REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Third Judicial Region, Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Malolos City, Branch 16 Atty.

Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Petitioner, - versus Sps. Mariano P. Blanco, Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico, et. al., Respondents. X----------------------------------------------------------X In re: Petition to cancel the adverse claim on TCT. Nos. T-328106- (M), T-316135(M), and T-316136 (M)-Bulacan. Atty. Florentino V. Floro, Jr., et al. Petitioners, - versus Sps. Mariano P. Blanco, et. al., Respondents. X----------------------------------------------------------X

Civil Case No. 938-M-98

P-405-98

Rejoinder
[To Defendants Blancos Opposition to Verified Reply, dated 21 July 2008] - with -

Urgent Prayer to I. Amend Order dated 31 March 2008 to conform with the Orders dated - 12 August 2004, 13 & 22 September 2004, and 15 June 2005, declaring all these cases submitted for decision, as of September 22, 2004 & June 17, 2005, II. Render / Promulgate a New and Full Judgment, which should include all respondents / defendants Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico, etc. (excluded by the 31 March 2008 Order), and III. Issue, first, a Full Decision before ruling on the instant Motion for Reconsideration, as mandated by the Code of Judicial Conduct, Rules of Court and Code of Professional Responsibility vis--vis pending full-blown OCA IPI No. 08-2854-RTJ, Judge Floro vs. Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz & Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson.

Undersigned petitioner, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., by HIMSELF and for HIMSELF, as litigant / petitioner in these cases, AND WITH LEAVE OF THIS COURT, and by way of REPLY to defendants Blancos Opposition to Verified Reply dated 21 July, 2008, most respectfully avers, that: 1. All these consolidated cases were ordered submitted for full judgment (called Partial because of the dismissed supplemental complaint against the spouses Alfredo & Florentina Trinidad; Judge Floro reserves his right and manifests that he is filing an independent civil action against these spouses, in due course) as of September 22, 2004 & June 17, 2005. (Copies of Orders

dated 31 March 2008, 12 August 2004, 13 & 22 September 2004, and 15 June
2005, are attached as part hereof, and marked collectively as Annex A hereof).

2. However, the Order dated 31 March 2008 unlawfully and unjustly excluded all other parties, especially Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico, defendant, against whom, Judge Floro filed the amended complaint for damages on October, 1998, submitted admitted documentary and testimonial evidence, amid the Courts orders (Vide: Annex A) declaring him and all defendants having waived their rights to present evidence due to repeated failure to appear in court, and present evidence or cross-examine Judge Floro. 3. The challenged April 15, 2008 Partial Judgment, unjustly and unlawfully failed to render and promulgate Decision against Villarico and all other parties, since the unjust interlocutory Order of March 31, 2008 ruled that the cases were deemed submitted and a partial judgment would be issued, as it was rendered, only against defendants, Blancos, in violation of the Constitutional mandate, Rules/circulars, and Code of Judicial Conduct, that full judgment against all parties should have been issued and released 90 days, or on November 23, 2005 & at the very latest, on August 18, 2005. The Constitutionally mandated judgment is therefore unjustly, unlawfully and feloniously delayed for 3 years since 2005, amid the already filed administrative cases. (Copies of the Indorsements of +deceased Judge Petrita Braga Dime, C.J. Reynato Puno and Court Administrator Zenaido Elepano, dated January 29, June 12, & July 17, and the twin requests to file comments 15 days from July 18, by Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz and Ms. Lerida SocorroJoson, are attached as part hereof, collectively marked as Annex B hereof). 4. The branch clerk of court, OIC, Mrs. Joson unlawfully failed to include Villarico, et all due Decision in the reports, since August 18, 2005, to the irreparable
damage and injury to Judge Floro, despite the S.C. final judgment against her.

5. Because of these serious administrative charges amid vehement opposition by Judge Floro against Voluntary Inhibition of the Presiding Judge and final ruling by Exec. Judges Herminia Pasamba and Renato Franciso, that

Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz should resolve not only the Motion for Reconsideration but must put a closure to these 1998 cases, this Court therefore, is mandated to render full judgment, first to put full closure on all these cases before the Motion for Reconsideration is resolved. On Blancos July 21, 2008 Opposition to Verified Reply 6. Blanco averred (page 1, last paragraph) that they are not covered by the injunction Order versus mortgage of the subject lot. Of course, they were not, but the guardianship Court, Br. 10, RTC, Malolos prohibited Milagros Floro and Joselito Floro to mortgage or encumber Milagros undivided 7/12 share in the herein / therein subject lots. Moreover, Judge Floro offered admitted Exhibits A to I, sub-markings, especially, Exhs. A-8, A-8-1 (Vide: Annex As Order dated September 13, 2004) to prove these facts including the critical fact that Judge Floro sent registered letter-Manifestation mail to defendants Blancos right after the guardianship Court issued the TRO/Injunction, on 1993 and 1994. Further, Judge Floro, twice offered unrebutted testimonial evidence before Br. 19 and before this Court, that he personally called, talked to and inform his former clients, herein defendants Blancos of the Court injunction. 7. Next, defendants Blancos alleged (page 2, paragraph 1) Judge Floro should have filed the necessary action against Milagros V. Floro and Joselito V. Floro for violation of the Court injunction. Blancos additionally accused Judge Floro of contempt of the guardianship court, due to having acquired Milagros and other shares. 8. Blancos stance has no support in fact and law. First, all these issues raised by Blancos should have been filed and adjudged in the guardianship case, (which, like the instant LRC case, is a proceeding in rem, that is, binding on the whole world and upon Blancos, since the petition was duly published, and Blancos were duly notified personally by Judge Floro and by his sent registered mail Exhs. A-8, A-8-1). Accordingly, all these issues are deemed barred by res judicata, the law of the case and bar by prior judgment. Second, upon the death of Milagros Floro, on December 5, 1995, the in rem guardianship case

died its natural death. Accordingly, the Court granted Judge Floros 1996 request to cancel all liens at the back of these subject titles by virtue of extinction of the guardianship case, and not because of the moot and academic thesis of this Court and Blancos. Third, the guardianship petition, TRO, and injunction were applied for by Judge Floro, were granted in his favor, and therefore, the transfer of Milagros Floro in his favor, inter alia, is not a violation of the Court order. Fourth, indirect contempt is punished under Rule 71, Revised Rules of Court, and if proper, should have been filed within the prescriptive period of 5 years under the NCC, or before 2000, since the guardianship case was extinguished on December 5, 1995. 9. Blancos further alleged that the mortgage (assuming arguendo, that it was validly entered into, on January5, 1995) has not prescribed due to the tolling of prescriptive period upon their filing of the MTC, Art. 316 case (selling a property which is mortgaged), on March, 1998, against Judge Floro and Joselito Floro. Blancos thesis is that the civil action was impliedly instituted therein. 10. Blancos stance is contrary to elementary laws of mortgage and damages, inter alia. First, upon their institution of the criminal action for other deceit or estafa, only the ordinary civil action for damages against Judge Floro and Joselito was impliedly instituted. Second, the MTC has/had no jurisdiction on the special civil action of foreclosure of mortgage or the extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage (which should have been filed with RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, which had original and exclusive jurisdiction over the suit, or with the Sheriffs office, respectively, under Act 3135, inter alia. Third, when Judge Floro filed the instant amended complaint, on October 1998, adding Blancos and Villaricos, inter alia, for cancellation and/or rescission of mortgage (the title does not matter, since in) the body of the amended complaint averred Judge Floros legal grounds to cancel the mortgage contract, which included both a) violation of the court injunction, thus, rescission, and b) fraud, threat or intimidation, etc., thus cancellation of mortgage). 11. Fourth, when Blancos filed their answer and joined issued with Villarico, in 1998, all parties submitted to this Court the issue of validity of

mortgage and its cancellation. The MTC has and had no jurisdiction over these issues. Fifth, Blancos and Villaricos & Judge Floro submitted to this Court the issues on damages against each other. Hence, even the civil action by Blancos, against Floro, in the MTC were removed therein and transferred to this higher court, in view of the jurisdictional amount. Further, by virtue of the rule of litis pendentia or prohibition of filing twin suits at the same time against the same parties for the same reliefs, Blancos and Villaricos, therefore submitted herein for litigation and judgment, all their civil and special civil action rights and remedies against Judge Floro, Joselito Floro, and all parties herein. 12. Sixth, Blancos mortgage rights accrued on January 6, 1996, the date the mortgage could be foreclosed judicially or extra-judicially, and/or, the date, Blancos could have filed a civil action for sum of money, not in the MTC but with the RTC in view of the jurisdictional amount, until the deadline of January 6, 2006. Seventh, Blancos, as of January 7, 2006 could no longer file any case against Milagros Floro or Joselito Floro to foreclose the mortage, due to prescription of this special civil action. Blancos, also, failed to file within the prescriptive period, the special proceeding case in any intestate court to collect the sum of money allegedly due to them. 13. Further, Blancos, submitted, in these cases, specifically, in their answer to the amended complaint, all their defenses whether affirmative or negative, but allegation or answer and counterclaim are not proof. Blancos and Villaricos in their Pre-trial Briefs obliged themselves to present testimonial and documentary evidence, but they failed. The Court in the August 12, 2004 and other Orders (Annex A) ruled all defendants to have waived their rights to cross-examine and rebut Judge Floros admitted Exhs. A to I sub-markings. The twin testimonial evidence of Judge Floro (on 1998 and 2004) proved that Milagros Floros consent was invalid on the mortgage contract, making it voidable under the law. Judge Floro therefore is entitled to verdict, not only for cancellation and rescission of the mortgage, but for damages he alleged in the amended complaint and duly proved without rebuttal by defendants due to Blancos and Villaricos waiver.

Floro, therefore, proved beyond reasonable doubt, that Blanco and Villarico caused the pains and death of his mother, Milagros Floro. 14. Finally, as to the issue of voluntary inhibition due to ungodly reprisals, in the last page of the April 15, 2008, Partial Judgment, with all due respect, Judge Floros Catholic Faith (protected by the 1987 Constitutions Bill of Rigths, Freedom of Religious Belief) affirms that: a) Floros 3 holy angels or spirit guides, as Angel of Death, inscribed in the pleadings filed herein after April 16, 2008, and in the 69 pages administrative complaint, the timely demise of Judge Petrita Braga Dime, as proof of Divine Justice, thusly:
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 nonattendance. 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) Justice Hugo Black
June 2, 1983 - June 3, 2008: The Saga

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. As biblical imprecation to UP Class 62 per Psalms 109 and 73, Judge Floro told the Supreme Court in his November 5, 2007 and April 4, 2008 pleadings and bended knees motions, that the 3 holy angels will reveal to the entire nation, the shocking deaths and demise of those who buried the truth. Days after Judge Dime arrived from Israel tour, Judge Floro repeatedly asked for the revelation of the truth amid her last songs to a staff of Br. 14, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, 2 days before the 3 days, she was called by the Angel of

Death. (Annex C, the June 3, 2008 S.C. Resolution which put the last nail to Judge Floros judicial coffin, duly signed by his J. Arturo D. Brion, the Benjamin of the 22nd Puno Court (husband of Judge Floros seatmate, classmate (Ateneo Law School Class 82 Tonette Articona Brion).

RELIEF IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that the Partial Judgment dated April 15, 2008, be reconsidered / set aside, and amended accordingly, by a) setting aside Judge T. P. Cruzs Voluntary Inhibition, Order of Re-Raffle and Order Approving the Re-Raffle (by Judge P. B. Dime), and thereby b) GRANTING undersigned petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. Further, a new and full Decision be rendered and promulgated, in favor of Judge Floro, against all defendants including excluded defendant, Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico, specifically adding the award of damages alleged and proved by Judge Floro in these cases, against all defendants. Furthermore, it is prayed that the instant Urgent Prayer to I. Amend Order dated 31 March 2008 to conform with the Orders dated - 12 August 2004, 13 & 22 September 2004, and 15 June 2005, declaring all these cases submitted for decision, as of September 22, 2004 & June 17, 2005, II. Render / Promulgate a New and Full Judgment, which should include all respondents / defendants Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico, etc. (excluded by the 31 March 2008 Order), and III. Issue, first, a Full Decision before ruling on the instant Motion for Reconsideration, as mandated by the Code of Judicial Conduct, Rules of Court and Code of Professional Responsibility vis--vis pending full-blown OCA IPI No. 08-2854-RTJ, Judge Floro vs. Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz & Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson.

be duly noted, and Granted. Other reliefs and remedies, just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading, this 23rd day, of July, 2008, at Malolos City, Bulacan.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Petitioner, on behalf of himself, by himself and as litigant, 123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos City, 3000 BULACAN, Tel /# (044) 662-82-03; [I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300;
ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV].

COPY FURNISHED: (By Personal Service): Atty. Ireneo E. Guardiano, Counsel of Record for respondents, Mariano and Ligaya Blanco, RTC Compound, Karuhatan, Valenzuela City, 1441 Atty. Nye Orquillas, Counsel for Petitioners Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad, 2nd Flr., RTC Compound Bldg., Capitolyo, Malolos City, Bulacan The Office of Provincial Prosecutor, c/o Br. 16, RTC, Assistant Prosecutor, Nicetas, Malolos City, Bulacan, Robert V. Floro and Joselito V. Floro, Petitioners, c/o and by: Judge Florentino V. Floro, 123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos, 3000 Bulacan By Registered Mail with Return Card: upon: Explanation: due to distance and lack of messenger, copies of this Reply with annexes are sent by registered mail with return card to: Atty. Donato Mabbayad, former counsel for: (The Court granted his withdrawal in TSN hearing, but not inserted in Order, hence Ad Cautelam or for caution), c/o: Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico, Respondent, Villarico Law Office, Poblacion, Meycauayan, 3020 Bulacan,

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

Meycauayan City, 3020 Bulacan

Undersigned petitioner, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, by HIMSELF and for HIMSELF, as litigant / petitioner in these cases, AND WITH LEAVE OF THIS COURT, and by way of REPLY to defendants Blancos Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration dated 12 May, 2008, copy of which, undersigned hereby MANIFESTS to have received on May 16 / Friday, 2008, most respectfully states, that:

With due respect I. Allegation (defendants Blancos Opposition to Judge Floros / Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration) is not proof. The opposition cannot contradict the testimonial and documentary evidence submitted and duly admitted by the Court amid its Orders a) requiring all defendants to cross-examine / rebut Judge Floros / Petitioners conclusive evidences / proofs, and b) declaring all defendants dual waivers of cross-examination and presentation of any evidence, due to their repeated and continuous disobedience of several Court Orders to cross and submit evidence. The challenged Decision in their favor, without any basis or ground to support its ruling in their behalf, is shocking, not only to the conscience of the entire judicial department, but it is virtual mockery of justice and palpable violation of the Code / Canons of Judicial Conduct / Ethics, the Judgment having been unjustly and unlawfully rendered.

Judge Floro fought sought judicial intervention since 1994 to save his very own ancestral house and lot. This Honorable Court unjustly deprived him and petitioners of his / their properties without substantive and procedural due process of law. Specifically, even if all defendants failed and refused to be present in court, to cross-examine and rebut Judge Floros admitted proofs, to submit evidence, and despite the Courts final orders of their twin waivers, this Court in 2005 unjustly dismissed these cases due to a most corrupt and criminal obstruction of justice by Atty. Nye Orquillas. This Court allowed Judge Floro and petitioners to suffer the agony of waiting since (its 2004 / 2005 orders of submission for decision), only to find that it committed glaring errors, in its erroneous and unjust cases dismissal, causing irreparable damage and moral injury to Judge Floro, inter alia. Not satisfied with these SINS and violations of - the rule of law and cardinal principles of truth, justice, fairness and impartiality, including the sacred oaths of lawyer / judge, this Court, - and after dismissing Judge Floros cases, forthwith, without any just and legal reason, it simultaneously abandoned its sworn duty under Rules 138 / 139-B and the

Canons / Code of Judicial Conduct and Codes of Professional Responsibility (not to delay a mans cause and do dispense justice fairly and impartially, to do justice to every litigant). Judge Floros mother died because of the subject Kasunduan ng Sanglaan. For 10 long years, he was alone in this case and paid all expenses of judicial service, processes and fees. He begged of this Court, to consider all his submitted and unrebutted evidence. He argued against a blank wall, because of profound and unjust silence of the Court to listen to and hear him, before it stroke off his own property, even in all these long 10 years, not even once, not even in as single hearing, did any of all the defendants appear. This is the highest kind of injustice that a jurist can dispense under the 22nd Puno Court. This unjust judgment of March 15, 2008, cannot remain uncorrected lest dire pains of legal and godly reprisals, under our Catholic Faith, defined as Divine Justice be continuously unleashed, amid sangkatutak na sakit at kamalasan na sa Malolos Hudicatura, since the filing of these cases. This is Judge Floros divine plea for mercy, not for himself, but for the loved ones of all those, who committed this grave and irreparable wrong and Catholic unforgiveable motal sin, defined by Canon Law as presumption of the Holy Spirit, that is utter burial of TRUTH, against him and the Rule of Law. Judge Floro mourns this Moment of Wickedness, as any Christian or Catholic would defensively and justly administer Luksa, as the sole remedy against legal and immoral persecution, per slow and prolonged torture of death (of truth, justice, specifically, total deprivation of his very own home, where he was born and grew). Defendants Blancos falsely and maliciously alleged: I.A. The Br. 10, RTC, Malolos Bulacan Court Injunction (from encumbering / mortgaging / disposing the subject lot / title, TCT. No. T-61.582 (M), mother title, 723 sq.m., specifically, Torrens title liens Entries # 91716/91717 (M), inter alia, admitted Exhs. A-sub-markings - pp. 133-154, 9-29, records, inter alia, and marked as ANNEX A hereof, for reference), was issued in favor of Judge Floro and 2 brothers Benjamin and Jesie Floro, and against therein and / herein

defendants Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico and Joselito V. Floro, and Milagros Floro, the subject of Guardianship. The injunction was not directed against Judge Floro, but in his favor, as it was never provided in the fallo thereof, that Judge Floro was prohibited to dispose or encumber the same. Hence, the August 2, 1995 sale of Milagros V. Floro 7/12 lot in favor of Judge Floro, was valid, and was never challenged nor proved to be voidable nor rescisible in court. Even if defendants Blancos are not included in the court Injunction, Judge Floros testimonial and documentary admitted and unrebutted evidence proved that Judge Floro not only notified defendants Blancos by registered mail, (Exh. A-sub-markings and A-8, A-8-1), but Judge Floro testified that he personally notified, on 1993 and 1994, defendants Blancos, of the 1994 Permanent Injunction, aside from having personally and by registered mail, notified them of the registered liens-notices to the whole world of the injunction. At the time of the signing of the Kasunduan ng Sanglaan dated and on 5 January, 1995, Milagros Floro and Joselito Floro / Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico were prohibited by the Permanent Injunction to dispose, encumber and mortgage the 7/12 pro-indiviso or undivided share of Milagros Floro in the subject, this subject, also lot / title. It falls therefore under the contemplation of par. 4, Article 1381, NCC, as a rescissible contract, making said mortgage subject to annulment by this proper court actions duly filed by Judge Floro on 1998, based on Arts. 1381, 1383, 1389, 1390, 1391, NCC court annulment of rescissible and voidable contracts, to wit: Art. 1381. The following contracts are
rescissible: (4) Those which refer to things under litigation if they have been entered into by the defendant without the knowledge and approval of the litigants or of competent judicial authority; Art. 1383. The action for rescission is subsidiary; it cannot be instituted except when the party suffering damage has no other legal means to obtain reparation for the same. (1294) Art. 1389. The action to claim rescission must be commenced within four years. For persons under guardianship and for absentees, the period of four years shall not begin until the termination of the former's incapacity, or until the domicile of the latter is known. (1299) CHAPTER 7 VOIDABLE CONTRACTS

Art. 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties: (1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a contract; (2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud. These contracts are binding, unless they are annulled by a proper action in court. They are susceptible of ratification. (n) Art. 1391. The action for annulment shall be brought within four years.

Defendants Blanco, who challenged, belatedly, or only now, in this pleading, the August 2, 1995 sale of Milagros Floros 7/12 share, to Judge Floro, are barred by estoppels, laches and palpable delay to legally contradict said 12 years public document duly registered on 1997, or 11 years ago. Their failure to allege the same / infirmity of the sale, and more importantly, their and the Courts void finding that no action for rescission was filed, inter alia, in their Answer or in their filed Motions to Dismiss (having attacked these cases for non-payment of docket fees, for failing to indicate PTR and IBP O.R.s), resulted in final waiver to question the sale at this moment of time. More importantly, even if they did, they still failed neither to submit any evidence nor to be present in Court, to prove any of their above-only now submitted plain and baseless allegations, as it declared their final waiver to present any evidence on 2004: RULE 16 - MOTION TO DISMISS
Section 1. Grounds. Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds: (i) That the claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds; and (f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations; RULE 9. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived.

Defendants Blancos falsely and maliciously, further alleged:

II. The adverse claim filed and annotated in 1998, is null and void. Defendants Blancos have not right whatsoever under the voidable and proved beyond reasonable doubt by Judge Floros admitted evidence to have had no existence in law, due to it utter violation of the Permanent Injunction and du to fraud, threat, duress and undue influence upon his ailing and dying mother on 1995, January 5.

Defendants Blancos never presented any evidence to rebut nor contradict Judge Floros admitted Exhibits A-sub-markings to I and testimonial evidence on the said injunction violation, fraud, threat, duress and undue influence upon his ailing and dying mother on 1995, January 5. Specifically, admitted Exh. Asub-markings (Annex B, B-1 hereof, for reference), the Death certificate, in no uncertain terms, indicate therein, that Milagros V. Floro, died of Other causes, significant conditions, contributing to the death: NIDDM; Schizophrenia). Such exhibit duly admitted was identified and explained by Judge Floro at the trial, and he even detailed how her mother, Milagros Floro was threatened, to sign a paper which caused her death. Reproduced hereunder, and next pages, is the entire testimonial evidence duly admitted, and uncontradicted, thus, belying and rebutting defendants Blancos, above-submitted baseless allegations: The Court gravely erred also in ruling (siding with defendants Blancos, in their allegations in the Opposition) that no action for rescission was filed by Milagros V. Floro and/or Joselito V. Floro within the reglementary period of 4 years from its execution, as provided in Art. 1389, NCC. The said ruling and defendants Blancos allegations, aside from being totally unfounded, groundless and gross error of law, is patently unjust and unfair. The law provides:
Art. 1383. The action for rescission is subsidiary; it cannot be instituted except when the party suffering damage has no other legal means to obtain reparation for the same. (1294) Art. 1389. The action to claim rescission must be commenced within four years.

For persons under guardianship and for absentees, the period of four years shall not begin until the termination of the former's incapacity, or until the domicile of the latter is known. (1299)

It is absurd for Milagros Floro and Joselito Floro to file an action for rescission to annul the mortgage contract. Milagros Floro was under guardianship before Br. 10, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, as the Court even issued the Permanent Injunction against her and Joselito V. Floro. Besides, she died on December 5, 1995, or barely 11 months after the signing of the contract, and because of the contract as proved. Accordingly, it was undersigned and petitioners, who filed the proper action to annul a voidable and rescissible contract she signed on her 7/12 share, by these proper actions on 1998:
CHAPTER 7 VOIDABLE CONTRACTS Art. 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties: (1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a contract; (2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud. These contracts are binding, unless they are annulled by a proper action in court. They are susceptible of ratification. (n) Art. 1391. The action for annulment shall be brought within four years.

The unrebutted and court admitted testimonial evidence of Judge Floro is hereunder reproduced to rebut and contradict the Court decision and defendants Blancos baseless allegations:

The Court and defendants Blancos went beyond the above-agreed upon and submitted at the pre-trial and stipulations of facts ISSUES of law and fact, only to deprive Judge Floro of his only home / lot / title, without due process of law. On the Courts ratio decidendi or ground to support its decision, and defendants Blancos same allegations, on the Br. 10, RTC, Malolos March 6, 2006 Order to cancel the annotated liens of TRO / Permanent Injunction, on the subject title, per Entry No. 356173 (M), (admitted Exh. A-sub-markings), Judge Floro had repeatedly stated and pleaded that he and his brothers were the ones who petitioned the cancellation of said liens, since under the law, Guardianship ended upon the death of their mother, Milagros V. Floro, on December 5, 1995, and accordingly, she could no longer be prevented from disposing the subject title. But said Order of cancellation did not in any manner render moot and academic the prohibition versus defendants Blancos, since the latter did violate said injunction on January 5, 1995, date of their signing the mortgage contract, and within the prohibited injunction period of 1994 until December 5, 1995. Besides, the 30 days period for the existence of adverse claim, already expired, as it is no longer exists, in fact and law, and it is the duty of this Court to cancel the same, summarily, lest the Presiding Judge be additionally charged of gross ignorance of elementary rules and procedures. Defendants Blancos falsely and maliciously, finally alleged: III. Gross Ignorance of elementary Rules / laws on Sales, Mortgage, Intestate Estate, Loan, Prescription of actions, contracts and obligations, aside from patent obstructions of justice and violation of the oaths of lawyers / judge, inter alia, and rendition of a most unjust decision which deprived Judge Floro /

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

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

It is not only gross ignorance of the cited laws, inter alia, but sheer stupidity and weirdness, to claim that the filing of a criminal case in MTC Meycauayan, Bulacan, against Judge Floro and Joselito Floro, resulted in tolling of stopping, the running of the prescriptive period, to collect the loan from Milagros Floro or to foreclose her 7/12 share mortgaged share, by merely

arguing that the civil aspect versus Milagros Floro was impliedly instituted therein. The loan or debt / alleged obligation of Milagros Floro (assuming only arguendo, that the loan and mortgage Kasunduan was not infirm and annulable), should have been collected per letter of demand and more importantly, by filing a collection suit, to her not to Judge Floro or anybody, after January 6, 1996, the due date. Since she died on December 5, 1995, defendants Blancos only right and remedy are: a) to file a claim in the intestate estate court in a special proceeding they should have commenced until 2006, and / or b) foreclose the property by extra-judicial or judicial foreclosure before January 6, 2006. On January 7,2006, defendants Blancos lost all their legal rights over the 7/12 property and the remaining right for these defendants is moral, if any, which is no longer enforceable due to the supervening death and insolvency of her estate. Even a first year law student, but not a bar flunker, would easily know, that filing of criminal case against anybody including Judge Floro, Joselito Floro, inter alia, is not a demand, suit, or foreclosure of mortgage to collect the loan of Milagros Floro, nor to foreclose her mortgaged share. More importantly, it is basic and elementary rule of law, that the civil is impliedly instituted in the criminal, especially in estafa or fraud cases, but, with the underlined exception in remedial law, that such civil aspect is removed from the criminal court or case, if the complainant / defendants Blancos, joined herein, or filed counterclaim / answer, in these LRC and civil / special civil actions, or civil cases, to annul the mortgage. And they never filed docket fees, making their claims or rights under the loan and mortgage dead and barred, forever. Such is the essence of Judge Floros SUMPA, the Catholic Biblical curse which changes the tides of time and destiny of the wicked. AMEN+.

ALLEGATION IS NOT PROOF. The above-allegations are lies and utter obstruction of justice, leading to plain indirect contempt of Court, since they not even supported by a single evidence, for defendants Blancos were ordered to have waived their twin rights to cross-examine, rebut and traverse Judge Floros / petitioners conclusively admitted proofs, and had waived their rights to present evidence. Further, respondents Blancos utterly deceived this Court, since records, documents, exhibits, pleadings, and proofs admitted, show and conclusively proved that: petitioners / Judge Floro duly OFFERED on September 13, 2004,

RULE 86 CLAIMS AGAINST ESTATE Sec. 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. - If not filed, barred; exceptions. All claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract, express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and expenses for the last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against the decedent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice; otherwise they are barred forever, except that they may be set forth as counterclaims in any action that the executor or administrator may bring against the

claimants. Where an executor or administrator commences an action, or prosecutes an action already commenced by the deceased in his lifetime, the debtor may set forth by answer the claims he has against the decedent, instead of presenting them independently to the court as herein provided, and mutual claims may be set off against each other in such action; and if final judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant, the amount so determined shall be considered the true balance against the estate, as though the claim had been presented directly before the court in the administration proceedings. Claims not yet due or contingent, may be approved at their present value. Sec. 7. Mortgage debt due from estate. - A creditor holding a claim against the deceased secured by mortgage or other collateral security, may abandon the security and prosecute his claim in the manner provided in this rule, and share in the general distribution of the assets of the estate; or he may foreclose his mortgage or realize upon his security, by action in court, making the executor or administrator a party defendant, and if there is a judgment for a deficiency, after the sale of the mortgaged premises, or the property pledged, in the foreclosure or other proceeding to realize upon the security, he may claim his deficiency judgment in the manner provided in the preceding section; or he may rely upon his mortgage of other security alone, and foreclose the same at any time within the period of the statute of limitations, and in that event he shall not be admitted as a creditor, and shall receive no share in the distribution of the other assets of the estate; but nothing herein contained shall prohibit the executor or administrator from redeeming the property mortgaged or pledged, by paying the debt for which it is held as security, under the direction of the court, if the court shall adjudge it to be for the best interest of the estate that such redemption shall be made.

CHAPTER 2, SIMPLE LOAN OR MUTUUM Art. 1953. A person who receives a loan of money or any other fungible thing acquires the ownership thereof, and is bound to pay to the creditor an equal amount of the same kind and quality. (1753a) Art. 1955. The obligation of a person who borrows money shall be governed by the provisions of Articles 1249 and 1250 of this Code. Art. 2125. In addition to the requisites stated in Article 2085, it is indispensable, in order that a mortgage may be validly constituted, that the document in which it appears be recorded in the Registry of Property. If the instrument is not recorded, the mortgage is nevertheless binding between the parties. Title XVI. - PLEDGE, MORTGAGE AND ANTICHRESIS CHAPTER 1 PROVISIONS COMMON TO PLEDGE AND MORTGAGE Art. 2085. The following requisites are essential to the contracts of pledge and mortgage: (3) That the persons constituting the pledge or mortgage have the free disposal of their property, and in the absence thereof, that they be legally authorized for the purpose. Art. 1231. Obligations are extinguished: Other causes of extinguishment of obligations, such as annulment, rescission, fulfillment of a resolutory condition, and prescription, are governed elsewhere in this Code. (1156a) Art. 1142. A mortgage action prescribes after ten years. (1964a) Art. 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues: (1) Upon a written contract; (2) Upon an obligation created by law; Art. 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court, when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. (1973a) CHAPTER 2

ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF CONTRACTS GENERAL PROVISIONS Art. 1318. There is no contract unless the following requisites concur: (1) Consent of the contracting parties; Art. 1330. A contract where consent is given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud is voidable. (1265a)

With due respect This Honorable Court gravely erred in ruling that NOW THE PARTIAL JUDGMENT. Based on the applicable law and evidence, the Court finds as follows:

[Pars. 3-4, page 6, Partial Judgment dated April 15, 2008]. The gravely erred in not applying the other applicable laws, to wit: New Civil Code, CHAPTER 7, VOIDABLE CONTRACTS Art. 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties: (1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a contract; (2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud. These contracts are binding, unless they are annulled by a proper action in court. They are susceptible of ratification. (n) Art. 1391. The action for annulment shall be brought within four years. This period shall begin: in cases of intimidation, violence or undue influence, from the time the defect of the consent ceases. In case of mistake or fraud, from the time of the discovery of the same. And when the action refers to contracts entered into by minors or other incapacitated persons, from the time the guardianship ceases. (1301a) Contrary to the Courts ratio decidendi above-cited that no action was filed for annulment of the mortgage contract within 4 years, undersigned filed these cases to annul said contract at the earliest opportunity. Based on a) the FINDINGS OF FACT by the Court on pages 2-5, Partial Judgment, April 15, 2008, and based on its citation of admitted Exhibits A to G / sub-markings (annexes A to G / sub-markings of the Petition = pages 133 to 154, records), the CRITICAL FACTS, which the Court disregarded, are: i) the Court Injunction was issued by the Guardianship Court, Br. 10, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan against the disposal or encumbrance of the subject lands / titles in these cases belonging to Milagros Floro, and the Order was annotated at the back of the said titles on January 14, and Februray 4, 1994, respectively, ii) further, undersigned personally notified, by registered mails with return card, notice of the said lien

and injunction, to all respondents, per admitted exhibits, as will be further discussed hereunder: Exhibits A-8 and A-8-1 (4 pages petitioners Manifestation-Letter Notice dated July 21, 1993, with the registry receipts, both originals = pages 111 to 114, records; marked on September 13, 2004, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan); iii) respondents resciscible and voidable mortgage contract was signed by Joselito Floro and Milagros Floro on January 5, 1995, despite said injunction lien and notice; iv) the cases for injunction, annulment of said mortgage, LRC case for cancellation of adverse claim, and amended complaint for cancellation of mortgage based on cited Articles 1381, 1389, 1390 and 1391, NCC, inter alia, were duly filed on time at the earliest opportunity, upon discovery, by undersigned on September, 1998, and October 2, 1998 respectively. Respondents, therefore, are registrants with full knowledge of the injunction and were encumbrancers in bad faith. In G.R. No. 107432 July 4, 1994, CAUSAPIN vs. CA, the Supreme Court ruled that: "an action to annul a deed of conveyance or contract based on minority or lack of capacity to enter into the deed must be brought within four years from the time such incapacity ceases." In G.R. No. 126000 October 7, 1998, MWSS vs. CA, the Court likewise ruled that: "a contract where consent is given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud, is voidable" 2. Contracts "where consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud" are voidable or annullable; Concepts of Voidable Contracts. Voidable or anullable contracts are existent, valid, and binding, although they can be annulled because of want of capacity or vitiated consent of the one of the parties, but before annulment, they are effective and obligatory between parties. Hence, it is valid until it is set aside and its validity may be assailed only in an action for that purpose. The four year prescriptive period under Art. 1391 of the New Civil Code will apply. This article provides that the prescriptive period shall begin in the cases of intimidation, violence or undue influence, from the time the defect of the consent ceases", and "in case of mistake or fraud, from the time of the discovery of the same time.

The Court gravely erred also, in ruling that undersigneds request to cancel the registered lien of injunction (at the back of the titles, per granted Br. 10, RTC, Malolos Order directing the Branch Register of Deeds to cancel said titles annotations on March 6, 1996), did result in mooting the prohibition on encumbrance or disposal by respondents, for reasons: a) Milagros Floro died on December 5, 1995, due to Schizophrenia (par. 7, page 4, Partial Judgment, Exh. A/sub-markings), because of this mortgage which ruined her health, as discussed hereunder; b) the death of Milagros Floro rendered moot, the guardianship proceedings, and not the injunction, but the lien was correctly erased; c) respondents Blancos already violated the mortgage prohibition on January 5, 1995, or more than one year, after the cancellation of the entries at the back of the title; having knowledge of the court prohibition, the mortage was therefore voidable under said laws, d) at the time of the signing of the mortgage, Milagros Floro was so sick and could not have known what she was doing, as will be discussed hereunder. Wikipedia and other notable references define this mental disease which affected the subject mortgage: Schizophrenia1 (pronounced /sktsfrini/), from the Greek roots schizein (, "to split") and phrn, phren- (, -, "mind"), is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental illness characterized by impairments in the perception or expression of reality, most commonly manifesting as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions or disorganized speech and thinking in the context of significant social or occupational dysfunction. Onset of symptoms typically occurs in young adulthood, with approximately 0.40.6% of the population affected. Diagnosis is based on the patient's self-reported experiences and observed behavior. No laboratory test for schizophrenia currently exists. The disorder is primarily thought to affect cognition, but it also usually contributes to chronic problems with behavior and emotion. People diagnosed with schizophrenia are likely to be diagnosed with comorbid conditions, including clinical depression and anxiety disorders; the lifetime prevalence of substance abuse is typically
1

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

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

around 40%. Social problems, such as long-term unemployment, poverty and homelessness, are common and life expectancy is decreased; the average life expectancy of people with the disorder is 10 to 12 years less than those without, owing to increased physical health problems and a high suicide rate. The Court gravely erred, therefore, in failing to annul the subject void mortgage, not only because of the Court injunction but it further closed its legal eyes to the CRITICAL FACT - duly proved by admitted and uncontradicted documentary evidence (Exhibits A to G/sub-markings) and supported by unrebutted testimonial evidence (since respondents, all of them, failed to appear in Court to present their evidence, despite repeated Orders of the Court, that is, waiver to present evidence, as will be discussed hereunder) - that Milagros Floro, at the time of the mortgage was incapacitated, very sick, and never knew what she was signing, and such mortgage caused her death, which death, also caused the deaths and pains of all those who persecuted undersigned, due to the biblical curse under Psalms 109 and 73. The Court further gravely erred, in failing to annul the subject void mortgage, and in disregarding undersigneds May 25, 2008 OMNIBUS Motions to declare the January 5, 1996 mortgage MOOT since, it can no longer be enforced or foreclosed due to prescription. extinguished by EXTINCTIVE PRESCRIPTION, and the duly filed amended (October 2, 1998) pleading for annulment was the real / proper action to cancel or rescind the said voidable and moot contract of mortgage, causing the titles of undersigned to be free from all liens and encumbrances under the law / rules. Accordingly, the Court furthermore, gravely erred in ruling that

[par. 1-3, par. 1-3, pages 8-9, Partial Judgment]. Ergo, the Court in this regard, gravely erred in not considering the legal truism that undersigneds instant criminal injunction falls within the recognized and jurisprudential exceptions, thusly. In SECOND DIVISION, G.R. No. 129904, March 16, 2000, DIRECTOR GUILLERMO T. DOMONDON vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, the Court teaches that: "Well settled is the rule that criminal prosecutions may not be restrained, either through a preliminary or final injunction or a writ of prohibition, except in the following instances: (1) To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; (2) When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; (3) When there is a prejudicial question which is sub-judice; (4) When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; (5) Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; (6) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent; (7) Where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense; (8) Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; (9) Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance; (10) When there is clearly no prima facie case against the

accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied; ella (11) Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners. How can this Partial Judgment be defended in a court of law? It left hanging the titles! Undersigneds titles were never cancelled, while the respondents mortgage lien was declared existent, but respondents, since 2006 could no longer foreclose the same, since the contract of mortgage prescribed. It is therefore, a pure comedy of errors, tempting undersigned not to appeal the case but to just ask for clarification. If the Court will not stop the criminal proceedings, what will be the agenda of the prosecution? Nothing, nada and no mortgage, no estafa, and no evidence can be admitted to convict. The court further ignored the elementary rule of law and jurisprudence that an encumbrancer or mortgagee with knowledge of the lien / injunction is a transferee with knowledge and in bad faith. Respondents Blancos entered into the contract with full knowledge of the injunction and the dying condition of the mortgagor Milagros Floro. Such being the legal situation, respondents Blancos interests and alleged but never proved in Court adverse claim not only expired, but were never born in law; they never existed in legal fact, and they lost all their rights, if any, against undersigned and Milagros Floro. Their remaining right to go after Joselito Floro also prescribed on 2006, since they slept on their rights, by abandoning the court proceedings, despite repeated Court orders to present evidence. Ergo, the Court in this regard, further gravely erred in ruling that the civil aspect was included in the criminal case. Such could have had happened were it not for the filing of respondents Blancos of answers / with counterclaims in these cases; with their participation, thru Atty. Rafael Santos, Atty. Donato Mabbayad and Atty. Irineo Guardiano, per pleadings with duly signed and approved STIPULATIONS OF FACTS, the Blancos opted to fight in these cases; but they were declared by the Court to have abandoned their rights to submit evidence, to cross-examine undersigned and to rebut the evidence.

Voluntary Inhibition: First in the Bulacan Court History Ako po ay nagsusumamo sa inyo Ginang Hukom na magtika, maghugas nang ating mga kasalanan, bilang isang Bansa, upang mahilom ang sugat dahil sa korupsyon. Bilang ka-mag-aral ng tanyag na UP Class 62 (C.J. PUNO, NAZARIO, YNARES-SANTIAGO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, at DIME), ipamalas mo po sa amin, na ikaw ay hindi lamang patas at makatarungan, datapwat, mukhang malinis sa harap ng mata ng mga nagsasakdal at nasasakdal. Sapul nang hawakan (2004), dinggin at hatulan ninyo ang mga kasong ito (1998-2008), hindi ako nagdemanda nang kriminal o administratibo laban sa iyo, kahit nanalo ka laban sa UnionBank. Dahil ba akoy nagsampa ng administratibong kaso laban sa iyong OIC/legal researcher, sapat na ba ito para talikuran mo ang sinumpaang katungkulan mong tutuparin lahat ang utos ng Batas at Konstitusyon, upang lahat kami ay mabigyan ng hustisya? Nauunawaan ko po, ang sakit, dalamhati at mga kasawian na tinamo ninyo buhat ng hawakan ninyo itong kasong ito. Ang iyong kabiyak ay pumanaw at dama rin namin ang mapait at malupit na pagpanaw at pighati ng marami pang gaya niya (Luzviminda Puno, Lirio Bautista Victorino, Hilario Davide, Sr., Jorge at Jose Davide, at sangkatutak na mga mahal sa buhay). Ako po ay umaasa na hahatulan ninyo ng ganap ang kasong ito, ng TAPOS at hindi nakabitin, dahil, ano mang hatol ay maari pa namang apilahan sa Court of Appeals. Kung TAKOT at alinlangan dahil sa UNGODLY REPRISALS (Nazario at Puno, Ocad v. Judge Floro, A.M. RTJ-99-1460, July 12, 2006) ang bumabagabag sa inyo gabi-hating-gabi, ako naman ay nagpapasalamat sa UP Class 62 ninyo, dahil sila ang lumagda upang ako ay maging jobless walang work, trabajo o job, sa isang mundong balatkayo. Utang na loob ko sa mga kaiskwela ninyo po, ang aking katahimikan at pagsampalataya sa May-kapal. Walang bisa ang SUMPA (Salmo 109 at 73) sa hudikatura, dahil, ayon kay Minita Nazario, PINAL akong hinatulan bilang ANGHEL NG KAMATAYAN na komukunsulta sa 3 DWENDE, at Diyos lang ang magpaparusa sa mga tiwaling Hukom. Dahil, dito po, isinulat at ipinahayag ko sa Court of Appeals (Writ of Amparo kaso para matapos na ang SUMPANG kasong mga ito), na wala akong balak

magdemanda laban sa iyo HABANG (HANGGANG 2009) dahil 4 na mga kamag-aral mo ang hahatol dito, datapwat, hiniling ko tuwing HATING-GABI na sana, kayo po ay magtika at ipahayag sa Paring Katoliko ang inyong mga kasalanan, dahil wika ni Pope Benedict XVI, na kahit si San Pedro ay ubod nang sama at makasalan. Huwag po kayong matakot na ako ay magiging TINIK o PUWING sa inyong RETIREMENT benefits sa susunod na mga taon. Sinong mahistrado ang papatol sa akin, upang mapigil ang pagbayad sa inyo ng pinaghirapan ninyo, kung kayo po ay talagang patas, matino, kagalanggalang na mahistrado Binibigyan KO po kayo mula sa aking PUSO, ng isa pang pagkakataon upang ipakita sa UNION BANK at iba pang nagkanulo sa inyo, na KASINUNGALIN ang mga bintang nila sa inyo. Basbasan nawa kayo na Poong Maykapal hanggang sa inyong huling sandali. Gumagalang, ngayong Biyernes, hating-Gabi, Ika-18 ng Abril, 2008. Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. Unconstitutional - UNJUST ORDER: Violation of Substantive Due Process If this case is re-raffled, it will only delay the resolution of the motion for reconsideration (Rule 37 limits to 30 days the rendition of the resolution), since the new Judge would have to read voluminous TSNs, Exhibits and record / pleadings, filed since 1998. Undersigned submits additional ARGUMENT:

EXHIBTS MARKED: A) P-405-98 case: All the annexes A to G / sub-markings of the Verified Petition ( Vide: pages 1 to 8 records), dated September 28, 1998 in P-405-98 case were marked correspondingly marked as Exhibits A to G / sub-markings at the trial / hearing dated March 4, 1999 and Exhibits H and I / sub-markings on December 8, 1998 before Br. 19, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan: Exhibits A to G / sub-markings (annexes A to G / sub-markings of the Petition) = pages 9 to 29, records;

Exhibits A-8 and A-8-1 (4 pages petitioners Manifestation-Letter Notice dated July 21, 1993, with the registry receipts, both originals) = pages 111 to 114, records; marked on September 13, 2004, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan; Exhibits H / sub- markings = pages 1, 6, 8, 15, 76 to Exhibit I = pages 78 [Vide: TSN dated December 8, 1998 pages 2 to 5, and Order regarding jurisdictional requirements, on page 7; copies are attached herewith as reference as Annex A hereof]. [Vide: TSN dated March 4, 1999 pages 3 to 4, copies are attached herewith as reference as Annex A-1 hereof]. Direct Testimony of petitioner Judge Floro: [Vide: TSN dated March 4, 1999 pages 4 to 32, and Order regarding jurisdictional requirements, on page 7; copies are attached herewith as reference as Annex B hereof]. B) Civil Case No. 938-M-98: All the annexes A to G / sub-markings (of the Verified Petition - Vide: pages 2 12, etc., records, dated September 28 / 29, 1998 as amended by the Amended Verified Complaint filed and all fees duly paid on October 9, 1998 Vide pages 123 to 132, records), were correspondingly marked as Exhibits A to G / sub-markings at the trial / hearing dated March 19, 1999 before Br. 9, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan:

Exhibits A to G / sub-markings (annexes A to G / sub-markings of the Petition) = pages 133 to 154, records; ALL THE EXHIBITS A to G / sub-markings duly marked in both cases are exactly the SAME exhibits and annexes of both petitions, duly consolidated. Formal Offer of Petitioners Documentary Evidence: All the petitioners annexes A to G / sub-markings, and court documents, marked and identified as Exhibits A to I / sub-markings, in these 2 cases were all formally offered and admitted in evidence at the hearing dated September 13, 2004, EVEN if all said exhibits were stipulated and admitted by petitioners and respondents Blancos in the joint stipulation of facts, above-cited. In P-405-98 case: All the petitioners annexes A to G / sub-markings, Exhibits A-8 and A-8-1 (4 pages petitioners Manifestation-Letter Notice dated July 21, 1993, with the registry receipts, both originals), Exhibits H / sub- markings, Exhibit I, duly marked and identified, and all exhibits In Civil Case No. 938-M-98: Exhibits A to G / sub-markings (annexes A to G / sub-markings of the Petition) ALL THE EXHIBITS A to G / sub-markings duly marked in both cases are exactly the SAME exhibits and annexes of both petitions, duly consolidated

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

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

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

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

Petitioner respectfully cites the following laws, circulars and rules, to support his contention that a) the decision in this case should have been rendered and released on December 23, 2004; b) the Branch Clerk of Court, (in conspiracy with) and Atty. Nye Orquillas, the Trinidads and respondents Blancos, inter alia, are liable under these laws, criminally and administratively, due to palpable obstruction of justice and delay of petitioners cause because of the resultant unjust and unlawful orders which stopped the judgments issuance as of December 23, 2004. Until the decision in this case is rendered, the Certificate of Service of the Presiding Judge cannot state that there is no pending case which has not yet been decided, since petitioner proved that the decision must have been issued on December 23, 2004 were it not for the criminal and administrative wrong doings of said counsel and court personnel.

A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC- RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE 140 OF THE RULES OF COURT RE: DISCIPLINE OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES - The Court resolved to APPROVE the amendment of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court regarding the discipline of Justices and Judges, so as to read as follows: RULE 140 - DISCIPLINE OF JUDGES OF REGULAR AND SPECIAL COURTS AND JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN SEC. 8. Serious charges. Serious charges include: 1. Bribery, direct or indirect; 2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No. 3019); 3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct; 4. Knowingly

rendering an unjust judgment or order as determined by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding; 7. Borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case pending before the court; 9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure; SEC. 9. Less Serious Charges. Less serious charges include: 1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case; 4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars; 6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of service; SEC. 11. Sanctions. A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed: 1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; 2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or 3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00 B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed: 1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or 2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. These amendments to Rule 140 shall take effect on October 1, 2001 following their publication in two newspapers of general circulation on or before September 15, 2001. CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT - CANON 3 A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH IMPARTIALITY AND DILIGENCE ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES RULE 3.01 - A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. RULE 3.02 - In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism. RULE 3.05 - A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (June 21, 1988) Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved. Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: RULE 7 - PARTS OF A PLEADING Sec. 3. Signature and address. Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading in violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails to promptly report to the court a change of his address, shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.

RULE 8 - MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS Sec. 12. Striking out of pleading or matter contained therein. Upon motion made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by these Rules, upon motion made by a party within twenty (20) days after the service of the pleading upon him, or upon the court's own initiative at any time, the court may order any pleading to be stricken out or that any sham or false, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter be stricken out therefrom. RULE 129 What Need Not Be Proved Sec. 4.Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. (2a) RULE 132 - C. OFFER AND OBJECTION - Sec. 34. Offer of evidence. The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. (35) Sec. 35.When to make offer. As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify. Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. (n) Sec. 36. Objection. Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made. An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice, unless a different period is allowed by the court. In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a) Sec. 38.Ruling. The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made, xxx.

RULE 18, PRE-TRIAL - Sec. 2. Nature and purpose. (b) The simplification of the issues; (d) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents to avoid unnecessary proof; RULE 30- TRIAL - Sec. 6. Agreed statement of facts. The parties to any action may agree, in writing, upon the facts involved in the litigation, and submit the case for judgment on the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence. If the parties agree only on some of the facts in issue, the trial shall be held as to the disputed facts in such order as the court shall prescribe.