case with the Court of Appeals but Justices Edgardo Sundiam, Conrado Vasquez and Monina Zenarosa ruled that complainant should rather file an administrative case against Judge Cruz and her co-conspirator, Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson. Vendetta: Judge Cruz dismissed the consolidated Cases Nos. LRC P-405-98 & C.C. 938-M-98, on mere technicality not even raised in the pleadings, despite the fact that she ruled that all defendants failed to appear and rebut all the tons of evidence presented by complainant. Thus, complainant filed a 350-pages bribery administrative case against Judge Cruz and Ms. Joson. Complainant timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Partial Judgment penned by Judge Cruz. Meanwhile, as predicted verbally and in writing, in the pleading called SUMPA (pages 1 and 2 of the Reply and Motion for Reconsideration dated May, 2008), Judge Petrita Braga Dime+ died in pain on July, 2008, while Justice Edgardo Sundiam+ who denied complainant’s Amparo petition on June 5 and March 4, 2008 (and whose entire CA office was burned months before on his last birthday celebration on this planet) died due to lingering illnesses on February 3, 2009, after the husband+ of Judge Cruz died
8

of cancer-leukemia on 2005, while original Judge Roy D. Masadao,+ who inhibited in these consolidated C.C. 938-M-98, died of cancer in 2006, and after defendants’ Blanco’s lawyer, Atty. Rafael Santos+ died in 2003 before the P 100 million fire which obliterated the tannery of defendants Blancos. It is very clear that until today, due to respondents violation of his lawyer’s oath of office, the non-cancellation of the adverse claim and mortgage lien upon his clients, the Trinidad’s purchased lot/title, resulted in the acquisition of superior real rights over the title/lot by the adverse claimants, the spouses Mariano and Ligaya Blanco, whose property rights were protected against the Trinidads’ real rights over the subject title, which were rendered nugatory or useless, by virtue of respondent’s violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. IN SUM, respondent acted in favor of Alfred and Ann, the children of his clients, the Trinidads, who, until today, practically lost any and all rights over the subject lot/title due to the outstanding adverse claim lien, still held by the defendants Blancos. Copies of the – *Joint Stipulation of Facts dated/filed on May 11, 1999 in the Bulacan Court (admitted by the parties and admitted in evidence by Bulacan Court); *TCT No. T-328106 (M), subject title/lot bought by and in the names of spouses Alfredo & Florentina Trinidad, clients of respondent, with the annotated 1998 adverse claim at the back of the title; *KASUNDUAN dated March 30, 1998; *Return of Service dated November 22, 2004, by Bulacan Court process server Leo B. Evina, which proved the very sick/bedridden and 3 time stroke patient Alfredo Trinidad, client of respondent Orquillas; *Supplemental Manifestation with Attached Contract of attorney-client relationship between the Trinidads and respondent, in the subject consolidated Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M-98; *CA Resolution and Entry of Judgment in complainant’s Writ of Amparo Petition, dated March 4 and June 5, 2008; *Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz’s Order dated September 3, 2008, AGAIN ruling that all the 1998 consolidated Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M-98, were deemed submitted ANEW for decision; *Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz’s Request for Extension of Time to render judgment, dated October 27, 2008, and other pertinent documents are collectively ATTACHED and marked as Annex C hereof. RELIEF

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that the instant VERIFIED DISBARMENT COMPLAINT / LETTER9

AFFIDAVIT [Under Rules 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia, With - Motions - for Leave of Court to Admit this Complaint, for PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution] against respondent, Atty. Nye N. Orquillas, be duly GRANTED. Further, it is respectfully prayed, that - after filing of respondent’s COMMENT / ANSWER, and after due notice, hearing, and Report of the Commissioner / Investigator, - judgment be rendered declaring Atty. Nye N. Orquillas, GUILTY of all the charges and that supreme penalty of DISBARMENT be imposed upon him, ordering that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and punished accordingly, under Rule 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia. Special Prayer: Furthermore, petitioner most respectfully petitions this Court – to SUSPEND Atty. Nye Orquillas, pendent elite, from the practice of law, indefinitely and until further orders from this Honorable Court, and that the suspension should take effect immediately. Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading, this 25th March, 2009, at Malolos City , BULACAN. day of

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Petitioner, on behalf of himself, by himself and as litigant, 123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos City, 3000 BULACAN, Tel /# (044) 662-82-03; [I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300;
ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV].

NOTICE Hon. Salvador B. Hababag, Commissioner, CBC, Integrated Bar of the Philippines

1

Please CONSIDER and INCLUDE the foregoing pleading in the Deliberation and Resolution of the Honorable IBP, immediately upon receipt hereof. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR. COPY FURNISHED: Note and Explanation: Due to lack of manpower and distance, this pleading was filed both by registered mail with return card and LBC with return card at Malolos, Bulacan. Undersigned had instructed his secretary Ms. Belen Gomez to furnish a copy of this pleading upon Atty. Nye Orquillas, Respondent, 2nd Flr., HIyas ng Bulacan Convention Center, Capitol Compound Bldg., Capitolyo, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan.

1

VERIFICATION & AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) Malolos City, BULACAN ) S.S. I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, depose/say, that: I am the complainant in this case. I caused the preparation, signed and read this pleading 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 on March 24, 2008, I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in this DISBARMENT case “Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant, - versus –Atty. Nye Orquillas ”, A.C. No. 7897, upon respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas, by personal service, at his office address, 2nd Flr., RTC Compound Bldg., Capitolyo, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan, as evidenced by the signature / initial receipt, as hereunder indicated, after his name and address, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Rules of Court.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME, a Notary Public of Bulacan, Philippines, Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., who SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to the foregoing document, and who avows under the PENALTY OF LAW to the whole of the contents of the foregoing document, before me, on this 24th day of March, 2009, here at Malolos City , Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12005 # 21783592, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 2-27, 2007. I hereby certify that the affiant has been identified by the undersigned Notary Public through competent Evidence of Identity, as follows: Evidence of Identity: ___________________________ Which bears his picture and signature and basing on the same, his picture appearing thereon is one and the same signature on this document.
DOC. NO. _____, PAGE NO. ____, BOOK NO. ____, SERIES OF 2009.

1

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.

MCLE Compliance II-0011645, 8-17’08 COPY FURNISHED: (By Personal Service): Atty. Nye Orquillas, Respondent, 2nd Flr., HIyas ng Bulacan Convention Center, Capitol Compound Bldg., Capitolyo, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan

with the NOTICE I received on January 27, 2009, respectfully, states, that: Jobless - Homeless - 8, 8, 8 http://www.gmanews.tv/story/52837/(Update)-Fire-hits-CA-main-office Fire hits CA main office - July 26, 2007 A fire broke out Thursday at the main building of the Court of Appeals along Maria Orosa Street in Ermita, Manila City. Radio station dzMM reported

1

that the blaze reportedly broke out at the room of Associate Justice Edgardo Sundiam at the fourth floor.
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2009/feb/03/yehey/metro/20090203met5.html

CA mourns death of peer - Tuesday, February 03, 2009 THE Court of Appeals will have a sad day when it celebrates its 73rd Anniversary owing to the sudden death on February 1, of one of their most respected magistrates, Justice Edgardo Sundiam, due to lingering illness. On March 4, 2008, the Philippine Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Justices Edgardo P. Sundian & Monina ArevalaZenarosa, dismissed Floro's CA-G.R. Sp No. 00015, Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data lawsuit against Malolos RTC Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz. On July, 2008, RTC Executive Judge Petrita Braga Dime's untimely demise was mourned by the judiciary. On January 29, 2008, Floro begged for mercy from Malolos City, Bulacan Executive Judge, RTC, Br. 14, Hon. Petrita Braga Dime (University of the Philippines College of Law Class '62 classmate of Minita Chico-Nazario, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Alicia Austria-Martinez, Reynato Puno, and Malolos RTC, Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz – WHO SIGNED THE DEATH OF THE JUDICIAL CAREER OF JUDGE FLORO ON MARCH 31, 2006). Undaunted, Floro appealed to the Court of Appeals by filing the January 30, 2008 Amparo lawsuit and supplemental disbarment case No. 7897 against Integrated Bar of the Philippines Bulacan lawyer Nye Orquillas, who was ordered to file Comment by the Supreme Court of the Philippines' Resolution dated July 7, 2008. Meanwhile, Court of Appeals Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes and Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas inhibited in the Amparo suit. I. Admissions Complainant cannot admit the allegations of respondent’s answer which betray the TRUTH. Amid the pains of loosing his job and only ancestral home and lot because of respondent’s actuations, complainant continues to suffer the pains of 10 years delay of his civil and criminal persecutory lawsuits. In addition, it was only on September 3, 2008, that the Malolos RTC, Br. 16 had ordered complainant’s consolidated cases again for the nth time submitted for decision, all because of the violation of his oath of office as lawyer by respondent. For this, complainant hereby submits the CRITICAL FACTS which reveal and unveil the TRUTH, nothing more, nothing less: in the following 100 pages, which undersigned painfully collected, collated and created in detail as proof that respondent must be disbarred under the law and rules. II. Stipulations Though the papers of this case are voluminous, the FACT is so simple: complainant’s ancestral house-lot was sold to spouses Trinidads and they obliged themselves to pay the balance upon court order to cancel the annotated
1

adverse claim on the subject title they bought. Respondent appeared for the Trinidads to defend their rights. Instead of winning the case, respondent, conspiring with Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson and Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz, (classmate of C.J. Puno, and the other 3 UP Class 62 S.C. Associate Justices) and for the consideration of the bribe of about P 60,000.00, filed a motion to dismiss not only the LRC case but even all the other cases not involved in his lawyer-client relationship. Because of this, complainant suffered so much, lost his only home-lot, where he was born in 1953 and lived until 1989. Not only that. Despite the fact that none of the defendants in those consolidated civil cases which respondent moved to dismiss, had appeared in court to submit evidence, complainant lost the cases due to the bribe. After a series of administrative cases filed by complainant against respondent’s co-conspirators, Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz and Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson, complainant until this day, failed to smell even the elusive quality of JUSTICE. This is too much. III. Issues Complainant has raised the issues in the instant complaint and reproduces these herein: whether of not respondent violated his oaths of office, and therefore must be disbarred. Bold and daring, complainant adds: he will prove this issues by his GODLY REPRISALS, since, it will unveil the truth. RELIEF

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that the instant COMPLIANCE and the VERIFIED DISBARMENT COMPLAINT / LETTER-AFFIDAVIT [Under Rules 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia, With - Motions - for Leave of Court to Admit this Complaint, for PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution] against respondent, Atty. Nye Orquillas, be duly NOTED, ADMITTED, GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED. Further, it is respectfully prayed, that - after filing of respondent’s COMMENT / ANSWER, and after due notice, hearing, and Report of the Commissioner / Investigator, - judgment be rendered declaring him GUILTY of all the charges and that supreme penalty of DISBARMENT be imposed upon him, ordering that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and punished accordingly, under Rule 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia. Special Prayer:

1

Furthermore, petitioner most respectfully petitions this Court – to SUSPEND Atty. Nye Orquillas, pendent elite, from the practice of law, indefinitely and until further orders from this Honorable Court, and that the suspension should take effect immediately. Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading - letter-affidavitcomplaint, this 26th day of February, 2009, at Malolos City , BULACAN. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Complaint, 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].

User:Florentino Floro/MyViralVideo http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Florentino_Floro

, si Mary Ann Deasis Osilleva, hindi kasal, ng 111 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos, 3000 Bulacan, Pilipino, matapos makapanumpa alinsunod sa batas, ay nagsasaad, na: Mahal na Chief Justice Puno, at Atty. Layusa, 1. Ako po ay naninirahan sa Looban, 111 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos, Bulacan, mula mga 1990, at noong mga 1993 nang ipanganak ko sa Olongapo City, ang ika-3 anak namin ni Cris, na si Jamilo Osilleva (ngayon ay 3rd year High School na sa Negros) (ang panganay ko ay si Exequiel, na na kay Cris, at pangalawa ay si Shaira, na pinaampon ko kay pinsan, Mary Jane, sa
1

Pasig City). Dahil wala akong salapi, at isang katulong-labandera, inampon ng aking kapatid na si Joel Osilleva at asawang Marilyn Tahom, (09214599892) si Jamilo Osilleva, mula pagka-sanggol, at nanirahan kami sa Alido, Malolos. Tricyle driver ang kapatid kong si Joel Osilleva at nagtrabajo sa America, sa among isang Consultant, and asawa niya at ina ni Jamilo,na si Marilyn Tahom, ng 7 taon humigit kumulang, hanggang umuwi siya ng 2006-7 at ngayon, ay naninirahan na sila ni Joel at Jamilo sa Negros. 2. Ako po ay pinanganak ng Disyembre 25, Pasko, 1966, sa Negros. Dahil walang trabaho, napadpad ako sa Manila at nagkatulong noong mga 1988. Naging katulong ako ng ina ni Senator Dick Gordon noong mga 1990 at doon sa Olongapo, at pinanganak ko doon ang 3 anak naming ni Cris, sa Olongapo City. Ako ay nagtrabaho rin bilang saleslady sa Paper, Milrose Bakery, at ngayon bilang katulong-labandera ng maraming mga amo, at ni Philamlife Manager Tembong Sebastian, lahat sa Malolos, Bulacan. 3. Dahil mahal nila ang aking anak, mula sanggol pa nila inalagaan, hanggang ngayon, at 100% tinustusan, pumayag ako na legalin ang ampunan, kaya dumulog kami sa Malolos Korte at naghain ng petisyon tungkol dito at pagamyenda ng Birth Certificate sa Olongapo City. Siningil kami ni Atty. Nye Oquillas, at ang kabuuang naibayad namin sa kaniya at P 30,000 attorney’s fees mula ihain ang kaso sa Br. 13, RTC, Malolos, noong mga 2000 hanggang madesisyonan ito. Kaya hinain ko ang kasong ito, o namin, ay upang si Jamilo ay mabigyan ng magandang kinabukasan, dahil gusto kong maayos ang kaniyang petition o visa sa USA, dadalhin siya doon ni Joel at Marilyn. Ako po ay umupo at tumestigo sa Corte sa kasong ito. Subalit, pagdating ni Marilyn sa Pilipinas noong 2006-7, napagalaman namin na hindi pala ayos ang papel sa Korte, dahil walang Entry of Judgment na hinihingi sa amin, nang iFollowup
namin, sa mga opisyales o Opisina ng Gobyerno gaya ng NSO at Olongapo City Municipal Registrar o Treasurer’s Office. Nagpunta kami sa RTC, Malolos Archive Section, pero bigo kami, wala raw ang Record naming.

4. Kaya, ako, si Marilyn Tahom at si Belen Gomez (na kasambahay ko) ay nagtungo sa opisina ni Atty. Nye Orquillas, kung saan, ang sikritarya niyang Bakla-ngongo, ay pinahiram kami ng record, at pinaxerox namin. Tapos, nagpunta uli kami kay Atty. Nye, kinabukasan, mga July, 2007, ito humigit kumulang, at sinamahan kami ni Atty. Nye sa OIC, Ms. Arlene de la Cruz, ng Br. 13, RTC, Malolos. Wala raw record at entry of judgment, kaya tinuro-turo kami sa Archive Section, RTC, Malolo. Bigo rin kami, uli, walang documentong
makita sila, wala raw ang Expediente or Record ng buong kaso ni Jamilo Osilleva sa Br. 13 at sa Archive Section at walang makitang Entry of Judgment.

5. Dahil dito, hiningan ako at si Marilyn ni Atty. Nye Oquillas ng P 5,000 na gastos daw niya para raw makuha ang Entry of Judgment, pareceive sa Olongapo, Solicitor General at iba pang opisina, at gasoline, siya raw ang personal na lalakad. Kaya, nagbayad kami sa kaniya ng P 100 kapalit ng isang notaryadong papel na Ingles: na binibigyan daw ni Marilyn Tahom, ako, upang iFollow-up ang kaso sa Br. 13, RTC, Malolos, dahil uuwi noon sa Negros sina
1

Marilyn. Handa na sana ang salapi kong P 5,000 subalit, hindi ko binigay kay Atty. Nye Orquillas, dahil, titignan lang daw niya kung makukuha ko ang Entry of Judgment, walang kasiguraduhan, kahit may hawak na akong Desisyon ng Br. 13. Dahil dito, kami ng anak ko, si Jamilo, at Marilyn, ay BIGO, at nasayang lang ang aming P 30,000 binayad kay Atty. Nye Orquilas, and pagtestigo ko, at pagod, lakad, at mga pera, na pinagpaguran ni Marilyn sa USA, dahil kahit isang Original or duplicate ng Desisyon, wala kaming hawak, at wala ang Record ng kaso namin raw ang RTC Malolos at Archive. Dahil dito, kami at and pamilya ni Jamilo ay nawalan ng pagasa at pagkakataong maayos ang Birth Certificate, Passport at VISA, para makapunta sa USA. DAHIL SA LAHAT NG ITO, dumudulog uli ako kay Atty. Nye Orquillas, sa OIC ng Br. 13, Malolos, Bulakan, at sa Archive Section, RTC, Malolos, at bibigyan ko sila ng 3 araw, mula Oktubre 2, 2008, na, alinsunod sa ating mga BATAS, ibigay nila po sa akin ang a) Duplicate kopya ng Desisyon sa kaso ni Jamilo, hawak ni Atty. Nye Orquillas, Xerox ng buong record ng kaso, at b) Entry of Judgment, at c) kung wala silang maibibigay, dahil naghintay na kami ng wala, tinuro-turo kung saan-saan, nagpahinog, mahigit nang 1 taon na, mula July, 2007, ang CERTIFICATE OF NO RECORD, O, CERTIFICATE OF LOST OR NO ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, O NO DESISYON, O RECORD ng kaso, at nawawala ito, para maisumite ko sa Office of the Bar Confidant, Office of the Court Administrator at Office of the Chief Justice, Korte Suprema, at maisama sa maihahain kong mga Reklamo, laban kay Atty. Nye Orquillas at iba pa. Sertipikasyon: Ako ay sumusumpa na, ang sulat-Petisyon-salaysay-reklamo na ito, ay gawa ko, binasa ko, totoo lahat, may prueba akong mga dokumento, at nagtanong-tanong ako, o asistado ng mga marunong sa batas. Kalakip ditto bilang Annex “A” at parte nito ang kopya ng aking Cedula, Voter’s ID, at litrato ko at ni Jamilo. Gumagalang, ngayong ika-2 ng Oktubre, 2008, Malolos. Mary Ann Deasis Osilleva, 111 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos,3000 Bulacan, (0927-7996642) Nagrereklamo BERIPIKASYON, SERTIPIKASYON AT SALAYSAY Ako, si Mary Ann Deasis Osilleva, hindi kasal, ng 111 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos, 3000 Bulacan, Pilipino, matapos makapanumpa alinsunod sa batas, ay nagsasaad, na:
Ako ang nagreklamo sa kasong ito laban kay Atty. Nye Orquillas. Ang sulat-

petisyon-salaysay-reklamo na ito, ay gawa ko, binasa ko, pinirmahan ko, totoo lahat nang nakasaad dito alinsunod sa alam ko or base sa mga totoong

1

documento, may prueba akong mga dokumento, at nagtanong-tanong ako, o asistado ng mga marunong sa batas. Sinesertipikahan ko na hindi ako nagdulog nang kahit anong kaso laban kay Atty. Nye Orquillas, kahit saang Korte at iba pa, tungkol sa mga nakasaad dito ni sa anomang tribunal o ahensya, at sa kaalaman ko, walang anomang akson o kaso ang nakasampa ko, at kung malalaman ko, ay ipaaalam ko sa loob ng 5 araw sa Korte at dito sa Korte Suprema ito mula pagkahain nito. Sinesertipikahan ko rin, na binigyan ko ng isang kopya nito at annex nito si Atty. Nye Orquillas sa opisina niya noong ika-2 ng Oktubre, 2008, ng kasong ito “Mary Ann Deasis Osilleva vs. Atty. Nye Orquillas, A.C. _____” personal, at prueba ang tatak at pirma sa ibaba, ng opisina niya alinsunod sa Rule 13 at iba pa, Rules of Court. Mary Ann Deasis Osilleva, 111 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos,3000 Bulacan, (0927-7996642) Nagrereklamo

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 2nd day of October, 2008, here at Malolos City, Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me her CTC NO. 20313488, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 9-30, 2008.
DOC. NO. 396, PAGE NO 81, BOOK NO 76, SERIES OF 2008.

BERNAR D. FAJARDO
Notary Public, Until Jan.31, 2009, PTR NO. 4591703, 1- 2,’08, Atty.’s Roll No. 33633, IBP OR # 708299, 1-2,’08 Malolos City, Bulacan.

COPY FURNISHED: (By Personal Service): Atty. Nye Orquillas, Respondent,
2nd Flr., Hiyas ng Bulacan Convention Center, Capitol Bldg., RTC Compound Bldg., Capitolyo, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan

1

Your Honors, I, the undersigned petitioner, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, by MYSELF and for MYSELF, as litigant / complainant in this case, AND WITH LEAVE OF THIS COURT, most respectfully depose and say, that: CRITICAL AND UNDISPUTED FACTS Bill of Particulars:
1. On September 28, 1998, undersigned filed with Br. 19, RTC, Malolos,

Bulacan, LRC P-405-98 petition to cancel adverse claim on TCT Nos. T-328106- (M), T-316135(M), and T-316136 (M)-Bulacan; duplicate original copy of pertinent pages 1, 4 & 5, of the Petition, copy of TCT No. T-328106-(M), and the March, 1998 Affidavit of Adverse claim, are respectively attached, as Annexes, A-1, and A-2 hereof;
2. On September 29, 1998, undersigned also filed with Br. 9, RTC,

Malolos, Bulacan, Civil Case No. 938-M-98 complaint to annul / cancel the mortgage contract on said 3 titles; these twin suits were filed, in order to clear or quiet the title, TCT Nos. T-328106-(M), inter alia, sold by undersigned to LRC P-405 petitioners spouses Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad; said spouses bought said lot from undersigned by virtue of a “KASUNDUAN” dated 30 March, 1998, inter alia; undersigned was thereby obliged to represent the spouses in Court, and they, in turn, were bound to pay undersigned sums of money, upon court cancellation of said adverse claim upon their title; duplicate original copy of pertinent pages
2

1, 6 & 7, of the Petition / complaint, and copy of the “KASUNDUAN’ are respectively attached as Annexes B and B-1 hereof;
3. Both cases were ordered submitted for decision on 17 June, 2005 and 22

September, 2004; duplicate originals of the Court orders are respectively attached as Annexes C and C-1 hereof;
4. All defendants in said cases never cross-examined undersigned and they

also refused / failed to present evidence to rebut undersigned’s admitted testimonial and documentary evidence (Vide: Annexes C, C-1); 5. Despite repeated demands, however, the spouses Trinidads failed and refused to pay undersigned the amount due on the contract; later, undersigned discovered that LRC petitioner Alfredo Trinidad suffered a stroke, while LRC petitioner, his wife, Florentina Trinidad suffered lingering illnesses; further, their daughter Ann Trinidad was allegedly swindled and separated from her spouse, while Ann’s daughter Bea suffered great physical crab deformity of both legs; her brother Alfred Trinidad was hooked on cock fighting; ergo, undersigned opted to file a Supplemental pleading, to join them as co-defendants before judgment; but considering that undersigned was appointed Judge on November 5, 1998, the Court ordered them to hire services of counsel;
6. Respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas (“Orquillas,” for brevily) appeared as

the counsel of LRC P-405 petitioners spouses Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad; instead of asking the Court to cancel the adverse claim, respondent, in bad faith, with badges of fraud, and with greatest malice, for money and / or attorney’s fees, did, unlawfully and feloniously, file a Motion to Dismiss not only a) the collection or sum of money supplemental case file by undersigned against the Trinidads, but respondent Atty. Orquillas even moved b) to dismiss both the above twin cases filed by undersigned, on the sole and non-existent / false ground of non-payment of docket fees; duplicate original of respondent Atty. Orquillas’ 10 pages Motion to Dismiss dated 1 December, 2004, is attached as Annex D hereof;
2

7. Respondent Atty. Orquillas deceived the lower Court by submitting

falsified Certificates of (alleged by him) required docket fees: which he alleged – must have been paid by undersigned a) P 103, 156 and b) P 94,278, inter alia; certified copies of the Office of Clerk of Court, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, assessment of docket fees for the above-twin cases are attached as Annexes D-1and D-2 hereof;
8. Despite oral and written oppositions by undersigned, the lower court, on

February 24, 2004, dismissed these twin cases due to non-payment of docket fees - specifically, undersigned’s October, 1998 Amended Verified Complaint and the supplemental pleading dated October 25, 2004; copy of the Court dismissal order is attached as Annex E hereof;
9. Undersigned filed motions to reconsider, insisting on the payment of

correct docket fees; the Court made a FIRST turn around, and issued an order, reversing the dismissal, and required undersigned to pay the docket fees within a reasonable time; copy of the Court order dated September 7, 2005 is attached as Annex F hereof;
10. When the mortgage prescribed on January 6, 2006, and the defendants in

the twin cases failed to foreclose within the prescriptive period, undersigned asked the lower court to cancel the adverse claim and to annul the contract of mortgage; conjunctively, undersigned submitted certified copies of his payments of correct / fully paid docket and all legal fees for these twin cases; despite court orders for respondent Atty. Orquillas to file comment / opposition, he disappeared; he miserably and in bad faith, further failed and refused to file any pleading; he also failed to appear in court as required by it, to contradict or deny undersigned’s accusations that he lied to the court, that he sold his clients’ case, and that he allowed them to loose the case, so that undersigned would not be paid based on the “Kasunduan”; and worst, respondent Atty. Orquillas refused to cooperate to fight for his clients’ rights to have the adverse claim cancelled so that the purchased lot / title would be made quiet; certified copies of the OCC issued receipts are attached and marked collectively, as Annex G,
2

11. Meanwhile, the Court made a SECOND turn around, reversing its latest

FIRST reconsideration order; on October 22, 2007, the Court admitted its mistake, and ruled that undersigned already paid all the docket fees (contrary to the lies submitted by respondent); it set the cases anew for hearing; copy of the court Order is attached as Annex H hereof;
12. In a move to delay the cases, and to hide his overt acts of “obstruction of

justice”, respondent failed to appear and defend his clients’, the Trinidad’s title and rights; however, a new counsel appeared for different defendants, spouses Mariano and Ligaya Blanco, and moved to dismiss these cases on the ground that undersigned did not indicate his PTR (Privilege Tax Receipt) and IBP O.R. number, in the pleadings; the court however, denied the new motion as it noted and granted undersigned’s filed opposition – grounded on the critical fact, that undersigned never appeared as lawyer, but as mere litigant for himself; the court therefore, on March 31, 2008, ordered the twin cases submitted for decision, thereby reiterating its 2004 and 2005 Orders, and further ruling that these cases were submitted for decision as of 2004 and 2005; duplicate original copy of the Order is attached as Annex I hereof; BECAUSE OF respondent’s false, sham and illegal / malicious pleadings which mislead the court and delayed these cases (filed and tried in 1998, and submitted for judgment on 2004 / 2005), undersigned, inter alia, suffered damages (under Arts. 14, 15 and 6, inter alia, of the NCC) , malicious delays and issuance of unjust interlocutory orders and resolutions.

The ACCUSATION / CHARGES With Legal Argument and Memorandum of Law / Authorities With due respect Undersigned complainant charges / accuses respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas --- with ---

2

a. conduct unbecoming of a lawyer, gross ignorance of the law, indirect contempt of court, contempt of court in facie curiae and of gross misconduct, as an officer of the court and member of the Bar / legal profession, to wit: “Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides that a person may be punished for indirect contempt for: (c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule; (d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice; xxx” (Vide: NICOLAS O. TAN vs. ATTY. AMADEO E. BALON, JR., August 31, 2007 A.C. No. 6483, YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: EN BANC) Respondent, with malice and bad faith, due to lust for money, and corrupt or evil motives, filed the frivolous, sham and false / prohibited pleading (Annex D); he deliberately, willfully, and feloniously misled the lower court, by submitting false certificates of required legal / docket fees, from the Clerk of Court; specifically, he sold his clients’ case for money and financial gain, to let them / the Trinidads, to have lost the case for quieting of their title; respondent violated Article 171, par. 4, in relation to Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code when he made untruthful statements in a narration of facts; by said act, he allowed the prestige of the legal profession to be jeopardized; respondent also violated: “Sec. 3. Signature and address. RULE 7, PARTS OF A PLEADING, Revised Rules of Court - The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. Counsel, who deliberately signs a pleading in violation of this Rule, shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.” b. professional indiscretion, violation of oath of office and his 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),

2

including grossly unethical behavior, malice and bad faith in filing a sham and false pleading, inter alia. c. grave VIOLATIONS of --i.) Sec. 20 (a), Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court, including the Canons, to wit: Respondent, 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 (Promulgated 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.

2

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL. CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS. Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause. Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved. Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes. CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW. Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall

2

promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court. Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case. – in that respondent Atty. Orquillas miserably failed to be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence; (due to his ardent desire and lust for money and financial gain); he did not behave to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; he failed to follow the strict mandates of Rules 138, Rules of Court, and the Bill of Rights, RULE OF LAW, and due process. These violations / acts and omissions of respondent definitely show him to be wanting in moral character and probity / good demeanor or unworthy to continue as officer of the Court, or unfit or unsafe person to enjoy the privileges of 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. He clearly demonstrated attitudes and courses of conduct wholly inconsistent with the approved professional standards, of having failed to live up to his duties as lawyer in consonance with the strictures of the lawyer’s oath, the cited Canons and Codes, thereby having occasioned unwarranted sufferings, humiliations and hardships on the undersigned and on his ailing clients, Trinidads. He was propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions, coupled with greed and lust for MONEY, having failed in conscientiously seeing to it that justice permeates every aspect of her duties and profession, in conformity with the avowed duties of worthy members and officers of the Bar and the Bench. Petitioner respectfully cited the foregoing norms, code and laws, to support his contention that – a) the decision in the subject twin cases should have been rendered and released on December 23, 2004 / 2005, at the very least; b) and respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas is accordingly liable under these laws, civilly, (under Articles 14, 15 and 16, New Civil Code, inter alia)

2

criminally and administratively, due to palpable obstruction of justice and delay of petitioner’s cause / cases, because of the resultant unjust and unlawful orders which stopped the judgment’s issuance as of December 23, 2004. Petitioner's constitutional rights to due process of law and property were violated when respondent disobeyed the Constitutional provisions, Code of Professional Responsibility, Revised Penal Code, Rule 139-B, 139 and 140, Rules of Court, inter alia. Burning issue – Respondent, for money, delayed these cases for 3 years Urgent and compelling - chilling effect on litigants' and lawyers' recourse to the Courts – first and foremost cause of extra-judicial killings Respondent’s acts and omissions have far-reaching consequences, because every litigant especially the pauper and less privileged have to worry that he or she may be forced to pay huge sums or bribes to magistrates in the Bulacan “Bulwagan ng Katarungan”, specifically to the a) MAGICIANS b) CARDIOLOGISTS c) and Marilao, Bulacan LATIAN fixers, inter alia. Petitioner believes in the Supreme Court’s long history of vigilance on this matter of paramount import. Petitioner cites authority: Judicial corruption
“On January 25, 2005, and on December 10, 2006, Philippines Social Weather Stations released the results of its 2 surveys on corruption in the judiciary; it published that: a) like 1995, 1/4 of lawyers said many/very many judges are corrupt. But (49%) stated that a judges received bribes, just 8% of lawyers admitted they reported the bribery, because they could not prove it. [Tables 8-9]; judges, however, said, just 7% call many/very many judges as corrupt[Tables 10-11];b) "Judges see some corruption; proportions who said - many/very many corrupt judges or justices: 17% in reference to RTC judges, 14% to MTC judges, 12% to Court of Appeals justices, 4% i to Shari'a Court judges, 4% to Sandiganbayan justices and 2% in reference to Supreme Court justices [Table 15].”1

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

2

Petitioner runs to this Honorable Court with urgent and compelling reasons: since the filing of these twin cases on 1998, undersigned was always present in the lower court hearings or trials, while all defendants never appeared; these cases were ordered submitted for decision on 2004 / 2005; but suddenly, respondent MISLED the court, and maliciously delayed these cases for 3 years. If petitioner (as lawyer, judge, world-famous prophet, psychic, healing magistrate, a Second Honors Ateneo alumni and 1983 Bar Exams, 12th placer, 87.55%) could not obtain justice in his own town and province, for he could hardly, by any legal means (including scholarly written and filed court pleadings) obtain justice per the Bulacan RTC rule of law, how can an ordinary mortal / litigant, unlike undersigned, fight in the lowest / local courts of law? Twin killing of COMELEC law department chiefs Alioden Dalaig and Wynne Asdala Bakit po ba ang dami ng EJ killings and Desaparecidos? Bakit pinapatay and mga abogado? Lately the COMELEC lost its 2 law department chiefs. It is because of corruption in courts, per SWS surveys of 1995 / 2005: the UN Philip Alston and FIDH Reports, the Eric G. John and G. Eugene Martin Testimonies on March 14, 2007 at the USA Senate point to judicial corruption as ROOT of all extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances: Recent Events
* Twin horrible deaths happened on / circa the same day last year, January 15, 2007, that the Supreme Court of the Philippines' (logo or seal) was mysteriously burned into halves by an almost one hour afternoon fire.[87][88] Despite different appeals by local and international groups, the spate of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines continued. On January 15, 2008, Reynato Puno condemned the murder of Judge Roberto Navidad, Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Calbayog City, Samar, the 15th judge to be ambushed since July 20, 1999, the 14th under the Arroyo government. On Tuesday, Catholic missionary Rey Roda, Oblates of Marry Immaculate (OMI), 54, was shot dead at 8:30 p.m., when he resisted abduction attempt by unidentified 10 armed men in a chapel at ikud Tabawan village, South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, South Ubian. In February 1997, another OMI leader, Bishop Benjamin de Jesus was shot dead in front of the Jolo cathedral.[90] In 2006, the Asian Human Rights Commission stated that there had been 26 priests, pastors, and churchmen who were liquidate or were victims of violence under the Gloria Macapagal2

Arroyo administration since 2001.[91] This includes 3 priests who were reported killed just in 2007: Basilio Bautista of the Iglesia Filipina Reform Group, in Surigao del Sur, Indonesian priest Fransiskus Madhu, in Kalinga province, and Catholic priest Florante Rigonan, in Ilocos Norte.[92] * On March 14, 2008, Filipino lawyer Edre Olalia (lead officer of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers and the Counsels for the Defense of Liberties) brought the Philippine case and appealed to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), in its 7th Geneva session "to stop the extrajudicial killings and abductions in the Philippines". Philippines killings will be examined in the first UNHRC session, periodic review from April 7 to 18, along with those in 15 others of 192 member-countries.2

Shocking to the conscience of the Bulacan courts, respondent maliciously misled the lower court / Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz, resulting in his flagrant violation of the Constitution which he swore as lawyer, to obey, defend and implement, in the end that he would not delay a man’s / litigant’s cause for money, inter alia. Petitioner cites the fundamental law:
“Section 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts. (2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself. (4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for determination, without further delay.”

Critical Facts – Detailed narration of respondent’s DELAY of the cases and the consequential reversal by Judge Thelma of Orders, to release the Decision long overdue since 2004 / 2005

Consolidated cases C.C. No. 938-M-98 and P-405-98 were filed on September 28 / 29, 1998 by petitioner with Brs. 9 and 19, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan; the parties submitted to the court – stipulations of admitted exhibits and facts with comments and objections, plus the direct testimony of undersigned in 1998.
2

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

3

These cases were raffled initially in 1998 to Brs. 9, 19, 80 and in 2004 to Br. 16, where they were tried, heard and submitted for decision on September 22, 2004 and June 17, 2005; certified copies of the Orders dated September 22, 2004 and June 17, 2005, issued and signed by Judge Thelma P. Cruz are attached as Annexes C and C -1, respectively hereof. On February 24, 2005, Judge Thelma dismissed all these 2 consolidated cases upon motion (Annex D) by respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas (counsel of the LRC petitioners spouses Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad; this counsel maliciously caused the loss of the case of his clients Trinidads; petitioner, twice reserved his right to file disbarment case against respondent attorney), due to alleged non-payment of docket fees by undersigned on amended complaint filed on 1998 / 1999; but Judge Thelma found her glaring error; ergo, she rectified the same, reversing herself, thereby granting undersigned’s Motion for Reconsideration, giving undersigned reasonable time to pay docket fees on the amended complaint - Interlocutory Order of September 7, 2005; (Vide Annexes E to I). Judge Thelma P. Cruz, knowing the glaring mistake, and comprehending that she rendered the foregoing UNJUST resolutions in violation of the Revised Penal Code / the Canons of Judicial Ethics, inter alia, reversed herself for the second time: undersigned submitted certified copies of document - parts of the records, which proved payment of docket and all legal fees on the subject amended complaint; in the Order dated 22 October, 2007, Judge Thelma ruled that undersigned really paid the docket fees. She issued the final ruling on March 31, 2008, ordering AGAIN these 10 years cases SUBMITTED for decision AS OF 2004 / 2005. (Vide Annexes E to I); P 80,000 CASH paid to Atty. Nye Orquillas by Alfred Trinidad, son of LRC Petitioners Florentina and Alfredo Trinidad Meanwhile, undersigned, by accident, discovered the corruption of the cases to delay undersigned’s twin suits, perpetrated by respondent upon / at Br. 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, to wit:

3

When undersigned ordered Ms. Belen Gomez (secretary of undersigned, at Alido, Malolos, Bulacan) to clear the fighting cocks and dirt at the road rightof-way of the subject land of these consolidated cases (owned by undersigned at Calvario, Meycauayan, Bulacan), Mr. Alfred Trinidad (son and representative of the MASSIVE stroke patient therein LRC petitioner Alfredo Trinidad and his spouse co-petitioner very ill Mrs. Florentina Trinidad) demanded P 80,000 reduced to P 60,000 from undersigned (per verbal request / imposition to Belen Gomez at a merienda in Jolibee, Poblacion, Meycauayan, Bulacan, last year) as causa / consideration, for removal of the interference / nuisance; Mr. Alfred Trinidad stated that “Yan ang nagastos namin sa kaso” – stating in no uncertain terms the payment to respondents counsel Atty. Nye Orquillas (who merely filed a 10 pages Motion to Dismiss, Annex B, at that time); the other pertinent rules, circulars and laws violated by respondents are cited hereunder for reference purposes: CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW. Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court. Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case.

RELIEF

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that the instant VERIFIED DISBARMENT COMPLAINT / LETTERAFFIDAVIT [Under Rules 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia, With - Motions - for Leave of Court to Admit this Complaint, for
3

PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution] against respondent, Atty. Nye Orquillas, be duly NOTED, ADMITTED, GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED. Further, it is respectfully prayed, that - after filing of respondent’s COMMENT / ANSWER, and after due notice, hearing, and Report of the Commissioner / Investigator, - judgment be rendered declaring him GUILTY of all the charges and that supreme penalty of DISBARMENT be imposed upon him, ordering that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and punished accordingly, under Rule 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia. Special Prayer: Furthermore, petitioner most respectfully petitions this Court – to SUSPEND Atty. Nye Orquillas, pendent elite, from the practice of law, indefinitely and until further orders from this Honorable Court, and that the suspension should take effect immediately. Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading - letter-affidavitcomplaint, this 2nd day of May, 2008, at Malolos City , BULACAN. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Petitioner, on behalf of himself, by himself and as litigant, 123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos City, 3000 BULACAN, Tel /# (044) 662-82-03; [I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300;
ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV].

NOTICE TO: Atty. Christina Layusa, The Office of the Bar Confidant, Atty. Ma. Luisa Villarama / Atty. Felipa Anama, The Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, Manila, Please DOCKET and AGENDUM the foregoing pleading for the deliberation and Resolution of the Honorable Court, immediately upon receipt hereof. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,
VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING & AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

3

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 respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas, involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and to the best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein, and if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof will be made, but there is none; if I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within 5 days there from to the court wherein the aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. I certify that on May 2, 2008, I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in this DISBARMENT case “Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant, - versus –Atty. Nye Orquillas ”, A.C. No. _______, upon respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas, by personal service, at his office address, 2nd Flr., RTC Compound Bldg., Capitolyo, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan, as evidenced by the signature / initial receipt, as hereunder indicated, after his name and address, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Rules of Court.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 2nd day of May, 2008, here at Malolos City , Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12005 # 21783592, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 2-27, 2007.
DOC. NO. _____, PAGE NO. ____, BOOK NO. ____, SERIES OF 2008.

BERNAR D. FAJARDO
Notary Public, Until Jan.31, 2009, PTR NO. 4591703, 1- 2,’08, Atty.’s Roll No. 33633, IBP OR # 708299, 1-2,’08 Malolos City, Bulacan.

COPY FURNISHED: (By Personal Service): Atty. Nye Orquillas, Respondent, 2nd Flr., RTC Compound Bldg., Capitolyo, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan and – Judicial and Bar Council, c/o the SECRETARIAT, Supreme Court, Manila
3

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.