In Re JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO, Ex Rel. Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
FACTS:
The respondent in this
case, Joaquin T. Borromeo, is not a lawyer but has apparently read some law
books, and ostensibly come to possess some superficial awareness of a few
substantive legal principles and procedural rules. Incredibly, with nothing
more than this smattering of learning, the respondent has, for some sixteen
(16) years now, from 1978 to 1995, been instituting and prosecuting legal
proceedings in various courts, dogmatically pontificating on errors supposedly
committed by the courts, including the Supreme Court.
Respondent Borromeo's entered
into different transactions with three (3) banks which came to have calamitous
consequences for him chiefly because of his failure to comply with his
contractual commitments and his stubborn insistence on imposing his own terms
and conditions for their fulfillment. These banks were: Traders Royal Bank
(TRB), United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), Security Bank & Trust Co.
(SBTC). Borromeo obtained loans or credit accommodation from them, to secure
which he constituted mortgages over immovables belonging to him or members of
his family, or third persons. He failed to pay these obligations, and when
demands were made for him to do so, laid down his own terms for their
satisfaction which were quite inconsistent with those agreed upon with his
obligees or prescribed by law. When, understandably, the banks refused to let
him have his way, he brought suits right and left, successively if not
contemporaneously, against said banks, its officers, and even the lawyers who
represented the banks in the actions brought by or against him.
He sued, as well, the
public prosecutors, the Judges of the Trial Courts, and the Justices of the
Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court who at one time or another, rendered a
judgment, resolution or order adverse to him, as well as the Clerks of Court
and other Court employees signing the notices thereof. In the aggregate, he has
initiated or spawned in different fora the astounding number of no less-than
fifty (50) original or review proceedings, civil, criminal, administrative. For
some sixteen (16) years now, to repeat, he has been continuously cluttering the
Courts with his repetitive, and quite baseless if not outlandish complaints and
contentions.
ISSUE:
Whether the
respondent-accused is liable for constructive contempt?
RULING:
Yes. Borromeo is guilty
of constructive contempt.
Upon the indubitable
facts on record, there can scarcely be any doubt of Borromeo's guilt of
contempt, for abuse of and interference with judicial rules and processes,
gross disrespect to courts and judges and improper conduct directly impeding,
obstructing and degrading the administration of justice.
He has stubbornly
litigated issues already declared to be without merit, obstinately closing his
eyes to the many rulings rendered adversely to him in many suits and
proceedings, rulings which had become final and executory, obdurately and
unreasonably insisting on the application of his own individual version of the
rules, founded on nothing more than his personal (and quite erroneous) reading
of the Constitution and the law; he has insulted the judges and court officers,
including the attorneys appearing for his adversaries, needlessly overloaded
the court dockets and sorely tried the patience of the judges and court
employees who have had to act on his repetitious and largely unfounded
complaints, pleadings and motions. He has wasted the time of the courts, of his
adversaries, of the judges and court employees who have had the bad luck of
having to act in one way or another on his unmeritorious cases.
More particularly,
despite his attention having been called many times to the egregious error of
his theory that the so-called "minute resolutions" of this Court
should contain findings of fact and conclusions of law, and should be signed or
certified by the Justices promulgating the same, he has mulishly persisted in
ventilating that self-same theory in various proceedings, causing much loss of
time, annoyance and vexation to the courts, the court employees and parties
involved.
Equally as superficial,
and sophistical, is his other contention that in making the allegations claimed
to be contumacious, he "was exercising his rights of freedom of speech, of
expression, and to petition the government for redress of grievances as
guaranteed by the Constitution (Sec. 4, Art. III) and in accordance with the
accountablity of public officials." The constitutional rights invoked by
him afford no justification for repetitious litigation of the same causes and
issues, for insulting lawyers, judges, court employees; and other persons, for
abusing the processes and rules of the courts, wasting their time, and bringing
them into disrepute and disrespect.
No comments:
Post a Comment