REPUBLIC OF THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESPHILIPPINES
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Integrated Bar of the Philippines COMMITTEE ON BAR DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE ON BAR DISCIPLINE
Dona Julia Vargas Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Metro Manila Dona Julia Vargas Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Metro Manila Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.,
Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant, Complainant, versus
-- versus -- ADM. Case No. 7897ADM. Case No. 7897
For:
For:DisbarmentDisbarment Atty. Nye N. Orquillas,
Atty. Nye N. Orquillas, (2
(2ndndFlr.,Flr.,Hiyas ng Bulacan Convention Center,Hiyas ng Bulacan Convention Center, Capitol Compound,Capitol Compound,
Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan) Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan)
Respondent. Respondent.
X---X X---X
Position Paper & Reply
Position Paper & Reply
Hon.
Hon. Salvador B. Hababag Salvador B. Hababag ,, Commissioner, CBC,
Commissioner, CBC, Integrated Bar of the PhilippinesIntegrated Bar of the Philippines Your Honor,
Your Honor,
I, Judge
I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.,Florentino V. Floro, Jr., complainant, respectfullycomplainant, respectfully SUBMIT SUBMIT thisthis ““ Posit Position ion Paper Paper ” ” as as COCOMPMPLILIANANCE CE wiwith th ththe e OrOrdeder r whwhicich h unundedersrsigignenedd received on March 16, 2009, and by way of
received on March 16, 2009, and by way of REPLY REPLY to respondent Atty. Nye N.to respondent Atty. Nye N. Orquillas’ “
Orquillas’ “ Position Paper Position Paper ” dated 16 March 2009 (which undersigned received” dated 16 March 2009 (which undersigned received on March 17, 2009), state, that:
on March 17, 2009), state, that:
I. Reply – To Respondent’s Position Paper
I. Reply – To Respondent’s Position Paper
1. To begin with, undersigned complainant contradicts respondent Atty. 1. To begin with, undersigned complainant contradicts respondent Atty. Nye N.
Nye N. OrquiOrquillas’ (“llas’ (“OrquillaOrquillas,” for brevity) stance, that the instant disbarments,” for brevity) stance, that the instant disbarment complaint must be dismissed on the technical ground of violation of two Bar complaint must be dismissed on the technical ground of violation of two Bar Matters. Respondent’s argument is not only absurd but is untenable in the eyes Matters. Respondent’s argument is not only absurd but is untenable in the eyes of the law and settled jurisprudence.
of the law and settled jurisprudence.
The Supreme Court interpreted
The Supreme Court interpreted Bar Matter No. 1132Bar Matter No. 1132 andand Bar Matter No.Bar Matter No. 287
287, saying that ", saying that "it was not meant to be a ground to dismiss an action or it was not meant to be a ground to dismiss an action or expunge from the records any pleading in which such PTR or Roll of Attorneys expunge from the records any pleading in which such PTR or Roll of Attorneys Number was not indicated
Number was not indicated ."."
B.M. No. 1132 & Bar Matter No. 287, both apply only to court pleadings B.M. No. 1132 & Bar Matter No. 287, both apply only to court pleadings filed by a
filed by a counscounsel/lael/lawyer for wyer for a a party or litigantparty or litigant. It . It was never intendewas never intended to d to applyapply to a complaint filed by anybody (a lawyer, judge, private person, corporation or to a complaint filed by anybody (a lawyer, judge, private person, corporation or even an anonymous litigant), appearing in the case, for itself, himself or herself. even an anonymous litigant), appearing in the case, for itself, himself or herself. A disbarment case can be filed even by an anonymous complainant, provided, A disbarment case can be filed even by an anonymous complainant, provided, that, as in this case, the complaint is supported by documents (Rule 139-B, that, as in this case, the complaint is supported by documents (Rule 139-B, Rules of Court and settled
In this complaint, undersigned had filed this pleading not as counsel of or In this complaint, undersigned had filed this pleading not as counsel of or for any party litigant, but as an ordinary complainant. In the landmark case of for any party litigant, but as an ordinary complainant. In the landmark case of the Oakwood mutiny, many lawyers like Senator Guingona had filed pleadings the Oakwood mutiny, many lawyers like Senator Guingona had filed pleadings appearing as accused therein for themselves, hence, the impertinence of both appearing as accused therein for themselves, hence, the impertinence of both Bar Matters.
Bar Matters.
In G.R. No. 158526, December 16, 2004, 447 SCRA 171, 182 (2004), In G.R. No. 158526, December 16, 2004, 447 SCRA 171, 182 (2004), "" D.O. Plaza Management Corp. v. Co-owners Heirs of Andres Atega D.O. Plaza Management Corp. v. Co-owners Heirs of Andres Atega," and," and ""CCiittiibbaannkk, , NN..AA. . vvss. . NNLLRRC C ,," " GG..RR. . NNoo. . 115599330022, , AAuugguusst t 2222, , 22000088 (http://sc.judiciary.gov
(http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/au.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/159302.gust2008/159302.htm#_ftn6),htm#_ftn6), th
the e SuSuprprememe e CoCourt urt heheld ld ththat at ““the the reqrequiruiremeement nt to to indindicaicate te coucounsensel’s l’s RolRoll l N
Numumbeber r wawas s inintetendnded ed to to prprototecect t ththe e pupublblic ic by by mamakiking ng it it eaeasisier er to to dedetetect ct impostors who represent themselves as members of the Bar and to help lawyers impostors who represent themselves as members of the Bar and to help lawyers keep track of their Roll
keep track of their Roll of Attorneys Numberof Attorneys Number. . It was not meaIt was not meant to be a ground nt to be a ground to dismiss an action or expunge from the records any pleading in which such to dismiss an action or expunge from the records any pleading in which such Roll of Attorneys Number was not indicated.”
Roll of Attorneys Number was not indicated.”
Vide: Vide:
[[B.M. No. 1132B.M. No. 1132. . April 1, 2April 1, 2003] RE003] RE: RESOLU: RESOLUTION NOTION NO. 112-20. 112-2002 OF THE02 OF THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF ILOCOS NORTE (Re: Resolution SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF ILOCOS NORTE (Re: Resolution No. 112-2002 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte, Requesting to No. 112-2002 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte, Requesting to Require Lawyers to Indicate in their Pleadings their Number in the Roll of Require Lawyers to Indicate in their Pleadings their Number in the Roll of Attorneys.)
Attorneys.) - It requires all l- It requires all lawyers to indicaawyers to indicate their Roll ote their Roll of Attorneys Numbef Attorneys Number r in all papers or pleadings submitted to the various judicial or quasi-judicial in all papers or pleadings submitted to the various judicial or quasi-judicial bodies in addition to the requirement of indicating the current Professional Tax bodies in addition to the requirement of indicating the current Professional Tax
Receipt (PTR) and the IBP Official Receipt or Life Member Number. Receipt (PTR) and the IBP Official Receipt or Life Member Number.
“All pleadings, motions and papers filed in court, whether personally or by “All pleadings, motions and papers filed in court, whether personally or by mail, which do not bear counsel’s Roll of Attorneys Number as herein required mail, which do not bear counsel’s Roll of Attorneys Number as herein required may not be acted upon by the court, without prejudice to whatever disciplinary may not be acted upon by the court, without prejudice to whatever disciplinary action the court may take against the erring counsel who shall likewise be action the court may take against the erring counsel who shall likewise be req
requiruired ed to to comcomply ply witwith h the the reqrequiruiremeement nt witwithin hin fivfive e (5) (5) daydays s frofrom m notnoticeice.. Fa
Faililurure e to to cocompmply ly wiwith th susuch ch rereququirirememenent t shshalall l be be a a grgrouound nd fofor r fufurtrtheher r disciplinary sanction and for contempt of
disciplinary sanction and for contempt of court." court."
[[Bar Matter No. 287Bar Matter No. 287] ] Re: Re: RequRequiremenirement t that that OfficOfficial ial ReceReceipt ipt NumbeNumber ar andnd Date of Payment of Current IBP Membership Dues be Indicated by Counsel per Date of Payment of Current IBP Membership Dues be Indicated by Counsel per IB
IBP P ReResosolulutition on NONO. . XIXIV-V-19199999-6-63, 3, dedefifinened d on on 26 26 SeSeptptemembeber r 202000 00 ththee consequences for non-compliance with the requirement for lawyers to indicate consequences for non-compliance with the requirement for lawyers to indicate their IBP Official Receipt Number and Date of Issue in all pleadings, motions their IBP Official Receipt Number and Date of Issue in all pleadings, motions and papers filed in court as follows – etc.
and papers filed in court as follows – etc.
2. Respondent, in page 1, par. 1 of his Position Paper, cited and relied upon 2. Respondent, in page 1, par. 1 of his Position Paper, cited and relied upon the facts narrated by the Br. 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan Partial Judgment dated the facts narrated by the Br. 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan Partial Judgment dated 18 April 2008 (in consolidated Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M-98), in 18 April 2008 (in consolidated Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M-98), in sup
supporport t of of his his narnarratration ion of of his his facfacts. ts. HowHoweveever, r, saisaid d ParPartiatial l JudJudgmegment nt waswas VACATED
VACATED ipso facto by the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration thereof ipso facto by the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration thereof by herein complainant, as provided for by
3. Not only that. After the Bulacan court granted respondent’s Motion to 3. Not only that. After the Bulacan court granted respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, the Presiding Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz FI
Dismiss, the Presiding Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz FIRST reversed the dismissalRST reversed the dismissal and gave herein complainant (plaintiff therein) time to pay docket fees; then, and gave herein complainant (plaintiff therein) time to pay docket fees; then, Judge Thelma, for the SECOND time, corrected herself and ruled that the Judge Thelma, for the SECOND time, corrected herself and ruled that the do
dockcket et fefees es wewere re fufulllly y papaidid, , cocontntrarary ry to to ththe e alallelegagatitionons s anand d dodocucumementntss sub
submitmitted ted by by resresponpondendent; t; JudJudge ge CruCruz, z, thethereforefore re ississued ued a a PartPartial ial JudJudgmegmentnt dismissing herein complainant’s case on technical grounds; then, complainant dismissing herein complainant’s case on technical grounds; then, complainant fil
filed ed a a titimemely ly MoMotition on fofor r ReRecoconsnsididereratatioion n whwhicich h VAVACACATED TED ththe e PaPartrtiaiall Judgment; thereafter, Judge Thelma, for the THIRD time, reversed herself, and Judgment; thereafter, Judge Thelma, for the THIRD time, reversed herself, and issued the last Order dated 3 September, 2008, recalling the Partial Judgment, issued the last Order dated 3 September, 2008, recalling the Partial Judgment, up
upon on titimemely ly MoMotition on by by hehererein in cocompmplalaininanant; t; anand d shshe e isissusued ed a a NeNew w OrOrdeder r declaring the 2 consolidated cases
declaring the 2 consolidated cases AGAIN submitted for full decision regardingAGAIN submitted for full decision regarding all parties therein especially defendant Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico who was not all parties therein especially defendant Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico who was not included in the Partial Judgment, due to palpable error
included in the Partial Judgment, due to palpable error of the Judge.of the Judge.
COP
COPIES IES of of the the perpertintinent ent docdocumeuments nts to to supsupporport t the the aboabove-ve-allallegaegatiotions ns areare ATTACHED, collectively marked as
ATTACHED, collectively marked as Annex A Annex A hereof.hereof.
4.
4. Par. 2.3, page 3, Par. 2.3, page 3, in relation to par. in relation to par. B, page 6, par.5.4, B, page 6, par.5.4, page 7, par. 5.12page 7, par. 5.12 and 5.14, page 10, and par. 5.22, page 12, of respondent’s Position Paper, and 5.14, page 10, and par. 5.22, page 12, of respondent’s Position Paper, stripped of unessential details, tersely alleged IN SUM,
stripped of unessential details, tersely alleged IN SUM, that – that –
respondent Orquillas, in filing the Motion to Dismiss (dated 1 December, 2004) respondent Orquillas, in filing the Motion to Dismiss (dated 1 December, 2004) com
complaplainainant’nt’s s conconsolsolidaidated ted cascases es and and supsuppleplemenmental tal comcomplaplaint int befbefore ore thethe Bulacan court – a) merely relied on the Bulacan Clerk of Court’s Office’s Bulacan court – a) merely relied on the Bulacan Clerk of Court’s Office’s Certification; b) did his duty as counsel of the Trinidads to protect their rights, Certification; b) did his duty as counsel of the Trinidads to protect their rights, and c) complainant even asked for
and c) complainant even asked for time to pay docket fees.time to pay docket fees.
Respondent’s defense, a cover-up, is patently absurd and untenable aside Respondent’s defense, a cover-up, is patently absurd and untenable aside from being misleading to the investigation, for reasons:
from being misleading to the investigation, for reasons:
a) When respondent filed the
a) When respondent filed the 2004 Motion to Dismiss complainant’s 1998 cases2004 Motion to Dismiss complainant’s 1998 cases and
and the the supsuppleplemenmental tal plepleadiading, ng, he he subsubmitmitted ted a a nonnon-ex-exististent ent or or eveeven n falfalsese certification regarding the required docket fees; instead of just looking at the certification regarding the required docket fees; instead of just looking at the pages of the expediente or records of the cases (that complainant fully paid all pages of the expediente or records of the cases (that complainant fully paid all
original and amended complaint docket fees in
original and amended complaint docket fees in 1998), respondent devised a new1998), respondent devised a new method of requestin
method of requesting the g the Office of the Office of the BulacBulacan Clerk an Clerk of Court to of Court to compucompute thete the docket fees based on new (
docket fees based on new (2004) S.C. circulars on legal fees;2004) S.C. circulars on legal fees;
b) The Bulacan Office of the Clerk of Court was under Atty. Orgtega, while the b) The Bulacan Office of the Clerk of Court was under Atty. Orgtega, while the Branch Clerk of Court of the 2004 Executive Judge Danilo Manalastas, was Branch Clerk of Court of the 2004 Executive Judge Danilo Manalastas, was respondent’s wife, now Judge Sheila Geronimo Orquillas. These twin offices respondent’s wife, now Judge Sheila Geronimo Orquillas. These twin offices is
issusued ed ththe e cecertrtifificicatatioion n whwhicich h leled d to to ththe e didismsmisissasal l of of cocompmplalaininanant’t’s s 22 co
consnsololididatated ed cacaseses s ininclclududining g ththe e susupppplelemementntal al cocompmplalainint t fifileled d agagaiainsnstt respondent’s clients defendants Alfredo & Florentina Trinidad;
respondent’s clients defendants Alfredo & Florentina Trinidad;
b.1) It
b.1) It is shocking to the is shocking to the conscconsciencience e of the of the IBP and IBP and judicjudiciary, that respondeiary, that respondent,nt, who
who was was hirhired ed and appeaand appeared red as as coucounsensel l for for spospouseuses s TriTrinidnidadsads, , insinsteatead d of of defending their rights and causes of action in (in consolidated Civil Cases Nos. defending their rights and causes of action in (in consolidated Civil Cases Nos. P-4
Bulacan Court to dismiss his clients’ LRC Petition to cancel adverse claim Bulacan Court to dismiss his clients’ LRC Petition to cancel adverse claim annotated upon the back of the subject title bought by the Trinidads, and worst, annotated upon the back of the subject title bought by the Trinidads, and worst, respondent even DID ask the Court to dismiss the Trinidad’ cause of action to respondent even DID ask the Court to dismiss the Trinidad’ cause of action to annul the mortgage in
annul the mortgage in said consolisaid consolidated Civil Cases Nos. dated Civil Cases Nos. P-405P-405-98 & -98 & 938-M 938-M--98; as a result of respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, his clients, the Trinidads 98; as a result of respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, his clients, the Trinidads LOST in the legal battle, since the adverse claim’s cancellation was thus denied LOST in the legal battle, since the adverse claim’s cancellation was thus denied by the Court with the dismissal;
by the Court with the dismissal;
b.2) Worst, respondent never filed any pleading afterwards, since 2004 until b.2) Worst, respondent never filed any pleading afterwards, since 2004 until today, to defend his clients’ rights: to have the adverse claim on their titles today, to defend his clients’ rights: to have the adverse claim on their titles cancelled in consolidated LRC Case Nos. P-405-98 & C.C. No. 938-M-98; the cancelled in consolidated LRC Case Nos. P-405-98 & C.C. No. 938-M-98; the result? Respondent’s clients the Trinidads, because of the dismissal of their result? Respondent’s clients the Trinidads, because of the dismissal of their 1998 LRC Petition, practically and legally lost the P 3.2 million value of the 1998 LRC Petition, practically and legally lost the P 3.2 million value of the subject house and lot (they paid for), due to the mortgage lien thereon; so, who subject house and lot (they paid for), due to the mortgage lien thereon; so, who will buy the lot, who will rent the house, and how can the heirs or children of will buy the lot, who will rent the house, and how can the heirs or children of the Trinidads use, enjoy, transfer or abuse their property rights over the subject the Trinidads use, enjoy, transfer or abuse their property rights over the subject house and lot, with the permanent adverse claim annotated thereon since 1998, house and lot, with the permanent adverse claim annotated thereon since 1998, or for 11 years now!
or for 11 years now!
b
b.3.3) ) UnUndeder r ththe e lalaw w anand d ruruleles s on on lelegagal l etethihicscs, , papartrticicululararly ly ththe e CoCode de of of Professional responsibility, respondent, under his oath of office as attorney or Professional responsibility, respondent, under his oath of office as attorney or counsel of record of the Trinidads, is bound to: i) cause the cancellation of the counsel of record of the Trinidads, is bound to: i) cause the cancellation of the ad
adveverse clairse claim, m, b) b) obobjeject ct to to ththe e papaymymenent t of of anany y susum m of of momoneney y to to hehereireinn co
compmplalaininanant, t, or or plplaiaintntififf f ththerereiein, n, babasesed d on on anany y vavalilid d grgrououndnd, , susuch ch asas,, com
compenpensatsationion, , ambambiguiguityity, , etcetc.; .; but but insinsteatead, d, resresponpondendent, t, to to the the damdamage age andand prejudice of his clients, the Trinidads, permanently made the subject house and prejudice of his clients, the Trinidads, permanently made the subject house and lot bought by the Trinidads from herein complainant, plaintiff therein, without lot bought by the Trinidads from herein complainant, plaintiff therein, without any value in law and if
any value in law and if fact, thereby, violating his oath of office and fact, thereby, violating his oath of office and the laws;the laws;
c) When Judge Cruz dismissed all the consolidated cases, complainant asked c) When Judge Cruz dismissed all the consolidated cases, complainant asked for time to pay the docket fees due on the supplemental complaint filed against for time to pay the docket fees due on the supplemental complaint filed against respondent’s clients the Trinidads, even if complainant had already fully paid respondent’s clients the Trinidads, even if complainant had already fully paid the 1998 docket fees on the 2
the 1998 docket fees on the 2 consolidated cases and amended pleadings;consolidated cases and amended pleadings;
d) Complainant was the counsel of record of respondent’s client, the Trinidads d) Complainant was the counsel of record of respondent’s client, the Trinidads at the time of the filing of the 2 consolidated cases in September, 1998, until at the time of the filing of the 2 consolidated cases in September, 1998, until complainant was appointed RTC, Br. 73, Malabon Judge on November 4/5, complainant was appointed RTC, Br. 73, Malabon Judge on November 4/5, 1998, whereby, by operation of law, the attorney client relationship ceased; 1998, whereby, by operation of law, the attorney client relationship ceased;
e) From 1998 until today, 2009, all the defendants in the 2 consolidated cases e) From 1998 until today, 2009, all the defendants in the 2 consolidated cases never appeared despit
never appeared despite e havihaving ng filed some filed some pleadpleadings. Judge Thelma ings. Judge Thelma gave themgave them al
all l ththe e titime me to to apappepear ar anand d prpresesenent t evevididenence ce anand d crcrososs-s-exexamaminine e plplaiaintntififf,f, complainant herein but they all failed;
complainant herein but they all failed;
f) In 2004, when Judge Thelma ordered all the cases submitted for Partial f) In 2004, when Judge Thelma ordered all the cases submitted for Partial Judgment, complainant had knowledge that: the sum of money due to be paid, Judgment, complainant had knowledge that: the sum of money due to be paid, based on a March, 1998 contract of 1998, to complainant, had been used by based on a March, 1998 contract of 1998, to complainant, had been used by
respon
respondent’s clients dent’s clients the the TriniTrinidads’ childrendads’ children, , for for cockcockfightifighting ng and and businbusiness,ess, which failed due to estafa. The sum of P 2 million that should be paid to which failed due to estafa. The sum of P 2 million that should be paid to complainant (based on the contract which was admitted in evidence by the complainant (based on the contract which was admitted in evidence by the
Court without objection), was, instead used by the Trinidad’s children Ann Court without objection), was, instead used by the Trinidad’s children Ann Trinidad for failed business, while Alfred Trinidad has invested the money in Trinidad for failed business, while Alfred Trinidad has invested the money in bu
buyinying g figfightihting ng coccocks ks and lost and lost mosmost t of of thethem m in in the the MeyMeycaucauayaayan n CocCockpikpit.t. Hence
Hence, , complcomplainanainant t filed a filed a suppsupplementlemental al complcomplaint against the aint against the TriniTrinidads whodads who were warned by the Bulacan court to appear and hire a lawyer; at the time, were warned by the Bulacan court to appear and hire a lawyer; at the time, when the court process Server Leo served the court summons on the Trinidads, when the court process Server Leo served the court summons on the Trinidads, defendant Alfredo Trinidad suffered 2-3 major strokes and had been bedridden defendant Alfredo Trinidad suffered 2-3 major strokes and had been bedridden ever since, while Florent
ever since, while Florentina Trinidaina Trinidad d had been on had been on and off and off the hospitathe hospital and l and hadhad si
sincnce e bebeen en on on anand d ofoff f susuffffererining g lilingngererining g ilillnlnesesseses; s; ThThe e TrTrininididadads s lalastst appearance in their consolidated Bulacan cases was in 1998, and they never appearance in their consolidated Bulacan cases was in 1998, and they never ever appeared due to their illnesses;
ever appeared due to their illnesses;
g) Hence, respondent was hired and filed the subject of this case’s Motion to g) Hence, respondent was hired and filed the subject of this case’s Motion to Dismiss; since the Trinidads were and are disabled, only Mr. Alfred Trinidad Dismiss; since the Trinidads were and are disabled, only Mr. Alfred Trinidad and his sister Mrs. Gigi Trinidad appeared in Court before the serving of Court and his sister Mrs. Gigi Trinidad appeared in Court before the serving of Court summons; due to this factual backdrop, there could be no chance why the summons; due to this factual backdrop, there could be no chance why the defendants Trinidads could have filed a case
defendants Trinidads could have filed a case against respondent;against respondent;
h) It was only by mere accident that complainant had discovered some of these h) It was only by mere accident that complainant had discovered some of these facts, during a visit of the ancestral house and lot subject of the Bulacan case in facts, during a visit of the ancestral house and lot subject of the Bulacan case in Meycauayan, Bulacan (where complainant lived since birth in 1953-1989); as Meycauayan, Bulacan (where complainant lived since birth in 1953-1989); as stated, Mr. Alfred Trinidad blocked the entire road right of way owned by stated, Mr. Alfred Trinidad blocked the entire road right of way owned by complainant servicing the 2 other subject lots, with his fighting cocks and complainant servicing the 2 other subject lots, with his fighting cocks and teepees; and he refused to clear the same, except on the condition expressly teepees; and he refused to clear the same, except on the condition expressly conveyed to undersigned through Ms. Belen Gomez (complainant’s maid and conveyed to undersigned through Ms. Belen Gomez (complainant’s maid and secretary) to reimburse Mr. Alfred of P 80,000 reduced to P 60,000, which Mr. secretary) to reimburse Mr. Alfred of P 80,000 reduced to P 60,000, which Mr. Alfred had said he paid respondent as attorneys fees and bribe to Ms. Lerida Alfred had said he paid respondent as attorneys fees and bribe to Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson and Judge Thelma Cruz;
Socorro-Joson and Judge Thelma Cruz;
i)
i) BeBecacaususe e of of rerespsponondedentnt’s ’s MoMotition on to to DiDismsmisiss, s, in in 20200404, , cocompmplalaininanant’t’s s 22 consolidated cases had not been even fully decided until today, since Judge consolidated cases had not been even fully decided until today, since Judge Thelma Cruz had filed with the Supreme Court a request for extension of time Thelma Cruz had filed with the Supreme Court a request for extension of time to render judgment which was due on December 3, 2008; usually the S.C. to render judgment which was due on December 3, 2008; usually the S.C. gr
granants ts 3 3 momontnths hs exextetensnsioion, n, bubut t on on MaMarcrch h 3, 3, 20200909, , ththe e cacaseses s wewere re ststililll undecided, while Judge Cruz will retire at the
undecided, while Judge Cruz will retire at the age of 70 on July 25, age of 70 on July 25, 2009;2009;
TO REPEAT, from September, 1998 until today, 2009, despite the fact that all TO REPEAT, from September, 1998 until today, 2009, despite the fact that all the defendants in the subject Bulacan cases
the defendants in the subject Bulacan cases never appeared despite court orders,never appeared despite court orders, and only complainant as plaintiff therein appeared and finished his evidence in and only complainant as plaintiff therein appeared and finished his evidence in 20
200404, , cocompmplalaininanant t susuffefferered d ththe e 11 11 yeyearars s papain in of of ““ just justice ice delaydelayed, ed, justijusticece denied
denied ” ” by by shsheeeer r tetechchninicacalilityty, , viviololatatioion n of of rerespsponondedentnt’s ’s oaoath th oof f ofoffificece,, falsification of documents and bribery.
falsification of documents and bribery.
Cop
Copies ies of of the pertinthe pertinent OCAD/ent OCAD/SC SC plepleadiadings ngs and Orders in and Orders in thethe 350-pages350-pages BRIB
BRIBERY ERY admiadministnistratirative ve casecasess filfiled ed by by comcomplaplainainant nt agaagainsinst t resprespondondententss Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz and Branch Clerk of
Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz and Branch Clerk of Court Lerida Socorro-Joson areCourt Lerida Socorro-Joson are ATTACHED and marked collectively as
ATTACHED and marked collectively as Annex BAnnex B hereof.hereof.
II. Position Paper
II. Position Paper
The
The concontentents, ts, allallegaegatiotions ns and and argargumeument, nt, incincludluding ing the the supsupporportintingg doc
documeuments nts (An(Annexnexes) es) of of comcomplaplainainant’nt’s s disdisbarbarmenment t comcomplaplaint int and and all all othother er pleadings filed are herein REPRODUCED and made integral part
pleadings filed are herein REPRODUCED and made integral part hereof.hereof.
Facts Facts
Stripped of unessential details, and avoiding repetition of submissions of Stripped of unessential details, and avoiding repetition of submissions of facts in other pleadings, the FACTS of this case is as follows:
facts in other pleadings, the FACTS of this case is as follows:
1. TCT No. T-328106 (M), 1/3 of complainant Judge Floro’s 723 sq.m. 1. TCT No. T-328106 (M), 1/3 of complainant Judge Floro’s 723 sq.m. Meycauayan, Bulacan ancestral house-lot (the front, bounded by the road), was Meycauayan, Bulacan ancestral house-lot (the front, bounded by the road), was sold by complainant to spouses Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad, in 1997-1998; sold by complainant to spouses Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad, in 1997-1998; the spouses obliged themselves to pay the balance stated in the March 30, 1998 the spouses obliged themselves to pay the balance stated in the March 30, 1998 ““ Kasunduan Kasunduan,” upon promulgation of the required court order to cancel the,” upon promulgation of the required court order to cancel the annotated adverse claim of real estate
annotated adverse claim of real estate mortgage on the subject title they bought.mortgage on the subject title they bought.
Part of the “
Part of the “ Kasunduan,” among others, is the obligation of complainant to file Kasunduan,” among others, is the obligation of complainant to file in court the necessary actions/cases to cancel the 1998 adverse claim and clear in court the necessary actions/cases to cancel the 1998 adverse claim and clear the subject title/lot of the mortgage adverse lien, especially by means of proper the subject title/lot of the mortgage adverse lien, especially by means of proper court appearances/pleadings by complainant;
court appearances/pleadings by complainant;
2. Accordingly, complainant performed his obligations in the “
2. Accordingly, complainant performed his obligations in the “ Kasunduan Kasunduan”” by filing the said 2 Bulacan consolidated Cases Nos. LRC P-405-98 & C.C. by filing the said 2 Bulacan consolidated Cases Nos. LRC P-405-98 & C.C. 938-M-98, on September, 1998, paying in full all the docket and legal fees 938-M-98, on September, 1998, paying in full all the docket and legal fees required on all the original and amended pleadings. Meanwhile, complainant required on all the original and amended pleadings. Meanwhile, complainant was appointed RTC Judge of Malabon City on November 5, 1998, hence the was appointed RTC Judge of Malabon City on November 5, 1998, hence the con
conseqsequenuentiatial l leglegal al termterminainatiotion n of of the the cliclientent-la-lawyewyer r relrelatiationsonship hip witwith h thethe Trinidads, who never appointed any counsel in these cases;
Trinidads, who never appointed any counsel in these cases;
3. From 1998 until today, 2009, all
3. From 1998 until today, 2009, all the defendants in the 2 consolidated casesthe defendants in the 2 consolidated cases never appeared despit
never appeared despite e havihaving ng filed some filed some pleadpleadings. Judge Thelma ings. Judge Thelma gave themgave them al
all l ththe e titime me to to apappepearar, , prpresesenent t evevididenence ce anand d crcrososs-s-exexamaminine e plplaiaintntififf,f, complainant herein, but they all failed;
complainant herein, but they all failed;
4. In 2004, when Judge Thelma ordered all the cases submitted for Partial 4. In 2004, when Judge Thelma ordered all the cases submitted for Partial Judgment, complainant acquired knowledge that: the sum of money due to be Judgment, complainant acquired knowledge that: the sum of money due to be paid to complainant, based on the March 30, 1998 “
paid to complainant, based on the March 30, 1998 “ Kasunduan Kasunduan,” had been used,” had been used by respondent’s clients the Trinidads’ children, for cockfighting and business by respondent’s clients the Trinidads’ children, for cockfighting and business (which failed due to estafa). The sum of P 2 million that should be paid to (which failed due to estafa). The sum of P 2 million that should be paid to complainant (based on the contract which was admitted in evidence by the complainant (based on the contract which was admitted in evidence by the Court without objection), was, instead used by the Trinidad’s children Ann Court without objection), was, instead used by the Trinidad’s children Ann Trinidad for failed business, while Alfred Trinidad had invested the money in Trinidad for failed business, while Alfred Trinidad had invested the money in bu
buyinying g figfightihting ng coccocks ks and lost and lost mosmost t of of thethem m in in the the MeyMeycaucauayaayan n CocCockpikpit.t. Hence
Hence, , complcomplainanainant t filed a filed a suppsupplementlemental al complcomplaint against the aint against the TriniTrinidads whodads who were warned by the Bulacan court to appear and hire a lawyer; during the time, were warned by the Bulacan court to appear and hire a lawyer; during the time, when the court process Server Leo B. Ebina served on 2004, the court summons when the court process Server Leo B. Ebina served on 2004, the court summons on the Trinidads, defendant Alfredo Trinidad suffered 2-3 major strokes and on the Trinidads, defendant Alfredo Trinidad suffered 2-3 major strokes and had been bedridden ever since, while Florentina Trinidad had been on and off had been bedridden ever since, while Florentina Trinidad had been on and off the hospital and had since been on and off suffering lingering illnesses; the the hospital and had since been on and off suffering lingering illnesses; the Trinidad’s last appearance in these consolidated Bulacan court cases was in Trinidad’s last appearance in these consolidated Bulacan court cases was in
1998, and they never ever appeared due to their illnesses; since the Trinidads 1998, and they never ever appeared due to their illnesses; since the Trinidads we
were re anand d arare e didisasablbleded, , ononly ly MrMr. . AlAlfrfred ed TriTrininidadad d anand d hihis s sisistster er MrMrs. s. GiGigigi Trinidad appeared in Court before the serving of Court summons; due to this Trinidad appeared in Court before the serving of Court summons; due to this factual backdrop, there could be no chance why the defendants Trinidads could factual backdrop, there could be no chance why the defendants Trinidads could have filed a case against
have filed a case against respondent;respondent;
5. Hence, respondent was hired by the spouses Trinidads, and filed the 5. Hence, respondent was hired by the spouses Trinidads, and filed the subject of this case’s Motion to Dismiss; because of respondent’s Motion to subject of this case’s Motion to Dismiss; because of respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, in 2004, complainant’s 2 consolidated cases had not been even been Dismiss, in 2004, complainant’s 2 consolidated cases had not been even been fully decided until today, since Judge Thelma Cruz had filed with the Supreme fully decided until today, since Judge Thelma Cruz had filed with the Supreme Court a Request for Extension of time to render judgment which was due on Court a Request for Extension of time to render judgment which was due on December 3, 2008; usually the S.C. grants 3 months extension, but on March 3, December 3, 2008; usually the S.C. grants 3 months extension, but on March 3, 2009, the cases were still undecided, while Judge Cruz will retire at the age of 2009, the cases were still undecided, while Judge Cruz will retire at the age of 70 on July 25, 2009.
70 on July 25, 2009.
Issues Issues
Complainant has raised the issues in the instant complaint and
Complainant has raised the issues in the instant complaint and reproducesreproduces th
them em heherereinin: : whwhetetheher r or or nonot t resrespopondndenent t viviololatated ed hihis s oaoathths s of of offofficice, e, anandd therefore, must be disbarred?
therefore, must be disbarred?
Argument Argument
Resp
Respondenondent t “Orqu“Orquillasillas,” ,” as as councounsel-osel-of-record of f-record of SpousSpouses es AlfredAlfredo o && Florentina Trinidad, as officer of the court, is bound by his sworn Oath of Florentina Trinidad, as officer of the court, is bound by his sworn Oath of Office and the Code of
Office and the Code of Professional Responsibility, to defend said clients.Professional Responsibility, to defend said clients.
Respondent even presented and filed in Court his June, 2005 Suplemental Respondent even presented and filed in Court his June, 2005 Suplemental Man
Manifeifestastatiotion n witwith h his his AnnAnnexeexed d concontratract ct of of attattornorney-ey-cliclient ent relrelatiationsonship hip inin consolidated Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M-98, and the supplemental consolidated Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M-98, and the supplemental complaint, duly signed and thumb marked (by the T
complaint, duly signed and thumb marked (by the Trinidad spouses).rinidad spouses).
As their attorney-at-law, respondent is specifically mandated by the Rules, As their attorney-at-law, respondent is specifically mandated by the Rules, to have filed in the Bulacan Court, all the pleadings necessary to cancel the to have filed in the Bulacan Court, all the pleadings necessary to cancel the 199
1998 8 annannotaotated ted advadverserse e claclaim im and and cleclear ar the the TriTrinidnidad’ad’s s purpurchachased sed subsubjecjectt title/lot of the mortgage lien claimed by
title/lot of the mortgage lien claimed by defendants Mariano/Ligaya Blanco.defendants Mariano/Ligaya Blanco.
As stated, the Trinidads bought the lot/title from complainant, having paid As stated, the Trinidads bought the lot/title from complainant, having paid su
sums ms of of momoneney y wiwith th obobliligagatitionons s to to papay y ththe e agagreereed d babalalancnce e babasesed d on on ththee ““ Kasunduan Kasunduan” upon court cancellation of the adverse claim. With the annotation” upon court cancellation of the adverse claim. With the annotation of the adverse claim since 1998 until today, the Trinidads’s title remains under of the adverse claim since 1998 until today, the Trinidads’s title remains under a cloud of legal doubt and uncertainty, and as a result, they cannot freely and a cloud of legal doubt and uncertainty, and as a result, they cannot freely and legally sell, transfer, encumber or dispose of the same to any encumbrancer for legally sell, transfer, encumber or dispose of the same to any encumbrancer for value, because of the superior lien of the adverse claimant, the Blancos. The value, because of the superior lien of the adverse claimant, the Blancos. The Supreme Court held that:
Supreme Court held that:
“The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect “The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest of a person over a part of real property, and serves as a the interest of a person over a part of real property, and serves as a notice and warning to third parties dealing with the said property that notice and warning to third parties dealing with the said property that someone is claiming an interest over it or has a better right than the someone is claiming an interest over it or has a better right than the
registered owner thereof.”
Sworn Duty of Respondent – Clear Violation: Client’s Case Sold Sworn Duty of Respondent – Clear Violation: Client’s Case Sold
Respo
Respondent must, perforce, be ndent must, perforce, be ordereordered d by the by the CourtCourt/IBP to /IBP to explaexplain in why,why, until today, he still, miserably have failed to file the necessary Motion to until today, he still, miserably have failed to file the necessary Motion to Re
Recoconsnsidider er ththe e BuBulalacacan n CoCoururt’t’s s OrOrdeders rs whwhicich h didismsmisissesed d ththe e TriTrininidadad’d’ss LRC/Civil Case to cancel both the adverse claim and annul the mortgage lien LRC/Civil Case to cancel both the adverse claim and annul the mortgage lien upon their purchased lot/title.
upon their purchased lot/title.
It is very clear from the facts admitted by the Bulacan Court, that It is very clear from the facts admitted by the Bulacan Court, that complainant and the Trinidads offered admitted and unrebutted evidence, which complainant and the Trinidads offered admitted and unrebutted evidence, which proved that the adverse claim and the mortgage must be cancelled/annulled, proved that the adverse claim and the mortgage must be cancelled/annulled, especially since all the defendants failed to appear, cross-examine complainant especially since all the defendants failed to appear, cross-examine complainant and present evidence.
and present evidence.
Because of the respondent’s 2004 Motion to Dismiss all consolidated Cases Because of the respondent’s 2004 Motion to Dismiss all consolidated Cases N
Nosos. . LRLRC C P-4P-40505-9-98 8 & & C.C.C. C. 93938-M8-M-9-98, 8, anand d ththe e susupppplelemementntal al cocompmplalainint,t, complainant and respondent’s clients the Trinidads, had to suffer the 5 years complainant and respondent’s clients the Trinidads, had to suffer the 5 years delay amid the highly irregular dismissals of
delay amid the highly irregular dismissals of his and the Trinidads’ cases.his and the Trinidads’ cases.
Not only that. Not only that.
Complainant had to file several letters to the Bulacan Executive Judge (now Complainant had to file several letters to the Bulacan Executive Judge (now deceased) Petrita Braga Dime, so that these Bulacan court cases would be deceased) Petrita Braga Dime, so that these Bulacan court cases would be decided by Judge Cruz. Since 2005, complainant started flooding the Executive decided by Judge Cruz. Since 2005, complainant started flooding the Executive Ju
Judgdge’e’s s ofoffifice ce wiwith th leletttterers s plpleaeadiding ng ththis is mamatttter er oof f no no dedecicisision on in in ththesesee consolidated cases since 1998.
consolidated cases since 1998.
On January 29, 2008, complainant wrote Judge Dime to require Judge Cruz On January 29, 2008, complainant wrote Judge Dime to require Judge Cruz to decide these cases. But Judge Cruz, due to accepted BRIBE money, refused, to decide these cases. But Judge Cruz, due to accepted BRIBE money, refused, since her hands were tied. So, complainant filed a Writ of Amparo case
since her hands were tied. So, complainant filed a Writ of Amparo case with thewith the Court of Appeals but Justices Edgardo Sundiam, Conrado Vasquez and Monina Court of Appeals but Justices Edgardo Sundiam, Conrado Vasquez and Monina Zen
Zenaroarosa sa rulruled ed thathat t comcomplaplainainant nt shoshould uld ratrather her filfile e an an admadminiinistrstratiative ve cascasee against Judge Cruz and her co-conspirator, Ms.
against Judge Cruz and her co-conspirator, Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson.Lerida Socorro-Joson.
Vendetta: Judge Cruz dismissed the consolidated Cases Nos. LRC P-405-98 Vendetta: Judge Cruz dismissed the consolidated Cases Nos. LRC P-405-98 & C.C. 938-M-98, on mere
& C.C. 938-M-98, on mere technicality not even raised in the pleadings, despitetechnicality not even raised in the pleadings, despite the fact that she ruled that all defendants failed to appear and rebut all the tons the fact that she ruled that all defendants failed to appear and rebut all the tons of evidence presented by complainant. Thus, complainant filed a 350-pages of evidence presented by complainant. Thus, complainant filed a 350-pages bribery administrative case against Judge Cruz and Ms.
bribery administrative case against Judge Cruz and Ms. Joson.Joson.
Com
Complaplainainant nt timtimely ely filfiled ed a a MotMotion ion for for RecReconsonsideideratration ion of of the the PartPartialial Judgment penned by Judge Cruz. Meanwhile, as predicted verbally and in Judgment penned by Judge Cruz. Meanwhile, as predicted verbally and in writing, in the pleading called SUMPA (pages 1 and 2 of the Reply and Motion writing, in the pleading called SUMPA (pages 1 and 2 of the Reply and Motion for Reconsideration dated May, 2008), Judge Petrita Braga Dime+ died in pain for Reconsideration dated May, 2008), Judge Petrita Braga Dime+ died in pain on July, 2008, while Justice Edgardo Sundiam+ who denied complainant’s on July, 2008, while Justice Edgardo Sundiam+ who denied complainant’s Amparo petition on June 5 and March 4, 2008 (and whose entire CA office was Amparo petition on June 5 and March 4, 2008 (and whose entire CA office was burned months before on his last birthday celebration on this planet) died due burned months before on his last birthday celebration on this planet) died due toto
lingering illnesses on February 3, 2009, after the husband+ of Judge Cruz died lingering illnesses on February 3, 2009, after the husband+ of Judge Cruz died
of cancer-leukemia on 2005, while original Judge Roy D. Masadao,+ who of cancer-leukemia on 2005, while original Judge Roy D. Masadao,+ who inhibited in these consolidated C.C. 938-M-98, died of cancer in 2006, and after inhibited in these consolidated C.C. 938-M-98, died of cancer in 2006, and after defendants’ Blanco’s lawyer, Atty. Rafael Santos+ died in 2003 before the P defendants’ Blanco’s lawyer, Atty. Rafael Santos+ died in 2003 before the P 100 million fire which obliterated the tannery of
100 million fire which obliterated the tannery of defendants Blancos.defendants Blancos.
It is very clear that until today, due to respondents violation of his lawyer’s It is very clear that until today, due to respondents violation of his lawyer’s oath of office, the non-cancellation of the adverse claim and mortgage lien upon oath of office, the non-cancellation of the adverse claim and mortgage lien upon his
his cliclientents, s, the the TriTrinidnidad’ad’s s purpurchachased sed lotlot/ti/titletle, , resresultulted ed in in the the acqacquisuisitiition on of of superior real rights over the title/lot by the adverse claimants, the spouses superior real rights over the title/lot by the adverse claimants, the spouses Mariano and Ligaya Blanco
Mariano and Ligaya Blanco,, whose property rights were protected against thewhose property rights were protected against the Trinidads’ real rights over the subject title, which were rendered nugatory or Trinidads’ real rights over the subject title, which were rendered nugatory or us
uselelessess, , by by vivirtrtue ue of of resrespopondndenent’s t’s viviololatatioion n of of ththe e CoCode de of of ProProfefessssioionanall Responsibility.
Responsibility.
IN SUM, respondent acted in favor of Alfred and Ann, the children of his IN SUM, respondent acted in favor of Alfred and Ann, the children of his clien
clients, the ts, the TrinidTrinidads, who, ads, who, untiuntil l todaytoday, , practpracticallically y lost any lost any and all and all rightrights s over over the subject lot/title due to the outstanding adverse claim lien, still held by the the subject lot/title due to the outstanding adverse claim lien, still held by the defendants Blancos.
defendants Blancos.
Copies of the – Copies of the –
*Joint Stipulation of Facts dated/filed on May 11, 1999 in the Bulacan Court *Joint Stipulation of Facts dated/filed on May 11, 1999 in the Bulacan Court (admitted by the parties and admitted in
(admitted by the parties and admitted in evidence by Bulacan Court);evidence by Bulacan Court);
*TCT No. T-328106 (M), subject title/lot bought by and in the names of *TCT No. T-328106 (M), subject title/lot bought by and in the names of sp
spououseses s AlAlfrefredo do & & FlFloreorentntinina a TrTrininididadad, , clclieientnts s of of rerespsponondedentnt, , wiwith th ththee annotated 1998 adverse claim at the back of
annotated 1998 adverse claim at the back of the title;the title; *KASUNDUAN dated March 30, 1998;
*KASUNDUAN dated March 30, 1998;
*Return of Service dated November 22, 2004, by Bulacan Court process server *Return of Service dated November 22, 2004, by Bulacan Court process server Leo B. Evina, which proved the very sick/bedridden and 3 time stroke patient Leo B. Evina, which proved the very sick/bedridden and 3 time stroke patient Alfredo Trinidad, client of respondent Orquillas;
Alfredo Trinidad, client of respondent Orquillas; *Su
*Supppplelemementntal al MaManinifefeststatatioion n wiwith th AtAttatachched ed CoContntraract ct of of atattotornrneyey-cl-clieientnt relationship between the Trinidads and respondent, in the subject consolidated relationship between the Trinidads and respondent, in the subject consolidated Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M-98;
Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M-98; *CA
*CA ResResoluolutiotion n and and EntEntry ry of of JudJudgmegment nt in in comcomplaplainainant’nt’s s WriWrit t of of AmpAmparoaro Petition, dated March 4 and June 5,
Petition, dated March 4 and June 5, 2008;2008;
*Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz’s Order dated September 3, 2008, AGAIN ruling *Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz’s Order dated September 3, 2008, AGAIN ruling that all the 1998 consolidated Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M-98, were that all the 1998 consolidated Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M-98, were deemed submitted ANEW for decision;
deemed submitted ANEW for decision; *J
*Jududge ge ThThelelma ma PiPinenero-ro-CrCruzuz’s ’s ReReququesest t fofor r ExExtetensnsioion n of of TiTime me to to renrendeder r judgment, dated October 27, 2008,
judgment, dated October 27, 2008,
and other pertinent documents are collectively ATTACHED and marked as and other pertinent documents are collectively ATTACHED and marked as Annex C
Annex C hereof.hereof.
RELIEF RELIEF
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that th
ER--AFFIDAVIT
AFFIDAVIT [Under Rules 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court,[Under Rules 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia,,inter alia W
Wiitth h - - MMoottiioonns s - - fofor r LLeeaavve e oof f CCoouurrt t tto o AAddmimit t tthhiis s CCoommppllaaiinntt, , ffoor r PREVEN
PREVENTIVE TIVE SUSPENSUSPENSION, SION, ImmediaImmediate te DockDocketing and eting and Early Early ResolResolutionution]] against respondent,
against respondent, Atty. Nye N. OrquillasAtty. Nye N. Orquillas, be duly GRANTED., be duly GRANTED.
Further, it is respectfully prayed, that - after filing of respondent’s Further, it is respectfully prayed, that - after filing of respondent’s COMMENT / ANSWER, and after due notice, hearing, and Report of the COMMENT / ANSWER, and after due notice, hearing, and Report of the Commissioner / Investigator,
-Commissioner / Investigator, - judgment judgment be rendered declaring Atty. Nye N.be rendered declaring Atty. Nye N. Orq
Orquiluillaslas, , GUIGUILTYLTY of of alall l ththe e cchahargrges es anand d ththatat susuprepreme me penpenaltaltyy of of DISBARMENT
DISBARMENT bebe imposedimposed upon him, ordering that his name be upon him, ordering that his name be stricken fromstricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and punished accordingly, under
the Roll of Attorneys, and punished accordingly, under Rule 139-BRule 139-B, Revised, Revised Rules of Court,
Rules of Court, inter aliainter alia..
Special Prayer: Special Prayer:
Fu
Furthrthermermorore, e, pepetitititiononer er momost st resrespepectctfufulllly y pepetitititionons s ththis is CoCoururt t – – toto SUSP
SUSPEND END AtAtty. ty. Nye Nye OrqOrquiluillaslas,, pend pendent ent eliteelite, fr, from om ththe e prpracactitice ce of of lalaw,w, indefinitely and until further orders from this Honorable Court, and that the indefinitely and until further orders from this Honorable Court, and that the suspension should take effect immediately.
suspension should take effect immediately.
Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for. Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for.
IN
IN WITWITNESNESS S WHWHEREEREOF, OF, I I sigsigned this ned this plepleadiading, ng, thithiss 2525thth day of day of March, 2009
March, 2009, at Malolos City , BULACAN., at Malolos City , BULACAN.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Petitioner, on behalf of himself, by
Petitioner, on behalf of himself, by himself and as litigant,himself and as litigant, 123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos City,
123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos City, 3000 BULACAN,3000 BULACAN, Tel /# (044) 662-82-03;
Tel /# (044) 662-82-03; [I.D. Number: [I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: EDP Number: 38676300;38676300; ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 32800, Pg. No. 6
ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 32800, Pg. No. 6 0, Book No. XIV].0, Book No. XIV].
NOTICE NOTICE
Hon.
Hon. Salvador B. Hababag Salvador B. Hababag ,, Commissioner, CBC,
Please
Please CONSIDER CONSIDER andand INCLUDEINCLUDE the the forforegoegoing ing plepleadiading ng in in thethe Delib
Deliberatieration on and Resolutiand Resolution on of of the Honorablthe Honorable e IBP, IBP, immedimmediateliately y upon receiptupon receipt hereof.
hereof.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.
COPY FURNISHED: COPY FURNISHED:
Note and Explanation: Note and Explanation:
Due to lack
Due to lack of manpower and distanceof manpower and distance, , this pleadithis pleading was ng was filed both byfiled both by registered mail with return card
registered mail with return card and LBC with return card at and LBC with return card at Malolos, Bulacan.Malolos, Bulacan.
Undersigned had instructed his secretary Ms. Belen Gomez to furnish a Undersigned had instructed his secretary Ms. Belen Gomez to furnish a copy of this pleading upon
copy of this pleading upon
-Atty.
Atty. Nye Orquillas,Nye Orquillas, Respondent,
Respondent,
2nd Flr., HIyas ng Bulacan Convention Center, 2nd Flr., HIyas ng Bulacan Convention Center, Capitol Compound Bldg.,
Capitol Compound Bldg., Capitolyo, Malolos City, Capitolyo, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan
VERIFICATION & AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE VERIFICATION & AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) Malolos
Malolos City, City, BULACAN BULACAN ) ) S.S.S.S. I,
I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, JrJudge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, depose/say, that:., under oath, depose/say, that:
I am the complainant in this case. I caused the preparation, signed and read this I am the complainant in this case. I caused the preparation, signed and read this pleading duly filed in this case, and all the contents / allegations thereof are true and correct pleading duly filed in this case, and all the contents / allegations thereof are true and correct
of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records.\ of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records.\
II certifycertify that onthat onMarch 24, 2008March 24, 2008, I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in, I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in this DISBARMENT case “
this DISBARMENT case “ Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant, - versus –Atty. Nye Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant, - versus –Atty. Nye Orquillas
Orquillas ”, ”, A.C. No. 7897, upon respondent Atty. NyA.C. No. 7897, upon respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas, by personal e Orquillas, by personal service, at hisservice, at his offic
office e addresaddress, 2nd s, 2nd Flr.Flr., , RTC Compound Bldg., RTC Compound Bldg., CapitCapitolyo, Malolos City, 3000 olyo, Malolos City, 3000 BulacaBulacan, n, asas evi
evidencdenced ed by by the signatthe signature ure / / iniinititial al recreceipeipt, t, as as herhereuneunder der indindicaicatedted, , aftafter er his his namname e andand address, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Rules of Court.
address, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Rules of Court.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,
PER
PERSOSONANALLLLY Y APAPPEPEARARED ED BEBEFOFORE RE MEME, , a a NoNotatary ry PuPublblic ic of of BuBulalacacan,n, Philippines, Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., who SUBSCRIBED AND Philippines, Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., who SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to the foregoing document, and who avows under the PENALTY OF SWORN to the foregoing document, and who avows under the PENALTY OF LAW to the whole of the contents of the foregoing document, before me, on LAW to the whole of the contents of the foregoing document, before me, on this
this 224th4th day of day of March, 2009March, 2009, here at Malolos City , Bulacan, affiant exhibited, here at Malolos City , Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC
to me his CTC NO. CC12005 # 21783592, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 2-27,NO. CC12005 # 21783592, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 2-27, 2007.
2007.
I hereby certify that the affiant has been identified by the undersigned Notary I hereby certify that the affiant has been identified by the undersigned Notary Public through competent Evidence of Identity, as follows:
Public through competent Evidence of Identity, as follows:
Evidence of
Evidence of Identity: ____________________Identity: ___________________________ _______
Which bears his picture and signature and basing on the same, his picture Which bears his picture and signature and basing on the same, his picture appearing thereon is one and the same
appearing thereon is one and the same signature on this document.signature on this document.
DOC. NO.
DOC. NO. _____, PAGE _____, PAGE NO. ____,NO. ____, BOOK NO. ____, SERIES OF 2009. BOOK NO. ____, SERIES OF 2009.
BERNAR D. FAJARDO BERNAR D. FAJARDO Notary Public, Notary Public, Until Jan.31, 2009, Until Jan.31, 2009, PTR NO. 4591703, 1- 2,’08, PTR NO. 4591703, 1- 2,’08, Atty.’s Roll No. 33633,
Atty.’s Roll No. 33633, IBP OR # 708299, 1-2,’08 IBP OR # 708299, 1-2,’08 Malolos City, Bulacan. Malolos City, Bulacan.
MCLE Compliance II-0011645, 8-17’08 MCLE Compliance II-0011645, 8-17’08 COPY FURNISHED:
COPY FURNISHED: (By Personal Service): (By Personal Service):
Atty.
Atty. Nye Orquillas,Nye Orquillas, Respondent,
Respondent,
2nd Flr., HIyas ng Bulacan Convention Center, 2nd Flr., HIyas ng Bulacan Convention Center, Capitol Compound Bldg.,
Capitol Compound Bldg., Capitolyo, Malolos City, Capitolyo, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan
3000 Bulacan
with the NOTICE I received on
with the NOTICE I received on January 27, 2009, respectfully, states, that:January 27, 2009, respectfully, states, that:
Jobless - Homeless - 8, 8, 8 Jobless - Homeless - 8, 8, 8
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/52837/(Update)-Fire-hits-CA-main-office http://www.gmanews.tv/story/52837/(Update)-Fire-hits-CA-main-office
Fire hits CA main office - July 26, 2007 Fire hits CA main office - July 26, 2007
A fire broke out Thursday at the main building of the Court of Appeals A fire broke out Thursday at the main building of the Court of Appeals along Maria Orosa Street in Ermita, Manila City. Radio station dzMM reported along Maria Orosa Street in Ermita, Manila City. Radio station dzMM reported
that the blaze reportedly broke out at the room of Associate Justice
that the blaze reportedly broke out at the room of Associate Justice EdgardoEdgardo Sundiam
Sundiam at the fourth floor.at the fourth floor.
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2009/feb/03/yehey/metro/20090203met5.html http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2009/feb/03/yehey/metro/20090203met5.html CA mourns death of peer
CA mourns death of peer - Tuesday,- Tuesday, February 03, 2009February 03, 2009
THE Court of Appeals will have a sad day when it celebrates its 73rd THE Court of Appeals will have a sad day when it celebrates its 73rd Anniversary owing to the sudden death on February 1, of one of their most Anniversary owing to the sudden death on February 1, of one of their most respected magistrates, Justice
respected magistrates, Justice Edgardo Sundiam, due to lingering Edgardo Sundiam, due to lingering illnessillness..
On
On March 4, 2008,March 4, 2008, the Philippine Court of Appeals Presiding Justicethe Philippine Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.
Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Justices, Justices Edgardo P. SundianEdgardo P. Sundian & Monina Arevala-& Monina Arevala-Zenarosa,
Zenarosa, dismissed Floro'sdismissed Floro's CA-G.R. Sp No. 00015, Writ of Amparo andCA-G.R. Sp No. 00015, Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data lawsuit against Malolos RTC Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz.
Habeas Data lawsuit against Malolos RTC Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz. OnOn July, 2008
July, 2008, RTC Executive, RTC Executive Judge Petrita Braga Dime's untimely demiseJudge Petrita Braga Dime's untimely demise was mourned by the judiciary.
was mourned by the judiciary.
On
On January 29, 2008January 29, 2008, , FloFloro ro begbegged for ged for mercmercy y from Malolfrom Malolos os CitCity,y, Bulacan Executive Judge, RTC, Br. 14, Hon.
Bulacan Executive Judge, RTC, Br. 14, Hon. Petrita Braga DimePetrita Braga Dime (University(University of the Philippines College of Law Class '62 classmate of Minita Chico-Nazario, of the Philippines College of Law Class '62 classmate of Minita Chico-Nazario, Co
Consnsueuelo lo YnYnarareses-Sa-Santntiaiagogo, , AlAlicicia ia AuAuststriaria-M-Marartitinenez, z, ReReynynatato o PuPunono, , anandd Malolos RTC, Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz – WHO SIGNED THE DEATH OF Malolos RTC, Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz – WHO SIGNED THE DEATH OF THE JUDICIAL CAREER OF JUDGE FL
THE JUDICIAL CAREER OF JUDGE FLORO ON MARCH 31, 2006).ORO ON MARCH 31, 2006).
Undaunted, Floro appealed to the Court of Appeals by filing the January Undaunted, Floro appealed to the Court of Appeals by filing the January 30, 2008 Amparo lawsuit and supplemental disbarment case No. 7897 against 30, 2008 Amparo lawsuit and supplemental disbarment case No. 7897 against Inte
Integragrated ted Bar Bar of of the the PhiPhiliplippinpines es BulBulacaacan n lawlawyer yer Nye Nye OrqOrquiluillaslas, , who who waswas ordered to file Comment by the Supreme Court of the Philippines' Resolution ordered to file Comment by the Supreme Court of the Philippines' Resolution dated July 7, 2008. Meanwhile, Court of Appeals Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes dated July 7, 2008. Meanwhile, Court of Appeals Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes and Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas inhibited in the Amparo suit.
and Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas inhibited in the Amparo suit.
I. Admissions I. Admissions
Complainant cannot admit the allegations of respondent’s answer which Complainant cannot admit the allegations of respondent’s answer which betray the TRUTH. Amid the pains of loosing his job and only ancestral home betray the TRUTH. Amid the pains of loosing his job and only ancestral home and lot because of respondent’s actuations, complainant continues to suffer the and lot because of respondent’s actuations, complainant continues to suffer the p
paiains ns of of 10 10 yeyears ars dedelalay y of of hihis s cicivivil l anand d crcrimimininal al pepersersecucutotory ry lalawswsuiuitsts. . InIn addition, it was only on September 3, 2008, that the Malolos RTC, Br. 16 had addition, it was only on September 3, 2008, that the Malolos RTC, Br. 16 had ordered complainant’s consolidated cases again for the nth time submitted for ordered complainant’s consolidated cases again for the nth time submitted for de
decicisisionon, , alall l bebecacaususe e of of ththe e viviololatatioion n of of hihis s oaoath th of of ofoffifice ce as as lalawywyer er byby respondent. For this, complainant hereby submits the CRITICAL
respondent. For this, complainant hereby submits the CRITICAL FACTS whichFACTS which reveal and unveil the TRUTH, nothing more, nothing less: in the following 100 reveal and unveil the TRUTH, nothing more, nothing less: in the following 100 pages, which undersigned painfully collected, collated and created in detail as pages, which undersigned painfully collected, collated and created in detail as proof that respondent must be disbarred
proof that respondent must be disbarred under the law and rules.under the law and rules.
II. Stipulations II. Stipulations
Though the papers of this case are voluminous, the FACT is so simple: Though the papers of this case are voluminous, the FACT is so simple: com
complaplainainant’nt’s s ancancestestral ral houhouse-lse-lot ot was was solsold d to to spospouseuses s TriTrinidnidads ads and and thetheyy obliged themselves to pay the balance upon court order to cancel the annotated obliged themselves to pay the balance upon court order to cancel the annotated
adverse claim on the subject title they bought. Respondent appeared for the adverse claim on the subject title they bought. Respondent appeared for the Trin
Trinidaidads ds to to defdefend end thetheir ir rigrightshts. . InsInsteatead d of of winwinninning g the the cascase, e, resresponpondendent,t, conspiring with Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson and Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz, conspiring with Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson and Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz, (classmate of C.J. Puno, and the other 3 UP Class 62 S.C. Associate Justices) (classmate of C.J. Puno, and the other 3 UP Class 62 S.C. Associate Justices) and for the consideration of the
and for the consideration of the bribebribe of aboutof about P 60,000.00P 60,000.00, filed a motion to, filed a motion to dismiss not only the LRC case but even all the other cases not involved in his dismiss not only the LRC case but even all the other cases not involved in his lawyer-client relationship. Because of this, complainant suffered so much, lost lawyer-client relationship. Because of this, complainant suffered so much, lost his only home-lot, where he was born in 1953 and lived until 1989. Not only his only home-lot, where he was born in 1953 and lived until 1989. Not only that. Despite the fact that none of the defendants in those consolidated civil that. Despite the fact that none of the defendants in those consolidated civil cases which respondent moved to dismiss, had appeared in court to submit cases which respondent moved to dismiss, had appeared in court to submit ev
evididenencece, , cocompmplalaininanant t lolost st ththe e cacaseses s dudue e to to ththe e brbribibe. e. AfAfteter r a a seseriries es of of administrative cases filed by complainant against respondent’s co-conspirators, administrative cases filed by complainant against respondent’s co-conspirators, Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz and Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson, complainant until Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz and Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson, complainant until this day, failed to smell
this day, failed to smell even the elusive quality of JUSTICE. This even the elusive quality of JUSTICE. This is too much.is too much.
III. Issues III. Issues
Complainant has raised the issues in the instant complaint and
Complainant has raised the issues in the instant complaint and reproducesreproduces th
thesese e hehereirein: n: whwhetetheher r of of nonot t resrespopondndenent t viviololatated ed hihis s oaoathths s of of ofoffificece, , anandd therefore must be disbarred. Bold and daring, complainant adds: he will prove therefore must be disbarred. Bold and daring, complainant adds: he will prove this issues by his
this issues by his GODLY REPRISALS, since, it will unveil the truth.GODLY REPRISALS, since, it will unveil the truth.
RELIEF RELIEF
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that th
the e iinsnstatantnt COMPLIANCECOMPLIANCE aannd d tthhee VERVERIFIIFIED ED DIDISBASBARMRMENTENT COMPLAINT /
COMPLAINT / LETTER-AFFILETTER-AFFIDAVITDAVIT [Under Rules 138 & 139-B, Revised[Under Rules 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of
Rules of CourtCourt,, inter aliainter alia, , With - MotWith - Motions - for Leaions - for Leave of Courve of Court to Admit tht to Admit thisis Complaint, for PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION, Immediate Docketing and Early Complaint, for PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION, Immediate Docketing and Early Resol
Resolutionution] ] againagainst st resporespondenndent,t, AttAtty. y. Nye Nye OrqOrquiluillaslas, , bbe e ddululy y NNOOTETED,D, ADMITTED, GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED.
ADMITTED, GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED.
Further, it is respectfully prayed, that - after filing of respondent’s Further, it is respectfully prayed, that - after filing of respondent’s COMMENT / ANSWER, and after due notice, hearing, and Report of the COMMENT / ANSWER, and after due notice, hearing, and Report of the Commissioner / Investigator,
-Commissioner / Investigator, - judgment judgment be rendered declaring him GUILTYbe rendered declaring him GUILTY of
of all all the the charges charges and and thatthat supreme penaltysupreme penalty of of DISBARMENTDISBARMENT be be imposedimposed upon him, ordering that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and upon him, ordering that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and punished accordingly, under
punished accordingly, under Rule 139-BRule 139-B, Revised Rules of Court,, Revised Rules of Court, inter aliainter alia..
Special Prayer: Special Prayer:
