REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Third Judicial Region, Regional Trial Court of Bulacan,

Malolos City, Branch 16

Atty. Florentino V. Floro, Jr.,

Petitioner,
- versus - Civil Case No. 938-M-98
Sps. Mariano P. Blanco, et. al.,
Respondents.
X----------------------------------------------------------X
In re: Petition to cancel the adverse claim on
TCT. Nos. T-328106- (M), T-316135(M), and
T-316136 (M)-Bulacan.
Atty. Florentino V. Floro, Jr., et al.
Petitioners, P-405-98
- versus –
Sps. Mariano P. Blanco, et. al.,
Respondents.
X----------------------------------------------------------X

Verified Motion for Reconsideration

[Of the Partial Judgment dated April 15, 2008, Copy of which was received
by Petitioner Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. / counsel on April 18, 2008] - with -
Urgent Prayer to Annul / Set Aside a) the Order of Voluntary Inhibition / Re-Raffle
and b) the Executive Judge Petrita B. Dime’s Order Approving the Re-Raffle]

“Judge Thelma R. Pinero-Cruz’s April 15, 2008 Motu Proprio Voluntary

Inhibition1 is not only shocking to the conscience of the entire Judiciary, but it
is: i) an anathema to the Constitution,2 a ii) mockery of justice, a iii) palpable
contempt of the Rule of Law, a iv) masquerade / funeral of Veritas, and the v)
BEST EVIDENCE that the Partial Judgment must be amended / set aside under
the Revised Rules of Court. Her ponencia has a chilling effect on the Faith of
litigants in the 22nd Puno Court amid SWS 1995 and 2005 Surveys of Grave
Corruption in the Philippine Judiciary3.” – Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.

1
after trial and Partial Judgment, and after her receipt of a) S.C. 2nd Division 2006 Judgment
REMINDING Mrs. Socorro Joson … b) CA March 4, 2008, Writ of Amparo Decision, c)
including OCAD 2 Indorsements both dated March 6, 2008, re: Judge Floro’s complaint and
request for detail of OIC, Mrs. Joson;
2
Juez de Cuchillo of barbaric tribes, nomads and uncivilized nations, leading to extra-
judicial killings of journalists, politicians, lawyers and judges / justices.
3
On January 25, 2005, and on December 10, 2006, Philippines Social Weather Stations
released the results of its 2 surveys on corruption in the judiciary; it published that: a) like
1995, 1/4 of lawyers said many/very many judges are corrupt. But (49%) stated that a
judges received bribes, just 8% of lawyers admitted they reported the bribery, because they
could not prove it. [Tables 8-9]; judges, however, said, just 7% call many/very many judges
as corrupt[Tables 10-11];b) "Judges see some corruption; proportions who said - many/very
many corrupt judges or justices: 17% in reference to RTC judges, 14% to MTC judges, 12%
to Court of Appeals justices, 4% i to Shari'a Court judges, 4% to Sandiganbayan justices and
2% in reference to Supreme Court justices [Table 15].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Extrajudicial_Killings_and_Desaparecidos#Judicial_
corruption
 Undersigned petitioner, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, by
HIMSELF and for HIMSELF, as litigant / petitioner in these cases, AND WITH
LEAVE OF THIS COURT, most respectfully moves for reconsideration of the 9
pages Partial Judgment dated April 15, 2008, in these cases, copy of which,
undersigned hereby MANIFESTS to have received on April 18, 2008, upon the
ground that the said decision or final order is contrary to law and settled
jurisprudence (Secs. 1, 2, Rule 37, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia).

Undersigned further respectfully avers that the subject Partial Judgment,

with due respect, is manifestly unjust, unfair, unconstitutional, and is utter
violation of S.C. Circulars, Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons of
Judicial Conduct, R.A. 6713, and R.A. 3019, inter alia, as will be discussed and
argued hereunder. Furthermore, undersigned respectfully states, that:

These cases have been pending a long mystifying time, almost like a
Churchillian riddle wrapped in an enigma inside a Pandora box. USA Justice
Holmes said “[g]reat cases like hard cases make bad law.”4 The brilliant
Justice J.B.L. Reyes wrote that it is human nature to put in the back burner what
is difficult. But undue delay in rendering a decision or order is not in the interest
of anybody. If a judge cannot get a speedy disposition of his case, what might a
layman expect? It affects the credibility or mandate of the Court and the judicial
department in the dispensation of justice. The time has come.

Legal Grounds of the Motion for Reconsideration

Supervening Legal Events and Reasons of Nullity of Voluntary Inhibition

Hereunder pointed, quoted and expressly alleged / referred to are the

specific findings and conclusions (ratio decidendi/ fallo) of the Partial
Judgment (dated April 15, 2008, starting at par. 2, page 6 thereof, up to page 9,
last paragraph) which are not supported by the evidence or which are contrary
to law / settled jurisprudence. Express reference to the testimonial or
documentary evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such
findings or conclusions are submitted hereunder:

4
Northern Securities Co.,Inc. vs. US, 193 U.S. 197, 400 (1904).
 RELIEF

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that

the Partial Judgment dated April 15, 2008, copy of which was received by
petitioner Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. on April 18, 2008, be reconsidered / set
aside, and amended accordingly, by a) setting aside Judge T. P. Cruz’s Voluntary
Inhibition, Order of Re-Raffle and Order Approving the Re-Raffle (by Judge P.
B. Dime), and thereby b) GRANTING undersigned petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration, to wit:

1. Declaring the Kasulatan ng Pagsasanglaan (of the 7/12 ideal portion of

Milagros V. Floro) dated January 5, 1995 as unauthorized / null and void;
respondents to desist from further proceedings in the said criminal case against
Judge Floro and c) commanding them to dismiss the criminal action against
Judge Floro, thereby issuing the corrective writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus and final injunction against all respondents.
Other reliefs and remedies, just and equitable under the circumstances are
likewise prayed for.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading – verified motion, this
18th day, of April, 2008, at Malolos City, Bulacan.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,

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

NOTICE of Hearing

TO:
The Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan,
Hon. Petrita Braga Dime, Hon. Herminia Pasamba, Hon. Renato Franciso,
and Hon. Thelma Pinero-Cruz,
The Office of the Executive Judges, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan,
The Branch Clerks of Courts/OICs, Brs. 14, 80, 19, and 16, RTC, Malolos,
Bulacan,
Atty. Ireneo E. Guardiano,
Counsel of Record for respondents Mariano and Ligaya Blanco,
Atty. Nye Orquillas,
Counsel of Record for petitioners Sps. Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad,
The Office of Provincial Prosecutor,
c/o Br. 16, RTC, Assistant Prosecutor, Benjamin Medrano,

Atty. Donato Mabbayad, former counsel for:

(The Court granted his withdrawal in TSN hearing, but not inserted in Order,
hence Ad Cautelam or for caution)
Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico,
Respondent,

The Branch Clerk of Court / OIC,

Metropolitan Trial Court, Br. 1, Meycauayan City, Bulacan,
Robert V. Floro and Joselito V. Floro,
Petitioners,

Please take NOTICE that the undersigned will submit the instant /
foregoing pleading/motion for reconsideration, etc., for HEARING,
consideration, deliberation and resolution of the Honorable Court, on April 25,
2008, Friday, at 9:00 a.m. or soon thereafter that the cases may be heard; and
if, for any reason the motion will not be able to be heard, on said date, then,
undersigned will also submit this motion for hearing and resolution of the Court
on Tuesday and Wednesday, April 29 and 30, 2008, both at 9:00 a.m.
It is petitioned to the Office of Clerk of Court / Office of the Executived
Judge / Hon. Herminia Pasamba, or Hon. Renato Francisco, that the
expediente or records be returned to Branch 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, so
that the instant motion may be heard by said Court; and / or, if for any reason,
the instant motion may not be heard by said branch, it is finally petitioned that
this motion be heard, by the Executive Judges Hon. Herminia Pasamba or Hon.
Renato Francisco, whoever might be present and available on said hearing dates
above-set.
Please CALENDAR and call this motion at the above-set hearing dates, in
accordance with the mandate of the Rules of Court on motions, inter alia.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,

Petitioner

VERIFICATION / AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

Malolos City, BULACAN ) S.S.

I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., movant-petitioner, under oath,

depose/say, that:
I am the movant-petitioner in these cases. I caused the preparation, read
and signed the instant pleading, and all the contents / allegations thereof are true
and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records.
I hereby CERTIFY that on April ____, 2008, I personally served copies
of this pleading with all annexes in these cases entitled “Atty. Floro et al. vs.
Mariano Blanco et al., etc.”, by personal service, upon all the parties /
respondents’/petitioners’ counsels, the Office of the Public Prosecutor, to wit:
personal service, upon ---

Atty. Ireneo E. Guardiano,

Counsel of Record for respondents Mariano and Ligaya Blanco,

Atty. Nye Orquillas,

Counsel of Record for petitioners Sps. Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad,

The Office of Provincial Prosecutor,

c/o Br. 16, RTC, Assistant Prosecutor, Benjamin Medrano,
Atty. Donato Mabbayad, former counsel for:
(The Court granted his withdrawal in TSN hearing, but not inserted in Order,
hence Ad Cautelam or for caution)
c/o Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico,
Respondent,
The Branch Clerk of Court / OIC,
Metropolitan Trial Court, Br. 1,
Meycauayan City, Bulacan
Robert V. Floro and Joselito V. Floro, c/o Judge Floro
Petitioners,
as proved by the rubber stamp receipts / the signatures, after the names,
hereunder, on the original copy hereof, in accordance with Rule 13, Rules of
Court, inter alia: specifically, by undersigned’s delivering personally, copies to
the said offices / counsels of the parties, and / or by undersigned’s leaving
copies with the offices’ / counsels’ offices, with their clerks or with persons
having charge thereof / receiving clerks.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 21st day of April,

2008, here at Malolos City, Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO.
CC12005 # 21783592, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 2-27, 2007.

DOC. NO. _____, PAGE NO. ____,

BOOK NO. 75, SERIES OF 2008.
BERNAR D. FAJARDO
Notary Public,
Until Jan.31, 2009,
PTR NO. 4591703, 1- 2,’08,
Atty.’s Roll No. 33633,
IBP OR # 708299, 1-2,’08
Malolos City, Bulacan.

COPY FURNISHED:
(By Personal Service):

Atty. Ireneo E. Guardiano,

Counsel of Record for respondents,
Mariano and Ligaya Blanco,
RTC Compound, Karuhatan,
Valenzuela City, 1441

Atty. Nye Orquillas,

Counsel for Petitioners Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad,
2nd Flr., RTC Compound Bldg.,
Capitolyo, Malolos City, Bulacan
The Office of Provincial Prosecutor,
c/o Br. 16, RTC, Assistant Prosecutor, Benjamin Medrano,
Malolos City, Bulacan,

Atty. Donato Mabbayad, former counsel for:

(The Court granted his withdrawal in TSN hearing, but not inserted in Order,
hence Ad Cautelam or for caution)
Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico,
Respondent,
Villarico Law Office, Poblacion, Meycauayan,
3020 Bulacan,

The Branch Clerk of Court / OIC,

Metropolitan Trial Court, Br. 1,
Meycauayan City, Bulacan

Robert V. Floro and Joselito V. Floro,

Petitioners,
c/o and by: Judge Florentino V. Floro,
123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos, 3000 Bulacan
With due respect

This Honorable Court gravely erred in ruling that –

“NOW THE PARTIAL JUDGMENT.

Based on the applicable law and evidence, the Court finds as follows:

[Pars. 3-4, page 6, Partial Judgment dated April 15, 2008].

The gravely erred in not applying the other applicable laws, to wit:

“New Civil Code, CHAPTER 7, VOIDABLE CONTRACTS

Art. 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even
though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties:
(1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent
to a contract; (2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake,
violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud. These contracts are
binding, unless they are annulled by a proper action in court. They
are susceptible of ratification. (n)
Art. 1391. The action for annulment shall be brought within four years.
 This period shall begin: in cases of intimidation, violence or undue
influence, from the time the defect of the consent ceases. In case of
mistake or fraud, from the time of the discovery of the same. And
when the action refers to contracts entered into by minors or other
incapacitated persons, from the time the guardianship ceases.
(1301a)”

Contrary to the Court’s ratio decidendi above-cited that no action was

filed for annulment of the mortgage contract within 4 years, undersigned filed
these cases to annul said contract at the earliest opportunity. Based on a) the
FINDINGS OF FACT by the Court on pages 2-5, Partial Judgment, April 15,
2008, and based on its citation of admitted Exhibits A to G / sub-markings
(annexes A to G / sub-markings of the Petition = pages 133 to 154, records), the
CRITICAL FACTS, which the Court disregarded, are: i) the Court Injunction
was issued by the Guardianship Court, Br. 10, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan against
the disposal or encumbrance of the subject lands / titles in these cases belonging
to Milagros Floro, and the Order was annotated at the back of the said titles on
January 14, and Februray 4, 1994, respectively, ii) further, undersigned
personally notified, by registered mails with return card, notice of the said lien
and injunction, to all respondents, per admitted exhibits, as will be further
discussed hereunder: Exhibits A-8 and A-8-1 (4 pages petitioner’s
Manifestation-Letter Notice dated July 21, 1993, with the registry receipts, both
originals = pages 111 to 114, records; marked on September 13, 2004, Br. 16,
RTC, Malolos, Bulacan); iii) respondents’ resciscible and voidable mortgage
contract was signed by Joselito Floro and Milagros Floro on January 5, 1995,
despite said injunction lien and notice; iv) the cases for injunction, annulment of
said mortgage, LRC case for cancellation of adverse claim, and amended
complaint for cancellation of mortgage based on cited Articles 1381, 1389,
1390 and 1391, NCC, inter alia, were duly filed on time at the earliest
opportunity, upon discovery, by undersigned on September, 1998, and October
2, 1998 respectively. Respondents, therefore, are registrants with full
knowledge of the injunction and were encumbrancers in bad faith.

In G.R. No. 107432 July 4, 1994, CAUSAPIN vs. CA, the Supreme Court
ruled that: "an action to annul a deed of conveyance or contract based on
minority or lack of capacity to enter into the deed must be brought within four
years from the time such incapacity ceases." In G.R. No. 126000 October 7,
1998, MWSS vs. CA, the Court likewise ruled that: "a contract where consent is
given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud, is
voidable" 2. Contracts "where consent is vitiated by mistake, violence,
intimidation, undue influence or fraud" are voidable or annullable; Concepts of
Voidable Contracts. — Voidable or anullable contracts are existent, valid, and
binding, although they can be annulled because of want of capacity or vitiated
consent of the one of the parties, but before annulment, they are effective and
obligatory between parties. Hence, it is valid until it is set aside and its validity
may be assailed only in an action for that purpose. The four year prescriptive
period under Art. 1391 of the New Civil Code will apply. This article provides
that the prescriptive period shall begin in the cases of intimidation, violence or
undue influence, from the time the defect of the consent ceases", and "in case of
mistake or fraud, from the time of the discovery of the same time”.

The Court gravely erred also, in ruling that undersigned’s request to

cancel the registered lien of injunction (at the back of the titles, per granted Br.
10, RTC, Malolos Order directing the Branch Register of Deeds to cancel said
titles annotations on March 6, 1996), did result in mooting the prohibition on
encumbrance or disposal by respondents, for reasons: a) Milagros Floro died on
December 5, 1995, due to Schizophrenia (par. 7, page 4, Partial Judgment,
Exh. A/sub-markings), because of this mortgage which ruined her health, as
discussed hereunder; b) the death of Milagros Floro rendered moot, the
guardianship proceedings, and not the injunction, but the lien was correctly
erased; c) respondents Blancos already violated the mortgage prohibition on
January 5, 1995, or more than one year, after the cancellation of the entries at
the back of the title; having knowledge of the court prohibition, the mortage
was therefore voidable under said laws, d) at the time of the signing of the
mortgage, Milagros Floro was so sick and could not have known what she was
doing, as will be discussed hereunder.
Wikipedia and other notable references define this mental disease which
affected the subject mortgage:
 ‘Schizophrenia5 (pronounced /ˌskɪtsəˈfriːniə/), from the Greek roots
schizein (σχίζειν, "to split") and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-, "mind"),
is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental illness
characterized by impairments in the perception or expression of
reality, most commonly manifesting as auditory hallucinations,
paranoid or bizarre delusions or disorganized speech and thinking in
the context of significant social or occupational dysfunction. Onset of
symptoms typically occurs in young adulthood, with approximately
0.4–0.6% of the population affected. Diagnosis is based on the
patient's self-reported experiences and observed behavior.

No laboratory test for schizophrenia currently exists. The disorder is

primarily thought to affect cognition, but it also usually contributes to
chronic problems with behavior and emotion.

People diagnosed with schizophrenia are likely to be diagnosed with

comorbid conditions, including clinical depression and anxiety
disorders; the lifetime prevalence of substance abuse is typically
around 40%. Social problems, such as long-term unemployment,
poverty and homelessness, are common and life expectancy is
decreased; the average life expectancy of people with the disorder is
10 to 12 years less than those without, owing to increased physical
health problems and a high suicide rate.”

The Court gravely erred, therefore, in failing to annul the subject void
mortgage, not only because of the Court injunction but it further closed its legal
eyes to the CRITICAL FACT - duly proved by admitted and uncontradicted
documentary evidence (Exhibits A to G/sub-markings) and supported by
unrebutted testimonial evidence (since respondents, all of them, failed to appear
in Court to present their evidence, despite repeated Orders of the Court, that is,
waiver to present evidence, as will be discussed hereunder) - that Milagros
Floro, at the time of the mortgage was incapacitated, very sick, and never knew
what she was signing, and such mortgage caused her death, which death, also
caused the deaths and pains of all those who persecuted undersigned, due to the
biblical curse under Psalms 109 and 73.

The Court further gravely erred, in failing to annul the subject void
mortgage, and in disregarding undersigned’s May 25, 2008 OMNIBUS Motions
to declare the January 5, 1996 mortgage MOOT since, it can no longer be
enforced or foreclosed due to prescription.

5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia
Brown S; Inskip H, Barraclough B (2000). "Causes of the excess mortality of
schizophrenia". Br J Psychiatry 177: 212-7. PMID 11040880. Retrieved on 2008-02-24.
extinguished by EXTINCTIVE PRESCRIPTION, and the duly filed amended
(October 2, 1998) pleading for annulment was the real / proper action to cancel
or rescind the said voidable and moot contract of mortgage, causing the titles of
undersigned to be free from all liens and encumbrances under the law / rules.

Accordingly, the Court furthermore, gravely erred in ruling that –

[par. 1-3, par. 1-3, pages 8-9, Partial Judgment].
 Ergo, the Court in this regard, gravely erred in not considering the legal
truism that undersigned’s instant criminal injunction falls within the recognized
and jurisprudential exceptions, thusly.

In SECOND DIVISION, G.R. No. 129904, March 16, 2000, DIRECTOR

GUILLERMO T. DOMONDON vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, the
Court teaches that:

"Well settled is the rule that criminal prosecutions may not be

restrained, either through a preliminary or final injunction or a writ
of prohibition, except in the following instances: (1) To afford
adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; (2)
When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid
oppression or multiplicity of actions; (3) When there is a prejudicial
question which is sub-judice; (4) When the acts of the officer are
without or in excess of authority; (5) Where the prosecution is under
an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; (6) When double jeopardy is
clearly apparent; (7) Where the Court has no jurisdiction over the
offense; (8) Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
(9) Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for
vengeance; (10) When there is clearly no prima facie case against the
accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied; ella
(11) Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to
prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners.”

How can this Partial Judgment be defended in a court of law? It left

hanging the titles! Undersigned’s titles were never cancelled, while the
respondents’ mortgage lien was declared existent, but respondents, since 2006
could no longer foreclose the same, since the contract of mortgage prescribed. It
is therefore, a pure comedy of errors, tempting undersigned not to appeal the
case but to just ask for clarification. If the Court will not stop the criminal
proceedings, what will be the agenda of the prosecution? Nothing, nada and no
mortgage, no estafa, and no evidence can be admitted to convict.

The court further ignored the elementary rule of law and jurisprudence that
an encumbrancer or mortgagee with knowledge of the lien / injunction is a
transferee with knowledge and in bad faith. Respondents Blancos entered into
the contract with full knowledge of the injunction and the dying condition of the
mortgagor Milagros Floro. Such being the legal situation, respondents Blanco’s
interests and alleged but never proved in Court adverse claim not only expired,
but were never born in law; they never existed in legal fact, and they lost all
their rights, if any, against undersigned and Milagros Floro. Their remaining
right to go after Joselito Floro also prescribed on 2006, since they slept on their
rights, by abandoning the court proceedings, despite repeated Court orders to
present evidence.

Ergo, the Court in this regard, further gravely erred in ruling that the
civil aspect was included in the criminal case. Such could have had happened
were it not for the filing of respondents Blancos of answers / with counterclaims
in these cases; with their participation, thru Atty. Rafael Santos, Atty. Donato
Mabbayad and Atty. Irineo Guardiano, per pleadings with duly signed and
approved STIPULATIONS OF FACTS, the Blancos opted to fight in these
cases; but they were declared by the Court to have abandoned their rights to
submit evidence, to cross-examine undersigned and to rebut the evidence.

Voluntary Inhibition: First in the Bulacan Court History

“Ako po ay nagsusumamo sa inyo Ginang Hukom na magtika,

maghugas nang ating mga kasalanan, bilang isang Bansa, upang mahilom ang
sugat dahil sa ‘korupsyon’. Bilang ka-mag-aral ng tanyag na UP Class ‘62
(C.J. PUNO, NAZARIO, YNARES-SANTIAGO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, at
DIME), ipamalas mo po sa amin, na ikaw ay hindi lamang patas at
makatarungan, datapwat, mukhang malinis sa harap ng mata ng mga
nagsasakdal at nasasakdal. Sapul nang hawakan (2004), dinggin at hatulan
ninyo ang mga kasong ito (1998-2008), hindi ako nagdemanda nang kriminal o
administratibo laban sa iyo, kahit nanalo ka laban sa UnionBank. Dahil ba
ako’y nagsampa ng administratibong kaso laban sa iyong OIC/legal
researcher, sapat na ba ito para talikuran mo ang sinumpaang katungkulan
mong tutuparin lahat ang utos ng Batas at Konstitusyon, upang lahat kami ay
mabigyan ng hustisya? Nauunawaan ko po, ang sakit, dalamhati at mga
kasawian na tinamo ninyo buhat ng hawakan ninyo itong kasong ito. Ang iyong
kabiyak ay pumanaw at dama rin namin ang mapait at malupit na pagpanaw at
pighati ng marami pang gaya niya (Luzviminda Puno, Lirio Bautista Victorino,
Hilario Davide, Sr., Jorge at Jose Davide, at sangkatutak na mga mahal sa
buhay). Ako po ay umaasa na hahatulan ninyo ng ganap ang kasong ito, ng
TAPOS at hindi nakabitin, dahil, ano mang hatol ay maari pa namang apilahan
sa Court of Appeals. Kung TAKOT at alinlangan dahil sa “UNGODLY
REPRISALS” (Nazario at Puno, “Ocad v. Judge Floro,” A.M. RTJ-99-1460,
July 12, 2006) ang bumabagabag sa inyo gabi-hating-gabi, ako naman ay
nagpapasalamat sa UP Class ’62 ninyo, dahil sila ang lumagda upang ako ay
maging “jobless” walang work, trabajo o job, sa isang mundong balatkayo.
Utang na loob ko sa mga kaiskwela ninyo po, ang aking katahimikan at
pagsampalataya sa May-kapal. Walang bisa ang SUMPA (Salmo 109 at 73) sa
hudikatura, dahil, ayon kay Minita Nazario, PINAL akong hinatulan bilang
ANGHEL NG KAMATAYAN na komukunsulta sa 3 DWENDE, at Diyos lang
ang magpaparusa sa mga tiwaling Hukom. Dahil, dito po, isinulat at
ipinahayag ko sa Court of Appeals (Writ of Amparo kaso para matapos na ang
SUMPANG kasong mga ito), na wala akong balak magdemanda laban sa iyo
HABANG (HANGGANG 2009) dahil 4 na mga kamag-aral mo ang hahatol
dito, datapwat, hiniling ko tuwing HATING-GABI na sana, kayo po ay magtika
at ipahayag sa Paring Katoliko ang inyong mga kasalanan, dahil wika ni Pope
Benedict XVI, na kahit si San Pedro ay ubod nang sama at makasalan. Huwag
po kayong matakot na ako ay magiging TINIK o PUWING sa inyong
RETIREMENT benefits sa susunod na mga taon. Sinong mahistrado ang
papatol sa akin, upang mapigil ang pagbayad sa inyo ng pinaghirapan ninyo,
kung kayo po ay talagang patas, matino, kagalang-galang na mahistrado …
Binibigyan KO po kayo mula sa aking PUSO, ng isa pang pagkakataon upang
ipakita sa UNION BANK at iba pang nagkanulo sa inyo, na KASINUNGALIN
ang mga bintang nila sa inyo. Basbasan nawa kayo na Poong Maykapal
hanggang sa inyong huling sandali. Gumagalang, ngayong Biyernes, hating-
Gabi, Ika-18 ng Abril, 2008. Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.”
Unconstitutional - UNJUST ORDER: Violation of Substantive Due Process
If this case is re-raffled, it will only delay the resolution of the motion for
reconsideration (Rule 37 limits to 30 days the rendition of the resolution), since
the new Judge would have to read voluminous TSNs, Exhibits and record /
pleadings, filed since 1998. Undersigned submits additional ARGUMENT:
EXHIBTS MARKED:
A) P-405-98 case:
All the annexes A to G / sub-markings of the Verified Petition ( Vide: pages 1 to 8 records),
dated September 28, 1998 in P-405-98 case were marked correspondingly marked as
Exhibits A to G / sub-markings – at the trial / hearing dated March 4, 1999 and Exhibits H
and I / sub-markings on December 8, 1998 before Br. 19, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan:

Exhibits A to G / sub-markings (annexes A to G / sub-markings of the Petition) = pages 9 to

29, records;

Exhibits A-8 and A-8-1 (4 pages petitioner’s Manifestation-Letter Notice dated July 21,
1993, with the registry receipts, both originals) = pages 111 to 114, records; marked on
September 13, 2004, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan;

Exhibits H / sub- markings = pages 1, 6, 8, 15, 76 to

Exhibit I = pages 78

[Vide: TSN dated December 8, 1998 – pages 2 to 5, and Order regarding jurisdictional
requirements, on page 7; copies are attached herewith as reference – as “Annex A” hereof].

[Vide: TSN dated March 4, 1999 – pages 3 to 4, copies are attached herewith as reference –
as “Annex A-1” hereof].

Direct Testimony of petitioner Judge Floro:

[Vide: TSN dated March 4, 1999 – pages 4 to 32, and Order regarding jurisdictional
requirements, on page 7; copies are attached herewith as reference – as “Annex B” hereof].

B) Civil Case No. 938-M-98:

All the annexes A to G / sub-markings (of the Verified Petition - Vide: pages 2 12, etc.,
records, dated September 28 / 29, 1998 as amended by the Amended Verified Complaint filed
and all fees duly paid on October 9, 1998 – Vide pages 123 to 132, records), were
correspondingly marked as Exhibits A to G / sub-markings – at the trial / hearing dated
March 19, 1999 before Br. 9, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan:

Exhibits A to G / sub-markings (annexes A to G / sub-markings of the Petition) = pages 133

to 154, records;

ALL THE EXHIBITS A to G / sub-markings duly marked in both cases are exactly the
SAME exhibits and annexes of both petitions, duly consolidated.
Formal Offer of Petitioners’ Documentary Evidence:
 All the petitioners’ annexes A to G / sub-markings, and court documents, marked and
identified as Exhibits A to I / sub-markings, in these 2 cases were all formally offered and
admitted in evidence at the hearing dated September 13, 2004, EVEN if all said exhibits were
stipulated and admitted by petitioners and respondents Blancos in the joint stipulation of
facts, above-cited.

In P-405-98 case:

All the petitioners’ annexes A to G / sub-markings, Exhibits A-8 and A-8-1 (4 pages
petitioner’s Manifestation-Letter Notice dated July 21, 1993, with the registry receipts, both
originals),

Exhibits H / sub- markings, Exhibit I,

duly marked and identified, and all exhibits -

In Civil Case No. 938-M-98:

Exhibits A to G / sub-markings (annexes A to G / sub-markings of the Petition) ALL THE

EXHIBITS A to G / sub-markings duly marked in both cases are exactly the SAME exhibits
and annexes of both petitions, duly consolidated –

WERE formally offered by petitioners at the Hearing dated September 13, 2004 (under
RULE 129, Sec. 4, RULE 132 - C. OFFER AND OBJECTION - Sec. 34. Offer of evidence,
"Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. (n)”, Sec.
36. Objection, Sec. 38.Ruling, in relation to – RULE 18, PRE-TRIAL - (b) The simplification
of the issues; (d) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of
documents to avoid unnecessary proof; RULE 30- TRIAL - Sec. 6. Agreed statement of
facts).

To PROVE the foregoing CRITICAL fact that petitioners FORMALLY offered all the
exhibits duly marked in these 2 cases for the purposes stated, undersigned INTERSPERSED
NEXT PAGES:

a) Court Orders dated 12 August and 13 & 22, September, 2004 (Annexes “C, D, C-1”,
respectively) declaring the waiver by all respondents to cross-examine undersigned and to
present evidence, and the ADMISSION of all the exhibits in these 2 cases by the Court for
purposes stated in the formal offer, and

b) TSN dated 13 September, 2004, pages 2 to 4, where petitioners formally offered all the
exhibits for the purposes stated therein and duly admitted by the Court (Annex “D-1”
hereof).

With due respect:

Petitioner respectfully cites the following laws, circulars and rules, to support his contention
that – a) the decision in this case should have been rendered and released on December 23,
2004; b) the Branch Clerk of Court, (in conspiracy with) and Atty. Nye Orquillas, the
Trinidads and respondents’ Blancos, inter alia, are liable under these laws, criminally and
administratively, due to palpable obstruction of justice and delay of petitioner’s cause
because of the resultant unjust and unlawful orders which stopped the judgment’s issuance
as of December 23, 2004. Until the decision in this case is rendered, the Certificate of
Service of the Presiding Judge cannot state that there is no pending case which has not yet
been decided, since petitioner proved that the decision must have been issued on December
23, 2004 were it not for the criminal and administrative wrong doings of said counsel and
court personnel.

A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC- RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE 140 OF THE RULES
OF COURT RE: DISCIPLINE OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES - The Court resolved to
APPROVE the amendment of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court regarding the discipline of
Justices and Judges, so as to read as follows:

RULE 140 - DISCIPLINE OF JUDGES OF REGULAR AND SPECIAL COURTS AND

JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN

SEC. 8. Serious charges. – Serious charges include: 1. Bribery, direct or indirect; 2.

Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No. 3019); 3.
Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct; 4. Knowingly
rendering an unjust judgment or order as determined by a competent court in an appropriate
proceeding; 7. Borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case pending
before the court; 9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;

SEC. 9. Less Serious Charges. – Less serious charges include:

1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case;

4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars; 6. Untruthful statements in the
certificate of service;

SEC. 11. Sanctions. – A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following
sanctions may be imposed: 1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the
benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment
to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided,
however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; 2.
Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not
exceeding six (6) months; or 3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00
B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be
imposed: 1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1)
nor more than three (3) months; or 2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding
P20,000.00.

These amendments to Rule 140 shall take effect on October 1, 2001 following their
publication in two newspapers of general circulation on or before September 15, 2001.

CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT - CANON 3

A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH

IMPARTIALITY AND DILIGENCE

ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

RULE 3.01 - A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence.
RULE 3.02 - In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the
applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism. RULE 3.05
- A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required
periods.

CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE

COURT. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (June 21, 1988) Rule 10.01 - A
lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not
knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of
opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision
already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not
been proved. Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse
them to defeat the ends of justice.

1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:

RULE 7 - PARTS OF A PLEADING

Sec. 3. Signature and address.

Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading in violation of this
Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails to promptly report to the court
a change of his address, shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.

RULE 8 - MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

Sec. 12. Striking out of pleading or matter contained therein. Upon motion made by a party
before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by these Rules,
upon motion made by a party within twenty (20) days after the service of the pleading upon
him, or upon the court's own initiative at any time, the court may order any pleading to be
stricken out or that any sham or false, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter be stricken out therefrom.

RULE 129

What Need Not Be Proved Sec. 4.Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written,
made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.
The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable
mistake or that no such admission was made. (2a)

RULE 132 - C. OFFER AND OBJECTION - Sec. 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall
consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the
evidence is offered must be specified. (35)

Sec. 35.When to make offer. — As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be
made at the time the witness is called to testify.

Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's
testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done
in writing. (n)

Sec. 36. Objection. — Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after
the offer is made. An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days
after notice, unless a different period is allowed by the court. In any case, the grounds for the
objections must be specified. (36a)

Sec. 38.Ruling. — The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is
made, xxx.
RULE 18, PRE-TRIAL - Sec. 2. Nature and purpose. (b) The simplification of the issues; (d)
The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents to avoid
unnecessary proof;

RULE 30- TRIAL - Sec. 6. Agreed statement of facts. The parties to any action may agree, in
writing, upon the facts involved in the litigation, and submit the case for judgment on the
facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence. If the parties agree only on some of
the facts in issue, the trial shall be held as to the disputed facts in such order as the court shall
prescribe.