REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Office of the Court Administrator SUPREME COURT MANILA SECOND DIVISION Judge Florentino V.

Floro, Jr., Complainant, - versus A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2854-RTJ For: Gross ignorance of the law, etc.

Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz, and (Presiding Judge , Br. 16, RTC, Malolos City , 3000 Bulacan, Retired July 10, 2009), Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson, (Legal Researcher / OIC, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan), Respondents. X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

VERIFIED SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT w/ New Evidence, Verified Motion for Reconsideration,

[Of the July 1, 2009 Resolution, received by Complainant on August 1, 2009), with

Verified Omnibus Motions

.)

To Direct the Pairing Judge Ma. Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega, Br. 17, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, to Decide Consolidated Civil Cases No. 938-M-98 / LRC P-405-98 (per S.C. No. 19-98, 18 Feb 1998 & Adm. M. No. 04-5-19-SC, 2004), due to retirement of respondent Pairing Judge

Thelma Pinero-Cruz on July 10, 2009 & since Judge Mendoza Arcega is handling a pending related (same facts, laws) Civil Case No. 1132-M-99 which is pending execution and she has fully heard, and submitted for her Resolution as of May, 2009,
.)

Manifestation of Loss of Trust / Confidence Upon &To Disqualify Court Administrator Jose P. Perez / DCA Antonio H. Dujua, for submitting a falsified, biased, untruthful and sham May 4 2009 Report-Recommendation, and To Create / Appoint an impartial Fact-Finding Body to Submit a New Report Based on Truth, New Evidence submitted and laws applicable to the Critical Facts , not based on LIES.

.)

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, and The MEMBERS, Second Division, Supreme Court, Padre Faura, Manila Your Honors,

I, the undersigned complainant, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, by MYSELF and for MYSELF, as litigant, most respectfully assigns the following errors of fact and law of the adopted-approved May 4, 2009 OCAD Report / par. 2 of the July 1 2009 Resolution, which undersigned received on August 1, 2009, and avers, that: Par. 2, page 1, last par. Page 3, pars. 1, 2, 3, page 4, par. 4, page 5, and the Recommendation, page 6, of the OCAD May 4 2009 Report are not only contrary to the critical facts and evidence submitted by complainant in his more than 350 pages of pleadings, but they are LIES, LIES within the purview of the RULE of LAW of Jose Perez Antonio Dujua, which is the cause of SIN, and SIN is the cause of Death, emanating from CANCER, STROKE, NERVE DISORDERS, ACCIDENTS, FIRES, LINGERING ILLNESSES as St. Paul teaches in his Letters to the Romans and Corinthians. 1. On April 15, 2008, I lost my only HOME-HOUSE-LOT, due to the P 80,000 bribe-money received by Judge Thelma-Pinero Cruz / Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson (after I lost my job on July 20, 1999 April 7, 20906 per Justice Alfredo L. Benipayos longest suspension). Judge Pinero-Cruz ordered these consolidated cases submitted for Judgment on September 22, 2004 and June 17, 2005 after she declared all defendants to have waived their rights to crossexamine me and to present evidence (Annexes C, C-1) Despite my pleas for mercy, she refused to decide these cases: a) dismissing them first for LIES, on September 7, 2005 (Annex D, D-1), alleged non-payment of docket fees, b) reversing herself, but falsely giving undersigned time to pay legal fees, and c) finally correcting herself, on March 31, 2008 (Annex E), admitting that undersigned paid all fees, and ordered again that these cases are deemed submitted for decision. 2. Executive Judge Petrita Braga-Dime was forced to elevate complainants administrative case against respondents to the Office of the Court Administrator on January 28, 2008 (Vide: par 2, Agenda, page 1, OCAD Report of May 4 2009). Despite this, Judge Thelma refused to decide the case due to the pay-off of P 80,000. So, Complainant filed the Writ of Amparo to force her to decide the case. Justice Edgardo Sundiam ruled and RESERVED that undersigneds correct remedy is to file OCAD cases against respondents (Annex F). Despite these pending OCAD cases, Judge Pinero-Cruz DID NOT INHIBIT-UNLOAD these cases but she even partially judged these cases on April 15, 2008 (par. 2, page 4, OCAD Report of May 4 2009) dismissing these cases based on false new ground of non-filing of proper remedy, which ground has not even been raised by the defendants in the pleadings and on trial. Due to the P 80,000 bribe-money she inhibited and unloaded these cases but she was reversed by the Office of the Executive Judge Herminia Pasamba. 3. Because of this partial judgment, and amid her legal query to inhibit, undersigned called her attention to the fact that she failed to decide the fully submitted since 2004 cases against Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico. On September 3, 2008 (Annex G), therefore, she again reversed herself, afraid that that error

would delay her receipt of her retirement benefits. So, she ordered again that all these consolidated civil cases were again submitted for FULL DECISION against all parties except the Trinidads since undersigned opted to file a separate case against them. But due to the P 80,000 bribe money, she again failed to decide these cases since 2004/2005, and she filed a petition on October 27 2008 for 6 months extension of time or until June 2009 to decide all these 2 consolidated cases (Annex G-1). 4. On Monday and Tuesday, July 13 and 14, 2009, undersigned, after more than 20 phone calls and personal follow-ups with the civil in charge of Br. 16, RTC, Malolos, Ellen, regarding the status of the cases or would-be decision, Ellen informed undersigned that a) there was and is no decision on these cases which was promulgated or released nor signed by Judge Thelma, b) that Judge Thelma informed her to tell undersigned that she was drafting decisions in some cases she failed to decide during her incumbency, and c) she will inform undersigned by mail if a decision would be released. Undersigned, therefore, was alarmed, since the Supreme Court in People vs. So, 101 Phil 1257 and in Solis vs CA and People, GR L-29777-83, 3-26-1971, ruled that a judge can only sign and promulgate a decision during his incumbency, a decision thereafter signed and released is void. 5. Hence, undersigned called the Office of the Pairing Judge, Br. 17, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, the Office of the Clerk of Court, thru the criminal in charge and again, Ellen, of Br. 16, regarding the above jurisprudence; undersigned informed Ellen that under the Code of Conduct of Court personnel, she could not longer release any VOID decision even if ante-dated since, all parties in these cases would be put in the legal darkness, due to said non-feasance and omissions of Judge Cruz under the laws and rules. 6. Because of the pleading, Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz was forced to take out and remove off the expediente, her draft decision, since the Office of the Executive Judges Herminia Pasamba, Renato Francisco, Belen Liban & Basilio Gabo, on July 17, 2009, DULY NOTED complainants Administrative Motion versus Judge Pinero-Cruz (Annex H). 7. In view of the peculiar and weird circumstances of this 11 years case, undersigned took pains to research on the RULE OF LAW regarding who should decide this case left undecided by retired on July 10 2009 Judge PineroCruz. First, undersigned called the Legal Office of Atty. Geronga, and officer of the day Atty. Mitzi Arao informed undersigned that the Pairing Judge Ma. Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega, Br. 17, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, should Decide Consolidated Civil Cases No. 938-M-98 / LRC P-405-98 (per S.C. No. 19-98, 18 Feb 1998 & Adm. M. No. 04-5-19-SC, 2004) , due to retirement of respondent Pairing Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz on July 10, 2009 & since Judge Mendoza Arcega is handling a pending related (same facts, laws as that of Consolidated Civil Cases No. 938-M-98 / LRC P-405-98) Civil Case No. 1132-M-99 which is pending execution and she has fully heard, and submitted for her Resolution as of May, 2009 (Annexes A & B).

7.a. Undersigned hereby SUBMITS precedents in Malolos RTC, Branches Pairing Br. 15 Judge Alexander Tamayo had already rendered some Decisions on cases left undecided by cancer-stricken Executive Br. 14, Pairing Judge Petrita Braga Dime, and Pairing Br. 19, Judge Renato Francisco had already decided some cases which were left undecided by Br. 18, Pairing Promoted Judge Demetrio Macapagal (now RTC QC) based on S.C. No. 19-98, 18 Feb 1998 & Adm. M. No. 04-5-19-SC, 2004. 7.b. Anent corruption and bribery, undersigned not only has personal knowledge of the extortion activities of Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz regarding, massive borrowing of moneys from lawyers and litigants particularly at Maunlad Malls I and II which had cases pending at her sala, and she received not less than P 2 million from the TRO cases which she badly needed as cashstrapped Judge when undersigned inflicted cancer to her husband who died in pain, after she received P 60,000 of the P 80,000 bribe money-attorneys fees. 7.c. The OCAD refused and continued to FAIL to permit undersigned to present testimonial evidence consisting of witness Ms. Belen Gomez, to corroborate the sworn complaint 300 pages herein which detailed under oath the pay-off at Calvario, Meycauayan, Bulacan. In this regard, the 3rd Division of this Supreme Court directed respondents co-conspirator Atty. Nye Orquillas, to file Comment to petitioners landmark Disbarment A.C. No. 7897 (Annex I). A FINAL WORD. Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo suffered massive stroke on February 22, 2008 preceded by the February 3, 2008, most painful death due to lingering illness by Justice Edgardo Sundiam who dismissed Judge Floro Amparo plea for mercy. Judge Petrita Braga Dime who denied Judge Floros plea for compassion died in utter pain 3 day on July 10, 2008.+ Undersigned has filed a 5 pages LBC Anonymous complaint against Judge Pornillos who is only the Malolos Princess for borrowing money from litigants, for Judge Pinero-Cruz is the QUEEN of this big legal business Cash-strapped judge sacked for borrowing money http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/news/courtnews%20flash/2009/07/07080901.php Court News Flash July 2009 SC Dismisses Borrower Judge Posted: July 8, 2009 By Jay B. Rempillo http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/july2009/RTJ-09-2183.htm RESPONDENTS COMMENT: On January 15, 2008, respondent filed her 34page Comment, devoting the first five pages thereof to imputing to former Judge Florentino Floro the malicious filing of the anonymous complaint. She prayed for the immediate dismissal of all the false charges engineered by petitioner herein for lack of merit, with costs against him [sic].

A judge shalt not borrow cash or property from a subordinate nor from lawyers or litigants in ones sala or face the severe penalty of dismissal from service. The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed a Regional Trial Court judge for borrowing P5,000 from a lawyer who had at least two cases pending before her sala. It was also found that the said judge had also obtained loans from court personnel. In a 22-page per curiam decision, the Court found Judge Victoria Villalon-Pornillos of Malolos City Regional Trial Court, Branch 10 guilty of violating paragraph 7, section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court (borrowing money from a lawyer in a case pending before her court) which also constitutes a gross misconduct for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, aggravated by, inter alia, undue delay in rendering decisions or orders and violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars. The High Court also ordered the forfeiture of all her retirement benefits except accrued leave credits and her perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government. That the loans had already been paid or waived by the creditors do not detract from the fact that certain prohibitions were violated.There is a standing legal proscription on borrowing money by superior officers from subordinate, a violation of which is punishable, under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.More severely prohibited is the serious charge of borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case pending before the court, the Court said. In imposing the maximum penalty of dismissal, the Court noted that it was the third time that Judge Pornillos has been administratively charged. Considering that [Judge Pornillos] is not a first-time offender and taking into account respondents less serious violations as aggravating circumstance, the Court imposes the penalty of dismissal for serviceThose who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity have no place in the Judiciary. The various violations of respondent reflect a totality of transgressions of one who no longer deserves a seat in the bench. This Court will not withhold penalty when called for to uphold the peoples faith in the Judiciary, the Court ruled. The case stemmed from the administrative complaint filed in August 2005 by the Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan who had accused respondent judge of graft and corruption by fixing cases and selling decisions or orders and alleged illicit relationships with her driver and bodyguards. After investigating the matter, the Office of the Court Administrator found that the allegations of corruption and extortion, or even the illicit amorous relationships were hearsay. However, the OCA confirmed that Judge Pornillos had indeed obtained loans from court personnel and lawyers. The High Court subsequently ordered an investigation by a judicial audit team which in turn found that Judge Pornillos, among others, had not been promptly acting on several cases. However, it dismissed OCAs earlier conclusion that Judge Pornillos has no longer any administrative liability for the loans she had obtained from court personnel and lawyers. The Court held that she had violated certain prohibitions and it does not matter whether the loans had been paid or waived. The High Court found that respondent judge also failed to fulfill the duties to dispose of the courts business promptly and decide cases within the required

periods, to diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, and facilitate the performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court personnel, and to organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.(AM No. RTJ-09-2183, Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan v. Judge Villalon-Pornillos, July 7, 2009)
RELIEF IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that the instant

VERIFIED SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT w/ New Evidence, Verified Motion for Reconsideration,

[Of the July 1, 2009 Resolution, received by Complainant on August 1, 2009), with

Verified Omnibus Motions A.) To Direct the Pairing Judge Ma. Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega, Br. 17, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, to Decide Consolidated Civil Cases No. 938-M-98 / LRC P-405-98 (per S.C. No. 19-98, 18 Feb 1998 & Adm. M. No. 04-5-19-SC, 2004), due to retirement of respondent Pairing Judge
Thelma Pinero-Cruz on July 10, 2009 & since Judge Mendoza Arcega is handling a pending related (same facts, laws) Civil Case No. 1132-M-99 which is pending execution and she has fully heard, and submitted for her Resolution as of May, 2009,

B.) Manifestation of Loss of Trust / Confidence Upon &To Disqualify Court Administrator Jose P. Perez / DCA Antonio H. Dujua, for submitting a falsified, biased, untruthful and sham May 4 2009 Report-Recommendation, and C.)To Create / Appoint an impartial Fact-Finding Body to Submit a New Report Based on Truth, New Evidence submitted and laws applicable to the Critical Facts , not based on LIES. - be duly NOTED and GRANTED. It is further PRAYED that a) Due to the extraordinary events and related pending Disbarment A.C.

No. 7897, in these cases, it is petitioned that the expediente and records of the Consolidated Civil Cases No. 938-M-98 / LRC P-405-98 be physically turned over to the Branch 17, RTC, Malolos, Clerk of Court, Atty. Rama, and that Pairing Judge Ma. Theresa V. Mendozabe ordered to Decide Arcega, Br. 17, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan,

Consolidated Civil Cases No. 938-M-98 / LRC P-405-98 (per S.C. No. 19-98, 18 Feb 1998 & Adm. M. No. 04-5-19-SC, 2004), due to retirement of respondent Pairing Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz on July 10, 2009 & since Judge Mendoza Arcega is handling a pending related (same facts, laws) Civil Case No. 1132-M-99 which is pending execution and she has fully heard, and submitted for her Resolution as of May, 2009,
b) that both respondents be declared guilty of violating paragraph 7, Section

8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court (borrowing money from a lawyer in a case pending before her court) which is also a gross misconduct constituting violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, aggravated by, inter alia, undue delay in rendering decisions or orders, and violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars, and that both of them be DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency or instrumentality, and c) To Direct the Office of the Bar Confidant to DENY respondent Lerida Socorro-Josons application to take the 2009 Bar Exams and to be admitted a lawyer pending these cases. Other reliefs and remedies, just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading motion, this 1st Friday, August 5, 2009, at Malolos City , Bulacan. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Petitioner-Complainant, 123 Dahlia, Alido, Malolos, 3000 BULACAN, Tel /# (044) 662-82-03;
[I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300; ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV]. NOTICE & REQUEST TO: Atty. Ma. Luisa L. Laurea, Asst. Clerk of Court, Second Division, 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 & AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) Malolos City, BULACAN ) S.S.

I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, depose/say, that: I am the complainant in this case. I caused the preparation, signed and read the initial pleading duly filed in this case, and all the contents/allegations thereof are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records. I CERTIFY that on August 7, 2009 I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in this case In Re: Judge Floro vs Judge Pinero-Cruz et al A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2854-RTJ, upon respondents, by personal service as proved by the rubber stamps of their offices hereunder, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Rules of Court. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 7th day of August, 2009, hereat Malolos City, Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12005 # 21783592, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 2-27, 2009.

DOC. NO. _____, PAGE NO. ____. BOOK NO. , SERIES OF 2009.

BERNAR D. FAJARDO
Notary Public, Until , PTR NO. Atty.s Roll No. 33633, IBP OR # Malolos, Bulacan.

COPY FURNISHED: (By Personal Service):

Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz, and (Presiding Judge , Br. 16, RTC, Malolos City , 3000 Bulacan, Retired July 10, 2009), Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson, (Legal Researcher / OIC, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan), Respondents. Pairing Judge Ma. Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega, Br. 17, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, Executive Judge Herminia Pasamba, Br. 81, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, Office of the Court Administrator Jose P. Perez, OCAD, Manila, Office of DCA Antonio H. Dujua, OCAD, Manila,

Atty. Lilian Co, Fiscal Management Office, Docket and Clearance Division, Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya, Jr., DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT General Solano St. Malacaang, Metro Manila
(02) 735-1959; 735-4847; (02) 735-4929; (02) 490-1001 (02) 735-4936 Fax; 735-4927 Fax

dbmtis@dbm.gov.ph