Case under Preliminary Considerations In RE: Joaquin T.

Borromeo (21 February 1995) 241 SCRA 405 per curiam FACTS: BACKGROUND. "A Little learning is a dangerous thing, and he who act as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. o Joaquin Borromeo is not a lawyer but had read some law books and had superficial awareness of few substantive principles and procedural rules. With a couple of learning he had been prosecuting legal proceedings in various courts dogmatically pontificating errors supposedly committed by courts, including the Supreme Court. His illusions of being a lawyer has presumably given him competence to represent himself in original and review proceedings. With this, he circulated statements against judges, court employees, and lawyers, aside from the many cases he filed against bank employees. o Borromeo had loan transactions with three banks (Traders Royal Bank (TRB), United Coconut Planters Bank(UCPB) and Security Bank and Trust Co) with his property and property of his familiy and a third person as a collateral. However, Borromeo failed to pay his obligations to the said banks, and when demands were made for him to do so, he laid down his own terms for his satisfaction which were inconsistent with those agreed upon. o When the bank refused to agree with him, he brought suits left and right against the said banks, officers of the banks, lawyers representing the banks and public prosecutors. He sued as well judges of trial courts, justices of the court of appeals and Supreme Court who at one time or another, rendered judgement, resolutions or orders that were adverse to him. In aggregate , he had initiated an astounding number of no less than 50 original or review proceedings, civil, criminal and administrative. ISSUE Whether or not Borromeo is guilty of constructive contempt for repetitious disrespect to court officials and their decisions? RULING Borromeo is found and declared guilty of constructive contempt. o There can scarcely be any doubt of Borromeo's guilt of contempt, for

abuse of and interference with judicial rules and processes, gross disrespect to courts and judges and improper conduct directly impeding, obstructing and degrading the administration of justice. He stubbornly litigated issues already declared to be without merit, rendered adversely to him in many suits and proceedings, rulings which had become final and executory, obdurately and unreasonably insisting on the application of his own individual version of the rules, founded on nothing more than his personal (and quite erroneous) reading of the Constitution and the law; he insulted judges and court officers, including the attorneys appearing for his adversaries, needlessly overloaded the court dockets and sorely tried the patience of the judges and court employees who had to act on his repetitious and largely unfounded complaints, pleadings and motions. On the contention that he "was exercising his rights of freedom of speech, of expression, and to petition the government for redress of grievances as guaranteed by the Constitution (Sec. 4, Art. III) and in accordance with the accountability of public officials.": The constitutional rights invoked by him afford no justification for repetitious litigation of the same causes and issues, for insulting lawyers, judges, court employees; and other persons, for abusing the processes and rules of the courts, wasting their time, and bringing them into disrepute and disrespect.