Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANC A.M. No.
93-7-696-0 February 21, 1995! Re "OA#UN T. $ORROMEO, E% Re&.
Cebu C'(y C)a*(er o+ ()e !(e,ra(e- $ar o+ ()e P)'&'**'!e..R E S
O L U T I O N PER CURAM/It is said that a little learnin is a
danerous thin! and that he "ho acts as his o"n la"#er has a fool
for a client$ 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 leal 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 leal proceedins in
&arious courts' do%aticall# pontificatin on errors supposedl#
co%%itted b# the courts' includin the Supre%e Court$ In the
pictures)ue lanuae of for%er Chief (ustice Enri)ue M$ 3ernando' he
has 4"ith all the &alor of inorance'4 1 been &erball#
5oustin "ith &arious ad&ersaries in di&erse litiations!
or in the "ords of a "ell6*no"n son' rushin into arenas 4"here
anels fear to tread$4 Under the illusion that his tri&ial
ac)uaintance "ith the la" had i&en hi% co%petence to underta*e
litiation' he has &entured to represent hi%self in nu%erous
oriinal and re&ie" proceedins$ 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 proceedins'
he has seen fit to co%pose and circulate %an# scurrilous state%ents
aainst courts' 5udes 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 %ortaes
o&er i%%o&ables belonin to hi% or %e%bers of his fa%il#' or
third persons$ ;e failed to pa# these obliations' 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 areed upon
"ith his obliees or prescribed b# la"$ / oriinal or re&ie"
proceedins' 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
TRADERSROYAL BANK (TRB)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 %ortae
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 '>>>$>>'
this ti%e i&in as securit# a %ortae o&er a parcel of land
o"ned b# the ;eirs of Aicente A$ Borro%eo' co&ered b# TCT No$
RT61.8@$ Authorit# to %ortae 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>$
2Borro%eo failed to pa# the debts as contracted despite de%ands
therefor$ Conse)uentl#' TRB caused the e+tra65udicial foreclosure
of the %ortaes i&en to secure the%$ At the public sale
conducted b# the sheriff on Septe%ber1' -02-' the three %ortaed
parcels of land "ere sold to TRB as the hihest bidder' for
P18'=?0$>0$.' 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 aainst 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$o',
a&( '/e TRB )a07ers, 1ar%o Or'%: a&( '/e )a0, 6%r+,
;ERSINLA. and CEB621=>' alread# decided "ith finalit# in
fa&or of TRB/' and lac* of cause of action ,as to defendants
Pare5a' Belar%ino and Iot/$Borro%eo7s *er'%orar% petition to the
Court of Appeals ,CA E$R$ SP No$ ?2??-/ "as dis%issed b# that
Court7s -.th 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!00Before 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%aes$4 The case %et the sa%e fate
as the others$ 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$The RTC ruled that DCi&il Case No$ CEB60@2=
"ill readil# sho" that the defendants therein' na%el# the ;onorable
(ufelinito Pare5a' Enri)ueta Belar%ino' E&a Iot' 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.$ On defendant7s %otion' the trial court 1
dis%issed the case on the round of pre%aturit#' holdin that 4,a/t
this point $ $ $' plaintiff7s riht to see* annul%ent of defendant
Traders Ro#al Ban*7s title "ill onl# accrue if and "hen plaintiff
"ill ulti%atel#and finall# "in Ci&il Case No$ 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 aainst 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>>$>> %oral da%aes!
8>'>>>$>> e+e%plar# da%aes! and
P='>>>$>> litiation e+penses$4 This action' too' %et
a )uic* and uncere%onious de%ise$ On %otion of defendants TRB and
;ERSINLA.0' a$a%&s' TRB a&( '/e )a''er>s )a07ers, .'
decision in "hich "as affir%ed b# the Court of Appeals in CA6E$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
thesa%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=.$
122$ RTC Cr%+%&a) Case No$ CBA-!4#55!CA-G$R$ S. No$ 2"25! G$R$
No$ !!242"On April -1' -00> the Cit# Prosecutor of Cebu Cit#
filed an infor%ation "ith the RTC of Cebu ,Branch ??/ aainst
Borro%eo charin 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 riht to a speed# trial$ ;is %otion "as denied b#
Order of (ude Pa%pio A$ Abarintos dated April ->' -00?$ In the
sa%e order' ;is ;onor set an earl#date for Borro%eo7s arrain%ent
and placed the case 4under a continuous trial s#ste% on the dates
as %a# be areed b# the defense and prosecution$4 Borro%eo %o&ed
for reconsideration$ ' -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$ 19B$ CRI1INAL CASESMention has alread# been %ade of
Borro%eo7s atte%pt D "ith 4all the &alor of inorance4 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$4 ;e
clai%ed' a%on others that the ban* and its officers' thru its
%anaer' (acinto (a%ero' sold properties not o"ned b# the%9 that b#
fraud' deceit and false pretenses' respondents neotiated and
effected the purchase of the ,foreclosed/ properties fro% his
,Borro%eo7s/ %other' "ho 4in duress' fear and lac* of leal
*no"lede'4 areed to the sale thereof for onl#
P.1-'>>>$>>' althouh in liht 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 oriinal o"ners of the foreclosed
properties! and that Borro%eo' bein a straner 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 litiation! and %oreo&er' there "as no proof of the
docu%ent alleedl# falsified nor of the %anner of its
falsification$a$ I$S$ Nos$ "-#45 a&( "4-52#5E&identl# to
hihliht 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 aainst respondent ban* officers7
predecessors ,includin the for%er Manaer' Ronald S#/ and la"#ers D
both of "hich "ere dis%issed for lac* of %erit$ These "ere9a$ I$ S$
No$ 216810= ,(OAHUIN T$ BORROMEO &s$ ATTG$ MARIO ORTIJ and
RONALC SG/ for 4Estafa Throuh 3alsification of Public Cocu%ents'
Ceceit and 3alse Pretenses$4 D This case "as dis%issed b#
Resolution dated (anuar# -0' -022 of the Cit# Prosecutor7s Office
because based on nothin %ore than a letter dated (une @' -02=' sent
b# Ban* Manaer Ronald S# to the lessee of a portion of the
foreclosed i%%o&ables' ad&isin the latter to re%it all
rentals to the ban* as ne" o"ner thereof' as sho"n b# the
consolidated title! and there "as no sho"in that respondent Att#$
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! andb$ I$S$ No$ 206@?8@ ,(OAHUIN T$
BORROMEO &s$ RONALC SG' ET AL$/ for 4Estafa Throuh 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./ "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# reistered 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# toether "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' illeal andin&alid'4 Borro%eo filed
a cri%inal co%plaint "ith the Cebu Cit# 3iscal7s Office aainst 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 leall# in order$8$
O1B-VIS-"4-00!#6This Resolution of this Court ,3irst Ci&ision/
in E$R$ No$ 288>. dated Auust -=' -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 aainst
4Supre%e Court (ustice ,3irst Ci&$/ and Court of Appeals
(ustice ,->th Ci&/4 D "as dis%issed for lac* of %erit in a
Resolution issued on 3ebruar# -@' -00> 25 "hich' a%on other
thins' ruled as follo"s9It should be noted and e%phasiFed that
co%plainant has re%edies a&ailable under the Rules of Court'
particularl# on ci&il procedure and e+istin la"s$ It is not the
preroati&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 proceedins
aainst 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&estiation 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
,toether "ith a certain Mercader/ also borro"ed %one# fro% the
United Coconut Planters Ban* ,UCPB/ and e+ecuted a real estate
%ortae to secure repa#%ent thereof$ The %ortae "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
Auust 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"lede and consent of UCPB$A$ CIVIL
CASESNo"' 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 obliations 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 accordinl# 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 proceedins
foreclose the%ortae constituted b# Borro%eo o&er the
propert#$This sinaled the beinnin of court battles "aed b# Borro%eo
not onl# aainst Lao' but also aainst UCPB and the latter7s la"#ers'
battles "hich he ,Borro%eo/ fouht conte%poraneousl# "ith his court
"ar "ith Traders Ro#al Ban*$-$ RTC Case No$ R-2!004! AC-G$R$No$
CV-0#46! G$R$ No$ "22#The first of this ne" series of court battles
"as' as 5ust stated' the action initiated b# Sa%son Lao in the
Reional 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 %ortae' 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 Reis$ 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'robeinin la" an e)uitable %ortae! 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 filebrief 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$The Appellate Court7s decision "as' in turn' affir%ed b# this
Court ,Third Ci&ision/ in a four6pae Resolution dated Septe%ber
-8' -020' pro%ulated in E$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 sined 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$4 Since the %otion "as
not filed until after there had been an entr# of 5ud%ent' Borro%eo
ha&in failed to %o&e for reconsideration "ithin the
rele%entar# period' the sa%e "as si%pl# noted "ithout action' in a
Resolution dated No&e%ber ?1' -020$Notices of the foreoin
Resolutions "ere' in accordance "ith established rule and practice'
sent to Borro%eo o&er the sinatures 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-"643ollo"in the sa%e aberrant pattern of his 5udicial ca%pain
aainst Traders Ro#al Ban*' Borro%eo atte%pted to &ent his
resent%ent e&en aainst 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%aes
aainst 4Att#s$ (ulieta G$ Carreon and Alfredo Marasian'
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$4 ;e chared the% "ith usurpation of 5udicial
functions' for alleedl# 4%aliciousl# and de&iousl# issuin
biased' fa*e' baseless and unconstitutional 7Resolution7 and 7Entr#
of (ud%ent7 in E$R$ No$ 2??18$4Su%%onses "ere issued to defendants
b# RTC Branch -2 ,(ude Rafael R$ GbaLeF' presidin/$ These processes
"ere brouht 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 (ude
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# inthe future be filed in his court$4
Accordinl#' (ude IbaLeF issued an Order on (une .' -00> )uashin
the su%%onses and dis%issin the co%plaint in said Ci&il Case
No$ CEB62.10$The Resolution of (une -' -00> 27 e+plained to
Borro%eo in no little detail the nature and purpose of notices sent
b# the Cler*s of Court of decisions or resolutions of the Court
E& Ba&* or the Ci&isions' in this "ise9This is not the
first ti%e that Mr$ Borro%eo has filed charesBco%plaints aainst
officials of the Court$In se&eral letter co%plaints filed "ith
the courts and the O%buds%an' Borro%eo had repeatedl# alleed that
he 4suffered in5ustices'4 because of the disposition of the four
,@/ cases he separatel# appealed to this Court "hich "ere
resol&ed b# %inute resolutions' alleedl# in &iolation of
Sections @,8/' -8 and -@ of Article AIII of the -021 Constitution$
;is in&ariable co%plaint is that the resolutions "hich disposed
of his cases do not bear the sinatures 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 sined onl# b# the Cler*s of Court and therefore
4unconstitutional' null and &oid$4+++ +++ +++The Court re%inds
all lo"er courts' la"#ers' and litiants that it disposes of the
bul* of its cases b# %inute resolutions and decrees the% as final
and e+ecutor#' as "ere a case is patentl# "ithout %erit' "here the
issues raised are factual in nature' "here the decision appealed
fro% is in accord "ith the facts of the case and the applicable
la"s' "here it is clear fro% the records that the petition is filed
%erel# to forestall the earl# e+ecution of 5ud%ent and for
non6co%pliance "ith the rules$ Theresolution den#in due course
al"a#s i&es the leal basis$ As e%phasiFed in I& Re9 @?
,Branch 2' ;on$ Bernardo Salaspresidin/$ Therein he co%plained
essentiall# of the sa%e thin he had been harpin on all alon9 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 challened 5ud%ent D the
notice sent to hi% D of the 4unsined and unspecific4 resolution of
3ebruar# -0' -00>' den#in his %otion for reconsideration D had
been sined 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# inored! defendants had
usurped 5udicial functions b# issuin resolutions sined onl# b# the%
and not b# an# (ustice' and "ithout statin the factual and leal
basis thereof! and defendants7 4"anton' %alicious and patentl#
abusi&e acts4 had caused hi% 4ra&e %ental anuish'
se&ere %oral shoc*' e%barrass%ent' sleepless nihts and "orr#!4
and conse)uentl#' he "as entitled to %oral da%aes of no less than
P?>'>>>$>> and e+e%plar# da%aes of
P->'>>>$>>' and litiation e+penses of
P='>>>$>>$On (une 2' -00>' (ude 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$ Courtof Appeals
and Sa%son6Lao'4 supra D directin that all co%plaints aainst
officers of that Court be for"arded to it for appropriate action$
21Borro%eo filed a 4ManifestationBMotion4 dated (une ?1' -00>
as*in the Court to 4rectif# the in5ustices4 co%%itted aainst hi% in
E$R$ Nos$ 288>.' 2@000' 21201' 11?@2 and 2@>=@$ This the
Court ordered e+puned fro% the record,Resolution' (ul# -0'
-00>/$?$ RTC Case No$ R-2!""0! CA-G$R$CV No$ !045!! G$R$ No$
""4Borro%eo also sued to stop UCPB fro% foreclosin the %ortae on
his propert#$ In the Cebu Cit# RTC' he filed a co%plaint for
4Ca%aes "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 Reis$ Once aain' Borro%eo "as
rebuffed$ The Cebu RTC ,Br$ --' (ude Aaleriano R$To%ol' (r$
presidin/ dis%issed the co%plaint' upheld UCPB7s riht to foreclose'
and ranted its counterclai% for %oral da%aes in the su% of
P?>'>>>$>>! attorne#7s fees a%ountin to
P->'>>>$>>! and litiation 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#
infor% and substance and for bein 4larel# unintelliible$4
Borro%eo7s %otion for reconsideration "as denied b# Resolution
dated (une ?=' -020$ A second %otion for reconsideration "as denied
in a Resolution dated (ul# 8-' -020 "hich directed as "ell entr# of
5ud%ent ,effected on Auust -' -020/$ In this Resolution' the Court
,3irst Ci&ision/ said9The 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 Reional Trial Court of
Cebu and then b# the Court of Appeals$ ' -020$ ;is letter "as
ordered e+puned 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%ulated on
Cece%ber -8' -020$8$ RTC Case No$ CEB-5"52! CA G$R$S. No$ !55!4!
G$R$ No$ "5444In arrant disreard 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%aes$4 ;ere' UCPB "as
represented b# Att#$ 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='>>>$>>/ and litiation e+penses
,P-'>>>$>>/$Borro%eo instituted a *er'%orar% action
in the Court of Appeals to annul this 5ud%ent ,CA E$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
Court7sResolution 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$4Borro%eo "ent
up to this Court on appeal' his appeal bein doc*eted as E$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 proceedins'
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' aainco%plainin that the resolution contained no findins 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 aainst the Trial (ude
"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$ (ude 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 (ude 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 aainst 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'
allein that there "as 4no co%patibilit#4 bet"een hi% and his
client' Borro%eo D because 4Borro%eo had been filin pleadins'
papers! etc$ "ithout $ $ $ ,his/ *no"lede 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 Reional
Trial Court in Cebu$ On the other hand' (ude Lee' in his
4Co%pliance4 dated October ?8' -020' apoloiFed to the Court and
infor%ed it that he had alread# pro%ulated an order dis%issin
Ci&il Case No$ CEB62-12 on %otion of the principal defendants
therein' na%el#' (ude Eeneroso (uaban and United Coconut Planters
Ban* ,UCPB/$ Att#$ Cerilles7 "ithdra"al of appearance' and (ude
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 Loarta/ in the Cebu Reional Trial Court on the
theor# that his contract "ith the latter "as not an absolute sale
but an e)uitable %ortae$ The action "as doc*eted as Case No$
CEB681@$ (ud%ent "as rendered aainst 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 Loarta$
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%ulated 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 leal research fund fees "ere
filed and paid late! and ,b/ the issues raised are factual and the
findins 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 souht
reconsideration of said ad&erse resolutions throuh &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 sinature 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"s9Cear
Mr$ Borro%eo9This refers to #our letter dated (une 0' -021
re)uestin for a cop# of the actual resolution "ith the sinatures 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
thorouh deliberation a%on the %e%bers of this Court' "hich does not
and cannot deleate the e+ercise of its 5udicial functions to its
Cler* of Court or an# of its subalterns' "hich should be *no"n to
counsel$ >'>>>$>> on its liabilit# thereunder$
Aain' as in the case of his obliations to Traders Ro#al Ban* and
UCPB' Borro%eo failed to dischare his contractual obliations$
;ence' SBTC brouht an action in the Cebu Cit# RTC aainst Borro%eo
and Su%%a for collection$The action "as doc*eted as Ci&il Case
No$ R6?-.-=' and "as assined to Branch ->' (ude Leonardo
CaLares' presidin$ Plaintiff SBTC "as represented b# Att#$ Edar
Eica' "ho later "ithdre" and "as substituted b# the la" fir%'
;ERSINLA>>$>>/! and P='>>>$>> as
litiation 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 hihest 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 Appealsfor 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$ [email protected]$ 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>$;o"e&er' as "ill no" be narrated'
and as %iht no" ha&e been anticipated in liht of his histor# of
recalcitrance andbellicosit#' these proceedins did not sinif# the
end of litiation concernin Borro%eo7s aforesaid contractual
co%%it%ents to SBTC' but onl# %ar*ed the start of another coneries
of actions and proceedins' ci&il and cri%inal concernin the
sa%e %atter' instituted b# Borro%eo$?$ RTC Case No$ CEB-426$ 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%ulated 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$4Stubbornl#' in his %otion for reconsideration' he insisted
the notices of the resolutions sent to hi% "ere unconstitutional
and &oid because bearin no sinatures of the (ustices "ho had
ta*en part in appro&in the resolution therein %entioned$B$ RTC
Case No$ CEB-!!52"s D1a&%6es'a'%o&D o6No9e+-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#$ Leaspi to substantiate his chares under oath and the failure
of the concerned (ustices to refute the chares in the alleded
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#$
Leaspi7s baseless and false chares$4AII$ T;E COART CONCLASIONSA$
Respo&(e&'>s L%a-%)%'76or 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 5udes
and i%proper conduct directl# i%pedin' obstructin and deradin the
ad%inistration of 5ustice$ 00 ;e has stubbornl# litiated issues
alread# declared to be "ithout %erit' obstinatel# closin his e#es
to the %an# rulins rendered ad&ersel# to hi% in %an# suits and
proceedins' rulins "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 5udes 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 5udes and court e%plo#ees "ho ha&e had to act on his
repetitious and larel# unfounded co%plaints' pleadins and %otions$
;e has "asted the ti%e of the courts' of his ad&ersaries' of
the 5udes 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 ereious error of his theor# that the so6called 4%inute
resolutions4 of this Court should contain findins of fact and
conclusions of la"' and should be sined or certified b# the
(ustices pro%ulatin the sa%e' 05 he has %ulishl# persisted in
&entilatin that self6sa%e theor# in &arious proceedins'
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&sesThe 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 (ude 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' arroant and reprehensible
assu%ption of a co%petence in the field of the la"9 he aain uses up
the ti%e of the Court needlessl# b# in&o*in an aru%ent lon
since declared and ad5uded to be untenable$ It is a+io%atic that
the 4po"er or dut# of the court to institute a chare for conte%pt
aainst itself' "ithout the inter&ention of the fiscal or
prosecutin officer' is essential to the preser&ation of its
dinit# and of the respect due it fro% litiants' la"#ers and the
public$ @ of the Re&ised penal Code 4$ $ $ and for deliberatl#
causin 4undue in5ur#4 to respondent $ $ $ and her co6heirs because
of the 4un5ust Resolution4 pro%ulated' 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 ofo&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 aenc# %a#
pass upon its 5ud%ents or declarethe% 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
reconiFed 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 oraniFed is to put an end to contro&ers#' to
decide the )uestions sub%itted to the litiants' and to deter%ine
the respecti&e rihts of the parties$ ,LuFon Bro*erae Co$' Inc$
&s$ Mariti%e Bld$' Co$' Inc$' 2. SCRA 8>=' 8-.68-1/+++ +++
+++Indeed' resolutions of the Supre%e Court as a colleiate court'
"hether an e& -a&* or di&ision' spea* for
the%sel&es and are entitled to full faith and credence and are
be#ond in&estiation or in)uir# under '/e sa+e pr%&*%p)e o6
*o&*)us%9e&ess o6 e&ro))e( -%))s o6 '/e )e$%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 reards the tenor of the %easure passed b# Conress 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
Conress and appro&ed b# the E+ecuti&e Mas clai%ed b#
petitioner6i%porter "ho unsuccessfull# souht refund of %arin 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 leislation' 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$e '/e%r (u'%es as '/e7 see 6%'4
,Tan &s$ Macapaal' @8 SCRA .11/$ It has thus %aintained in the
sa%e "a# that the 5udiciar#has a riht to e+pect that neither the
President nor Conress "ould cast doubt on the %ainsprin of its
orders or decisions' it should refrain fro% speculatin as to alleed
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($+e&'s
o6Lo0er Cour's No' Re9%e0a-)eE9e& -7 Supre+e Cour'In respect of
Courts belo" the Supre%e Court' the ordinar# re%edies a&ailable
under la" to a part# "ho is ad&ersel# affected b# their
decisions or orders are a %otion for ne" trial ,or reconsideration/
under Rule 81' and an appeal to either the Court of Appeals or the
Supre%e Court' dependin on "hether )uestions of both fact and la"'
or of la" onl#' are raised' in accordance "ith fi+ed and fa%iliar
rules and confor%abl# "ith the hierarch# of courts$ 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
throuh the special ci&il action of *er'%orar% or prohibition
pursuant to Rule .= of the Rules of Court$;o"e&er' should
5ud%ents of lo"er courts D "hich %a# nor%all# be sub5ect to
re&ie" b# hiher tribunals D beco%e final and e+ecutor# before'
or "ithout' e+haustion of all recourse of appeal' the#' too' beco%e
in&iolable' i%per&ious to %odification$ The# %a#' then' no
loner be re&ie"ed' or in an#"a# %odified directl# or
indirectl#' b# a hiher court' not e&en b# the Supre%e Court'
%uch less b# an# other official' branch or depart%ent of
Eo&ern%ent$ 52C$ 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$%*No"' the Court ta*es 5udicial notice of the
fact that there has been of late a rerettable increase in the
resort to ad%inistrati&e prosecution D or the institution of a
ci&il or cri%inal action D as a substitute for or supple%ent to
appeal$ U$ S$ 88=/$+++ +++ +++To allo" litiants to $o -e7o&(
'/e Cour'>s reso)u'%o& and clai% that the %e%bers acted
4"ith deliberate bad faith4 and rendered an 4un5ust resolution4 in
disreard or &iolation of the dut# of their hih office to act
upon their o"n independent consideration and 5ud%ent of the %atter
at hand "ould be to (es'ro7 '/e au'/e&'%*%'7, %&'e$r%'7
a&( *o&*)us%9e&ess of such colleiate acts and
resolutions and to disreard utterl# the presu%ption of reular
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$Cissatisfied litiants andBor their counsels
cannot "ithout &iolatin the separation of po"ers %andated b#
the Constitution relitiate in another foru% the final 5ud%ent of
this Court on leal issues sub%itted b# the% and their
ad&ersaries for final deter%ination to and b# the Supre%e Court
and "hich fall "ithin the 3u(%*%a) po0er to deter%ine and
ad5udicate eE*)us%9e)7 &ested b# the Constitution %& '/e
Supre+e Cour' and in such inferior courts as %a# be established b#
la"$This is true' too' as reards 5ud%ents' other"ise appealable'
"hich ha&e beco%e final and e+ecutor#$ Such 5ud%ents' bein no
loner re&ie"able b# hiher 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($+e&'s or
Or(ersErro&eous or A&3us'To belabor the ob&ious' the
deter%ination of "hether or not a 5ude%ent or order is un5ust D or
"as ,or "as not/ rendered "ithin the scope of the issuin 5ude7s
authorit#' or that the 5ude had e+ceeded his 5urisdiction and
po"ers or %aliciousl# dela#ed the disposition of a case D is an
essentiall# 5udicial function' loded b# e+istin la" and i%%e%orial
practice in a hierarch# of courts and ulti%atel# in the hihest
court of the land$ To repeat' no other entit# or official of the
Eo&ern%ent' not the prosecution or in&estiation 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 preroati&e belons to the
courts alone$@$ Co&'rar7 Ru)e Resu)'s %&
C%r*u%'ous&essa&( Lea(s 'o A-sur(
Co&se8ue&*esPra%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
distinuished fro% accusations of corruption' or i%%oralit#' or
other "rondoin$ To allo" institution of such proceedins "ould not
onl# be leall# i%proper' it "ould also result in a futile and
circuitous e+ercise' and lead to absurd conse)uences$Assu%e that a
case oes throuh the "hole a%ut of re&ie" in the 5udicial
hierarch#! %$e$' a 5ud%ent is rendered b#a %unicipal trial court!
it is re&ie"ed and affir%ed b# the proper Reional Trial Court!
the latter7s 5ud%ent is appealed to and in due course affir%ed b#
the Court of Appeals! and finall#' the appellate court7s decision
is brouht up to and affir%ed b# the Supre%e Court$ The prosecution
of the %unicipal trial court 5ude "ho rendered the oriinal decision
,for *no"inl# 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&estiation' not onl# that the 5ude7s decision
"as "ron and un5ust' but b# necessar# i%plication that the
decisions or orders of the Reional Trial Court (ude' as "ell as the
(ustices of the Court of Appeals and the Supre%e Court "ho affir%ed
the oriinal 5ud%ent "ere also all "ron and un5ust D %ost certainl#
an act of supre%e arroance and &er# e&ident supereroation$
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' disareein
"ith the &erdict of all four ,@/ courts' file an infor%ation in
the Reional Trial Court aainst the Municipal Trial Court (ude' the
fate of such an indict%ent at the hands of the Sandianba#an or the
Reional Trial Court "ould be fairl# predictable$E&en if for
so%e reason the Municipal Trial Court (ude is con&icted b# the
Sandianba#an or a Reional Trial Court' the appeal before the
Supre%e Court or the Court of Appeals "ould ha&e an
ine&itable result9 i&en the antecedents' the &erdict of
con&iction "ould be set aside and the correctness of the
5ud%ent in )uestion' alread# passed upon and finall# resol&ed
b# the sa%e appellate courts' "ould necessaril# be
sustained$Moreo&er' in such a scenario' nothin "ould
pre&ent the Municipal Trial (ude' in his turn' fro% filin a
cri%inal action aainst the Sandianba#an (ustices' or the Reional
Trial Court (ude "ho should con&ict hi% of the offense'for
*no"inl# renderin an un5ust 5ud%ent' or aainst the (ustices of the
Court of Appeals or the Supre%e Court "ho should affir% his
con&iction$The situation is ridiculous' ho"e&er the
circu%stances of the case %a# be %odified' and reardless of "hether
it is a ci&il' cri%inal or ad%inistrati&e proceedin that is
a&ailed of as the &ehicle to prosecute the 5ude for
supposedl# renderin an un5ust decision or order$=$ .r%+or(%a)
Re8u%s%'es 6or A(+%&%s'ra'%9eCr%+%&a) .rose*u'%o&This
is not to sa# that it is not possible at all to prosecute 5udes for
this i%propriet#' of renderin an un5ust 5ud%entor interlocutor#
order! but' ta*in account of all the foreoin 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 proceedins in "hich the decision of the trial court in
the ci&il or cri%inal action in )uestion is
challened$>>$>>/$ ;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 aainst courts' 5udes or court e%plo#ees' "ill
%erit further and %ore serious sanctions$IT IS SO ORCEREC$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$8 Per (ude Benino E$ Ea&iola' Branch 0' RTC'
Cebu$@ Ra%ireF' 2$' po&e&'e' "ith "ho% concurred 3rancisco
,CeFar/ and Aailoces' 22$= (ude Renato C$ Cacudao' presidin$. (ude
Celso M$ Ei%eneF' Branch =$1 Euinona' 2$' po&e&'e' "ith
"ho% concurred (a&ellana and I%perial' 22$2 Branch ?@' ;on$
Priscila S$ Aana' presidin$0 Per (ude (ose P$ Buros' Branch
-1$-> Per (ude ,no" CA Associate (ustice/ Eodardo (acinto$-- 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$-= As
e&er# la"#er *no"s' the Cler* of Court of a Ci&ision or of
the Court E& Ba&* %s, o6 *ourse, &o' a 4+ere *)er=,4
but the hihest ad%inistrati&e officer in the Ci&ision or
Court' ne+t onl# to the (ustices$-. 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#$-0 Sub6;ead II' A' 8' %&6ra$?> See sub6head
I' A' 8' supra DBecause 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 aainst 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$ Usal' appro&ed
b# Cit# 3iscal (ufelinito R$ Pare5a$?= Per In&estiator Mario E$
Ca%o%ot' reco%%ended for appro&al b# Cirector IA A$ A$ Aarela'
and appro&ed b# (uan M$ ;aad' Ceput# O%buds%an' Aisa#as$?. In
the third pararaph of this opinion$?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- / 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! Eesulon &$ 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' -2- SCRA ?=?' E$R$ No$ 1?-82' (anuar# ??' -00>!
Tur)ueFa &$ ;ernando' 01 SCRA @28' E$R$ No$ L6=-.?.' April
8>' -02>! Lee Bun Tin &$ Aliaen' 1. SCRA @-.' E$R$ No$
L68>=?8' April ??' -011$@2 ?> SCRA @@-' @@@$@0 Aainst
5ud%ents of the Supre%e Court since ob&iousl# no appeal to a
hiher 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 reard to ci&il cases and proceedins'
and Rule -?= in relation to Rule -?@' in respect of cri%inal cases$
SEE Calalan &$ Reister 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 Prora% &$
Sibulo' -1- SCRA @>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! Tuade
&$ CA 28 SCRA ??.! Barrera &$ Barrera' 8@ SCRA 02' E$R$ No$
L68-=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>$=> -@2 SCRA 82?' @-16@-2$=- Aainst 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='
Auust 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$ L68@??>' 3ebruar# ?-' -028!
Co%%issioner of Internal Re&enue &$ Aisa#an ElectricCo$' -0
SCRA .0.' E$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@?-== Rodrio &$ 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?.$=0 The
old Code of Ci&il Procedure$