verified rejoinder

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Third Judicial Region, Regional Trial Court of Bulacan,

Malolos City, Branch 16

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

Verified Rejoinder[To Respondents Mariano Blanco / Ligaya Blanco’s “MANIFESTATION AND

COMMENT ON THE OPPOSITION” dated January 4, 2008] - with –Manifestation and Prayer

i) To strike out, as sham and false / dilatory pleading the respondents Mariano Blanco / Ligaya Blanco’s “MANIFESTATION AND COMMENT ON THE OPPOSITION” dated January 4, 2008, ii) To declare the same as virtual OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, a) To issue the decision in these consolidated cases, b) To resolve all the petitioner’s pending/ due / unresolved Omnibus Motions and c) To order the Branch Clerk of Court to include these consolidated cases as those SUBMITTED FOR DECISION as of September 22, 2004, in the OCAD Reports, inter alia, and SECOND LEGAL RESERVATION TO FILE DISBARMENT / ADMINISTRATIVE CASES against Atty. Nye Orquillas and Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson with the OCAD / Office of the Bar Confidant, and - Urgent Prayer for Immediate RESOLUTION

Undersigned petitioner, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, by HIMSELF and for HIMSELF, as litigant / petitioner in these cases, AND WITH LEAVE OF THIS HONORABLE COURT , most respectfully depose and say, that:

Respondents Blanco’s 2-pages “MANIFESTATION AND COMMENT ON THE OPPOSITION” dated January 4, 2008 is a sham and false / dilatory pleading and virtual OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, under Sec. 12, Rule 8, Sec. 3, Rule 7, and Rule 71, Revised Rules of Court and violates Canon 10, 10.01 to 10.03, Code of Professional Responsibility; it is intended a) to prevent rendition / issuance of Judgment long OVERDUE on December 23, 2004 (these cases were Ordered submitted for Judgment on September 22, 2004), and b) to cover-up criminal and administrative liabilities of Atty. Nye Orquillas and Branch Clerk of Court, Mrs. Lerida Socorro Joson – re: conspiracy with the Petitioners Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad to obstruct justice, due to P 80,000 cash pay-off by the Trinidads, inter alia.

1

1. Respondents Blanco’s 2-pages “MANIFESTATION AND COMMENT ON THE OPPOSITION” dated January 4, 2008, states:

[Copy of Pars. 1 -2 and prayer of Blanco’s said pleading is above-pasted for

enhancement and to stress the violation of the laws / rules].

1. Respondents Blancos deceived this Honorable Court, since records

(documents, pleadings, etc.) show and prove clearly and unequivocally that:

petitioners / undersigned petitioner duly OFFERED on September 13, 2004,

2

all the duly marked exhibits A to I /sub-markings of these 2 cases,

documentary evidence, with and for all the purposes stated therein; the Court

admitted all the exhibits after giving all parties all the opportunities to file

comment; b) petitioners and respondents Blancos signed and filed “Joint

Stipulations of Facts (and Memorandum)” dated May 7 filed on May 11,

1998, where they ADMITTED all exhibits A to I and sub-markings of

petitioners for the purposes stated therein, without the need of FORMAL

OFFER / proof and court admission; in that pleading respondents Blancos and

petitioners even agreed on, stipulated and admitted the facts enumerated and

stated therein; respondents Blancos even filed their “COMMENT” thereon,

where Blancos repeatedly ADMITTED the existence of petitioners’ all

annexes and exhibits A to I / sub-markings, and on September 22, 2004, the

Court ordered these consolidated cases submitted for judgment.

PROOF:

3

failure to appear at the hearings despite due notices (this Order of submission

of the case for judgment was personally served by the court process server

upon the spouses Trinidads and Atty. Donato Mabbayad, counsel of Blancos,

per returns dated 1 and 5 October, 2004). In this regard, at the hearing dated

12 August 2004, the Court ordered that the right of respondents / Blancos to

cross-examine Judge Floro was deemed waived due to their consistent failure

to appear at the trials / hearings since 1998 despite due notice. The court set

the hearings for the reception of respondents’ evidence on September 13, 22,

October 6 and 18, 2004, but the Blancos and respondents failed to appear.

Exhibits A-8 and A-8-1, the 4 pages petitioner’s Manifestation-Letter Notice

dated July 21, 1993, with the registry receipts (both originals) were marked

and attached with the records (the Order was personally served by the court

process server upon the spouses Trinidads and Atty. Donato Mabbayad,

counsel of Blancos, per returns dated 6 September, 2004).

EXHIBTS MARKED:

A) P-405-98 case:

All the annexes A to G / sub-markings of the Verified Petition ( Vide: pages

1 to 8 records), dated September 28, 1998 in P-405-98 case were marked

correspondingly marked as Exhibits A to G / sub-markings – at the trial /

hearing dated March 4, 1999 and Exhibits H and I / sub-markings on

December 8, 1998 before Br. 19, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan:

Exhibits A to G / sub-markings (annexes A to G / sub-markings of the

Petition) = pages 9 to 29, records;

Exhibits A-8 and A-8-1 (4 pages petitioner’s Manifestation-Letter Notice

dated July 21, 1993, with the registry receipts, both originals) = pages 111 to

114, records; marked on September 13, 2004, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan;

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

Exhibit I = pages 78

[Vide: TSN dated December 8, 1998 – pages 2 to 5, and Order regarding

jurisdictional requirements, on page 7; copies are attached herewith as

reference – as “Annex A” hereof].

4

[Vide: TSN dated March 4, 1999 – pages 3 to 4, copies are attached herewith

as reference – as “Annex A-1” hereof].

Direct Testimony of petitioner Judge Floro:

[Vide: TSN dated March 4, 1999 – pages 4 to 32, and Order regarding

jurisdictional requirements, on page 7; copies are attached herewith as

reference – as “Annex B” hereof].

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

All the annexes A to G / sub-markings (of the Verified Petition - Vide:

pages 2 12, etc., records, dated September 28 / 29, 1998 as amended by the

Amended Verified Complaint filed and all fees duly paid on October 9,

1998 – Vide pages 123 to 132, records), were correspondingly marked as

Exhibits A to G / sub-markings – at the trial / hearing dated March 19,

1999 before Br. 9, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan:


Petition) = pages 133 to 154, records;

ALL THE EXHIBITS A to G / sub-markings duly marked in both cases are

exactly the SAME exhibits and annexes of both petitions, duly consolidated.

5

To stress the CRITICAL fact of the stipulations of facts and

stipulations on admissions of plus comments to petitioners’ Exhibits A to I

and sub-markings by respondents Blancos, copies of the signed stipulations

are copy-pasted hereunder:

8

Formal Offer of Petitioners’ Documentary Evidence:

All the petitioners’ annexes A to G / sub-markings, and court

documents, marked and identified as Exhibits A to I / sub-markings, in

these 2 cases were all formally offered and admitted in evidence at the

hearing dated September 13, 2004, EVEN if all said exhibits were

stipulated and admitted by petitioners and respondents Blancos in the

joint stipulation of facts, above-cited.

In P-405-98 case:

All the petitioners’ annexes A to G / sub-markings, Exhibits A-8 and A-

8-1 (4 pages petitioner’s Manifestation-Letter Notice dated July 21, 1993,

with the registry receipts, both originals),

Exhibits H / sub- markings, Exhibit I,

duly marked and identified, and all exhibits -

In Civil Case No. 938-M-98:


Petition) ALL THE EXHIBITS A to G / sub-markings duly marked in both

cases are exactly the SAME exhibits and annexes of both petitions, duly

consolidated –

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

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

a) Court Orders dated 12 August and 13 September, 2004 , the waiver by defendants and the ADMISSION of all the exhibits in these 2 cases by the Court for purposes stated in the formal offer, and

b) TSN dated 13 September, 2004, pages 2 to 4, where petitioners formally offered all the exhibits for the purposes stated therein and duly admitted by the Cour t .

11

With due respect:

Petitioner respectfully cites the following laws, circulars and rules, to

support his contention that – a) the decision in this case should have been

rendered and released on December 23, 2004; b) the Branch Clerk of Court,

(in conspiracy with) and Atty. Nye Orquillas, the Trinidads and respondents’

Blancos, inter alia, are liable under these laws, criminally and

administratively, due to palpable obstruction of justice and delay of

petitioner’s cause because of the resultant unjust and unlawful orders which

stopped the judgment’s issuance as of December 23, 2004. Until the decision

in this case is rendered, the Certificate of Service of the Presiding Judge

cannot state that there is no pending case which has not yet been decided,

since petitioner proved that the decision must have been issued on December

23, 2004 were it not for the criminal and administrative wrong doings of said

counsel and court personnel.

A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC- RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE 140 OF THE RULES OF COURT RE: DISCIPLINE OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES - The Court resolved to APPROVE the amendment of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court regarding the discipline of Justices and Judges, so as to read as follows:RULE 140 - DISCIPLINE OF JUDGES OF REGULAR AND SPECIAL COURTS AND JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE SANDIGANBAYANSEC. 8. Serious charges. – Serious charges include: 1. Bribery, direct or indirect; 2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No. 3019); 3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct; 4. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as determined by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding; 7. Borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case pending before the court; 9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;SEC. 9. Less Serious Charges. – Less serious charges include:

1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case; 4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars; 6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of service;

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

12

These amendments to Rule 140 shall take effect on October 1, 2001 following their publication in two newspapers of general circulation on or before September 15, 2001.CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT - CANON 3A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH IMPARTIALITY AND DILIGENCEADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIESRULE 3.01 - A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. RULE 3.02 - In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism. RULE 3.05 - A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

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

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

1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: RULE 7 - PARTS OF A PLEADINGSec. 3. Signature and address.Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading in violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails to promptly report to the court a change of his address, shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.RULE 8 - MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGSSec. 12. Striking out of pleading or matter contained therein. Upon motion made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by these Rules, upon motion made by a party within twenty (20) days after the service of the pleading upon him, or upon the court's own initiative at any time, the court may order any pleading to be stricken out or that any sham or false, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter be stricken out therefrom.RULE 129What Need Not Be Proved Sec. 4.Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. (2a)RULE 132 - C. OFFER AND OBJECTION - Sec. 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. (35)Sec. 35.When to make offer. — As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify.Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. (n)Sec. 36. Objection. — Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made. An offer of evidence in writing shall be

13

objected to within three (3) days after notice, unless a different period is allowed by the court. In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a)Sec. 38.Ruling. — The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made, xxx.

RULE 18, PRE-TRIAL - Sec. 2. Nature and purpose. (b) The simplification of the issues; (d) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents to avoid unnecessary proof;RULE 30- TRIAL - Sec. 6. Agreed statement of facts. The parties to any action may agree, in writing, upon the facts involved in the litigation, and submit the case for judgment on the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence. If the parties agree only on some of the facts in issue, the trial shall be held as to the disputed facts in such order as the court shall prescribe.

RELIEF

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

a DECISION be released, promulgated, rendered and issued forthwith in

these CONSOLIDATED duly SUBMITTED FOR DECISION as of

September 22, 2004 - and more specifically, with leave of Court, it is prayed

that the instant -

Verified Rejoinder[To Respondents Mariano Blanco / Ligaya Blanco’s “MANIFESTATION AND

COMMENT ON THE OPPOSITION” dated January 4, 2008] - with –Manifestation and Prayer

i) To strike out, as sham and false / dilatory pleading the respondents Mariano Blanco / Ligaya Blanco’s “MANIFESTATION AND COMMENT ON THE OPPOSITION” dated January 4, 2008, ii) To declare the same as virtual OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, a) To issue the decision in these consolidated cases, b) To resolve all the petitioner’s pending/ due / unresolved Omnibus Motions and c) To order the Branch Clerk of Court to include these consolidated cases as those SUBMITTED FOR DECISION as of September 22, 2004, in the OCAD Reports, inter alia, and SECOND LEGAL RESERVATION TO FILE DISBARMENT / ADMINISTRATIVE CASES against Atty. Nye Orquillas and Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson with the OCAD / Office of the Bar Confidant, and - Urgent Prayer for Immediate RESOLUTION

- be duly GRANTED.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading – verified petition, this 16 th day, of January, 2008, at Malolos City, BULACAN.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,Petitioner,

123 Dahlia, Alido, Malolos, 3000 BULACAN, Tel/#(044) 662-82-03;

14

[I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300; ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV].

NOTICE

TO:

Branch Clerk of Court, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan,

Atty. Ireneo E. Guardiano, Counsel of Record for respondents Mariano and Ligaya Blanco,RTC Compound, Karuhatan, Valenzuela City, 1441

Atty. Nye Orquillas, Counsel for Petitioners Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad,2nd Flr., RTC Compound Bldg.,Capitolyo, Malolos City, Bulacan

The Office of Provincial Prosecutor,c/o Br. 16, RTC, Assistant Prosecutor,

Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico,Respondent,Villarico Law Office, Poblacion,Meycauayan, Bulacan

The Branch Clerk of Court / OIC,Metropolitan Trial Court, Br. 1,Meycauayan, Bulacan.

Please take notice that the undersigned will submit the instant /

foregoing pleading for hearing, consideration, deliberation and resolution of

the Honorable Court, on January 22, and if not heard for any reason, also on

January 29, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. or sooner, thereafter that it may be heard.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,Petitioner,

123 Dahlia, Alido, Malolos, 3000 BULACAN, Tel/# (044) 662-82-03; [I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300; ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV].

VERIFICATION / AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)Malolos City, BULACAN ) S.S.

I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, depose/say, that:

I am the petitioner in this case. I caused the preparation, signed and read the instant pleding, and all the contents/allegations thereof are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records.

I CERTIFY that on January , 2008, I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in these cases entitled “Atty. Floro et al. vs. Mariano Blanco et al.”, by personal

15

service, upon all the parties / respondents’ counsels, the Office of the Public Prosecutor, as proved by the rubber stamp receipt hereunder on the original copy hereof, in accordance with Rule 13, Rules of Court.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 16th day of January, 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. 471, PAGE NO. 96, BERNAR D. FAJARDO BOOK NO. 75, SERIES OF 2008. Notary Public,

Until Jan.31, 2009,PTR NO. 4591703, 1- 2,’08,

Atty.’s Roll No. 33633, IBP OR # 708299, 1-2,’08

Malolos, Bulacan.

COPY FURNISHED:

(By Personal Service):

Atty. Ireneo E. Guardiano, Counsel of Record for respondents Mariano and Ligaya Blanco,RTC Compound, Karuhatan, Valenzuela City, 1441

Atty. Nye Orquillas, Counsel for Petitioners Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad,2nd Flr., RTC Compound Bldg.,Capitolyo, Malolos City, Bulacan

The Office of Provincial Prosecutor,c/o Br. 16, RTC, Benjamin Medrano, Assistant Prosecutor,

Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico,Respondent,Villarico Law Office, Poblacion,Meycauayan, Bulacan

16

verified rejoinder

Documents