Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3. Not only that. After the Bulacan court granted respondents Motion to
Dismiss, the Presiding Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz FIRST reversed the dismissal
and gave herein complainant (plaintiff therein) time to pay docket fees; then,
Judge Thelma, for the SECOND time, corrected herself and ruled that the
docket fees were fully paid, contrary to the allegations and documents
submitted by respondent; Judge Cruz, therefore issued a Partial Judgment
dismissing herein complainants case on technical grounds; then, complainant
filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration which VACATED the Partial
Judgment; thereafter, Judge Thelma, for the THIRD time, reversed herself, and
issued the last Order dated 3 September, 2008, recalling the Partial Judgment,
upon timely Motion by herein complainant; and she issued a New Order
declaring the 2 consolidated cases AGAIN submitted for full decision regarding
all parties therein especially defendant Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico who was not
included in the Partial Judgment, due to palpable error of the Judge.
COPIES of the pertinent documents to support the above-allegations are
ATTACHED, collectively marked as Annex A hereof.
4. Par. 2.3, page 3, in relation to par. B, page 6, par.5.4, page 7, par. 5.12
and 5.14, page 10, and par. 5.22, page 12, of respondents Position Paper,
stripped of unessential details, tersely alleged IN SUM, that
respondent Orquillas, in filing the Motion to Dismiss (dated 1 December, 2004)
complainants consolidated cases and supplemental complaint before the
Bulacan court a) merely relied on the Bulacan Clerk of Courts Offices
Certification; b) did his duty as counsel of the Trinidads to protect their rights,
and c) complainant even asked for time to pay docket fees.
Respondents defense, a cover-up, is patently absurd and untenable aside
from being misleading to the investigation, for reasons:
a) When respondent filed the 2004 Motion to Dismiss complainants 1998 cases
and the supplemental pleading, he submitted a non-existent or even false
certification regarding the required docket fees; instead of just looking at the
pages of the expediente or records of the cases (that complainant fully paid all
original and amended complaint docket fees in 1998), respondent devised a new
method of requesting the Office of the Bulacan Clerk of Court to compute the
docket fees based on new (2004) S.C. circulars on legal fees;
b) The Bulacan Office of the Clerk of Court was under Atty. Orgtega, while the
Branch Clerk of Court of the 2004 Executive Judge Danilo Manalastas, was
respondents wife, now Judge Sheila Geronimo Orquillas. These twin offices
issued the certification which led to the dismissal of complainants 2
consolidated cases including the supplemental complaint filed against
respondents clients defendants Alfredo & Florentina Trinidad;
b.1) It is shocking to the conscience of the IBP and judiciary, that respondent,
who was hired and appeared as counsel for spouses Trinidads, instead of
defending their rights and causes of action in (in consolidated Civil Cases Nos.
P-405-98 & 938-M-98), and in the supplemental complaint, DID ask the
3
Bulacan Court to dismiss his clients LRC Petition to cancel adverse claim
annotated upon the back of the subject title bought by the Trinidads, and worst,
respondent even DID ask the Court to dismiss the Trinidad cause of action to
annul the mortgage in said consolidated Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M98; as a result of respondents Motion to Dismiss, his clients, the Trinidads
LOST in the legal battle, since the adverse claims cancellation was thus denied
by the Court with the dismissal;
b.2) Worst, respondent never filed any pleading afterwards, since 2004 until
today, to defend his clients rights: to have the adverse claim on their titles
cancelled in consolidated LRC Case Nos. P-405-98 & C.C. No. 938-M-98; the
result? Respondents clients the Trinidads, because of the dismissal of their
1998 LRC Petition, practically and legally lost the P 3.2 million value of the
subject house and lot (they paid for), due to the mortgage lien thereon; so, who
will buy the lot, who will rent the house, and how can the heirs or children of
the Trinidads use, enjoy, transfer or abuse their property rights over the subject
house and lot, with the permanent adverse claim annotated thereon since 1998,
or for 11 years now!
b.3) Under the law and rules on legal ethics, particularly the Code of
Professional responsibility, respondent, under his oath of office as attorney or
counsel of record of the Trinidads, is bound to: i) cause the cancellation of the
adverse claim, b) object to the payment of any sum of money to herein
complainant, or plaintiff therein, based on any valid ground, such as,
compensation, ambiguity, etc.; but instead, respondent, to the damage and
prejudice of his clients, the Trinidads, permanently made the subject house and
lot bought by the Trinidads from herein complainant, plaintiff therein, without
any value in law and if fact, thereby, violating his oath of office and the laws;
c) When Judge Cruz dismissed all the consolidated cases, complainant asked
for time to pay the docket fees due on the supplemental complaint filed against
respondents clients the Trinidads, even if complainant had already fully paid
the 1998 docket fees on the 2 consolidated cases and amended pleadings;
d) Complainant was the counsel of record of respondents client, the Trinidads
at the time of the filing of the 2 consolidated cases in September, 1998, until
complainant was appointed RTC, Br. 73, Malabon Judge on November 4/5,
1998, whereby, by operation of law, the attorney client relationship ceased;
e) From 1998 until today, 2009, all the defendants in the 2 consolidated cases
never appeared despite having filed some pleadings. Judge Thelma gave them
all the time to appear and present evidence and cross-examine plaintiff,
complainant herein but they all failed;
f) In 2004, when Judge Thelma ordered all the cases submitted for Partial
Judgment, complainant had knowledge that: the sum of money due to be paid,
based on a March, 1998 contract of 1998, to complainant, had been used by
respondents clients the Trinidads children, for cockfighting and business,
which failed due to estafa. The sum of P 2 million that should be paid to
complainant (based on the contract which was admitted in evidence by the
4
Court without objection), was, instead used by the Trinidads children Ann
Trinidad for failed business, while Alfred Trinidad has invested the money in
buying fighting cocks and lost most of them in the Meycauayan Cockpit.
Hence, complainant filed a supplemental complaint against the Trinidads who
were warned by the Bulacan court to appear and hire a lawyer; at the time,
when the court process Server Leo served the court summons on the Trinidads,
defendant Alfredo Trinidad suffered 2-3 major strokes and had been bedridden
ever since, while Florentina Trinidad had been on and off the hospital and had
since been on and off suffering lingering illnesses; The Trinidads last
appearance in their consolidated Bulacan cases was in 1998, and they never
ever appeared due to their illnesses;
g) Hence, respondent was hired and filed the subject of this cases Motion to
Dismiss; since the Trinidads were and are disabled, only Mr. Alfred Trinidad
and his sister Mrs. Gigi Trinidad appeared in Court before the serving of Court
summons; due to this factual backdrop, there could be no chance why the
defendants Trinidads could have filed a case against respondent;
h) It was only by mere accident that complainant had discovered some of these
facts, during a visit of the ancestral house and lot subject of the Bulacan case in
Meycauayan, Bulacan (where complainant lived since birth in 1953-1989); as
stated, Mr. Alfred Trinidad blocked the entire road right of way owned by
complainant servicing the 2 other subject lots, with his fighting cocks and
teepees; and he refused to clear the same, except on the condition expressly
conveyed to undersigned through Ms. Belen Gomez (complainants maid and
secretary) to reimburse Mr. Alfred of P 80,000 reduced to P 60,000, which Mr.
Alfred had said he paid respondent as attorneys fees and bribe to Ms. Lerida
Socorro-Joson and Judge Thelma Cruz;
i) Because of respondents Motion to Dismiss, in 2004, complainants 2
consolidated cases had not been even fully decided until today, since Judge
Thelma Cruz had filed with the Supreme Court a request for extension of time
to render judgment which was due on December 3, 2008; usually the S.C.
grants 3 months extension, but on March 3, 2009, the cases were still
undecided, while Judge Cruz will retire at the age of 70 on July 25, 2009;
TO REPEAT, from September, 1998 until today, 2009, despite the fact that all
the defendants in the subject Bulacan cases never appeared despite court orders,
and only complainant as plaintiff therein appeared and finished his evidence in
2004, complainant suffered the 11 years pain of justice delayed, justice
denied by sheer technicality, violation of respondents oath of office,
falsification of documents and bribery.
Copies of the pertinent OCAD/SC pleadings and Orders in the 350-pages
BRIBERY administrative cases filed by complainant against respondents
Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz and Branch Clerk of Court Lerida Socorro-Joson are
ATTACHED and marked collectively as Annex B hereof.
1998, and they never ever appeared due to their illnesses; since the Trinidads
were and are disabled, only Mr. Alfred Trinidad and his sister Mrs. Gigi
Trinidad appeared in Court before the serving of Court summons; due to this
factual backdrop, there could be no chance why the defendants Trinidads could
have filed a case against respondent;
5. Hence, respondent was hired by the spouses Trinidads, and filed the
subject of this cases Motion to Dismiss; because of respondents Motion to
Dismiss, in 2004, complainants 2 consolidated cases had not been even been
fully decided until today, since Judge Thelma Cruz had filed with the Supreme
Court a Request for Extension of time to render judgment which was due on
December 3, 2008; usually the S.C. grants 3 months extension, but on March 3,
2009, the cases were still undecided, while Judge Cruz will retire at the age of
70 on July 25, 2009.
Issues
Complainant has raised the issues in the instant complaint and reproduces
them herein: whether or not respondent violated his oaths of office, and
therefore, must be disbarred?
Argument
Respondent Orquillas, as counsel-of-record of Spouses Alfredo &
Florentina Trinidad, as officer of the court, is bound by his sworn Oath of
Office and the Code of Professional Responsibility, to defend said clients.
Respondent even presented and filed in Court his June, 2005 Suplemental
Manifestation with his Annexed contract of attorney-client relationship in
consolidated Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M-98, and the supplemental
complaint, duly signed and thumb marked (by the Trinidad spouses).
As their attorney-at-law, respondent is specifically mandated by the Rules,
to have filed in the Bulacan Court, all the pleadings necessary to cancel the
1998 annotated adverse claim and clear the Trinidads purchased subject title/lot
of the mortgage lien claimed by defendants Mariano/Ligaya Blanco.
As stated, the Trinidads bought the lot/title from complainant, having paid
sums of money with obligations to pay the agreed balance based on the
Kasunduan upon court cancellation of the adverse claim. With the annotation
of the adverse claim since 1998 until today, the Trinidadss title remains under a
cloud of legal doubt and uncertainty, and as a result, they cannot freely and
legally sell, transfer, encumber or dispose of the same to any encumbrancer for
value, because of the superior lien of the adverse claimant, the Blancos. The
Supreme Court held that:
The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect
the interest of a person over a part of real property, and serves as a
notice and warning to third parties dealing with the said property that
someone is claiming an interest over it or has a better right than the
registered owner thereof. [Sajonas v. CA, 258 SCRA 79, 91, July 5, 1996].
7
AFFIDAVIT [Under Rules 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia,
With - Motions - for Leave of Court to Admit this Complaint, for
PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution]
against respondent, Atty. Nye N. Orquillas, be duly GRANTED.
Further, it is respectfully prayed, that - after filing of respondents
COMMENT / ANSWER, and after due notice, hearing, and Report of the
Commissioner / Investigator, - judgment be rendered declaring Atty. Nye N.
Orquillas, GUILTY of all the charges and that supreme penalty of
DISBARMENT be imposed upon him, ordering that his name be stricken from
the Roll of Attorneys, and punished accordingly, under Rule 139-B, Revised
Rules of Court, inter alia.
Special Prayer:
Furthermore, petitioner most respectfully petitions this Court to
SUSPEND Atty. Nye Orquillas, pendent elite, from the practice of law,
indefinitely and until further orders from this Honorable Court, and that the
suspension should take effect immediately.
Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading, this 25th
March, 2009, at Malolos City , BULACAN.
day of
NOTICE
Hon. Salvador B. Hababag,
Commissioner, CBC, Integrated Bar of the Philippines
10
11
) S.S.
BERNAR D. FAJARDO
12
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.
with the NOTICE I received on January 27, 2009, respectfully, states, that:
Jobless - Homeless - 8, 8, 8
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/52837/(Update)-Fire-hits-CA-main-office
Fire hits CA main office - July 26, 2007
A fire broke out Thursday at the main building of the Court of Appeals
along Maria Orosa Street in Ermita, Manila City. Radio station dzMM reported
that the blaze reportedly broke out at the room of Associate Justice Edgardo
Sundiam at the fourth floor.
13
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2009/feb/03/yehey/metro/20090203met5.html
instant
COMPLIANCE
and
the
VERIFIED
DISBARMENT
15
indefinitely and until further orders from this Honorable Court, and that the
suspension should take effect immediately.
Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading - letter-affidavitcomplaint, this 26th day of February, 2009, at Malolos City , BULACAN.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,
Complaint, 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].
User:Florentino Floro/MyViralVideo
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Florentino_Floro
, si Mary Ann Deasis Osilleva, hindi kasal, ng 111 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan,
Malolos, 3000 Bulacan, Pilipino, matapos makapanumpa alinsunod sa batas,
ay nagsasaad, na:
Mahal na Chief Justice Puno, at Atty. Layusa,
1. Ako po ay naninirahan sa Looban, 111 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan,
Malolos, Bulacan, mula mga 1990, at noong mga 1993 nang ipanganak ko sa
Olongapo City, ang ika-3 anak namin ni Cris, na si Jamilo Osilleva (ngayon ay
3rd year High School na sa Negros) (ang panganay ko ay si Exequiel, na na kay
Cris, at pangalawa ay si Shaira, na pinaampon ko kay pinsan, Mary Jane, sa
Pasig City). Dahil wala akong salapi, at isang katulong-labandera, inampon
ng aking kapatid na si Joel Osilleva at asawang Marilyn Tahom, (092116
18
BERNAR D. FAJARDO
Notary Public,
Until Jan.31, 2009,
PTR NO. 4591703, 1- 2,08,
Atty.s Roll No. 33633,
IBP OR # 708299, 1-2,08
Malolos City, Bulacan.
COPY FURNISHED:
(By Personal Service):
Atty. Nye Orquillas,
Respondent,
2nd Flr., Hiyas ng Bulacan Convention Center,
Capitol Bldg., RTC Compound Bldg., Capitolyo,
Malolos City,
3000 Bulacan
19
Your Honors,
I, the undersigned petitioner, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under
oath, by MYSELF and for MYSELF, as litigant / complainant in this case, AND
WITH LEAVE OF THIS COURT, most respectfully depose and say, that:
CRITICAL AND UNDISPUTED FACTS
Bill of Particulars:
1. On September 28, 1998, undersigned filed with Br. 19, RTC, Malolos,
Bulacan, LRC P-405-98 petition to cancel adverse claim on TCT Nos.
T-328106- (M), T-316135(M), and T-316136 (M)-Bulacan; duplicate
original copy of pertinent pages 1, 4 & 5, of the Petition, copy of TCT
No. T-328106-(M), and the March, 1998 Affidavit of Adverse claim, are
respectively attached, as Annexes, A-1, and A-2 hereof;
2. On September 29, 1998, undersigned also filed with Br. 9, RTC, Malolos,
Bulacan, Civil Case No. 938-M-98 complaint to annul / cancel the
mortgage contract on said 3 titles; these twin suits were filed, in order to
clear or quiet the title, TCT Nos. T-328106-(M), inter alia, sold by
undersigned to LRC P-405 petitioners spouses Alfredo and Florentina
Trinidad; said spouses bought said lot from undersigned by virtue of a
KASUNDUAN dated 30 March, 1998, inter alia; undersigned was
thereby obliged to represent the spouses in Court, and they, in turn, were
bound to pay undersigned sums of money, upon court cancellation of said
adverse claim upon their title; duplicate original copy of pertinent pages
20
respondent Atty. Orquillas even moved b) to dismiss both the above twin
cases filed by undersigned, on the sole and non-existent / false ground of
non-payment of docket fees; duplicate original of respondent Atty.
Orquillas 10 pages Motion to Dismiss dated 1 December, 2004, is
attached as Annex D hereof;
21
11. Meanwhile, the Court made a SECOND turn around, reversing its latest
FIRST reconsideration order; on October 22, 2007, the Court admitted its
mistake, and ruled that undersigned already paid all the docket fees
(contrary to the lies submitted by respondent); it set the cases anew for
hearing; copy of the court Order is attached as Annex H hereof;
12. In a move to delay the cases, and to hide his overt acts of obstruction of
justice, respondent failed to appear and defend his clients, the
Trinidads title and rights; however, a new counsel appeared for different
defendants, spouses Mariano and Ligaya Blanco, and moved to dismiss
these cases on the ground that undersigned did not indicate his PTR
(Privilege Tax Receipt) and IBP O.R. number, in the pleadings; the court
however, denied the new motion as it noted and granted undersigneds
filed opposition grounded on the critical fact, that undersigned never
appeared as lawyer, but as mere litigant for himself; the court therefore,
on March 31, 2008, ordered the twin cases submitted for decision,
thereby reiterating its 2004 and 2005 Orders, and further ruling that these
cases were submitted for decision as of 2004 and 2005; duplicate original
copy of the Order is attached as Annex I hereof; BECAUSE OF
respondents false, sham and illegal / malicious pleadings which mislead
the court and delayed these cases (filed and tried in 1998, and submitted
for judgment on 2004 / 2005), undersigned, inter alia, suffered damages
(under Arts. 14, 15 and 6, inter alia, of the NCC) , malicious delays and
issuance of unjust interlocutory orders and resolutions.
23
24
including grossly unethical behavior, malice and bad faith in filing a sham and
false pleading, inter alia.
c. grave VIOLATIONS of --i.) Sec. 20 (a), Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court, including the Canons, to wit:
Respondent, 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.
25
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY,
FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL
COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST
OPPOSING COUNSEL.
CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE
RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND
SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the
contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the
text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already
rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has
not been proved.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse
them to defeat the ends of justice.
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND
CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a
judgment or misuse Court processes.
CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS
CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL
WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or
threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage
in any case or proceeding.
Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the
course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall
26
promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall
terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of
Court.
Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in
handling the case.
in that respondent Atty. Orquillas miserably failed to be the embodiment of
competence, integrity, and independence; (due to his ardent desire and lust for
money and financial gain); he did not behave to promote public confidence in
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; he failed to follow the strict
mandates of Rules 138, Rules of Court, and the Bill of Rights, RULE OF
LAW, and due process.
These violations / acts and omissions of respondent definitely show him to
be wanting in moral character and probity / good demeanor or unworthy to
continue as officer of the Court, or unfit or unsafe person to enjoy the privileges
of attorneys or for conducts which tend to bring reproach on the legal
profession and to the High Tribunal, or to injure it in the favorable opinion of
the public. He clearly demonstrated attitudes and courses of conduct wholly
inconsistent with the approved professional standards, of having failed to live
up to his duties as lawyer in consonance with the strictures of the lawyers oath,
the cited Canons and Codes, thereby having occasioned unwarranted sufferings,
humiliations and hardships on the undersigned and on his ailing clients,
Trinidads. He was propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions, coupled
with greed and lust for MONEY, having failed in conscientiously seeing to it
that justice permeates every aspect of her duties and profession, in conformity
with the avowed duties of worthy members and officers of the Bar and the
Bench.
Petitioner respectfully cited the foregoing norms, code and laws, to
support his contention that a) the decision in the subject twin cases should
have been rendered and released on December 23, 2004 / 2005, at the very
least; b) and respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas is accordingly liable under these
laws, civilly, (under Articles 14, 15 and 16, New Civil Code, inter alia)
27
Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Extrajudicial_Killings_and_Desaparecidos#Judicial_
corruption
1
28
administration since 2001.[91] This includes 3 priests who were reported killed just in
2007: Basilio Bautista of the Iglesia Filipina Reform Group, in Surigao del Sur, Indonesian
priest Fransiskus Madhu, in Kalinga province, and Catholic priest Florante Rigonan, in
Ilocos Norte.[92]
* On March 14, 2008, Filipino lawyer Edre Olalia (lead officer of the National
Union of Peoples Lawyers and the Counsels for the Defense of Liberties) brought the
Philippine case and appealed to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), in its
7th Geneva session "to stop the extrajudicial killings and abductions in the Philippines".
Philippines killings will be examined in the first UNHRC session, periodic review from April
7 to 18, along with those in 15 others of 192 member-countries.2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Extrajudicial_Killings_and_Desaparecidos#Recent_Events
30
These cases were raffled initially in 1998 to Brs. 9, 19, 80 and in 2004
to Br. 16, where they were tried, heard and submitted for decision on
September 22, 2004 and June 17, 2005; certified copies of the Orders dated
September 22, 2004 and June 17, 2005, issued and signed by Judge Thelma P.
Cruz are attached as Annexes C and C -1, respectively hereof.
On February 24, 2005, Judge Thelma dismissed all these 2 consolidated
cases upon motion (Annex D) by respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas (counsel of
the LRC petitioners spouses Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad; this counsel
maliciously caused the loss of the case of his clients Trinidads; petitioner, twice
reserved his right to file disbarment case against respondent attorney), due to
alleged non-payment of docket fees by undersigned on amended complaint filed
on 1998 / 1999; but Judge Thelma found her glaring error; ergo, she rectified
the same, reversing herself, thereby granting undersigneds Motion for
Reconsideration, giving undersigned reasonable time to pay docket fees on the
amended complaint - Interlocutory Order of September 7, 2005; (Vide Annexes
E to I).
Judge Thelma P. Cruz, knowing the glaring mistake, and comprehending
that she rendered the foregoing UNJUST resolutions in violation of the
Revised Penal Code / the Canons of Judicial Ethics, inter alia, reversed herself
for the second time: undersigned submitted certified copies of document parts of the records, which proved payment of docket and all legal fees on the
subject amended complaint; in the Order dated 22 October, 2007, Judge Thelma
ruled that undersigned really paid the docket fees. She issued the final ruling on
March 31, 2008, ordering AGAIN these 10 years cases SUBMITTED for
decision AS OF 2004 / 2005. (Vide Annexes E to I);
P 80,000 CASH paid to Atty. Nye Orquillas by Alfred Trinidad, son of LRC
Petitioners Florentina and Alfredo Trinidad
Meanwhile, undersigned, by accident, discovered the corruption of the
cases to delay undersigneds twin suits, perpetrated by respondent upon / at Br.
16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, to wit:
31
RELIEF
NOTICE
TO: Atty. Christina Layusa,
The Office of the Bar Confidant,
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
33
) S.S.
BERNAR D. FAJARDO
Notary Public,
Until Jan.31, 2009,
PTR NO. 4591703, 1- 2,08,
Atty.s Roll No. 33633,
IBP OR # 708299, 1-2,08
Malolos City, Bulacan.
COPY FURNISHED:
(By Personal Service):
Atty. Nye Orquillas,
Respondent,
2nd Flr., RTC Compound Bldg.,
Capitolyo, Malolos City,
3000 Bulacan
and
Judicial and Bar Council,
c/o the SECRETARIAT, Supreme Court, Manila
34