VERIFIED DISBARMENT COMPLAINT

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Office of the Bar Confidant SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M A N I L A

Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant,

- versus -

A.C. NO. ______________  For: Disbarment

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

VERIFIED DISBARMENT COMPLAINT / LETTER-AFFIDAVIT LETTER-AFFIDAVIT [Under Rules 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia] alia ] With - Motions - for Leave of Court to Admit this Complaint, for PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno , and the MEMBERS, En Banc, SUPREME COURT, Padre Faura, Manila

Your Honors,

I, the undersigned petitioner,  Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under  oath, by MYSELF and for MYSELF, as litigant / complainant in this case,  AND WITH LEAVE OF THIS COURT , most respectfully depose and say, that:

CRITICAL AND UNDISPUTED FACTS: Bill of Particulars:

1. On September 28, 1998, undersigned filed with Br. 19, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, LRC P-405-98 verified petition to cancel adverse claim on TCT Nos. T-328106- (M), T-316135(M), and T-316136 (M)-Bulacan; copies of - - a) pertinent pages 1, 4 & 5, of the Petition, b) the mother title TCT. No T61.582(M)-B 61.582(M)-Bulaca ulacan, n, c) TCT Nos. T-328106(M), T-328106(M), T-316135(M T-316135(M), ), and T-316136 T-316136 (M)-Bulacan (M)-Bulacan,, d) “ Kasunduan ng Sanglaan” dated / signed on January 5, 1995, e) 1994 Guardianship, Br. 10, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan Permanent Injunction,   pro prohi hibi biti ting ng the the disp dispos osal al / mortg mortgag agee of 7/12 7/12 share share of Mila Milagr gros os Flor Floro o by defendants, annotated at the back of the title, f) Death Certificate of Milagros Floro, g) Guardianship Court Order canceling the annotated lien of Permanent Injunction because of death of ward, Milagros Floro, on December 5, 1995, and h) the March, 1998 defendants’ Affidavit of Adverse claim, are respectively attached, as  Annexes  Annexes “A, A-1, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-8, &  A-9”, as integral part hereof. All annexes / exhibits were duly admitted by the Court. 2. On September 29, 1998, and October 8, 1998, undersigned also filed with with Br. Br. 9, RTC, RTC, Malo Malolo los, s, Bula Bulaca can, n, Civi Civill Case Case No. No. 938-M-98,

verified

petition / complaint and amended verified complaint, respectively, to annul / cancel the mortgage cont contra ract ct on said said 3 titl titles es,, base based d on the the Civi Civill Code Code

 provisions of  annulment of a) voidable contracts due to incapacity to give consent, and consent was vitiated by fraud, undue influence, threats, mistake, violence etc., and b) rescissible contracts, due to violation of the guardianship court order, under Arts. 1390, 1391, in relation to 1381, par. 4, 1383 & 1389,  NCC, respectively, inter alia. These twin suits were also filed, in order to clear  or quiet the said / subject of these suits 3 titles, including TCT Nos. T-328106(M), which was sold sold by undersigned undersigned to LRC P-405 petitioners spouses spouses Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad. The spouses bought the lot from undersigned by virtue of a “ KASUNDUAN ” dated 30 March, 1998, inter alia, and undersigned was thereby obliged to represent the spouses in Court, and they, in turn, were bound to pay undersigned sums of money, upon court cancellation of the adverse claim claim upon their torrens torrens title. title. Copies Copies of pertin pertinent ent pages pages 1, 6 & 7, of a) the

2

Verifi Verified ed Petiti Petition on / Compla Complaint int,, b) Amende Amended d Verifi Verified ed Compla Complaint int,, and c) the “ Kasunduan” dated 30 March, 1998, are respectively attached, as  Annexes B,  B-1& B-2. Undersigned petitioner  fully paid all the legal, docket and all other fees on all the above Petitions / Complaints / Amended Complaint as proved by

the Office of the Clerk of Court Court Offici Official al Receip Receipts. ts. Copies Copies of all the officia officiall receipts submitted to the Court, are collectively attached as  Annex B -3 hereof. Pre-trial, Stipulation of Facts, and Trial a.) In the Pre-trial Order dated 19 March 1999, the Court ruled / terminated

the pre-trial and granted defendants’ Blancos’ plea and Manifestation that “they are adopting the answer to the complaint already filed by their co-

defendant, Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico.”  b.) The Pre-Trial Brief dated 22 February 1999 of defendant Atty. Villarico

(adopted thusly by defendants Blancos) submitted the negative defense,

inter alia, of “the complaint states, and that the plaintiff has, no cause of  action against the defendants” and it also submitted the only Issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action against the defendants, and 2. If  the answer in the first issue is in the negative, will the defendant be entitled to his claim enumerated in the Compulsory Counterclaim.” It further alleged and stated that “F. Witnesses to be Presented: 1. Atty.

Vilarico and his co-defendant Jessie Floro will be presented to testify that  the complaint was merely to annoy and pester the defendants as the complaint states no cause of action, the plaintiff has no remedy in law.” Defendantss spouses spouses Blancos’ Blancos’ and Villaricos Villaricos’’ “Answer “Answer with Compulsory Compulsory c.) Defendant Counterclaim” dated 10 December 1998, submitted the “SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES” of –  “5. The complaint states, and that the

 plaintiff has, no cause of action. Xxx. 6. xxx , he was not privy to any document signed by his co-defendants nor has he been an instrumental  Defend ndan ants ts in the the plea pleadi ding ng,, prom promis ised ed to pres presen entt witness witness thereto.” thereto.” Defe witnesses and documents, but they miserably failed.

3

d.)

The The part partie iess ther therea eaft fter er subm submit itte ted d the the Stip Stipul ulat atio ions ns of Fact Factss with with Admissions, and the Court admitted the same, and the Comments.

e.) During all the pre-trial and trials / hearings of motions, only undersigned

Judge Floro appeared, testified and submitted unrebutted evidence, while all defendants failed to be present, even once; further, they failed to crossexamine Judge Floro, and the Court ordered that all the defendants had waived waived their their rights rights to crosscross-exa examin minee Judge Judge Floro. Floro. Furthermore Furthermore,, they failed to submit any witness or documentary evidence to rebut Judge Flor Floro’ o’ss admi admitt tted ed test testim imon onia iall and and docu docume ment ntar ary y evid eviden ence ce,, as they they  promised, despite several court orders for them to do so. f.) The Court admitted Judge Floro’s duly offered Exhibits “ A to I -sub-sub-

markings”, for all the purposes offered, as defendants failed to rebut them, due to their complete ABSENCE in all proceedings, from 1998 until today. The Court finally declared that all defendants had waived their  rights to present evidence. Copies of a) the Br. 9, RTC, Malolos, Pre-trial Order dated 19 March 1999,  b) the Pre-Trial Brief dated 22 February 1999 of defendant Atty. Villarico and the Defendants Blancos’ / Villaricos’ ANSWER WITH COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM dated 10 December 1998, c) the Parties’ Stipulations of  Facts with Admissions, and d) the Court Orders dated August 12, 2004, September 13 & 22, 2004, and 17 June, 2005, are attached as ANNEXES  “C, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, & C-7   ,” respectively hereof.

3. Accordingly, these LRC and Civil cases were ordered by respondent Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz (“ Judge Thelma,” for brevity), submitted for partial  judgment on 17 June, 2005 2005 and 22 September, 2004; Vide Vide copies of the the Court orders attached as  Annexes “C-6, 6-7 ,” ,” hereof. 4. However, since the LRC Petitioners Spouses Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad, despite repeated demands by undersigned Judge Floro, failed and refu refuse sed d to pay pay him him the the amou amount nt due due on the the cont contra ract ct,, admi admitt tted ed evid eviden ence ce “KASUNDUAN” of March 20, 1998, Judge Floro asked the court for LEAVE to admit admit Supple Supplemen mental tal and Amende Amended d Supple Supplemen mental tal Pleadi Pleadings ngs to add these these

4

spouses as defendants and to join issues with them to pay the sum. Judge Floro found as reasons of their failure to pay, the critical facts that - LRC petitioner  Alfredo Trinidad suffered a stroke, while LRC petitioner, his wife, Florentina Trinidad suffered lingering illnesses; further, their daughter Ann Trinidad was allegedly swindled and separated from her spouse, while Ann’s daughter Bea suffered great physical crab deformity of both legs; her brother Alfred Trinidad was hooked on cock fighting; but considering that undersigned was appointed Judge on November 5, 1998, the Court ordered them to hire services of counsel. 5. Thus, Atty. Nye Orquillas (“ Orquillas,” for brevily) appeared as the counsel of LRC P-405 petitioners spouses Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad. But instead of asking the Court to cancel the adverse claim, to make clean their title, Atty. Orquillas, in bad faith, with badges of fraud, and with greatest malice, for  money and / or attorney’s fees, did, unlawfully and feloniously, file a Motion to Dismiss not only a) the collection or or sum of money supplemental supplemental case filed by unders undersign igned ed agains againstt the Trinid Trinidads ads,, but, but, surpri surprisin singly gly,, and withou withoutt any valid valid ground, Atty. Orquillas even moved b) to dismiss both the above twin cases filed filed by unde undersi rsign gned ed,, on the the sole sole and and nonnon-ex exis iste tent nt / fals falsee grou ground nd of nonnon payment of docket fees. Copy of Atty. Orquillas’ 10 pages Motion to Dismiss dated 1 December, 2004, is attached as  Annex “D”  hereof. 6. Atty. Orquillas deceived Judge Floro, inter alia, by submitting as his Motion’s Annexes, Certificates of (alleged by him) required docket fees: which he alleged – must have been paid by undersigned: a) P 103,156 and b) P 94,278 Copies of the Office Office of Clerk Clerk of Court, Court, RTC, Malolo Malolos, s, Bulaca Bulacan, n, inter alia. Copies assessment of docket fees for the above-twin cases are attached as  Annexes hereof of.. Desp Despit itee oral oral and and 27-p 27-pag ages es 13 Dece Decemb mber er 2004 2004 “D-1 and  D-2”  here OPPOSITION OPPOSITION

(Annex (Annex “D-3” ) by undersi undersigne gned, d, the lower lower court/ court/res respon ponden dentt

Judge Thelma, on February 24, 2004, dismissed these twin cases due to alleged non-payment of docket fees: a) undersigned’s October, 1998 Amended Verified Complaint b) undersigned’s LRC Petition and c) the supplemental pleading dated dated October October 25, 2004. 2004. Copy Copy of the Court Court dismissa dismissall order order is attach attached ed as  Annex “E  hereof.

5

7. Undersigned filed 37–pages Urgent Motion to Reconsider dated 22 May 2005 ( Annex “E-1”  hereof), insisting on the payment of correct docket fees. At the hearing however, respondent Judge Thelma in open Court, asked the parties, that she be allowed to UNLOAD these cases, since, according to her, her court  became a family court. Judge Floro vehemently objected, since, the Circulars and rules expressly provide that Unloading is allowed or mandated only for  those cases which had never been tried or were only at the pre-trial stages. Hence, respondent Judge Thelma continued with the case and heard Judge Floro’s motions and evidence at the hearing. OCA IPI No. 05-2157-P – “Judge Floro vs. Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson”

Canc Cancer er and and Deat Death h of Resp Respon onde dent nt Judg Judgee Thel Thelma ma’s ’s Husb Husban and; d; Sell Sellin ing g of  Decisions in Annulment Cases; and the P 2.0 Million Pulumbaret Bribery Judicial Notice in RTC, Malolos of Respondent Joson’s 2004 – 2008 Sale of  Annulment Orders as Court Court Fixer, and Broker of of Respondent Thelma, in the P 2.0 Millio Million n Pulumbaret Pulumbaret Bribery Bribery / Union Union Bank Bank A.M. A.M. OCA IPI No. No. 04-202604-2026RTJ, “Union Bank vs. Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz” P inero-Cruz”

8. By sheer accident, Judge Floro F loro discovered on 2004-2005, and reported to 05-2157-P 7-P  –  the Suprem Supremee Court, Court, in his filed/ filed/dec decide ided d case, case, OCA IPI No. 05-215

“Judge Floro vs. Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson,” the magnitude of corruption at Br. 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan perpetrated by herein respondents, in order to raise funds for the 2004 cancer and lingering illness of respondent Thelma’s husban husband. d. Judge Judge Floro, Floro, filed filed the the admini administr strati ative ve case, case, since since respon responden dentt Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson ( “Ms. Joson,” for brevity) failed to include Judge Floro’s case in the calendar and reports required by the 2002 Revised Manuals of  Clerks of Court, inter alia, as those cases submitted for Decision on 20042005. Judge Floro also accused respondent Mrs. Joson, of failing to submit the required monthly, semester and annual OCAD reports. The Honorable Supreme Court's 3rd Division’s final Resolution / fallo, dated Marc March h 8, 2006 2006 rule ruled: d: (aga (again inst st resp respon onde dent nt Ms. Ms. Joso Joson, n, and and in favo favorr of  undersigned, in A. M. OCA IPI No. 05-2157-P): “To REMIND respondent OIC Mrs. Lerida Socorro Joson to BE MORE CIRCUMSPECT and PRUDENT  in the discharge of her duties …” 

6

Copies Copies of the A. M. OCA IPI No. 05-2157-P a) 18-pag 18-pages es Judge Judge Floro’s Floro’s Verified Complaint-Affidavit dated March 28, 2005, b) 12-pages Judge Floro’s Veri Verifi fied ed Supp Supple leme ment ntal al Affi Affida davi vitt date dated d 4 Apri April, l, file filed d 8 Apri April, l, 2005 2005,, c) respondent, Mrs. Joson’s 3-pages COMMENT dated 21 April 2005, d) OCAD 1st Indorsement dated 3 April 2005, and e) Judge Floro’s 8-pages Reply Supplemental Affidavit dated 29 April 2005, f) March 16, 2005, S.C. 2 nd Division Resolution on A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2026-RTJ, and g) Code of Conduct of Court Personnel, are attached as Annexes “G, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4 & G-5 ,” respectively, respectively, hereof.

9. The Court / respondent Thelma, therefore, made a FIRST turn around, and issued an order, reversing reversing the dismissal, dismissal, and required required undersigned undersigned to pay the docket fees within a reasonable time, even if he already paid all the fees. Copy of the Court order dated September 7, 2005 is attached as  Annex F . 2006 Supervening Legal Mootness due to Prescription of Subject Mortgage 10. Since the defendants failed to foreclose the subject real estate mortgage or to file suit against (or demand payment from) deceased Milagros Floro on the subject of these cases mortgage, on or before the prescriptive date of January 6, 2006, Judge Floro, on May 22 and August 8, 2007, filed Motions to cancel the mortgage and to reconsider again the Court’s / respondent Judge Thelma’s rulin ruling g on requ requir irem emen entt of paym paymen entt of P 199, 199,00 000 0 dock docket et fees fees.. The The Publ Public ic Pros Prosec ecut utor or oppo oppose sed d but but late laterr with withdr drew ew oppo opposi siti tion on upon upon Judg Judgee Flor Floro’ o’ss submission of CERTIFIED COPIES of 1998 & 1999 Office of the Clerk of  Court’s Official Receipt of FULL PAYMENT of all docket and legal fees (for  these 2 cases and for all the filed petitions, complaint and amended complaint). Copies of Judge Floro’s a) 6-pages Omnibus Motions dated May 22, 2007, b) 16-pages August 8, 2007, Verified Omnibus Motions with Reply, and c) Court orders setting the hearings of these cases, are attached as  Annexes “H, H-1, &  H-2,” respectively, hereof. 11. Despite court orders for Atty. Orquillas to file comment / opposition, he disappeared; he miserably and in bad faith, further failed and refused to file any  pleading; he also failed to appear in court as required by it, to contradict or deny undersigned undersigned’s ’s accusations accusations that that he lied to the court, court, that he sold his clients’ clients’ case, and that he allowed them to loose the case, so that undersigned would not 7

  be paid based on the “ Kasunduan”; and worst, worst, Atty. Atty. Orquil Orquillas las refuse refused d to cooperate to fight for his clients’ rights to have the adverse claim cancelled so that the purchased purchased lot / title would be made quiet; Copies of the OCC issued official receipts of full payment of docket and all legal fees by Judge Floro, are attached and marked collectively, as  Annex “B-3” .   Modus Operandi : Another Sham and False Motion to Dismiss Judge Floro’s

cases allegedly due to non-payment of Privilege Tax Receipts by Judge Floro 12. Respondents Judge Thelma and Ms. Joson, conspired with Atty. Irineo E. Guardiano, 80 years old (new counsel of another defendants in these cases spouses Mariano and Ligaya Blanco’s new and third counsel; their first lawyer, Atty. Rafael Santos, died in 2000, while their second counsel-of-record, Atty. Donato Mabbayad Mabbayad resigned) --- a) to delay these these 10 years cases, cases, and to make it appear, that b) respondents would rectify the grave INJUSTICES to Judge Floro   by by deny enying ing the the sha sham and and fal false moti otion. on. Copi Copiees of a) Atty Atty.. Irine rineo o E. Guardiano’s / defendant’s Blanco’s 3 pages Motion to Dismiss dated / filed on 3, 7 December, 2008, b) Judge Floro’s 16-pages Opposition dated, filed on 4, 17, December, 2008, and c) Court order setting the hearing of these cases, are attached as Annexes “ I, I-1 and I-2,” respectively, hereof. The instant A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2854-RTJ complaint / case, endorsed by Br. 14, RTC, Malolos Bulacan, Executive Judge Petrita Braga Dime The supervening event of Judge Floro’s accidental and destined discovery of  the P 80,000 committed by co-conspira co-conspirators tors Alfred 80,000 pay-off  pay-off  and bribery committed respo ndents Judge Ju dge Thelma Thelm a and Ms. Joson . Trinidad and respondents 13. Judge Floro, during the 2 nd to the last quarter of 2007, found that herein LRC Petitioners spouses Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad’s son Alfred Trinidad  blocked the right-of-way common to the subject lots of these cases, by his figh fighti ting ng cock cockss and and cock cock hous houses es,, whic which h made made it so dirt dirty y and and mudd muddy y or  impas impassa sabl ble. e. At Meyc Meycau auay ayan an,, Bula Bulaca can n Joll Jollib ibee ee after afterno noon on meet meetin ing, g, Alfre Alfred d Trin Trinid idad ad offe offere red d to Judg Judgee Flor Floro, o, per per his his secr secret etar ary, y, Ms. Ms. Bele Belen n Gome Gomez, z, settlement, thusly: he would remove the nuisance, on the condition of full 8

  payme payment nt by Judge Judge Floro, Floro, of P 80,000 80,000,, reduced reduced to P 60,000 60,000,, which which Alfred Alfred admitted as “2005 GASTOS SA CASO,”  or  bribe cash moneys he paid to respondent Mrs. Joson, for Judge Thelma (so that these cases would be delayed   by respondents Judge Thelma and Ms. Joson, in consideration of the 2005 dismissal of Judge Floro’s cases, so that the Trinidads, would no longer pay Judge Floro the amount they are obliged to pay, based on the duly admitted Exh. H, “ KASUNDUAAN ” dated March 30, 2008). 14. Additional Additional condition condition of the bribe money was: Judge Judge Floro would eventually loose by technicalities, so that even if Judge Floro would appeal the cases to the higher courts, it would eventually take many long years, and the Trinidads would be spared from paying the sums due to Judge Floro based on the admitted Exhibit / contract. 15. This supervening discovery of bribery, caused Judge Floro’s F loro’s immediate filing of a) the Writ of Amparo Case CA-G.R. SP No. 00015, on January 30, 2008, b) the 5-pages Letter-Complaint to Executive Judge Petrita P etrita B. Dime (now the instant docketed case OCA IPI No. 08-2854-RTJ), and c) the pending fullDisbarmen mentt case case A.C. A.C. No. 7897 7897, Third  blown Disbar Third Divisi Division, on, Supreme Supreme Court. Court.

Copies of a) March 4, 2008 CA-G.R. SP No. 00015 00015 Resolution in the Writ of  Amparo case, b) 1 st Indorsemen Indorsementt of 08 April, April, 2008 of OCAD, OCAD, docketing docketing OCA IPI No. 08-2854-RTJ, c) the 7 pages Comment of Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz thereto dated 16 May 2008, d) 4 pages May 5, 2008 Comment of respondent Ms. Joson, e) 3 pages May 5, 2008 letter of respondent Judge Thelma to OCA DCA A. Dujua and f) 15 pages Disbarment case dated 2 May 2008, A.C. No. 7897, 3 rd Division of the Supreme Court, by Judge Floro versus Atty. Nye N. Annex exes es “J, “J, J.a, J.a, J-1, J-1, J-2, J-2, J—3, J—3, J-4  J-4  & J-5,”  Orquil Orquillas las,, are attach attached ed as   Ann

respectively , as part hereof, and for reference. 16. Meanwhile, respondent Judge Thelma / the Court made a SECOND turn around, reversing her / its latest FIRST reconsideration order, by issuing an Order, as the Court / respondent Judge Thelma admitted its / her glaring and UNJUST ignorance of the law and bad faith. After about 4 years of suffering, Judge Floro got from respondent Judge Thelma this UNJUST and dilatory

9

ruling that undersigned already paid all the docket fees (contrary to the lies submitted by Atty. Orquillas): instead of deciding these cases, respondent Judge Thelma again delayed the decision due since 2004, and without any reason. She S he set the cases anew for hearing, on 22 November 2007, without any agenda. Copy of the court Order dated 22 October, 2008, is attached as  Annex “K.”  14. Respondent Judge Thelma / the court however, denied the sham and false, new Motion to Dismiss filed by Atty. Ireneo E. Guardiano, as it noted and grante granted d unders undersign igned’ ed’ss filed filed opposi oppositio tion n – ground grounded ed on the critic critical al fact that that unde unders rsig igne ned d neve neverr appe appeare ared d as lawy lawyer er,, but but as mere mere liti litiga gant nt for for hims himsel elf. f. Responden Respondentt Judge Judge Thelma / the court therefore, therefore, on March 31, 2008, ordered these twin cases submitted, again, for decision, thereby reiterating its 2004 and 2005 Orders, and further ruled that these cases were submitted for decision as of 2004 and 2005. Copy of the Order is attached as  Annex “L ” hereof.

The April 15, 2008 Partial Judgment 15. On April 15, 2008, respondent Judge Thelma rendered and released the 6 pages challenged Partial Judgment. It dismissed Judge Floro’s twin LRC / civil cases, on technical / false grounds, that a) nobody filed any rescission contract within 4 years from 1996, due date of mortgage, despite the obvious fact that --- the instant cases were/are in themselves, annulment cases filed by Judge Floro, to annul and rescind the subject voidable and rescissible mortgage contract/adverse claim, and b) that Judge Floro’s request from Br. 10, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan guardianship Court, to cancel on March 6, 1996 the annotated Lis Pendens of Permanent Injunction due to death of his mother, subject ward of the injunction, allegedly rendered moot and academic the Injunction. On its face, the Decision Decision is wholly wholly inoperativ inoperative, e, since, it did not cancel cancel Judge Floro’s Floro’s subject titles, but the mortgage cannot also be enforced by the defendants, due to prescription. Simultaneously, and and worst, respondent Judge Judge Thelma too late, or belatedly inhibited herself and asked the Office of the Executive Judge to reraffle the cases, to another another judge. Copy of the Partial Judgment Judgment dated 15 April 2008 is attached as  Annex “M ” hereof.

10

16. Judge Floro sensed/discovered that respondent Judge Thelma begged her UP Class 62 classmate Executive Judge Dime, for respite or compassion, since her 2 hands / arms are locked by respondent Ms. Joson’s a) acceptance of  P 80,000 bribe money for her husband’s hospital bill in 2004, and b) multiple sales annulment orders and decisions since 2004, plus c) the 2004-5 P 2.0 million Pulumbaret pay-off with about one year P 100,000 monthly windfalls duly paid to both respondents, to the damage and prejudice of the Union Bank,

inter alia, and/or other victims of respondents, as predators of INJUSTICE, due to lust lust and and gree greed d for for mone money. y. Judg Judgee Flor Floro o unco uncove vere red d this this magn magnit itud udee of  corruption, when he went to the subject of those administrative/civil cases, the Maunlad I and II Malls, Malolos, Bulacan, wherein, the tenant/s complained to him, about the system of corruption perpetrated by respondent Ms. Joson for  respondent Judge Thelma. Copy of the Supreme Court ruling which dismissed the administrative case against Judge Thelma is attached as  Annex “G-5.” 

GREEDY  BUT HONORABLE: Petition to Create a Fact-Finding Team, to

Submit a Report to the Supreme Court through the Office of ACA Antonio Dujua Dujua regard regarding ing the Judici Judicial al Notice Notice of Respod Respodent ent Ms. Joson’ Joson’ss Contin Continuou uouss Fixing of Annulment of Marriage Cases at Br. 16, RTC, Malolos

17. By 2 nd sheer accident, Judge Floro was informed on the evening of May 24, 2008, in front of Access Avenue, Malolos Malolos Internet Internet Café, by “ Jane Doe,” a female court staff of Br. 80, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan (formerly with Br. 8, and late laterr with with OCC, OCC, RTC, RTC, Malo Malolo los) s),, of the the imme immens nsee corru corrupt ptio ion n per per sell sellin ing g annu annulm lmen entt of marri marriag agee case casess orde orders rs and and Deci Decisi sion ons, s, as fixe fixerr or brok broker er of  respondent Judge Thelma, since 2004, and this critical fact of corruption was and is of JUDICIAL NOTICE at Malolos, such that 90% of lawyers, if asked in confid fidence,

would

confir firm

Jane

Doe’s

statemen ment

to

Judge

Flo Floro. ro.

RESERVATION is duly made at this point, of Judge Floro’s right to present evidence at the OCAD hearing of this case, on the bribery issues, inter alia.

11

18. Because of the carefully planned  MODUS OPRANDI, Judge Floro, upon receipt of the Partial Judgment, on April 17, Friday, 2008, forthwith, on Saturday, April 18, 2008, filed 2-pages handwritten Petition (to annul the a) inhibition order of Judge Thelma, and b) the order of Judge Dime for re-raffle, and c) to transmit back all the records to respondent Judge Thelma for final clos closure ure of all all inci incide dent nts. s. The The Offic Officee of Vice Vice-E -Exe xecu cuti tive ve Judg Judges es Hermi Hermini niaa Pasamba and Renato Francisco acted and GRANTED Judge Floro’s Petition, reversing the April 16, 2008, 1/8 page approval initial/Order of Executive Judge Petrita B. Dime who was on leave due to cancer medication at USA. Copy of  Exec. Judge H. Pasamba’s April 24, 2008 Order is attached as  Annex “N.”  19. Accordingly, Judge Floro timely and forthwith filed his –  a) 18-pages April 21//22, 2008 Verified Motion For Reconsideration of the Partial Judgment and to Annul the Voluntary Inhibition so that Judge Thelma can Rectify the INJUSTICE and her gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, and violation of her oaths of office as lawyer and judge, inter alia;  b) 42-pages May 19, 2008 Reply to Defendants’ Comment, and c) 12-pages Verified Omnibus Motions dated May 23, 2008. Atty Atty.. Iren Ireneo eo E. Guard Guardia iano no filed filed his his 6 page pagess May May 12, 12, 2008 2008 Comme Comment nt for  for  defendants Blancos. Respondent Judge Thelma set the hearings of these incidents on May 2, 12, 19, 28 and July 23, 2008. At the hearing of these motions, she objected to the the Exec Execti tive ve Judg Judge’ e’ss order order,, and and was was stub stubbo born rn on her her stan stance ce of volu volunt ntar ary y inhibition, even if no party filed any inhibition, as Judge F loro objected strongly to her voluntary inhibition. Further, she ruled, that she will not decide Judge Floro’s Motion for Reconsideration, until the OCAD issues a reply on her  inserted query (on page 6 of her May 16, 2008 OCAD COMMENT, “ Annex J2”), on whether the Office of the Executive Judge can overrule her voluntary

inhibition.

Judge Floro objected to her disobedience of the Executive Judge Order dated 24 April 2008, which directed her, to put a closure on these 10 years cases. Such

12

stance of Judge Thelma is nothing but sheer vendetta to prolong and delay Judge Floro’s cases / suffering. Copies of the above-pleadings and the Court Orders are attached as  Annexes “O, O-1, O-2, O-3, O-4 and O-5,”hereof. The ACCUSATION / CHARGES With Legal Argument and Memorandum of Law / Authorities With due respect -

Undersigned complainant charges / accuses respondent Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz --- with --a. GraveViolations of - - i.) A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC, AMENDMENT TO RULE 140 OF THE RULES

OF COURT “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 rendering an unjust judgment judgment or order as determined by a competent competent court in an appropriate proceeding; 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, 4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars; 6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of service; and  SEC. 11. Sanctions. – A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following  following   sanctions may be imposed: 1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, determine, and disqualification disqualification from reinstatemen reinstatementt or appointment appointment to any public public office, office, includ including ing govern government ment-own -owned ed or control controlled led corporat corporation ions. s. Provide Provided, d, however, however, that that the  forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits.”

ii.) CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT -

13

“CANON 1 A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF  THE JUDICIARY   RULE 1.01 - A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence.  RULE 1.02 - A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay.  RULE 1.03. - A judge should be vigilant against any attempt to subvert the independence of  the judiciary and should forthwith resist any pressure from whatever source intended to influence the performance of official functions. CANON 2 - A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF   IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES  RULE 2.01 - A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. CANON 3   A JU JUDG DGE E

SHOU SHOULD LD PERFO ERFORM RM OFFI OFFICI CIAL AL DU DUTI TIE ES

HONE HO NEST STLY LY,,

AND AND

WITH  ITH 

 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 3.04 - A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should  avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.  RULE 3.05 - A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly promptly and decide cases within within the required periods.”

iii.) Sec. 20 (a), Rule 138 , Revised Rules of Court, including the Canons, to

wit: Respondent Thelma, like all other members of the bar, failed to live up to the the sta standa ndards rds embo embodi died ed in the the Code Code of Profes Professi siona onall Respon Responsib sibili ility ty,  particularly the following Canons, viz: “CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE  COURT.  Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court;

nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.  Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

14

 Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities activities aimed at defiance defiance of the law or at  lessening confidence in the legal system. CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal   profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.  Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to  practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner  to the discredit of the legal profession.”

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RESPONSIBILITY (June 21, 1988) “CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY - CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR  LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES. CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION  CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY  OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED  BAR.  Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to  practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner  to the discredit of the legal profession. CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CAND CANDOR OR TO TOWA WARD RDS S HIS PROF PROFES ESSI SIONA ONAL L COLL COLLEA EAGU GUES ES,, AND AND SHALL SHALL AVOI AVOID D  HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL. CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS COURTS AND TO JUD JUDICIA ICIAL L OFFICE OFFICERS RS AND SHOULD SHOULD INSIST INSIST ON SIMILAR SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.  Rule 1.03 -  A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or   proceeding or delay any man's cause .

 Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument argument of opposing opposing counsel, or the text of a decision decision or authority, authority, or  knowingly knowingly cite as law a provision provision already rendered inoperative inoperative by repeal or amendment, or  assert as a fact that which has not been proved.  Rule  Rule 10.03 10.03 - A lawyer lawyer shall observe observe the rules of procedu procedure re and shall not misuse misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY  TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or  misuse Court processes.”

 – in that respondent Judge Thelma miserably failed to be the embodiment of  competence, integrity, and independence; (due to her ardent desire and lust for 

15

money and financial gain); she did not behave to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; she failed to follow the strict mandates of  Rules 138, Rules of Court , and the Bill of Rights, RULE OF LAW, and due process. b. cond conduc ucts ts unbe unbeco comi ming ng of a lawy lawyer er,, gros grosss igno ignora ranc ncee of the the law, law, gros grosss

misconduct, as an officer of the court and member of the Bar / legal profession, to wit: Respondent Thelma, with malice and bad faith, due to lust for  money, and corrupt or evil motives, conspired with Atty. Irineo E. Guardiano and Atty. Nye Orquillas, to conduct a moro-moro or farce trial so to speak, speak, for money, and with motive motive of vengeance vengeance against against Judge Floro, due to his expose of corruption perpetrated by her and respon responden dentt Ms. Joson. Joson. She delibe deliberat rately ely,, willfu willfully lly,, and feloni felonious ously ly misl misled ed Judg Judgee Flor Floro, o, by subm submit itti ting ng fals falsee cert certif ific icat ates es of serv servic ices es,, sign signin ing g sham sham and and false false inte interl rloc ocut utor ory y orde orders rs and and the the unju unjust st and and  patently erroneous decision, aside from requiring Judge Floro to pay P 199,000 not required legal / docket fees, from the Clerk of Court; specifically, she sold these cases to defendants and Alfred Trinidad, for money and financial gain, to let Judge Floro, to have lost the case for quieting of their title, inter alia.

c. professional indiscretion, violation of oath of office and her duty as attorney

or counselor-at-law, which include the statutory grounds enumerated under  Sec. 27 of  Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court ( Arrieta vs. Llosa, 282 SCRA 248),

including grossly unethical behavior, malice and bad faith in rendering unjust orders and decision by entertaining defendants’ sham and false pleadings, pleadings, inter alia.

These violations / acts and omissions of respondent definitely show her to  be wanting in moral character and probity / good demeanor or unworthy to continue as officer of the Court, or unfit or unsafe person to enjoy the privileges pr ivileges of judges and attorneys or for conducts which tend to bring reproach on the legal profession and to the High Tribunal, or to injure it in the favorable opinion

16

of the public. She clearly demonstrated attitudes and courses of conduct wholly inconsistent with the approved professional standards, of having failed to live up to her duties as lawyer and judge in consonance with the strictures of the lawy lawyer er’s ’s oath oath,, the the cite cited d Cano Canons ns and and Code Codes, s, ther thereb eby y havi having ng occa occasi sion oned ed unwarranted sufferings, humiliations and hardships on the undersigned and on   pet petit itio ione nerr Robe Robert rt Flor Floro. o. She She was was prop propel elle led d by ill ill moti motive vess and and mali malici ciou ouss inte intent ntio ions ns,, coup couple led d with with gree greed d and and lust lust for for MONE MONEY, Y, havi having ng fail failed ed in conscientiously seeing to it that justice permeates every aspect of her duties and   profes professio sion, n, in conform conformity ity with with the avowed avowed duties duties of worthy worthy members members and officers of the Bar and the Bench. Petiti Petitione onerr respec respectfu tfully lly cited cited the forego foregoing ing norms, norms, code code and laws, laws, to suppor supportt his contenti contention on that that – a) the April 15, 2008 2008 Partial Partial Judgment Judgment in the subject twin cases should have been rendered and released by respondent Judge Thelma on December 23, 2004 / 2005, at the very latest or least; b) and both Atty. Nye Orquillas and Atty. Irineo E. Guardiano are both accordingly liable with her, under these laws, civilly, (under Articles 19, 20 and 21, New Civil Code, inter alia) criminally and administratively, due to palpable obstruction of justice and delay of Judge Floro’s causes / cases, because of the resultant

unju unjust st and and unla unlawf wful ul inte interlo rlocu cuto tory ry orde orders rs whic which h stop stoppe ped d the the judg judgme ment nt’s ’s issuance as of December 23, 2004. Judge Floro’s constitutional rights to due process of law and property were therefore violated when respondents disobeyed the Constitutional provisions, Code of Professional Responsibility, Revised Penal Code, Rule 139-B, 138 and 140, Rules of Court, and Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, inter alia.

d. The following civil and criminal laws, inter alia, were also violated by

respondents’ promulgation and rendering of the Partial Judgment of April 15, 2008, causing damages, loss, and utter INJUSTICE to Judge Floro, to wit:

“CHAPTER 2 - HUMAN RELATIONS (n)

17

Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.   Art. Art. 20. Every Every person person who, who, contra contrary ry to law, law, wilful wilfully ly or neglige negligentl ntlyy causes causes damage damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.   Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary contrary to morals morals,, good customs customs or public public policy shall compens compensate ate the latter latter for the damage.  Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for  damag damages es and other other relie relieff agai against nst he latt latter, er, with withou outt prej prejud udic icee to any any disc discip ipli lina nary ry administrative action that may be taken.  Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, obstructs, defeats, violates violates or in any manner impedes impedes or impairs impairs any of the following following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: (1) Freedom of religion ; (2) Freedom of speech ; (6) The right against deprivation of property without due  process of law; law; (8) The right to the equal protection of the laws ; (19) Freedom of access to the courts.  In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether whether or not the defendant's defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely  separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall   proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and mat be   proved proved by a prepond preponderan erance ce of eviden evidence. ce. The indemn indemnity ity shall shall includ includee moral moral damages. damages.  Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.  Art. 33. In cases of defamation, defamation, fraud   , and xxx a civil action action for damages, entirely entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action   shal shalll proce proceed ed inde indepen pende dent ntly ly of the the crim crimin inal al prose prosecu cuti tion on,, and and shall shall requi require re only only a  preponderance of evidence. CHAPTER 2 - QUASI-DELICTS  Art. Art. 2176. 2176. Whoeve Whoeverr by act or omissio omission n causes causes damage damage to anothe another, r, there there being being fault fault or  negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no  pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed  by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)  Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely  separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code.

18

 But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. (n)  Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.”   Revised Penal Code: Chapter Two - MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE 

Section One. — Dereliction of duty   Art. Art. 204. 204. Knowingly Knowingly rendering rendering unjust judgment. judgment. — Any judge who shall knowingl knowinglyy render an unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision, decision, shall be punished by  prision mayor and perpetual absolute disqualification .  Art. 206. Unjust interlocutory order. — Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust  interlocutory order or decree shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum  period and suspension; but if he shall have acted by reason of inexcusable negligence or  ignorance and the interlocutory order or decree be manifestly unjust, the penalty shall be  suspension .   Art. 207. Maliciou Maliciouss delay delay in the administra administratio tion n of justice justice.. — The penalty penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any judge guilty of malicious delay in the administration of justice .”

Burning issue – Respondents, for money, delayed these cases for 3 years Urgent and compelling - chilling effect on litigants' and lawyers' recourse to the Courts – first and foremost cause of extra-judicial killings

Resp Respon onde dent nts’ s’ acts acts and and omis omissi sion onss have have far-r far-rea each chin ing g cons conseq eque uenc nces es,,  because every litigant especially the pauper and less privileged have to worry that he or she may be forced to pay huge sums or bribes to magistrates in the Bulacan “ Bulwagan ng Katarungan”, specifically to the a) MAGICIANS b) CARDIOLOGISTS c) and Marilao, Bulacan LATIAN fixers, inter alia. Petitioner believes in the Supreme Court’s long history of vigilance on this matter of paramount import. Petitioner cites authority:

Judicial corruption “On January “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;  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;

19

 proportions who said - many/very many corrupt judges or justices: 17% in reference to RTC judges, 14% to MTC judges, 12% to Court of Appeals  justices, 4% i to Shari'a Court judges, 4% to Sandiganbayan justices and  2% in reference to Supreme Court justices [Table 15].”1

Petiti Petitione onerr runs runs to this this Honora Honorable ble Court Court with with urgent urgent and compel compellin ling g reasons: since the filing of these twin cases on 1998, undersigned was always   pre prese sent nt in the the lowe lowerr cour courtt hear hearin ings gs or tria trials ls,, whil whilee all all defen defenda dant ntss neve never  r  appeared; these cases were ordered submitted for decision on 2004 / 2005; but suddenly, respondents MISLED Judge Floro, and maliciously delayed these cases for 3 years. If complainant (as lawyer, judge, world-famous prophet,  psychic, healing magistrate, a Second Honors Ateneo alumni and 1983 Bar  Exams, 12th placer, 87.55%) could not obtain justice in his own town and  province, for he could hardly, by any legal means (including scholarly written and filed court pleadings) obtain justice per the Bulacan RTC rule of law, how can an ordinary mortal / litigant, unlike undersigned, fight in the lowest / local courts of law? Twin Twin killin killing g of COMELE COMELEC C law dep depart artmen mentt chief chiefss Aliode Alioden n Dalaig Dalaig and Wynne Asdala

Bakit po ba ang dami dami ng EJ killings and Desaparecidos? Bakit pinapatay and mga abogado? Lately the COMELEC lost its 2 law department chiefs. It is  because of corruption in courts, per SWS surveys of 1995 / 2005: the UN Philip Alston and FIDH Reports, the Eric G. John and G. Eugene Martin Testimonies on March 14, 2007 at the USA Senate point to judicial corruption as ROOT of  all extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances: Recent Events * Twin horrible deaths happened on / circa the same day last year, January 15, 2007, that the Supreme Court of the Philippines' (logo or seal) was mysteriously burned into halves by an almost one hour afternoon fire.[87][88] Despite different appeals by local and internation international al groups, groups, the spate of extrajudici extrajudicial al killings killings in the Philippine Philippiness continued. continued. On January January 15, 2008 2008 , Reynato Puno condemned the murder of  Judge Roberto Navidad ,

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

20

Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Calbayog City, Samar, the 15th judge to be ambushed since since July July 20, 20, 1999 1999,, the the 14th 14th under under the the Arro Arroyo yo gover governm nmen ent. t. On Tues Tuesda day, y, Cath Cathol olic ic missionary Rey Roda, Oblates of Marry Immaculate (OMI), 54, was shot dead at 8:30 p.m., when he resist resisted ed abduct abduction ion attempt attempt by unident unidentifi ified ed 10 armed armed men in a chapel chapel at ikud ikud Tabawan village, South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, South Ubian. In February 1997 , another OMI leader, Bishop Benjamin de Jesus was shot dead in front of the Jolo cathedral.[90] In 2006, the Asian Human Rights Commission stated that there had been 26 priests, pastors, and churchmen who were liquidate or were victims of violence under the Gloria Macapagal-

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

Shocking to the conscience of the Bulacan courts, respondents Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz and Ms. Joson, deceived Judge Floro, resulting from their  conspiracy in the flagrant violation of the Constitution which they swore as lawyer, judge / court personnel, to obey, defend and implement, in the end that they would not delay a man’s / litigant’s cause for money, inter alia. Judge Floro cites the fundamental law: “Section 15. (1)   All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitutio Constitution n must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and  three months for all other lower courts . (2) A case or matte matterr shall be deeme deemed  d    submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself. (4) Despite the expiratio expiration n of the applicable applicable mandatory mandatory period, period, the court, withou withoutt prejud prejudice ice to such such respon responsib sibili ility ty as may have have been been incurr incurred ed in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted  thereto for determination, without further delay.”

2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Ext Philippine_Extrajudicial_Kil rajudicial_Killings_and_Desapare lings_and_Desaparecidos#Recent_Even cidos#Recent_Events ts

21

Timeline - Dire Events (From the time of filing of these cases on September 28 / 29, 1998) * FIRE - On Holy Monday, 1998, the next adjacent lot / house (about 20

meters from the subject titles/lots of these 2 cases) was burned, and Judge Floro’s relatives – Paula Floro, Rosalina and Emiliana Floro, were all roasted / charred beyond recognition; this happened barely a month when defendants annotated the subject adverse claim at the back of the subject titles (Annex A and B-sub-markings); * Murder - On December 17, 1998, just 3 months after the filing of these extra-judicial killing in RTC cases, cases, the first first extra-judicial RTC Malo Malolo loss happ happen ened ed with with the the

horrible murder of Atty. Rodolfo Pasamba (at Kamayan Restaurant, Dakila, Malolo Malolos, s, Bulaca Bulacan) n) husban husband d of incumb incumbent ent Judge Judge Hermin Herminia ia Pasamb Pasamba, a, Vice Vice Executive Judge, Br. 81, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan; * Accidents - Br. 9, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan + Judge Roy D. Masadao (first

Judge that handled the instant lower court case C.C. No. 938-M-98, September, 1998) fell on a horse and failed to finish his gubernatorial campaign in Tabuk, Kalinga Apayao; his son Dominic suffered broken legs in a basketball game when Judge Floro passed by at Alido, Malolos, Bulacan; * Death - +Atty. Rafael Santos , first counsel of record of defendants Blancos,

in subject consolidated cases - LRC P-405 / C.C. No. 938-M-98 died during the  pendency of these cases (before Br. 80, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, Judge Cesar  Casanova); * Cancer - Judge Cesar Casanova’s +mother died of lingering illness due to

METASTASIS when petitioner’s motion was denied by him; * P 100 million FIRE - Defendants’ spouses Mariano and Ligaya Blanco’s

Eastern Tanning Tannery at Bancal, Meycauayan, Bulacan, was burned and uninsured, the spouses lost P 100 million; his brother Mayor Tinoy Blanco was disqualified, while Mariano / Tinoy Blanco both lost the Meycauayan, Elections twice; 22

Triple Cancer Epidemic – Divine Justice - “Godly Reprisals” Reprisals” ∗

Br. 16, RTC, Judge Thelma R. Pinero-Cruz’s husband died of CANCER,

2004 / 2005, long illness; * Br. 9, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan +Judge Roy D. Masadao (who first handled

and inhibited in these cases) died of CANCER on 2005, when Judge Thelma issued the unjust orders due to respondent Atty. Orquillas’ false motion (Annex D) which delayed petitioner’s cases for 3 years; ∗

Br. 14, RTC, Executive Judge Petrita Braga Dime suffered CANCER,

2004 - present, and is undergoing medication, here and abroad; * Massive Strokes - Respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas’ clients - LRC petitioner 

Alfredo Trinidad suffered 3 grave strokes, while LRC petitioner, his wife, Florentina Trinidad suffered lingering illnesses; further, their daughter Ann Trinidad was allegedly swindled and separated from her spouse, while Ann’s daughter daughter Bea suffered suffered great physical physical crab deformity deformity of both legs; her brother  brother  Alfred Trinidad was hooked on cock fighting; * Fire - On April, 2008, the adjacent 2 lots, 10 meters from the subject lots of  this case, were burned (Pacheco Hardware and Milan Pawnshop). 3 Stitches

* Parenthetically, when undersigned received the DISBAMENT A.C. No. 7663 (  Annex “M-5”) Dismissal En Banc Resolution – “ Judge Floro vs. Senator 

Miriam Santiago,” just days, Senator Miriam Santiago fell, banged her head and underwent surgery for 3 stitches;   Sen Senat ator or Sant Santia iago go in acci accide dent nt at spou spouse se’s ’s birt birthd hday ay part partyy3 She received “three stitches. ... “MANIL “MANILA, A, Philip Philippin pines es – (UPDAT (UPDATE) E) Senato Senatorr Miriam Miriam Defens DefensororSantiago has suffered a “ misstep” during her husband’s birthday 3

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/metro/view/20080415-130457/SenatorSantiago-in-accident-at-spouses-birthday-party By Veronica Uy, INQUIRER.net, First Posted 10:48:00 04/15/2008 Video taken by  INQUIRER.net reporter Veronica Uy at the Senate on April 21, 2008.

23

 party at the EDSA Shangri-La Hotel, was caught off-balance, fell, and  banged her head against the wall  , and was immediately brought  to the Cardinal Santos Medical Center, where she was treated for  “minor contusions.” contusions.” “Bukol lang. [It [It was only a lump].” lump].” “She’s OK  now. now. Her CT [compu [computed ted tomogr tomograph aphy] y] scan scan showed showed no additi additiona onal  l  injuries. The incident happened after the senator -- known for her  colorful language -- gave a short speech for her husband, former  Customs commissioner Narciso, and was coming down the makeshift   stage. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago says the concussion she   suffered does not affect her "thinking process," only her "thinking  long longev evit ity. y."" She She says says she she gets gets "ver "very, y, very very dizz dizzy" y" if she she work workss continuously for more than 20 to 30 minutes.” Judge Floro begs this Honorable Court to pursue relentlessly the truth   behin behind d the respon responden dents’ ts’ admini administr strati ative ve and crimin criminal al acts. acts. These These events events or  “Godly reprisals” are dire OMEN which spiritually warns that the judiciary could ill afford another similar legal controversy, in RTC, Bulacan. Moral bankruptcy bankruptcy

That the judicial order is accused too often of moral bankruptcy with nary an exception is a sad sign of the general cynicism and frustration of our nation. Most unfortunately, there does not seem to be any way of achieving closure. For the proces processs and result resultss of standa standard rd democr democrati aticc and judici judicial al inqui inquirie ries, s, sometimes including those by higher Courts, are received with skepticism and cynicism. We have to confess that corruption is in truth our greatest shame as a  people.  people. Corruption Corruption was / is at its worst, leading leading to extrajudic extrajudicial ial executions executions of   judges, the latest of which is the January 15, 2008 murder of  Judge Navidad, and peti petiti tion oner er’s ’s very very own own forme formerr clerk clerk of cour court, t, Br. Br. 73, 73, RTC, RTC, inter alia, and Malabon, former PAO and incumbent Malolos, Bulacan Fiscal Julio Taloma, who was gunned down in Petitioner’s home town, Meycauayan, Bulacan, on 2005. Same old problems

They are the same old problems, or variations of them, which which have been  plaguing our nation and Bulacan for years on end, through successive political and judicial administrations.  Nothing or very little seems to have been done

24

about them. In them we see the all too patent subordination of the common good to private private good. Putting oneself before the interests of the general public had been the basic fault in the country’s political and judicial culture. AND CORRUPTION cannot be punished except by entrapment, since this is our  rules on evidence and criminal law procedure’s requirements. A final word. On April 7, 2006, after 7 long years of sufferings due to the July 20,1999 longest suspension in world history, I became and is now jobless in  pretend world. On April 15, 2008, respondent Judge Thelma deprived me of my only ancestral home lot where I lived since I was born (in 1953 until 1989). In her May 5 Comment, respondent Judge Thelma accused me of lies, and she wanted all of me: my title as lawyer. AMEN.

RELIEF

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

inst instan antt

VERI VERIFI FIED ED DISB DISBAR ARME MENT NT COMP COMPLA LAIN INT T

/

LETT LE TTER ER--

AFFIDAVIT [Under Rules 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia,

With - Motions - for for Leave of Court to Admit mit this Complaint, for  PREVENTIVE PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION, SUSPENSION, Immediate Immediate Docketing Docketing and Early Resolution Resolution]]

25

against against responden respondent, t, Atty. duly NOTE NOTED, D, ADMI ADMITT TTED ED,, Atty. Nye Orq Orquil uillas las, be duly GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED. Further, it is respectfully prayed, that - after filing of respondent’s COMMENT / ANSWER, and after due notice, hearing, and Report of the Commissioner / Investigator, -  judgment be rendered declaring him GUILTY of all the charges and that supreme penalty of  DISBARMENT  be imposed upon him, ordering that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and  punished accordingly, under  Rule 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia.  Special Prayer:

Furth Furtherm ermor ore, e, peti petiti tion oner er most most respe respect ctfu full lly y peti petiti tion onss this this Cour Courtt – to pendent elite, from SUSPEND SUSPEND Atty. Atty. Nye Orquil Orquillas las,,   pendent from the the prac practi tice ce of law, law, indefinitely and until further orders from this Honorable Court, and that the suspension should take effect immediately. Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for. IN WI WITN TNES ESS S WHER WHEREO EOF, F, I sign signed ed this this plea pleadi ding ng - lett letter er-a -affi ffida davi vittcomplaint, complaint, this First Malolo loss City City , First Friday Friday 2nd day of  May, May, 2008 2008, at Malo 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. 6 0, Book No. XIV].

NOTICE

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

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

26

Malolos City, BULACAN

) S.S.

I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr ., under oath, depose/say, that: I am the complainant in this case. I caused the preparation, signed and read the initial complaint duly filed in this case, and all the contents / allegations thereof are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records.\ I certify that: I have not theretofore commenced any disbarment action or filed any administrative or other claim against respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas, involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and to the best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein, and if there is such other pending action or  claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof will be made, but there is none; if I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within 5 days there from to the court wherein the aforesaid complaint or  initiatory pleading has been filed. I certify that on May 2, 2008, I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in this DISBARMENT case “ Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant, - versus –Atty. Nye Orquillas ”, A.C. No. _______, upon respondent Atty. Atty. Nye Orquillas, by personal service, at his office address, 2nd Flr., RTC Compound Bldg., Capitolyo, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan, as evidenced by the signature / initial receipt, as hereunder indicated, after his name and address, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Rules of Court.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 2nd day of May, 2008, here at Malolos City , Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12005 # 21783592, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 2-27, 2007. DOC. NO. 146, PAGE NO. 31, BOOK NO. 76, SERIES OF 2008.

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

COPY FURNISHED: (By Personal Service):

Atty. Nye N. Orquillas, Respondent, 2nd Flr., Hiyas ng Bulakan Convention Center, RTC Compound Bldg., Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan and – 

Judicial and Bar Council, c/o the SECRETARIAT, SECRETARIAT, Supreme Court, Manila

27

28

7.

29