REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Office of the Court Administrator SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M A N I L A Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.

, Complainant, - versus A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2854-RTJ For: Gross ignorance of the law, etc.

Judge Thelma R. Pinero-Cruz, and (Presiding Judge, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan), Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson, (Legal Researcher / OIC, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan), Respondents. X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

VERIFIED COMPLAINT / SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

[For: Gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct in office, gross inefficiency, malicious delay - in the administration of justice and disposition of cases, knowingly rendering the unjust Partial Judgment and interlocutory orders, Arts. 204, 206, 207, RPC, illegal exaction, graft and corruption, R.A. 3019, as amended, direct bribery, Art. 210, RPC, and disbarment from office, 139-B, Rules of Court, professional indiscretion, conducts unbecoming of a lawyer, grossly unethical behavior, specifically, to wit: Grave Violations of - i.) A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC, Amendment to Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court - SEC. 8, 1 to 4, SEC. 9, 1,4 & 6, ii.) Oath of office and her duty as attorney or counselor-at-law, Sec. 20 (a) and 27, Rule 138, iii.) Canons / Code of Judicial Conduct -CANON 1, RULES 1.01 to 1.03, CANON 2, RULE 2.01, CANON 3, RULES 3.01, 3.02, 3.04, 3.05, CANON 10, RULE 10.01, CANON 1, RULES 1.01, 1.02, CANON 7, RULE 7.03, iv.) Code of Professional Responsibility, CHAPTER I. CANON 1, CHAPTER II. CANON 7, RULE 7.03, CANON 8, CANON 10, RULE 10.03, RULES 10.02, 10.03, CANON 11, CANON 12, Rule 12.04, the Bill of Rights (Rule of Law, and substantive due process), v.) Rule 71, Revised Rules of Court, obstruction of justice, vi.) Arts. 19, 20, 21, 27, 32, 33, 2176, 2177, 2180, NCC, vii.) R.A. 6713, Revised Administrative Code, Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, and 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court], and -

Verified Reply
[To Respondents COMMENTS dated May 5, 2008], with - Omnibus Motions a) for Leave of Court to Admit these Complaints / Reply, b) for PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION of Respondents, c) to Appoint an Investigator, d) to Permit Complainant to Present Testimonial / Documentary Evidence, and e) for Early Resolution

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, and the MEMBERS, En Banc, Supreme Court, Court Administrator Justice Zenaido Elepano, and OCAD DCA Justice Antonio Dujua, Office of the Court Administrator,

Supreme Court, Padre Faura, Manila Your Honors, I, the undersigned petitioner / complainant, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, by MYSELF and for MYSELF, as litigant / complainant in this case, AND WITH LEAVE OF 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)-Bulacan, c) TCT Nos. T-328106(M), T-316135(M), and T-316136 (M)-Bulacan, d) Kasunduan ng Sanglaan dated / signed on January 5, 1995, e) 1994 Guardianship, Br. 10, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan Permanent Injunction, prohibiting the disposal / mortgage of 7/12 share of Milagros Floro 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 A, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, 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 Br. 9, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, Civil Case No. 938-M-98, verified petition / complaint and amended verified complaint, respectively, to annul / cancel the mortgage contract on said 3 titles, based on the Civil 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 by undersigned to LRC P-405 petitioners spouses Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad. The spouses bought the lot from undersigned by virtue
2

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 upon their torrens title. Copies of pertinent pages 1, 6 & 7, of a) the Verified Petition / Complaint, b) Amended Verified Complaint, 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 Official Receipts. Copies of all the official 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 codefendant, 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.
c.) Defendants spouses Blancos and Villaricos Answer with Compulsory

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 witness thereto. Defendants in the pleading, promised to present witnesses and documents, but they miserably failed.
d.)

The parties thereafter submitted the Stipulations of Facts 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 their rights to cross-examine Judge Floro. Furthermore, they failed to submit any witness or documentary evidence to rebut Judge Floros admitted testimonial and documentary evidence, as they promised, despite several court orders for them to do so.
f.) The Court admitted Judge Floros duly offered Exhibits A to I-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 and 22 September, 2004; Vide copies of 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 refused to pay him the amount due on the contract, admitted evidence KASUNDUAN of March 20, 1998, Judge Floro asked the court for LEAVE to admit Supplemental and Amended Supplemental Pleadings to add these 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 Anns 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 attorneys fees, did, unlawfully and feloniously, file a Motion to Dismiss not only a) the collection or sum of money supplemental case filed by undersigned against the Trinidads, but, surprisingly, and without any valid ground, Atty. Orquillas even moved b) to dismiss both the above twin cases filed by undersigned, on the sole and non-existent / false ground of nonpayment 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 Motions 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 inter alia. Copies of the Office of Clerk of Court, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, assessment of docket fees for the above-twin cases are attached as Annexes D-1 and D-2 hereof. Despite oral and 27-pages 13 December 2004 OPPOSITION (Annex D-3) by undersigned, the lower court/respondent Judge Thelma, on February 24, 2004, dismissed these twin cases due to alleged
5

non-payment of docket fees: a) undersigneds October, 1998 Amended Verified Complaint b) undersigneds LRC Petition and c) the supplemental pleading dated October 25, 2004. Copy of the Court dismissal order is attached as Annex E hereof. 7. Undersigned filed 37pages 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 Floros motions and evidence at the hearing. OCA IPI No. 05-2157-P Judge Floro vs. Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson Cancer and Death of Respondent Judge Thelmas Husband; Selling of Decisions in Annulment Cases; and the P 2.0 Million Pulumbaret Bribery Judicial Notice in RTC, Malolos of Respondent Josons 2004 2008 Sale of Annulment Orders as Court Fixer, and Broker of Respondent Thelma, in the P 2.0 Million Pulumbaret Bribery / Union Bank A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2026RTJ, Union Bank vs. Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz 8. By sheer accident, Judge Floro discovered on 2004-2005, and reported to the Supreme Court, in his filed/decided case, OCA IPI No. 05-2157-P 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 Thelmas husband. Judge Floro, filed the administrative case, since respondent Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson (Ms. Joson, for brevity) failed to include Judge Floros 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 Divisions final Resolution / fallo, dated March 8, 2006 ruled: (against respondent Ms. Joson, and in favor of undersigned, in A. M. OCA IPI No. 05-2157-P): To REMIND respondent OIC Mrs. Lerida SocorroJoson to BE MORE CIRCUMSPECT and PRUDENT in the discharge of her duties Copies of the A. M. OCA IPI No. 05-2157-P a) 18-pages Judge Floros Verified Complaint-Affidavit dated March 28, 2005, b) 12-pages Judge Floros Verified Supplemental Affidavit dated 4 April, filed 8 April, 2005, c) respondent, Mrs. Josons 3-pages COMMENT dated 21 April 2005, d) OCAD
1st Indorsement dated 3 April 2005, and e) Judge Floros 8-pages Reply Supplemental Affidavit dated 29 April 2005, f) March 16, 2005, S.C. 2nd 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, hereof.

9. The Court / respondent Thelma, therefore, made a FIRST turn around, and issued an order, reversing the dismissal, and required 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 Courts / respondent Judge Thelmas ruling on requirement of payment of P 199,000 docket fees. The Public Prosecutor opposed but later withdrew opposition upon Judge Floros submission of CERTIFIED COPIES of 1998 & 1999 Office of the Clerk of Courts 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 Floros 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 undersigneds accusations that he lied to the court, that he sold his clients case, and that he allowed them to loose the case, so that undersigned would not be paid based on the Kasunduan; and worst, Atty. Orquillas refused to cooperate to fight for his clients rights to have the adverse claim cancelled so that the 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 Floros 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 Blancos new and third counsel; their first lawyer, Atty. Rafael Santos, died in 2000, while their second counsel-of-record, Atty. Donato Mabbayad resigned) --- a) to delay these 10 years cases, and to make it appear, that b) respondents would rectify the grave INJUSTICES to Judge Floro by denying the sham and false motion. Copies of a) Atty. Irineo E. Guardianos / defendants Blancos 3 pages Motion to Dismiss dated / filed on 3, 7 December, 2008, b) Judge Floros 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 Floros accidental and destined discovery of the P 80,000 pay-off and bribery committed by co-conspirators Alfred Trinidad and respondents Judge Thelma and Ms. Joson.

13. Judge Floro, during the 2nd to the last quarter of 2007, found that herein LRC Petitioners spouses Alfredo and Florentina Trinidads son Alfred Trinidad blocked the right-of-way common to the subject lots of these cases, by his fighting cocks and cock houses, which made it so dirty and muddy or impassable. At Meycauayan, Bulacan Jollibee afternoon meeting, Alfred Trinidad offered to Judge Floro, per his secretary, Ms. Belen Gomez, settlement, thusly: he would remove the nuisance, on the condition of full payment by Judge Floro, of P 80,000, reduced to P 60,000, which 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 Floros 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 condition of the bribe money was: 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 Floros 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 B. Dime (now the instant docketed case OCA IPI No. 08-2854-RTJ), and c) the pending fullblown Disbarment case A.C. No. 7897, Third Division, Supreme Court. Copies of a) March 4, 2008 CA-G.R. SP No. 00015 Resolution in the Writ of Amparo case, b) 1st Indorsement of 08 April, 2008 of OCAD, 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, 3rd Division of the Supreme Court, by Judge Floro versus Atty. Nye N.

Orquillas, are attached as Annexes J, J.a, J-1, J-2, J3, J-4 & J-5, 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 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 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 granted undersigneds filed opposition grounded on the critical fact that undersigned never appeared as lawyer, but as mere litigant for himself. Respondent Judge Thelma / the court 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 Floros 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 Floros 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
10

of the injunction, allegedly rendered moot and academic the Injunction. On its face, the Decision is wholly inoperative, since, it did not cancel Judge Floros subject titles, but the mortgage cannot also be enforced by the defendants, due to prescription. Simultaneously, and worst, respondent Judge Thelma too late, or belatedly inhibited herself and asked the Office of the Executive Judge to reraffle the cases, to another judge. Copy of the Partial Judgment dated 15 April 2008 is attached as Annex M hereof. 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. Josons a) acceptance of P 80,000 bribe money for her husbands 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 and greed for money. Judge Floro uncovered this magnitude 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 regarding the Judicial Notice of Respodent Ms. Josons Continuous Fixing of Annulment of Marriage Cases at Br. 16, RTC, Malolos 17. By 2nd sheer accident, Judge Floro was informed on the evening of May 24, 2008, in front of Access Avenue, Malolos Internet Caf, by Jane Doe, a female court staff of Br. 80, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan (formerly with Br. 8, and later with OCC, RTC, Malolos), of the immense corruption per selling annulment of marriage cases orders and Decisions, as fixer or broker of

11

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 confidence, would confirm Jane Does statement to Judge Floro. RESERVATION is duly made at this point, of Judge Floros right to present evidence at the OCAD hearing of this case, on the bribery issues, inter alia. 18. Because of the carefully planned MODUS OPERANDI, 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 closure of all incidents. The Office of Vice-Executive Judges Herminia Pasamba and Renato Francisco acted and GRANTED Judge Floros 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. Pasambas 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. Ireneo E. Guardiano filed his 6 pages May 12, 2008 Comment for defendants Blancos. Illness of Atty. Ireneo E. Guardiano. Because of illness, Atty. Guardiano, counsel for defendants Blancos filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Rejoinder and To Reset Hearings because of illness, and therefore, respondent Judge Thelma set the hearings of these incidents on May 2, 12, 19, 28 and July 2, 23 and 30 2008. At the hearing of these motions, she objected to the Exective Judges order, and was stubborn on her stance of voluntary inhibition, even if no party filed any inhibition, as
12

Judge Floro objected strongly to her voluntary inhibition. Further, she ruled, that she will not decide Judge Floros Motion for Reconsideration, until the OCAD issues a reply on her inserted query (on page 6 of her May 16, 2008 OCAD COMMENT, Annex J-2), on whether the Office of the Executive Judge can overrule her voluntary inhibition. Judge Floro objected to her disobedience of the Vice-Executive Judge Order dated 24 April 2008, which directed her, to put a closure on these 10 years cases. Such stance of Judge Thelma is nothing but sheer vendetta to prolong and delay Judge Floros cases / sufferings. Copies of the above-pleadings, the Motion to Reset of Atty. Guardiano, and the Court Orders are attached as Annexes O, O-1, O-2, O-3, O-4, and O-5hereof. 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 an unjust judgment or order as determined by a 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 sanctions may be imposed:

13

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.

ii.) CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT 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 JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH IMPARTIALITY AND DILIGENCE ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES RULE 3.01 - A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. RULE 3.02 - In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism. RULE 3.04 - 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 and decide cases 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 standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly the following Canons, viz:

14

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, 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. Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at 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 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 CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL. CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON 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 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. CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. 15

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 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. conducts unbecoming of a lawyer, gross ignorance of the law, gross 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, for money, and with motive of vengeance against Judge Floro, due to his expose of corruption perpetrated by her and respondent Ms. Joson. She deliberately, willfully, and feloniously misled Judge Floro, by submitting false certificates of services, signing sham and false interlocutory orders and the unjust 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, inter alia.

16

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 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 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 lawyers oath, the cited Canons and Codes, thereby having occasioned unwarranted sufferings, humiliations and hardships on the undersigned and on petitioner Robert Floro. She was propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions, coupled with greed and lust for MONEY, having failed in conscientiously seeing to it that justice permeates every aspect of her duties and profession, in conformity with the avowed duties of worthy members and officers of the Bar and the Bench. Petitioner respectfully cited the foregoing norms, code and laws, to support his contention that a) the April 15, 2008 Partial 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 Floros causes / cases, because of the resultant unjust and unlawful interlocutory orders which stopped the judgments issuance as of December 23, 2004. Judge Floros 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.

17

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) 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. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes 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 to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the 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 damages and other relief against he latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken. Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the 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; (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 or not the 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 by a preponderance of evidence. The indemnity shall include moral 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, fraud, and xxx a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. CHAPTER 2 - QUASI-DELICTS

18

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being 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. 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. 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for 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. Malicious delay in the administration of justice. The 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 Respondents acts and omissions have far-reaching consequences, 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 Courts long history of vigilance on this matter of paramount import. Petitioner cites authority:

19

Judicial corruption
On January 25, 2005, and on December 10, 2006, Philippines Social Weather Stations released the results of its 2 surveys on corruption in the judiciary; it published that: a) like 1995, 1/4 of lawyers said many/very many judges are corrupt. But (49%) stated that a judges received bribes, just 8% of lawyers admitted they reported the bribery, because they could not prove it. [Tables 8-9]; judges, however, said, just 7% call many/very many judges as corrupt[Tables 10-11];b) "Judges see some corruption; proportions who said - many/very many corrupt judges or justices: 17% in reference to RTC judges, 14% to MTC judges, 12% to Court of Appeals justices, 4% i to Shari'a Court judges, 4% to Sandiganbayan justices and 2% in reference to Supreme Court justices [Table 15].1

Petitioner runs to this Honorable Court with urgent and compelling reasons: since the filing of these twin cases on 1998, undersigned was always present in the lower court hearings or trials, while all defendants never 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 killing of COMELEC law department chiefs Alioden Dalaig and Wynne Asdala Bakit po ba ang 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:

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

1

20

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 international groups, the spate of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines continued. On January 15, 2008, Reynato Puno condemned the murder of Judge Roberto Navidad, Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Calbayog City, Samar, the 15th judge to be ambushed since July 20, 1999, the 14th under the Arroyo government. On Tuesday, Catholic missionary Rey Roda, Oblates of Marry Immaculate (OMI), 54, was shot dead at 8:30 p.m., when he resisted abduction attempt by unidentified 10 armed men in a chapel at 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 MacapagalArroyo 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 priest Fransiskus Madhu, in Kalinga province, and Catholic priest Florante 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.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 mans / litigants cause for money, inter alia. Judge Floro cites the fundamental law:
Section 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution 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
2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Extrajudicial_Killings_and_Desaparecidos#Recent_Events

21

months for all other lower courts. (2) A case or matter shall be deemed 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 expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for determination, without further delay.

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 Floros 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 cases, the first extra-judicial killing in RTC Malolos happened with the horrible murder of Atty. Rodolfo Pasamba (at Kamayan Restaurant, Dakila, Malolos, Bulacan) husband of incumbent Judge Herminia Pasamba, 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);

22

* Cancer - Judge Cesar Casanovas +mother died of lingering illness due to

METASTASIS when petitioners motion was denied by him;

* P 100 million FIRE - Defendants spouses Mariano and Ligaya Blancos

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; 2004 Triple Cancer Epidemic Divine Justice - Godly Reprisals

Br. 16, RTC, Judge Thelma R. Pinero-Cruzs 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 petitioners 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 Anns daughter Bea suffered great physical crab deformity of both legs; her 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

23

Miriam Santiago, just days, Senator Miriam Santiago fell, banged her head and underwent surgery for 3 stitches; Senator Santiago in accident at spouses birthday party3 She received three stitches. ... MANILA, Philippines (UPDATE) Senator Miriam DefensorSantiago has suffered a misstep during her husbands birthday 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. Bukol lang. [It was only a lump]. Shes OK now. Her CT [computed tomography] scan showed no additional 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 longevity." She says she gets "very, very dizzy" if she works continuously for more than 20 to 30 minutes. Argument

1. To begin with, complainant on January 30, 2008, went to the 2 nd Highest Tribunal and asked for the issuance of the privileged Writ of Amparo, in CAG.R. SP No. 00015 (Annex J), due to a clear violation of his constitutional rights under our present rule of law, since he thought that Amparo was the sole remedy under the critical facts and applicable laws. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case allegedly due to wrong remedy, but it, nonetheless advised and reserved to herein complaint, the right to file an administrative case against herein respondents. In the Amparo Petition, complainant was candid to the Court, since he manifested that a) respondent Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz, UP Class 62, is a classmate of 4 incumbent Supreme Court Justices (C.J. Puno, Ynares-Santiago, Austria Martinez and Chico-Nazario), and b) due to this critical fact, complainant told the Court that he did not desire to bother the Supreme Court amid his 10 years sufferings due to prevent herein respondents
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.

24

continuous harassment or threats to permanently delay his consolidated cases, particularly the promulgation of the decision, long overdue since December, 2004 / September, 2005. 2. Complainant lamented respondents a) moves to delay the cases, b) maneuvers to submit piece-meal resolutions, and c) acts to limit justice or censor the pleadings which are no longer just temptations for the respondents. Here is a reality that complainant has to expose and stop, by application of the only remaining efficacious remedies: Rules 138, 139-B, and 140, Rules of Court, discipline of judges, disbarment, filing of independent civil actions for damages, and criminal suits in the proper forum, inter alia.
"Hi to all of yeah, Yes, the universe had been barely discovered by mankind, until now. From the ancient times, when our ancestors lived in caves and hardly knew how to make fire, NASA and UFO scientists could not even decipher the mysteries of Mars, Jupiter and the unknown but mesmerizing space ships / aliens. Irrespective of our beliefs, theism and atheism, inter alia, what remains, is the ultimate quest, to have a glimpse of the essence, nature and virtual reality of the "violet" and "white" lights ... You need not be a scientist or Catholic to comprehend the existence of "violet" lights which flash at split thousandth or millionth of a second (because such flash transcends time and space, and therefore, is not constricted by these 2 dimensions of reality or human consciousness, or ape's wisdom, hence, the equivalent "state" and only "state" perturbs the silence). This is not a homily in philosophy or theology, since these would only leave all of us more questions than answers. At the very heart of the matter (remember Artificial Intelligence, the movie, and "Le Petit Prince"), is the fundamental option of destiny. Before we were born, each of us were made - to hardly change what we are, what we were and what we will be. But there is no room for despair, since, this is a bright new world ... a planet of sufferings but with the rainbow at the end ... the violet light ... as Hippocrates the Father of Medicine said: the greatest pleasure in life, is release from medical pain ... Cheers and Hi Dwaine ... and all of yeah ...4

3. This administrative case under Rules 140 and 139-B, inter alia, is sought to stop / prevent respondents Judge Thelma and Mrs. Lerida SocorroJoson from "utang-utang", demanding moneys from court litigants, and, respondent Ms. Joson, as bar flunker, from drafting decisions, sowing judicial terrorism, doing illegal searching of vendees of her researched orders /
4

http://forums.fugly.com/showthread.php?p=166941 Fugly > Fugly Discussion> General Mayhem Judge Floro how do Lepracahns fit in with the dwarves

25

decisions, instead of legal researching, and, as UNQUALIFIED legal researcher, from making the trials - farce, or moro-moro so to speak, inter alia. Their acts of bribery and persecuting complainant and other ignorant litigants, with her co-conspirators lawyers, tarnished the image of the judiciary. 4. The instant case also calls on this Highest Tribunal to prevent the respondents from - effecting, and making threats, issuing unjust interlocutory orders, resolutions and Partial Judgment, acts of harassment of complainant, by converting Br. 16, RTC, Malolos Court, into a virtual market, where annulment of marriage orders / decisions were / are continuously sold, since 2004, to litigants who can afford. Bulacan RTC family court lawyers and litigants do have JUDICIAL NOTICE of respondents SALES of these court papers, due to greed, lust for money, and thirst for vengeance. St. Paul wrote that "death comes from sin, and sin comes from law" - the law of greed, envy, hatred, vengeance, vendetta, HYPOCRISY, graft and corruption, anger and bitterness which cause cancer, stroke, nerve and spinal disorders, accidents, horrible deaths, lingering illnesses, extrajudicial killings and desaparecidos, necessitating the remaining judicial remedies of the supreme penalty of twin dismissals from service and disbarment. These twin measures are the sole weapon against judicial HYPOCRISY and violation of the Constitution, inter alia, by respondents Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz and Ms. Joson, due to their unjust delay and refusal to release the decision due on December, 2004/2005, and the unjust promulgation of a sold Partial Judgment (for P 80,000). 5. Parenthetically (in the world-famous Judgment in A.M. No. RTJ-991460, March 31, 2006, entitled "OCA vs. Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr."), Justice Minita Viray Chico-Nazario ruled (in the ratio decidendi): "There is no indication that Judge Floro is anything but an honorable man. And, in fact, in our disposition of the 13 charges against him, we have not found him guilty of gross misconduct or acts or corruption.
Moreover, Judge Floro himself admitted that he believes in psychic visions, of foreseeing the future because of his power in psychic phenomenon. He believes in duwendes and of a covenant with his dwarf friends Luis, Armand and Angel. He believes that he can write while on trance and that he had been seen by several people to have been in two places at the same time. He has likened himself to the 26

angel of death who can inflict pains on people, especially upon those he perceived as corrupt officials of the RTCs of Malabon. He took to wearing blue robes during court sessions, switching only to black on Fridays. His own witness testified that Judge Floro explained that he wore black from head to foot on Fridays to recharge his psychic powers. Finally, Judge Floro conducted healing sessions in his chambers during his break time.

Judge Floros separation from the service does not carry with it forfeiture of all or part of his accrued benefits nor disqualification from appointment to any other public office including government-owned or controlled corporations. Consequently, while Judge Floro may be dysfunctional as a judge because of the sensitive nature of said position, he may still be successful in other areas of endeavor.
As Judge Floros separation from the service cannot be considered a penalty, such separation does not carry with it the forfeiture of all or part of his accrued benefits nor disqualification from appointment to any other public office including government-owned or controlled corporations. In fact, the psychological and psychiatric reports, considered as the bedrock of the finding of mental impairment against Judge Floro, cannot be used to disqualify him from re-entering government service for positions that do not require him to dispense justice. The reports contain statements/findings in Judge Floros favor that the Court cannot overlook in all fairness as they deserve equal consideration. Lest we be misconstrued, we do not denigrate such belief system. However, such beliefs, especially since Judge Floro acted on them, are so at odds with the critical and impartial thinking required of a judge under our judicial system. Psychic phenomena, even assuming such exist, have no place in a judiciary duty bound to apply only positive law and, in its absence, equitable rules and principles in resolving controversies.5

6. Petitioner's constitutional rights to due process of law and property were violated when respondents Judge Thelma and Ms. Joson disobeyed the Constitutional provisions, Code of Ethics for Court personnel, Code of Judicial Conduct, Code of Professional Responsibility, Revised Penal Code, R.A. 6713, R.A. 3019, Rule 139-B, 138 and 140, Rules of Court, inter alia. The P 80,000 pay-off between respondents and Alfred Trinidad, son of litigants / LRC petitioners, Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad, through counsel Atty. Nye Orquillas, permanently locked the hands of respondents to release any valid and just decision on the 10 year cases, putting complainant at their mercy, and there is no longer any plain, speedy and fast remedy in the ordinary course of law. No less than the Honorable Supreme Court's 3rd Divisions final

http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/mar2006/A.M.%20No.%20RTJ-99-1460.htm

27

Resolution dated March 8, 2006 ruled: (against respondent Ms. Joson, and in favor of undersigned, in A. M. OCA IPI No. 05-2157-P): To REMIND respondent OIC Mrs. Lerida SocorroJoson to BE MORE CIRCUMSPECT and PRUDENT in the discharge of her duties. A model for all 7. The judiciary and the entire nation are watching. What comes out of this case will become a model for other courts and other lawyers, litigants, jurists and even law students, aspiring to be counsels, in the same situation. This case / its outcome will influence the future of judicial destiny in our country: Can a case be purchased by cash down payment and cash installments? Complainant knows that if we do nothing, we help destroy freedom, the judicial institution, and not only the property, but the very life, liberty and destiny of Malolos City, Bulacan litigants, and the bench and the bar, in the Bulwagan ng Katarungan. That is why complainant came to this Court of last resort today. These are uncertain times for the judiciary. Unless we do something about it, the next crisis situation will see journalists, lawyers, judges, and litigants being killed not only in the open field but in the courtroom itself, thusly:
Man shoots three; takes hostages in Manila City Hal; Ex-mayor killed in Manila courtroom shooting; gunman escapes. A man has reportedly shot a former mayor and two other people in Manila City Hall and took hostages while inside an elevator. An initial report from radio dzMM said a lone suspect seized a gun from one of the jailguards and shot Yap and his bodyguard, Peter Villanueva. Another victim, Bella Santos, was also shot on the foot, in the fourth floor of the Manila City Hall Tuesday. After the shooting, the unidentified assailant took hostages while inside an elevator. It was not yet clear how many hostages were inside the elevator. Reports said the former mayor was in Manila City Hall to attend a hearing in Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 19. Yap was found guilty of killing former mayor Victorio Boy Cebedo of Rizal, Zamboanga del Norte, before the 1992 local elections, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Yap was reportedly a known political rival of the Cebedo family. In 2007, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling and ordered Yap 's release, citing conflicting accounts of the shooting. Yap has other pending cases. (Abs-Cbn Interactive, January 29, 2008) http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/topofthehour.aspx?StoryId=107235

28

Barrage of threats 8. This case is urgent because the respondents Judge Thelma and Ms. Joson have unleashed a barrage of threats and warnings against complainants JUDICIAL LIBERTY, PROSPERITY, FREEDOM, and destiny: the subject properties / titles are his own ancestral home / house and lot where he was born on November 5, 1953, where he grew and was persecuted by respondents since 2004 - although silent, and can be viewed only from the pages / parts of the lower courts Expediente. Complainant noted the threats came right after respondents received the subject consolidated cases, and specifically upon their receipts of the P 80,000 pay-off/s in 2005, the Alfred Trinidad fighting cock incident. Publics right to know 9. Threats are easy to make. When the respondents received the cash payoffs, they made threats, and this is even more problematic because they have the coercive power to back those threats, specifically, the records / annexes hereof, carved from respondents papers, proved beyond reasonable doubt, these THREATS, which are VIRTUAL REALITY in law and in fact. 10. More than judicial freedom, this case is about the right of the people, the bench, the bar, and litigants, to information. The public / litigants suffer when the information / DATA, about these pay-offs they need, could not be provided or retrieved from respondent court, because of threats, censorship and prior restraint, due to clear and present danger of FEAR of further piece-meal VENDETTA in the subject cases. The instant OCAD investigation, will truly reveal per examination of Mr. Alfred Trinidad, the specifics of the P 80,000 pay-off: that is, the breakdown - HOW MUCH DID RESPONDENTS JUDGE THELMA AND JOSON RECEIVE AS GREASE MONEYS, AND HOW MUCH WAS THE PERCENTAGE / ATTORNEYS FEES OF ATTY. NYE ORQUILLAS? The truth will be unveiled upon commencement of the OCAD investigation, in due course. Litigants / judicial rights disregarded

29

11. Without this Honorable Courts urgent intervention, complainant, the bench, the bar, litigants, journalists, will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury from acts that are plainly against the Constitution, since there will be no more faith in Bulacan courts, due to magicians, brokers, fixers, cardiologists. More importantly, in respondents FAMILY court, their open threats of selling decisions / resolutions would convert the Bulacan court trials to farce, or MoroMoro so to speak, forcing litigants to run nowhere to, but to practice EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS and DESAPARECIDOS, per juez de cuchillo. Judge Floro demands the immediate resignation / dismissal of Judge Thelma and her broker, respondent Joson, to stop the E-J Killings and Abductions. There is no other alternative, or solution to the epidemic. 12. The respondents blatant disregard of the rights of Bulacan litigants / complainant, especially their treatment of family court litigants and complainant, as BEGGARS in their court, due to denied pleadings / filed motions, prolonged appearances in hearings, participating in farce trials since September, 1998 until May, 2008, vis--vis without even a single appearance by any adverse parties / defendants therein, call for the exercise by this Honorable Court, of its plenary power of supervision to protect basic rights and freedoms. 13. Respondent Judge Thelma is no longer dispensing justice, but was / is engaging in sale, censorship and prior restraint of court pleadings, trials, orders and NO JUDGMENTS resolutions, whenever there is pay-off. Litigants are tired of paralyzing divisions, corruptions and moral bankruptcy in the judicial department, more importantly in RTC, Bulacan. Complainant is utterly confident that this Honorable Court / the OCAD, would take a microscopic look into this and try to bring about the closure of these consolidated cases because the general public and all of us are still waiting for some genuine REPENTANCE on the part of respondents, considering the dire pains of 20042005 CANCER, most painful death of her husband, and the several DIRE PROPHECIES fulfilled due to these consolidated cases. The Supreme Court, rules, in these recent cases:
"The Court has always impressed upon all members of the judiciary the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that 30

justice delayed is justice denied. The Constitution itself, under Section 15, Article VIII, mandates that lower courts have three (3) months from the date of submission within which to decide the cases or matters pending before them. Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct directs judges to "dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods." Finally, Canons 6 and 7 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics exhort judges to be prompt and punctual in the disposition and resolution of cases and matters pending before their court, to wit: 6. PROMPTNESS - He should be prompt in disposing of all matters submitted to him, remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied. 7. PUNCTUALITY - He should be punctual in the performance of his judicial duties, recognizing that the time of litigants, witnesses, and attorneys is of value and that if the judge is unpunctual in his habits, he sets a bad example to the bar and tends to create dissatisfaction with the administration of justice. To ensure that the mandates on the prompt disposition of judicial business are complied with, this Court issued Administrative Circular No. 1 dated January 26, 1988 requiring all magistrates to act promptly on all motions and interlocutory matters pending before their courts. This was emphasized in Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15, 1999 which requires judges to scrupulously observe the periods prescribed by Section 15, Article VIII of the Constitution in the adjudication and resolution of all cases or matters submitted to their courts. Under Section 9(1), Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision is classified as a less serious charge. Under Section 11(B) of the same Rule, the penalty for such charge is suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months, or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000. In Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branches 29 and 59, Toledo City, the Court observed the factors considered in the determination of the proper penalty for failure to decide a case on time: A judges foremost consideration is the administration of justice. Thus, he should follow the time limit set for deciding cases. The Constitution mandates that all cases or matters filed before all lower courts shall be decided or resolved within 90 days from the time the case is submitted for decision. Judges are enjoined to dispose of the courts business promptly and expeditiously and decide cases within the period fixed by law.[12] Failure to comply within the mandated period constitutes a serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their cases. It also undermines the peoples faith and confidence in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it to disrepute.[14] Decision making, among other duties, is the most important duty of a member of the bench. Under Rule 140, Section 9 (1), as amended by Administrative Matter No. 01-8-10-SC, respondent judges undue delay in rendering a decision is classified as a less serious offense. It carries the penalty of suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months, or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000.6

http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/MTJ-08-1695.htm

http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/may2008/RTJ-08-2111.htm#_ftnref6 http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/RTJ-07-2039.htm SALVADOR vs. LIMSIACO, A.M. No. MTJ-08-1695, April 16, 2008 RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), BRANCH 14, DAVAO CITY, PRESIDED OVER BY JUDGE WILLIAM M. LAYAGUE. A.M. RTJ-07-2039, April 14, 2008

31

14. Judge Thelma R. Pinero-Cruzs April 15, 2008 Motu Proprio Voluntary Inhibition7 is not only shocking to the conscience of the entire Judiciary, but it is: i) an anathema to the Constitution,8 a ii) a mockery of justice, iii) a palpable contempt of the Rule of Law, iv) a masquerade / funeral of Veritas, and v) the BEST EVIDENCE that the Partial Judgment must be amended / set aside under the Revised Rules of Court. Her ponencia has a chilling effect on the Faith of litigants in the 22nd Puno Court amid SWS 1995 and 2005 Surveys of Grave Corruption in the Philippine Judiciary9. With due respect Modus Operandi: Judge Thelmas Voluntary Inhibition; Judge Floro wins the Reconsideration in another Bulacan RTC sala, but would eventually loose in the Court of Appeals, by means of 2nd pay-off to the Dirty Dozens Ubi jus, ibi remedium Modus Operand, Legal remedies: Judge Floros only remedies: a) Lock the retirement benefits of Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz (who would retire at the age of 70 on July 25, 2009, with her 4 UP Class 62, incumbent S.C. Justices), until 2020, per a) this administrative case; b) if Judge Floro looses, or if Judge Thelma is sentenced to less serious penalties, then, c) to file 2-3 Motions for Reconsiderations, per the Davide-Franklin Villegas 2004 jurisprudence, and d) to file Ombudsman / Criminal suits, towards the Sandiganbayan, so that Judge Thelma would not be able to receive her retirement benefits pendente lite, hopefully until 2020, and e) Judge Floro will file the independent civil actions for damages. Spiritual Modus Operandi: Dire Prophecies vs. Pay-offs vis--vis Divine Justice or Godly Reprisals

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

32

15. Respondents Judge Thelma and Ms. Joson, due to the P 80,000 pay-off, concocted or brewed a modus operandi to run off from the fire scene: a) they planned to release as they did released on April 15, 2008, a wholly inoperative or seriously flawed Partial Judgment, b) so that Judge Floro would agree to the carefully planned unloading or re-raffle of these cases, through sham and false voluntary inhibition, c) so that, with the blessings of her classmate, Exec. Judge Petrita B. Dime, UP Class 62, and with the compassion of other Bulacan Judges / Judge, to whose sala these cases would be turned over, d) eventually, Judge Floro would secure a reversal or reconsideration of respondents Partial Judgment, e) but in the end, the defendants Blancos, through counsel Atty.
Irineo E. Guardiano and the Trinidads counsel Atty. Nye Orquillas, would act as FIXERS in the Court of Appeals, to broker these cases, so that their eventual Appeal would prosper, by means of second pay-offs to the so-called Dirty Dozens

16. Complainant Judge Floro, discovered respondents modus operandi: Judge Floro in his Motion for Reconsideration (Annex O) pointed this stunning Joke only decision of respondents, when Judge Floro pointed that: respondent Judge Thelma gravely erred in ruling that the Partial Judgment dated 15 April 2008 (Annex M), particularly Pars. 3-4, page 6, thereof, inter alia, is contrary to law and jurisprudence: New Civil Code, CHAPTER 7, VOIDABLE CONTRACTS Art. 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties: (1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a contract; (2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud. These contracts are binding, unless they are annulled by a proper action in court. They are susceptible of ratification. (n) Art. 1391. The action for annulment shall be brought within four years. This period shall begin: in cases of intimidation, violence or undue influence, from the time the defect of the consent ceases. In case of mistake or fraud, from the time of the discovery of the same. And when the action refers to contracts entered into by minors or other incapacitated persons, from the time the guardianship ceases. (1301a) 17. Contrary to the respondents/ lower Courts ratio decidendi above-cited that no action was filed for annulment of the mortgage contract within 4 years,

33

undersigned complainant filed these cases to annul said contract at the earliest opportunity. Based on a) the FINDINGS OF FACT by the Court on pages 2-5, Partial Judgment, April 15, 2008, and based on its citation of admitted Exhibits A to G / sub-markings (annexes A to G / sub-markings of the Petition = pages 133 to 154, records), the CRITICAL FACTS, which the Court disregarded, are: i) the Court Injunction was issued by the Guardianship Court, Br. 10, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan against the disposal or encumbrance of the subject lands / titles in these cases belonging to Milagros Floro, and the Order was annotated at the back of the said titles on January 14, and February 4, 1994, respectively, ii) further, undersigned personally notified, by registered mails with return card, notice of the said lien and injunction, to all respondents, per admitted exhibits, as will be further discussed hereunder: Exhibits A-8 and A-8-1 (4 pages petitioners Manifestation-Letter Notice dated July 21, 1993, with the registry receipts, both originals = pages 111 to 114, records; marked on September 13, 2004, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan); iii) respondents rescisscible and voidable mortgage contract was signed by Joselito Floro and Milagros Floro on January 5, 1995, despite said injunction lien and notice; iv) the cases for injunction, annulment of said mortgage, LRC case for cancellation of adverse claim, and amended complaint for cancellation of mortgage based on cited Articles 1381, 1389, 1390 and 1391, NCC, inter alia, were duly filed on time at the earliest opportunity, upon discovery, by undersigned on September, 1998, and October 2, 1998 respectively. Respondents, therefore, are registrants with full knowledge of the injunction and were encumbrancers in bad faith. 18. In G.R. No. 107432 July 4, 1994, CAUSAPIN vs. CA, the Supreme Court ruled that: "an action to annul a deed of conveyance or contract based on minority or lack of capacity to enter into the deed must be brought within four years from the time such incapacity ceases." In G.R. No. 126000 October 7, 1998, MWSS vs. CA, the Court likewise ruled that: "a contract where consent is given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud, is voidable" 2. Contracts "where consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud" are voidable or annullable; Concepts of Voidable Contracts. Voidable or anullable contracts are existent, valid, and

34

binding, although they can be annulled because of want of capacity or vitiated consent of the one of the parties, but before annulment, they are effective and obligatory between parties. Hence, it is valid until it is set aside and its validity may be assailed only in an action for that purpose. The four year prescriptive period under Art. 1391 of the New Civil Code will apply. This article provides that the prescriptive period shall begin in the cases of intimidation, violence or undue influence, from the time the defect of the consent ceases", and "in case of mistake or fraud, from the time of the discovery of the same time.

19. Complainant also pointed respondents / lower Courts grave error and ignorance of law / procedures also, in ruling that undersigneds request to cancel the registered lien of injunction (at the back of the titles, per granted Br. 10, RTC, Malolos Order directing the Branch Register of Deeds to cancel said titles annotations on March 6, 1996), did result in mooting the prohibition on encumbrance or disposal by respondents, for reasons: a) Milagros Floro died on December 5, 1995, due to Schizophrenia (par. 7, page 4, Partial Judgment, Exh. A/sub-markings), because of this mortgage which ruined her health, as discussed hereunder; b) the death of Milagros Floro rendered moot, the guardianship proceedings, and not the injunction, but the lien was correctly erased; c) respondents Blancos already violated the mortgage prohibition on January 5, 1995, or more than one year, after the cancellation of the entries at the back of the title; having knowledge of the court prohibition, the mortage was therefore voidable under said laws, d) at the time of the signing of the mortgage, Milagros Floro was so sick and could not have known what she was doing, as will be discussed hereunder. Wikipedia and other notable references define this mental disease which affected the subject mortgage: Schizophrenia10 (pronounced /sktsfrini/), from the Greek roots schizein (, "to split") and phrn, phren- (, -, "mind"), is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental illness
10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

Brown S; Inskip H, Barraclough B (2000). "Causes of the excess mortality of schizophrenia". Br J Psychiatry 177: 212-7. PMID 11040880. Retrieved on 2008-02-24.

35

characterized by impairments in the perception or expression of reality, most commonly manifesting as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions or disorganized speech and thinking in the context of significant social or occupational dysfunction. Onset of symptoms typically occurs in young adulthood, with approximately 0.40.6% of the population affected. Diagnosis is based on the patient's self-reported experiences and observed behavior. No laboratory test for schizophrenia currently exists. The disorder is primarily thought to affect cognition, but it also usually contributes to chronic problems with behavior and emotion. People diagnosed with schizophrenia are likely to be diagnosed with comorbid conditions, including clinical depression and anxiety disorders; the lifetime prevalence of substance abuse is typically around 40%. Social problems, such as long-term unemployment, poverty and homelessness, are common and life expectancy is decreased; the average life expectancy of people with the disorder is 10 to 12 years less than those without, owing to increased physical health problems and a high suicide rate. 20. Complainant also pointed respondents / lower Courts grave error, therefore, in failing to annul the subject void mortgage, not only because of the Court injunction but it further closed its legal eyes to the CRITICAL FACT duly proved by admitted and uncontradicted documentary evidence (Exhibits A to G/sub-markings) and supported by unrebutted testimonial evidence (since respondents, all of them, failed to appear in Court to present their evidence, despite repeated Orders of the Court, that is, waiver to present evidence, as will be discussed hereunder) - that Milagros Floro, at the time of the mortgage was incapacitated, very sick, and never knew what she was signing, and such
mortgage caused her death, which death, also caused the deaths and pains of all those who persecuted undersigned, due to the biblical curse under Psalms 109 and 73.

21. Respondents gravely erred, and were guilty of gross ignorance of the law, in failing to annul the subject void mortgage, and in disregarding undersigneds May 25, 2008 OMNIBUS Motions (Annexes H, H-1, & H-2) to declare the January 5, 1996 mortgage MOOT since, it can no longer be enforced or foreclosed due to prescription. Complainant pointed to respondents that the duly filed amended (October 2, 1998 - Annexes B, B-1, B-2 and B-3) pleading for annulment was the real / proper action to cancel or rescind the said

36

voidable and moot contract of mortgage, causing the titles of undersigned to be free from all liens and encumbrances under the law / rules. 22. Complainant, accordingly, lamented and told respondents / the Court, of the gravely injustice in her ruling that How can this Partial Judgment be defended in a court of law? It left hanging the titles! Undersigneds titles were never cancelled, while the respondents mortgage lien was declared existent, but respondents, since 2006 could no longer foreclose the same, since the contract of mortgage prescribed. It is therefore, a pure comedy of errors, tempting undersigned not to appeal the case but to just ask for clarification. If the Court will not stop the criminal proceedings, what will be the agenda of the prosecution? Nothing, nada and no mortgage, no estafa, and no evidence can be admitted to convict. The court further ignored the elementary rule of law and jurisprudence that an encumbrancer or mortgagee with knowledge of the lien / injunction is a transferee with knowledge and in bad faith. Respondents Blancos entered into the contract with full knowledge of the injunction and the dying condition of the mortgagor Milagros Floro. Such being the legal situation, respondents Blancos interests and alleged but never proved in Court adverse claim not only expired, but were never born in law; they never existed in legal fact, and they lost all their rights, if any, against undersigned and Milagros Floro. Their remaining right to go after Joselito Floro also prescribed on 2006, since they slept on their rights, by abandoning the court proceedings, despite repeated Court orders to present evidence. Ergo, the Court in this regard, further gravely erred in ruling that the civil aspect was included in the criminal case. Such could have had happened were it not for the filing of respondents Blancos of answers / with counterclaims in these cases; with their participation, thru Atty. Rafael Santos, Atty. Donato Mabbayad and Atty. Irineo Guardiano, per pleadings with duly signed and approved STIPULATIONS OF FACTS, the Blancos opted to fight in these

37

cases; but they were declared by the Court to have abandoned their rights to submit evidence, to cross-examine undersigned and to rebut the evidence. Voluntary Inhibition: First in the Bulacan Court History: So that Respondent Judge Thelma R. Pinero-Cruz could escape the P 80,000 payoff scandal, which would be multo of virtual ghost upon her July 25, 2009 retirement benefits and S.C. clearances applications. 23. Judge Floro, in the Motion for Reconsideration, begged with folded arms, and supplicant knees upon respondent Judge Thelma, classmate of 4 God/Goddess of Faura, thusly: Ako po ay nagsusumamo sa inyo Ginang Hukom na magtika, maghugas nang ating mga kasalanan, bilang isang Bansa, upang mahilom ang sugat dahil sa korupsyon. Bilang ka-mag-aral ng tanyag na UP Class 62 (C.J. PUNO, NAZARIO, YNARESSANTIAGO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, at DIME), ipamalas mo po sa amin, na ikaw ay hindi lamang patas at makatarungan, datapwat, mukhang malinis sa harap ng mata ng mga nagsasakdal at nasasakdal. Sapul nang hawakan (2004), dinggin at hatulan ninyo ang mga kasong ito (1998-2008), hindi ako nagdemanda nang kriminal o administratibo laban sa iyo, kahit nanalo ka laban sa UnionBank. Dahil ba akoy nagsampa ng administratibong kaso laban sa iyong OIC/legal researcher, sapat na ba ito para talikuran mo ang sinumpaang katungkulan mong tutuparin lahat ang utos ng Batas at Konstitusyon, upang lahat kami ay mabigyan ng hustisya? Nauunawaan ko po, ang sakit, dalamhati at mga kasawian na tinamo ninyo buhat ng hawakan ninyo itong kasong ito. Ang iyong kabiyak ay pumanaw at dama rin namin ang mapait at malupit na pagpanaw at pighati ng marami pang gaya niya (Luzviminda Puno, Lirio Bautista Victorino, Hilario Davide, Sr., Jorge at Jose Davide, at sangkatutak na mga mahal sa buhay). Ako po ay umaasa na hahatulan ninyo ng ganap ang kasong ito, ng TAPOS at hindi nakabitin, dahil, ano mang

38

hatol ay maari pa namang apilahan sa Court of Appeals. Kung TAKOT at alinlangan dahil sa UNGODLY REPRISALS (Nazario at Puno, Ocad v. Judge Floro, A.M. RTJ-99-1460, July 12, 2006) ang bumabagabag sa inyo gabi-hating-gabi, ako naman ay nagpapasalamat sa UP Class 62 ninyo, dahil sila ang lumagda upang ako ay maging jobless walang work, trabajo o job, sa isang mundong balatkayo. Utang na loob ko sa mga kaiskwela ninyo po, ang aking katahimikan at pagsampalataya sa May-kapal. Walang bisa ang SUMPA (Salmo 109 at 73) sa hudikatura, dahil, ayon kay Minita Nazario, PINAL akong hinatulan bilang ANGHEL NG KAMATAYAN na komukunsulta sa 3 DWENDE, at Diyos lang ang magpaparusa sa mga tiwaling Hukom. Dahil, dito po, isinulat at ipinahayag ko sa Court of Appeals (Writ of Amparo kaso para matapos na ang SUMPANG kasong mga ito), na wala akong balak magdemanda laban sa iyo HABANG (HANGGANG 2009) dahil 4 na mga kamag-aral mo ang hahatol dito, datapwat, hiniling ko tuwing HATING-GABI na sana, kayo po ay magtika at ipahayag sa Paring Katoliko ang inyong mga kasalanan, dahil wika ni Pope Benedict XVI, na kahit si San Pedro ay ubod nang sama at makasalan. Huwag po kayong matakot na ako ay magiging TINIK o PUWING sa inyong RETIREMENT benefits sa susunod na mga taon. Sinong mahistrado ang papatol sa akin, upang mapigil ang pagbayad sa inyo ng pinaghirapan ninyo, kung kayo po ay talagang patas, matino, kagalang-galang na mahistrado Binibigyan KO po kayo mula sa aking PUSO, ng isa pang pagkakataon upang ipakita sa UNION BANK at iba pang nagkanulo sa inyo, na KASINUNGALIN ang mga bintang nila sa inyo. Basbasan nawa kayo na Poong Maykapal hanggang sa inyong huling sandali. Gumagalang, ngayong Biyernes, hating-Gabi, Ika-18 ng Abril, 2008. Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. Unconstitutional - UNJUST ORDER: Violation of Substantive Due Process

39

24. If these cases under respondent are re-raffled, it will only delay the resolution of the motion for reconsideration (Rule 37 limits to 30 days the rendition of the resolution), since the new Judge would have to read voluminous TSNs, Exhibits and record / pleadings, filed since 1998. Undersigned submitted additional ARGUMENT to point to the fact that respondents really sold the Orders and Partial Judgment, to wit: The respondents / her Court went beyond the agreed upon and submitted (at the pre-trial) stipulations of facts, ISSUES of law and fact, only to deprive Judge Floro of his only home / lots / titles, without due process of law. 25. On the respondents / her Courts ratio decidendi or ground to support her decision, on the Br. 10, RTC, Malolos March 6, 2006 Order to cancel the annotated liens of TRO / Permanent Injunction, on the subject title, per Entry No. 356173 (M), (admitted Exh. A-sub-markings), Judge Floro had repeatedly stated and pleaded that he and his brothers were the ones who petitioned the cancellation of said liens, since under the law, Guardianship ended upon the death of their mother, Milagros V. Floro, on December 5, 1995, and accordingly, she could no longer be prevented from disposing the subject title. But said Order of cancellation did not in any manner render moot and academic the prohibition versus defendants Blancos, since the latter did violate said injunction on January 5, 1995, date of their signing the mortgage contract, and within the prohibited injunction period of 1994 until December 5, 1995. 26. Besides, the 30 days period for the existence of the adverse claim, already expired, as it is no longer exists, in fact and law (and it is the duty of this respondent Judge Thelma to cancel the same, summarily, lest she be additionally adjudged with dismissal from service due to her utter gross ignorance of elementary LRC rules and procedures. Gross Ignorance of elementary Rules / laws on Sales, Mortgage, Intestate Estate, Loan, Prescription of actions, contracts and obligations, aside from patent obstructions of justice and violation of the oaths of lawyers / judge, inter alia, and rendition of a most unjust decision which deprived Judge Floro /

40

petitioners of his / their own home / lots / titles, without due process of law, through intentional and malicious delay of dispensation of justice per baseless technicalities and dilatory sham and false pleadings. 27. The subject of the cases before respondents, is only: the 7/12 proindiviso (and 1/12 of Joselito V. Floro) share of deceased Milagros V. Floro, in the subject lot, mortgaged on January 5, 1995 to defendants Blancos, to secure her and Joselitos Mutuum or loan (admitted Exh. A to I-sub-markings). Judge Floro has no debt whatsoever to Blancos. 28. The Kasunduan put a deadline of January 6, 1996, as final date to pay the sum, and same date is the start of the running of the prescriptive period to a) demand payment from her, and / or b) to foreclose the mortgage. No demand or suit was made / filed upon her, to collect the loan, and no foreclosure of mortgage, was filed even after the 10 years period, or on the final prescriptive date of 10 years, or on January 6, 2006. Beside laches and estoppels in pais
already and long time ago set in. What are then the right and remedies of defendants Blancos which were lost and prescribed on January 6, 2006? The law provides:
RULE 86 -CLAIMS AGAINST ESTATE Sec. 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. - If not filed, barred; exceptions. All claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract, express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and expenses for the last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against the decedent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice; otherwise they are barred forever, except that they may be set forth as counterclaims in any action that the executor or administrator may bring against the claimants. Where an executor or administrator commences an action, or prosecutes an action already commenced by the deceased in his lifetime, the debtor may set forth by answer the claims he has against the decedent, instead of presenting them independently to the court as herein provided, and mutual claims may be set off against each other in such action; and if final judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant, the amount so determined shall be considered the true balance against the estate, as though the claim had been presented directly before the court in the administration proceedings. Claims not yet due or contingent, may be approved at their present value. Sec. 7. Mortgage debt due from estate. - A creditor holding a claim against the deceased secured by mortgage or other collateral security, may abandon the security and prosecute his claim in the manner provided in this rule, and share in the general distribution of the assets of the estate; or he may foreclose his mortgage or realize upon his security, by action in court, making the executor or administrator a party defendant, and if there is a judgment for a deficiency, after the sale of the mortgaged premises, or the property pledged, in the foreclosure or other proceeding to realize upon the security, he may claim his deficiency judgment in the manner provided in the preceding section; or he may rely upon

41

his mortgage of other security alone, and foreclose the same at any time within the period of the statute of limitations, and in that event he shall not be admitted as a creditor, and shall receive no share in the distribution of the other assets of the estate; but nothing herein contained shall prohibit the executor or administrator from redeeming the property mortgaged or pledged, by paying the debt for which it is held as security, under the direction of the court, if the court shall adjudge it to be for the best interest of the estate that such redemption shall be made. CHAPTER 2, SIMPLE LOAN OR MUTUUM Art. 1953. A person who receives a loan of money or any other fungible thing acquires the ownership thereof, and is bound to pay to the creditor an equal amount of the same kind and quality. (1753a) Art. 1955. The obligation of a person who borrows money shall be governed by the provisions of Articles 1249 and 1250 of this Code. Art. 2125. In addition to the requisites stated in Article 2085, it is indispensable, in order that a mortgage may be validly constituted, that the document in which it appears be recorded in the Registry of Property. If the instrument is not recorded, the mortgage is nevertheless binding between the parties. Title XVI. - PLEDGE, MORTGAGE AND ANTICHRESIS CHAPTER 1 PROVISIONS COMMON TO PLEDGE AND MORTGAGE Art. 2085. The following requisites are essential to the contracts of pledge and mortgage: (3) That the persons constituting the pledge or mortgage have the free disposal of their property, and in the absence thereof, that they be legally authorized for the purpose. Art. 1231. Obligations are extinguished: Other causes of extinguishment of obligations, such as annulment, rescission, fulfillment of a resolutory condition, and prescription, are governed elsewhere in this Code. (1156a) Art. 1142. A mortgage action prescribes after ten years. (1964a) Art. 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues: (1) Upon a written contract; (2) Upon an obligation created by law; Art. 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court, when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. (1973a) CHAPTER ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF CONTRACTS GENERAL PROVISIONS Art. 1318. There is no contract unless the following requisites concur: (1) Consent of the contracting parties; Art. 1330. A contract where consent is given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud is voidable. (1265a)

29. It is not only gross ignorance of the cited laws, inter alia, but sheer stupidity and weirdness, for respondents and defendants to claim that the filing of a criminal case in MTC Meycauayan, Bulacan, against Judge Floro and Joselito Floro, resulted in tolling of stopping, the running of the prescriptive period, to collect the loan from Milagros Floro or to foreclose her 7/12 share mortgaged share, by merely arguing that the civil aspect versus Milagros Floro was impliedly instituted therein. The loan or debt / alleged obligation of

42

Milagros Floro (assuming only arguendo, that the loan and mortgage Kasunduan was not infirm and annulable), should have been collected per letter of demand and more importantly, by filing a collection suit, to her not to Judge Floro or anybody, after January 6, 1996, the due date. Since she died on December 5, 1995, defendants Blancos only right and remedy are: a) to file a claim in the intestate estate court in a special proceeding they should have commenced until 2006, and / or b) foreclose the property by extra-judicial or judicial foreclosure before January 6, 2006. On January 7,2006, defendants Blancos lost all their legal rights over the 7/12 property and the remaining right for these defendants is moral, if any, which is no longer enforceable due to the supervening death and insolvency of her estate.

30. Even a first year law student, but not a bar flunker, would easily know, that filing of criminal case against anybody including Judge Floro, Joselito Floro, inter alia, is not a demand, suit, or foreclosure of mortgage to collect the loan of Milagros Floro, nor to foreclose her mortgaged share. More importantly, it is basic and elementary rule of law, that the civil is impliedly instituted in the criminal, especially in estafa or fraud cases, but, with the underlined exception in remedial law, that such civil aspect is removed from the criminal court or case, if the complainant / defendants Blancos, joined herein, or filed counterclaim / answer, in these LRC and civil / special civil actions, or civil cases, to annul the mortgage. And they never filed docket fees, making their claims or rights under the loan and mortgage dead and barred, forever. Such is the essence of Judge Floros SUMPA, the Catholic Biblical curse which changes the tides of time and destiny of the wicked. AMEN+. The ACCUSATION / CHARGES With Legal Argument and Memorandum of Law / Authorities With due respect Undersigned complainant charges / accuses respondent Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson with --- GraveViolations of - - -

43

"Respondent should be the role model of her co-employees to act speedily and with dispatch on assigned tasks to avoid the clogging of the court's docket, and thereby assist in the administration of justice without undue delay. She should be reminded that prompt disposition of the court's business and expeditious disposition of cases can be attained only through efficient case-flow management by the judge and his personnel, especially the branch clerk. Considering that the main case has already been pending for more than two (2) years, respondent should, with more reason, exert extra effort to have the case resolved. Time and again, we have emphasized the heavy burden and responsibility with which court personnel are saddled in view of their exalted positions as keepers of public faith. They must be constantly reminded that any impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of official functions must be avoided. We condemn and would never countenance any conduct, act or omission, on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice, which would violate the norms of public accountability and diminish, or even just tend to diminish, the faith of the people in the Judiciary. Corollarily, under the Code of Conduct of Court Personnel, A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC,court employees are required at all times to perform their official duties properly and with diligence, and to commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours. Consequently, respondent's negligence in the performance of her duties warrants disciplinary action" (SAGA DESIGN, INC. vs.ATTY. EMELINE B. CABAHUG, A.M. No. P-062244, December 6, 2006) Public service requires integrity and discipline. For this reason, public servants must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and dedication to duty. By the very nature of their duties and responsibilities, government employees must faithfully adhere to, hold sacred and render inviolate the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust; that all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. Nevertheless, the Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that court personnel must not only be, but also be perceived to be, free from any impropriety -- with respect not only to their duties in the judicial branch, but also to their behavior anywhere else. [A.M No. P-04-1925. December 16, 2004, COURT PERSONNEL OF THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-San Carlos City vs. OSCAR LLAMAS]

RELIEF

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that the instant VERIFIED COMPLAINT / SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
[For: Gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct in office, gross inefficiency, malicious delay - in the administration of justice and disposition of cases, knowingly rendering the unjust Partial Judgment and interlocutory orders, Arts. 204, 206, 207, RPC, illegal exaction, graft and corruption, R.A. 3019, as amended, direct bribery, Art. 210, RPC, and disbarment from office, 139-B, Rules of Court, professional indiscretion, conducts

44

unbecoming of a lawyer, grossly unethical behavior, specifically, to wit: Grave Violations of - i.) A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC, Amendment to Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court - SEC. 8, 1 to 4, SEC. 9, 1,4 & 6, ii.) oath of office and her duty as attorney or counselor-at-law, Sec. 20 (a) and 27, Rule 138, iii.) Canons / Code of Judicial Conduct -CANON 1, RULES 1.01 to 1.03, CANON 2, RULE 2.01, CANON 3, RULES 3.01, 3.02, 3.04, 3.05, CANON 10, RULE 10.01, CANON 1, RULES 1.01, 1.02, CANON 7, RULE 7.03, iv.) Code of Professional Responsibility, CHAPTER I. CANON 1, CHAPTER II. CANON 7, RULE 7.03, CANON 8, CANON 10, RULE 10.03, RULES 10.02, 10.03, CANON 11, CANON 12, Rule 12.04, the Bill of Rights (Rule of Law, and substantive due process), v.) Rule 71, Revised Rules of Court, obstruction of justice, vi.) Arts. 19, 20, 21, 27, 32, 33, 2176, 2177, 2180, NCC, vii.) R.A. 6713, Revised Administrative Code, Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, and 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court], and -

Verified Reply
[To Respondents COMMENTS dated May 5, 2008], with - Omnibus Motions a) for Leave of Court to Admit these Complaints / Reply, b) for PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION of Respondents, c) to Appoint an Investigator, d) to Permit Complainant to Present Testimonial / Documentary Evidence, and e) for Early Resolution

be duly Noted, given due course and granted. It is finally prayed that the instant administrative case / matter be IMMEDIATELY RESOLVED in view of its importance and merit. It is also prayed that respondents Judge PineroCruz and Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson be directed to file another COMMENT and Reply to the instant pleading forthwith. In the interim, specifically, upon filing hereof, it is further prayed to this Honorable Court / Office of the Court Administrator that peremptory Protection Orders be issued, a) ORDERING respondent Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz to cease and desist from further acting in any manner to delay the promulgation of the Resolutions on complainants pending Motion for Reconsideration / Omnibus Motions (Annexes O, O-1, O-2, O-3, O-4, and O5) hereof, to put closure on all pending incidents before her, since 2004, considering that the subject cases were pending since 1998, b) ORDERING her and respondent Ms. Lerida Socrro-Joson to rectify her 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and latest 2008 falsified certificates of services, from said dates until May, 2008, and d) ORDERING the Branch Clerk of Court / OIC, respondent Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson to obey the 3rd Division S.C. Decision against her, in A. M. OCA IPI No. 05-2157-P - specifically to Order her to Include in the monthly Reports, inter alia, the said cases of Judge Floro, as those submitted for Decision as of said dates, December, 2004 and September, 2005.
45

SPECIFICALLY, it is prayed to this Honorable Court / OCAD, to forthwith, appoint a Lawyer, Branch Clerk of Court, for Br. 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, and in the meantime to detail / transfer respondent Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson to the OCC, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, in the interest of public service since she is a bar flunker, who is absolutely disqualified to be a legal researcher (thereby placing in jeopardy the destiny of litigants, detention prisoners and the bar / bench, because of her gross ignorance of the law / procedures and for having absolutely tarnished the image of
judiciary because of clear graft and corruption, under R.A. 3019, violation of the

Code of Conduct for court personnel and R.A. 6713, inter alia, in the end) TO STOP THE EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS and DESAPARECIDOS; specifically, the 15th Judge Navidad and Fr. Rey Roda were mercilessly gunned down on the very day/s of January 15 / 16, 2008 (when the Supreme Courts Logo was halved by fire on 2007 January 15) (since the UN Philip Alston Report stated that litigants have no more recourse since the courts are very corrupt according to the 2005 and 1995 twin SWS surveys, inter alia; and without even mentioning the predicted FIRES that burned RTC, Malabon, except undersigned,s sala on January 22, 2000, and the prophesied Triple / Mystic Fires that burned the entire 4th floor Court of Appeals, the halved logo of the COMELEC and the Muntinlupa MeTC court on 2007). It is finally prayed to this Honorable Court, to call the attention of Chief Puno / Supreme Court regarding the existence of a) the Magicians, b) Cardiologists, c) Latian and the immense corruption practiced here at RTC, Malolos City, which is shocking to the conscience of the judiciary. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading verified motion, this ____ day, of ________, 2008, at Malolos City, Bulacan.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Complainant, 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;
46

ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV].

NOTICE TO: Atty. Maria Luisa Villarama, Clerk of Court, c/o Atty. Felipa Anaman, Asst. Clerk of Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, Manila Please AGENDUM / SUBMIT the instant pleading to the Ponente / OCAD DCA in-charge of this case, immediately upon receipt hereof. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Complainant
VERIFICATION / Certification of Non-Forum Shopping / AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) Malolos City, BULACAN ) S.S. I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., complainant, under oath, depose / say, that: I am the complainant in this administrative case. I caused the preparation, read and signed the instant pleading, and all the contents / allegations thereof are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records. I hereby CERTIFY that on ___________, 2008, I personally served copies of this pleading with all annexes in these cases entitled Judge Floro vs. Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz and Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson, OCA IPI No. 082854-RTJ by personal service, upon both respondents, to wit:
Judge Thelma R. Pinero-Cruz, (Presiding Judge, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan), and Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson, (Legal Researcher / OIC, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan), respondents,

specifically, by undersigneds delivering personally, copies to respondents offices, by undersigneds leaving copies with their clerks or with persons having charge thereof / receiving clerks, as proved by the rubber stamp receipts / the signatures, after the names, hereunder, on the original copy hereof, in accordance with Rule 13, Rules of Court, inter alia. I hereby CERTIFY (a) that I have not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasijudicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; A. M. OCA IPI No. 05-2157-P against respondent Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson was already decided with finality on March 8, 2006 and is

47

no longer pending; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, I will file a complete statement of the present status thereof, but there is none; and (c) 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 five (5) days there from to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this _____day of ___________, 2008, here at Malolos City, Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12005 # 21783592, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 2-27, 2007. DOC. NO. _____, PAGE NO. ____, BOOK NO. 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): Judge Thelma R. Pinero-Cruz, and (Presiding Judge, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan), Respondent, and Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson, (Legal Researcher / OIC, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan), Respondent.

Judge Floro begs this Honorable Court to pursue relentlessly the truth behind the respondents administrative and criminal acts. These 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

48

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 process and results of standard democratic and judicial inquiries, 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. Corruption was / is at its worst, leading to extrajudicial executions of judges, the latest of which is the January 15, 2008 murder of Judge Navidad, inter alia, and petitioners very own former clerk of court, Br. 73, RTC, Malabon, former PAO and incumbent Malolos, Bulacan Fiscal Julio Taloma, who was gunned down in Petitioners home town, Meycauayan, Bulacan, on 2005. Same old problems They are the same old problems, or variations of them, 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 about them. In them we see the all too patent subordination of the common good to private good. Putting oneself before the interests of the general public had been the basic fault in the countrys political and judicial culture. AND CORRUPTION cannot be punished except by entrapment, since this is our rules on evidence and criminal law procedures 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

49