You are on page 1of 21

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

proceedin s' ci&il' cri%inal' ad%inistrati&e$ 3or so%e si+teen ,-./ #ears no"' to repeat' he has been continuousl# clutterin the Courts "ith his repetiti&e' and )uite baseless if not outlandish co%plaints and contentions$ I$ CASES INVOLVING TRADERS ROYAL BANK (TRB)

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

PER CUR AM/ It is said that a little learnin is a dan erous thin ! and that he "ho acts as his o"n la"#er has a fool for a client$ There "ould see% to be %ore than a rain of truth in these aphoris%s! and the# appear to find &alidation in the proceedin at bench' at least$ The respondent in this case' (oa)uin T$ Borro%eo' is not a la"#er but has apparentl# read so%e la" boo*s' and ostensibl# co%e to possess so%e superficial a"areness of a fe" substanti&e le al principles and procedural rules$ Incredibl#' "ith nothin %ore than this s%atterin of learnin ' the respondent has' for so%e si+teen ,-./ #ears no"' fro% -012 to the present' been institutin and prosecutin le al proceedin s in &arious courts' do %aticall# pontificatin on errors supposedl# co%%itted b# the courts' includin the Supre%e Court$ In the pictures)ue lan ua e of for%er Chief (ustice Enri)ue M$ 3ernando' he has 4"ith all the &alor of i norance'4 1 been &erball# 5oustin "ith &arious ad&ersaries in di&erse liti ations! or in the "ords of a "ell6*no"n son ' rushin into arenas 4"here an els fear to tread$4 Under the illusion that his tri&ial ac)uaintance "ith the la" had i&en hi% co%petence to underta*e liti ation' he has &entured to represent hi%self in nu%erous ori inal and re&ie" proceedin s$ E+pectedl#' the results ha&e been disastrous$ In the process' and possibl# in aid of his inter%inable and )uite unreasonable resort to 5udicial proceedin s' he has seen fit to co%pose and circulate %an# scurrilous state%ents a ainst courts' 5ud es and their e%plo#ees' as "ell as his ad&ersaries' for "hich he is no" bein called to account$ Respondent Borro%eo7s ill6ad&ised incursions into la"#erin "ere enerated b# fairl# prosaic transactions "ith three ,8/ ban*s "hich ca%e to ha&e cala%itous conse)uences for hi% chiefl# because of his failure to co%pl# "ith his contractual co%%it%ents and his stubborn insistence on i%posin his o"n ter%s and conditions for their fulfill%ent$ These ban*s "ere9 Traders Ro#al Ban* ,TRB/' United Coconut Planters Ban* ,UCPB/' Securit# Ban* : Trust Co$ ,SBTC/$ Borro%eo obtained loans or credit acco%%odation fro% the%' to secure "hich he constituted %ort a es o&er i%%o&ables belon in to hi% or %e%bers of his fa%il#' or third persons$ ;e failed to pa# these obli ations' and "hen de%ands "ere %ade for hi% to do so' laid do"n his o"n ter%s for their satisfaction "hich "ere )uite inconsistent "ith those a reed upon "ith his obli ees or prescribed b# la"$ <hen' understandabl#' the ban*s refused to let hi% ha&e his "a#' he brou ht suits ri ht and left' successi&el# if not conte%poraneousl#' a ainst said ban*s' its officers' and e&en the la"#ers "ho represented the ban*s in the actions brou ht b# or a ainst hi%$ ;e sued' as "ell' the public prosecutors' the (ud es of the Trial Courts' and the (ustices of the Court of Appeals and the Supre%e Court "ho at one ti%e or another' rendered a 5ud %ent' resolution or order ad&erse to hi%' as "ell as the Cler*s of Court and other Court e%plo#ees si nin the notices thereof$ In the a re ate' he has initiated or spa"ned in different fora the astoundin nu%ber of no less6than fift# ,=>/ ori inal or re&ie"

The first ban* that (oa)uin T$ Borro%eo appears to ha&e dealt "ith "as the Traders Ro#al Ban* ,TRB/$ On (une ?' -012' he ot a loan fro% it in the su% of P@='>>>$>>$ This he secured b# a real estate %ort a e created o&er t"o parcels of land co&ered b# TCT No$ =0=0. and TCT No$ =01== o"ned' respecti&el#' b# Socorro Borro%eo6Tha*uria ,his sister/ and Teresita <inniefred La&arino$ On (une -.' -012' Borro%eo obtained a second loan fro% TRB in the a%ount of P->'>>>$>>' this ti%e i&in as securit# a %ort a e o&er a parcel of land o"ned b# the ;eirs of Aicente A$ Borro%eo' co&ered b# TCT No$ RT61.8@$ Authorit# to %ort a e these three lots "as &ested in hi% b# a Special Po"er of Attorne# e+ecuted b# their respecti&e o"ners$ Additionall#' on April ?8' -02>' Borro%eo obtained a Letter of Credit fro% TRB in the su% of P2>'>>>$>>' in consideration of "hich he e+ecuted a Trust Receipt ,No$ =0=B2>/ fallin due on (ul# ??' -02>$ 2 Borro%eo failed to pa# the debts as contracted despite de%ands therefor$ Conse)uentl#' TRB caused the e+tra65udicial foreclosure of the %ort a es i&en to secure the%$ At the public sale conducted b# the sheriff on Septe%ber 1' -02-' the three %ort a ed parcels of land "ere sold to TRB as the hi hest bidder' for P18'=?0$>0$ <ithin the rede%ption period' Borro%eo %ade *no"n to the Ban* his intention to redee% the properties at their auction price$ TRB %ana er Blas C$ Abril ho"e&er %ade clear that Borro%eo "ould also ha&e to settle his outstandin account under Trust Receipt No$ =0=B2> ,P22'1.?$12/' supra$ Borro%eo de%urred' and this disa ree%ent a&e rise to a series of la"suits co%%enced b# hi% a ainst the Ban*' its officers and counsel' as aforestated$ A$ CIVIL CASES -$ RTC Case No$ R22506! CA G$R$ CV No$ 0 0!5! G$R$ No$ "##06 On October ?0' -02? Borro%eo filed a co%plaint in the Cebu Cit# Re ional Trial Court for specific perfor%ance and da%a es a$a%&s' TRB a&( %'s )o*a) +a&a$er, B)as A-r%), doc*eted as Ci&il Case No$ R6??=>.$ The co%plaint sou ht to co%pel defendants to allo" rede%ption of the foreclosed properties onl# at their auction price' "ith stipulated interests and char es' "ithout need of pa#in the obli ation secured b# the trust receipt abo&e %entioned$ (ud %ent "as rendered in his fa&or on Cece%ber ?>' -02@ b# Branch ?8 of the Cebu Cit# RTC! but on defendants7 appeal to the Court of Appeals D doc*eted as CA6E$R$ CA No$ >1>-= D the 5ud %ent "as re&ersed' b# decision dated (anuar# ?1' -022$ The Court of Appeals held that the 4plaintiff ,Borro%eo/ has lost his ri ht of rede%ption and can no lon er co%pel defendant to allo" rede%ption of the properties in )uestion$4 Borro%eo ele&ated the case to this court "here his appeal "as doc*eted as E$R$ No$ 288>.$ B# Resolution dated Au ust -=' -022' this Court7s 3irst Ci&ision denied his petition for re&ie" 4for failure $ $ $ to sufficientl# sho" that the respondent Court of Appeals had co%%itted an# re&ersible error in its )uestioned 5ud %ent' it appearin on the contrar# that the said decision is supported b# substantial e&idence and is in accord "ith the facts and applicable la"$4 Reconsideration "as denied' b# Resolution dated No&e%ber ?8' -022$ A second %otion for reconsideration "as denied b# Resolution dated (anuar# 8>' -020' as "as a third such %otion' b#

Resolution dated April -0' -020$ The last resolution also directed entr# of 5ud %ent and the re%and of the case to the court of ori in for pro%pt e+ecution of 5ud %ent$ Entr# of 5ud %ent "as %ade on Ma# -?' -020$ B# Resolution dated Au ust 1' -020' the Court denied another %otion of Borro%eo to set aside 5ud %ent! and b# Resolution dated Cece%ber ?>' -020' the Court %erel# noted "ithout action his %anifestation and %otion pra#in that the decision of the Court of Appeals be o&erturned' and declared that 4no further %otion or pleadin $ $ $ shall be entertained $ $ $ $4 ?$ RTC Case No$ CEB " 50! CA-G$R$ S. No$ 22#56 The in* "as hardl# dr# on the resolutions 5ust %entioned before Borro%eo initiated another ci&il action in the sa%e Cebu Cit# Re ional Court b# "hich he atte%pted to liti ate the sa%e issues$ The action' a$a%&s' '/e &e0 TRB Bra&*/ 1a&a$er, 2a*%&'o 2a+ero' "as doc*eted as Ci&il Case No$ CEB621=>$ As %i ht ha&e been anticipated' the action "as' on %otion of the defense' dis%issed b# Order dated Ma# -2' -00>' 3 on the round of res 3u(%*a'a' the onl# issue raised in the second action D %$e$' Borro%eo7s ri ht to redee% the lots foreclosed b# TRB D ha&in been &entilated in Ci&il Case No$ R6??=>. ,(oa)uin T$ Borro%eo &s$ Blas C$ Abril and Traders Ro#al Ban*/ ,supra/ and' on appeal' decided "ith finalit# b# the Court of Appeals and the Supre%e Court in fa&or of defendants therein$ The Trial Court7s 5ud %ent "as affir%ed b# the Court of Appeals in CA6E$R$ SP No$ ??8=.$ 8$ RTC Case No$ CEB45"5! CA-G$R$ S. No$ 2"22! In the %eanti%e' and durin the pendenc# of Ci&il Case No$ R6 ??=>.' TRB consolidated its o"nership o&er the foreclosed i%%o&ables$ Contendin that act of consolidation a%ounted to a cri%inal offense' Borro%eo filed co%plaints in the Office of the Cit# Prosecutor of Cebu a ainst the ban* officers and la"#ers$ These co%plaints "ere ho"e&er' and )uite correctl#' i&en short shrift b# that Office$ Borro%eo then filed suit in the Cebu Cit# RTC' this ti%e not onl# a$a%&s' '/e TRB, TRB o66%*ers 2a*%&'o 2a+ero a&( Ar*e)% Bus'a+a&'e' but also a$a%&s' C%'7 .rose*u'or 2u6e)%&%'o .are3a a&( /%s ass%s'a&'s, E&r%8ue'a Be)ar+%&o a&( E9a A$ I$o', a&( '/e TRB )a07ers, 1ar%o Or'%: a&( '/e )a0, 6%r+, ;ERSINLA<$ The action "as doc*eted as Ci&il Case No$ CEB60@2=$ The co%plaint char ed Prosecutors Pare5a' Belar%ino and I ot "ith %anifest partialit# and bias for dis%issin the cri%inal cases 5ust %entioned! and faulted TRB and its %ana er' (a%ero' as "ell as its la"#ers' for consolidatin the titles to the foreclosed properties in fa&or of the ban* despite the pendenc# of Case No$ R6??=>.$ This action also failed$ On defendants7 %otion' it "as dis%issed on 3ebruar# -0' -00? b# the RTC$ ,Branch ??/ on the round of res 3u(%*a'a,bein identical "ith Ci&il Case Nos$ R6??=>. and CEB621=>' alread# decided "ith finalit# in fa&or of TRB/' and lac* of cause of action ,as to defendants Pare5a' Belar%ino and I ot/$ Borro%eo7s *er'%orar% petition to the Court of Appeals ,CA E$R$ SP No$ ?2??-/ "as dis%issed b# that Court7s Ci&ision 0 on October .' -00?' for the reason that the proper re%ed# "as appeal$ @$ RTC Case No$ CEB!0#6"! CA-G$R$ S. No$ 2 !00 Before Case No$ CEB602@= "as finall# decided' Borro%eo filed' on Ma# 8>' -00-' still another ci&il action for the sa%e cause a$a%&s' TRB' %'s +a&a$er' 2a*%&'o 2a+ero, a&( %'s )a07ers, A''7$ 1ar%o Or'%: a&( '/e ;ERSINLA< )a0 o66%*e$ This action "as doc*eted as Ci&il Case No$ CEB6->8.2' and "as described as one

for 4Reco&er# of Su%s of Mone#' Annul%ent of Titles "ith Ca%a es$4 The case %et the sa%e fate as the others$ It "as' on defendants7 %otion' dis%issed on Septe%ber 0' -00- b# the RTC ,Branch -@ 5/ on the round of )%'%s pe&(e&'%a$ The RTC ruled that D Ci&il Case No$ CEB60@2= "ill readil# sho" that the defendants therein' na%el# the ;onorable (ufelinito Pare5a' Enri)ueta Belar%ino' E&a I ot' Traders Ro#al Ban*' Arceli Busta%ante' (acinto (a%ero' Mario OrtiF and ;ERSINLA< are the sa%e persons or nearl# all of the% "ho are i%pleaded as defendants in the present Ci&il Case No$ CEB6->8.2' na%el#' the Traders Ro#al Ban*' (acinto (a%ero' Mario OrtiF and ;ERSINLA<$ The onl# difference is that %ore defendants "ere i%pleaded in Ci&il Case No$ CEB60@2=' na%el#' Cit# Prosecutor (ufelinito Pare5a and his assistants Enri)ueta Belar%ino and E&a I ot$ The inclusion of the Cit# Prosecutor and his t"o assistants in Ci&il Case No$ CEB60@2= "as ho"e&er %erel# incidental as apparentl# the# had nothin to do "ith the )uestioned transaction in said case$ $ $ $ The Court li*e"ise found that the reliefs pra#ed for "ere the sa%e as those sou ht in Ci&il Case No$ CEB60@2=' and the factual bases of the t"o cases "ere essentiall# the sa%e D the alle ed fraudulent foreclosure and consolidation of the three properties %ort a ed #ears earlier b# Borro%eo to TRB$ 3or so%e reason' the Order of Septe%ber 0' -00- "as set aside b# an Order rendered b# another (ud e on No&e%ber --' -00- 6 D the (ud e "ho pre&iousl# heard the case ha&in inhibited hi%self! but this Order of No&e%ber --' -00- "as' in turn' nullified b# the Court of Appeals ,0th Ci&ision/' b# Cecision pro%ul ated on March 8-' -00? in CA6E$R$ SP No$ ?1->> ,Traders Ro#al Ban* &s$ ;on$ Celso M$ Ei%eneF' etc$ and (oa)uin T$ Borro%eo/' 7 "hich decision also directed dis%issal of Borro%eo7s co%plaint$ =$ RTC Case No$ CEB6552 <hen a ne" branch %ana er' Ronald S#' "as appointed for TRB' Cebu Cit#' Borro%eo forth"ith %ade that e&ent the occasion for another ne" action' a$a%&s' TRB, Ro&a)( S7, a&( '/e -a&=>s a''or&e7s ? 1ar%o Or'%:, ;o&ora'o ;er+os%s%+a, 2r$, <%)6re(o Na9arro a&( ;ERSINLA< 6%r+$ This action "as doc*eted as Ci&il Case No$ CEB6.@=?' and described as one for 4Annul%ent of Title "ith Ca%a es$4 The co%plaint' dated October ?>' -021' a ain in&ol&ed the foreclosure of the three ,8/ i%%o&ables abo&e %entioned' and "as anchored on the alle ed %alicious' deceitful' and pre%ature consolidation of titles in TRB7s fa&or despite the pendenc# of Ci&il Case No$ ??=>.$ On defendant7s %otion' the trial court 1 dis%issed the case on the round of pre%aturit#' holdin that 4,a/t this point $ $ $' plaintiff7s ri ht to see* annul%ent of defendant Traders Ro#al Ban*7s title "ill onl# accrue if and "hen plaintiff "ill ulti%atel# and finall# "in Ci&il Case No$ R6??=>.$4 .$ RTC Case No$ CEB"2#6 ;a&in thus far failed in his %an# efforts to de%onstrate to the courts the 4%erit4 of his cause a ainst TRB and its officers and la"#ers' Borro%eo no" too* a different tac* b# also suin ,and thus also &entin his ire on/ the %e%bers of the appellate courts "ho had ruled ad&ersel# to hi%$ ;e filed in the Cebu Cit# RTC' Ci&il Case No$ CEB62?8.' %+p)ea(%&$ as (e6e&(a&'s &o' o&)7 '/e sa+e par'%es /e /a( '/ere'o6ore -ee& su%&$ ? TRB a&( %'s o66%*ers a&( )a07ers (;ERSINLA<, 1ar%o Or'%:) ? -u' a)so '/e C/a%r+a& a&( 1e+-ers

o6 '/e @%rs' D%9%s%o& o6 '/e Supre+e Cour' 0/o /a( repea'e()7 re-u66e( /%+ %& G$R$ No$ "##06 (SEE su--/ea( I, A, !, supra), as 0e)) as '/e 1e+-ers o6 '/e 5'/, 4'/ a&( !0'/ D%9%s%o&s o6 '/e Cour' o6 Appea)s 0/o /a( )%=e0%se +a(e (%spos%'%o&s u&6a9ora-)e 'o /%+$ ;is co%plaint' dated Au ust ??' -020' ai%ed to reco&er da%a es fro% the defendants (ustices for D $ $ $ %aliciousl# and deliberatel# statin blatant falsehoods and disre ardin e&idence and pertinent la"s' renderin %anifestl# un5ust and biased resolutions and decisions bereft of si natures' facts or la"s in support thereof' depri&in plaintiff of his cardinal ri hts to due process and a ainst depri&ation of propert# "ithout said process' toleratin ' appro&in and le iti%iFin the patentl# ille al' fraudulent' and conte%ptuous acts of defendants TRB' ,"hich/ constitute a/ ERAAE CERELICTION O3 CUTG ANC ABUSE O3 PO<ER e%anatin fro% the people' b/ 3LAERANT AIOLATIONS O3 T;E CONSTITUTION' CARCINAL PRIMARG RIE;TS CUE PROCESS' ART$ ?1' 8?' CIAIL COCE' Art$ ?>2' REA$ PENAL COCE' and R$A$ 8>-0' for "hich defendants %ust be held liable under said la"s$ The co%plaint also pra#ed for recon&e#ance of the 4fa*e titles obtained fraudulentl# b# TRBB;ERSINLA<'4 and reco&er# of 4->>'>>>$>> %oral da%a es! 8>'>>>$>> e+e%plar# da%a es! and P='>>>$>> liti ation e+penses$4 This action' too' %et a )uic* and uncere%onious de%ise$ On %otion of defendants TRB and ;ERSINLA<' the trial court' b# Order dated No&e%ber 1' -020' 9 dis%issed the case$ 1$ RTC Case No$ CEB!#064 It appears that Borro%eo filed still another case to liti ate the sa%e cause sub5ect of t"o ,?/ prior actions instituted b# hi%$ This "as RTC Case No$ CEB6-8>.0' a$a%&s' TRB a&( '/e )a''er>s )a07ers, <%)6re(o Na9arro a&( 1ar%o Or'%:$ The action "as dis%issed in an Order dated October @' -008' 10 on the round of res 3u(%*a'a ? the sub5ect %atter bein the sa%e as that in Ci&il Case No$ R6??=>.' decision in "hich "as affir%ed b# the Court of Appeals in CA6E$R$ CA No$ >1>-= as "ell as b# this Court in E$R$ No$ 288>. 11 D and )%'%s pe&(e&'%a ? the sub5ect %atter bein also the sa%e as that in Ci&il Case No$ CEB621=>' decision in "hich "as affir%ed b# the Court of Appeals in CA E$R$ SP No$ ??8=.$ 12 2$ RTC Cr%+%&a) Case No$ CBA-!4#55! CA-G$R$ S. No$ 2"2 5! G$R$ No$ !!242 " On April -1' -00> the Cit# Prosecutor of Cebu Cit# filed an infor%ation "ith the RTC of Cebu ,Branch ??/ a ainst Borro%eo char in hi% "ith a &iolation of the Trust Receipts La"$ 13 The case "as doc*eted as Cri%inal Case No$ CBU6-08@@$ After a "hile' Borro%eo %o&ed to dis%iss the case on the round of denial of his ri ht to a speed# trial$ ;is %otion "as denied b# Order of (ud e Pa%pio A$ Abarintos dated April ->' -00?$ In the sa%e order' ;is ;onor set an earl# date for Borro%eo7s arrai n%ent and placed the case 4under a continuous trial s#ste% on the dates as %a# be a reed b# the defense and prosecution$4 Borro%eo %o&ed for reconsideration$ <hen his %otion "as a ain found "ithout %erit' b# Order dated Ma# ?-' -00?' he betoo* hi%self to the Court of Appeals on a special ci&il action of *er'%orar%' to nullif# these ad&erse orders' his action bein doc*eted as CA6E$R$ SP No$ ?2?1=$ ;ere a ain' Borro%eo failed$ The Court of Appeals declared that the facts did not sho" that there had been unreasonable dela# in the

cri%inal action a ainst hi%' and denied his petition for bein "ithout %erit$ 10 Borro%eo then filed a petition for re&ie" "ith this Court ,E$R$ No$ --?0?2/' but b# resolution dated (anuar# 8-' -00@' the sa%e "as dis%issed for failure of Borro%eo to co%pl# "ith the re)uisites of Circulars Nu%bered -622 and -060-$ ;is %otion for reconsideration "as subse)uentl# denied b# Resolution dated March ?8' -00@$ a$ C)ar%6%*a'or7 Co++u&%*a'%o&s 'o Borro+eo Re 41%&u'e Reso)u'%o&s4 ;e ne+t filed a Manifestation dated April .' -00@ callin the Resolution of March ?8' -00@ 4Un6Constitutional' Arbitrar# and t#rannical and a ross tra&est# of 7(ustice'74 because it "as 4si ned onl# b# a %ere cler* and $ $ $ ,failed/ to state clear facts and la"'4 and 4the petition "as not resol&ed on MERITS nor b# an# (ustice but b# a %ere cler*$4 15 The Court responded "ith another Resolution' pro%ul ated on (une ??' -00@' and "ith so%e patience dre" his attention to the earlier resolution 4in his o"n pre&ious case ,(oa)uin T$ Borro%eo &s$ Court of Appeals and Sa%son Lao' E$R$ No$ 2??18' - (une -00>! -2. SCRA -/ 16 and on the sa%e issue he no" raises$4 Said Resolution of (une ??' -00@' after reiteratin that the notices sent b# the Cler* of Court of the Court E& Ba&* or an# of the Ci&isions si%pl# ad&ise of and )uote the resolution actuall# adopted b# the Court after deliberation on a particular %atter' additionall# stated that Borro%eo 4*ne"' as "ell' that the co%%unications ,notices/ si ned b# the Cler* of Court start "ith the openin clause D Huoted hereunder' for #our infor%ation' is a resolution of the 3irst Ci&ision of this Court dated$ IIIIIIIII' thereb# indisputabl# sho"in that it is not the Cler* of Court "ho prepared or si ned the resolutions$4 This "as not' b# the "a#' the first ti%e that the %atter had been e+plained to Borro%eo$ The record sho"s that on (ul# ->' -021' he recei&ed a letter fro% Cler* of Court (ulieta G$ Carreon ,of this Court7s Third Ci&ision/ dealin "ith the sub5ect' in relation to E$R$ No$ 11?@8$ 17 The sa%e %atter "as also dealt "ith in the letter recei&ed b# hi% fro% Cler* of Court LuF&i%inda C$ Puno' dated April @' -020' and in the letter to hi% of Cler* of Court ,Second Ci&ision/ 3er%in ($ Ear%a' dated Ma# -0' -020$ 11 And the sa%e sub5ect "as treated of in another Resolution of this Court' notice of "hich "as in due course ser&ed on hi%' to "it9 that dated (ul# 8-' -020' in E$R$ No$ 21201$ 19 B$ CRI1INAL CASES Mention has alread# been %ade of Borro%eo7s atte%pt D "ith 4all the &alor of i norance4 D to fasten not onl# ci&il' but also cri%inal liabilit# on TRB' its officers and la"#ers$ 20 Se&eral other atte%pts on his part to cause cri%inal prosecution of those he considered his ad&ersaries' "ill no" be dealt "ith here$ -$ I$ S$ Nos$ 40-!!" a&( 40-!!"" On March 1' -00>' Borro%eo filed cri%inal co%plaints "ith the Office of the Cebu Cit# Prosecutor a$a%&s' 2a*%&'o 2a+ero ,'/e& s'%)) TRB Bra&*/ 1a&a$er/' 42o/& Doe a&( o66%*ers o6 Tra(ers Ro7a) Ba&=$4 The co%plaints ,doc*eted as I$S$ Nos$ 0>6--21622/ accused the respondents of 4Estafa and 3alsification of Public Cocu%ents$4 ;e clai%ed' a%on others that the ban* and its officers' thru its %ana er' (acinto (a%ero' sold properties not o"ned b# the%9 that

b# fraud' deceit and false pretenses' respondents ne otiated and effected the purchase of the ,foreclosed/ properties fro% his ,Borro%eo7s/ %other' "ho 4in duress' fear and lac* of le al *no"led e'4 a reed to the sale thereof for onl# P.1-'>>>$>>' althou h in li ht of then pre&ailin %ar*et prices' she should ha&e recei&ed P=22'>8>$>> %ore$ In a (oint Resolution dated April --' -00>' 21 the Cebu Cit# 3iscal7s office dis%issed the co%plaints obser&in that actuall#' the Ceed of Sale "as not bet"een the ban* and Borro%eo7s %other' but bet"een the ban* and Mrs$ Tha*uria ,his sister/' one of the ori inal o"ners of the foreclosed properties! and that Borro%eo' bein a stran er to the sale' had no basis to clai% in5ur# or pre5udice thereb#$ The 3iscal ruled that the ban*7s o"nership of the foreclosed properties "as be#ond )uestion as the %atter had been raised and passed upon in a 5udicial liti ation! and %oreo&er' there "as no proof of the docu%ent alle edl# falsified nor of the %anner of its falsification$ a$ I$S$ Nos$ " -# 45 a&( "4-52#5 E&identl# to hi hli ht Borro%eo7s penchant for rec*less filin of unfounded co%plaints' the 3iscal also ad&erted to t"o other co%plaints earlier filed in his Office b# Borro%eo D in&ol&in the sa%e foreclosed properties and directed a ainst respondent ban* officers7 predecessors ,includin the for%er Mana er' Ronald S#/ and la"#ers D both of "hich "ere dis%issed for lac* of %erit$ These "ere9 a$ I$ S$ No$ 216810= ,(OAHUIN T$ BORROMEO &s$ ATTG$ MARIO ORTIJ and RONALC SG/ for 4Estafa Throu h 3alsification of Public Cocu%ents' Ceceit and 3alse Pretenses$4 D This case "as dis%issed b# Resolution dated (anuar# -0' -022 of the Cit# Prosecutor7s Office because based on nothin %ore than a letter dated (une @' -02=' sent b# Ban* Mana er Ronald S# to the lessee of a portion of the foreclosed i%%o&ables' ad&isin the latter to re%it all rentals to the ban* as ne" o"ner thereof' as sho"n b# the consolidated title! and there "as no sho"in that respondent Att#$ OrtiF "as %oti&ated b# fraud in notariFin the deed of sale in TRB7s fa&or after the lapse of the period of rede%ption' or that OrtiF had benefited pecuniaril# fro% the transaction to the pre5udice of co%plainant! and b$ I$S$ No$ 206@?8@ ,(OAHUIN T$ BORROMEO &s$ RONALC SG' ET AL$/ for 4Estafa Throu h 3alse Pretenses and 3alsification of Public Cocu%ents$4 D This case "as dis%issed b# Resolution dated (anuar# 8-' -00>$ ?$ I$S$Nos$ ""-205 'o ""20 <hile (oa)uin Borro%eo7s appeal ,E$R$ No$ 288>./ "as still pendin before the Supre%e Court' 22 an affida&it "as e+ecuted in behalf of TRB b# Arceli Busta%ante' in connection "ith the for%er7s fire insurance clai% o&er propert# re istered in its na%e D one of t"o i%%o&ables for%erl# o"ned b# Socorro B$ Tha*uria ,(oa)uin Borro%eo7s sister/ and foreclosed b# said ban*$ 23 In that affida&it' dated Septe%ber ->' -021' Busta%ante stated that 4On ?@ (une -028' TRB thru foreclosure ac)uired real propert# to ether "ith the i%pro&e%ents thereon "hich propert# is located at 3$ Ra%os St$' Cebu Cit# co&ered b# TCT No$ 21802 in the na%e or TRB$4 The affida&it "as notariFed b# Att#$ Manuelito B$ Inso$

Clai%in that the affida&it "as 4falsified and per5urious4 because the clai% of title b# TRB o&er the foreclosed lots "as a 4deliberate' "ilful and blatant fasehood in that' a%on others9 $ $ $ the consolidation "as pre%ature' ille al and in&alid'4 Borro%eo filed a cri%inal co%plaint "ith the Cebu Cit# 3iscal7s Office a ainst the affiant ,Busta%ante/ and the notariFin la"#er ,Att#$ Inso/ for 4falsification of public docu%ent' false pretenses' per5ur#$4 On Septe%ber ?2' -022' the 3iscal7s Office dis%issed the co%plaint$ 20 It found no untruthful state%ents in the affida&it or an# %alice in its e+ecution' considerin that Busta%ante7s state%ent "as based on the Transfer Certificate of Title in TRB7s file' and thus the docu%ent that Att#$ Inso notariFed "as le all# in order$ 8$ O1B-VIS-"4-00!#6 This Resolution of this Court ,3irst Ci&ision/ in E$R$ No$ 288>. dated Au ust -=' -022 D sustainin the 5ud %ent of the Court of Appeals ,->th Ci&ision/ of (anuar# ?1' -022 in CA6E$R$ CA No$ >1>-=' supra' "as %ade the sub5ect of a cri%inal co%plaint b# Borro%eo in the Office of the O%buds%an' Aisa#as' doc*eted as OMB6AIS6206>>-8.$ ;is co%plaint D a ainst 4Supre%e Court (ustice ,3irst Ci&$/ and Court of Appeals (ustice ,->th Ci&/4 D "as dis%issed for lac* of %erit in a Resolution issued on 3ebruar# -@' -00> 25 "hich' a%on other thin s' ruled as follo"s9 It should be noted and e%phasiFed that co%plainant has re%edies a&ailable under the Rules of Court' particularl# on ci&il procedure and e+istin la"s$ It is not the prero ati&e of this Office to %a*e a re&ie" of Cecisions and Resolutions of 5udicial courts' rendered "ithin their co%petence$ The records do not "arrant this Office to ta*e further proceedin s a ainst the respondents$ In addition' Sec$ ?>$ of R$A$ .11>' 4the O%buds%an Act states that the Office of the O%buds%an %a# not conduct the necessar# in&esti ation of an# ad%inistrati&e act or o%ission co%plained of if it belie&es that ,-/ the co%plainant had ade)uate re%ed# in another 5udicial or )uasi65udicial bod#!4 and Sec$ ?- the sa%e la" pro&ides that the Office of the O%buds%an does not ha&e disciplinar# authorit# o&er %e%bers of the (udiciar#$ II$ CASES INVOLVING ANITED COCONAT .LANTERS BANK (AC.B) As earlier stated' 26 Borro%eo ,to ether "ith a certain Mercader/ also borro"ed %one# fro% the United Coconut Planters Ban* ,UCPB/ and e+ecuted a real estate %ort a e to secure repa#%ent thereof$ The %ort a e "as constituted o&er a -??6s)uare6%eter co%%ercial lot co&ered b# TCT No$ 1=.2> in Borro%eo7s na%e$ This sa%e lot "as after"ards sold on Au ust 1' -02> b# Borro%eo to one Sa%son K$ Lao for P-1>'>>>$>>' "ith a stipulation for its repurchase ,pa*'o (e re'ro/ b# hi% ,Borro%eo' as the &endor/$ The sale "as %ade "ithout the *no"led e and consent of UCPB$ A$ CIVIL CASES No"' 5ust as he had defaulted in the pa#%ent of the loans and credit acco%%odations he had obtained fro% the Traders Ro#al Ban*' Borro%eo failed in the fulfill%ent of his obli ations to the UCPB$ Shortl# after learnin of Borro%eo7s default' and ob&iousl# to ob&iate or %ini%iFe the ill effects of the latter7s delin)uenc#' Lao applied "ith the sa%e ban* ,UCPB/ for a loan' offerin the propert# he had purchased fro% Borro%eo as collateral$ UCPB "as not a&erse to dealin "ith Lao but i%posed se&eral conditions on hi%' one of "hich "as for Lao to consolidate his title o&er the propert#$ Lao

accordin l# instituted a suit for consolidation of title' doc*eted as Ci&il Case No$ R6?->>0$ ;o"e&er' as "ill shortl# be narrated' Borro%eo opposed the consolidation pra#ed for$ As a result' UCPB cancelled Lao7s application for a loan and itself co%%enced proceedin s foreclose the %ort a e constituted b# Borro%eo o&er the propert#$ This si naled the be innin of court battles "a ed b# Borro%eo not onl# a ainst Lao' but also a ainst UCPB and the latter7s la"#ers' battles "hich he ,Borro%eo/ fou ht conte%poraneousl# "ith his court "ar "ith Traders Ro#al Ban*$ -$ RTC Case No$ R2!004! AC-G$R$ No$ CV-0 #46! G$R$ No$ "2 2 # The first of this ne" series of court battles "as' as 5ust stated' the action initiated b# Sa%son Lao in the Re ional Trial Court of Cebu ,Branch -?/' doc*eted as Case No$ R6?->>0' for consolidation of title in his fa&or o&er the -??6s)uare6%eter lot sub5ect of the UCPB %ort a e' in accordance "ith Article ->>1 of the Ci&il Code$ In this suit Lao "as represented b# Att#$ Alfredo PereF' "ho "as later substituted b# Att#$ Antonio Re is$ Borro%eo contested Lao7s application$ (ud %ent "as in due course rendered b# the RTC ,Branch -?' ;on$ 3rancis Militante' presidin / den#in consolidation because the transaction bet"een the parties could not be construed as a sale "ith pa*'o (e re'robein in la" an e)uitable %ort a e! ho"e&er' Borro%eo "as ordered to pa# Lao the su% of P-1>'>>>$>>' representin the price stipulated in the sale a re'ro' plus the a%ounts paid b# Lao for capital ains and other ta+es in connection "ith the transaction ,P->'@01$=>/$ Both Lao and Borro%eo appealed to the Court of Appeals$ Lao7s appeal "as dis%issed for failure of his la"#er to file brief in his behalf$ Borro%eo7s appeal D AC6E$R$ No$ CA6>180. D resulted in a Cecision b# the Court of Appeals dated Cece%ber -@' -021' affir%in the RTC7s 5ud %ent %& 'o'o$ The Appellate Court7s decision "as' in turn' affir%ed b# this Court ,Third Ci&ision/ in a four6pa e Resolution dated Septe%ber -8' -020' pro%ul ated in E$R$ No$ 2??18 D an appeal also ta*en b# Borro%eo$ Borro%eo filed a %otion for reconsideration on se&eral rounds' one of "hich "as that the resolution of Septe%ber -8' -020 "as unconstitutional because contrar# to 4Sec$ @ ,8/' Art$ AIII of the Constitution'4 it "as not si ned b# an# (ustice of the Ci&ision' and there "as 4no "a# of *no"in "hich 5ustices had deliberated and &oted thereon' nor of an# concurrence of at least three of the %e%bers$4 Since the %otion "as not filed until after there had been an entr# of 5ud %ent' Borro%eo ha&in failed to %o&e for reconsideration "ithin the re le%entar# period' the sa%e "as si%pl# noted "ithout action' in a Resolution dated No&e%ber ?1' -020$ Notices of the fore oin Resolutions "ere' in accordance "ith established rule and practice' sent to Borro%eo o&er the si natures of the Cler* of Court and Assistant Cler* of Court ,na%el#9 Att#s$ (ulieta G$ CARREON and Alfredo MARASIEAN' respecti&el#/$ a$ RTC Case No$ CEB"6 4 3ollo"in the sa%e aberrant pattern of his 5udicial ca%pai n a ainst Traders Ro#al Ban*' Borro%eo atte%pted to &ent his resent%ent e&en a ainst the Supre%e Court officers "ho' as 5ust stated' had i&en hi% notices of the ad&erse dispositions of this Court7s Third Ci&ision$ ;e filed Ci&il Case No$ CEB62.10 in the Cebu Cit# RTC ,C3I/ for reco&er# of da%a es a ainst 4Att#s$ (ulieta G$ Carreon and Alfredo Marasi an' Ci&ision Cler* of Court and Asst$ Ci&ision Cler* of Court' Third Ci&ision' and Att#$ (ose I$ Ilustre' Chief of (udicial

Records Office$4 ;e char ed the% "ith usurpation of 5udicial functions' for alle edl# 4%aliciousl# and de&iousl# issuin biased' fa*e' baseless and unconstitutional 7Resolution7 and 7Entr# of (ud %ent7 in E$R$ No$ 2??18$4 Su%%onses "ere issued to defendants b# RTC Branch -2 ,(ud e Rafael R$ GbaLeF' presidin /$ These processes "ere brou ht to the attention of this Court7s Third Ci&ision$ The latter resol&ed to treat the %atter as an incident in E$R$ No$ 2??18' and referred it to the Court E& Ba&* on April ?=' -00>$ B# Resolution ,issued in said E$R$ No$ 2??18' supra/ dated (une -' -00>' the Court E& Ba&* ordered (ud e GbaLeF to )uash the su%%onses' to dis%iss Ci&il Case No$ CEB62.10' and 4not to issue su%%ons or other"ise to entertain cases of si%ilar nature "hich %a# in the future be filed in his court$4 Accordin l#' (ud e IbaLeF issued an Order on (une .' -00> )uashin the su%%onses and dis%issin the co%plaint in said Ci&il Case No$ CEB62.10$ The Resolution of (une -' -00> 27 e+plained to Borro%eo in no little detail the nature and purpose of notices sent b# the Cler*s of Court of decisions or resolutions of the Court E& Ba&* or the Ci&isions' in this "ise9 This is not the first ti%e that Mr$ Borro%eo has filed char esBco%plaints a ainst officials of the Court$ In se&eral letter co%plaints filed "ith the courts and the O%buds%an' Borro%eo had repeatedl# alle ed that he 4suffered in5ustices'4 because of the disposition of the four ,@/ cases he separatel# appealed to this Court "hich "ere resol&ed b# %inute resolutions' alle edl# in &iolation of Sections @ ,8/' -8 and -@ of Article AIII of the -021 Constitution$ ;is in&ariable co%plaint is that the resolutions "hich disposed of his cases do not bear the si natures of the (ustices "ho participated in the deliberations and resolutions and do not sho" that the# &oted therein$ ;e li*e"ise co%plained that the resolutions bear no certification of the Chief (ustice and that the# did not state the facts and the la" on "hich the# "ere based and "ere si ned onl# b# the Cler*s of Court and therefore 4unconstitutional' null and &oid$4 +++ +++ +++ The Court re%inds all lo"er courts' la"#ers' and liti ants that it disposes of the bul* of its cases b# %inute resolutions and decrees the% as final and e+ecutor#' as "ere a case is patentl# "ithout %erit' "here the issues raised are factual in nature' "here the decision appealed fro% is in accord "ith the facts of the case and the applicable la"s' "here it is clear fro% the records that the petition is filed %erel# to forestall the earl# e+ecution of 5ud %ent and for non6co%pliance "ith the rules$ The resolution den#in due course al"a#s i&es the le al basis$ As e%phasiFed in I& Re9 <e&*es)ao Laure'a' -@2 SCRA 82?' @-1 M-021N' 4MTNhe Court is not 7dut# bound7 to render si ned Cecisions all the ti%e$ It has a%ple discretion to for%ulate Cecisions andBor Minute Resolutions' pro9%(e( a )e$a) -as%s %s $%9e&' dependin on its e&aluation of a case4 $ $ $ This is the onl# "a# "hereb# it can act on all cases filed before it and' accordin l#' dischar e its constitutional functions$ $ $ $ $ $ $ ,</hen the Court' after deliberatin on a petition and an# subse)uent pleadin s' %anifestations' co%%ents' or %otions decides

to den# due course to the petition and states that the )uestions raised are factual' or no re&ersible error in the respondent court7s decision is sho"n' or for so%e other le al basis stated in the resolution' there is sufficient co%pliance "ith the constitutional re)uire%ent $ $ $ ,of Section -@' Article AIII of the Constitution 4that no petition for re&ie" or %otion for reconsideration shall be refused due course or denied "ithout statin the le al basis thereof4/$ 3or a pro%pt dispatch of actions of the Court' %inute resolutions are pro%ul ated b# the Court throu h the Cler* of Court' "ho ta*es char e of sendin copies thereof to the parties concerned b# )uotin &erbati% the resolution issued on a particular case$ It is the Cler* of Court7s dut# to infor% the parties of the action ta*en on their cases )uotin the resolution adopted b# the Court$ The Cler* of Court ne&er participates in the deliberations of a case$ All decisions and resolutions are actions of the Court$ The Cler* of Court %erel# trans%its the Court7s action$ This "as e+plained in the case D E$R$ No$ =.?2>' 4Rhine Mar*etin Corp$ &$ 3eli+ Era&ante' et al$'4 "here' in a resolution dated (ul# .' -02-' the Court said D 4MMNinute resolutions of this Court den#in or dis%issin un%eritorious petitions li*e the petition in the case at bar' are the result of a thorou h deliberation a%on the %e%bers of this Court' "hich does not and cannot dele ate the e+ercise of its 5udicial functions to its Cler* of Court or an# of its subalterns' "hich should be *no"n to counsel$ <hen a petition is denied or dis%issed b# this Court' this Court sustains the challen ed decision or order to ether "ith its findin s of facts and le al conclusions$ Minute resolutions need not be si ned b# the %e%bers of the Court "ho too* part in the deliberations of a case nor do the# re)uire the certification of the Chief (ustice$ 3or to re)uire %e%bers of the Court to si n all resolutions issued "ould not onl# undul# dela# the issuance of its resolutions but a reat a%ount of their ti%e "ould be spent on functions %ore properl# perfor%ed b# the Cler* of Court and "hich ti%e could be %ore profitabl# used in the anal#sis of cases and the for%ulation of decisions and orders of i%portant nature and character$ E&en "ith the use of this procedure' the Court is still stru lin to "ipe out the bac*lo s accu%ulated o&er the #ears and %eet the e&er increasin nu%ber of cases co%in to it$ $ $ $ b$ RTC CIVIL CASE NO$ CEB-(650!) 6 50! G$R$ No$ "5055 It is no" necessar# to di ress a little and ad&ert to actions "hich' "hile ha&in no relation to the UCPB' TRB or SBTC' are rele&ant because the# "ere the predicates for other suits filed b# (oa)uin Borro%eo a ainst ad%inistrati&e officers of the Supre%e Court and the (ud e "ho decided one of the cases ad&ersel# to hi%$ The record sho"s that on or about Cece%ber --' -021' Borro%eo filed a ci&il action for da%a es a ainst a certain Tho%as B$ Tan and Mar5e% Phar%ac#' doc*eted as Ci&il Case No$ CEB6.=>-$ On (anuar# -?' -022' the trial court dis%issed the case' "ithout

pre5udice' for failure to state a cause of action and pre%aturit# ,for non6co%pliance "ith P$C$ -=>2/$ <hat Borro%eo did "as si%pl# to re6file the sa%e co%plaint "ith the sa%e Court' on March -2' -022$ This ti%e it "as doc*eted as Ci&il Case No$ CEB6.1@>' and assi ned to Branch -1 of the RTC of Cebu presided b# ;on$ Mario CiFon$ A ain' ho"e&er' on defendants7 %otion' the trial court dis%issed the case' in an order dated Ma# ?2' -022$ ;is first and second %otions for reconsideration ha&in been denied' Borro%eo filed a petition for re&ie" before this Court' doc*eted as E$R$ No$ 2@>=@ ,(oa)uin T$ Borro%eo &s$ To%as Tan and Non$ Mario CiFon/$ In a Resolution dated Au ust 8' -022' the Court re)uired petitioner to co%pl# "ith the rules b# sub%ittin a &erified state%ent of %aterial dates and pa#in the doc*et and le al research fund fees! it also referred hi% to the CitiFens Le al Assistance Office for help in the case$ ;is petition "as e&entuall# dis%issed b# Resolution of the Second Ci&ision dated No&e%ber ?-' -022' for failure on his part to sho" an# re&ersible error in the trial court7s 5ud %ent$ ;is %otion for reconsideration "as denied "ith finalit#' b# Resolution dated (anuar# -2' -020$ Borro%eo "rote to Att#$ 3er%in ($ Ear%a ,Cler* of Court of the Second Ci&ision/ on April ?1' -020 once %ore re%onstratin that the resolutions recei&ed b# hi% had not been si ned b# an# (ustice' set forth no findin s of fact or la"' and had no certification of the Chief (ustice$ Att#$ Ear%a replied to hi% on Ma# -0' -020' pointin out that 4the %inute resolutions of this Court den#in dis%issin petitions' li*e the petition in the case at bar' "hich "as denied for failure of the counsel andBor petitioner to sufficientl# sho" that the Re ional Trial Court of Cebu' Branch -1' had co%%itted an# re&ersible error in the )uestioned 5ud %ent Mresolution dated No&e%ber ?-' -022N' are the result of a thorou h deliberation a%on the %e%bers of this Court' "hich does not and cannot dele ate the e+ercise of its 5udicial function to its Cler* of Court or an# of its subalterns$ <hen the petition is denied or dis%issed b# the Court' it sustains the challen ed decision or order to ether "ith its findin s of facts and le al conclusions$4 Borro%eo ob&iousl# had learned nothin fro% the e+tended Resolution of (une -' -00> in E$R$ No$ 2??18' supra,or the earlier co%%unications to hi% on the sa%e sub5ect/ "hich had so clearl# pointed out that %inute resolutions of the Court are as %uch the product of the Me%bers7 deliberations as full6blo"n decisions or resolutions' and that the inter&ention of the Cler* consists %erel# in the %inisterial and routinar# function of co%%unicatin the Court7s action to the parties concerned$ c$ RTC Case No$ CEB4052 <hat Borro%eo did ne+t' e&identl# s%artin fro% this latest 5udicial rebuff' #et another in an alread# lon series' "as to co%%ence a suit a ainst Supre%e Court ,Second Ci&ision/ Cler* of Court 3er%in ($ Ear%a and Assistant Cler* of Court To%asita Cris$ The# "ere the officers "ho had sent hi% notices of the unfa&orable resolutions in E$R$ No$ 2@>=@' supra$ ;is suit' filed on (une -' -00>' "as doc*eted as Case No$ CEB60>@? ,Branch 2' ;on$ Bernardo Salas presidin /$ Therein he co%plained essentiall# of the sa%e thin he had been harpin on all alon 9 that in relation to E$R$ No$ 0->8> D in "hich the Supre%e Court dis%issed his petition for 4technical reasons4 and failure to de%onstrate an# re&ersible error in the challen ed 5ud %ent D the notice sent to hi% D of the 4unsi ned and unspecific4 resolution of 3ebruar# -0' -00>' den#in his %otion for reconsideration D had been si ned onl# b# the defendant cler*s of court and not b# the (ustices$ Accordin to hi%' he had thereupon "ritten letters to defendants de%andin an e+planation for said 4patentl# un5ust and un6Constitutional resolutions'4 "hich the# i nored! defendants had usurped 5udicial functions b# issuin resolutions si ned onl# b# the% and not b# an# (ustice' and "ithout statin the factual and le al basis thereof! and defendants7 4"anton'

%alicious and patentl# abusi&e acts4 had caused hi% 4 ra&e %ental an uish' se&ere %oral shoc*' e%barrass%ent' sleepless ni hts and "orr#!4 and conse)uentl#' he "as entitled to %oral da%a es of no less than P?>'>>>$>> and e+e%plar# da%a es of P->'>>>$>>' and liti ation e+penses of P='>>>$>>$ On (une 2' -00>' (ud e Renato C$ Cacudao ordered the records of the case trans%itted to the Supre%e Court confor%abl# "ith its Resolution dated (une -' -00> in E$R$ No$ 2??18' entitled 4(oa)uin T$ Borro%eo &s$ ;on$ Court of Appeals and Sa%son6Lao'4 supra D directin that all co%plaints a ainst officers of that Court be for"arded to it for appropriate action$ 21 Borro%eo filed a 4ManifestationBMotion4 dated (une ?1' -00> as*in the Court to 4rectif# the in5ustices4 co%%itted a ainst hi% in E$R$ Nos$ 288>.' 2@000' 21201' 11?@2 and 2@>=@$ This the Court ordered e+pun ed fro% the record ,Resolution' (ul# -0' -00>/$ ?$ RTC Case No$ R2!""0! CA-G$R$ CV No$ !045!! G$R$ No$ " "4 Borro%eo also sued to stop UCPB fro% foreclosin the %ort a e on his propert#$ In the Cebu Cit# RTC' he filed a co%plaint for 4Ca%a es "ith In5unction'4 "hich "as doc*eted as Ci&il Case No$ R6?-22> ,(oa)uin T$ Borro%eo &s$ United Coconut Planters Ban*' et al$/$ Na%ed defendants in the co%plaint "ere AC.B' E&r%8ue @arraro&s ,AC.B Ce-u Bra&*/ 1a&a$er) a&( Sa+so& K$ Lao$ UCPB "as represented in the action b# Att#$ Canilo Ceen' and for a ti%e' b# Att#$ ;onorato ;er%osisi%a ,both bein then resident partners of ACCRA La" Office/$ Lao "as represented b# Att#$ Antonio Re is$ Once a ain' Borro%eo "as rebuffed$ The Cebu RTC ,Br$ --' (ud e Aaleriano R$ To%ol' (r$ presidin / dis%issed the co%plaint' upheld UCPB7s ri ht to foreclose' and ranted its counterclai% for %oral da%a es in the su% of P?>'>>>$>>! attorne#7s fees a%ountin to P->'>>>$>>! and liti ation e+penses of P-'>>>$>>$ Borro%eo perfected an appeal to the Court of Appeals "here it "as doc*eted as CA6E$R$ CA No$ ->0=-$ That Court' thru its Ninth Ci&ision ,per MartineF' 2$, po&e&'e' "ith de la 3uente and Pe' 22$' concurrin /' dis%issed his appeal and affir%ed the Trial Court7s 5ud %ent$ Borro%eo filed a petition far re&ie" "ith the Supre%e Court "hich' in E$R$ No$ 21201 dis%issed it for insufficienc# in for% and substance and for bein 4lar el# unintelli ible$4 Borro%eo7s %otion for reconsideration "as denied b# Resolution dated (une ?=' -020$ A second %otion for reconsideration "as denied in a Resolution dated (ul# 8-' -020 "hich directed as "ell entr# of 5ud %ent ,effected on Au ust -' -020/$ In this Resolution' the Court ,3irst Ci&ision/ said9 The Court considered the Motion for Reconsideration dated (ul# @' -020 filed b# petitioner hi%self and Resol&ed to CENG the sa%e for lac* of %erit' the %otion ha&in been filed "ithout 4e+press lea&e of court4 ,Section ?' Rule =?' Rules of Court/ apart fro% bein a reiteration %erel# of the a&er%ents of the Petition for Re&ie" dated April -@' -020 and the Motion for Reconsideration dated Ma# ?=' -020$ It should be noted that petitioner7s clai%s ha&e alread# been t"ice re5ected as "ithout %erit' first b# the Re ional Trial Court of Cebu and then b# the Court of Appeals$ <hat petitioner desires ob&iousl# is to ha&e a third rulin on the %erits of his clai%s' this ti%e b# this Court$ Petitioner is ad&ised that a re&ie" of a decision of the Court of Appeals is not a %atter of ri ht but of sound 5udicial discretion and "ill be

ranted onl# "hen there is a special and i%portant reason therefor ,Section @' Rule @=/! and a petition for re&ie" %a# be dis%issed su%%aril# on the round that 4the appeal is "ithout %erit' or is prosecuted %anifestl# for dela# or the )uestion raised is too unsubstantial to re)uire consideration4 ,Section 8' Rule @=/' or that onl# )uestions of fact are raised in the petition' or the petition other"ise fails to co%pl# "ith the for%al re)uisites prescribed therefor ,Sections - and ?' Rule @=! Circular No$ -622/$ Petitioner is further ad&ised that the first sentence of Section -@' Article AIII of the -021 Constitution refers to a (e*%s%o&' and has no application to a reso)u'%o& as to "hich said section pertinentl# pro&ides that a resolution den#in a %otion for reconsideration need state onl# the le al basis therefor! and that the resolution of (une ?.' -020 den#in petitioner7s first Motion for Reconsideration dated Ma# ?=' -020 does indeed state the le al reasons therefor$ The plain and patent si nification of the rounds for denial set out in the Resolution of (une ?.' -020 is that the petitioner7s ar u%ents D ai%ed at the settin aside of the resolution den#in the petition for re&ie" and conse)uentl# brin in about a re&ie" of the decision of the Court of Appeals D had failed to persuade the Court that the errors i%puted to the Court of Appeals had indeed been co%%itted and therefore' there "as no cause to %odif# the conclusions set forth in that 5ud %ent! and in such a case' there is ob&iousl# no point in reproducin and restatin the conclusions and reasons therefor of the Court of Appeals$ Pre%ises considered' the Court further Resol&ed to CIRECT ENTRG O3 (UCEMENT$ On Au ust -8' -020 Borro%eo "rote to Att#$ Estrella C$ Pa tanac' then the Cler* of Court of the Court7s 3irst Ci&ision' denouncin the resolution abo&e %entioned as 4a LITANG O3 LIES' EAASIONS' and ABSURC SEL36SERAINE LOEIC fro% a Supre%e Court deluded and drun* "ith po"er "hich it has for otten e%anates fro% the people'4 aside fro% bein 4patentl# UNCONSTITUTIONAL for absence of si natures and facts and la"9 $ $ $ and characteriFin the conclusions therein as 4the hei ht of ARROEANCE and ARBITRARINESS assu%in a KINE6LIKE ANC EAEN EOC6LIKE PO<ER totall# at &ariance and contradicted b# $ $ $ CONSTITUTIONAL pro&isions $ $ $4 To the letter Borro%eo attached copies of ,-/ his 4Open Letter to the O%buds%an4 dated Au ust ->' -020 protestin the Court7s 4issuin UNSIENEC' UNSPECI3IC' and BASELESS 7MINUTE RESOLUTIONS!74 ,?/ his 4Open Letter of <arnin 4 dated Au ust -?' -020! and ,8/ a co%%unication of Co%in o M$ Hui%lat' Ne"s O%buds%an' Phil$ Cail# In)uirer' dated Au ust ->' -020$ ;is letter "as ordered e+pun ed fro% the record because containin 4false' i%pertinent and scandalous %atter ,Section =' Rule 0 of the Rules of Court/$4 Another letter of the sa%e il*' dated No&e%ber 1' -020' "as si%pl# 4NOTEC "ithout action4 b# Resolution pro%ul ated on Cece%ber -8' -020$ 8$ RTC Case No$ CEB5"52! CA G$R$ S. No$ !55!4! G$R$ No$ "5444 In arrant disre ard of established rule and practice' Borro%eo filed another action to in&alidate the foreclosure effected at the instance of UCPB' "hich he had unsuccessfull# tried to pre&ent in Case No$ CEB6?-22>$ This "as Ci&il Case No$ CEB6@2=? of the Cebu Cit# RTC ,(oa)uin T$ Borro%eo &s$ UCPB' et al$/ for 4Annul%ent of Title

"ith Ca%a es$4 ;ere' UCPB "as represented b# Att#$ Laurence 3ernandeF' in consultation "ith Att#$ Ceen$ On Cece%ber ?.' -021' the Cebu Cit# RTC ,Br$ AII' ;on$ Eeneroso A$ (uaban' presidin / dis%issed the co%plaint on the round of )%'%s pe&(e&'%a and ordered Borro%eo to pa# attorne#7s fees ,P='>>>$>>/ and liti ation e+penses ,P-'>>>$>>/$ Borro%eo instituted a *er'%orar% action in the Court of Appeals to annul this 5ud %ent ,CA E$R$ SP No$ -@=-0/! but his action "as dis%issed b# the Appellate Court on (une 1' -022 on account of his failure to co%pl# "ith that Court7s Resolution of Ma# -8' -022 for sub%ission of certified true copies of the Trial Court7s decision of Cece%ber ?.' -021 and its Order of 3ebruar# ?.' -022' and for state%ent of 4the dates he recei&ed $ $ $ ,said/ decision and $ $ $ order$4 Borro%eo "ent up to this Court on appeal' his appeal bein doc*eted as E$R$ No$ 2@000$ In a Resolution dated October ->' -022' the Second Ci&ision re)uired co%%ent on Borro%eo7s petition for re&ie" b# the respondents therein na%ed' and re)uired Borro%eo to secure the ser&ices of counsel$ On No&e%ber 0' -022' Att#$ (ose L$ Cerilles entered his appearance for Borro%eo$ After due proceedin s' Borro%eo7s petition "as dis%issed' b# Resolution dated March .' -020 of the Second Ci&ision for failure to sufficientl# sho" that the Court of Appeals had co%%itted an# re&ersible error in the )uestioned 5ud %ent$ ;is %otion for reconsideration dated April @' -020' a ain co%plainin that the resolution contained no findin s of fact and la"' "as denied$ a$ RTC Case No$ CEB"! " Predictabl#' another action' Ci&il Case No$ CEB62-12' "as co%%enced b# Borro%eo in the RTC of Cebu Cit#' this ti%e a ainst the Trial (ud e "ho had latel# rendered 5ud %ent ad&erse to hi%' 2u($e Ge&eroso 2ua-a&$ Also i%pleaded as defendants "ere UCPB' and ;o&$ A&(res Nar9asa ('/e& C/a%r+a&, @%rs' D%9%s%o&), Es're))a G$.a$'a&a* a&( 1ar%ssa V%))ara+a ('/e&, respe*'%9e)7, C)er= o6 Cour' a&( Ass%s'a&' C)er= o6 Cour' o6 '/e @%rs' D%9%s%o&/' and others$ (ud e Eer%an E$ Lee of Branch -= of said Court D to "hich the case "as raffled D caused issuance of su%%onses "hich "ere in due course ser&ed on Septe%ber ??' -020' a%on others' on said defendants in and of the Supre%e Court$ In an E& Ba&* Resolution dated October ?' -020 D in E$R$ No$ 2@000 D this Court' re)uired (ud e Lee and the Cler* of Court and Assistant Cler* of Court of the Cebu RTC to sho" cause "h# no disciplinar# action should be ta*en a ainst the% for issuin said su%%onses$ Shortl# thereafter' Att#$ (ose L$ Cerilles D "ho' as alread# stated' had for a ti%e represented Borro%eo in E$R$ No$ 2@000 D filed "ith this Court his "ithdra"al of appearance' alle in that there "as 4no co%patibilit#4 bet"een hi% and his client' Borro%eo D because 4Borro%eo had been filin pleadin s' papers! etc$ "ithout $ $ $ ,his/ *no"led e and ad&ice4 D and declarin that he had 4not ad&ised and $ $ $ ,had/ no hand in the filin of ,said/ Ci&il Case CEB 2-12 before the Re ional Trial Court in Cebu$ On the other hand' (ud e Lee' in his 4Co%pliance4 dated October ?8' -020' apolo iFed to the Court and infor%ed it that he had alread# pro%ul ated an order dis%issin Ci&il Case No$ CEB62-12 on %otion of the principal defendants therein' na%el#' (ud e Eeneroso (uaban and United Coconut Planters Ban* ,UCPB/$ Att#$ Cerilles7 "ithdra"al of appearance' and (ud e Lee7s co%pliance' "ere noted b# the Court in its Resolution dated No&e%ber ?0' -020$ @$ RTC Case No$ CEB# 5! CA-G$R$ CV No$ 0504 ! G$R$ No$ 25"

It is er%ane to ad&ert to one %ore transaction bet"een Borro%eo and Sa%son K$ Lao "hich a&e rise to another action that ulti%atel# landed in this Court$ 29 The transaction in&ol&ed a parcel of land of Borro%eo7s *no"n as the 4San (ose Propert#4 ,TCT No$ 8@12=/$ Borro%eo sued Lao and another person ,Mariano Lo arta/ in the Cebu Re ional Trial Court on the theor# that his contract "ith the latter "as not an absolute sale but an e)uitable %ort a e$ The action "as doc*eted as Case No$ CEB681@$ (ud %ent "as rendered a ainst hi% b# the Trial Court ,Branch -?/ declarin &alid and bindin the purchase of the propert# b# Lao fro% hi%' and the subse)uent sale thereof b# Lao to Lo arta$ Borro%eo appealed to the Court of Appeals' but that Court' in CA6E$R$ CA No$ >@>01' affir%ed the Trial Court7s 5ud %ent' b# Cecision pro%ul ated on October ->' -02.$ Borro%eo ca%e up to this Court$ on appeal' his re&ie" petition bein doc*eted as E$R$ No$ 11?@2$ B# Resolution of the Second Ci&ision of March -.' -021' ho"e&er' his petition "as denied for the reason that 4a/ the petition as "ell as the doc*et and le al research fund fees "ere filed and paid late! and ,b/ the issues raised are factual and the findin s thereon of the Court of Appeals are final$4 ;e %o&ed for reconsideration! this "as denied b# Resolution dated (une 8' -021$ ;e thereafter insistentl# and persistentl# still sou ht reconsideration of said ad&erse resolutions throu h &arious %otions and letters' all of "hich "ere denied$ One of his letters D %&'er a)%a co%plainin that the notice sent to hi% b# the Cler* of Court did not bear the si nature of an# (ustice D elicited the follo"in repl# fro% Att#$ (ulieta G$ Carreon' Cler* of Court of the Third Ci&ision' dated (ul# ->' -021' readin as follo"s9 Cear Mr$ Borro%eo9 This refers to #our letter dated (une 0' -021 re)uestin for a cop# of the actual resolution "ith the si natures of all the (ustices of the Second Ci&ision in Case E$R$ No$ 11?@8 "hereb# the %otion for reconsideration of the dis%issal of the petition "as denied for lac* of %erit$ In connection there"ith' allo" us to cite for #our uidance' Resolution dated (ul# .' -02- in E$R$ No$ =.?2>' Rhine Mar*etin Corp$ &$ 3eli+ Era&ante' (r$' et al$' "herein the Supre%e Court declared that 4,%/inute resolutions of this Court den#in or dis%issin un%eritorious petitions li*e the petition in the case at bar' are the result of a thorou h deliberation a%on the %e%bers of this Court' "hich does not and cannot dele ate the e+ercise of its 5udicial functions to its Cler* of Court or an# of its subalterns' "hich should be *no"n to counsel$ <hen a petition is denied or dis%issed b# this Court' this Court sustains the challen ed decision or order to ether "ith its findin s of facts and le al conclusions$4 It is the Cler* of Court7s dut# to notif# the parties of the action ta*en on their case b# )uotin the resolution adopted b# the Court$


(ULIE B$ CRI1INAL CASES (ust as he had done "ith re ard to the cases in&ol&in the Traders Ro#al Ban*' and si%ilarl# "ithout foundation' Borro%eo atte%pted

to hold his ad&ersaries in the cases concernin the UCPB cri%inall# liable$ -$ Case No! O1B-VIS-"400!"! In relation to the dispositions %ade of Borro%eo7s appeals and other atte%pts to o&erturn the 5ud %ent of the RTC in Ci&il Case No$ ?-22>' 30 Borro%eo filed "ith the Office of the O%buds%an ,Aisa#as/ on Au ust -2' -020' a co%plaint a ainst the Chair%an and Me%bers of the Supre%e Court7s 3irst Ci&ision! the Me%bers of the Ninth Ci&ision of the Court of Appeals' Secretar# of (ustice Sedfre# OrdoLeF' Undersecretar# of (ustice Sil&estre Bello III' and Cebu Cit# Prosecutor (ufelinito Pare5a' char in the% "ith &iolations of the Anti6Eraft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Re&ised Penal Code$ B# Resolution dated (anuar# -?' -00>' 31 the Office of the O%buds%an dis%issed Borro%eo7s co%plaint' opinin that the %atters therein dealt "ith had alread# been tried and their %erits deter%ined b# different courts includin the Supre%e Court ,decision' (une ?.' -020' in E$R$ No$ 21021/$ The resolution %&'er a)%a stated that' 43inall#' "e find it unreasonable for co%plainant to dispute and defiantl# refuse to ac*no"led e the authorit# of the decree rendered b# the hi hest tribunal of the land in this case$ $ $ $4 ?$ Case No$ O1B-VIS-40005!" A second co%plaint "as filed b# Borro%eo "ith the Office of the O%buds%an ,Aisa#as/' dated (anuar# -?' -00>' a ainst Att#$ (ulieta Carreon' Cler* of Court of the Third Ci&ision' Supre%e Court' and others' char in the% "ith a &iolation of R$A$ 8>-0 ,and the Constitution' the Rules of Court' etc$/ for supposedl# usurpin 5udicial functions in that the# issued Supre%e Court resolutions ,actuall#' notices of resolutions/ in connection "ith E$R$ No$ 2??18 "hich did not bear the 5ustices7 si natures$ 32 In a Resolution dated March -0' -00>' the Office of the O%buds%an dis%issed his co%plaint for 4lac* of %erit4 declarin %&'er a)%a that 4in all the )uestioned actuations of the respondents alle ed to constitute usurpation $ $ $ it cannot be reasonabl# and fairl# inferred that respondents reall# "ere the ones renderin the%'4 and 4it is not the prero ati&e of this office to re&ie" the correctness of 5udicial resolutions$4 33 III$ CASES INVOLVING SECARITY BANK B TRAST CO$ (SBTC) A$ CIVIL CASES -$ RTC Case No$ 2!6!5! CAG$R$ No$ 206! ! G$R$ No$ 4 5 64 The third ban*in institution "hich (oa)uin T$ Borro%eo en a ed in runnin court battles' "as the Securit# Ban* : Trust Co%pan# ,SBTC/$ 3ro% it Borro%eo had obtained fi&e ,=/ loans in the a re ate su% of P-20'-?.$-0' consolidated in a sin le Pro%issor# Note on Ma# 8-' -010$ To secure pa#%ent thereof' Su%%a Insurance Corp$ ,Su%%a/ issued a perfor%ance bond "hich set a li%it of P?>>'>>>$>> on its liabilit# thereunder$ A ain' as in the case of his obli ations to Traders Ro#al Ban* and UCPB' Borro%eo failed to dischar e his contractual obli ations$ ;ence' SBTC brou ht an action in the Cebu Cit# RTC a ainst Borro%eo and Su%%a for collection$ The action "as doc*eted as Ci&il Case No$ R6?-.-=' and "as assi ned to Branch ->' (ud e Leonardo CaLares' presidin $ Plaintiff SBTC "as represented b# Att#$ Ed ar Eica' "ho later "ithdre" and

"as substituted b# the la" fir%' ;ERSINLA<$ The latter appeared in the suit throu h Att#$ <ilfredo Na&arro$ (ud %ent b# default "as rendered in the case on (anuar# =' -020! both defendents "ere sentenced to pa# to SBTC' solidaril#' the a%ount of P@8.'11-$8?! ?=O thereof as attorne#7s fees ,but in no case less than P?>'>>>$>>/! and P='>>>$>> as liti ation e+penses! and the costs$ A "rit of e+ecution issued in due course pursuant to "hich an i%%o&able of Borro%eo "as le&ied on' and e&entuall# sold at public auction on October -0' -020 in fa&or of the hi hest bidder' SBTC$ On 3ebruar# =' -00>' Borro%eo filed a %otion to set aside the 5ud %ent b# default' but the sa%e "as denied on March .' -00>$ ;is Motion for Reconsideration ha&in li*e"ise been denied' Borro%eo "ent to the Court of Appeals for relief ,CA6E$R$ No$ ?>.-1/' but the latter dis%issed his petition$ 3ailin in his bid for reconsideration' Borro%eo appealed to this Court on *er'%orar% D his appeal bein doc*eted as E$R$ No$ 0@1.0$ On Septe%ber -1' -00>' this Court dis%issed his petition' and subse)uentl# denied "ith finalit# his %otion for reconsideration$ Entr# of (ud %ent "as %ade on Cece%ber ?.' -00>$ ;o"e&er' as "ill no" be narrated' and as %i ht no" ha&e been anticipated in li ht of his histor# of recalcitrance and bellicosit#' these proceedin s did not si nif# the end of liti ation concernin Borro%eo7s aforesaid contractual co%%it%ents to SBTC' but onl# %ar*ed the start of another con eries of actions and proceedin s' ci&il and cri%inal concernin the sa%e %atter' instituted b# Borro%eo$ ?$ RTC Case No$ CEB426 <hile E$R$ No$ 0@1.0 "as #et pendin in the Supre%e Court' Borro%eo co%%enced a suit of his o"n in the Cebu RTC a$a%&s' SBTC! '/e )a07ers 0/o represe&'e( %' %& C%9%) Case No$ R-2!625 ? ;ERSINLA<, A''7$ <%)6re(o Na9arro, A''7$ E($ar G%*a! a&( e9e& '/e 2u($e 0/o 'r%e( a&( (%spose( o6 '/e su%', ;o&$ Leo&ar(o CaCares$ ;e deno%inated his action' doc*eted as Ci&il Case No$ CEB60?.1' as one for 4Ca%a es fro% Cenial of Cue Process' Breach of Contract' 3raud' Un5ust (ud %ent' "ith Restrainin Order and In5unction$4 ;is co%plaint accused defendants of 4"anton' %alicious and deceitful acts4 in 4conni&in to den# plaintiff due process and defraud hi% throu h e+cessi&e attorne#7s fees'4 "hich acts caused hi% ra&e %ental and %oral shoc*' sleepless ni hts' "orr#' social e%barrass%ent and se&ere an+iet# for "hich he sou ht pa#%ent of %oral and e+e%plar# da%a es as "ell as liti ation e+penses$ B# Order dated Ma# ?-' -00-' the RTC of Cebu Cit#' Branch -. ,;on$ Eodardo (acinto' presidin / ranted the de%urrer to e&idence filed b# defendants and dis%issed the co%plaint' holdin that 4since plaintiff failed to introduce e&idence to support $ $ $ ,his/ causes of action asserted $ $ $' it "ould be superfluous to still re)uire defendants to present their o"n e&idence as there is nothin for the% to contro&ert$4 ?$ RTC Case No$ CEB!055"! CA-G$R$ CV No$ #405 Nothin daunted' and runnin true to for%' Borro%eo filed on (ul# ?' -00- still another suit a$a%&s' '/e sa+e par'%es ? SBTC, ;ERSINLA<, a&( 2u($e CaCares ? -u' &o0 %&*)u(%&$ 2u($e Go(ar(o 2a*%&'o, 30 "ho had rendered the latest 5ud %ent a ainst hi%$ This suit' doc*eted as Ci&il Case No$ CEB6->@=2' "as' accordin to Borro%eo' one 4for Ca%a es ,3or Un5ust (ud %ent and Orders' Cenial of E)ual Protection of the La"s Aiolation of the Constitution' 3raud and Breach of Contract/$4 Borro%eo faulted (ud es CaLares and (acinto 4for the "a# the# decided the t"o

cases ,CAR6?-.-= : CEB NO$ 0?.1/'4 and contended that defendants co%%itted 4"anton' %alicious' and un5ust acts4 b# 4conni&in to defraud plaintiff and den# hi% e)ual protection of the la"s and due process'4 on account of "hich he had been 4caused untold %ental an uish' %oral shoc*' "orr#' sleepless ni hts' and e%barrass%ent for "hich the for%er are liable under Arts$ ?>' ?-' ?1' and 8? of the Ci&il Code$4 The defendants filed %otions to dis%iss$ B# Order dated Au ust 8>' -00-' the RTC of Cebu Cit#' Branch -= ,(ud e Eer%an E$ Lee' (r$' presidin / dis%issed the co%plaint on rounds of res 3u(%*a'a' i%%unit# of 5ud es fro% liabilit# in the perfor%ance of their official functions' and lac* of 5urisdiction$ Borro%eo too* an appeal to the Court of Appeals' "hich doc*eted it as CA6E$R$ CA No$ 80>@1$ In the course thereof' he filed %otions to cite Att#$ <ilfredo 3$ Na&arro' la"#er of SBTC' for conte%pt of court$ The %otions "ere denied b# Resolution of the Court of Appeals ,Special 1th Ci&ision/ dated April -8' -008$ 35 Said the Court9 Stripped of their dispara in and inte%perate innuendoes' the sub5ect %otions' in fact' proffer nothin but a star* difference in opinion as to "hat can' or cannot' be considered res 3u(%*a'a under the circu%stances$ +++ +++ +++ B# their distinct disdainful tenor to"ards the appellees' and his apparent penchant for ar$u+e&'u+ a( /o+%&e&' it is' on the contrar# the appellant "ho precariousl# treads the acceptable li%its of ar u%entation and personal ad&ocac#$ The Court' %oreo&er' ta*es particular note of the irresponsible leaflets he ad%its to ha&e authored and finds the% hi hl# reprehensible and needlessl# dero ator# to the di nit#' honor and reputation of the Courts$ That he is not a licensed la" practitioner is' in fact' the onl# reason that his other"ise contu%acious beha&ior is presentl# accorded the patience and lenienc# it probabl# does not deser&e$ Considerin the te%pera%ent he has' b# far' e+hibited' the appellant is' ho"e&er' sufficientl# "arned that si%ilar displa#s in the future shall accordin l# be dealt "ith "ith co%%ensurate se&erit#$ IA$ OT;ER CASES A$ RTC Case No$ CEB-20 5! CA-G$R, CV No$ !5 0! G$R$ No$ 4"424 One other case arisin fro% another transaction of Borro%eo "ith Sa%son K$ Lao is pertinent$ This is Case No$ CEB6?01@ of the Re ional Trial Court of Cebu$ It appears that so%eti%e in -010' Borro%eo "as ranted a loan of P-.='>>>$>> b# the Philippine Ban* of Co%%unications ,PBCo%/ on the securit# of a lot belon in to hi% in San (ose Street' Cebu Cit#' co&ered b# TCT No$ 8@12=$ 36 Later' Borro%eo obtained a letter of credit in the a%ount of P81'>>>$>> fro% Republic Planters Ban*' "ith Sa%son Lao as co6 %a*er$ Borro%eo failed to pa# his obli ations! Lao a reed to' and did pa# Borro%eo7s obli ations to both ban*s ,PBCo% and Republic/' in consideration of "hich a deed of sale "as e+ecuted in his fa&or b# Borro%eo o&er t"o ,?/ parcels of land' one of "hich "as that %ort a ed to PBCo%' as abo&e stated$ Lao then %ort a ed the land to PBCo% as securit# for his o"n loan in the a%ount of P?@>'>>>$>>$

Borro%eo subse)uentl# sued PBCo%' so%e of its personnel' and Sa%son Lao in the Cebu Re ional Trial Court alle in that the defendants had conspired to depri&e hi% of his propert#$ (ud %ent "as rendered a ainst hi% b# the Trial Court$ Borro%eo ele&ated the case to the Court of Appeals "here his appeal "as doc*eted as CA6 E$R$ CA No$ -@11>$ On March ?-' -00>' said Court rendered 5ud %ent affir%in the Trial Court7s decision' and on 3ebruar# 1' -00-' issued a Resolution den#in Borro%eo7s %otion for reconsideration$ ;is appeal to this Court' doc*eted as E$R$ No$ 020?0' "as i&en short shrift$ On Ma# ?0' -00-' the Court ,3irst Ci&ision/ pro%ul ated a Resolution den#in his petition for re&ie" 4for bein factual and for failure $ $ $ to sufficientl# sho" that respondent court had co%%itted an# re&ersible error in its )uestioned 5ud %ent$4 Stubbornl#' in his %otion for reconsideration' he insisted the notices of the resolutions sent to hi% "ere unconstitutional and &oid because bearin no si natures of the (ustices "ho had ta*en part in appro&in the resolution therein %entioned$ B$ RTC Case No$ CEB-!!52" <hat "ould see% to be the latest 5udicial dispositions rendered a ainst Borro%eo' at least as of date of this Resolution' are t"o orders issued in Ci&il Case No$ CEB6--=?2 of the Re ional Trial Court at Cebu Cit# ,Branch -2/' "hich "as #et another case filed b# Borro%eo outlandishl# founded on the theor# that a 5ud %ent pro%ul ated a ainst hi% b# the Supre%e Court ,Third Ci&ision/ "as "ron and 4un5ust$4 I%pleaded as defendant in the action "as for%er Chief (ustice Marcelo B$ 3ernan' as Chair%an of the Third Ci&ision at the ti%e in )uestion$ On Au ust 8-' -00@ the presidin 5ud e' ;on$ Ealicano O$ Arries ado' issued a Resolution %&'er a)%a dis%issin Borro%eo7s co%plaint 4on rounds of lac* of 5urisdiction and res 3u(%*a'a$4 ;is ;onor %ade the follo"in pertinent obser&ations9 $ $ $ ,T/his Court is of the "ell6considered &ie" and so holds that this Court has indeed no 5urisdiction to re&ie"' interpret or re&erse the 5ud %ent or order of the ;onorable Supre%e Court$ The acts or o%issions co%plained of b# the plaintiff a ainst the herein defendant and the other personnel of the hi hest Court of the land as alle ed in para raphs . to -? of plaintiff7s co%plaint are certainl# be#ond the sphere of this hu%ble court to consider and pass upon to deter%ine their propriet# and le alit#$ To tr# to re&ie"' interpret or re&erse the 5ud %ent or order of the ;onorable Supre%e Court "ould appear not onl# presu%ptuous but also conte%ptuous$ As ar ued b# the la"#er for the defendant' a careful perusal of the alle ations in the co%plaint clearl# sho"s that all %aterial alle ations thereof are directed a ainst a resolution of the Supre%e Court "hich "as alle edl# issued b# the Third Ci&ision co%posed of fi&e ,=/ 5ustices$ No alle ation is %ade directl# a ainst defendant Marcelo B$ 3ernan in his personal capacit#$ That bein the case' ho" could this Court )uestion the "isdo% of the final order or 5ud %ent of the Supre%e Court ,Third Ci&ision/ "hich accordin to the plaintiff hi%self had issued a resolution den#in plaintiffs petition and affir%in the Lo"er Court7s decision as reflected in the 4Entr# of (ud %ent$4 Perhaps' if there "as such &iolation of the Rules of Court' due process and Sec$ -@' Art$ 2 of the Constitution b# the defendant herein' the appropriate re%ed# should not ha&e been obtained before this Court$ 3or an inferior court to re&erse' interpret or re&ie" the acts of a superior court %i ht be construed to a certain de ree as a sho" of an unco%%on co%%on

sense$ Lo"er courts are "ithout super&isin 5urisdiction to interpret or to re&erse the 5ud %ent of the hi her courts$ Borro%eo7s %otion for reconsideration dated Septe%ber ?>' -00@ "as denied 4for lac* of sufficient factual and le al basis4 b# an Order dated No&e%ber -=' -00@$ A$ AD1INISTRATIVE CASE No$ #5## A$ Co+p)a%&' A$a%&s' La07ers o6 /%s Cour' A(9ersar%es Borro%eo also initiated ad%inistrati&e disciplinar# proceedin s a ainst the la"#ers "ho had appeared for his ad&ersaries D UCPB and Sa%son K$ Lao D in the actions abo&e %entioned' and others$ As alread# %entioned' these la"#ers "ere9 Messrs$ Laurence 3ernandeF' Canilo Ceen' ;onorato ;er%osisi%a' Antonio Re is' and Alfredo PereF$ ;is co%plaint a ainst the%' doc*eted as Ad%inistrati&e Case No$ 8@88' pra#ed for their disbar%ent$ Borro%eo a&erred that the respondent la"#ers conni&ed "ith their clients in ,-/ %aliciousl# %isrepresentin a deed of sale "ith pa*'o (e re'ro as a enuine sale' althou h it "as actuall# an e)uitable %ort a e! ,?/ fraudulentl# depri&in co%plainant of his proprietar# ri hts sub5ect of the Ceed of Sale! and ,8/ def#in t"o la"ful Court orders' all in &iolation of their la"#er7s oath to do no falsehood nor consent to the doin of an# in Court$ Borro%eo alle ed that respondents PereF and Re is falsel# atte%pted to consolidate title to his propert# in fa&or of Lao$ B$ A&s0er o6 Respo&(e&' La07ers The respondent la"#ers denounced the disbar%ent co%plaint as 4absolutel# baseless and nothin but pure harass%ent$4 In a pleadin dated (ul# ->' -00>' entitled 4Co++e&'s a&( Cou&'er 1o'%o& 'o C%'e 2oa8u%& Borro+eo %& Co&'e+p' o6 Cour'!4 (ul# ->' -00>' filed b# the Inte rated Bar of the Philippines Cebu Cit# Chapter' si ned b# Co%ero C$ EstenFo ,President/' (uliano Neri ,Aice6President/' Ul#sses Antonio C$ Gap ,Treasurer/! 3elipe B$ Aelas)ueF ,Secretar#/' CoraFon E$ Aalencia ,Cirector/' Air ilio U$ Lainid ,Cirector/' Manuel A$ Espina ,Cirector/' Ildefonsa A$ GbaLeF ,Cirector/' S#l&ia E$ Al%ase ,Cirector/' and Ana Mar E&an elista P$ Bati uin ,Auditor/$ The la"#ers %ade the follo"in obser&ations9 It is ironic$ <hile %en of the le al profession re ard %e%bers of the (udiciar# "ith deferential a"e and respect so%eti%es to the e+tent of co"erin before the %i ht of the courts' here is a non6la"#er "ho' "ith leeful abandon and un%iti ated insolence' has cast aspersions and sho"n utter disre ard to the authorit# and na%e of the courts$ And la"#ers included$ 3or indeed' it is &er# unfortunate that here is a non6la"#er "ho uses the instru%ents of 5ustice to harass la"#ers and courts "ho crosses his path %ore especiall# if their actuations do not confor% "ith his "hi%s and caprices$ Ad&ertin to letters publicl# circulated b# Borro%eo' %&'er a)%a char in then Chief (ustice Marcelo B$ 3ernan "ith supposed infidelit# and &iolation of the constitution' etc$' the la"#ers "ent on to sa# the follo"in 9 The conduct and state%ent of Borro%eo a ainst this ;onorable Court' and other %e%bers of the (udiciar# are clearl# and rossl# disrespectful' insolent and conte%ptuous$ The# tend to brin dishonor to

the (udiciar# and sub&ert the public confidence on the courts$ If unchec*ed' the scurrilous attac*s "ill under%ine the di nit# of the courts and "ill result in the loss of confidence in the countr#7s 5udicial s#ste% and ad%inistration of 5ustice$ $ $ $ ,S/o%ethin should be done to protect the inte rit# of the courts and the le al profession$ So %an# baseless bad%outhin ha&e been %ade b# Borro%eo a ainst this ;onorable Court and other courts that for hi% to o scot6 free "ould certainl# be de%oraliFin to %e%bers of the profession "ho afforded the court "ith all the respect and estee% due the%$ Subse)uentl#' in the sa%e proceedin ! Borro%eo filed another pleadin protestin the alle ed 4refusal4 of the Cebu Cit# Chapter of the Inte rated Bar of the Philippines to act on his disbar%ent cases 4filed a ainst its %e%bers$4 C$ De*%s%o& o6 '/e IB. On March ?2' -00@' the National E+ecuti&e Cirector' IBP ,Att#$ (ose A uila Erapilon/ trans%itted to this Court the notice and cop# of the decision in the case' reached after due in&esti ation' as "ell as the correspondin records in se&en ,1/ &olu%es$ Said decision appro&ed and adopted the Report and Reco%%endation dated Cece%ber -=' -008 of Att#$ Manuel P$ Le aspi' President' IBP' Cebu Cit# Chapter' representin the IBP Co%%ission on Bar Ciscipline' reco%%endin dis%issal of the co%plaint as a ainst all the respondents and the issuance of a 4"arnin to Borro%eo to be %ore cautious and not be precipitatel# indiscri%inate in the filin of ad%inistrati&e co%plaints a ainst la"#ers$4 37 AI$ SCARRILOAS <RITINGS 3or%in part of the records of se&eral cases in this Court are copies of letters ,4open4 or other"ise/' 4circulars'4 fl#ers or leaflets harshl# and )uite un"arrantedl# dero ator# of the %an# court 5ud %ents or directi&es a ainst hi% and defa%ator# of his ad&ersaries and their la"#ers and e%plo#ees' as "ell as the 5ud es and court e%plo#ees in&ol&ed in the said ad&erse dispositions D so%e of "hich scurrilous "ritin s "ere ad&erted to b# the respondent la"#ers in Ad%$ Case No$ 8@88' supra$ The "ritin and circulation of these defa%ator# "ritin "ere apparentl# underta*en b# Borro%eo as a parallel acti&it# to his 45udicial ad&entures$4 The Court of Appeals had occasion to refer to his 4apparent penchant for ar$u+e&'u+ a( /o+%&e&4 and of the 4irresponsible leaflets he ad%its to ha&e authored $ $ $ ,"hich "ere found to be/ hi hl# reprehensible and needlessl# dero ator# to the di nit#' honor and reputation of the Courts$4 In those publicl# circulated "ritin s' he calls 5ud es and la"#ers i norant' corrupt' oppressors' &iolators of the Constitution and the la"s' etc$ So%eti%e in (ul#' -00>' for instance' he "rote to the editor of the 4Cail# Star4 as re ards the reported confer%ent on then Chief (ustice Marcelo B$ 3ernan of an 4A"ard fro% the Uni&ersit# of Te+as for his contributions in upholdin the Rule of La"' (ustice' etc$'4 stressin that 3ernan 4and the Supre%e Court persist in renderin rulin s patentl# &iolati&e of the Constitution' Cue Process and Rule of La"' particularl# in their issuance of so6called Minute Resolutions de&oid of 3ACT or LA< or SIENATURES $ $ $4 ;e sent a cop# of his letter in the Supre%e Court$ ;e circulated an 4OPEN LETTER TO SC 5ustices' 3ernan'4 declarin that he had 4suffered IN(USTICE after IN(USTICE fro% #ou "ho are s"orn to render TRUE (USTICE but done the opposite' ANC INSTEAC O3 RECTI3GINE T;EM' labeled %# cases as

7fri&olous' nuisance' and harass%ent suits7 "hile failin to refute the irrefutable e&idences therein $ $ $!4 in the sa%e letter' he specified "hat he considered to be so%e of 4the terrible in5ustices inflicted on %e b# this Court$4 In another letter to Chief (ustice 3ernan' he obser&ed that 48 #ears after ECSA' #our pled es ha&e not been fulfilled$ In5ustice continues and as #ou said' the courts are a ents of oppression' instead of bein sa&iours and defenders of the people$ The saddest part is that ,referrin a ain to %inute resolutions/ e&en the Supre%e Court' the court of last resort' %an# ti%es' sanctions in5ustice and the tra%plin of the rule of la" and due process' and does not co%pl# "ith the Constitution "hen it should be the first to uphold and defend it $ $ $ $4 Another circulated letter of his' dated (une ?-' -020 and captioned' 4Open Letter to Supre%e Court (ustices Marcelo 3ernan and Andres Nar&asa'4 repeated his plaint of ha&in 4been the &icti% of %an# $ $ $ 7Minute Resolutions7 $ $ $ "hich in effect sanction the theft and land rabbin and arson of %# properties b# TRACERS ROGAL BANK' UNITEC COCONUT PLANTERS BANK' ANC one TOMAS B$ TAN D all "ithout statin an# 3ACT or LA< to support #our dis%issal of $ $ $ ,%#/ cases' despite #our fir% assurances ,(ustice 3ernan/ that #ou "ould cite %e such facts or la"s ,durin our tal* in #our house last March -? -020/!4 and that 4#ou in fact ha&e no such facts or la"s but si%pl# "ant to ra% do"n a %ost un5ust Rulin in fa&or of a "ron ful part#$ $ $ $4 In another fl#er entitled in bi bold letters' 4A Eo&7t That LiesP Blatant atte%pt to fool peopleP4 he %entions "hat he re ards as 4The blatant lies and contradictions of the Supre%e Court' CA to support the land rabbin b# Traders Ro#al Ban* of Borro%eos7 Lands$4 Another fl#er has at the center the caricature of a person' seated on a throne %ar*ed Traders Ro#al Ban*' surrounded b# such state%ents as' 4Sa TRB para *a%i a# ro#alt#$ Na*a" at na*a"P Ka"at Ka"atP TRB <ILL STEALP4 etc Still another 4circular4 proclai%s9 4So the public %a# *no"9 Supre%e Court %inute resolutions "Bo facts' la"' or si natures &iolate the Constitution4 and ends "ith the ad%onition9 4Supre%e Court' (ustice 3ernan9 STOP AIOLATINE T;E C;ARTER$4 31 One other 4circular4 reads9 SC' NARAASA D TGRANTSPPP D COCCLERS O3 CROOKSP D AIOLATOR O3 LA<S b#9 (OAHUIN BORROMEO NARAASA7s SC has denied bein a CESPOT nor has it shielded CROOKS in the 5udiciar#$ Addin 4The SCRA ,SC Reports/ "ill attest to this continuin &i ilance Of the supre%e Court$4 These are la%e' co"ardl# and self6ser&in denials and another 4self6e+oneration4 belied b# e&idence "hich spea* for the%sel&es ,Res Ipsa Lo8u%'or/ ,s%*/ D the SCRA itself$ It is pure and si%pl# TGRANNG "hen Nar&asa and associates issued UNSIENEC' UNCLEAR' S<EEPINE 4Minute Resolutions4 de&oid of CLEAR 3ACTS and LA<S in patent &iolation of Secs$ @,8/' -@' Art$ 2 of the Constitution$ It is precisel# throu h said TGRANNICAL' and UNCONSTITUTIONAL sha% rulin s that Nar&asa : Co$ ha&e COCCLEC CROOKS li*e cron# ban* TRB' UCPB' and SBTC' and throu h said fa*e resolutions that Nar&asa has LIEC or sho"n IENORANCE of the LA< in rulin that CONSIENATION IS NECESSARG IN RIE;T O3 RECEMPTION ,ER 288>./$ Throu h said despotic resolutions' NARAASA : CO$ ha&e sanctioned UCPBBACCRA7s defiance

of court orders and na*ed land rabbin D <hat are these if not TGRANNGQ ,ER 2@000/$ <as it not t#rann# for the SC to issue an Entr# of (ud %ent "ithout first resol&in the %otion for reconsideration ,E$R No$ 2??18/$ <as it not t#rann# and abuse of po"er for the SC to order a case dis%issed a ainst SC cler*s ,CEBA6 2.10/ and declare 5ustices and said cler*s 4i%%une fro% suit4 D despite their failure to file an# pleadin Q <ere Nar&asa : Co$ not in fact tra%plin on the rule of la" and rules of court and CUE PROCESS in so doin Q ,ER No$ 2??18/$ TGRANTS "ill ne&er ad%it that the# are t#rants$ But their acts spea* for the%sel&esP NARAASA : ASSOC9 ANS<ER ANC RE3UTE T;ESE SERIOUS C;AREES OR RESIENPP IMPEAC; NARAASA R ISSUINE UNSIENEC' S<EEPINE' UNCLEAR' UNCONSTITUTIONAL 4MINUTE RESOLUTIONS4 AIOLATIAE O3 SECS$ @,8/' -@' ART$ 2' Constitution R AIOLATINE RULES O3 COURT ANC CUE PROCESS IN ORCERINE CASE AEAINST SC CLERKS ,CEB62.10/ CISMISSEC CESPITE T;E LATTER7S 3AILURE TO 3ILE PLEACINES! ;ENCE IN CE3AULT R CORRUPTION ANCBOR EROSS IENORANCE O3 T;E LA< IN RULINE' T;AT CONSIENATION IS NECESSARG IN RIE;T O3 RECEMPTION' CONTRACICTINE LA< ANC SC7S O<N RULINES D TO ALLO< CRONG BANK TRB TO STEALS LOTS <ORT; P8 MILLION R CONCONINE CRONG BANK UCPB7S CE3IANCE O3 T<O LA<3UL COURT ORCERS ANC STEALINE O3 TITLE O3 PROPERTG <ORT; P@ MILLION R BEINE (UCEE ANC ACCUSEC AT T;E SAME TIME ANC PRECICTABLG ESONERATINE ;IMSEL3 ANC 3ELLO< CORRUPT (USTICES R CECLARINE ;IMSEL3' (USTICES' and e&en MERE CLERKS TO BE IMMUNE 3ROM SUIT ANC


Actin on the letter dated (une ?-' -008 of the Cebu Cit# Chapter of the Inte rated Bar of the Philippines thru its abo&e na%ed' President' and ta*in account of the related facts on record' the Court Resol&ed9 -/ to REHUIRE9 Mabolo' Cebu Cit# Te$ 16=.6@0$ ,a/ the Cler* of Court ,-/ to COCKET the %atter at bar as a proceedin for conte%pt a ainst (oa)uin T$ Borro%eo instituted at the relation of said Cebu Cit# Chapter' Inte rated Bar of the Philippines' and ,?/ to SENC to the Cit# Sheriff' Cebu Cit#' notice of this resolution and copies of the Chapter7s letter dated (une ?-' -008 to ether "ith its anne+es! and ,b/ said Cit# Sheriff of Cebu Cit# to CAUSE PERSONAL SERAICE of said notice of resolution and a cop# of the Chapter7s letter dated (une ?-' -008' to ether "ith its anne+es' on (oa)uin T$ Borro%eo at his address at Mabolo' Cebu Cit#! and ?/ to ORCER said (oa)uin T$ Borro%eo' "ithin ten ,->/ da#s fro% receipt of such notice and the IBP Chapter7s letter of (une ?-' -008 and its anne+es' to file a co%%ent on the letter and its anne+es as "ell as on the other %atters set forth in this resolution' ser&in cop# thereof on the relator' the Cebu Cit# Chapter of the Inte rated Bar of the Philippines' Palace of (ustice Buildin ' Capitol' Cebu Cit#$ SO ORCEREC$ -$ A''7$ .u&o>s Le''er o6 Apr%) 5, !4"4 Cler* of Court Puno7s letter to Borro%eo of April @' -020' referred to in the first para raph of the resolution 5ust %entioned' e+plained to Borro%eo for perhaps the second ti%e' precisel# the principles and established practice relati&e to 4+%&u'e reso)u'%o&s4 a&( &o'%*es '/ereo6, treated of in se&eral other co%%unications and resolutions sent to hi% b# the Supre%e Court' to "it9 the letter recei&ed b# hi% on (ul# ->' -021' fro% Cler* of Court (ulieta G$ Carreon ,of this Court7s Third Ci&ision/ ,in relation to E$R No$ 11?@8 39/ the letter to hi% of Cler* of Court ,Second Ci&ision/ 3er%in ($ Ear%a' dated Ma# -0' -020' 00 and three resolutions of this Court' notices of "hich "ere in due course ser&ed on hi%' to "it9 that dated (ul# 8-' -020' in E$R$ No$ 21201! 01 that dated (une -' -00> in E$R$ No$ 2??1@ ,-2. SCRA -/' 02 and that dated (une --' -00@ in E$ R$ No$ --?0?2$ 03 C$ Borro+eo>s Co++e&' o6 Au$us' 2 , !44# In response to the Resolution of (ul# ??' -008' Borro%eo filed a Co%%ent dated Au ust ?1' -008 in "hich he alle ed the follo"in 9 -/ the resolution of (ul# ??' -008 ,re)uirin co%%ent/ &iolates the Constitution "hich re)uires 4si natures and concurrence of %a5orit# of %e%bers of the ;i h Court!4 hence' 4a certified cop# dul# si ned b# (ustices is respectfull# re)uested!4 ?/ the Chief (ustice and other Me%bers of the Court should inhibit the%sel&es 4since the# cannot be the Accused and (ud e at the sa%e

AI$ I11EDIATE ANTECEDENTS O@ .ROCEEDINGS AT BAR A$ Le''er o6 Ce-u C%'7 C/ap'er IB., (a'e( 2u&e 2!, !442 Copies of these circulars e&identl# found their "a# into the hands' a%on others' of so%e %e%bers of the Cebu Cit# Chapter of the Inte rated Bar of the Philippines$ Its President thereupon addressed a letter to this Court' dated (une ?-' -00?' "hich ,-/ dre" attention to one of the% D that last )uoted' abo&e D 4 $ $ $ $sent to the IBP Cebu Cit# Chapter and probabl# other officers $ $ $ in Cebu'4 described as containin 4hi hl# libelous and defa%ator# re%ar*s a ainst the Supre%e Court and the "hole 5ustice s#ste%4D and ,?/ in behalf of the Chapter7s 4officers and %e%bers'4 stron l# ur ed the Court 4to i%pose sanctions a ainst Mr$ Borro%eo for his conde%nable act$4 B$ Reso)u'%o& o6 2u)7 22, !44# Actin thereon' the Court E& Ba&* issued a Resolution on (ul# ??' -008' re)uirin co%%ent b# Borro%eo on the letter' notice of "hich "as sent to hi% b# the Office of the Cler* of Court$ The resolution pertinentl# reads as follo"s9 +++ +++ +++ The records of the Court disclose %&'er a)%a that as earl# as April @' -020' the Actin Cler* of Court' Att#$ LuF&i%inda C$ Puno' "rote a four pa e letter to Mr$ Borro%eo concernin E$R$ No$ 288>. ,(oa)uin T$ Borro%eo &s$ Traders Ro#al Ban* Mreferred to b# Borro%eo in the 4circular4 ad&erted to b# the relator herein' the IBP Cebu Cit# ChapterN/ and t"o ,?/ other cases also filed "ith the Court b# Borro%eo9 E$R$ No$ 11?@2 ,(oa)uin T$ Borro%eo &$ Sa%son Lao and Mariano Lo arta/ and E$R$ No$ 2@>=@ ,(oa)uin T$ Borro%eo &$ ;on$ Mario CiFon and To%as Tan/' all resol&ed ad&ersel# to hi% b# different Ci&isions of the Court$ In that letter Att#$ Puno e+plained to Borro%eo &er# briefl# the le al principles applicable to his cases and dealt "ith the %atters %entioned in his circular$ The records further disclose subse)uent ad&erse rulin s b# the Court in other cases instituted b# Borro%eo in this Court' %$e$' E$R$ No$ 21201 ,(oa)uin T$ Borro%eo &$ Court of Appeals' et al$/ and No$ 2??18 ,(oa)uin T$ Borro%eo &$ Court of Appeals and Sa%son Lao/' as "ell as the e+istence of other co%%unications %ade public b# Borro%eo reiteratin the ar u%ents alread# passed upon b# the court in his cases and conde%nin the court7s re5ection of those ar u%ents$

ti%e' $ $ $ ,and/ this case should be heard b# an i%partial and independent bod#!4 8/ the letter of Att#$ Le aspi 4is not &erified nor si ned b# %e%bers of said ,IBP Cebu Chapter/ Board! $ $ $ is &a ue' unspecific' and s"eepin 4 because failin to point out 4"hat particular state%ents in the circular are alle edl# libelous and conde%nable!4 and does not appear that Att#$ Le aspi has authorit# to spea* or file a co%plaint 4in behalf of those accused in the 4libelous circular!4 @/ in %a*in the circular' he ,Borro%eo/ 4"as e+ercisin his ri hts of freedo% of speech' of e+pression' and to petition the o&ern%ent for redress of rie&ances as uaranteed b# the Constitution ,Sec$ @' Art$ III/ and in accordance "ith the accountabilit# of public officials!4 the circular %erel# states the truth and as*s for 5ustice based on the facts and the la"! $ $ $ it is not libelous nor disrespectful but rather to be co%%ended and encoura ed! $ $ $ Att#$ Le aspi $ $ $ should specif# under oath "hich state%ents are false and lies! =/ he 4stands b# the char es in his circular and is prepared to support the% "ith pertinent facts' e&idence and la"!4 and it is 4incu%bent on the ;on$ Chief (ustice and %e%bers of the ;i h Court to either refute said char es or dispense the 5ustice that the# are dut# bound to dispense$ C$ Reso)u'%o& o6 Sep'e+-er #0, !44# After receipt of the co%%ent' and desirin to accord Borro%eo the fullest opportunit# to e+plain his side' and be reprsented b# an attorne#' the Court pro%ul ated the follo"in Resolution on Septe%ber 8>' -008' notice of "hich "as a ain ser&ed on hi% b# the Office of the Cler* of Court$ $ $ $ The return of ser&ice filed b# Sheriff (essie A$ Belar%ino' Office of the Cler* of Court Re ional Trial Court of Cebu Cit#' dated Au ust ?.' -008' and the Co%%ent of (oa)uin Borro%eo' dated Au ust ?1' -008' on the letter of President Manuel P$ Le aspi of the relator dated (une ?-' -008' are both NOTEC$ After deliberatin on the alle ations of said Co%%ent' the Court Resol&ed to ERANT (oa)uin T$ Borro%eo an additional period of fifteen ,-=/ da#s fro% notice hereof "ithin "hich to en a e the ser&ices or other"ise see* the assistance of a la"#er and sub%it such further ar u%ents in addition to or in a%plification of those set out in his Co%%ent dated Au ust ?1' -008' if he be so %inded$ SO ORCEREC$ E$ Borro+eo>s Supp)e+e&'a) Co++e&' o6 O*'o-er !5, !442 Borro%eo filed a 4Supple%ental Co%%ent4 dated October -=' -00?' reiteratin the ar u%ents and alle ations in his Co%%ent of Au ust ?1' -008' and settin forth 4additional ar u%ents and a%plification to $ $ $ ,said/ Co%%ent'4 9%:$9 -/ the IBP and Att#$ Le aspi ha&e failed 4to specif# and state under oath the alle ed

7libelous7 re%ar*s contained in the circular $ $ $! ,the# should/ be ordered to file a AERI3IEC COMPLAINT $ $ $,failin in "hich' the# should/ be cited in conte%pt of court for %a*in false char es and "astin the precious ti%e of this ;i hest Court b# filin a baseless co%plaint! ?/ the alle ations in their circular are not libelous nor disrespectful but 4are based on the TRUT; and the LA<4' na%el#9 a/ 4%inute resolutions4 bereft of si natures and clear facts and la"s are patent &iolations of Secs$ @,8?/' -8' -@' Art$ AIII of the Constitution! b/ there is no basis nor thruth to this ;on$ Court7s affir%ation to the Appelate Court7s rulin that the undersi ned 4lost4 his ri ht of rede%ption price' since no less than this ;on$ Court has ruled in %an# rulin s that CONSIENATION IS UNNECESSARG in ri ht of rede%ption! c/ this ;on$ Court has deplorabl# condoned cron# ban*s TRB and UCPB7s frauds and defiance of court orders in E$R$ Nos$ 288>. and 212001 and 2@000$ 3$ Borro+eo>s D1a&%6es'a'%o&D o6 No9e+-er 26, !44# Borro%eo after"ards filed a 4Manifestation4 under date of No&e%ber ?.' -008' ad&ertin to 4the failure of the IBP and Att#$ Le aspi to substantiate his char es under oath and the failure of the concerned (ustices to refute the char es in the alled ed 4libelous circular4 and' construin these as 4and ad%ission of the thruth in said circular'4 theoriFed that it is 4incu%bent on the said (ustices to rectif# their ra&e as "ell as to dis%iss Att#$ Le aspi7s baseless and false char es$4 AII$ T;E COART CONCLASIONS A$ Respo&(e&'>s L%a-%)%'7 6or Co&'e+p' o6 Cour' Upon the indubitable facts on record' there can scarcel# be an# doubt of Borro%eo7s uilt of conte%pt' for abuse of and interference "ith 5udicial rules and processes' ross disrespect to courts and 5ud es and i%proper conduct directl# i%pedin ' obstructin and de radin the ad%inistration of 5ustice$ 00 ;e has stubbornl# liti ated issues alread# declared to be "ithout %erit' obstinatel# closin his e#es to the %an# rulin s rendered ad&ersel# to hi% in %an# suits and proceedin s' rulin s "hich had beco%e final and e+ecutor#' obduratel# and unreasonabl# insistin on the application of his o"n indi&idual &ersion of the rules' founded on nothin %ore than his personal ,and )uite erroneous/ readin of the Constitution and the la"! he has insulted the 5ud es and court officers' includin the attorne#s appearin for his ad&ersaries' needlessl# o&erloaded the court doc*ets and sorel# tried the patience of the 5ud es and court e%plo#ees "ho ha&e had to act on his repetitious and lar el# unfounded co%plaints' pleadin s and %otions$ ;e has "asted the ti%e of the courts' of his ad&ersaries' of the 5ud es and court e%plo#ees "ho ha&e had the bad luc* of ha&in to act in one "a# or another on his un%eritorious cases$ More particularl#' despite his

attention ha&in been called %an# ti%es to the e re ious error of his theor# that the so6called 4%inute resolutions4 of this Court should contain findin s of fact and conclusions of la"' and should be si ned or certified b# the (ustices pro%ul atin the sa%e' 05 he has %ulishl# persisted in &entilatin that self6sa%e theor# in &arious proceedin s' causin %uch loss of ti%e' anno#ance and &e+ation to the courts' the court e%plo#ees and parties in&ol&ed$ -$ A&'e&a-%)%'7 o6 .ro66ere( De6e&ses The first defense that he proffers' that the Chief (ustice and other Me%bers of the Court should inhibit the%sel&es 4since the# cannot be the Accused and (ud e at the sa%e ti%e $ $ $ ,and/ this case should be heard b# an i%partial and independent bod#' is still another illustration of an entirel# un"arranted' arro ant and reprehensible assu%ption of a co%petence in the field of the la"9 he a ain uses up the ti%e of the Court needlessl# b# in&o*in an ar u%ent lon since declared and ad5ud ed to be untenable$ It is a+io%atic that the 4po"er or dut# of the court to institute a char e for conte%pt a ainst itself' "ithout the inter&ention of the fiscal or prosecutin officer' is essential to the preser&ation of its di nit# and of the respect due it fro% liti ants' la"#ers and the public$ <ere the inter&ention of the prosecutin officer re)uired and 5ud es obli ed to file co%plaints for conte%pts a ainst the% before the prosecutin officer' in order to brin the uilt# to 5ustice' courts "ould be inferior to prosecutin officers and i%potent to perfor% their functions "ith dispatch and absolute independence$ The institution of char es b# the prosecutin officer is not necessar# to hold persons uilt# of ci&il or cri%inal conte%pt a%enable to trial and punish%ent b# the court$ All that the la" re)uires is that there be a char e in "ritin dul# filed in court and an opportunit# to the person char ed to be heard b# hi%self or counsel$ The char e %a# be %ade b# the fiscal' b# the 5ud e' or e&en b# a pri&ate person$ $ $ $4 06 ;is clai% D that the letter of Att#$ Le aspi 4is not &erified nor si ned b# %e%bers of said ,IBP Cebu Chapter/ Board! $ $ $ is &a ue' unspecific' and s"eepin 4 because failin to point out "hat particular state%ents in the circular are alle edl# libelous and conde%nable!4 and it does not appear that Att#$ Le aspi has authorit# to spea* or file a co%plaint 4in behalf of those accused in the 7libelous7 circular4 D is in the pre%ises' plainl# nothin but superficial philosophiFin ' deser&in no serious treat%ent$ E)uall# as superficial' and sophistical' is his other contention that in %a*in the alle ations clai%ed to be contu%acious' he 4"as e+ercisin his ri hts of freedo% of speech' of e+pression' and to petition the o&ern%ent for redress of rie&ances as uaranteed b# the Constitution ,Sec$ @' Art$ III/ and in accordance "ith the accountablit# of public officials$4 The constitutional ri hts in&o*ed b# hi% afford no 5ustification for repetitious liti ation of the sa%e causes and issues' for insultin la"#ers' 5ud es' court e%plo#ees! and other persons' for abusin the processes and rules of the courts' "astin their ti%e' and brin in the% into disrepute and disrespect$ B$ Bas%* .r%&*%p)es Go9er&%&$ '/e 2u(%*%a) @u&*'%o& The facts and issues in&ol&ed in the proceedin at bench %a*e necessar# a restate%ent of the principles o&ernin finalit# of 5ud %ents and of the para%ount need to put an end to liti ation at so%e point' and to la# do"n definite postulates concernin "hat is percei&ed to be a ro"in predilection on the part of la"#ers and liti ants D li*e Borro%eo D to resort to ad%inistrati&e prosecution ,or institution of ci&il or cri%inal actions/ as a substitute for or supple%ent to the specific %odes of appeal or re&ie" pro&ided b# la" fro% court 5ud %ents or orders$ -$ Reaso& 6or *our's! 2u(%*%a) ;%erar*/7

Courts e+ist in e&er# ci&iliFed societ# for the settle%ent of contro&ersies$ In e&er# countr# there is a %ore or less established hierarchical or aniFation of courts' and a %ore or less co%prehensi&e s#ste% of re&ie" of 5ud %ents and final orders of lo"er courts$ The 5udicial s#ste% in this 5urisdiction allo"s for se&eral le&els of liti ation' %$e$' the presentation of e&idence b# the parties D a trial or hearin in the first instance D as "ell as a re&ie" of the 5ud %ents of lo"er courts b# hi her tribunals' enerall# b# consideration ane" and &entilation of the factual and le al issues throu h briefs or %e%oranda$ The procedure for re&ie" is fi+ed b# la"' and is in the &er# nature of thin s' e+clusi&e to the courts$ ?$ .ara+ou&' Nee( 'o e&( L%'%$a'%o& a' So+e .o%&' It is "ithal of the essence of the 5udicial function that at so%e point' liti ation %ust end$ ;ence' after the procedures and processes for la"suits ha&e been under one' and the %odes of re&ie" set b# la" ha&e been e+hausted' or ter%inated' no further &entilation of the sa%e sub5ect %atter is allo"ed$ To be sure' there %a# be' on the part of the losin parties' continuin disa ree%ent "ith the &erdict' and the conclusions therein e%bodied$ This is of no %o%ent' indeed' is to be e+pected! but' it is not their "ill' but the Court7s' "hich %ust pre&ail! and' to repeat' public polic# de%ands that at so%e definite ti%e' the issues %ust be laid to rest and the court7s dispositions thereon accorded absolute finalit#$ 07 As obser&ed b# this Court in R/ee+ o6 '/e ./%)%pp%&es 9$ @errer' a -0.1 decision' 01 a part# 4%a# thin* hi hl# of his intellectual endo"%ent$ That is his pri&ile e$ And he %a# suffer frustration at "hat he feels is others7 lac* of it$ This is his %isfortune$ So%e such fra%e of %ind' ho"e&er' should not be allo"ed to harden into a belief that he %a# attac* a court7s decision in "ords calculated to 5ettison the ti%e6 honored aphoris% that courts are the te%ples of ri ht$4 8$ 2u($+e&'s o6 Supre+e Cour' No' Re9%e0a-)e The sound' salutar# and self6e&ident principle pre&ailin in this as in %ost 5urisdictions' is that 5ud %ents of the hi hest tribunal of the land %a# not be re&ie"ed b# an# other a enc#' branch' depart%ent' or official of Eo&ern%ent$ Once the Supre%e Court has spo*en' there the %atter %ust rest$ Its decision should not and cannot be appealed to or re&ie"ed b# an# other entit#' %uch less re&ersed or %odified on the round that it is tainted b# error in its findin s of fact or conclusions of la"' fla"ed in its lo ic or lan ua e' or other"ise erroneous in so%e other respect$ 09 This' on the indisputable and unsha*able foundation of public polic#' and constitutional and traditional principle$ In an e+tended Resolution pro%ul ated on March -?' -021 in I& Re9 <e&*es)ao Laure'a ? in&ol&in an atte%pt b# a la"#er to prosecute before the Tanod ba#an 4%e%bers of the 3irst Ci&ision of this Court collecti&el# "ith ha&in *no"in l# and deliberatel# rendered an 7un5ust e+tended %inute Resolution7 "ith deliberate bad faith in &iolation of Article ?>@ of the Re&ised penal Code 4$ $ $ and for deliberatl# causin 4undue in5ur#4 to respondent $ $ $ and her co6 heirs because of the 4un5ust Resolution4 pro%ul ated' in &iolation of the Anti6Eraft and Corrupt Practices Act $ $ $ D the follo"in pronounce%ents "ere %ade in reaffir%ation of established doctrine9 50 $ $ $ As aptl# declared in the Chief (ustice7s State%ent of Cece%ber ?@' -02.' "hich the Court hereb# adopts %& 'o'o' 4,I/t is ele%entar# that the Supre%e Court is supre%e D the third reat depart%ent of o&ern%ent entrusted e+clusi&el# "ith the 5udicial po"er to ad5udicate "ith finalit# all 5usticiable disputes' public and pri&ate$ No other depart%ent or a enc# %a#

pass upon its 5ud %ents or declare the% 4un5ust$4 It is ele%entar# that 4,A/s has e&er been stressed since the earl# case of Ar&e(o 9s$L)ore&'e ,-2 Phil$ ?=1' ?.8 M-0--N/ 4controllin and irresistible reasons of public polic# and of sound practice in the courts de%and that at the ris* of occasional error' 5ud %ents of courts deter%inin contro&ersies sub%itted to the% should beco%e final at so%e definite ti%e fi+ed b# la"' or b# a rule of practice reco niFed b# la"' so as to be thereafter be#ond the control e&en of the court "hich rendered the% for the purpose of correctin errors of fact or of la"' into "hich' in the opinion of the court it %a# ha&e fallen$ The &er# purpose for "hich the courts are or aniFed is to put an end to contro&ers#' to decide the )uestions sub%itted to the liti ants' and to deter%ine the respecti&e ri hts of the parties$ ,LuFon Bro*era e Co$' Inc$ &s$ Mariti%e Bld $' Co$' Inc$' 2. SCRA 8>=' 8-.68-1/ +++ +++ +++ Indeed' resolutions of the Supre%e Court as a colle iate court' "hether an e& -a&* or di&ision' spea* for the%sel&es and are entitled to full faith and credence and are be#ond in&esti ation or in)uir# under '/e sa+e pr%&*%p)e o6 *o&*)us%9e&ess o6 e&ro))e( -%))s o6 '/e )e$%s)a'ure$ ,U$S$ &s$ Pons' 8@ Phil$ 1?0! Eardiner' et al$ &s$ Paredes' et al$' .- Phil$ --2! Mabana &s$ LopeF Aito' 12 Phil$ -/ The Supre%e Court7s pronounce%ent of the doctrine that 4,I/t is "ell settled that the enrolled bill $ $ $ is conclusi&e upon the courts as re ards the tenor of the %easure passed b# Con ress and appro&ed b# the President$ If there has been an# %ista*e in the printin of the bill before it "as certified b# the officers of Con ress and appro&ed b# the E+ecuti&e Mas clai%ed b# petitioner6i%porter "ho unsuccessfull# sou ht refund of %ar in feesN D o& 0/%*/ 0e *a&&o' spe*u)a'e, 0%'/ou' 3eopar(%:%&$ '/e pr%&*%p)e o6 separa'%o& o6 po0ers a&( u&(er+%&%&$ o&e o6 '/e *or&ers'o&es o6 our (e+o*ra*'%* s7s'e+ D the re%ed# is b# a%end%ent or curati&e le islation' not b# 5udicial decree4 is full# and reciprocall# applicable to Supre%e Court orders' resolutions and decisions' +u'a'%s +u'a&(%s$ ,Casco Phil$ Che%ical Co$' Inc$ &s$ Ei%eneF' 1 SCRA 8@1' 8=>$ ,Citin Pri%icias &s$ Paredes' .- Phil$ --2' -?>! Mabana &s$ LopeF Aito' 12 Phil$ -! Macias &s$ Co%elec' 8 SCRA -/$ The Court has consistentl# stressed that the 4doctrine of separa'%o& o6 po0ers calls for the eEe*u'%9e, )e$%s)a'%9e a&( 3u(%*%a) (epar'+e&'s -e%&$ )e6' a)o&e 'o (%s*/ar$e '/e%r (u'%es as '/e7 see 6%'4 ,Tan &s$ Macapa al' @8 SCRA .11/$ It has thus %aintained in the sa%e "a# that the 5udiciar# has a ri ht to e+pect that neither the President nor Con ress "ould cast doubt on the %ainsprin of its orders or decisions' it should refrain fro% speculatin as to alle ed hidden forces at "or* that could ha&e i%pelled either coordinate branch into actin the "a# it did$ The concept of separation of po"ers presupposes %utual respect b# and bet"een the three depart%ents of the o&ern%ent$ ,Tecson &s$ Salas' 8@ SCRA ?1=' ?2.6?21/$

@$ @%&a) a&( EEe*u'or7 2u($+e&'s o6 Lo0er Cour's No' Re9%e0a-)e E9e& -7 Supre+e Cour' In respect of Courts belo" the Supre%e Court' the ordinar# re%edies a&ailable under la" to a part# "ho is ad&ersel# affected b# their decisions or orders are a %otion for ne" trial ,or reconsideration/ under Rule 81' and an appeal to either the Court of Appeals or the Supre%e Court' dependin on "hether )uestions of both fact and la"' or of la" onl#' are raised' in accordance "ith fi+ed and fa%iliar rules and confor%abl# "ith the hierarch# of courts$ 51 E+ceptionall#' a re&ie" of a rulin or act of a court on the round that it "as rendered "ithout or in e+cess of its 5urisdiction' or "ith ra&e abuse of discretion' %a# be had throu h the special ci&il action of *er'%orar%or prohibition pursuant to Rule .= of the Rules of Court$ ;o"e&er' should 5ud %ents of lo"er courts D "hich %a# nor%all# be sub5ect to re&ie" b# hi her tribunals D beco%e final and e+ecutor# before' or "ithout' e+haustion of all recourse of appeal' the#' too' beco%e in&iolable' i%per&ious to %odification$ The# %a#' then' no lon er be re&ie"ed' or in an#"a# %odified directl# or indirectl#' b# a hi her court' not e&en b# the Supre%e Court' %uch less b# an# other official' branch or depart%ent of Eo&ern%ent$ 52 C$ A(+%&%s'ra'%9e C%9%) or Cr%+%&a) A*'%o& a$a%&s' 2u($e$ No' Su-s'%'u'e 6or Appea)! .ros*r%-e( -7 La0 a&( Lo$%* No"' the Court ta*es 5udicial notice of the fact that there has been of late a re rettable increase in the resort to ad%inistrati&e prosecution D or the institution of a ci&il or cri%inal action D as a substitute for or supple%ent to appeal$ <hether intended or not' such a resort to these re%edies operates as a for% of threat or inti%idation to coerce 5ud es into ti%orous surrender of their prero ati&es' or a reluctance to e+ercise the%$ <ith risin fre)uenc#' ad%inistrati&e co%plaints are bein presented to the Office of the Court Ad%inistrator! cri%inal co%plaints are bein filed "ith the Office of the O%buds%an or the public prosecutor7s office! ci&il actions for reco&er# of da%a es co%%enced in the Re ional Trial Courts a ainst trial 5ud es' and 5ustices of the Court of Appeals and e&en of the Supre%e Court$ -$ Co++o& Bas%s o6 Co+p)a%&'s A$a%&s' 2u($es Man# of these co%plaints set forth a co%%on indict%ent9 that the respondent (ud es or (ustices re&(ere( +a&%6es')7 u&3us' 3u($+e&'s or %&'er)o*u'or7 or(ers 53 D %$e$' 5ud %ents or orders "hich are alle edl# not in accord "ith the e&idence' or "ith la" or 5urisprudence' or are tainted b# ra&e abuse of discretion D thereb# causin in5ustice' and actionable and co%pensable in5ur# to the co%plainants ,in&ariabl# losin liti ants/$ Resolution of co%plaints of this sort )uite ob&iousl# entails a co%%on re)uire%ent for the fiscal' the O%buds%an or the Trial Court9 a re9%e0 of the decision or order of the respondent (ud e or (ustice 'o (e'er+%&e %'s *orre*'&ess or erro&eous&ess' as basic pre%ise for a pronounce%ent of liabilit#$ ?$ EE*)us%9%'7 o6 Spe*%6%* .ro*e(ures 6or Corre*'%o& o6 2u($+e&'s a&( Or(ers The )uestion then' is "hether or not these co%plaints are proper! "hether or not in lieu of the prescribed recourses for appeal or re&ie" of 5ud %ents and orders of courts' a part# %a# file an ad%inistrati&e or cri%inal co%plaint a ainst the 5ud e for rendition of an un5ust 5ud %ent' or' ha&in opted for appeal' %a# nonetheless si%ultaneousl# see* also such ad%inistrati&e or cri%inal re%edies$

Ei&en the nature of the 5udicial function' the po"er &ested b# the Constitution in the Supre%e Court and the lo"er courts established b# la"' the )uestion sub%its to onl# one ans"er9 the ad%inistrati&e or cri%inal re%edies are neither alternati&e nor cu%ulati&e to 5udicial re&ie" "here such re&ie" is a&ailable' and %ust "ait on the result thereof$ Si%ple reflection "ill %a*e this proposition a%pl# clear' and de%onstrate that an# contrar# postulation can ha&e onl# intolerable le al i%plications$ Allo"in a part# "ho feels a rie&ed b# a 5udicial order or decision not #et final and e+ecutor# to %ount an ad%inistrati&e' ci&il or cri%inal prosecution for un5ust 5ud %ent a ainst the issuin 5ud e "ould' at a %ini%u% and as an indispensable first step' confer the prosecutor ,or O%buds%an/ "ith an incon ruous function pertainin ' not to hi%' but to the courts9 the deter%ination of "hether the )uestioned disposition is erroneous in its findin s of fact or conclusions of la"' or both$ If he does proceed despite that i%pedi%ent' "hate&er deter%ination he %a*es could "ell set off a proliferation of ad%inistrati&e or cri%inal liti ation' a possibilit# here after %ore full# e+plored$ Such actions are i%per%issible and cannot prosper$ It is not' as alread# pointed out' "ithin the po"er of public prosecutors' or the O%buds%an or his deputies' directl# or &icariousl#' to re&ie" 5ud %ents or final orders or resolutions of the Courts of the land$ The po"er of re&ie" D b# appeal or special ci&il action D is not onl# lod ed e+clusi&el# in the Courts the%sel&es but %ust be e+ercised in accordance "ith a "ell6defined and lon established hierarch#' and lon 6standin processes and procedures$ No other re&ie" is allo"ed! other"ise liti ation "ould be inter%inable' and &e+atiousl# repetiti&e$ These principles "ere stressed in I& Re9 <e&*es)ao Laure'a, supra$ 50 Respondents should *no" that the pro&isions of Article ?>@ of the Re&ised Penal Code as to 4renderin *no"in l# un5ust 5ud %ent'4 refer to an indi&idual 5ud e "ho does so 4in an# case sub%itted to hi% for decision4 and e&en then' it is not the prosecutor "ho "ould pass 5ud %ent on the 4un5ustness4 of the decision rendered b# hi% but the proper appellate court "ith 5urisdiction to re&ie" the sa%e' either the Court of Appeals andBor the Supre%e Court$ Respondents should li*e"ise *no" that said penal article has no application to the %e%bers of a colle iate court such as this Court or its Ci&isions "ho reach their conclusions in consultation and accordin l# render their collecti&e 5ud %ent after due deliberation$ It also follo"s' conse)uentl#' that a char e of &iolation of the Anti6Eraft and Corrupt Practices Act on the round that such a collecti&e decision is 4un5ust4 cannot prosper$ +++ +++ +++ To sub5ect to the threat and ordeal of in&esti ation and prosecution' a 5ud e' %ore so a %e%ber of the Supre%e Court for official acts done b# hi% in ood faith and in the re ular e+ercise of official dut# and 5udicial functions is to sub&ert and under%ine that &er# independence of the 5udiciar#' and subordinate the 5udiciar# to the e+ecuti&e$ 43or it is a eneral principle of the hi hest i%portance to the proper ad%inistration of 5ustice that a 5udicial officer in e+ercisin the authorit# &ested in hi%' shall be free to act upon his o"n con&ictions' "ithout apprehension of personal conse)uences to hi%self$ Liabilit# to ans"er to e&er#one "ho

%i ht feel hi%self a rie&ed b# the action of the 5ud e "ould be inconsistent "ith the possession of this freedo%' and "ould destro# that independence "ithout "hich no 5udiciar# can be either respectable or useful$4 ,Bradle# &s$ 3isher' 2> U$ S$ 88=/$ +++ +++ +++ To allo" liti ants to $o -e7o&( '/e Cour'>s reso)u'%o& and clai% that the %e%bers acted 4"ith deliberate bad faith4 and rendered an 4un5ust resolution4 in disre ard or &iolation of the dut# of their hi h office to act upon their o"n independent consideration and 5ud %ent of the %atter at hand "ould be to (es'ro7 '/e au'/e&'%*%'7, %&'e$r%'7 a&( *o&*)us%9e&ess of such colle iate acts and resolutions and to disre ard utterl# the presu%ption of re ular perfor%ance of official dut#$ To a))o0 su*/ *o))a'era) a''a*= 0ou)( (es'ro7 '/e separa'%o& o6 po0ers a&( u&(er+%&e '/e ro)e o6 '/e Supre+e Cour' as '/e 6%&a) ar-%'er o6 a)) 3us'%*%a-)e (%spu'es$ Cissatisfied liti ants andBor their counsels cannot "ithout &iolatin the separation of po"ers %andated b# the Constitution reliti ate in another foru% the final 5ud %ent of this Court on le al issues sub%itted b# the% and their ad&ersaries for final deter%ination to and b# the Supre%e Court and "hich fall "ithin the 3u(%*%a) po0er to deter%ine and ad5udicate eE*)us%9e)7 &ested b# the Constitution%& '/e Supre+e Cour' and in such inferior courts as %a# be established b# la"$ This is true' too' as re ards 5ud %ents' other"ise appealable' "hich ha&e beco%e final and e+ecutor#$ Such 5ud %ents' bein no lon er re&ie"able b# hi her tribunals' are certainl# not re&ie"able b# an# other bod# or authorit#$ 8$ O&)7 Cour's Au'/or%:e(, u&(er @%Ee( Ru)es 'o De*)are 2u($+e&'s or Or(ers Erro&eous or A&3us' To belabor the ob&ious' the deter%ination of "hether or not a 5ud e%ent or order is un5ust D or "as ,or "as not/ rendered "ithin the scope of the issuin 5ud e7s authorit#' or that the 5ud e had e+ceeded his 5urisdiction and po"ers or %aliciousl# dela#ed the disposition of a case D is an essentiall# 5udicial function' lod ed b# e+istin la" and i%%e%orial practice in a hierarch# of courts and ulti%atel# in the hi hest court of the land$ To repeat' no other entit# or official of the Eo&ern%ent' not the prosecution or in&esti ation ser&ice or an# other branch! nor an# functionar# thereof' has co%petence to re&ie" a 5udicial order or decision D "hether final and e+ecutor# or not D and pronounce it erroneous so as to la# the basis for a cri%inal or ad%inistrati&e co%plaint for renderin an un5ust 5ud %ent or order$ That prero ati&e belon s to the courts alone$ @$ Co&'rar7 Ru)e Resu)'s %& C%r*u%'ous&ess a&( Lea(s 'o A-sur( Co&se8ue&*es Pra %atic considerations also preclude prosecution for supposed rendition of un5ust 5ud %ents or interlocutor# orders of the t#pe abo&e described' "hich' at botto%' consist si%pl# of the accusation

that the decisions or interlocutor# orders are seriousl# "ron in their conclusions of fact or of la"' or are tainted b# ra&e abuse of discretion D as distin uished fro% accusations of corruption' or i%%oralit#' or other "ron doin $ To allo" institution of such proceedin s "ould not onl# be le all# i%proper' it "ould also result in a futile and circuitous e+ercise' and lead to absurd conse)uences$ Assu%e that a case oes throu h the "hole a%ut of re&ie" in the 5udicial hierarch#! %$e$' a 5ud %ent is rendered b# a %unicipal trial court! it is re&ie"ed and affir%ed b# the proper Re ional Trial Court! the latter7s 5ud %ent is appealed to and in due course affir%ed b# the Court of Appeals! and finall#' the appellate court7s decision is brou ht up to and affir%ed b# the Supre%e Court$ The prosecution of the %unicipal trial court 5ud e "ho rendered the ori inal decision ,for *no"in l# renderin a %anifestl# un5ust 5ud %ent/ "ould appear to be out of the )uestion! it "ould %ean that the Office of the O%buds%an or of the public prosecutor "ould ha&e to find' at the preli%inar# in&esti ation' not onl# that the 5ud e7s decision "as "ron and un5ust' but b# necessar# i%plication that the decisions or orders of the Re ional Trial Court (ud e' as "ell as the (ustices of the Court of Appeals and the Supre%e Court "ho affir%ed the ori inal 5ud %ent "ere also all "ron and un5ust D %ost certainl# an act of supre%e arro ance and &er# e&ident superero ation$ Pursuin the proposition further' assu%in that the public prosecutor or O%buds%an should ne&ertheless opt to underta*e a re&ie" of the decision in )uestion D despite its ha&in been affir%ed at all three ,8/ appellate le&els D and thereafter' disa reein "ith the &erdict of all four ,@/ courts' file an infor%ation in the Re ional Trial Court a ainst the Municipal Trial Court (ud e' the fate of such an indict%ent at the hands of the Sandi anba#an or the Re ional Trial Court "ould be fairl# predictable$ E&en if for so%e reason the Municipal Trial Court (ud e is con&icted b# the Sandi anba#an or a Re ional Trial Court' the appeal before the Supre%e Court or the Court of Appeals "ould ha&e an ine&itable result9 i&en the antecedents' the &erdict of con&iction "ould be set aside and the correctness of the 5ud %ent in )uestion' alread# passed upon and finall# resol&ed b# the sa%e appellate courts' "ould necessaril# be sustained$ Moreo&er' in such a scenario' nothin "ould pre&ent the Municipal Trial (ud e' in his turn' fro% filin a cri%inal action a ainst the Sandi anba#an (ustices' or the Re ional Trial Court (ud e "ho should con&ict hi% of the offense' for *no"in l# renderin an un5ust 5ud %ent' or a ainst the (ustices of the Court of Appeals or the Supre%e Court "ho should affir% his con&iction$ The situation is ridiculous' ho"e&er the circu%stances of the case %a# be %odified' and re ardless of "hether it is a ci&il' cri%inal or ad%inistrati&e proceedin that is a&ailed of as the &ehicle to prosecute the 5ud e for supposedl# renderin an un5ust decision or order$ =$ .r%+or(%a) Re8u%s%'es 6or A(+%&%s'ra'%9e Cr%+%&a) .rose*u'%o& This is not to sa# that it is not possible at all to prosecute 5ud es for this i%propriet#' of renderin an un5ust 5ud %ent or interlocutor# order! but' ta*in account of all the fore oin considerations' the indispensable re)uisites are that there be a 6%&a) (e*)ara'%o& -7 a *o+pe'e&' *our' %& so+e appropr%a'e pro*ee(%&$ o6 '/e +a&%6es')7 u&3us' */ara*'er o6 '/e */a))e&$e( 3u($+e&' or or(er, and there be also e9%(e&*e o6 +a)%*e or -a( 6a%'/, %$&ora&*e or %&eE*usa-)e &e$)%$e&*e, o& '/e par' o6 '/e 3u($e %& re&(er%&$ sa%( 3u($e+e&' or or(er$ That final declaration is ordinaril# contained in the 5ud %ent rendered in the appellate proceedin s in "hich the decision of the trial court in the ci&il or cri%inal action in )uestion is challen ed$ <hat i%%ediatel# co%es to %ind in this connection is a decision of ac)uittal or dis%issal in a cri%inal action' as to "hich D the sa%e bein unappealable D it "ould be unreasonable to den# the State

or the &icti% of the cri%e ,or e&en public6spirited citiFens/ the opportunit# to put to the test of proof such char es as the# %i ht see fit to press that it "as un5ustl# rendered' "ith %alice or b# deliberate desi n' throu h ine+cusable i norance or ne li ence' etc$ E&en in this case' the essential re)uisite is that there be an authoritati&e 5udicial pronounce%ent of the %anifestl# un5ust character of the 5ud %ent or order in )uestion$ Such a pronounce%ent %a# result fro% either ,a/ an action of *er'%orar% or prohibition in a hi her court i%pu nin the &alidit# of the! 5ud %ent' as ha&in been rendered "ithout or in e+cess of 5urisdiction' or "ith ra&e abuse of discretion! e$$$' there has been a denial of due process to the prosecution! or ,b/ if this be not proper' an ad%inistrati&e proceedin in the Supre%e Court a ainst the 5ud e precisel# for pro%ul atin an un5ust 5ud %ent or order$ Until and unless there is such a final' authoritati&e 3u(%*%a) declaration that the decision or order in )uestion is 4un5ust'4 no ci&il or cri%inal action a ainst the 5ud e concerned is le all# possible or should be entertained' for "ant of an indispensable re)uisite$ C$ 2u($es 1us' -e @ree 6ro+ I&6)ue&*e or .ressure (ud es %ust be free to 5ud e' "ithout pressure or influence fro% e+ternal forces or factors$ The# should not be sub5ect to inti%idation' the fear of ci&il' cri%inal or ad%inistrati&e sanctions for acts the# %a# do and dispositions the# %a# %a*e in the perfor%ance of their duties and functions$ ;ence it is sound rule' "hich %ust be reco niFed independentl# of statute' that 5ud es are not enerall# liable for acts done "ithin the scope of their 5urisdiction and in ood faith$ This Court has repeatedl# and unifor%l# ruled that a 5ud e %a# not be held ad%inistrati&el# accountable for e&er# erroneous order or decision he renders$ 55 To hold other"ise "ould be nothin short of harass%ent and "ould %a*e his position doubl# unbearable' for no one called upon to tr# the facts or interpret the la" in the process of ad%inisterin 5ustice can be infallible in his 5ud %ent$ 56 The error %ust be ross or patent' deliberate and %alicious' or incurred "ith e&ident bad faith! 57 it is onl# in these cases that ad%inistrati&e sanctions are called for as an i%perati&e dut# of the Supre%e Court$ As far as ci&il or cri%inal liabilit# is concerned' e+istin doctrine is that 45ud es of superior and eneral 5urisdiction are not liable to respond in ci&il action for da%a es for "hat the# %a# do in the e+ercise of their 5udicial functions "hen actin "ithin their le al po"ers and 5urisdiction$4 51 Based on Section 0' Act No$ -0>' 59 the doctrine is still ood la"' not inconsistent "ith an# subse)uent le islati&e issuance or court rule9 4No 5ud e' 5ustice of the peace or assessor shall be liable to a ci&il action for the reco&er# of da%a es b# reason of an# 5udicial action or 5ud %ent rendered b# hi% in ood faith' and "ithin the li%its of his le al po"ers and 5urisdiction$4 E+ception to this eneral rule is found in Article 8? of the Ci&il Code' pro&idin that an# public officer or e%plo#ee' or an# pri&ate indi&idual' "ho directl# or indirectl# obstructs' defeats' &iolates or in an# %anner i%pedes or i%pairs an# of the enu%erated ri hts and liberties of another person D "hich ri hts are the sa%e as those uaranteed in the Bill of Ri hts ,Article III of the Constitution/! D shall be liable to the latter for da%a es$ ;o"e&er' such liabilit# is not de%andable fro% a 5ud e unless his act or o%ission constitutes a &iolation of the Penal Code or other penal statute$ But a ain' to the e+tent that the offenses therein described ha&e 4un5ust 5ud %ent or 4un5ust interlocutor# order4 for an essential ele%ent' it need onl# be reiterated that prosecution of a 5ud e for an# of the% is sub5ect to the *a9ea' alread# %entioned9 that such prosecution cannot be initiated' %uch less %aintained' unless there be a final 5udicial pronounce%ent of the un5ust character of the decision or order in issue$ E$ A6'er0or(

Considerin the fore oin antecedents and lon standin doctrines' it %a# "ell be as*ed "h# it too* no less than si+teen ,-./ #ears and so%e fift# ,=>/ rossl# unfounded cases lod ed b# respondent Borro%eo in the different run s of the (udiciar# before this Court decided to ta*e the present ad%inistrati&e %easure$ The i%position on the ti%e of the courts and the unnecessar# "or* occasioned b# respondent7s crass ad&enturis% are self6e&ident and re)uire no further elaboration$ If the Court' ho"e&er' bore "ith hi% "ith (obian patience' it "as in the hope that the repeated rebuffs he suffered' "ith the attendant lectures on the error of his "a#s' "ould so%eho" seep into his understandin and deter hi% fro% further fora#s alon his %is uided path$ After all' as has repeatedl# been declared' the po"er of conte%pt is e+ercised on the preser&ati&e and not the &indicti&e principle$ Unfortunatel# the Court7s forbearance had no effect on hi%$ Instead' the continued lenienc# and tolerance e+tended to hi% "ere read as si ns of "ea*ness and i%potence$ <orse' respondent7s irresponsible audacit# appears to ha&e influenced and e%boldened others to 5ust as fla%bo#antl# e%bar* on their o"n roundless and insultin proceedin s a ainst the courts' born of affected bra&ado or sheer e ocentris%' to the e+tent of e&en in&ol&in the le islati&e and e+ecuti&e depart%ents' the O%buds%an included' in their assaults a ainst the (udiciar# in pursuit of personal a endas$ But all thin s' ood or bad' %ust co%e to an end' and it is ti%e for the Court to no" dra" the line' "ith %ore pro%ptitude' bet"een reasoned dissent and self6see*in pretense$ The Court accordin l# ser&es notice to those "ith the sa%e conceit or delusions that it "ill henceforth deal "ith the%' decisi&el# and fairl#' "ith a fir% and e&en hand' and resolutel# i%pose such puniti&e sanctions as %a# be appropriate to %aintain the inte rit# and independence of the 5udicial institutions of the countr#$ <;ERE3ORE' (oa)uin T$ Borro%eo is found and declared EUILTG of constructi&e conte%pt repeatedl# co%%itted o&er ti%e' despite "arnin s and instructions i&en to hi%' and to the end that he %a# ponder his serious errors and ra&e %isconduct and learn due respect for the Courts and their authorit#' he is hereb# sentenced to ser&e a ter% of i%prison%ent of TEN ,->/ CAGS in the Cit# (ail of Cebu Cit# and to pa# a fine of ONE T;OUSANC PESOS ,P-'>>>$>>/$ ;e is "arned that a repetition of an# of the offenses of "hich he is herein found uilt#' or an# si%ilar or other offense a ainst courts' 5ud es or court e%plo#ees' "ill %erit further and %ore serious sanctions$ IT IS SO ORCEREC$

. (ud e Celso M$ Ei%eneF' Branch =$ 1 Euin ona' 2$' po&e&'e' "ith "ho% concurred (a&ellana and I%perial' 22$ 2 Branch ?@' ;on$ Priscila S$ A ana' presidin $ 0 Per (ud e (ose P$ Bur os' Branch -1$ -> Per (ud e ,no" CA Associate (ustice/ Eodardo (acinto$ -- SEE Sub6;ead I' A' -' supra$ -? SEE Sub6;ead I' A' ?' supra$ -8 SEE Sub6;ead I' supra$ -@ Cecision dated Ma# ?-' -0089 Austria6MartineF' 2$, po&e&'e' "ith "ho% concurred Puno and Ra%ireF' 22$ -= As e&er# la"#er *no"s' the Cler* of Court of a Ci&ision or of the Court E& Ba&* %s, o6 *ourse, &o' a 4+ere *)er=,4 but the hi hest ad%inistrati&e officer in the Ci&ision or Court' ne+t onl# to the (ustices$ -. Sub6;ead II' A' -' %&6ra$ -1 Sub6;ead II' A' @' %&6ra Sub6;eads AI' B' -' and II' A' -'c' %&6ra$ -2 Sub6;eads AI' B' -' and II' A' -' c' %&6ra' respecti&el#$ -0 Sub6;ead II' A' 8' %&6ra$

Nar9asa, C$2$, @e)%*%a&o, .a(%))a, B%(%&, Re$a)a(o, Da9%(e, 2r$, Ro+ero, Be))os%))o, 1e)o, Fu%aso&, V%'u$, Kapu&a&, 1e&(o:a a&( @ra&*%s*o, 22$, *o&*ur$ .u&o, 2$, 'oo= &o par'$ Foo(!o(e. - Barrera &$ Barrera' 8@ SCRA 02' ->.! Peo &$ Catolico' 82 SCRA 820' @>1$ ? SEE Sub6;ead I' A' 1' I&6ra$ 8 Per (ud e Beni no E$ Ea&iola' Branch 0' RTC' Cebu$ @ Ra%ireF' 2$' po&e&'e' "ith "ho% concurred 3rancisco ,CeFar/ and Aailoces' 22$ = (ud e Renato C$ Cacudao' presidin $

?> See sub6head I' A' 8' supra D Because TRB consolidated its o"nership o&er the foreclosed i%%o&ables durin the pendenc# of Ci&il Case No$ R6??=>.' Borro%eo filed cri%inal co%plaints in the Office of the Cit# Prosecutor of Cebu a ainst the ban* officers and la"#ers' "hich "ere ho"e&er' and )uite correctl#' i&en short shrift b# that Office$ ?- Per 8rd Assistant 3iscal Enri)ueta Ro)uillano6Belar%ino$ ?? See sub6head I' A' -' supra$ ?8 See sub6head I' supra$ ?@ B# resolution of 3iscal Rodulfo T$ U sal' appro&ed b# Cit# 3iscal (ufelinito R$ Pare5a$

?= Per In&esti ator Mario E$ Ca%o%ot' reco%%ended for appro&al b# Cirector IA A$ A$ Aarela' and appro&ed b# (uan M$ ;a ad' Ceput# O%buds%an' Aisa#as$ ?. In the third para raph of this opinion$ ?1 Li*e the letter "ritten to Borro%eo' dated 2u)7 !0, !4" ' Sub6head A' -' =' supra$ ?2 Ro))o E$R$ 2??18$ ?0 This concerned a fourth ban*' the Philippine Ban* of Co%%unications$ 8> Sub6head II' A '8' supra$ 8- <ritten b# 3elicito C$ Lato5a' Asso$ Eraft In&esti ation Officer II' and appro&ed b# (uan M$ ;a ad' COMB$ 8? SEE Sub6;ead II' A' -' supra$ 88 SEE also sub6head II' A' ?' supra$ 8@ (ud e (acinto has' to repeat' since been pro%oted to the Court of Appeals$ 8= Ro))o' Aol$ AII' p$ --=$ 8. SEE Sub6;ead II' A' =' supra$ 81 Curin the entire period that the ad%inistrati&e case "as pendin ,-00> to -00@/' Borro%eo "rote an unceasin strea% of letters' leaflets' fl#ers to IBP' harshl# critical of the courts and the la"#ers "ho had in one "a# or6another ta*en %easures ad&erse to hi%$ One of the last "as an 4OPEN LETTER to IBP Pre+# Manuel Le aspi4 dated April -0' -00@$ 82 There are at least ten ,->/ other such$4circulars' fl#ers' or letters in the record' all a%ountin %ore or less the sa%e errors and defa%ator# i%putations$ 80 Sub6;ead II! A' -' %&6ra$ @> Sub6;eads AI' B' -' and II' A' - *' %&6ra' respecti&el#$ @- Sub6;ead II' A' 8' %&6ra$ @? Sub6;ead II' A' -' a, %&6ra$ @8 Sub6;ead I' A' 1' supra$

@@ Rule 1-' Sec' ,c/ and ,d/' Rules of Court$ @= SEE Sub6head II' A' -' a' supra$ @. Peo &$ AenturanFa' et al$' 02 Phil$ ?--' cited in Ea&ieres &$ 3alcis' -08 SCRA .@0' ..> ,-00-/! see a)so 3ernandeF &$ ;on$ Bello' ->1 Phil$ --@>$ @1 Earbo &$ Court of Appeals' ??. SCRA ?=>' E$R$ No$ ->>@1@' Septe%ber ->' -008! ESIS &$ Eines' ?-0 SCRA 1?@' E$R$ No$ 2=?18' March 0' -008! Eesul on &$ NLRC' ?-0 SCRA =.-' E$R$ No$ 0>8@0' March =' -008! Para%ount Insurance Corporation &$ (apson' ?-- SCRA 210' E$R$ No$ .2>18' (ul# ?0' -00?! Cachola &$ CA' ?>2 SCRA @0.' E$R$ No$ 012??' Ma# 1' -00?! Enri)ueF &$ CA' ?>? SCRA @21' E$R$ No$ 281?>' October @' -00-! Al&endia &$ IAC' -2SCRA ?=?' E$R$ No$ 1?-82' (anuar# ??' -00>! Tur)ueFa &$ ;ernando' 01 SCRA @28' E$R$ No$ L6=-.?.' April 8>' -02>! Lee Bun Tin &$ Ali aen' 1. SCRA @-.' E$R$ No$ L68>=?8' April ??' -011$ @2 ?> SCRA @@-' @@@$ @0 A ainst 5ud %ents of the Supre%e Court since ob&iousl# no appeal to a hi her court or authorit# is possible' the onl# re%edies are those set forth in the Rules of Court' particularl# Rule =. in relation to Rules =? and =8' "ith re ard to ci&il cases and proceedin s' and Rule -?= in relation to Rule -?@' in respect of cri%inal cases$ SEE Calalan &$ Re ister of Ceeds' ?>2 SCRA ?-=' E$R$ No$ 1.?.=' April ??' -00?! Tan &$ Court of Appeals -00 SCRA ?-? E$R$ No$ 01?82' (ul# -=' -00-! Church Assistance Pro ra% &$ Sibulo' -1SCRA @>2 E$R$ No$ 1.==?' March ?-' -020! Aer &$ Huetulio' -.8 SCRA 2>' E$ R$ No$ 11=?.' (une ?0' -022 An Pin &$ RTC of Manila' -=@ SCRA 11' E$R$ No$ 1=2.>' Septe%ber -1' -021! Air6(en Shippin and Marine Ser&ices' Inc$ &$ NLRC' -?= SCRA =11' E$R$ Nos$ L6 =2>--6?' No&e%ber -2$ -028! Tu ade &$ CA 28 SCRA ??.! Barrera &$ Barrera' 8@ SCRA 02' E$R$ No$ L6 8-=20' (ul# 8-' -01>! Albert &$ C3I' ?8 SCRA 0@2' E$R$ No L6?8.8.' Ma# ?0 -0.2! Sho5i &$ ;ar&e#' @8 Phil$ 888,-0??/! SEE a)so Concurrin Opinion of EutierreF ($ in Enrile &$ SalaFar' -2. SCRA ?-1' E$R$ Nos$ 0?-.8 and 0?-.@' (une =' -00>$ => -@2 SCRA 82?' @-16@-2$ =- A ainst a final and e+ecutor# 5ud %ent' the e+traordnar#' e)uitable re%ed# of relief fro% 5ud %ent under

Rule 82 %a# be a&ailed of' or in e+tre%e situations' an action to annul the 5ud %ent on the round of e+trinsic fraud$ =? Miranda &$ CA' -@- SCRA 8>?' E$R$ No$ L6=081>' 3ebruar# --' -02.' citin Malia &$ IAC' -82 SCRA --.' E$R$ No$ L6..80=' Au ust 1' -02=! Castillo &$ Conato' -81 SCRA ?->' E$R$ No$ L61>?8>' (une ?@' -02=! Bethel Te%ple' Inc$ &$ Eeneral Council of Asse%blies of Eod' Inc$' -8. SCRA ?>8' E$R$ No$ L68==.8' April 8>' -02=! Insular Ban* of Asia and A%erica E%plo#ees7 Union ,IBAAEU/ &$ Incion ' -8? SCRA ..8' E$R$ No$ L6=?@-=' October ?8' -02@ and the cases cited therein pertainin to 4i%%utabilit# of 5ud %ents!4 ;eirs of Pedro Eu%inpin &$ CA' -?> SCRA .21' E$R$ No$ L6 8@??>' 3ebruar# ?-' -028! Co%%issioner of Internal Re&enue &$ Aisa#an Electric Co$' -0 SCRA .0.' E$R$ No$ L6?@0?-' March 8-' -0.1! Ca)uis &$ Bustos' 0@ Phil$ 0-8! Sa"it &$ Rodas' 18 Phil$ 8->$ =8 Articles ?>@6?>. of the Re&ised Penal Code define and penaliFe offenses "hich ha&e 4un5ust 5ud %ent4 or 4un5ust interlocutor# order4 for an essential ele%ent$ =@ -@2 SCRA ?28' @-2' @-0' @?>6 @?-== Rodri o &$ Hui5ano' etc$' 10 SCRA -> ,Sept$ 0' -011/$ =. LopeF &$ Corpus' 12 SCRA 81@ ,Alu $ 8-' -011/! Pilipinas Ban* &$ Tirona6Li"a ' -0> SCRA 28@ ,Oct$ -2' -00>/$ =1 HuiFon & BaltaFar' (r$' .= SCRA ?08 ,(ul# ?=' -01=/$ =2 AlFua' et$ al &$ (ohnson' ?- Phil$ 8>2' 8?.$ =0 The old Code of Ci&il Procedure$

The La"phil Pro5ect 6 Arellano La" 3oundation