Sei sulla pagina 1di 83

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

, (123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos, 3000 Bulacan) Complainant, - versus A.M. OCA IPI No. ______________ For: Gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, manifest undue interest, violations of the Codes of Judicial Conduct (Rule 2.04, inter alia) and Professional Responsibility, Disbarment, etc.

Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Associate Justice Martin Villarama and Associate Justice Edgardo Cruz, and Jane Doe & Sarah Doe (Lawyers, daughters of Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.), (Court of Appeals, Maria Orosa, Ermita, Manila) Respondents. X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

Amended / Supplemental Verified Complaint Letter-Affidavit

[Under Rules 140, 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, Codes of Judicial Conduct & Professional Responsibility, inter alia] and

Verified Motion For Leave To Intervene & Petition-in-Intervention

In: "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)" With -

Urgent Omnibus Motions

I. For Preventive Suspension, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution, and II. To appoint a Special Prosecutor, in accordance with EN BANC, A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA,

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, S.C. Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing,

and the MEMBERS, En Banc, Supreme Court, and The (Acting) Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Padre Faura, Manila & Mme. Justice Carolina Grio-Aquino, Chairperson, 59-D Tuason St., Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City, M.M., Mme. Justice Flerida Ruth P. Romero, Member and 11 Champaca St., Tahanan Village, Paranaque City, 1700, M.M., Mr. Justice Romeo Callejo, Jr., Member 9 Ruego St., BF Homes, Commonwealth Ave., Quezon City, 1121, M.M.

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, as concerned citizen, and taxpayer, inter alia, AND WITH LEAVE OF COURT, most respectfully depose and say, that: Prefatory The Darkest Hour in the Court of Appeals History

Salonga: CA corruption expos good for reforms

By Norman Bordadora Philippine Daily Inquirer 00:41:00 08/03/2008

FORMER SENATE PRESIDENT JOVITO Salonga on Saturday confirmed the purported corruption in the Court of Appeals and said reforms were urgently needed.

It is true that there is bribery in the appellate court, the 88-year-old founder of the judiciary watchdog group Bantay Katarungan told the Inquirer. It should be stopped. The bribery should be exposed. It should be the beginning of legal reforms in our system of justice. Preventive suspension On Friday, a former Malabon City Judge asked the Supreme Court to order the preventive suspension of all appellate court justices involved in the Meralco vs GSIS case. In a verified complaint-letter affidavit, RTC Judge Florentino Floro Jr. said these justices should be investigated for gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, manifest undue interest and violations of the Codes of Judicial Conduct and of Professional Responsibility, among others. Floro said the high court should once and for all cleanse the entire Court of Appeals. The undersigned, in his conscience, knocks at the doors of this court, because of the shocking events which rocked the very foundations of our entire judicial system: CA justices accusing each other, not in courts, but in the media. This is too much. This is the darkest hour of the CA since its creation, he said. Floro named as respondents in the case Sabio and Associate Justices Bienvenido Reyes, Apolinario Bruselas, Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal and Vicente Roxas, as well as CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. He said the high court should appoint one of its retired associate justices as an independent investigator and a special prosecutor to look into the matter. Headline maker Floro himself made headlines when he was ordered dismissed from the judiciary in 2006 by the Supreme Court. The high court declared him mentally unfit after he admitted to having psychic visions, having dwarfs as friends and being an angel of death who could inflict pain on people, especially those he perceived to be corrupt. Undeterred, Floro filed cases against judiciary

officials he claimed to have violated the law. In April 2007, he filed administrative charges against what he called the CAs Dirty Dozen, whom he accused of corruption. He said those found guilty should be dismissed from government service and disbarred.

"Men and women of the courts must conduct themselves with honor, probity, fairness, prudence and discretion. Magistrates of justice must always be fair and impartial. They should avoid not only acts of impropriety, but all appearances of impropriety. Their influence in society must be consciously and conscientiously exercised with utmost prudence and discretion. For, theirs is the assigned role of preserving the independence, impartiality and integrity of the Judiciary. (Rule 2.04, Code of Judicial Conduct). The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates a judge to "refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency." The slightest form of interference cannot be countenanced. Once a judge uses his influence to derail or interfere in the regular course of a legal or judicial proceeding for the benefit of one or any of the parties therein,
public confidence in the judicial system is diminished, if not totally eroded.

Such is this administrative charge triggered by newspaper accounts which appeared on the 21 July 2000 issues of The Manila Standard, The Manila Times, Malaya, The Philippine Daily Inquirer and Today. The national dailies collectively reported that Court of Appeals Associate Justice Demetrio G. Demetria tried to intercede on behalf of suspected Chinese drug queen Yu Yuk Lai, alias Sze Yuk Lai, who went in and out of prison to play in a Manila casino. (21 July 2000 issue of The Philippine Daily Inquirer, p. 20). That same day, 21 July 2000, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., issued a Memorandum to Justice Demetria directing him to comment on the derogatory allegations in the news items.3 On 24 July 2000, Justice Demetria submitted his Compliance. Subsequently, Chief State Prosecutor (CSP) Jovencito R. Zuo, who disclosed to the media the name of Justice Demetria, and State Prosecutor (SP) Pablo C. Formaran III, a member of the Task Force on
Anti-Narcotics Cases of the Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecuting the case of the suspected Chinese drug queen, filed their respective Comments on the Compliance of Justice Demetria.

On 8 August 2000, the Court En Banc ordered an investigation and designated Mme. Justice Carolina C. Grio-Aquino as Investigator and Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo as

Prosecutor. An investigation then commenced on 22 August 2000 and continued until 16 November 2000. The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with the heavy of responsibility. His at all times must be characterized with propriety and must be above suspicion. His must be free of even a whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to the performance of his judicial duties, but also his behavior outside the courtroom and as a private individual. Unfortunately, respondent failed failed to live up to this expectation. Through their indiscretions, they did not only make a mockery of their high offices, but also caused incalculable damage to the entire Judiciary. The mere mention of their names in the national newspapers, allegedly lawyering for or against any of the parties of the case pending before the Court of Appeals, seriously undermined the integrity of the entire Judiciary. Although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness that a seat in the Judiciary. High ethical principles and a sense of propriety should be maintained, without which the faith of the people in the Judiciary so indispensable in orderly society cannot be preserved. There is simply no place in the Judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity.
(Jereos, Jr. v. Reblando, Sr., AM No. 141, 31 May 1976, 71 SCRA 126; Dia-A onuevo v. Bercacio, AM No. 177-MJ, 27 November 1975, 68 SCRA 81; Candia v. Tagabucba, AM No. 528, MJ, 12 September 1977, 79 SCRA 51; Barja Jr., v. Judge Bercacio, AM No. 561-MJ, 29 December 1976, 74 SCRA 355).

WHEREFORE, we sustain the findings of the Investigating Justice and hold Justice Demetrio G. Demetria GUILTY of violating Rule 2.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. He is ordered DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to his appointment or reappointment to any government office, agency or instrumentality, including any government owned or controlled corporation or institution. Moral, Religious Basis: Rule of Law, the cause of sin, and sin, of death. While this Court can motu proprio investigate, docket administrative or disbarment cases, and cite in contempt, inter alia, the respondents, still, the
undersigned, in his conscience, knocks at the doors of this Court, because of the shocking events which rocked the very foundations of our entire judicial system:

--- CA Justices accusing each other, not in Courts, but in media. This is too much. This is the darkest hour of the Court of Appeals, since its 1936 creation. Who else, should file this case, to stop this root cause of extra-judicial killings,

and Divine punishments, as Our Lady of Fatima direly warned us, her children, and the world, in 1918. I am here, your Honors, asking you to cleanse the entire Court of Appeals and judiciary. Hear my pleas, your Honors, fail us not. Critical and Undisputed Facts: Bill of Particulars: Instead of submitting their confidential letters / complaints to the OCAD or Supreme Court, Sabio and Roxas both published their voices, opinions, word wars, and confidential letters to Philippine broadcast and print media (the Daily Inquirer and GMA News, internet, TV and internet Video, inter alia).

GSIS-Meralco bribery case

REPRODUCED, hereunder, is GSIS-Meralco bribery case - the Wikipedia online encyclopedia (the biggest in the whole world) article, created by User:Florentino floro (Florentino Floro) - established Wikipedia editor and contributor.

GSIS-Meralco bribery case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The GSIS-Meralco bribery case, legally termed criminal obstruction of justice and malfeasance in office, is a political controversy and pending Supreme Court of the Philippines legal case, involving the P 10-million bribery attempt which allegedly involved a Manila Electric Company (Meralco) 'emissary' and Philippine Court of Appeals Justice Jose Sabio. [1] The "case-switching" scandal originated from Meralco and Government Service Insurance System (Philippines) row, after Sabio - in a letter-complaint against Justices Vicente Roxas and Bienvenido Reyes - complained of the "fishy" circumstances that he was removed from the Meralc-GSIS case, and an alleged bribe attempt by Meralco in consideration for him giving way to Reyes' chairmanship of the CA's Special 9th Division.[2] It has caught wide media coverage and has achieved political, international and judicial significance because of its very threat to the integrity and credibility of the Philippine judicial system. The corruption scandal forthwith caused the

motu proprio assumption of jurisdiction over the issue, by the High Tribunal per its Chief Justice's rare agendum of an En Banc hearing and deliberation on August 6, 2008.[3] The Senate of the Philippines' legislators, inter alia, called for speedy resolution of the issues.[4][5] The scandal engulfs the Judiciary and has uncloaked a dark, transactional periphery of the justice system. History It started when, on May 11, 2008, the Government Service Insurance System (Philippines) accused Meralco of unlawful refusal to grant corporate access to documents despite the GSIS holding 4 seats in the 11-member Meralco board, amid GSIS' denial of plans to wrest control from the Lopez family. Background In 1962, Don Eugenio Lpez, Sr. acquired MERALCO and it finally became Filipino-owned, but Ferdinand Marcos, by decree, placed it under a shell company called the Meralco Foundation, Inc., controlled by crony under government controlled Napocor.[6] In 1978, Meralco was fully controlled by the Marcos administration, but its ownership was finally returned to the Lopez family after the People Power Revolution by President Corazon Aquino. By executive order, she allowed Meralco to directly compete with NAPOCOR.[7] Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on May 2, 2008, announced plans to reduce Luzon high power rates, amid a tough legal fight with Meralco before state energy regulators. Accordingly, GSIS, thru its President Winston Garcia, on May 11, stated it "planned not only to buy out the Lopez family and other shareholders in Meralco but also to break up its concession to promote efficiency and transparency." But Meralco chair and CEO Manuel Lopez said he was not selling the utility. The cases and facts Oscar Lopez blamed the Arroyo administration's moves to take over Meralco in a reverse privatization, because of the Lopez-owned ABS-CBN's negative publicity against the government.[8] May 27 stockholders meeting During the May 27, 2008 stockholders meeting, GSIS' President Winston Garcia obtained a Securities and Exchange Commission (Philippines) ceaseand-desist order to stop and defer the counting of proxy votes held by the Lopez group until questions on its validity were resolved. GSIS accused the Lopezes of rigging the process. [9] In the end, GSIS failed to gain control of Meralco, since, the SEC order was not honored. Meralco retained its 5 seats, the government its 4, while the 2 others are independent directors Artemio Panganiban and Vicente Panlilio. Aside from Manuel Lopez, the Meralco directors elected are Jesus Francisco, Felipe Alfonso, Christian Monsod and

Cesar Virata, while the government board members elected aside from Garcia, are Bernardino Abes, Daisy Arce and Jeremy Parulan. Lopez, however, obtained, on May 30, a temporary restraining order from the Philippine Court of Appeals, against the SEC order. The Courts 8th Division chaired by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, rendered a 57-page judgment, on July 24, affirming Meralcos stance that the SEC has no jurisdiction over the issue.[10][11] Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, Special 9th Division member, challenged the Reyes' decision, per letter to CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr., thus: "How can the 8th Division issue an order when it is the 9th that has been hearing the complaint of alleged irregularities in the Meralco election?" It is also the 9th Division that issued the temporary restraining order on the SEC order to Meralco on May 30." Assistant Clerk of Court, lawyer Manuel Cervantes, said no irregularity had been committed when the 8th division came out with the decision instead of the 9th, simply a result of the reorganization of the court. Due to the retirement of some justices, Justice Vidal was reassigned to the 6th Division while Reyes became chair of the 8th, Cervantes said. Roxas was moved to the 8th division, Vidal went to the 6th, and Sabio to the 9th. "The case goes with the ponente(justice assigned to pen the case), Cervantes explained. Justice Vicente Roxas is the ponente. Even with the change in division, the case stays with him." And since the rule is that the case goes with the ponente,the 57-page decision was issued by the division of which Justice Roxas was now a part, he said. [12] Permission is not required from the previous division or its justices. He said the RIRCA (Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, as amended in 2205) does not require the justices who issued the TRO be the same justices to render the decision. The Court of Appeals Reorganization Office Order No. 200-08-CMV was issued by Presiding Justice Vasquez on July 4, three weeks before the decision was released. Justice Jose L. Sabio, with the encouragement of Justice Vidal (his colleague in the 9th Special Division) broke the bribery attempt news and wrote to P.J. Vasquez, Jr. on July 26.[13] He joined Justice Vidal, initiating further, a media expose of their squabbles, alleging something stinks in the Meralco court ruling. Presiding Justice Vasquez released his opinion, also, per his July 24, 2008 Letter to Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes & Vicente Q. Roxas.[14][15][16] Businessman Francis de Borja surfaces and reveals to the media a notarized and sworn affidavit that it was Justice Sabio who brought up a P50 million price for him to act in favor of Meralco in its dispute with the GSIS. Mr. de Borja asserts that Mr. Sabio had told him a Supreme Court seat was being offered in exchange for a ruling in favor of the GSIS, which is trying to wrest control of Meralco from the Lopezes. Expecting Sabio to answer that he would not be swayed by any offer and would rule according to his conscience, De Borja asked what it would take for him to resist the supposed government offer of a seat on the Supreme Court and money. He was taken aback when Sabio replied "P50 million, and then left.[17] Manolo Lopez calls the accusations of Sabio a

malicious and a pure fabrication. He vehemently denied the allegations, together with the claim that he (Lopez) was waiting in the car during the meeting. He said he was out of the country for a medical check-up when the
incident supposedly happened, and returned only last July 13. As proof, he showed tickets showing his departure dated June 27 and his arrival dated July 13.

The CA Justices in the case ABS-CBN and Philippines Newsbreak Magazine reported on the CA Justices of the case.[19] ABS-CBN researched and published that:[20] * Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr.'s daughters Agnes Rosario and Ruth Almira are currently employed by the GSIS. Agnes Rosario is a dentist in the GSIS medical department while Ruth Almira is with the office of the Company secretary. Vasquez sister, Lenny Vasquez de Jesus, was a GSIS trustee from 1998-2004. She is also the ninang (godmother) of the youngest son of GSIS president Winston Garcia. He was presiding Judge of Branch 118, Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. * Associate Justice Sabio, Jr., chair of the CA ninth division, graduated from the Ateneo de Manila University College of Law. He is a pre-bar reviewer in Legal Ethics at the Ateneo School of Law where he also teaches, Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Law I. In 2003, an administrative complaint was filed against him for ignorance of the law and inexcusable negligence, and charging him with deliberately causing the delay of the prosecution in Estafa entitled, People of the Philippines, Plaintiff versus Ferdinand Santos, Robert John Sobrepea, Federico Campos, Polo Pantaleon, and Rafael Perez De Tagle, Jr. The case was dismissed by the SC, signed by 12 of the 14 incumbent Justices. [21] * Associate Justice Vidal was awarded a plaque of recognition as outstanding judge by the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) in 2001, and in 2004, she was an outstanding judge who received Supreme Court Judicial Excellence awards. * Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes is the chairman of the 8th division that promulgated the decision. He obtained his Ll.B Degree from San Beda College and passed the Bar examinations in the same year. Reyes was promoted CA associate justice on August 8, 2000, after serving as RTC Judge, in Br. 74, Malabon City, from 1990. He was was also a finalist in the 1997 Awards for Judicial Excellence.[22][23] * Associate Justice Vicente Roxas is a top ten bar exam topnotcher from the University of the Philippines College of Law. He was En Banc Consultant for the SEC(Securities and Exchange Commission) for eleven years, and taught at the UP college of law. He was a RTC Judge in Quezon City for ten years before his appointment as associate justice of the CA. In 2007, the Manila Times reported that Erlinda Bilder-Ilusurio, president of Philippine Communications Satellite Corp. (Philcomsat) filed an administrative case against him for gross ignorance of the law after he ruled on a petition that was withdrawn already by Emmanuel Nieto, a Philcomsat stockholder. The SC unanimously dismissed the case.[24]

* Associate Justice Bruselas was a regional trial court judge in Quezon City before being appointed to the court of appeals. He served as a member of the technical working group of the judiciary's action program for judicial reform. He penned the decision in Steel Corp. and Subic rape case.[25] Name - Position - Date of Appointment - Date of Birth - Date of Retirement Hon. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. - Presiding Justice - March 22, 1994 January 6, 1940 January 6, 2010 Hon. JOSE L. SABIO, JR. - Associate Justice - May 28, 1999 May 25, 1941 May 25, 2011 Hon. BIENVENIDO L. REYES - Associate Justice - August 22, 2000 July 6, 1947 - July 6, 2017 Hon. VICENTE Q. ROXAS - Associate Justice - February 9, 2004 December 8, 1949 December 8, 2019 Hon. MYRNA DIMARANAN-VIDAL - Associate Justice - January 24, 2005 December 20, 1939 - December 20, 2009 Hon. APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR. - Associate Justice - August 1, 2005 May 6, 1956 - May 6, 2026 Attempted bribery and discipline of Philippine jurists and lawyers Bribery attempt, in Philippine Jurisprudence, is considered a criminal offense or felony. Philippine Court of Appeals Justices are under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, and may be disciplined by Disbarment or dismissal from service, under the Revised Rules of Court (1997 Code of Civil Procedure). Also, the Philippine Court of Appeals' "Process of Adjudication" is governed by A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA 2005, the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA), Specific Amendments to, 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, February 28, 2005.[26][27][28] The laws The Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA) regarding the matter are as follows: RULE I - THE COURT, ITS ORGANIZATION AND OFFICIALS - SEC. 9. Reorganization of Divisions. (a) Reorganization of Divisions shall be effected whenever a permanent vacancy occurs in the chairmanship of a Division, in which case assignment of Justices to the Divisions shall be in accordance with the order of seniority unless a waiver is executed by the Justice concerned which waiver shall be effective until revoked by him in writing.(n) RULE VI - PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION - SEC. 1. Justice Assigned For Study and Report. Every case, whether appealed or original, assigned to a Justice for study and report shall be retained by him even if he is transferred to another Division in the same station. (Sec. 2, Rule 8, RIRCA [a]) SEC. 2. Justices Who May Participate in the Adjudication of Cases. x x x (d)

When, in an original action or petition for review, any of these actions or proceedings, namely: (1) giving due course; (2) granting writ of preliminary injunction; (3) granting new trial; and (4) granting execution pending appeal have been taken, the case shall remain with the Justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report and the Justices who participated therein, regardless of their transfer to other Divisions in the same station. (A.M. No. 026-13-CA - 2005 RIRCA: SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THE 2002 INTERNAL RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS) The Revised Penal Code of 1930 now defines the felony of attempted bribery as follows: Art. 210. Direct bribery. Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed. If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime,xxxx and if said act shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional, in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value of such gift.If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of such gift. In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the penalty of special temporary disqualification. The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall be made applicable to xxx any other persons performing public duties. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10, 1985).[29] Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. xxx There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts,
and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.[30]

The Revised Rules of Court, now also provides for the discipline of jurists and lawyers, as follows: A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC, Amendment to Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court, Discipline of Judges and Justices: SECTION 1. How instituted. Proceedings for the discipline of judges xxx Justices of the Court of Appeals xxx may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of person xxx 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; xxx 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 governmentowned 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.[31] Rule 139-B, Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys: Section 1. How instituted. - Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of
the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts.[32]

Application to this case Justice Sabio informed Philippine media that he was offered P 10 million (through a Makati businessman, which he rejected) to inhibit himself from the GSIS-Meralco case, which was decided by the 8th Division's Justice Vicente Roxas, the designated ponente, with the concurring opinions of Justices Bienvenido Reyes and Antonio Bruselas. Roxas was transferred from the 9th Division, when the case was pending. Sabio revealed to media that: It turned out that he was brokering for Meralco. Sabio appeared on a TV interview by GMA Network reporter Carlo Lorenzo in his chambers.[33] Cagayan de Oro businessman Francis Roa de Borja, in his July 31, 2008 affidavit, swore that: "when he asked what it would take for him to resist the government offer, Sabio's reply was: Fifty million (pesos)"; Sabio wanted to remain as acting chairman of the 9th Division because he was up to something; that Sabio consulted his other colleagues in the CA and they told him that he was in the right and should stick to his guns; that was then Sabio told Borja about the offer of unnamed government officials for a promotion at the SC and money for a favorable ruling for GSIS."[34][35] De Borja accused Sabio of twisting the facts: "No, I never said that. If you know Manolo Lopez -- he is somewhat aristocratic -- he would be the last person to wait for somebody in the car, and they did not know that he was abroad at that time. I said in my affidavit that he told me his wife would be waiting for him in the car and he says now that Manolo was waiting in my car..." De Borja stated that he was ready to face charge of perjury and to take a lie detector test with Sabio before competent foreign experts and together: "Its a free county, let him file it and well see. Im prepared, the moment I signed my affidavit obviously I considered the consequences so I wouldnt have made up a story. And my third comment is he is a lawyer and a justice. He knows that a lie detector test is not admissible as evidence so why is he asking for it?[36] De Borja was interviewed and appeared at ABS-CBN News Channel's (ANC) Dateline Philippines, and he repeated his media statements: "No definitely

not...He [Sabio] says that Manolo was waiting for me in my car. I never said it. And if you know Manolo...Can you imagine somebody like Manolo being made to wait in a car? Di ba, yung pagka aristocratic ni Manolo, maghihintay sa kotse? The fact is, he was abroad."[37][38] Meanwhile, a shadowy group, "Tanglaw ng Bayan," paid an advertisement on a Metro Manila newspaper, appealing "that the CA justices not be subjected to malicious imputations just to advance the agenda of powerful interests, and to allow the CA to "sort out its internal issues." In 2007, it also petitioned the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Senate to probe the Wowowee Willyonaryo controversy.[39] On July 31, 2008, after a rare 3-hour, closed-door En Banc session attended by 64 CA Justices presided by P.J. Vasquez, Jr., the CA Clerk of Court Atty. Teresita Marigomen announced the appellate court's resolution:[40] * "that they will refer the investigation of the propriety of action of concerned justices to the Supreme Court through the Office of the Court Administrator"; * "they will leave the matter on the validity of the Meralco decision to the parties, to take whatever steps they may deem necessary after all the allegations"; and, * "they will refer the issue of the conflict on rules to an internal committee within the appellate court."[41][42] Chief Justice Reynato Puno ordered all records of case be delivered forthwith to the high court, and the Supreme Court Public Information Office OIC said all magistrates of the high court would deliberate on the case on August 5.[43] Justice Roxas challenged the En Banc meeting as a disguised investigation of the 8th Divisions judgment on the Meralco case, further alleging that under the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, a case followed the ponente to whatever division the ponente went: Besides, all hearings in the Court of Appeals are recorded and the members of the 8th Division only need the transcripts of the hearing or the memoranda, briefs, comments and replies of the partieswhich are all written.[44] Sabio, however, told media that he has text messages plus phone call records evidence to prove that Francis Roa de Borja bribed him.[45][46][47] Sabio's former client (1978), Evelyn Clavano, a Cagayan de Oro City resident, gave media, on August 1, an affidavit saying that: "Francis de Borja requested me if I have the cell phone number of Justice Jose L. Sabio Jr. He related that because he is very close to the Lopezes of Meralco, he wanted to call him (Sabio) regarding his possible inhibition in a certain Meralco case, wherein he was designated as a substitute member of the division vice a justice who was temporarily on-leave by reason of sickness. He further said that the Lopezes desire that the same Justice, with whom the Lopezes are more comfortable, to sit in the division. So, I gave Francis de Borja the cell phone number of Justice Jose L. Sabio Jr. through business card."[48][49]


Meralco chair Manolo lopez, in a press conference on August 2, denied any involvement in the alleged bribery attempt: I categorically and vehemently deny the allegations of Justice Jose Sabio. Mind you, I do not have the habit of waiting in the car for anybody except my wife. The [allegations are] malicious and pure fabrication. I am a resident of Rockwell. I know Francis but I have not authorized him or anybody to make representations for [me on] any matter that involves cases of Meralco and the Lopez family. We have retainers and lawyers to handle legal matters. I was out of the country when the alleged meeting between Francis and Justice Sabio took place. I was in the United States for a medical checkup and returned on July 13." Lopezs officials showed media, tickets of his departure, June 27, and his arrival, July 13.[50] The Lopez group led by First Philippine Holdings Corp. has a 33.47% share interest in Meralco, while the Philippine government financial institutions own 33.32%. Other shareholders hold 34.21%. Meralco said, the government share is, to wit: GSIS, 22.05%; Social Security System, 5.52%; Land Bank of the Philippines, 4.41%; Philippine Health Insurance Corp., 0.17%; and the Home Development Mutual Fund or Pag-IBIG, 0.17%.[51] CA chambers press conference Sabio, on August 1, First Friday, held a press conference in his CA chambers, and stated to media: ...I expect matters to get worse because I am up against the billions of the Lopezes. But that Mr. de Borja would have the nerve to make these lies, under oath, is utterly disgusting when it was he who came to me with the offer of the bribe. He [de Borja] further said that the Lopezes desire that the same justice, with whom the Lopezes are more comfortable, sit in the division. Mr. de Borja called me, so suddenly, and after having had no contact [with him] for almost a year. At that point, he [de Borja] mentioned the impasse between Justice Bienvenido Reyes and myself. Then he [de Borja] explained that he was there to offer me a win-win situation. He said, Justice, we have P10 million. At that point, I was shocked that he had a very low regard for me. He was treating me like there was a price on my person. I could not describe my feelings. I was stunned. I cannot in conscience agree to that [offer to bribe me]. The Lopezes will do everything possible using their money and power to discredit me. This is just the beginning. I know that they will not stop at doing everything to discredit my integrity. Jurisdictional issue The internal strife and open quarrel over signature space on a judgment pushed the appellate court to the edge and is now at the center of a maelstrom.[54] The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), raised a legal point, challenging the 8th CA Division's judgment dismissing GSIS's petition filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Philippines) against Meralco. The certiorari and injunction CA lawsuit was raffled off to the CAs 9th Division chaired by Justice Bienvenido Reyes (on leave at the time). A special raffle designated Reyes replacement, Justice Jose Sabio (as chair). With Justices

Vicente Roxas and Myrna Vidal as members, the 9th Division heard the case. (The GSIS moved to inhibit Roxas on account of reports that "he met with Meralco lawyers on the day a temporary restraining order [TRO] was issued by the CA, barring the SEC from taking jurisdiction over the GSIS complaint against Meralco.") Sabios chairmanship issue with Reyes over the Special Ninth Division was overtaken by a July 4, 2008, reorganization at the Court of Appeals. Reyes and Roxas ended up in the 8th Division, which finally resolved the case in favor of the Lopez group on July 23. Sabio was reassigned as chairman of the 6th Division. Sabio later complained that Roxas penned the decision even before either side had submitted their arguments. Justice Reyes failed to assume the chairmanship of the 9th Division in place of Sabio, and the CAs 8th Division, chaired by Reyes and with ponente, Justices Roxas and Apolinario Bruselas as members, forthwith promulgated the challenged judgment in favor of Meralco. GSIS called the ruling, a patent nullity for such dismissal [of the GSIS case before the SEC] was not even prayed for by Meralco in its petition with the Court of Appeals.[56] P.J. Vasquez wrote Justices Sabio and Vidal that as members of their newly reconstituted 8th division, they are not very familiar with the case. Vasquez earlier granted Sabio a verbal go-signal to proceed in hearing the June 23 oral argument. Vasquez reiterated that "Sabios 9th division, since it issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), and its members heard and participated in the June 23 hearing, should sign and resolve the case. To allow the new division of Justice B.L. Reyes as Chairman, Justice Roxas, as ponente, and Justice Bruselas, Jr. as the third member, the resolution of the pending incidents in the case will be participated by two (2) members who were not present and did not hear the arguments during the hearing on the injunctive relief Investigation A.M. No. 08-8-11-C The Supreme Court, on August 4 created a panel composed of 3 retired Supreme Court justices, to investigate the scandal.[59][60] The High Court's resolution "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)" directed chair Associate Justice Carolina Grio-Aquino, and Members Justices Flerida Ruth Romero and Romeo Callejo Jr. to conduct daily hearings from August 7, and submit the final report before August 21.[61] In the docketed adminstrative matter, Reynato Puno, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and Antonio Carpio inhibited for legal reasons.[62] The SC PIO officer
announced that: "The hearing will be opened to the public and to the media. It's going to be a regular hearing, like the oral argument, except that there will be no cameras inside the hearing room. Joker Arroyo criticized the High Court's ruling, saying it should be, as sitting Justices investigate the case instead, since: "Delegating the investigation to a panel of retired justices who in turn will submit their findings to the high court for review and determination [is] akin to a trial by commissioners."[64]


House Resolution 705 Meanwhile, 2 pro-administration congressmen, Masbate Rep. Antonio Kho and Nueva Ecija Rep. Joseph Gilbert Violago, on August 4 called for a House of Representatives probe on the bribery case.[65] Accordingly, House Resolution 705 was filed by Manila Representative Bienvenido Abante Jr., petitioning
Congress, through the committees on energy and justice, to probe the bribery case.

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 89]; 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].[59][60] CA controversies Created on February 1, 1936, the Philippine Court of Appeals was initially composed of Justice Pedro Concepcion as the first Presiding Judge and 10 Appellate Judges appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments of the National Assembly. In March 1938, the appellate Judges were named Justices and their number increased from 11 to 15, with 3 divisions of 5 under Commonwealth Act No. 259. On December 24, 1941, there were 19 Justices under Executive Order No. 395. On February 23,
1995, R.A. No. 7902 expanding the jurisdiction of the Court effective March 18, 1995. On December 30, 1996, R.A. No. 8246 created six (6) more divisions in the Court, thereby increasing its membership from 51 to 69 Justices (additional divisions - 3 for Visayas and 3 for Mindanao, the court's regionalization).

The Supreme Court of the Philippines on March 21, 2008, upon recommendation of the investigator, Bernardo P. Pardo, dismissed Philippine Court of Appeals Justice Elvi John Asuncion for gross ignorance of the law and delaying motions of considerations.[61] He was only the 2nd Court of Appeals jurist to be dismissed, since the first firing in Philippine judicial history of CA Justice Demetrio G. Demetria, for interceding in theDOJ drug case of Yu Yuk Lai.
The CA, thereafter became the center of controversy after Chief Justice Reynato Puno ordered an investigation of the so-called "Dirty Dozen," particularly on the alleged sale of "Temporary Restraining Orders" (Injunction, Restraining order abuse).[63] On August 18, 2007, Atty. Briccio Joseph Boholst, president of IBP Cebu City


Chapter, opposed the abolition of the CA in Cebu City, for it will cause inconvenience for both litigants and lawyers. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruben Reyes was tasked to investigate and submit recommendation to the High Tribunal because of the alleged massive graft and corruption of justices, especially in the issuance of temporary restraining orders (TROs).[64] On April 03, 2007, Philippine Court of

Appeals Presiding Justice Ruben Reyes (now S.C. Justice) ordered an investigation and a regular auditing and inventory of temporary restraining orders (TROs) issued by the 69 CA Justices. Reyes stated: I will order a monthly or quarterly inventory of TROs, for transparency and to watch the movements of the so-called Dirty Dozen [the 12 most corrupt CA justices]. Reynato Puno said that Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez had not yet submitted the list and the Supreme Court was waiting for its delivery amid her formal investigation against the Dirty Dozen.[65] On February 1, 2008, the Court celebrated its 72nd Anniversary.[66] Reactions * Government Service Insurance System chief Garcia, on July 31,2008, asked Justices Vicente Roxas and Bienvenido Reyes to resign and save the CA institution amid plans to file criminal and administrative lawsuits. Garcia accused both Justices as Meralco switcheroo" in the case against GSIS: The sordid details of Meralcos behind-the-scene maneuverings as narrated by Justice Sabio merely put in public display the contempt the Lopezes have for the law. Lady Justice lies bleeding on the ground, and those who have bloods in their hands must be made to answer for this dastardly crime! I call on all Filipinos, especially my colleagues in the noble practice of law, to rise up in unison to condemn these moves by Meralco to protect its interest at the expense of what is right and just."[67] * Senator Francis Pangilinan, in a statement, asked the High Court to "act swiftly to get to the bottom of the scandal and immediately punish the guilty. The SC must show no hesitation whatsoever in pursuing this controversy. The entire judiciary's reputation is tarnished by this scandal, and the swiftness within which the SC responds will determine whether the damage is temporary and minimal or if it will be massive and irreparable. The SC must respond with clear and convincing resoluteness by dismissing from the service the CA justices involved in the irregularities, if the evidence warrants it." * Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel, Sabio's distant relative, said "whoever tried to bribe the CA should be made to account for the crime (Kung sino ang nag-offer ng bribe kay Justice Sabio, dapat ihabla kasi krimen yon e. Of course yung sinsabi ng abogado, dapat pakinggan din. Ang sama ng dating sa taongbayan because kumbaga, right at the doorstep na ng Supreme Court ito e. It's not only the national, but also the international reputation of the judiciary could be compromised). No formal investigations have been conducted regarding alleged irregularities in the judiciary, particularly in the Court of Appeals, because witnesses are afraid to testify against the so-called hoodlums in robes". * Senator Edgardo Angara said: "Of course, my God when you say that the second-highest level of the judiciary in the Philippines is corrupt and bribable, who's going to be safe investing here or even travelling here?"

* Senator Francis Escudero said: "there were enough laws to deal with the controversy. Besides, inter-branch courtesy dictates that the Senate would not meddle with the internal affairs of the judiciary. Supreme Court ang may jurisdiction to discipline erring judges and justices." * Senator Loren Legarda, a former broadcaster of Lopez-owned ABS-CBN, said: "the gravity of the accusation raised by Sabio were so damaging to the justice system and that they cannot be left unresolved. Sabio's revelation calls for everyone to have an open mind, and to come to conclusion only after a dispassionate and objective appreciation of evidencer. The appropriate criminal, civil or administrative cases must be filed against whoever will be found to have transgressed the law. The judiciary should be above suspicion if it will be effective in dispensing justice. We cannot have one branch of government being diminished by scandals like this."[68] * The Senators jointly stated that: "Regardless of the outcome of MeralcoGSIS case at the CA, the senators also said it is clear the case can no longer be heard by Sabio since his fairness has already been tarnished by the various allegations."[69] * Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, dean emeritus of the Ateneo School of Law, told the Philippine Daily Inquirer, that:The allegations will not do the judiciary any good but the investigation of the Supreme Court will. I don't know the facts. I consider (Sabio) to be an honest man. * Ateneo Law Dean Cesar L. Villanueva vouched for Sabio, saying "the CA justice is one of the well-respected faculty members of the Ateneo Law School."[70] * The Ateneo Law School student body, per by student council president Jess Lopez, stated: "We, his current students, stand as witnesses to his fairness and impartiality, which are beyond reproach, and the genuine manner in which he implores us to stand against all forms of corruption in all aspects of law and governance. The respect we have for Sabio is derived not only from his remarkable skill in teaching, but likewise from his indubitable sense of justice, moral conduct, and service to society. Sabios reputation of being a professor of utmost integrity who will not and cannot be fazed by unjust and wrongful considerations.[71] * Alberto Lim, executive director of the Makati Business Club (MBC) MBC, said: "if Sabio is telling the truth, the MBC would be dismayed at Meralco's moves to bribe a CA justice. On the other hand, if De Borja is telling the truth about Sabio's P50 million bribe demand, it would be a big setback to the judiciary." Sabio said that De Borja told him "the MBC was happy with his earlier decision to sign a temporary restraining order (TRO) favoring Meralco." Lim, however, clarified that De Borja is not its member.[72] * Jovito Salonga, 88, Bantay Katarungan or Sentinel of Justice chair, said: It is true that there is bribery in the CA. It should already be stopped. The bribery should be exposed. It should be the beginning of legal reforms in our system of justice. The lawyer-members and even the student monitors of Bantay Katarungan know who these personalities are and how the corruption works in the appellate court. They know who these people are. We, in Bantay Katarungan... have been exposing and underscoring the need for reforms in our system of justice. We have written to the Judicial and Bar Council and from


time to time the appointing power on the need for reforms in specific instances not only in the CA but in the other courts. * Rufus Rodriguez , Cagayan De Oro Opposition congressman and former law school dean, said: This may be an initial black eye for the Court of Appeals...but if (Sabio) just remained silent nothing will happen.[73] * Joker Arroyo said: This is a very good opportunity to clean the CA because like cancer, this is now a severe case that must not be allowed to worsen. The bribery issue involving CA Associate Justice Jose Sabio and the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) was a blessing in disguise because people would finally be made aware of what had been going on in the judiciary. We cannot just have remedial measures, we need to cleanse the CA because (corruption) has been vulgar. This is corruption right in their front door. Lawyers know all of these but the people dont. With this scandal, its like a case that only lawyers talked about before had been opened. But nobody wanted to come forward because they were afraid of the justices and if nothing happened to their complaint, they would only suffer along with their cases and their clients. Now that this has been opened, it is now up to the Supreme Court to decide (what to do). Why? Because it has been criticizing corruption in the executive department, it complains against delay in the decisions of lower courts, now we have an actual case, there was an (alleged) offer to a justice. Why does (De Borja) have an unusual interest in this case? There are many who are involved. What happens now is that the SC should decide on it firmly. Once it is within the judiciary, nobody can interfere except the SC, only the SC can discipline them. We (in the Senate) cannot intervene and so (they) must resolve this.
* Camilo Sabio, Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Chairman, and elder brother of Justice Jose Sabio said: "The CA justice will have a good fight. I believe hes in the right side and I have trust in him. Ive known him for a long time. Hes my brother. Hes a man of integrity. * CBCPNews, of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, said "the Ateneo de Manila Law School found the bribery allegations against Sabio as incredible. * Consumer group National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reform (Nasecore), meanwhile, said "Sabios revelations affirmed that Meralco does not play by the books on court and regulatory cases it is involved in. There were times in the past that we felt that Meralco had control of the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) because of so many ERC rules that were patently biased in favor of the power company,. So the damning recounting made by no less than a respected justice of the Court of Appeals on how the minions of Meralco operate should give the public a very clear picture of what kind of adversary Nasecore has been facing in our lonesome in the past. Nasecore won a S.C. case against Meralco for a refund of P827 million, on Aug. 16, 2006.[74]


With Legal Argument and Memorandum of Law / Authorities With due respect -

Undersigned complainant charges / accuses respondents, 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: 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 2.0, 2.04 - 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, the Canons, to wit: Respondents, 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: 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.



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 10.03 - 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. Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes. in that respondents miserably failed to be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence; (due to their ardent desire and lust for money and financial gain); they did not behave to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; they 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; c. professional indiscretion, violation of oath of office and their 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 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 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. 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.

Burning issue 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 Court of Appeals Dirty Dozen, 4 Aces, inter alia. This raging media word war of CA magistrates demonstrates the deep national and judicial wounds of rage, anger, vendetta, lust for money, wealth and sheer hypocrisy in the very corridors of power. Petitioners Fath in the Supreme Courts long history of vigilance on this matter is of paramount import. Petitioner cites authority:


Unethical conduct Sabio: Moreover, in his affidavit, Borja said that he paid Sabio P 300,000 for giving legal advice on a land deal he was brokering. At that time, Sabio was RTC judge in Cagayan de Oro. According to Sec. 11 of Canon Code of Judicial Conduct, Judges shall not practice law whilst the holder of judicial office. In addition, Section 13, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, Judges and members of their families shall neither ask for, nor accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the performance of judicial duties. Another count of ethical breach, on Sabios part, is his meeting with Borja, who was interested in a case. The New Code on Judicial Conduct is clear on safeguarding the integrity of the court: Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer. Justices on cross-hairs

2 Mystery man identified Justice Jose Sabio Jr. held an illegal and unethical press conference in his chambers when the latter was fulminating Friday on national TV against the Lopezes and Meralco broker Francis de Borja. 2 Non-Court of Appeals personnel stood by his side as seen in TV and news photos. The mystery men the balding Chinoy chap clad in short-sleeved barong, happened to be lawyer Vicente Chuidian, and, the other, mustachioed companion, Chuidian associate, Romeo Gutierrezapparently came not only to succor Sabio but also give counsel to the justice in his trying times. A corporate lawyer with a checkered and colorful past, Chuidian in his own right has joined Sabio in his crusade against Vicente Roxas, one of the Court of Appeals justices implicated by Sabio in the fishy transfer of the Meralco case. Chuidian, according to the grapevine, has a pending


administrative complaint against Roxas, who, despite his Masters of Law degree from Georgetown University, is being accused by Chuidian for gross ignorance of the law. Chuidian is steaming from the Roxas order removing the former from making any claims on the multi-billion inheritance of the late Miss Philippines and corporate lawyer Pacita de los Reyes-Phillips. Chuidian, who represents the late estranged American husband of the billionairess, was also prevented by virtue of the Roxas judgment from even making an entry of appearance into the testate intestate case now being heard by Makati Regional Trial Court Judge Ma. Cristina Cornejo. Because of the Chuidian complaint, Chief Justice Reynato Puno has decided to review the Roxas decision, assigning the Supreme Courts Second Division to the task. Meanwhile, guess who Francis de Borja was seen with after the Manolo Lopez friend and schoolmate appeared Friday at the ANC cable channel? Why, none other than De Borjas good friend, Wilfrido Villarama, the former Gloria Macapagal Arroyo aide and lightning rod who is now with El Shaddais Bro. Mike Velarde. De Borja and Villarama were seen in a huddle with a third man at the Manila Polo Club, in one of the nipa huts past by the olympic-sized pool for maximum privacy. What could the three men be discussing over sheafs of legal-looking documents?

Analysis: Appellate justices displayed undue interest in the Meralco-GSIS row By LALA RIMANDO (First of two parts) 2 major reasons caused the current brouhaha at the Court of Appeals. The first is the undue interest displayed by several magistrates during the almost two months that the appellate court was handling the corporate case
involving two warring shareholders of the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco)the Lopez family and their allies, and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). Some appellate justices displayed eagerness, and in some instance, aggressiveness, in ensuring that they are included in the team that determined the fate of the two camps.

The second is the weak leadership displayed by the court's Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez over the Meralco-related issues that were brought to his attention by the various magistrates. The referral of these issues to the court's Rules Committee and his firm support for whatever that committee decides on could have doused the brewing rift among his subordinates early on.
At the end of the day, however, the biggest loser is the integrity of the appellate court.

When elephants fight

The Meralco case, which was triggered by the contentious May 27 annual stockholders meeting is basically a jurisdictional issue: should the Securities and Exchange Commission be followed since it was out to protect the investors' interest, or should the stakeholders' dispute be heard by the regular courts, which has long been in-charge of intra-corporate cases? That question pitted two formidable players: the wealthy Lopez family and the government through Winston Garcia, GSIS's general manager. Each has about one-third stake in Meralco. What started as a boardroom row in March that evolved into a proxy fight during the annual stockholders meeting in May, has caused an almost similar, and troubling, discord among the Court of Appeals justices.

Roxas's questionable interest

Among all the 5 appellate justices who handled the casewhether they heard the oral arguments of the parties' lawyers, or read the written explanations of the contending parties, or issued either the temporary restraining order (TRO) or the decision on the casethe justice that displayed the most undue interest was Justice Vicente Roxas. Roxas, being the ponente, or the assigned writer of the case, clearly has an upper hand as far as the CA's internal rules are concerned. When the CA underwent a reorganization where justices were shuffled and assigned to other divisions because of retirement of some justices, the Meralco case was transferred to the new division where Roxas was assigned. In this case, since he came from the 9th divisionwith Justices Jose Sabio, Jr. and Myrna Vidal completing the three-person divisionand was transferred to the 8th divisionwith Justices Bienvenido Reyes and Apolinario Bruselasthe CA's internal rules say that the Meralco case should be handled by the new 8th division because the ponente, Roxas, was there. So far, the two positions that the CA has

taken, namely the 60-day TRO in May issued by the original 9th division, and the decision promulgated in July 23 issued by the new 8th division, favored the Lopezes and their allies. In both instances, which were separately handled by the two different divisions, Roxas displayed dubious behavior. Sabio, in his July 26 letter to the presiding justice, noted that when Roxas completed the draft of the TRO in May, Roxas personally delivered the document to his office. We learned that in the courts, decisions are routed to ensure that the magistrates do not display their personal interest toward any of the litigants. Sabio described Roxas's personal delivery of the draft TRO as "surprising." In July, Roxas again did this with Vidal when he personally brought the draft decision to the latter's office. Vidal, in her July 24 letter to the presiding justice, said she agreed with the decision favoring Meralco but was concerned about the "apparent and obvious irregularities in the handling of CA GR SP No. 103692 (Meralco case)." Vidal, who was with Sabio and Roxas in the old 9th division, would later express her disappointment that "judicial courtesy was not observed." She noted how she was "hurried[ly] eased out of the case," thus the time she spent time studying the case went to waste since it was eventually the new 8th division that promulgated it.

One-day 50-page decision

Roxas seemed to have also hurried in another task related to the Meralco case: the time it took him to write the decision that favored Meralco. The partiesMeralco and GSISsubmitted their memoranda, or the summary of all their arguments, including those not included during the oral argument, on July 11, a Friday. The next working day, July 14, Monday, the new 8th division conducted its final deliberation and on that same day, Roxas already finished writing the decisiona whole set that added up to more than 50 pages. Sabio, in one of his media interviews, showed that the memoranda from the two parties piled up to almost a foot high and that it took him a good number of days to go through all of them. Roxas then forwarded the document to Bruselas, who in turn also affixed his signature that same day. With one more signature to goReyes'sRoxas relentlessly urged the new 8th division chairman through various memoranda between July 14 and 22 to make up his mind. In Reyes's letter to the presiding justice, he recalled that Roxas was urging him to dissent so that a division of five could be convened in time to decide before the 60day TRO expired on July 30. It was around that time that Roxas personally delivered the draft decision to Vidal for her signature. Reyes finally signed the decision on July

23. In the end, it was still the three members of the new 8th division that signed the decision that supports the Lopez family's continuing control of the utility firm.

Sabio, too
Justice Jose Sabio, Jr., who first questioned the procedure surrounding the decision favoring Meralco, himself demonstrated his own undue interest toward the case. During the June 23 oral argument, Sabio was just a substitute to Reyes at the 9th division. Reyes was on leave when the case was raffled to the 9th division, which Reyes chaired. When Reyes reported back to work in June 16, he wanted to assume the Meralco case already, but Sabio appeared to want to keep the post as chairman of the 9th division. In a statement submitted to the CA en banc meeting called by Vasquez, Roxas relates that Sabio refused to relinquish the acting chairmanship of the 9th division and he left the regular 9th division chairman justice Reyes out in the cold when Justice Sabio presided over the June 23 hearing.Justice Reyes did not want to make a scene at the hearing. Justice Sabio embarrassed Justice Reyes by simply showing up, forcing Justice Reyes to retreat. Sabio, we learned, did not disclose to the parties to the case that Reyes had already returned to work.

Rules committee chair snubbed Reyes then went to the rules committee chaired by Justice Edgardo Cruz, who then issued a written reply that based on the rules, Reyes should already assume the case since he's the designated chair of the 9th division. Sabio, however, was slighted that Reyes, who is "junior to him in the court," was telling him to disengage. Sabio even said Cruz was just issuing a personal opinion. Instead, Sabio consulted Justice Martin Villarama, whom he described in his letter as "more senior, experienced, and respected member of this court for consultation and guidance." Villarama, according to Sabio, advised him to chair the 9th division during the oral argument. In July, as the rift among the justices grew, Sabio would tell his colleagues, Bruselas and Vidal to also seek the opinion of Villarama. Villarama, however, is not with the rules committee. GSIS, defending Sabio, said in a press release that Sabio was "unceremoniously excluded" from the case. A week after the oral argument, the alleged bribe offer took place. It is surprising, though,

that Sabio did not immediately report the attempted bribery, which happened on July 1. It was only on July 26, or weeks later, when he wrote Vasquez and narrated the incident. The behavior of the appellate justices, particularly that of Roxas's and Sabio's, casts doubt on the integrity of the court. The CA presiding justice, however, was slow to act on the all this. Why not our court? Let everything be done by the rule book. But let it all be done in the open.
For a day last week, the Manila offices of the Court of Appealsnever a tightly guarded buldingwere shut down like those in a high-security facility. During the four-hour en banc session of the entire court last Thursday, uppity security guards screened everyone who attempted to enter, taking special care not to let in anyone who even resembled a journalist. When the court spokesman finally called a press conference after the marathon session, the assembled reporters learned that the justices of the countrys second-highest court had tossed the matter of the recent allegations of bribery to the Supreme Court. In a none-too-subtle attempt at stonewalling, the spokesman could not answer any questionsnot being a justice, the courts mouthpiece was not present at the session and thus could not deviate from a prepared statement. Not one of the usually gregarious justices could be gotten to go on
record about probably the biggest controversy to grip the appellate court in a long time.

The lockdown and gagging of the Court of Appeals betrays a distrust of what the members of the judiciary often derisively call the court of public opinion, represented by the media, whose members the judges and justices often accuse of playing fast and loose with the laws, rules, procedures and protocols that they are the sole sworn guardians of. This alternate court is now also on an extended session, feasting on report after lurid report that one justice is either accusing his own colleagues or is himself being accused of impropriety. But why not try this case in front of everyone, using the free-wheeling rules of media and public opinion, instead of the usual legal and administrative methods, we want to know? Why shouldnt the Court of Appeals be subjected to the intense (if often attention-challenged)
investigation by the public and the media, just like any office of the executive or Congress?


Make no mistake: Regardless of the outcome of the official investigation that the Supreme Court will conduct on the charges leveled by Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr., the verdict is already being decided right now in the hearts and minds of the public, through their often ill-informed, deadline-plagued, self-appointed advocates in media. And the final decision in that case could spell the difference between the redemption of the Court of Appeals as an institution or irreparable damage to it in the
eyes of all Filipinosin whose name and by whose sufferance, after all, the courts exist. In

handling the controversy, the last thing the court needs to do is to start lockdown procedures. The court (or at least some of its members, anyway), is being inundated with accusations and counter-accusations of large-scale bribery, selling its decisions and dealing with characters with no visible connection to it except for knowing the right people and having a knack for packaging multi-million deals. These are not charges that can be dismissed peremptorily like a nuisance suit filed by a litigious ambulance-chaser. They deserve to be aired, just like similar charges regularly hurledand ventilated openlyagainst any other government office. And if our fragile, much-criticized legal system depends on a social contract that cedes rulings in legal matters to an elite corps of jurists, the people who agreed to this bargain have a right to know what is really going on behind the courts musty and recently shutdoors. No less than a public hearing by the Supreme Court will blow away the nascent impression of the appeals court as an unaccountable and corrupt organization where money is the sole currency of justice. To a man, the members of the judiciary find fault in Justice Sabios accusations against some of his own colleagues on the bench. But they will always qualify that their problem is not in his charges themselves, but in the manner by which he ventilated themto the media, no less! But Sabio is a long-standing member of the judiciary, first as a provincial trial court judge and for the last decade as an associate justice of the Court of Appeals. He must have known that by going public with his charges, he was putting his entire career on the lineif he was indeed angling to become a member of the Supreme Court, he must also have decided that his outing in the press, so to speak, could put that ambition forever out of his reach. Already, the reputation of Sabio is being undermined. This is the same person, said businessman and deal-maker Francis de Borja (whom the justice accused of offering him a P10 million bribe) who as a trial court judge readily accepted P300,000 from him for his help in advising in a real estate development scheme in Cagayan de Oro City.


Still, while De Borja seems intent on discrediting Sabio, a careful reading of his affidavit will show that he stops short of accusing the justice of actually demanding the P50 million bribe that he says Sabio wanted to let go of the Meralco case. According to De Borja, he was shocked by Sabios reply that it would take that much for him to sway himwithout saying that the amount was what Sabio actually wanted from the businessman and the people who allegedly sent him. Given Sabios current all-or-nothing frame of mind, it is doubtful if he can still be convinced to play along with his colleagues and keep his mouth shut. And now that the man he accused of offering him a bribe has also come out swinging, as well, it is likely that Sabio will react by further escalating his attacks, instead of backing down. De Borjas insinuation of long-time official impropriety by the man he calls his friend, more than being just the proverbial shot across the bow, seems to have sealed the deal for Sabiowho cannot be expected to back away without giving credence to all of the
businessmans charges. As for his career in the judiciary, Sabio seems to have sealed his fate there, as well, making him the sort of dangerous man without fear of anything further to lose.

As for the judiciary itself, it should undergo a cleansing process at the very least as a result of the Sabio incident which makes it all the more imperative for the Supreme Court to be absolutely transparent about its entire investigation of the matter. Stonewalling now will only reinforce the belief held by many that the Court of Appeals (or any other part of the judiciary) is as graft-prone as any other branch of government. As for Sabio himself, is he the savior of the judiciary or its destroyer? Only time will tell. As the saying goes, heroes have very short livesespecially in our amnesiac society. Or, as the current Batman movie paraphrases it, you either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

Perception of character
One night last week, my husband and I were watching the evening news over GMA-7 (because we are able to tolerate Saksi by a hairs breadth better than ABSCBNs TV Patrol). There was a long segment on Sabio. His students, former students and fellow faculty members at the Ateneo Law School were interviewed and everyone was saying the same thing that Sabios character was unsullied, he was incorruptible and he would never accept bribes. I paused, not quite believing what I was hearing. When was Sabios character ever the issue? Were the perceptions of

people who know him determinative of whether or not he did intimate to De Borja that he was willing to sell his integrity for P50 million? As if the lack of objectivity in news reporting wasnt enough, the segment went on to air interviews with people from De Borjas neighborhoodpeople who hardly knew him. People who only knew that De Borja owned property in the neighborhood and that De Borja spent time in the cockpit. Beyond that, those people knew nothing of him. Taken all together, the entire segment built up Sabio as a man of good character and De Borja as a shady character. What was GMA-7 trying to achieve? Strike a blow indirectly at its competitor, ABS-CBN, by painting De Borja as an unsavory character and all but deciding that, between Sabio and De Borja, it is Sabio who is telling the truth? Is that fair news reporting? Is it part of the role of media to play judge and jury, and to decide for the public what it ought to believe? Is it responsible reporting considering the implications and the bias it builds on the minds of the people? Everything about the SEC-GSIS-Meralco case, including the allegations and counter-allegations of Sabio and De Borja, is about whether certain events did or did not happen, and whether certain people did or did not commit particular acts. Everything else is irrelevant. Character is irrelevant; perception of character is a thousand times more irrelevant. No one knows another entirely. No one knows if the person he sees is an image intentionally projected to hide an ugly truth. No one can judge the truth about anothers character based on a few hours of interaction every day. Gee, his neighbors considered Josef Fritzl to be an intelligent and respectable citizen until his secret basement was uncovered and, with it, the story of how he kept his own daughter a prisoner for 24 years, raping her repeatedly and fathering her seven children. Even husbands and wives who have lived together for half a century still manage to spring surprises on one another every now and then. While opinions are welcome, there is a line between an opinion and a straight news report. The problem with most TV news programs is that producers, writers, directors and news readers do not seem to know where the news reports end and the opinion begins. And Im not just talking about GMA-7. ABS-CBN news programs resort to the same pretend-profiling gimmick just as often. Truth be told, they dont seem to know where news reports end and entertainment begins.


Frat, family ties in Meralco case under scrutiny

Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. was very clearly favoring the GSIS because he had close relatives working for it. Instead of calming down the situation and protecting the image of the court by dealing with the affair as an internal matter to be resolved in accordance with the rules, CA Presiding Justice Vasquez adds fuel to the fire. He creates a media spectacle by calling a rare en banc meeting of the CA when all that the [rules of the court] provides is for him to report his actions to the CA en banc. Something that he could have easily done in writing. Vasquez bad faith consists in not disclosing that his daughter, Ma. Ruth Almira Vasquez, was connected with the GSIS corporate secretary, another daughter, Ma. Agnes Tosario Vasquez, was a dentist at the medical department, that his sister, Leonora de Jesus, was a former GSIS trustee, and that De Jesus daughter, Luisa Hernandez, was connected with the vice president for treasury. She is also the ''ninang'' (godmother) of the youngest son of GSIS president Winston Garcia. He was presiding Judge of Branch 118, Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. In 2003, an administrative complaint was filed against Sabio for ignorance of the law and inexcusable negligence, and charging him with deliberately causing the delay of the prosecution in Estafa entitled, People of the Philippines, Plaintiff versus Ferdinand Santos, Robert John Sobrepea, Federico Campos, Polo Pantaleon, and Rafael Perez De Tagle, Jr. The SC dismissed the case with 12 votes.

CA Profile of J. Sabio

Inconsistencies - BIG DEAL By Dan Mariano CA justices woes

For one thing, even the casual observer should be able to detect some inconsistencies in Justice Sabios version of events. The first inconsistency concerns dates. Sabio said the alleged bribery try took place on July 1. The CA Eighth Divisions decision favoring Meralco over the SEC and GSIS, which Sabio is contesting, was released July 23. He disclosed the alleged bribery attempt on July 26. Observers ask: Why did it take Sabio so long to publicly reveal such a blatant offense?


Would it not have been better if Sabio had reported the purported bribery attempt to his CA colleagues and the public soon after it was made, say, July 2and not July 26?

If Sabio had exposed the alleged bribery attempt soon after it was made, the current scandal would not have erupted. Moreover, the court would have probably issued a ruling radically different from the one favoring Meralco. That Sabio withheld information on the alleged bribery try from his CA colleagues for three weeks or so significantly diminished the believability of his story. Had he been shocked and angered by the alleged bribery attempt, shouldnt he have immediately taken certain legal stepssuch as ordering the arrest of the alleged bribe-givers and working toward to their speedy prosecution, trial and imprisonment? Moreover, why did he allow the Eighth Division to continue deliberating on the motion Meralco filed against the SEC and GSIS even after he was offered P10 million? Had Sabio told his colleagues that the bribe offer was made right after his purported meeting with de Borja, wouldnt that have given the CA a chance to avoid the mess it now finds itself in? Wouldnt that have given the presiding justice time to make his move without exposing the entire court to public embarrassment?

Another hole
Here is another hole in the magistrates story. Where he and de Borja were talking, Sabio said, the Meralco chairman was close by inside a car. However, on the date of the supposed bribe offer, it turns out that Lopez was out of the country. If true, the bribery attempt should be countenanced by no one. The problem is that in the heated exchange of accusations and counter-accusations, little convincing proof has been presented. During a rare en banc session last week, the CA justices decided to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court, where hopefully the facts can be sorted out and where all those involved would have their day. Despite the seeming inconsistencies in his narration, Sabio should be given the benefit of the doubt. He is certainly entitled to a chance to explain the questionable timing of his revelation and to demolish the accusation that he tried to extort P50 million from the Lopezes. A Supreme Court inquiry should help Sabio do that although his son, who reportedly works for Chief Justice Reynato Puno, needs to keep a respectable distance from the case. This controversy should be resolved and put to rest soonbefore more reputations are damaged.


Against Justice Sabio are the troubling questions of his casual friendship with De Borja -- a friendship that seems to have been based on a prior business relationship dating back to the days when Sabio was a Regional Trial Court judge in Cagayan de Oro City. This was a lucrative friendship, according to De Borja. It was certainly a friendship that enabled De Borja to meet with Sabio last July 1a meeting that ought never to have taken place at all. The Judicial Code of Ethics is quite clear: Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer. There was no reason for Sabio to be entertaining people in the lobby of the Ateneo de Manilas college of law; no justification for him to even entertain questions on cases, past, pending, or future; and no way he could have been viewed to have been acting in any manner except with imprudence, and to the prejudice not only of his reputation but also of the Court of Appeals. The legal profession is rife with stories of cases up for sale to the highest bidder; and of decisions being determined less by the law and more by interventions made by powerful parties on susceptible judges. Both the private and public sectors are widely perceived to be engaged in influence-peddling on a particularly lucrative scale when it comes to the higher courts.
The only thing unusual about the allegations being made now is that they are being made in public, by means of affidavits, and not merely being whispered about in legal circles.

And yet it is Sabios decision to go public with the bribe allegedly offered to him by De Borja that, for now, gives weight to the justices claim. His having gone
public, while embarrassing to the Court of Appeals, is the proper action of a man who has nothing to hide, and who fulfilled his duty by informing his superior of an attempt at bribery, and of the possibility that his colleagues may have succumbed to similar blandishments.

For its part, Meralco, if shown to be indeed behind De Borja, cannot justify the alleged bribe offer in the context of self-preservation and self-defense, just because the GSIS, its current institutional nemesis, has proven adept at using institutions like the SEC to further its own ends. The only thing going for Meralco is that the link between De Borja and his alleged client (Meralco) is slightly more tenuous than the damaging link between De Borja and Sabio himself.


CA weak leadership allowed justices' rift to prosper.

The alleged bribe offer to an appellate justice handling a high-profile corporate case, which has triggered an investigation by the Supreme Court, has brought to the public consciousness a more important issuethe deepening rift among the magistrates at the Court of Appeals (CA). Based on a review of the circumstances and events, including the alleged bribery, which led to a rare en banc meeting of the majority of the 65 CA justices all over the country, found that weak leadership allowed the rift to prosper. CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. was aware of the issues related to the Meralco case from the start. Two justicesJose Sabio Jr. and Vicente Roxaswere squabbling over who would handle the case in the light of a reorganization that transferred the ponente, Roxas, to another division. CA internal rules say that a ponente, the justice to whom the case is raffled off, should study and decide on the case. Yet Vasquez allowed these issues to drag
because he apparently could not enforce his own opinionwhich favored Sabio. Sabio was one of the three justices of the CA 9th Division who signed the TRO in favor of Meralco.

Later, on June 23, Sabio presided over the oral argument although he was not the chairman of the 9th Division. He was just a substitute of Justice Bienvenido Reyes, the chairman of the 9th Division, who took a leavebut returned before the oral argument. Accounts show that Sabio did not inform the parties of the return of Reyes. When the issues became too hot to handle and the bribery attempt on Sabio
was reported in the media, Vasquez then called for an en banc meeting last July 31 to settle the discord. n the end, the appellate justices decided to toss these issues to the High Court.

Rules committee chair disregarded

Sabio, the substitute chairman of the 9th division, which was then handling the case, called on Vasquez three days before the oral argument because Reyes, the resident 9th division chairman, was back from his leave and was claiming back his post. How Sabio, Reyes, and the case's ponente, Roxas, behaved thereafter, fueled what was already a constant topic in the justices' rift among those in the CA. Vasquez sided with Sabio, while Reyes was banking on the opinion of the CA Rules Committee chairman, Justice Edgardo Cruz. To Vasquez, the issue revolved around the fact that the 9th division then chaired by Sabio issued the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in May favoring the Lopezes and their allies. GSIS had a standing motion to reconsider the TRO, so Vasquez said the 9th division should continue

handling it, even when Reyes was already back. The issue should have been moot when Vasquez himself enforced reorganization effective July 4 when all the justices had to be shuffled and assigned to different divisions. According to the CA's internal rules, the Meralco case should follow whichever division Roxas would be assigned because Roxas is the case's ponente. With the reorganization, Roxas was transferred to the new 8th division, which also had Reyes as the chairman. Then in July 1, the alleged P10 million bribery offer to Sabio happened. Sabio made this known verbally to Vasquez the day after, on July 2, but Sabio interpreted the bribe offer as a way to "take him out of the case." (Sabio formalized the bribery attempt in his July 26 letter to Vasquez) Vasquez then stuck to his original position, even when Reyes and Roxas kept on hammering the fact that based on the CA's internal rules, the TRO is not one of the allowed reasons for the Meralco case to stay with the old 9th division. Meralco's lawyers even filed an urgent motion in July 10 pushing for Reyes to assume the chairmanship of the division handling the case.

The TRO, which was issued in May 30, was only good for 60 days, or up to July 30. The Lopezes and their allies, who were favored by the TRO, has a pending request to replace the TRO with a preliminary injunction since the latter has a longer life span. The preliminary injunction would have assured the Lopezes that they would continue their current control of the Meralco board. If the TRO was allowed to expire in July 30, GSIS would have the chance to contest the Lopezes' grip of the board. The CA rules only allowed the preliminary injunction, not the TRO, as one of the reasons for the Meralco case to stay with the old 9th division. The new 8th division, however, issued a decision on the case, not a preliminary injunction, last July 23. The new 8th division's decision, facilitated by Roxas and had the blessings of Reyes, held their final deliberation last July 14after Vasquez learned of the bribery attempt on Sabio because Vasquez did not make a firm move on whether it should be the new 8th or old 9th division which should continue handling the Meralco case.

Was Vasquez torn?

During that time, Vasquez was torn whether the Meralco-related issues at the CA was under his purview. In his two July lettersone addressed to Reyes and Roxas and the other addressed to all the justiceshe acknowledged that "the presiding justice is simply given control and supervision over administrative affairs of the

Court." In separate occasions, Justice Bruselas of the new 8th division and Justice Myrna Vidal of the old 9th division even approached Vasquez to express that they were disturbed by the bribery attempt after Sabio told them about it. Bruselas even said he has already signed the decision on the case and did not know about this disturbing "background", referring to the alleged bribery attempt. As the bribery allegations made their way to various media organizations, only then did Vasquez call for the en banc meeting. Vasquez could have spared the Court this trouble and the on the court's integrity had he tapped on the rules committee early on. But the rules committee chair Justice Cruz was downplayed by Sabio way back in June because Cruz was only a "junior justice." Cruz's opinion then was that Reyes should take over Sabio as the chairman when the old 9th division was still handling it. Had the rules been followed after the reorganization, Reyes would still have handled it since he chaired the new 8th division that was supposed to take over the Meralco case.

Daughters with GSIS

With Vasquez's opinion favoring Sabio even after the reorganization, and the lack of a preliminary injunction that would exempt Meralco from being transferred to Reyess and Roxas's division, inevitably casts doubt on Vasquez's motivations. Vasquez could have doused cold water over these doubts if he inhibited himself from any issues related to the Meralco-GSIS row. Based on's research, his two daughters, Maria Ruth Almira and Ma. Agnes Rosario, are currently employed by GSIS. called the GSIS office and confirmed that Almira currently works at the GSIS corporate secretary's office but is
on leave. Agnes, on the other hand, is with the dental office of the medical department.

CA violated own rules in Meralco case

THE Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals were violated when appellate court Justices Jose Sabio Jr. and Myrna Vidal were excluded from the Courts Eight Division when it promulgated the decision that dismissed the complaint filed by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco), Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez said Tuesday. He explained that while the case should remain with Justice Vicente Roxas being the ponente of the case, Sabio and Vidal should have

been part of the July 24 decision handed out by the Eight Division, thus making the body a special division. Stressing that there is a part of the rule that was violated, the Justice chief cited Rule VI, Section 2, Paragraph D of appellate court internal rules, which states, among others, that the case shall remain with the justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report, and the justices who participated therein, regardless of their transfer to other divisions in the same station. Asked if there is a sanction against erring appellate court justices, Gonzalez said: I supposed there is a sanction when you violated your own rules. He also stressed that the controversy between the Courtss Eight and Ninth Division has given the judiciary a stigma, which
if not handled well could bring to naught the reforms initiated by the Supreme Court.

RULE I - THE COURT, ITS ORGANIZATION AND OFFICIALS - SEC. 9. Reorganization of Divisions. (a) Reorganization of Divisions shall be effected whenever a permanent vacancy occurs in the chairmanship of a Division, in which case assignment of Justices to the Divisions shall be in
accordance with the order of seniority unless a waiver is executed by the Justice concerned which waiver shall be effective until revoked by him in writing.(n)

RULE VI - PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION - SEC. 1. Justice Assigned For Study and Report. Every case, whether appealed or original, assigned to a Justice for study and report shall be retained by him even if he is transferred to another Division in the same station. ( Sec. 2, Rule 8, RIRCA [a]) SEC. 2. Justices Who May Participate in the Adjudication of Cases. x x x (d) When, in an original action or petition for review, any of these actions or proceedings, namely: (1) giving due course; (2) granting writ of preliminary injunction; (3) granting new trial; and (4) granting execution pending appeal have been taken, the case shall remain with the Justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report and the Justices
who participated therein, regardless of their transfer to other Divisions in the same station. (A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA - 2005 RIRCA: SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THE 2002 INTERNAL RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS)

GSIS should shut up on appeals court row

Controversial lawyer-businessman Vicente Chuidian is one of the more avid supporters of Court of Appeals Justice Jose Sabio Jr., embroiled in the raging controversy at the appellate court over an alleged bribery/extortion try in connection with the Meralco-GSIS legal tussle. This is according to our friend Jonathan de la Cruz, one of our co-hosts in our Monday-to-Friday radio political commentary show, Karambola.


The reason becomes clear if you look at the Ateneo alumni directory, which shows that Sabio and Chuidian were batchmates in the Ateneo Law School Class of 1968. Aside from Chuidian some of the members of the class whose names ring a bell are Franklin Ebadlin, Luis Sison and the late Eugene Tan. Many of the members of the Ateneo Law Class of 68, including Chuidian, Sison and Tan, are among the founding fathers of the Ateneo Law School-based Fraternal Order of Utopia. It is natural that Sabio would have widespread support from the members of this fraternity. For sure, one of Sabios antagonists in the controversy, businessman Francis Roa de Borja, who has a different version of the alleged bribery, has his own supporters in the Ateneo alumni community. Not only is the businessman a member of Grade School Class of 1953 but there is a long list of De Borjas in the directory including at least two well-known lawyers. With both protagonists having Ateneo roots it is easy to see why the blue and white community is divided on the issue. At this point, however, nobody should question the personal integrity of either Sabio or De Borja. What should prevail must be due process and this would be achieved through the probe to be conducted by the Supreme Court.People should hold their judgment on the two personalities involved in this row until the Supreme Court rules with finality on the issues regarding the ethics and essence of the controversy. In line with this, those sympathetic to Sabio should realize that if they want to help him, the best way is for them to shut up at this point. Sabios supporters should realize that in their desire to defend and help Sabio through their media salvoes, they are hurting, rather than helping his cause. The goal now must be to clarify the holes in the story of the alleged bribery/extortion as told from the Sabio perspective. It appears some of Sabios allies are not of much help on this score. Justice Sabios recent outburst that he is up against the billions of the Lopezes is also not helping his cause any. This anti-Lopez tirade has led many to wonder if he had been against Meralco in this particular case right at the start. He should be careful here because a perception of a major bias against one party in the case could only beef up suspicions that as far as he is concerned, there has been no fair hearing in this row. Sabio must be seen as impartial in the GSIS-Meralco tiff. He must be seen as fair and balanced. Otherwise, his words and actuations would only be perceived as part of the GSIS script against its nemesis, and that he might have allowed himself to


be part of the whole scenario. Whoever advised Sabio to directly link Meralco chair Manolo Lopez to the bribery story by saying that alleged emissary Francis de Borja told him that Lopez is waiting in the car did him disservice. That story has definitely fallen flat on its face and has embarrassed him. Not only were facts unchecked, but the yarn was obviously a cheap shot that some wise guy fed Sabio. Sabio sympathizers could only wring their hands in disgust following disclosures that Lopez was not in the country at the time of Sabios meeting with De Borja and that Meralcos Elpi Cuna has made public documents to back up that fact. The legal dictum that you lie in one, you lie in all might be perceived by the public as applying in this particular case. The better advice his friends could give Sabio is to tell him to be more prudent in his public statements. His advisers would also be helping a lot if they can help the embattled justice explain why he took too long before he officially squealed on the alleged bribery try. The controversial meeting with De Borja took place in July 1. The controversial decision was released in July 23, and he reported the alleged offer only in July 26. A recent disclosure by another justice has aggravated this issue. University of the Philippines alumnus Associate Justice Apolinario Bruselas reported in a leaked memorandum that Sabio told him about the offer as early as June 23. Two important questions here. Why was Sabio telling about the offer to everyone else except to the presiding justice? Second, if Sabio had been offered the alleged bribe since June, why did he meet up with the alleged emissary on July 1? Shouldnt he have avoided De Borja like the latter was a bearer of a deadly plague? Those advising him should put their heads together to help Sabio in this predicament. A good explanation is badly needed. We have to accept the fact that it is very difficult when the accuser becomes an accused, especially in our country. This is the unfortunate situation of Sabio.

Timeline: The Meralco-GSIS clash - Tug of war


May 29, 2008 Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) files a petition with the Court of
Appeals which questions the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to intervene in the power utilitys contentious proxy validation held on May 27, 2008. Meralo argues that it is the regional trial court which has jurisdiction over the


dispute. The Lopez-owned power distributor also seeks for the nullification of an SEC cease-and-desist order and the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining SEC to implement a show cause order against Anthony Rosete, corporate secretary of Meralco. Following the temporary leave of Justice Bienvenido Reyes, chair of the 9th Division where Meralcos petition is initially raffled off, Meralco files an urgent motion for a re-raffle. Aside from Reyes, other members of the 9th Division include Justice Vicente Roxas, the ponente, and Justice Myrna Vidal. A raffle is conducted for the divisions acting third member, who eventually became Justice Jose Mendoza. However, Mendoza inhibits himself from the case because he is a former legal counsel of the power utility. Another raffle is held and Justice Jose Sabio is designated acting chairman of the Ninth Division. The Government Insurance Service System (GSIS) files an urgent ex parte motion which asks for a re-raffle of the case on the ground that the petition was raffled in the absence of a legal representative from the state pension fund.

May 30, 2008 - The 9th Division rules in favor of Meralco and issues the TRO,
which would lapse in 60 days, against SEC. Hearings on oral arguments are scheduled on July 23 and 24. GSIS files an urgent motion to lift the TRO. Sabio says Roxas, the ponente, personally brought the TRO he prepared to Sabios office.

June 16 Reyes returns from leave. June 19 Reyes consults CA Rules

Committee chairman Justice Edgardo Cruz on who should hear the oral argument scheduled for June 23. June 20 In a letter to Reyes, which Sabio got a copy of, Cruz says Reyes should decide the Meralco case as the designated chair of the 9th Division. Sabio calls PJ Vasquez, saying Cruz was acting in his personal capacity,
and says the letter offends him since Cruz is junior to him in the court. Sabio also wonders why Reyes bypassed and did not openly deliberate and discuss the issue with PJ Vasquez.

June 23 Oral argument. Sabio, in his letter to CA Presiding Justice Conrado

Vasquez, says he consulted a more senior colleague, Justice Martin Villarama Jr. before the hearing and asked him if he (Sabio) should stay on the case. Villarama advised him to remain with the case. Sabio described Villarama as a more senior, experienced, and respected member of this court for consultation and guidance. The oral argument is held by the 9th Divison, with Sabio still at the helm. The parties are ordered to submit their respective memoranda 15 days after. According to a motion filed by Meralco, however, they got the impression that Reyes would preside over the


hearing after they were initially led to a room where a name plate of Reyes was placed at the table. But they were eventually re-directed to another room where the name
plates contained Sabio, Roxas and Vidal. Roxas, in his statement to the CA en banc, said that such incident caused by Sabio was the talk of the Court of Appeals for weeks.

June 25 PJ Vasquez issues an order, previously approved by SC, to reorganize the

court effective July 4 since three justices retired/were about to retire, while two new justices are about to be appointed. July 1 Sabio meets with a businessman allegedly brokering for Meralco and wangles a P10 million-bribe for him to hand over the case to Reyes. In the account of Sabio, he says the emissary mentioned that other means will be resorted to have Justice Reyes assume the chairmanship.

July 4 The CA Division is reorganized following the retirement of Associate

Justices Lucenito Tagle, Agustin Dizon and Rodrigo Cosico last June. Reyes and Roxas are transferred to the 8th Division, with Justice Apolinario Bruselas as the third member. Sabio and Vidal move to the 6th Division.

July 8 Reyes goes to Sabios office to discusss, among others, the chairmanship of the 9th
division handling the Meralco case. Sabio informs Reyes of the P10 million-bribe.

July 10 Meralco files an urgent motion for Reyes to assume the chairmanship of the
hearing division. The company argues that according to the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA), a case can remain with the justices only when giving due course, granting a writ of preliminary injunction, a new trial, or of execution pending appeal.

July 11 Meralco and GSIS file their respective memoranda. Meralco assails the
government for its purported moves to seize the power utility, while GSIS insists Meralco should have taken heed of the SEC order. Sabio makes a resolution referring the Urgent Motion for Justice B. Reyes to Assume the Chairmanship to the respondents for comment and forwards it to the office of Roxas, but is allegedly not released. Vidal says she signed the ponencia of Roxas (50 pages) on the same day, but Roxas took the decision from her because he reportedly has to incorporate 10 additional pages.

July 14 The 8th Division holds final deliberations. In the transcript of the deliberations,
Roxas says that he deliberately chooses not to inform Justices Sabio and Vidal that the 8th division would take over the case because he wants to look for other opportunities to explain the situation so as not to hurt his colleagues feelings. Sabio and Roxas are in a flag raising ceremony together. Sabio tells Roxas he and Vidal want to discuss the memoranda


since Sabio already read them. The rollo of the case and finalized decision are officially transmitted by Roxas to Bruselas, then by Bruselas to Reyes.

July 17 Bruselas reportedly signs corrected decision. July 21 Roxas files an

interpleader petition where he asks Vasquez to stop Sabio and Vidal from clinging to the case, adding that the two could not argue that they were exempted from the case following the reorganization of the division.

July 22 Reyes writes PJ Vasquez, referring to conversations during July 17 meeting, and
asks the latter to rule on the impasse. Between July 14 and 22, Roxas, through various memoranda, urges Reyes to just dissent so that a division of five could be convened in time to decide before the TRO expires on July 30. Reyes tells Vasquez that Meralcos motion for his assumption of the hearing division should be internally resolved (based on the IRCA), and not by private litigants. Reyes also states that the issuance of a TRO is not among one of the instances where the case should stay with the justices in the face of division movements. Reyes stresses that the chairman of the committee on rules and ponente (Roxas) echo his position. Again, the PJ has to urgently decide on the matter Otherwise, deadlock of opinions

July 24 Reyes transmits the rollo of the case and the finalized decision to Roxas. The 8th
Division promulgates its decision, which junks the SEC cease-and-desist order. They also rule that the SEC has no jurisdiction over the questioned proxy validation.

July 25 Vasquez issues his reply to the Interpleader-Petition filed by Roxas and the letter
sent by Reyes, where he says that the division that issued the TRO should continue hearing the case because of their familiarity with the petition they were present and participated in the hearing on oral arguments. Vidal writes Vasquez on the apparent and obvious irregularities in the handling of CA GR SP No. 103692, adding that she agrees with the decision favoring Meralco and that she already signed a draft decision signed by Roxas (Note: Vidal says Roxas personally presented to her the final decision, which she studied, then signed. But Roxas did not forward to Sabio because he will still add 10 pages). Vidal questions why she is not informed that it was the 8th division that will decide on it, is disappointed that judicial courtesy is not observedshe is taken out of the case after she spent time studying it and signed the draft decision. GSIS, in a press release, says that Sabio was unceremoniously excluded from the case. Sabio calls Bruselas and Vidal and relays to them the alleged bribery attempt of a Meralco emissary. Bruselas personally meets with Vasquez to discuss phone call of Sabio. He says this is the first time to hear that background. Troubled, Bruselas says he called Reyes that day and


asked if he knows of this background. Reyes says yes, and when Bruselas asked why missed telling him, Reyes leaned back and said that he thought he mentioned it to me; that it may have escaped his mind, and that nevertheless, it had no place in the deliberation on the case. July 25 Bruselas files a memorandum for Vasquez where he relays Sabios call. He earlier relays this personally to Vasquez July 24. Bruselas mentions the P10 million bribe to Sabio. Bruselas wonders why the information came very late, though joins Sabio in calling for a probe into the matter. Bruselas also recounts that during meeting with PJ Vasquez, Vidal walked in and said she received same phone call from Sabio. Media starts reports on rift among the justices handling the case.

July 26 Sabio writes Vasquez and informs him about the bribery attempt. He also pushes
for an investigation following the hasty promulgation of the decision and his and Vidals unceremonial ouster from the case. He questions the timing of the decision, which was handed down days before the TRO lapsed.

July 28 Bruselas delivers his July 25 letter to Vasquez. He says he just got a copy of
Sabios letter that day, so he called Sabio and supported him in the call to investigate the bribery. Vasquez gives all of the CA justices copies of the correspondences he received from the justices, and calls for an en banc session. July 30 The 60-day TRO ends.

July 31 CA en banc meeting. The 65-member en banc tosses the investigation on the
alleged bribery to the Supreme Court through the Office of the Court Administrator. They also ask the CA rules committee to settle the different interpretations of the IRCA. Meanwhile, a businessman named Francis Roa de Borja alleges in his affidavit that Sabio informed him that the government offered the CA justice a Supreme Court seat in return for a pro-GSIS decision. When asked however what would take him to decline such offer, Sabio reportedly answered P50 million. Sabio denies Borjas allegations.

August 1 Sabio says he will file bribery, perjury and libel charges against de Borja. He
also says that Meralco chairman Manuel Manolo Lopez was with de Borja, waiting at the car, when the businessman offered him the P10 million bribe. Lopez, in a press conference,
denies Sabios claim and shows his boarding pass to the media to prove that he was abroad when the alleged bribe attempt was made. Several senators urge for a swift investigation into the matter.

CA chief sidelines opinion of Rules Committee on justices' row By LALA RIMANDO


The Court of Appeals' chief Vasquez, Jr. undermined the court's Rules Committee, which issued an opinion that did not confirm to his, in the ongoing controversy over the Meralco case. These letters are from the chairman of the CA's Rules Committee, Justice Edgardo Cruz, who noted that his June 19 letterwhere he issued a decision on the controversial and high-profile Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) casewas snubbed by CA's Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez, Jr. In another letter, dated August 4, Cruz reminded Vasquez about this decision and attached other correspondences prior to the June 23 oral argument on the Meralco case. Cruz also copy furnished Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno since Cruz said these June letters were not included in the documents that Vasquez submitted to the Supreme Court after the July 31 CA en banc meeting where they discussed the Meralco case. It was Vasquez, in fact, who asked Cruz to rule on the rift over who among the squabbling divisions should handle the Meralco case. But when Cruz made a decision, in favor of Justice Bienvenido Reys of the 9th Division, Vasquez ignored it. In an earlier story, we attributed Vasquez's behavior to weak leadership. He allowed the rift among the justice to continue when he could have stood by the Rules Committee decision. We also reported that he appeared to have undue interest in the case since his two daughters work with GSIS, a party to the case. Cruzs letter came two days before a Supreme Court panel was to start its investigation on the propriety of the appellate justices' actions. Cruz wrote, "Under the situation, it is essential that the Supreme Court must have a complete picture of the case, particularly on what precipitated my opinion." Had Vasquez heeded Cruz's opinion on the handling of the Meralco case in June, the rift among the appellate justices who were involved in the Meralco case would have not built up in the past two months and reached the current
state where the Supreme Court had to intervene in the hope of salvaging the CA's integrity.

Unsolicited advice?
Cruz wrote the August 4 letter since he wanted to clarify impressions on his participation in the case. Earlier, Justice Jose Sabio Jr., who acted as chairman of the old 9th division that originally handled the Meralco case, mentioned Cruz in his documentation of the Meralco-related events to Vasquez. Sabio referred to Cruz as a "junior justice" who was only rendering a "personal opinion" over the issue of who should preside over the oral argument in June 23. Cruz wrote, "Justice Sabio's letter tends to create the impression that I intruded into his dispute with Justice


[Bienvenido] Reyes and gave an unsolicited advice thereon." Cruz wanted to highlight that his opinion was not personal nor was it unsolicited by attaching copies of the correspondences with Reyes, who was the designated chairman of the old 9th division. Reyes, in his letter dated June 19, a Thursday, wanted to clarify with the Rules Committee, which Cruz chairs, who between him and Sabio should preside over the oral argument which was scheduled for June 23, the following Monday. In his letter, Reyes noted that "There is now a dilemma as to whom the case should be properly given, whether to Justice Sabio, Jr. or to meThe case is scheduled for hearing on 23 and 24 June 2008. It is therefore necessary to resolve the issues raised herein before the hearing." Reyes was on leave when the Meralco case was raffled to the 9th division, which he chairs, but was back to work by June 16, seven days before the scheduled oral argument. More worthy to note, however, is the copy of Vasquez's
letter to Cruz on June 20, a Friday, where the former was even endorsing Reyes's letter. Vasquezs endorsement letter to Cruz said: "Attached herewith is the letter of Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes seeking your opinion regarding an IRCA interpretation in the [Meralco] case. There is some urgency involved as the hearing of the case is on Monday, June 23, 2008."

Not exempted
Cruz wrote back also on June 20 that Reyes should chair the oral argument. He responded that while Sabio acted as the chair of the old 9th division that issued the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in May, "the issuance of a TRO is not among the instances where 'the justices who participated' in the case share 'remain' therein." In other words, the TRO, which favored the Lopez family and their allies who were in a legal battle with another Meralco shareholder, the government through the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), is not among the exemptions in the CA's internal rules which was exactly what the Rules Committee was interpreting. Accounts over what transpired between June 20 and right before the June 23 oral argument as documented in the correspondences submitted to the Supreme Court showed that Vasquez ignored Cruz's opinion. Instead, he gave his personal opinion favoring Sabio. Earlier, Sabio sought Vasquez's opinion after getting a copy of Cruz's verdict. He called up Vasquez and mentioned that he "smelled something fishy," considered Cruz's opinion as a "personal opinion," and "wondered why the matter was not openly and deliberately discussed with [Vasquez]." Instead, before the June 23 oral argument on the Meralco case, Sabio called Justice Martin Villarama whom he considered as "more senior and experienced" than

Cruz, and sought his opinion on who should preside that morning. Villarama then advised Sabio that his standbased on chairing the division that issued the TRO as a reason to hold on to the casewas correct. He informed Vasquez that Villarama then told him that he "should remain in this case." It seemed that Vasquez allowed Sabio's and Villarama's opinion to reign over that of the Cruz's of the Rules Committee. Vasquez's July 24 letter to Reyes and Justice Vicente Roxas, the case's ponente, explained why. Vasquez wrote: " My personal opinion on the matter, for whatever worth it may be, is that the Division that issued the temporary restraining order should continue resolving the injunctive prayer in the petition" Vasquez reasoned that before the oral argument, GSIS had a pending motion to lift the TRO so Sabio who headed the 9th division that issued it should continue handling the case. Rules Committee sidelined By July 4, the issue of the Meralco case evolved from who among the justices to what division should handle it. Vasquez himself implemented the mandated reorganization at the CA, which resulted in the transfer of Roxas to the new 8th division. The internal rules say that the Meralco case should be handled by the division wherever Roxas is since he is the case's ponente. Even with the reorganization, Vasquez still held the opinion that since Sabio already presided over the Oral Argument in June 23 where there was a pending motion to replace the 60-day TRO with a more permanent preliminary injunction, Sabio and the former 9th division should continue handling the case. One month after and with more wrangling among the justices involved in the Meralco case, the new 8th division issued on July 24 not a preliminary injunction but a decision, which favored the Lopezes and their allies. All throughout July and in the run up to the 8th division's issuance of their decision, the Rules Committee's opinion in June was already sidelined. The Rules Committee was not tapped again, since according to Vasquez in his July 28 letter to all the 65 CA justices, "Some intervening events and novel situations, which I believe are not covered by our internal Rules" has prompted him to call for the en banc meeting last July 31 where it was decided that the Supreme Court should already step in. Cruz, however, had to call the attention of the Supreme Court before the assigned panel starts their investigation to inform them of his committee's position early on.

Quantum of Proof: Rules on Evidence


A. Bribery and Corruption In Bribery or Attempted Bribery / Graft and Corruption of Justices and Judges, NBI entrapment is required before a jurist is dismissed.

Judge gets up to 9 years in jail for accepting P10-K bribe

In a 35-page decision, the Sandiganbayan Third Division ordered the imprisonment of six up to nine years for accepting P10,000 in bribe six years ago, of Judge Jaime Bautista, then the executive judge of the Valenzuela Regional Trial Court Branch 75, and imposed on him a special temporary disqualification and a fine of P30,000. Bautista was caught receiving the P5,000 balance for the P10,000 bribe which he demanded from Ranel Paruli, liaison officer of the Sierra Madre Transportation, Inc., in exchange for a favorable court order in connection with a civil case involving the company on March 20, 2001. Paruli made the final payment -marked P500 bills placed in a white envelope -- in the judge's chamber, where the latter was immediately arrested by the National Bureau of Investigation. The marked money was found inside the judge's wallet only after he underwent ultraviolet examination at the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division. The NBI agents attempted to
conduct a body search on Bautista during the entrapment operation but the latter refused, citing the absence of a search warrant. The examination showed fluorescent specks and smudges on Bautista's right palm and left hand and on the right back pocket of his pants.

A.M. No. 01-3-183-RTC (In Re: NBI Entrapment of Judge Jaime Bautista of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City.)

B. CA Justices Dismissal only 2 Justices were dismissed, in CA History

The Supreme Court of the Philippines on March 21, 2008, upon recommendation of the investigator, Bernardo P. Pardo, dismissed Philippine Court of Appeals Justice Elvi John Asuncion for gross ignorance of the law and delaying motions of considerations. Asuncion was charged of receiving money placed in 2
gym bags delivered to his office. The Supreme Court, however, found no substantial evidence of bribery, but it dismissed him for gross ignorance of the law for his issuance of an October 30, 2001, resolution in the case between Philippine National Bank, the National 47

Labor Relations Commission and Erlinda Archinas. He was only the 2nd Court of Appeals

jurist to be dismissed, since the first firing in Philippine judicial history of CA Justice Demetrio G. Demetria, for interceding in theDOJ drug case of Yu Yuk Lai. The CA, after the 4 Aces CA corruption case died its legal death, thereafter, the Ca became the center of controversy after Chief Justice Reynato Puno ordered an investigation of the so-called "Dirty Dozen," particularly on the alleged sale of "Temporary Restraining Orders" (Injunction, Restraining order abuse). On August 18, 2007, Atty. Briccio Joseph Boholst, president of IBP Cebu City Chapter, opposed the abolition of the CA in Cebu City, for it will cause inconvenience for both litigants and lawyers. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruben Reyes was tasked to investigate and submit recommendation to the High Tribunal because of the alleged massive graft and corruption of justices, especially in the issuance of temporary restraining orders (TROs). On April 03, 2007, Philippine Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Ruben Reyes (now S.C. Justice) ordered an investigation and a regular auditing and inventory of temporary restraining orders (TROs) issued by the 69 CA Justices. Reyes stated: I will order a monthly or quarterly inventory of TROs, for transparency and to watch the movements of the so-called Dirty Dozen [the 12 most corrupt CA justices]. Reynato Puno said that Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez had not yet submitted the list and the Supreme Court was waiting for its delivery amid her formal investigation against the Dirty Dozen. On November 20, 2007, the Court of Appeals (Philippines) dismissed Floro's disbarment case against the Court of Appeals Dirty Dozen and Justice Romeo Barza.

C. Supreme Court Justices: 1930 Justice Ramon Fernandez, 1973 Justice Vicente Ericta Scandal, Justices Hugo Gutierrez and Fidel Purisima controversies, and the Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago/Jake Macasaet P 10 Million Bribery-Indirect Contempt Case. No Supreme Court Justice was ever impeached or removed in history, amid corruption (media) and SWS surveys. 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].

A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC

In the promulgated resolution dated September 26, 2007, the court ruled: "Upon evaluation of the column Business Circuit, of Amado Macasaet in the September 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2007 issues of Malaya, it appears that certain statements and innuendoes therein tend, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice within the purview of Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure." Macasaet was ordered "to shed light on his claim against Santiago because the accusations have degraded the high court, and to explain where he obtained his information that Santiago was allegedly offered a P10-million bribe." On October 1, 2007, Macasaet filed a 28-page reply-explanation to the contempt charges. Macasaet stated that he wrote his column to call for an investigation and to preserve the integrity of the Court: "the investigation on his alleged liabilities is not only unsettling but signals a chilling effect on free speech; Yet, without that call (for an investigation), truth would be not exposed to the scalding light of public inquiry." On November 13, 2007, the Court accepted the resignation and inhibition / disqualification of retired Supreme Court Justices Vicente V. Mendoza and Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., as members of the Investigating Committee, leaving Justice Carolina Grino-Aquino as lone member / Chair (as the trial was set for November 8 and 29). The Aquino team asked Macasaet to name his source on the alleged payoff, but the publisher refused and invoked Republic Act 1477 or the right not to reveal a journalists source unless national security is at stake, and further alleged that the Santiago case pertains to bribery, a criminal issue. Consuelo Ynares-Santiago allegedly made enemies in the High Court, starting with retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, as a result of Macasaets allegation.

Status: Nothing yet legally happened, because of the quantum of evidence rule not satisfied, in the eyes of the S.C. Justices.


In the 1930s, a distant relative of Imelda Romualdez Marcos who was a Justice in the High Court resigned after a controversy involving the bar examinations. Justice Ramon Fernandez was forced to protect his name and honor when he resigned because of a bar examination scandal. On November 23, 1979, the High Court, per Justice Pacifico de Castro ordered new examinations in labor and social legislation and taxation. On May 7, 1973, 12 of the Supreme Court's 14 justices resigned amid expose "that the court fixed the bar-examination score of a member's son so that he would pass." Justice Vicente Ericta was accused to have personally approached the bar chairman to inquire whether his (Ericta's) son passed the bar. Ferdinand Marcos accepted the resignations and appointed the new Justices. Chief Justice Enrique Fernando wept at a news conference as he accepted responsibility for rechecking and changing the exam score of Gustavo Ericta, son of Justice Vicente Ericta. In the case of Justice Hugo Gutierrez. He resigned when our Ellen Tordesillas reported in 1992 that a lawyer of PLDT wrote his ponencia in the case of ETPI vs. the telephone company. Associate Justice Fidel Purisima, chairman of the
bar committee, did not disclose that he had a nephew who was taking the bar examination in that year. He was merely censured and his honoraria as bar examiner were forfeited.

On September 24, 2003, the Supreme Court, per a bleary-eyed Associate Justice Jose Vitug, annulled the tests results on mercantile law after "confirmation of what could be the most widespread case of cheating in the 104-year-old bar exams". Since the 1982 "Ericta Scandal", it was only in 2008 that the Court relaxed the fixed
rules on passing grades amid the inhibitions of 5 Justices whose relatives took the exams.

D. RTC Judges: Mental Fitness & Gross Ignorance of the Law Since, the creation of the USA, UK and democratic Constitutions, and since June 12, 2001, there is only one case, in the whole world, wherein a Judge was not dismissed but was separated from service and paid benefits amid conviction of gross ignorance of the law and fined $ 780. Judge Floro was finally ruled an honorable man, without any corruption charges, but was fined P 40,000 for gross ignorance of the law (conducting pre-trial without notice to Fiscal), despite the courts finding of his having topped the 1983 Bar Exams, 12 th Place, 87.55%, and having been Full Second Honors, Ateneo Law School.

Quantum of Proof: Psychiatric tests proved that Floro was mentally unfit to sit as judge and pen decisions since he judicially admitted that he consulted dwarfs in judgments, was the Angel of Death who could inflict death, sickness and accidents and fires, upon Supreme Court and other Justices, and can burn
the courts. The Court further warned Floro of indirect contempt for Ungodly reprisals.

In this Resolution, We wish to remind Judge Floro that the Court cannot be swayed to modify or reverse its Decision and various Resolutions by inundating the ponente with numerous pleadings avowing "ungodly reprisal" as well as personal letters/telephone calls seeking audience with the latter, if, as in this case, they are only in furtherance of repeating issues and arguments already passed upon by the Court En Bancs earlier Decision and Resolution. Otherwise stated, only meritorious arguments and substantial evidence can convince Us to modify or reverse our previous ruling. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as it is hereby Resolved, Judge Floros ORIGINAL PETITION/LETTER WITH LEAVE OF COURT For Re-Opening of Judge Floros Separation Case xxx are hereby NOTED WITHOUT ACTION and are ordered EXPUNGED from the records. It is hereby firmly reiterated that NO FURTHER PLEADING/S WILL BE ENTERTAINED in this case. Judge Floro is hereby given a WARNING that he can be held liable for indirect contempt
should he persist in disregarding lawful orders of this Court and committing acts which tend to abuse, obstruct, impede, and degrade the administration of justice.

"Equity does not demand that its suitors shall have led blameless lives." (Justice Louis Brandeis, Loughran v. Loughran (1934) 292 US 216, 229, 78 L ed 1219, 1227, 54 S Ct 684). 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 "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. All these things validate the findings of the Supreme Court Clinic about Judge Floro's uncommon beliefs and that such beliefs have spilled over to action. 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. Thus, Judge Floro s reference to psychic phenomena in the decision he rendered in the case of People v. Francisco, Jr. sticks out like a sore thumb. Judge Floro's 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. As Judge Floro s 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. 1 The reports contain statements/findings in Judge Floro's favor that the Court cannot overlook in all fairness as they deserve equal consideration. They mention Judge Floro s assets and strengths and capacity for functionality, with minor modification of work environment. Thus: a. High intellectual assets as a result of "self-discipline and self- organization." b. "(I)mpressive academic achievements" with "no drastic change in his personality and level of functioning as a lawyer in private practice." c. "(C)haracter traits of suspiciousness, seclusiveness, pre-occupation with paranormal and psychic phenomena not detrimental to his role as a lawyer." d. "Everyday situations can be comprehended and dealt with in moderate proficiency . His concern for

the details that make up a total field represents his attempts at being systematic and cautious." e. "(E)quipped with analytical power." 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.

Divine Justice vs. Ungodly Reprisal

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least

this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State. 330 U.S. 1, 15-16. - Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) Hugo Black

Judge Floro never won, but LOST all administrative / disbarment / intervention cases he filed against top judicial and other officers:
2004 Court intervention in the Minita Chico-Nazario, Fernando Poe, Jr. and Noli de Castro cases On 2004, Floro intervened by Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus Court petitions in 3 landmark cases before the High Tribunal. In a 22-page certiorari petition, Floro ("Judge asks SC to let Nazario take oath and fill SC vacancy") on March 12, 2004 asked the Court to enthrone Minita Chico-Nazario whose appointment was recalled. Judge Floro also sued Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo, who was nominated 7 times by the JBC, but failed, and resigned as Solicitor General amid his February 21, 2001 angioplasty and February 22, 2008 IBP Iloilo lecture collapse and hospitalization. Floro, on June, 2004, intervened in the certiorari lawsuit regarding the opposition Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) per Davao City Rep. Ruy Elias Lopez, to stop a joint session of Congress from canvassing the votes for president and vice president. Floro asked the Court to declare a failure of elections and order the COMELEC to conduct special presidential elections. Floro also asked the Supreme Court to declare Noli de Castro as acting President, as Solomonic solution to the political crisis. In the Fernando Poe, Jr. presidential candidate disqualification case, Floro was reported as "Espiritistang Judge Ididipensa si Da King." (Bagong Tiktik February 17,

2004), "Psychic Phenomena gagamitin sa FPJ Case." Manila Standard Today, on February 24, 2004, reported - "Poesition" papers were submitted by intervenor Judge Florentino Floro for FPJ, and by his classmate Victorino Fournier against FPJ for his disqualification. Floros Ateneo therein petitioner Ma. Jeane Death of Lawyer Maria Jeanette Tecson -on September 28, 2007, 8:30 p.m, Senior Superintendent Francisco Uyami, Pasig police chief stated that Lawyer Maria Tecson, 40, was found dead (in a state of rigor mortis) inside room 204 at the Richmond Hotel, San Miguel Avenue, Pasig City (with her throat slit and with cuts on her wrist). Maria Jeanette Tecson, Zoilo Velez (promoted to Court of Appeals Justice) and Victorino Fornier filed the disqualification case against Fernando Poe, Jr. She claimed Poe was born out of wedlock and that while Poe's birth certificate was dated 1939, his parents Allan Fernando Poe and American mother Bessie Kelly did not marry until 1940. To date there is no evidence or any reason to believe that Poe or his supporters may have personal vendetta that could have led to the sudden demise of Tecson. On September 26, 2006, the Philippine Supreme Court, promulgated a Resolution (released on October 5, 006), giving DUE course to Judge Florentino Floros August 30, 2006 Verified Complaint against MRS. MARILYN PUNO SANTIAGO, sister Reynato Puno and Dep. Ed. Higher Education Chair Carlito Puno. It deals with the 3 hours Spanish card reading at the Supreme Court conference hall. In A.M. No. 200624-SC (Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. v. Mrs. Marilyn Puno Santiago and Jasmin Mateo), the Court finally dismissed Floro's complaint on November 14, 2006. Imprecation Motion On his natal day of November 5, 2006, Floro recited Psalm 109 and Psalm 73, by filing his Imprecation motion to clean the judiciary. The Philippine Daily Inquirer reported this as "Psychotic judge enlists help of dwarf-friends vs SC. 2006 World "Judge of the Year" On December 5, 2006 Floro was awarded "Judge of the Year" by The Times "A chilli-hot year for whiny garbage, David Pannick, QC, presides over the memorable legal appearances of 2006" Pannick, Queen's Counsel, silk Barristers in England and Wales, first wrote on Floro's dwarfs in UK The Times Online: "I used to be a judge but I'm all right now . . . " (June 06, 2006) The Times also published Floro's appeal in World in Brief, "Law unto himself." On December 6, 2006, Floro testified in the Senate of the Philippines to oppose the confirmation of former Philippine Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. for the post of permanent representative, United Nations. Davide was by-passed, that is, he failed to be confirmed but was issued an ad interim appointment. On January, 2007, the Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed with finality the August 30, 2006 landmark Disbarment administrative suit filed by Floro against Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. and 9 other top court officials. For non-payment of docket fees, the High Court, on June 5, 2007, dismissed Floro's intervention petition dated May 30, 2007, and his Supplement dated June 1, 2007, in the Gregory S. Ong citizenship case, filed by Jovito Salonga.


On July 12, 2007, the Court finally denied Floro's final appeals to be reinstated with indirect contempt of court warning against further filing of any pleading: On November 5, 2007, Floro asked the Court to order its Clerk to issue entry of judgment or the certificate of finality on the non-reinstatement of the jobless dwarf judge. 3 days later or on November 8, Floro's counsel of record in the dwarf case, Rene Saguisag suffered dire accident with 7 broken ribs and his wife Dulce Saguisag died forthwith. On November 9, 2007, and March 24, 2008, respectively, Commission on Elections legal division chiefs Aleoden Dalaig and his successor, Winnie Asdala, were gunned down. And on November 13, 2007, the Batasang Pambansa bombing killed 6 and wounded Congressman Pryde Henry Teves, whose face was badly burned. On November 20, 2007[ the court noted without action or did not act on Floro's final motion. On November 20, 2007, the Court of Appeals (Philippines) dismissed Floro's disbarment case against the Court of Appeals Dirty Dozen and Justice Romeo Barza. On March 27, 2007, Atty. Carlos M. Flores was appointed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as new Judge of Br. 73, RTC, Malabon to replace Judge Floro. On April 4, 2008, Judge Floro appealed to the Supreme Court of the Philippines to annul the appointment on constitutional grounds since it was issued more than 90 days from November 20, 2007. "Jobless judge in pretend world" - The Sunday Times (South Africa) The Court denied Floro's November 8, 2007 petition for contempt and to intervene in the indirect contempt case against The Daily Tribune editor, Jake Macasaet (regarding the P 10 million bribery scandal, re - Consuelo YnaresSantiago). The Court, on November 13, 2007, dismissed Floro's motion for reconsideration. Floro, on April 2, 2008 received the Supreme Court of the Philippines Resolution in A.C. No. 7663, which dismissed his disbarment administrative case against Senator Miriam Santiago. On April 14, 2008, Miriam Defensor-Santiago was injured when she slipped and bumped her head during the birthday party of her husband, Narciso, in Mandaluyong City. She underwent surgery requiring 3 stitches on her head. C.J. Artemio Panganiban's "WITH DUE RESPECT, How to address Filipino magistrates" confirms that Floro is entitled to use the title "Judge" since he had not been fired, dismissed or disbarred, but separated due to dwarf consultation (See JBC Nos. 001, and JBC-007, Re: JBC Emoluments, July 9, 1996) 5 Mystic violet lights - FIRES After Floro's filed November 5-3, 2007, imprecation (under Psalm 109-73) Court "Motion," the Supreme Court of the Philippines's logo was halved on January 15, 2007, (the 2nd violet light-fire), since the 1st January 22, 2000 Malabon City Halls of Justice fire. The 3rd mystic fire also halved the Commission on Elections (Philippines)'s seal on March 12, 2007, amid the resignation of Benjamin Abalos on October 1, 2007. The 4th mystic fire burned burned almost the entire 4th floor of the

Philippine Court of Appeals on July 26, 2007. The 5th mystic 3-hour fire burned the Muntinlupa City halls and Metropolitan Trial Court on August 4, 2007 June 2, 1983 - June 3, 2008: The Saga The BLUE Madonna - Our Lady of Fatima and Our Lady of HOPE, Motion expunged and thrown out of the Rollo. Exactly 25 years from the the night that LUIS and Armand first appeared to Floro's brother Robert, destiny's mighty pen allowed the Supreme Court of the Philippines, En banc, to promulgate the dire Per curiam decision (resolution) on June 3, 2008, per landmark Expungement, burrying the truth in the graveyard of immortality. Floro's April 4, 2008 final appeal was expunged from the records, and the 12 Justices (3 on leave) denied Floro's "bended knees" plea to enthrone the Holy Eucharist and consecrate the entire nation and judiciary to Mary, Our Lady of Fatima as Pope John Paul II did for Russia. Homeless Floro, on January, 2000, begged mercy from UP Class 62 Malolos Executive Judge Petrita Braga Dime, to report to the Supreme Court's 4 of her Classmates C.J. PUNO, NAZARIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ & YNARES-SANTIAGO, regarding the SOLD DECISION where Floro lost his own ancestral house and lot where he was born and lived from 1953-1989 - civil case, accusing UP Class 62, Malolos RTC Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz of P 80,000 bribery. Judge Dime refused to tell the truth to the S. Court. Instead she asked the Court to docket the case as OCA IPI. Thus, Floro filed the 4th Writ of Amparo Case in the CA. Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas and Bienvenido Reyes, instead of deciding the truth, inhibited themselves. On March 4, 2008, the Philippine Court of Appeals's Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Justices Edgardo Sundian & Monina Arevala-Zenarosa, dismissed Floro's CA-G.R. Sp No. 00015, Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data (Philippines) lawsuit against Malolos RTC Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz (University of the Philippines College of Law, Class '62, classmate of Reynato Puno, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Alicia Austria-Martinez and Minita Chico-Nazario). On April 15 and 16, 2008, Judge Pinero-Cruz decided the civil case against Floro and Judge Dime tossed the case for re-raffle against Floro's rights. Judge Dime flew to USA and then to Israel, amid Floro's a) verbal prediction "Judge Dime will die!" per telephone call to her Br. 14, Staff "Jane Doe" name withheld, but this can be verified from majority of the staff (Tel. No. 044 - 791-4808). In the 69 pages and 350 pages complaintannexex filed with the OCA, Judge Floro direly prophesied the death of Judge Dime. On July 25, 2008, UP Law Class 62 alumni, and Bulacan RTC Executive Judge Petrita Braga Dime's untimely demise was mourned by the judiciary. C.J. Puno Indorsed Floro's bribery case OCA IPI to the OCAD. 7, 7, 7 In the 76 pages judgment, Floro was indicted of displaying on December 20, 2008, in his Court sala, the picture of Erap with typewritten and signed note predicting his election and downfall. Just as foretold, Erap was ousted in EDSA Revolution of 2001 and, as predicted by dwarf prophet (by his Veterans memorial hospital visit on 2002), Erap was released from Tanay detention after almost 7 years (69 months), in the same manner that Floro suffered 68.9 months of indefinite

preventive suspension, from July 20, 1999 to April 7, 2006, the natal day of spirit guide, Angel: on October 26, 2007 Joseph Estrada was finally released by the Sandiganbayan. On 7, 25, 2008, the FSGO emotionally delivered its own State of the Nation Address vis-a-vis Gloria Macapagal-Arroyos 7 years of governance, 7 SONAs amid the FSGO's specified 7 curses. Floro, on July 26, 2008, fervently prayed that with Faith, the dire sufferings would be more intense to heal the nation's wounds of sin. Amid all these repeated bended knees and supplications to the CA and S. Court, Floro issued verbal and written prophesies just repeating the Fatima's message to him on: January 9, 1999, Feast of the Black Nazarene Visions Floro, at 6:00 a.m., saw a) the milenium global earthquakes, disasters and tragedies (1999 - 2012), b) the worldwide Marian apparitions and c) the physical hurting of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Purpose of this Intervention and Complaint against the CA Big 5 Floro has no illusion that he will win this case, since he never won any case as abovediscussed. Floro, however, remains certain, as Angel of Death and Prophet that his St. Paul's Gifts of: Spiritual Gifts of Prophecy and Bilocation On his natal day of November 5, 1997, his "gabays" or spirit guides, the 3 angels or dwarves ordered him to cleanse the Philippine judiciary, by applying with the Judicial and Bar Council for the position of RTC Judge. Meanwhile, on Good Friday, 1998, at exactly 12:00 noon, Floro walked along the 2.16 kilometers San Juanico Bridge, and shouted "Erap will be the 13th unlucky President, who will not finish his term, while Jose de Venecia, Jr. will loose the elections." Floro displayed his written prediction on December 10, 1998 at his Court sala. At 1:00 p.m., Floro went to nearby Tolosa beach to buy Coral grouper (Cephalopholis miniata). About 5 natives greeted him and stated that Floro had lived with them as their attorney (ever since). Floro was surprised as he, on that Good Friday received the gift of bilocation. -will address the root cause of E-Judicial Killings and desaparecidos, to heal the nations SINS, and wounds of judicial hypocrisy, lies, cover-up, vengeance, vendetta, anger, rage and hatred, by the only HOPE: Mary the Co-Redemptrix who solely crushed the serpent 666. 666 had been seen embedded and engraved in the foreheads of our top executive, judicial and legislative officials to the lowest aide and driver. The battle is spiritual and legal. The nation will watch how, in this CA bribery case, lies vs. lies will be submitted to the panel, amid, attempts to bury the truth. The big CA 5 forgot that GODs hand was never present in the unfurling of this fate. Their destiny had been marked by dire prophesy of the Angel of Death. Repent lest perdition would cause their souls to be burned in hell fire. St. Francis Xavier, S.J. said: What will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and loose his own soul?


Without further ado, Floro writes the following - dire prophecies: Is it Paranoia to Change Destiny? Can History be altered? With due Respect: Jovito Salonga: Your truth is not their truth tell C.J. Panganiban that you want to be a janitor or a clerk baka maawa pa sa iyo. (August 4, 2006, Valle Verde III, Pasig Residence) Judge Floros Plea to Release the Innocent Acquitted, Jailed Aquino-Galman Martyrs of Hypocrisy: Rule of Law The Curse Timeline (at the Corridors of Power) December 2, 1985 Justice Manuel Pamaran of the Sandiganbayan acquitted all the accused. May 16, 1986 Corazon Aquino appointed Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. Justice of the Sandiganbayan (until July 18, 1995). September 28, 1990 Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. jailed the innocent accused: penned the 177 pages Sandiganbayan judgment to jail the 16 suspects, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua in each case. July 10, 1995 - Fidel Ramos appointed Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. Associate Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court and retired on his 70th natal day on October 18, 1997. October 4, 2005 Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. was re-appointed Judicial and Bar Council regular member, for his 3rd term, duplicating the 3rd term of Teresita Cruz-Sison. His last term will expire on July 9, 2009. December 17, 1997 Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. was appointed Judicial and Bar Council regular member. August 21, 2007 The 24th anniversary of Ninoys murder. Chief Justice Andres Narvasa appealed for the closure of the case; Juan Ponce Enrile asked for the review for clemency in favor of the 14 convicts; Palawan Bishop Pedro Arigo, chairman of the CBCPs Episcopal Commission on Prison Pastoral Care (ECPPC) asked pardon for the convicts; Corazon Aquino and Benigno Aquino III forgave the 14 soldiers but opposed their appeals for clemency or parole (which Sec. Raul Gonzales submitted to the President on 2004); Eduardo Ermita stated that the Bureau of Pardons and Parole had recommended a grant of executive clemency. August 24, 2007 - Eduardo Ermita officially announced that due to political implications, the appeal for clemency by the 14 soldiers was archived, even if the Bureau of Pardons and Parole presently reviews the plea. The executive secretary refused to give a time frame for the review. On March 24, 2008, the Aquino family announced that the former President had been diagnosed with colon cancer. On December 2002, J. Hermosisima, Jr. was treated for Prostate disease. Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. asked me a) on 2001, to predict the appointment of Justice Renato C. Corona, and I did; b) to predict about his health before he underwent his 2002 Prostate treatment, and I said that LUIS will give you a second chance, to be healed; c) on 5 occasions he told me that i) I have to reconcile with JBC Member Atty. Tesie Sison, since she caused my suspension,
1. 58

ii) he had no power to reinstate me, since C.J. Davide, Jr. told him that my case will rust until the latters retirement on December, 2005, due to the carotid surgery and 2004 most painful twin deaths of his brothers Jose and Jorge, caused by LUIS; I told Justice Hermosisima, Jr. that LUIS promised me that upon the release of my Decision, he will allow Hilario, Sr. to expire in pain; the Davide patriarch died on July 17, 2006, 2 months after Justice Nazario penned the cursed decision. February 10, 2006: Circa the gall bladder surgery of his best friend Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. Hermosisima, Jr. phoned me and we shouted at each other, when he told me that I will not be reinstated, since Justice Nazario was the one who approached him, about the outcome of my case; I accused him of twisting and burying Veritas: a) he jailed the innocent Aquino-Galman accused, by entry of judgment when they were already acquitted by certificate of finality by the Pamaran Sandiganbayan - in order to ascend to the corridors of power; I accused, before him, Corazon Cojuanco-Aquino of causing the sufferings of the nation due to personal vendetta a) she refused and blocked any attempt to have Marcos buried as the Filipino martyr wished; and b) she refused to free the innocent accused who never killed Ninoy; J. Hermosisma, Jr. admitted to me that he worked on weekends and studied 2,000 documents at his condominium, but he never knew the mastermind. I told him that Cory will suffer soon this folly. The colon cancer metastasis and his prostate disease are twin spiritual curses upon her and his family, they are only the beginning of pain, dire punishment, and full stain on their bloods.

Atty. Vicky Timbangkaya told me that it was her daughter Atty. Bibing Timbangkaya who helped Justice Nazario, in drafting and finalizing of the 75 pages decision in this case. I gave my counsel of record, Rene AV Saguisag 3 chances to mend ways, and alerted him on this grave matter. At the hotel, I begged mercy not for myself but for his family and those who will be punished by LUIS. On November 5, 2008, my birthday, after I filed the last Motion where I inserted Rene Saguisags participation in the decision, on pages 2 and 12, I discussed the matters with my spiritual director Fr. Constancio C. Gan, at Adamson University, 8:00 p.m., beside Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal Church, and the violet light of LUIS, as big as a wheel, flashed. I failed to save Dulce and Rene from LUIS wrath which the July 12, 2007 Per Curiam Resolution in this case called ungodly reprisals.1

On 2002, I passed by the Veterans Hospital jail-room of Joseph Estrada. The President asked me to predict when PGMA will be ousted. And I told him that a) there is no time frame but her physical hurting would coincide with her irreversible downfall, and b) he will be judicially but not politically vindicated. Cong. JV Bautista remarked: O ma-vivindicate ka naman pala!

5. When the JBC opened for nomination Judge Floros Br. 73, RTC, Malabon, LUIS promised the serial killings and surgeries or pains upon the chosen ones: a) James Bersamin and LUIS Bersamin were killed, after Judge Floro talked 3 times and asked mercy from Justice Apolinario Bruselas and Justice Lucas Bersamin; b) Judge Floros Malabon Judges neighbors died and
Patikim, Himagas, Appetizer LUIS told me on Good Friday, that Dulces death is only a Patikim of his immense power to annihilate because of the efficacy of the twin Biblical Curses Judge Floro recited midnights since November 3/5, 2006 and November 5, 2007.


were permanently disabled Judge Rosa Reyes died of cancer on March 9, 2007 while Judge Benjamin Antonio was forced to retire on the fiery day of January 15, 2007 when the Supreme Court logo was halved by the LUIS mystic fire. Atty. Esmeralda Galang-Dizon, clerk of court of Br. 73, RTC, Malabon in 1999 witnesses the 2 times a week 12 minutes epileptic lifetime seizures of her daughter GELAY. When the July 12, 2007 Per Curiam Resolution was released, despite the fact that Judge Floro had continuous audiences from Justice Leo Quisumbing since January 24, 2006, the CA 4th floor was burned followed by the kidney transplant of JBC ex-officio member Raul M. Gonzales, who turned down Judge Floros written application for job, work and trabajo, while Pryde Henry Teves was 80% burned after Margarito Teves turned down Judge Floros application for work, duly filed upon suggestion of Sec. Eduardo Ermitas office. On top of all these, after Abalos turned down Judge Floros submitted Resume, and plea, Chair Abalos and Speaker JDV bowed down, Comelec Chief Dalaig and his successor were murdered, after the Comelec seal was halved by fire, while Judge Floros classmate Manny Gaite was charged in the Ombudsman, after the death of his father Gregorio Gaite, and after he set-up as joke Judge Floros plea for work, job and trabajo. Alfredo L. Benipayo collapsed and was hospitalized on February 22, 2008 at Iloilo Hospital, as predicted in writing by Judge Floro in the 2002, 2003 and 2004 July 20 motions (after his February 21, 2001 angioplasty, and Justice Ramirez 2003 heart surgery).

Ex-Comelec chief Benipayo rushed to hospital in Iloilo2

02/22/2008 | 09:15 PM

Former Commission on Elections (Comelec) chairman and Solicitor General Alfredo Benipayo was hospitalized in Iloilo City after collapsing, Visayas-based Bombo Radyo reported Friday night. The report said Benipayo collapsed at about 3 p.m. while giving a lecture before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Iloilo Chapter in a hotel in the city, and was rushed to the Iloilo Saint Paul's Hospital. Lawyer Joseph Lutero, who attended the lecture, said Benipayo collapsed while in the middle of his lecture. As of Friday evening, the Bombo Radyo report quoted doctors as saying Benipayo's condition had stabilized. Benipayo, who also served as the Supreme Court's court administrator and as a Court of Appeals justice, is now dean of the faculty of civil law at the University of Santo Tomas in Manila. - GMANews.TV 7 Books to Manny Gaite3 - Death of Father and Ombudsman Case On December, 2007, Judge Floro donated 7 of his books to his classmate, seatmate, Ateneo Class 82, Deputy Executive Secretary Manny Gaite. From 1978 to 1982, Gaite was Judge Floros classmate, who could hardly get a single second honor card. He was helped by Atty. Joker Arroyo in his first stint as OGG lawyer. He transferred to Malacanang and rose from the ranks. Manny Gaite asked Judge Floro on 1999 to demonstrate healing at the Regina College where his wife (former Augustinian
2 3 World-famous mystic: Armand, Luis & Angel, the three dwarfs meets the judge-- psychic & healing martyr of Filipino justice / by Florentino V. Floro, Jr. ISBN: 9789716916195


novice who left the cloister) was taking a religion subject. In exchange Manny Gaite gave Judge Floro a Blue Sign Pen as token of gratitude. His wife confessed that she had fecal infections since she could not remove her bowel for 17 days. This caused the pain and the Gaite couple had to adopt. They share a home at Pulong Buhangin, Sta. Maria. Judge Floro was told by DOJ Raul Gonzales to write the President instead regarding job, work and trabajo, on 2 occasions, August 22, 2005 and December, 2006. So Judge Floro went to Gaite and Sec. Ermita. Gaite said that he will give the 6 books to their classmates. Sen. Heherson Alvarezs wife Cecille Guidote Alvarez (who met an accident at France, and was in saklay) was beside Judge Floro. Gaite told Judge Floro that the former would help him get a job from classmate Jay Flaminiano. So, he set up a JOKE meeting at the wake of cancer-stricken Emily Reyes. It was great fun, since Jay Flaminiano was not there but a GHOST, and Judge Floro was made a fun by Betty Medialdea, Et Montecastro and wife Francis Lim, the Great. LUIS alerted Judge Floro of this joke, and promised Judge Floro 2 jokes also: a) the death of Gregorio Gaite in great pain 2 weeks after the JOKE, and b) the Senate NBN Lozada Joke with the final Ombudsman bonus. Judge Floro demanded the return of these 7 books but Gaite returned only one, alleging that their classmates refused to return Judge Floros books. Gaites rich uncle says P.5M came from him By Ephraim Aguilar, Southern Luzon Bureau, 03/01/2008 BAAO, CAMARINES SUR, Philippines -- The uncle of Deputy Executive Secretary Manuel Gaite on Friday confirmed that the P500,000 his nephew gave to ZTE deal scandal witness Rodolfo Noel Jun Lozada came from him. Melquiades Gaite, 71, told the Philippine Daily Inquirer the P500,000 was drawn from the P1.5 million he had loaned to his nephew for the renovation of their house in Bulacan. Melquiades said Gaite borrowed P1.5 million from him in September 2007 when he went home here for the Peafrancia festival. Melquiades, this towns former mayor, defended his nephew and described him as a humble, quiet, compassionate and honest man. Manny is a humble, honest, compassionate and silent person. We have protected our family reputation for years, he added. What happened with Manny can be called a frame-up. He was just there to offer (Lozada) help, Melquiades said. In the Senate inquiry on the ZTE deal, Senator Manuel Roxas said that the private source of the money Gaite gave to Lozada should also come out and explain. Gaite grew up in this town, studied grade school in the Sta. Monica Academy here, and graduated high school from the Holy Rosary seminary in Naga City. Senator Ma. Ana Consuelo Madrigal on Friday filed criminal and administrative charges in the Office of the Ombudsman against the President and her known political allies Secretaries Eduardo R. Ermita, Jose L. Atienza, Jr. and Romulo L. Neri; Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief Avelino I. Razon Jr. and former Environment Secretary Michael T. Defensor. Other respondents are Malacaang Aides Manuel B. Gaite, Marcelino Agana, IV and Remedios L. Poblador; xxx.4 Hurt Abalos family: Our sanctuary is prayer
By Kristine L. Alave, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 02/29/2008


MANILA, Philippines -- The family of former Elections Chair Benjamin Abalos Sr., the man tagged by Senate witnesses as a villain in the scandal-tainted National Broadband Network project, on Friday expressed frustration and distress at the ill will directed at their patriarch. The past two years have been hard for the family, said Mandaluyong City Mayor Benhur Abalos, son of the former Commission on Elections (Comelec) chief, during the Mass for Peace and Unity held Friday afternoon at the Mandaluyong city gymnasium.

The Blue Madonna

LUIS, Armand and Angel Instruments of God, Servants of Mary The Blue Madonna, Our Lady of Hope, Our Lady of Fatima (1918) The Story of the Pilgrimage, France in 18715 A Marian apparition is an event in which the Virgin Mary is believed to have supernaturally appeared to one or more persons, typically Catholics, although not always devout or always Catholic or Christian, in various settings. They are often given names based on the town in which they were reported, or on the sobriquet which was given to Mary on the occasion of the apparition. They have been interpreted as psychological (pareidolia), and as religious phenomena, occasionally as theophanies. Mother of Hope Whose name is so sweet Protect our land of France Pray, pray for us. Marian Apparitions 39 A.D. to Present A Marian apparition is an event in which the Virgin Mary is believed to have supernaturally appeared to one or more persons, typically Catholics, although not always devout or always Catholic or Christian, in various settings. The First Marian Apparition was: 39 (before her Assumption) at Caesaraugusta (Zaragoza), Hispania Tarraconensis to Saint James the Great; Our Lady of the Pillar. The latest was 2001 at Kodungaiyur, Chennai, India to Ms. Rosalind, Mr. P. Alexander ; Our Lady of Jecintho. Our Lady of Fatima, 1918 Our Lady of Fatima (pronounced [fatim]) is the title given to the Blessed Virgin Mary by those who believe that she appeared to three shepherd children at Ftima, Portugal on the 13th day of six consecutive months in 1917, starting on 13 May, the Fatima holiday. The title of Our Lady of the Rosary is also used in reference to the same apparition; the children related that the apparition specifically identified herself as "the Lady of the Rosary." It is also common to see a combination of these titles,


i.e., Our Lady of the Rosary of Fatima (Portuguese: ''Nossa Senhora do Rosrio de Ftima''). Judge Floros January 9, 1999, Vision of Global Apparitions of Mary 1999 to 2012 At 6:00 a.m., feast of the Black Nazarene of Quiapo, Manila, Philippines, Judge Floro saw the visions of a) global and supreme millennium earthquakes and b) global apparitions of Mary (both from 1999 to 2012) and c) V.P. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would be badly hurt. Judge Floro saw the Vision of the Blue Madonna on March 13, 2008 On March 13, 2008, before dawn, Judge Floro was bestowed a Gift to have seen the visions of: a) (Preceded by yellow flash at midnight): In full religious trance, I floated over a railroad track amid the fields, where I saw golden or yellow corns b) Then, I saw men on the railroad track with a corn machine laying the golden yellow corn along the tracks c) Further, I saw myself facing a white wall with the white plain statue of Mary c) The statue thereafter, turned into a most difficult to describe HEAVENLY BLUE virtual reality tall and big Image of Mary (Our Lady of Hope or Fatima ... I was not informed of the title). Message The plain message of the visions and trance is: LUIS, Armand and Angel are mere instruments of God, and servants of Mary, the co-redemptrix and mediatrix of all graces. The only way to fight evil or the blacks / fallen angels and their 666 instruments is via the Violet and White Lights of the Lord (Lux in Domino): on Fridays , unleashed towards the hypocrites, the Filipino magistrates and those who steal or do evil in the government. Consecration of the Judiciary and Government to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and Enthronement of The Eucharist in 5 Halls of Justices The consecration of Russia According to Sister Lcia, The Virgin promised that the Consecration of Russia would lead to Russia's conversion and an era of peace. Pope Pius XII, in his Apostolic Letter of July 7, 1952 Sacro Vergente Anno is considered to have performed the requested consecration. Pius XII wrote, just as a few years ago We consecrated the entire human race to the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, so today We consecrate and in a most special manner We entrust all the peoples of Russia to this Immaculate Heart Others believe that Pope John Paul II fulfilled this request in 1984 by giving a blessing over the world, including Russia, before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, even though that consecration did not specifically mention Russia by name. Some believe that Lucia Santos verified that this ceremony fulfilled the requests of the Virgin. However, in the Blue Army's Spanish magazine, Sol de Fatima, in the September 1985 issue, Sister Lcia said that the ceremony did not fulfill the Virgin's request, as there was no specific mention of Russia, and "many bishops attached no importance to it". Bombardment of Violet Lights and The Yellow Fire Explosion March 14 and 15, 2008


For the first time since 1997, Judge Floro witnessed the repeated flashing of violet lights (as described on several chapters of this book, a flash of violet light as shown to Judge Floro by LUIS, consists of thousandth of a second flash of as big as a point of a needle and more 100 times more sharp than our red laser beams). These lights flashed after midnight of March 14 when he was watching the EWTN or Catholic TV programs. On March 15, 2008, at dawn, Judge Floro witnessed for the first time the glimmering colorless-rainbow lights of fire from his eyes until these lights suddenly exploded to yellow. What is the meaning of these visions and lights? Robert told Judge Floro, that for LUIS, the Blue Madonna image, is that of our Lady of Fatima. But for Judge Floro, were it not for the absence of the golden crown, she would have been Our Lady of Hope. But the sole message is the same: the Fatima prophecy dire punishments of wars, pains, famine, deaths, global disasters and repentance with prayer/rosary, inter alia. Judge Floro Petitioned the Philippine Supreme Court (January 4, 2008) to Obey these Twin Rites In this regard, to stop the Philippine political and extra-judicial killings, Judge Floro filed on the first First Friday of 2008, a verified petition to stop the extrajudicial killings. Judge Floro asked the Philippine Supreme Court to a) enthrone both the Holy Eucharist and b) the image of Our Lady of Fatima on all the places where the 2007 and 2000 Mystic Fires happened: upon the Supreme Court Session Hall, 4th Floor of the Court of Appeals, Comelec Old Building, Muntinlupa City Municipal Trial Court, and Br. 73, Regional Trial Court, Malabon / Navotas (which was preserved from fire on July 22, 2000, when all the Halls of Justice salas were burned). Judge Floro also asked the Court to consecrate the entire Judiciary to Our Lady of Fatima, as sole means to save the jurists from perdition and to stop the killings. Extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances in the Philippines - Article created by Judge Floro on Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia Philippine Extrajudicial Killings and Desaparecidos are the illegal liquidations, unlawful or felonious killings and forced disappearance, respectively. They are forms of extrajudicial punishment, and include - extra-judicial executions, summary execution, arbitrary arrest and detention, and failed prosecutions in the Philippines, because of political activities of leading political, trades union, dissident and/or social figures, left-wing political parties, non-governmental organizations, political journalists, outspoken clergy, anti-mining activists, agricultural reform activists, members of legal political parties or organizations that the military claims are allied with the communist movement or suspected supporters of the NPA and its political wing, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) [by either the state government, state authorities like the armed forces and police (as in Liberia under Charles G. Taylor), or by criminal outfits such as the Italian Mafia. Impeccable Prophecy of Killings after January 4, contrary to the Supreme Courts exhaustive ways to solve the killings per Manila Hotel Summit:6 Malabon Halls of Justice was already plagued with deaths, sicknesses and dire punishments due to extreme and open corruption: Death of neighbor Judge Rosa


Reyes, permanent disability forced retirement of Judge Benjamin Antonio, Lifetime Epilepsy of Gelay, daughter of Clerk of Court Esmeralda Galang-Dizon and the 2000 July 22, mystic fire which burned all these corrupt offices except Judge Floro. If Br. 73, RTC, Malabon would have a new Judge, DIRE PUNISHMENTS will be an epidemic that will be suffered by chosen members of the judiciary. God watches us from a near distance. LUIS, Dulce and Rene, The Last Dance - I Could Have Danced All Night 7 Stitches, 7 Broken Ribs, 7 Grounds Last Dance7 is a 1996 film starring Sharon Stone, Rob Morrow, Randy Quaid and Peter Gallagher.The prison which the film is shot is in Ridgeland South Carolina. "Last Dance"8 is a song written by the late Paul Jabara. It was sung by Donna Summer for the Thank God It's Friday soundtrack in 1978. "Last Dance" won an Academy Award and a Golden Globe for Best Original Song. It is one of Summer's favorite songs and remains one of her most popular hits in the US. "I Could Have Danced All Night"9 is a song from the musical My Fair Lady, with music written by Frederick Loewe and lyrics by Alan Jay Lerner, published in 1956. The song is sung by the play's heroine, Eliza Doolittle, expressing her exhilaration and excitement after an impromptu dance with her tutor Henry Higgins Detailed Picture of Death, Pains 6 / 7 April, 2006, release of the 75 pages world-famous Psychosis-Nazario Decision which separated Judge Floro from service - The birthday of Angel, sister of LUIS and Armand (who both promised Judge Floro on the dalliance day of March 1, 1996, that these 3 and the Judge would someday be world-famous and IMMORTAL in world history) The Main Decision: 75 pages - March 31, 2006 - A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460 6 / 7 April, 2006, Br. 22, RTC, Manila, Judge Cesar Solis sala was ransacked by robbers (he is the father-in-law of Atty. Ma. Providencia Bibing Solis (who drafted the 75 pages Nazario Decision; she is the daughter of Atty. Victoria Timbangkaya, partner of, Atty. RENE A. V. SAGUISAG, counsel or record of Judge Floro; she resigned and transferred to the office of Sandiganbayan Justice Gesmundo, after her first born met a swing accident which caused incorrectible / lifetime SCARS, 7 STITCHES in the right forehead, while her youngest son was bitten by a dog; and her brother was rehabilitated due to DRUGS, and transferred from Dumaguete University to Adamson University to study 2 subjects, law). Atty. Ma. Isabel Providencia Bibing Timbangkaya Solis Drafted the Psychosis 75 pages Decision - RENE A. V. SAGUISAG, counsel-of-record of Judge Floro - partner of Atty. Victoria Timbangkaya As private secretary of Justice Nazario, Bibing worked with her at the Sandiganbayan since she was law student. In 1992, Judge Floro met his father-in-law Judge Cesar Solis (her neighbour at Capitol Estates, near Ever Gotesco), whos wife
7 8 9


died of cancer. Her mother, Atty. Victoria Timbangkaya had known Judge Floro through their neighbour, Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr., JBC Member and Lay Minister of their Parish. When Judge Floro hired as co-counsel of record, Senator Rene A.V. Saguisag, 2003, Atty. Vicky Timbangkay a was senior partner of Atty. Saguisag, and Judge Floro communicated with her almost weekly if not daily through telephone, regarding the 7 years suspension case. Atty. Bibing Solis gave Judge Floro certified copies of Justice Nazarios pre-trial Orders (which became the ANNEX A, of the Petition) days before the filing of the March 12, 2004 Mandamus case to enthrone Justice Nazario. AT THE SANDIGANBAYAN, ATTY. BIBING SOLIS RELAYED TO JUDGE FLORO THE COVENANT: UPON HER ENTHRONEMENT, JUSTICE NAZARIO WOULD FIGHT FOR JUDGE FLORO UNTIL THE END. Atty. Bibing Solis talked to Judge Floro 2 times at the Sandiganbayan and about 2 hours at her house before the 2004 elections, regarding the case and Justice Nazarios appointment. Atty. Vicky Timbangkaya confided to Judge Floro, that: a) she suffered malaria, pneumonia and flu, b) her son, brother of Atty. Bibing Solis was in and out of the drug rehabilitation at Dumaguete and from the Siliman University Law School; she transferred him to the Adamson University Law School (taking just one or 2 subjects, irregular, last semesters) through the grace of its Dean Antonio Abad, friend of Atty. Vicky Timbangkaya and further, c) Atty. Bibing Timbangkaya resigned from Justice Nazario and transferred to the Office of Justice Gesmundo on the day that Judge Floros case was released on April 6, 2006, since Justice Nazario asked Bibing to finish drafting the Decision of the case of Judge Floro. The Omen On April, 1999, Judge Floro visited Apo Rupeng (now deceased Rufina Resurrection, a 30 years well-known faith healer from Sabang, Baliuag, Bulacan). Judge Floro asked her to interpret the his vision of 3 Coffins And she predicted that these coffins would be the death beds of those who would persecute Judge Floro. Specifically, Rufina prophesied that LUIS will curse the ROLLO (2 push carts case which contain the 8 years suspension case); she said that LUIS will show to the ponente (Justice Nazario) the horrible pains and deaths on the coffins, upon release of any judgement which would dismiss or separate Judge Floro from the judiciary. On April 11, 2006, 4:30 p.m. Judge Floro visited Bibing at their house (she would go to Palawan). Atty. Ma. ISABEL PROVIDENCIA Bibing TIMBANGKAYA SOLIS, showed to Judge Floro her youngest son who was bitten by a dog, and her first born who also met a swing accident with 7 BIG LIFETIME STITCHES on his right forehead (incorrectible by plastic surgery). Her father-in-law's office, RTC Manila, Judge Cesar Solis' court was ransacked by robbers, that April 7, 2006. [On November 8, 2007, the left lung of Judge Floros counsel-of-record Rene A. V. Saguisag , was crushed and he had 7 broken ribs, while his head suffered clots; his wife Dulce died due to the horrible accident, which was predicted by LUIS on the 54th birthday of Judge Floro, on November 5, 2007, 8:00 p.m., when a VIOLET flash as big as a car wheel glimmered when Judge Floro conversed with Fr. Constancio Gan, C.M., at Adamspon University].


November 8, 2007 - Former DSWD Secretary Dulce Saguisag died while her husband Senator Rene Saguisag (lead counsel of President Joseph Estrada) suffered very serious accident, brain clot and 7 broken ribs. After a month, or on December 8, 2007, Senator Saguisag was released from the hospital, freed from tubes, but still needs assistance by a hired a private nurse". He lost lots of weight. He was out of the ICU on November 28, or 20 days from the fatalistic accident. Their youngest daughter 16-year old gymnast Kaissa Saguisag's knee injury ended her quest for gold at the 24th Southeast Asian Games10 Car Accident Last Dance Rene and Dulce Saguisag danced and danced the whole night. It was ballroom dancing time. On the way home, Dulce Saguisag was killed in a serious car accident on November 8, 2007, on President Osmea Highway in Makati City. Her husband, Rene Saguisag, was seriously injured in the accident. Two other people riding in the same Toyota Grandia van as the Saguisags, including Filipino dance instructor, Rhea Imelda Obong, and driver, Felipe Calvario, were also seriously injured in the accident. All four were rushed to Ospital ng Makati where Dulce Saguisag was pronounced dead from her injuries. The Toyota that Ducle Saguisag was riding in, which was travelling on Pasay Road, was struck by a dump truck at the corner of the President Osmea Highway in Makati City at about 2 A.M. The dump truck had reportedly been speeding when it ran a traffic light and struck the left side of the Saguisags' van, killing Dulce. Police arrested the driver of the dump truck at the scene of the accident. Attorney Rene A.V. Saguisag, Counsel-of-record of Judge Floro Best evidence of LUIS heartless, ruthless and supreme thirst for vengeance N.B. Senator RENE SAGUISAG: Mil Nueve Cientos: July, 2003 RENE does ballroom dancing in this Malate Restaurant. It was 8:30 p.m. He was on time and all black. He was so dignified. I summarized my PLEA to him. I pleaded that he should be able to convince Atty. Tesie Cruz-Sison, JBC Member to tell the Honorable Court the TRUTH: How she did mastermind my longest preventive suspension (4 years at that time, now 4 2/3 years). He promised to talk to Tesie. On July 20, 2003, RENE talked to her, and she bluntly told RENE that Judge FLOROS case is already with the Supreme Court, the line she always repeated, since 1999. I knelt before Atty. Rene Saguisag and his best friend San Beda Dean Virgilio JARA, as I personally talked to Rene begging an audience from S.C. Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, his best friend, but LUIS was turned down by RENE. Judge Floro, denied by Dean Virgilio Jara and Atty. Rene Saguisag Jobless Judge since July 20, 1999 Who is LUIS really?
10, 'Next 24 hours critical for Rene Saguisag', Ex-senator Saguisag leaves hospital, By Tarra Quismundo, DJ Yap, 12/08/2007, Knee injury ends gymnast Saguisags quest for SEAG gold


Judge Floro was ordered by LUIS, to give Rene Saguisag all the chances before the dwarf judges November 5, 2007 birthday: a) Judge Floros last face to face talk to Rene Saguisag was Judge Floro fetched Rene from San Beda lecture and they went to a 2nd floor of Makati Hotel where Rene was waiting for a client. Judge Floro was asked by LUIS to ask Rene 2 questions: i) Sir, Atty. Gregorio M. Batiller, Jr., Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas and Justice Lucas Bersamin said that if I would file the disbarment case against C.J. Davide, et al. I would not have a job, will I file the case tomorrow? ii) and Sir, can you help me get a job from President Cory and your client President Erap, or can you help me get clients so that I can practice law? Rene, in deep meditation, said: Alam mo, masyado ka nang sikat! Iyong ika-2 tanong mo, mas mahirap saguting! cursed the COMELEC, due to Chair Benjamin Abalos denial of LUIS and Judge Floros plea for JOB, (Resume was brought to Abalos upon suggestion of Nonoy the best friend and campaign manager of Dr. Arsenio Abalos). its own highest officer was shot dead. b) Judge Floro called Rene 20 times until Judge Floro went to San Beda to give his book to Dean Virgilio Jara and another for Rene. Notwithstanding these pleas for mercy, Judge Floros maid Belen bombarded Rene with many phone calls asking for audience, per Malen and Blenda, Renes 2 secretaries. Despite all these, Judge Floro, on his birthday November 5, 2008 alerted this Honorable Court with his Motion for Entry of Judgment, citing these facts on pages 2 and 12, inter alia. c) Despite all these, Judge Floro asked mercy from Justice Nazario who closed her door to the poor dwarf judge on August 4, 2006, while her secretary Marissa said that she will never entertain any audience to Judge Floro even after the case becomes final. Will this case be ever final? d) At 8 p.m. November 5, 20008, Judge Floro for one full hour, discussed this Rene Saguisag and Atty. Bibing Timbangkaya matter of the Decision to his counsel Fr. Constancio C. Gan, amid the as big as a car wheel VIOLET FLASH of light by LUIS, showing his intense and heartless vendetta. RAUL M. GONZALES, NENE PIMENTEL & PRYDE HENRY TEVES LUIS ordered Judge Floro to meet DOJ Secretary Gonzales 2 times: a) Circa August 22, 2005 Judge Floro asked Gonzales as JBC Member to transfer Judge Floro to another equal or higher post in the other departments. Gonzales refused to give Judge Floro any endorsement but asked him to write a letter to the President. Judge Floro held the right hand of Gonzales; b) Judge Floro asked for mercy from Gonzales about December, 2006, for job, work and trabajo, but Gonzales said that the Supreme Court Justices were angry to the dwarf judge. So, in obedience to Gonzales, Judge Floro wrote Sec. Ermita and Manny Gaite, his classmate letters of applications. Ermita responded per his USEC and suggested to Judge Floro to file applications with the Department levels. Judge Floro accordingly filed applications with: a) Senator Nene Pimentel; Judge Floro was asked by Nene to see his 3 lawyers and this director; thereafter Nene boxed in the can Judge Floros application; b) Margarito Teves denied Judge Floros request for audience and the application; .


13 November, 2007 Batasan blast: Teves still in ICU; Ilagan may undergo surgery Negros Oriental Representative Pryde Henry Teves11 Congressman Henry Teves was one of the 3 Philippine representatives; others were Luzviminda Ilagan of GABRIELA partylist and Wahab Akbar of the lone district of Basilan that were victimized by the explosion. Congressman Wahab Akbar of Basilan was killed in the incident while both Congressman Pryde Henry Teves and Congresswoman Luzviminda Ilagan experienced severe injuries. In earlier reports, Doctors announced that Teves' legs would be amputated, but later decided that some medicines could help cure the wounded legislator. Vercita Garcia, staff member of Rep. Pryde Henry Teves died at 6:30 p.m. due to cardiac arrest at St. Luke's Medical Center in Quezon, City on December 17, 2007 After 35 days or on December 18, 2007, Negros Oriental Rep. Pryde Henry Teves was moved out of the intensive care unit of St. Lukes Medical Center in Quezon City to a private room thereat, and recuperated from destroyed eardrum, fractured leg and sustained deep burns in his arms from the Batasang Pambansa bombing. On January 31, 2008, Pryde Henry Teves, 35, reported for work at the House of Representatives, against doctors' advises. Teves, still in a wheelchair, wears black cotton gloves to protect his burned hands, and he could not shake hands or use his cellular phone. He stated: "I feel all the senses in my body that I dont want to feel, all the unwanted pain. I really got depressed. And my (burned) skin (including face) is extra sensitive. When its hot I feel the heat and when its cold I also feel very cold. My left foot was shattered in 10 places. Its all held together by screws. Hopefully, after 20 weeks (since Nov. 13) the bones will heal; Im still under heavy medication. And I still take pain relievers. The pain is terrible.Three days ago (Jan. 26), I had two shrapnels removed from my body. They were all concrete nails." 62% of his body sustained 2nd and 3rd degree burns, and his left foot was badly fractured. Judge Floro CURSED (biblical imprecation) the Batasan / Congress when he appeared thereat as Intervenor in the FPJ case, with special pass in the canvassing of the votes12. On November 23, 2007 - Malacanan, per office of Exec. Eduardo Ermita wrote jobless Judge Floro asking him to apply with the Department Secretaries / levels; hence Judge Floro applied with and asked personal audience with Secretary Finance Margarito Teves, DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzales, and First Gentleman Mike Arroyo per Atty. Jesus I. Santos, personally, at Marilao, Bulacan, and thru her daughter Atty. Tricia Santos. Judge Floro begged Pat Habulan for audience with Sec. Ermita, but failed13. * April 9, 2007 First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo's surgery for aortic aneurysm14

WikiPedia, Pryde Henry Teves,'s-Medical-Center 12 Canvass Pass, 13 Documents,


* On September 14, 2007, Raul Gonzalez, 7615, underwent a successful 4-hour kidney transplant at the National Kidney Institute (with Felicito Gunay, 53, nicknamed "Muroy" his driver as kidney donor}. He was resting and in stable condition (6:00 p.m., Philippine time). Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera was appointed officer-in-charge of the Department of Justice effective September 1. Davao Congressman Prospero Nograles wanted the post of Gonzales, as a steppingstone to the Supreme Court of the Philippines. August 3, 2007 DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzalez (Philippines) vomited blood, rushed to hospital, battled with bleeding from ulcer; he had a kidney transplant on September 14, 2007. His Iloilo Mayor Jerry Trenas was sued the Ombudsman regarding the coal plant trip by the Taiwan company16 * On September 18, 2007, defeated sanatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel III charged Commission on Elections Chair Benjamin Abalos of orchestrating the alleged May 2007 elections frauds and the latter's controversial national broadband network project was his karma. Like Koko Pimentel, former senators Vicente Sotto III, Tessie Aquino-Oreta and Sonia Roco, widow of former senator Raul Roco miserably lost in the Philippine general election, 200717 Muntinlupa City Hall - Metropolitan Trial Court was burned18 July 26, 2007 Court of Appeals 4th floor was burned, 5th alarm19 * June 16, 2007 Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. was operated spinal surgery (spinal stenosis - pinched lumbar nerves), while his son Aquilino Pimentel III suffered defeat to Sen. Miguel Zubiri20 May 25, 2007 - Edwin Ermita, son of Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita lost to Vice-Governor Mark Leviste21 November 5, 1997, November 4 / 5, 1998: November 5, 2007 Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

Mike Arroyo undergoing surgery for aortic aneurysm By Lira Dalangin-Fernandez,, First Posted 04/09/2007 15 16, Gonzales battling with bleeding ulcer, Justice chief Gonzalez to undergo kidney transplant, Iloilo mayor sued for trip paid for by Taiwan firm 17, Trillanes caper tops most read stories, election results, 2007 18 Muntinlupa City Hall blaze contained, By Thea Alberto,, 08/03/2007 19, Fire hits CA building 20 Zubiri proclaimed 12th senator , By Veronica Uy,, 07/14/2007
21, Inhibition of poll exec in Batangas case sought, By Marlon Alexander Luistro, Southern Luzon Bureau, 12/18/2007


But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brothers, be firm, steadfast, always fully devoted to the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain. (1 Corinthians, Chapter 15, 55-58).

5 December, 1939 - Birth of Minita Viray Chico -Nazario 5 December, 1925 - Birth and Death of Milagros V. Floro 5 December, 1995 - (Mother of Judge Florentino V. Floro) 5 November, 1953 - Birth - Florentino Velasquez Floro, Jr. 5 November, 1997 JBC Application of Judge Floro 4/5 November, 1998 Judicial Appointment of Judge Floro MEMORANDUM 0F PROPHECIES - April 6, 2006 - October 26, 2007 From April 7, 2006 until today, as JOBLESS, I wake up at 10 a.m. I eat vegetables and fishes, and sometimes, meat. I would sit in the computer Internet cafe, from 12 noon to 12 midnight (with breaks, 8 to 10 p.m. to eat). I responded to 1,000 blogs comments, like yours, and 140 forums thousand of posts, which reported my case based on more than 100 international wire reports and front page head lines, from April 7, 2006 (the birthday of Angel when I was separated and made immortal in world history). I am an established WikiPedian editor, contributor or user. Recently, I spent about 10 hours daily to edit WikiPedia and create articles. B. Spirituality and the Light On a) First Friday, March 1, 1996, LUIS and Armand (after my repeated requests since November, 1984) finally made the ETERNAL covenant (improperly called DALLIANCE) with these 3 holy angels ... (due to our 1521-1899 Spanish colonization, our culture mandated us to call these guardian angels as DWENDES from Duendes). LUIS told me that I must just whistle and call their names 3x and they would be instantly beside me bodily and spiritually EVEN during the times I least needed them, like when I was taking a bath. On b) Good Friday, 2001 and c) October 21, 2007 LUIS for the 2nd and 3rd time showed himself to me in magnificent visions - a) in the form of regal violet King and b) in the form of a chicken, respectively. So there were 3 FULL apparitions since 1984, aside from LUIS daily violet lights flashed to me proving that there is no second that he is not with me.


C. Physical Death I faced physical death 3 times: a) 2000 - at San Francisco, Pulilan, Bulacan, near a chapel - an addict did strike at my back / neck with steel ASERO, and he did use his knife to kill me, but LUIS lights flooded my body and I was never physically hurt; b) March 9, 2001, at Tiaong, Baliuag, Bulacan - a man had badly beaten me at the back, and if you saw me, you would not believe that I would live. When I shouted the name of LUIS, there was stoppage, and I did walk safely (my doctor was surprised that there was no hematoma, so I visited and thanked Our Lady of Manaoag, Pangasinan); c) November, 2005 - in front of Capitolio, Malolos, Bulacan, while waiting for a jeep, I was badly beaten on my upper lip, with steel asero, and the guard of Judge Benjamin M. Aquino, Jr. did see me with so much blood and I was operated (minor surgery) at the provincial hospital. After just 1 month you would never see any scar, for it is a physical miracle of LUIS and his healing oil. C. Lux in Domino In this November 5, 2007 pleading, I asked the Court to order its clerk of court to obey the fallo and ratio decidendi of the last / final denial resolutions in this case, that is, to issue an entry of judgment, or certificate of finality. I received these final orders long ago, and until today Atty. Maria Luisa Villarama and Atty. Felipa Anama both failed and refused to obey the court order despite the fact that I never filed any appeal / motion to reconsider or any pleading. The August 11, 2006 and July 12, 2007 Resolutions state: WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge Floros Partial Motions for Reconsideration as well as the Supplements thereto are hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY there being no merits. No other pleading, however denominated, shall henceforth be entertained by this Court.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as it is hereby Resolved, Judge Floros ORIGINAL PETITION/LETTER WITH LEAVE OF COURT [For Re-Opening of Judge Floros Separation Case based on G.R. No. 72670, 12 September 1986 - Saturnina Galman v. Sandiganbayan] with Conjunctive Omnibus Motions and his VERIFIED SUPPLEMENT TO THE ORIGINAL PETITION/LETTER, WITH LEAVE OF COURT [For Re-Opening of Judge Floros Separation case based on G.R. No. 72670, 12 September 1986, Saturnina Galman v. Sandiganbayan] with Alternative Urgent Petition to assign i) a New Docket Number to this Original Petition, and ii) to Designate Acting Chief Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing or S.C. Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, as New Ponente of this New Case, are hereby NOTED WITHOUT ACTION and are ordered EXPUNGED from the records. It is hereby firmly reiterated that NO FURTHER PLEADING/S WILL BE ENTERTAINED in this case. Judge Floro is hereby given a WARNING that he can be held liable for indirect contempt
should he persist in disregarding lawful orders of this Court and committing acts which tend to abuse, obstruct, impede, and degrade the administration of justice.


RULE 36 (JUDGMENTS, FINAL ORDERS AND ENTRY THEREOF - Sec. 2. Entry of judgments and final orders), Revised Rules of Court provides: If no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed within the time provided in these Rules, the judgment or final order shall forthwith be entered by the clerk in the book of entries of judgments. The date of finality of the judgment or final order shall be deemed to be the date of its entry. The record shall contain the dispositive part of the judgment or final order and shall be signed by the clerk, with a certificate that such judgment or final order has become final and executory. SC TELLS MYSTIC JUDGE - Stop filing appeals or be cited in contempt

Thursday, July 19, 2007 - SC tells sacked psychic magistrate to stop bothering court stop.bothering.court.html

D. LUIS Violet and White Supreme Spiritual Lights I state the secret of LUIS: Since the fatalistic afternoon (4:45 p.m.) of July 20, 1999, when I was suspended, until today November 2, FIRST FRIDAY 2007, LUIS repeatedly asked me to accept the vocation of Vincentian Priesthood since I left the catholic seminary, 1970 and the Jesuit priesthood, 1974. Every Sundays, Fridays and important days, LUIS endowed me with TRANCE (this technical and religious term had been ridiculed by those who failed to read St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologia it means divine intervention per his angelic choirs instruments, but it is at the base of the MYSTICAL WAY of the saints). The saints experienced ECSTASY which is over and above TRANCE: LUIS would regularly at midnights and early dawn show me the visions of the Vincentian seminary from July 20, 1999 until today. I refused. I asked several motions for extensions of times. I contradicted his mandate, but LUIS patiently granted, since per my sufferings and cross, LUIS successfully burned the 4 courts and COMELEC by his spiritual and mystic violet
lights. I painfully obeyed his mandate to inflict illnesses upon the incumbent and retired Supreme Court Justices and their loved ones, inter alia, for spiritual cleansing.

E. LUIS, the Angel of Death, the Destroyer I HAVE NO POWER TO GIVE UP ANY OF THE ENDOWED GIFTS (bilocation, healing, prophecy, exorcism...) for these are permanent graces of the Holy Spirit. They are indelible in my: a) right arm, both palms and hands, which turned golden yellow; b) eyes which emit spiritual fires (colorless and very colorful steadily at midnights bursting therefrom); this is totally different from aura; c) I have the pangil ng kidlat, or lightning teeth and cross of the tongue, or krus sa dila; d) the violet and white lights of LUIS all the time; e) the power and gift to ANNIHILATE the most powerful and loved ones up to the 4th generation. F. Express and Unconditional Pardon, Forgiveness and Prayer


I had forgiven all my brothers, LITANY of ENEMIES and TONS of detractors who did me wrong... I wrote and published (1995, 2001) 29 & 17 pages of single space predictions and all these happened my most powerful and rich brother Jesie Floro would not reconcile with me.... He was very afraid to physically face me until now ... He lost P 5 million or $ 115,000 to robbers last year his 2 sons do study at the ATENEO high school He and Atty. Henry R. Villarica (No. 1 in 1972 Bar Examinations) founded a cock farm and they join big time derbies, but they usually lost because I cursed all his cocks and the farm ... last year, his farm caretaker was murdered in front of his 4 hectare farm in Sta. Maria, Bulacan ... almost all the gold shops in Aranque and Recto, Manila, delivered gold to Jesie Floro, while almost all of gold subastas of all the pawnshops of Atty. Henry R. Villarica all over the Philippines were sold to Jesie Floro and delivered to the Central Bank the problem is: he now has 2 security guards and could not sleep because of my CURSE You
know last 2 years ago, by telephone, I asked Jesie Floro to personally allow me to face him to settle things... but due to fear, he refused... so since 1995 I had never seen his face.

Everything is possible for LUIS ... why? He is the King of Kings of elementals of the entire universe. You can verify this from renowned and authentic GIFTED or psychics here and abroad. He easily blocked the heart vessels of the Philippines No. 1 Psychic Institution Mr. Jaime T. Licauco, who copy pasted foreign books and materials he ridiculed the book of LUIS so, as LUIS did to Amazing James RANDI the magician, LICAUCO suffered P 1.0 million or $ 25,000 ANGIOPLASTY on February 7, 2007. As you see, LUIS, is merciless, and has MAGIC TOUCH against any sort of evil. G. Magic Touch It was on November 5, 2004, my birthday, that LUIS gave me a special gift (at Podium mall, restaurant, Pasig City , Metro Manila). LUIS infused upon my right hand the GIFT of DESTRUCTION the moment it would touch the hand or body of a retired and incumbent Supreme Court Justice, inter alia, who made money, is corrupt in any manner or hath done injustice, LUIS would easily STAIN their bloods up to the 4th generation: a) Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. (JBC member) on Feb. 10, 2006 called me and he told me that the court (per the ponente Justice Minita Viray ChicoNazario) would pay me and separate me from service but she was in my favor. So we both shouted loud at each other and I dared him to release the decision. I demanded my dismissal or my reinstatement. I asked him to write to the court before or after the decision, stating that it was Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and Atty. Teresita Cruz-Sison who ordered my suspension and separation from service, due to a) her massive stroke, his b) carotid surgery and the great sufferings / lingering illnesses of c) Hilario Sr., d) Jose and e) Jorge Davide (2004) for 7 long years. LUIS promised and confided to me that his lights did torture all of them, until the finale: excruciating death of Hilario, Sr. on July 17, 2006. So, LUIS accurately PREDICTED that upon the release of the 75-pages Decision, 3 loved ones of the most powerful would die and there would be major mystic fires ... LUIS did purify the entire judiciary, FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD. b) I also dismissed the non-related case of disbarment vs. CA Justice Romeo Barza, the lawyer of First Gentleman Mike Arroyo. But he failed to repent, so I filed a corruption case against him, lately:

74 Monday, July 30, 2007 - SC to probe TRO fixers, justices in appeals court Technically, there was no need to drop the cases since they would be dismissed anyway as I was officially told. The entire decision, 75 pages, that you read, was drafted, finalized and initialed by - Atty. Ma. Isabel Providencia BIBING Timbangkaya (the private secretary of Justice Minita Viray Chico-Nazario; and she is the daughter of ATTY. Victoria Timbangkaya, the senior partner of Senator Rene A.V. Saguisag, my counsel or attorney of record (with Atty. Gregorio M. Batiller, Jr. top Ateneo lawyer, whom I both dismissed as counsels); you know, when I fought for Justice Nazario in her most difficult moments, I was promised by Atty. Bibing that Justice Nazario would do everything, but she failed since there were 8 Justices who
were medically operated and this was the subject of my loud SHOUTING to Justice Hermosisima, Jr. last February 10, 2006. So, I had to dismiss all the cases to prevent any technicality.

c) LUIS finally told me that I must FORGIVE all my enemies, to pray for them, and PARDON all of them in writing. THAT WAS THE ONLY PATH THAT THE VIOLET LIGHT WOULD ACCURATELY STRIKE THE BODILY ORGANS TARGETED. At the time of my filing the motions to dismiss (January 2006), before the decision, I did not know why. But I obeyed. LUIS finally told me, that I must surrender ... since St. Paul said that death comes from sin and sin comes from law, the RULE OF LAW... the Law of anger, hatred, vengeance, vendetta and GREED... He told me that I must bear my cross ... So, I did dismiss all these as you read the decision, and because of the dismissal, all the respondents hurriedly followed up the release of the resolution of dismissal as you would see in the footnotes of the decision. So, they were able to apply for loan and do things they failed to because of the pending cases. IN SHORT, LUIS asked me to leave the vengeance to God... and later, I was surprised the this was the twin biblical spells under PSALMS 109 and 73. H. 4 Spiritual Nails in each of the 15 Chambers First Disagreement: On December 2000, Justice Bernardo P. Pardo issued a resolution which ordered me to submit for evaluation by the courts' own psychiatrist under Justice Benipayo (under the pain of contempt to be sent to the NBI Jail); I received the resolution which was delivered to my rented house by Peter, the S.C. process server on December 10, 2000. LUIS told me to clean the Supreme Court by putting 4 nails in all corners of each of the 15 Chambers of Supreme Court Justices every first Fridays at 3pm. I refused, and the vote was a tie. Armand voted in my favor while Angel was neutral. So I imposed a condition: it was an INSULT to LUIS - MAKE ME A PROPHET, let my good Friday prophecy at San Juanico Bridge, 1998 on the downfall of President Joseph Estrada happen on the 20th since I was suspended on 20th also. Another condition was - ERAP must also suffer the same length of preventive suspension or incarceration... LUIS impeccable MATHEMATICAL accuracy: Joseph E. Estrada was ousted on January 20, 2001, released, October 26, 2007 = 6 years, 9 months, & 6 days Florentino V. Floro was suspended on -


July 20, 1999, separated on April 6, 2006

= 6 years, -9 months (-14 days)

Ergo, starting First Friday, August, 1999 until before the decision, I filed EVERY FIRST FRIDAYS, MOTIONS TO LIFT SUSPENSIONS at 3 p.m. Aside from this, I TRAVELED to the most powerful places in the Philippines on first Fridays from Aparri to Cagayan De Oro City, FRIDAYS, to obey LUIS mandate to help his violet LIGHTS BURN THE COURTS and to INFLICT ILLNESSES, dire pains, and deaths upon the Justices, Judges, their loved ones, inter alia, and top corrupt government officers. The 4 (60) nails are now well embedded and safely installed in all the 15 chambers of the Supreme Court Justices. Second Disagreement: On November 3, 2006, LUIS ordered me to RECITE the Biblical Imprecation under Psalm 109, thusly: Inq7 Breaking News - Psychotic judge enlists help of dwarf-friends vs SC By Tetch Torres - - Posted date: November 03, 2006 BEGINNING this Sunday, three dwarves will work their powers against 14 of the 15 justices of the Supreme Court, a dismissed judge has warned as he filed his third motion for reconsideration for his reinstatement before the high tribunal. Judge Florentino Floro Jr. of the Malabon regional trial court was separated from service after medical findings showed that he was suffering from psychosis. The high court had said that Judge Floro lacked the judicial temperament and the fundamental requirements of competence and objectivity expected of all judges. It said that the findings of psychosis by the mental health professionals assigned to his case indicated gross deficiency in competence and independence. In his appeal, Floro said his three dwarf-friends -- Luis, Armand, and Angel -- appeared to him last week and told him that the justices would suffer their wrath for dismissing him. Floro said the sufferings of the Supreme Court justices would start midnight of November 5, the eve of his 53rd birthday. Floro said he appealed to his dwarf-friends to spare one justice, which according to him had been put into a vote by the three. Floro did not name him. "Voting en banc with full authority, Luis voted negative, Armand conditionally positive, upon full appointment of Judge Floro to a higher or equal position by virtue of the eliminated magistrate, while Angel voted neutral," Floro said. Because the voting was a tie, Floro said Luis agreed to spare one justice if he would spread oil on any part of the justice's house before November 5. Floro said he would follow the dwarves' advice and start praying every Friday so that the curse on the justices would work. "I will devote my entire life, Fridays, until my last breath, towards the fulfillment, execution, and coming to pass of this curse. With absolute faith in Luis, Armand and Angel -- Angels of God, I will fulfill my destiny: spell and karma upon them, all their loved ones, up to the 4th generation," Floro said. Judge Floro, who was appointed RTC Judge in November 1998, has admitted to having psychic visions, of having the ability to predict the future because of his power in psychic phenomenon. He said he believed in duwendes [dwarves] and forged a covenant with them. He also said that he could write while in a trance and that he had been seen by several people to have been in two places at the same time. He also likened himself to the angel of death who could inflict pain on people, especially upon those he perceived to be corrupt officials of the Malabon RTC. During court sessions,

Judge Floro wore blue robes except on Fridays when he would wear a black
robe and black outfit from head to foot allegedly to recharge his psychic powers. He also conducted healing sessions inside his chambers during breaks.

Accordingly, because of Armand, I was spared Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, but it was only temporary (and after our last / 5th meeting in his august chambers); LUIS ordered me to recite the most HOLY BIBLICAL CURSES under PSALMS 109 and 73 not only every Fridays but every 12 midnights daily until 1 a.m, inserting all the first names therein. I. 4 Personal Meetings between Judge Florentino V. Floro and S.C. Senior Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, at his Chambers 1. January 24, 2006, before the April 6 decision, 3 pm to 5:10 pm. I told him all these, and all that would happen after the release of the decision. I identified the 8 justices that suffered medical surgeries and warned the dire consequences that would happen after the decisions release; 2. After the august 11, appeal denial - Justice Quisumbing gave me coffee and he listened to my account of the dire prophecies. He gave me xerox copy of the Ripleys Hello Judge and the 3 dwarves which he got from the PIOs daily newspaper cut-outs, specifically from Philippine Star. He gave me his very own handwritten desk note HELPING me to seek consultancy job from his friend Engr. Homer Ortega. Justice Quisumbing talked by cell phone to Engr. Homer Ortega. The latter and I met at Bayani Fernandos MMDA office. Engr. Ortega told me that the consultancy that he eyed for me was already taken by Regis Puno; 3. November 3, 2006 - I spared him from the spiritual curse for a time which ended on the last meeting, and I put oil in his desk as LUIS permitted; 4. December, 2006 days before the appointment of Chief Justice Puno Justice Quisumbing showed me copy of the newspaper reports on Senator Miriam Santiagos possible appointment as Chief Justice. And in front of a Masbaste exMayor, I predicted that Santiago would never be Chief Justice since I predicted the death of her own son A.R. Santiago; and 5. Thursday after the January 16 Supreme Court fire Justice Quisumbing pasted my One-page Mystic Fire appeal for reinstatement at the wall outside his chambers. His last words to me was: Huwag kang magagalit sa akin. And I did not say a word. Thereafter, Justice Quisumbings secretary Sori gave her cell phone number to my secretary Belen Gomez. She scheduled all these 5 audiences. After the 5th and last audience with Justice Quisumbing, I disagreed with LUIS again. Armand told me to file the appeal to their holy En Banc tribunal. I asked one last thing: I asked LUIS permission to approach and file my pleas to the Human Rights Chair. And so the Resolution was released on August, First Friday: LUIS said - We will allow you to
meet personally the Chair of this Human Rights office at the very corridors of power.

What does that mean? On first Friday, October 5, 2007, I found myself in front of Chair Purificacion Quisumbing with 2 beautiful ladies in black and the VIOLET lights of LUIS did flash and I was SCARED. Scared, but I did not fear


scared, since I saw the vision of painful deaths inflicted by LUIS ... up to the 4th Generation... So, as a meek lamb, I bowed down to the King of Kings of the part of the 9 choirs of Angels.

J. LUIS Exorcism First, let it be remembered that I am a closed catholic, a former Vincentian and Jesuit candidate for priesthood. I am so conservative about our faith. I even believe that Pope John Paul II was dogmatically correct in ruling that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church (except as St. Paul said, gentiles can be saved). But Pharisees, scribes, hypocrites and the rich will never ever enter the Kingdom of God . I would rather not cite here the long links, references and authorities about the merciless Old Testament God who killed the a) first born animals and male children (Exodus 12:23); he was the destroyer of innocent children in b) Sodom and Gomorrah, and in c) Noah's deluge. HIS WAYS ARE NOT OUR WAYS. Do read Psalms 109 and 73 these songs are sufficient to biblically answer you queries. 9/11 and the killings of innocent children are just facets of His immense mystery, revealed by the Fatima predictions of 1918 to the 3 children. To be very specific, as you read the 75 pages decision, Atty. Esmeralda Galang Dizon, my clerk of Court practiced evil of witchcraft: a) on the 3rd week of February, 1999, my staff asked me to allow them to bring psychics during breaks to chat with me. And of course, I scheduled the meeting on a Friday, break time. 5 went to my sala, but I scolded my maid Belen for not telling me they were waiting thereat. And Belen told me that when all of the 5 alleged psychics approached the door of my chambers, all of them felt numb and terrified. So I failed to face them. During the 2 hours trial at the OCAD in my case, 2000, my maid Belen who was also witness, told me that Atty. Dizon never winked for 2 hours, her eyes never closed. Also, her daughter Gelay, was a 5 year old who never wept nor cried. In fact when she played with my gavel, she fell and she never cried even in dire pain. In Malabon, Manila, there are lots of witches, who do have black dolls from the devil which they inherited from their witch ancestors. On June 28, 2002 before I cursed Ateneo law School, particularly ATENEO LAW SCHOOL CLASS 82, inter alia, Atty. Emily Reyes+, (my classmate, one of the most corrupt ex-register of deeds, ex-LRA officer, and exombudsman officer), asked me at our Pioneer building reunion to heal Gelay the daugher of Melvin and Esmeralda Galang-Dizon. I said NO NO NO, since they are
possessed and had covenants with the devil. I have no power to lift the curse on them.

Atty. Emily Reyes suffered the wrath of LUIS, and she died in pain due to mysterious cancer, before the week Gregorio Gaite+ died in pain, the father of my classmate Deputy Executive Sec. for Legal Affairs, Manuel Gaite (who made a set-up fun to trick me at the wake of Emily Reyes; he pretended that I would meet classmate Jay Flaminiano; classmates Betty Medialdea, with Francis Lim & ET Montecastro joined the fun; yes, QUITE FUNNY, but for LUIS, it was TIME, he did inflict
illnesses which caused the death of Gregorio Gaite). These are not punishments but biblical curse versus evil to ward off the black inside them. It is part of the galactic wars of LUIS.

K. LUIS meets Atty. Bibing Timbangkay


In my other appeals to the court, I contradicted the draft of the 75 pages decision: a) Robert V. Floro's mild mental retardation was caused by Dr. Arguelles wrong medicines for my mother who was pregnant, and we had no DNA problems nor mental defects; b) Atty. Bibing Timbangkaya's brother was and is a DRUG ADDICT, having been kicked out of Siliman University; he had been rehabilitated many times, and was accepted by Adamson University Law school, since Dean Antonio Abad is the friend of her mother, Atty. Vicky Timbangkaya. LUIS inflicted upon Atty. Bibing Timbangkaya's 2 sons PERMANENT stains and scars on the brain and blood - her eldest son suffered SWING accident with very deep 7 stitches scars on the left forehead while the youngest had been bitten by the dog on the lower legs, having lifetime stains on their bloods. II. Message of LUIS to the Judiciary As Holy Angel of Death and Destroyer of evil in the judiciary and government, and for November 5, 2007 - LUIS said that he will spare no one, unless there will be genuine repentance. The Supreme Court commissioned the SWS in 1995 and in another 2006 independent survey, the SWS released the statistics on judicial corruption: Mahar Mangahas, SWS survey - says SWS survey: Lawyers say judiciary more corrupt First posted 08:31am (Mla time) Jan 26, 2005 - Inquirer News Service Corruption Corruption remains a major problem. As in 1995, one-fourth of present lawyers say Many/Very Many judges are corrupt. However, although half (49%) say they know a case their own city or province where a judge took a bribe, only 8% of such lawyers said they reported the bribery, the main excuse of those keeping silent being that they could not prove it. [Tables 8-9] Among the respondent-judges, on the other hand, only 7% call Many/Very Many judges as corrupt. Judges' perception of the extent of corruption among court personnel is the same now as in 1996. What has increased is the proportion of judges seeing many lawyers as corrupt. [Tables 10-11] Philippine Extra-Judicial Killings: 414 Killed in 103 Days THE LIVING CURSE OF THE HOLY ANGELS. As I predicted repeatedly in writing, the judiciary will witness the NATIONWIDE DEATHS that will happen July 20, 1999 to July 20, 2007: View from the mountaintop

5 Mystic Fires - MALABON RTC, SUPREME COURT, COMELEC, COUR OF APPEALS and MeTC MUNTINLUPA CITY II.a. Eucharistic Enthronement - Conversion

1. The burnt SUPREME COURT SESSION HALL, COURT OF APPEALS' 4th FLOOR, COMELEC, Br. 73, RTC, Malabon sala, and the Muntinlupa MeTC sala, must all be CONVERTED for the enthronement thereat of the HOLY EUCHARIST by building entirely thereat the Adoracion Chapel, which is the only HOPE against evil in the judiciary. II.b. Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary 2. The entire JUDICIARY and Government must be CONSECRATED by our Cardinal to the Immaculate of Heart of Mary on April 12 and 25, the special days which LUIS chose for salvation of the justices / judges and court personnels souls from perdition; and April should be declared the Filipino Justice month. II.c. Coronation of our Lady of Fatima 3. The images of Our Lady of Fatima must be crowned and permanently be venerated in all these 5 places since she is the Mediatrix of all graces, and the CoRedemptrix who solely CRUSHED the head of the serpent per Revelation. This is the only way to solve the extra-judicial killings and to lessen corruption in our country. There is no such thing as MORAL revolution since it never happened since ancient times (due to the corrupt human nature of jurists, pastors and preachers of the Gospel, who are all greedy and veritable hypocrites). 4. Psalms 109 and 73 must be recited daily to replace the Chief Justice DAVIDE circular prayer before court sessions, so that all those who steal and abuse judicial power would readily be blood stained. 5. The Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data ( Philippines ) would be useless without the foregoing spiritual remedies.

RELIEF IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that the instant Amended / Supplemental Verified Complaint Letter-Affidavit
[Under Rules 140, 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, Codes of Judicial Conduct & Professional Responsibility, inter alia] and

Verified Motion To Intervene & Petition-in-Intervention

In: "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)" With -

Urgent Omnibus Motions

I. For Preventive Suspension, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution, and II. To appoint a Special Prosecutor, in accordance with EN BANC, A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA,



Further, it is respectfully prayed, that - after filing of respondents COMMENTS / ANSWERS, and after due notice, hearing, and Report of the Commissioner / Investigator/Panel, - judgment be rendered declaring them GUILTY of all the charges and that supreme penalties of DISMISSAL FROM SERVCE & DISBARMENT be imposed upon them, ordering that their names be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and punished accordingly, under Rule 139-B, and Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia. Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading - letter-affidavitcomplaint, this 8th day of August, 2008, at Malolos City, BULACAN. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Petitioner/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;
ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV].

NOTICE TO: Atty. Ma. Luisa Villarama / Atty. Felipa Anama, The Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, Manila, Please DOCKET and AGENDUM the foregoing pleading for the deliberation and Resolution of the Honorable Court, immediately upon receipt hereof. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,
VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING & AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) Malolos City, BULACAN ) S.S. I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, depose/say, that: I am the complainant in this case. I caused the preparation, signed and read the initial complaint duly filed in this case, and all the contents / allegations thereof are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records.\ I certify that: I have not theretofore commenced any disbarment action or filed any administrative or other claim against respondents, involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, except these twin or interrelated administrative Matter and administrative cases"A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)", and to the best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein, and if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status 81

thereof will be made, but there is none; 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 5 days there from to the court wherein the aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. I certify that on August 8th, 2008, I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in this case Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant, - versus Justice B. Reyes et al, A.M. OCA IPI No. _______, & "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)",upon respondents, personally, thru the Office of the Court Adminstrator, OCAD, Supreme Court, Manila, as evidenced by the hereunder rubber stamp receipt, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Revised Rules of Court.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 8th day of August, 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.

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.

Reservation: Because of time constraints, undersigned reserves his right to file amended or supplemental pleadings, in due course, if needed, to conform to truth, or justice, and to add respondents if needed. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR. COPY FURNISHED: (By Personal Service): Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Associate Justice Martin Villarama, Associate Justice Edgardo Cruz, and Jane Doe & Sahah Doe (Lawyers, daughters of Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.), Court of Appeals, Maria Orosa, Ermita, Manila,

c/o: The Office of the Court Administrator, OCAD, Supreme Court, Manila.