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

Malolos City, Branch 16

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

Verified Motion for Reconsideration[Of the Partial Judgment dated April 15, 2008, Copy of which was received

by Petitioner Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. / counsel on April 18, 2008 ] - with -Urgent Prayer to Annul / Set Aside a) the Order of Voluntary Inhibition / Re-Raffle

and b) the Executive Judge Petrita B. Dime’s Order Approving the Re-Raffle]

“Judge Thelma R. Pinero-Cruz’s April 15, 2008 Motu Proprio Voluntary Inhibition1 is not only shocking to the conscience of the entire Judiciary, but it is: i) an anathema to the Constitution,2 a ii) mockery of justice, a iii) palpable contempt of the Rule of Law, a iv) masquerade / funeral of Veritas, and the v) 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 Judiciary3.” – Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.

1 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 Floro’s complaint and request for detail of OIC, Mrs. Joson;2 Juez de Cuchillo of barbaric tribes, nomads and uncivilized nations, leading to extra-judicial killings of journalists, politicians, lawyers and judges / justices.3 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

Undersigned petitioner, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, by

HIMSELF and for HIMSELF, as litigant / petitioner in these cases, AND WITH

LEAVE OF THIS COURT, most respectfully moves for reconsideration of the 9

pages Partial Judgment dated April 15, 2008, in these cases, copy of which,

undersigned hereby MANIFESTS to have received on April 18, 2008 , upon the

ground that the said decision or final order is contrary to law and settled

jurisprudence (Secs. 1, 2, Rule 37, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia).

Undersigned further respectfully avers that the subject Partial Judgment,

with due respect, is manifestly unjust, unfair, unconstitutional, and is utter

violation of S.C. Circulars, Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons of

Judicial Conduct, R.A. 6713, and R.A. 3019, inter alia, as will be discussed and

argued hereunder. Furthermore, undersigned respectfully states, that:

These cases have been pending a long mystifying time, almost like a

Churchillian riddle wrapped in an enigma inside a Pandora box. USA Justice

Holmes said “[g]reat cases like hard cases make bad law.”4 The brilliant

Justice J.B.L. Reyes wrote that it is human nature to put in the back burner what

is difficult. But undue delay in rendering a decision or order is not in the

interest of anybody. If a judge cannot get a speedy disposition of his case, what

might a layman expect? It affects the credibility or mandate of the Court and the

judicial department in the dispensation of justice. The time has come.

Legal Grounds of the Motion for Reconsideration

Supervening Legal Events and Reasons of Nullity of Voluntary Inhibition

Hereunder pointed, quoted and expressly alleged / referred to are the

specific findings and conclusions (ratio decidendi/ fallo) of the Partial

Judgment (dated April 15, 2008, starting at par. 2, page 6 thereof, up to page 9,

last paragraph) which are not supported by the evidence or which are contrary

to law / settled jurisprudence. Express reference to the testimonial or

documentary evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such

findings or conclusions are submitted hereunder:

4 Northern Securities Co.,Inc. vs. US, 193 U.S. 197, 400 (1904).

RELIEF

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

the Partial Judgment dated April 15, 2008, copy of which was received by

petitioner Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. on April 18, 2008, be reconsidered / set

aside, and amended accordingly, by a) setting aside Judge T. P. Cruz’s

Voluntary Inhibition, Order of Re-Raffle and Order Approving the Re-Raffle

(by Judge P. B. Dime), and thereby b) GRANTING undersigned petitioner’s

Motion for Reconsideration, to wit:

1. Declaring the Kasulatan ng Pagsasanglaan (of the 7/12 ideal portion of

Milagros V. Floro) dated January 5, 1995 as unauthorized / null and void;

respondents to desist from further proceedings in the said criminal case against

Judge Floro and c) commanding them to dismiss the criminal action against

Judge Floro, thereby issuing the corrective writs of certiorari, prohibition,

mandamus and final injunction against all respondents.

Other reliefs and remedies, just and equitable under the circumstances are

likewise prayed for.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading – verified motion, this

18th day, of April, 2008, at Malolos City, Bulacan.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,

Petitioner, on behalf of himself, by himself and as litigant,123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos City, 3000 BULACAN,

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

NOTICE of Hearing

TO: The Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan,

Hon. Petrita Braga Dime, Hon. Herminia Pasamba, Hon. Renato Franciso, and Hon. Thelma Pinero-Cruz,The Office of the Executive Judges, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan,

The Branch Clerks of Courts/OICs, Brs. 14, 80, 19, and 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan,

Atty. Ireneo E. Guardiano,Counsel of Record for respondents Mariano and Ligaya Blanco,

Atty. Nye Orquillas,Counsel of Record for petitioners Sps. Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad,

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

Atty. Donato Mabbayad, former counsel for:(The Court granted his withdrawal in TSN hearing, but not inserted in Order, hence Ad Cautelam or for caution)Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico,Respondent,

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

Robert V. Floro and Joselito V. Floro,Petitioners,

Please take NOTICE that the undersigned will submit the instant / foregoing pleading/motion for reconsideration, etc., for HEARING, consideration, deliberation and resolution of the Honorable Court, on April 25, 2008, Friday, at 9:00 a.m. or soon thereafter that the cases may be heard; and if, for any reason the motion will not be able to be heard, on said date, then, undersigned will also submit this motion for hearing and resolution of the Court on Tuesday and Wednesday, April 29 and 30, 2008, both at 9:00 a.m . It is petitioned to the Office of Clerk of Court / Office of the Executived Judge / Hon. Herminia Pasamba, or Hon. Renato Francisco, that the expediente or records be returned to Branch 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, so that the instant motion may be heard by said Court; and / or, if for any reason, the instant motion may not be heard by said branch, it is finally petitioned that this motion be heard, by the Executive Judges Hon. Herminia Pasamba or Hon. Renato Francisco, whoever might be present and available on said hearing dates above-set.Please CALENDAR and call this motion at the above-set hearing dates, in accordance with the mandate of the Rules of Court on motions, inter alia.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,Petitioner

VERIFICATION / AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

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

I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., movant-petitioner, under oath, depose/say, that: I am the movant-petitioner in these cases. 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 April ____, 2008, I personally served copies of this pleading with all annexes in these cases entitled “Atty. Floro et al. vs. Mariano Blanco et al., etc.”, by personal service, upon all the parties / respondents’/petitioners’ counsels, the Office of the Public Prosecutor, to wit:personal service, upon ---

Atty. Ireneo E. Guardiano,Counsel of Record for respondents Mariano and Ligaya Blanco,

Atty. Nye Orquillas,Counsel of Record for petitioners Sps. Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad,

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

Atty. Donato Mabbayad, former counsel for:(The Court granted his withdrawal in TSN hearing, but not inserted in Order, hence Ad Cautelam or for caution)c/o Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico,Respondent,

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

Robert V. Floro and Joselito V. Floro, c/o Judge FloroPetitioners,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: specifically, by undersigned’s delivering personally, copies to the said offices / counsels of the parties, and / or by undersigned’s leaving copies with the offices’ / counsels’ offices, with their clerks or with persons having charge thereof / receiving clerks.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 21st day of April, 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. 75, SERIES OF 2008. BERNAR D. FAJARDO Notary Public, Until Jan.31, 2009, PTR NO. 4591703, 1- 2,’08, Atty.’s Roll No. 33633, IBP OR # 708299, 1-2,’08 Malolos City, Bulacan.

COPY FURNISHED:(By Personal Service):

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

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

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

Atty. Donato Mabbayad, former counsel for:(The Court granted his withdrawal in TSN hearing, but not inserted in Order, hence Ad Cautelam or for caution)Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico,Respondent,Villarico Law Office, Poblacion, Meycauayan,3020 Bulacan,

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

Robert V. Floro and Joselito V. Floro,Petitioners,c/o and by: Judge Florentino V. Floro,123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos, 3000 Bulacan

With due respect

This Honorable Court gravely erred in ruling that –

“NOW THE PARTIAL JUDGMENT. Based on the applicable law and evidence, the Court finds as follows:

[Pars. 3-4, page 6, Partial Judgment dated April 15, 2008].

The gravely erred in not applying the other applicable laws, to wit:

“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)”

Contrary to the Court’s ratio decidendi above-cited that no action was

filed for annulment of the mortgage contract within 4 years, undersigned 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 Februray 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 petitioner’s

Manifestation-Letter Notice dated July 21, 1993, with the registry receipts, both

originals = pages 111 to 114, records; marked on September 13, 2004, Br. 16,

RTC, Malolos, Bulacan); iii) respondents’ resciscible 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.

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

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”.

The Court gravely erred also, in ruling that undersigned’s 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:

‘Schizophrenia5 (pronounced /ˌskɪtsəˈfriːniə/), from the Greek roots schizein (σχίζειν, "to split") and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-, "mind"), is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental illness 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 0.4–0.6% 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.”

The Court gravely erred, 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.

The Court further gravely erred, in failing to annul the subject void

mortgage, and in disregarding undersigned’s May 25, 2008 OMNIBUS Motions

to declare the January 5, 1996 mortgage MOOT since, it can no longer be

enforced or foreclosed due to prescription.

5 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.

extinguished by EXTINCTIVE PRESCRIPTION, and the duly filed amended

(October 2, 1998) pleading for annulment was the real / proper action to cancel

or rescind the said voidable and moot contract of mortgage, causing the titles of

undersigned to be free from all liens and encumbrances under the law / rules.

Accordingly, the Court furthermore, gravely erred in ruling that –

[par. 1-3, par. 1-3, pages 8-9, Partial Judgment].

Ergo, the Court in this regard, gravely erred in not considering the legal

truism that undersigned’s instant criminal injunction falls within the recognized

and jurisprudential exceptions, thusly.

In SECOND DIVISION, G.R. No. 129904, March 16, 2000, DIRECTOR

GUILLERMO T. DOMONDON vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN,

the Court teaches that:

"Well settled is the rule that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained, either through a preliminary or final injunction or a writ of prohibition, except in the following instances: (1) To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; (2) When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; (3) When there is a prejudicial question which is sub-judice; (4) When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; (5) Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; (6) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent; (7) Where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense; (8) Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; (9) Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance; (10) When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied; ella (11) Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners.”

How can this Partial Judgment be defended in a court of law? It left

hanging the titles! Undersigned’s 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 Blanco’s

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

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

“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, YNARES-SANTIAGO, 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 ako’y 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 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

If this case is 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 submits additional ARGUMENT:

EXHIBTS MARKED:A) P-405-98 case:All the annexes A to G / sub-markings of the Verified Petition ( Vide: pages 1 to 8 records), dated September 28, 1998 in P-405-98 case were marked correspondingly marked as Exhibits A to G / sub-markings – at the trial / hearing dated March 4, 1999 and Exhibits H and I / sub-markings on December 8, 1998 before Br. 19, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan:

Exhibits A to G / sub-markings (annexes A to G / sub-markings of the Petition) = pages 9 to 29, records;

Exhibits A-8 and A-8-1 (4 pages petitioner’s Manifestation-Letter Notice dated July 21, 1993, with the registry receipts, both originals) = pages 111 to 114, records; marked on September 13, 2004, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan;

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

Exhibit I = pages 78

[Vide: TSN dated December 8, 1998 – pages 2 to 5, and Order regarding jurisdictional requirements, on page 7; copies are attached herewith as reference – as “Annex A” hereof].

[Vide: TSN dated March 4, 1999 – pages 3 to 4, copies are attached herewith as reference – as “Annex A-1” hereof].

Direct Testimony of petitioner Judge Floro:

[Vide: TSN dated March 4, 1999 – pages 4 to 32, and Order regarding jurisdictional requirements, on page 7; copies are attached herewith as reference – as “Annex B” hereof].

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

All the annexes A to G / sub-markings (of the Verified Petition - Vide: pages 2 12, etc., records, dated September 28 / 29, 1998 as amended by the Amended Verified Complaint filed and all fees duly paid on October 9, 1998 – Vide pages 123 to 132, records), were correspondingly marked as Exhibits A to G / sub-markings – at the trial / hearing dated March 19, 1999 before Br. 9, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan:

Exhibits A to G / sub-markings (annexes A to G / sub-markings of the Petition) = pages 133 to 154, records;

ALL THE EXHIBITS A to G / sub-markings duly marked in both cases are exactly the SAME exhibits and annexes of both petitions, duly consolidated.Formal Offer of Petitioners’ Documentary Evidence:

All the petitioners’ annexes A to G / sub-markings, and court documents, marked and identified as Exhibits A to I / sub-markings, in these 2 cases were all formally offered and admitted in evidence at the hearing dated September 13, 2004, EVEN if all said exhibits were stipulated and admitted by petitioners and respondents Blancos in the joint stipulation of facts, above-cited.

In P-405-98 case:

All the petitioners’ annexes A to G / sub-markings, Exhibits A-8 and A-8-1 (4 pages petitioner’s Manifestation-Letter Notice dated July 21, 1993, with the registry receipts, both originals),

Exhibits H / sub- markings, Exhibit I,

duly marked and identified, and all exhibits -

In Civil Case No. 938-M-98:

Exhibits A to G / sub-markings (annexes A to G / sub-markings of the Petition) ALL THE EXHIBITS A to G / sub-markings duly marked in both cases are exactly the SAME exhibits and annexes of both petitions, duly consolidated –

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

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

a) Court Orders dated 12 August and 13 & 22, September, 2004 (Annexes “C, D, C-1”, respectively) declaring the waiver by all respondents to cross-examine undersigned and to present evidence, and the ADMISSION of all the exhibits in these 2 cases by the Court for purposes stated in the formal offer, and

b) TSN dated 13 September, 2004, pages 2 to 4, where petitioners formally offered all the exhibits for the purposes stated therein and duly admitted by the Court (Annex “D-1” hereof).

With due respect:

Petitioner respectfully cites the following laws, circulars and rules, to support his contention that – a) the decision in this case should have been rendered and released on December 23, 2004; b) the Branch Clerk of Court, (in conspiracy with) and Atty. Nye Orquillas, the

Trinidads and respondents’ Blancos, inter alia, are liable under these laws, criminally and administratively, due to palpable obstruction of justice and delay of petitioner’s cause because of the resultant unjust and unlawful orders which stopped the judgment’s issuance as of December 23, 2004. Until the decision in this case is rendered, the Certificate of Service of the Presiding Judge cannot state that there is no pending case which has not yet been decided, since petitioner proved that the decision must have been issued on December 23, 2004 were it not for the criminal and administrative wrong doings of said counsel and court personnel.

A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC- RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE 140 OF THE RULES OF COURT RE: DISCIPLINE OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES - The Court resolved to APPROVE the amendment of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court regarding the discipline of Justices and Judges, so as to read as follows:

RULE 140 - DISCIPLINE OF JUDGES OF REGULAR AND SPECIAL COURTS AND JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN

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; 7. Borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case pending before the court; 9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;

SEC. 9. Less Serious Charges. – Less serious charges include:

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

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

These amendments to Rule 140 shall take effect on October 1, 2001 following their publication in two newspapers of general circulation on or before September 15, 2001.

CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT - CANON 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 3.05

- A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (June 21, 1988) Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved. Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:

RULE 7 - PARTS OF A PLEADING

Sec. 3. Signature and address.

Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading in violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails to promptly report to the court a change of his address, shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.

RULE 8 - MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

Sec. 12. Striking out of pleading or matter contained therein. Upon motion made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by these Rules, upon motion made by a party within twenty (20) days after the service of the pleading upon him, or upon the court's own initiative at any time, the court may order any pleading to be stricken out or that any sham or false, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter be stricken out therefrom.

RULE 129

What Need Not Be Proved Sec. 4.Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. (2a)

RULE 132 - C. OFFER AND OBJECTION - Sec. 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. (35)

Sec. 35.When to make offer. — As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify.

Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. (n)

Sec. 36. Objection. — Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made. An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice, unless a different period is allowed by the court. In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a)

Sec. 38.Ruling. — The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made, xxx.

RULE 18, PRE-TRIAL - Sec. 2. Nature and purpose. (b) The simplification of the issues; (d) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents to avoid unnecessary proof;

RULE 30- TRIAL - Sec. 6. Agreed statement of facts. The parties to any action may agree, in writing, upon the facts involved in the litigation, and submit the case for judgment on the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence. If the parties agree only on some of the facts in issue, the trial shall be held as to the disputed facts in such order as the court shall prescribe.