Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANC A.M. No. 93-7-696-0 February 21, 1995! Re "OA#UN T. $ORROMEO, E% Re&. Cebu C'(y C)a*(er o+ ()e !(e,ra(e- $ar o+ ()e P)'&'**'!e..R E S O L U T I O N PER CURAM/It is said that a little learnin is a danerous thin! and that he "ho acts as his o"n la"#er has a fool for a client$ There "ould see% to be %ore than a rain of truth in these aphoris%s! and the# appear to find &alidation in the proceedin at bench' at least$The respondent in this case' (oa)uin T$ Borro%eo' is not a la"#er but has apparentl# read so%e la" boo*s' and ostensibl# co%e to possess so%e superficial a"areness of a fe" substanti&e leal principles and procedural rules$ Incredibl#' "ith nothin %ore than this s%atterin of learnin' the respondent has' for so%e si+teen ,-./ #ears no"' fro% -012 to the present' been institutin and prosecutin leal proceedins in &arious courts' do%aticall# pontificatin on errors supposedl# co%%itted b# the courts' includin the Supre%e Court$ In the pictures)ue lanuae of for%er Chief (ustice Enri)ue M$ 3ernando' he has 4"ith all the &alor of inorance'4 1 been &erball# 5oustin "ith &arious ad&ersaries in di&erse litiations! or in the "ords of a "ell6*no"n son' rushin into arenas 4"here anels fear to tread$4 Under the illusion that his tri&ial ac)uaintance "ith the la" had i&en hi% co%petence to underta*e litiation' he has &entured to represent hi%self in nu%erous oriinal and re&ie" proceedins$ E+pectedl#' the results ha&e been disastrous$ In the process' and possibl# in aid of his inter%inable and )uite unreasonable resort to 5udicial proceedins' he has seen fit to co%pose and circulate %an# scurrilous state%ents aainst courts' 5udes and their e%plo#ees' as "ell as his ad&ersaries' for "hich he is no" bein called to account$Respondent Borro%eo7s ill6ad&ised incursions into la"#erin "ere enerated b# fairl# prosaic transactions "ith three,8/ ban*s "hich ca%e to ha&e cala%itous conse)uences for hi% chiefl# because of his failure to co%pl# "ith his contractual co%%it%ents and his stubborn insistence on i%posin his o"n ter%s and conditions for their fulfill%ent$ These ban*s "ere9 Traders Ro#al Ban* ,TRB/' United Coconut Planters Ban* ,UCPB/' Securit# Ban* : Trust Co$ ,SBTC/$ Borro%eo obtained loans or credit acco%%odation fro% the%' to secure "hich he constituted %ortaes o&er i%%o&ables belonin to hi% or %e%bers of his fa%il#' or third persons$ ;e failed to pa# these obliations' and"hen de%ands "ere %ade for hi% to do so' laid do"n his o"n ter%s for their satisfaction "hich "ere )uite inconsistent "ith those areed upon "ith his obliees or prescribed b# la"$ / oriinal or re&ie" proceedins' ci&il' cri%inal' ad%inistrati&e$ 3or so%e si+teen ,-./ #ears no"' to repeat' he has been continuousl# clutterin the Courts "ith his repetiti&e' and )uite baseless if not outlandish co%plaints and contentions$I$ CASES INVOLVING TRADERSROYAL BANK (TRB)The first ban* that (oa)uin T$ Borro%eo appears to ha&e dealt "ith "as the Traders Ro#al Ban* ,TRB/$ On (une ?' -012' he ot a loan fro% it in the su% of P@='>>>$>>$ This he secured b# a real estate %ortae created o&er t"o parcels of land co&ered b# TCT No$ =0=0. and TCT No$ =01== o"ned' respecti&el#' b# Socorro Borro%eo6Tha*uria ,his sister/ and Teresita '>>>$>>' this ti%e i&in as securit# a %ortae o&er a parcel of land o"ned b# the ;eirs of Aicente A$ Borro%eo' co&ered b# TCT No$ RT61.8@$ Authorit# to %ortae these three lots "as &ested in hi% b# a Special Po"er of Attorne# e+ecuted b# their respecti&e o"ners$Additionall#' on April ?8' -02>' Borro%eo obtained a Letter of Credit fro% TRB in the su% of P2>'>>>$>>' in consideration of "hich he e+ecuted a Trust Receipt ,No$ =0=B2>/ fallin due on (ul# ??' -02>$ 2Borro%eo failed to pa# the debts as contracted despite de%ands therefor$ Conse)uentl#' TRB caused the e+tra65udicial foreclosure of the %ortaes i&en to secure the%$ At the public sale conducted b# the sheriff on Septe%ber1' -02-' the three %ortaed parcels of land "ere sold to TRB as the hihest bidder' for P18'=?0$>0$.' TRB consolidated its o"nership o&er the foreclosed i%%o&ables$ Contendin that act of consolidation a%ounted to a cri%inal offense' Borro%eo filed co%plaints in the Office of the Cit# Prosecutor of Cebu aainst the ban* officers and la"#ers$ These co%plaints "ere ho"e&er' and )uite correctl#' i&en short shrift b# that Office$ Borro%eo then filed suit in the Cebu Cit# RTC' this ti%e not onl# a$a%&s' '/e TRB, TRB o66%*ers 2a*%&'o 2a+ero a&( Ar*e)% Bus'a+a&'e' but also a$a%&s' C%'7 .rose*u'or 2u6e)%&%'o .are3a a&( /%s ass%s'a&'s, E&r%8ue'a Be)ar+%&o a&( E9a A$ I$o', a&( '/e TRB )a07ers, 1ar%o Or'%: a&( '/e )a0, 6%r+, ;ERSINLA. and CEB621=>' alread# decided "ith finalit# in fa&or of TRB/' and lac* of cause of action ,as to defendants Pare5a' Belar%ino and Iot/$Borro%eo7s *er'%orar% petition to the Court of Appeals ,CA E$R$ SP No$ ?2??-/ "as dis%issed b# that Court7s -.th Ci&ision 0 on October .' -00?' for the reason that the proper re%ed# "as appeal$@$ RTC Case No$ CEB-!0#6"!CA-G$R$ S. No$ 2!00Before Case No$ CEB602@= "as finall# decided' Borro%eo filed' on Ma# 8>' -00-' still another ci&il action for the sa%e cause a$a%&s' TRB' %'s +a&a$er' 2a*%&'o 2a+ero, a&( %'s )a07ers, A''7$ 1ar%o Or'%: a&( '/e ;ERSINLA< )a0 o66%*e$ This action "as doc*eted as Ci&il Case No$ CEB6->8.2' and "as described as one for 4Reco&er# of Su%s of Mone#' Annul%ent of Titles "ith Ca%aes$4 The case %et the sa%e fate as the others$ It "as' on defendants7 %otion' dis%issed on Septe%ber 0' -00- b# the RTC ,Branch -@ 5/ on the round of )%'%s pe&(e&'%a$The RTC ruled that DCi&il Case No$ CEB60@2= "ill readil# sho" that the defendants therein' na%el# the ;onorable (ufelinito Pare5a' Enri)ueta Belar%ino' E&a Iot' Traders Ro#al Ban*' Arceli Busta%ante' (acinto (a%ero' Mario OrtiF and ;ERSINLA< are the sa%e persons or nearl# all of the% "ho are i%pleaded as defendants in the present Ci&il Case No$ CEB6->8.2' na%el#' the Traders Ro#al Ban*' (acinto (a%ero' Mario OrtiF and ;ERSINLA.$ On defendant7s %otion' the trial court 1 dis%issed the case on the round of pre%aturit#' holdin that 4,a/t this point $ $ $' plaintiff7s riht to see* annul%ent of defendant Traders Ro#al Ban*7s title "ill onl# accrue if and "hen plaintiff "ill ulti%atel#and finall# "in Ci&il Case No$ R6??=>.$4.$ RTC Case No$ CEB-"2#6;a&in thus far failed in his %an# efforts to de%onstrate to the courts the 4%erit4 of his cause aainst TRB and its officers and la"#ers' Borro%eo no" too* a different tac* b# also suin ,and thus also &entin his ire on/ the %e%bers of the appellate courts "ho had ruled ad&ersel# to hi%$ ;e filed in the Cebu Cit# RTC' Ci&il Case No$ CEB62?8.' %+p)ea(%&$ as (e6e&(a&'s &o' o&)7 '/e sa+e par'%es /e /a( '/ere'o6ore -ee& su%&$ ? TRB a&( %'s o66%*ers a&( )a07ers (;ERSINLA>>$>> %oral da%aes! 8>'>>>$>> e+e%plar# da%aes! and P='>>>$>> litiation e+penses$4 This action' too' %et a )uic* and uncere%onious de%ise$ On %otion of defendants TRB and ;ERSINLA.0' a$a%&s' TRB a&( '/e )a''er>s )a07ers, .' decision in "hich "as affir%ed b# the Court of Appeals in CA6E$R$ CA No$ >1>-= as "ell as b# this Court in E$R$ No$ 288>. 11 D and )%'%s pe&(e&'%a ? the sub5ect %atter bein also thesa%e as that in Ci&il Case No$ CEB621=>' decision in "hich "as affir%ed b# the Court of Appeals in CA E$R$ SP No$ ??8=.$ 122$ RTC Cr%+%&a) Case No$ CBA-!4#55!CA-G$R$ S. No$ 2"25! G$R$ No$ !!242"On April -1' -00> the Cit# Prosecutor of Cebu Cit# filed an infor%ation "ith the RTC of Cebu ,Branch ??/ aainst Borro%eo charin hi% "ith a &iolation of the Trust Receipts La"$ 13 The case "as doc*eted as Cri%inal Case No$ CBU6-08@@$ After a "hile' Borro%eo %o&ed to dis%iss the case on the round of denial of his riht to a speed# trial$ ;is %otion "as denied b# Order of (ude Pa%pio A$ Abarintos dated April ->' -00?$ In the sa%e order' ;is ;onor set an earl#date for Borro%eo7s arrain%ent and placed the case 4under a continuous trial s#ste% on the dates as %a# be areed b# the defense and prosecution$4 Borro%eo %o&ed for reconsideration$ ' -021' he recei&ed a letter fro% Cler* of Court (ulieta G$ Carreon ,of this Court7s Third Ci&ision/ dealin "ith the sub5ect' in relation to E$R$ No$ 11?@8$ 17 The sa%e %atter "as also dealt "ith in the letter recei&ed b# hi% fro% Cler* of Court LuF&i%inda C$ Puno' dated April @' -020' and in the letter to hi% of Cler* of Court ,Second Ci&ision/ 3er%in($ Ear%a' dated Ma# -0' -020$ 11 And the sa%e sub5ect "as treated of in another Resolution of this Court' notice of "hich "as in due course ser&ed on hi%' to "it9 that dated (ul# 8-' -020' in E$R$ No$ 21201$ 19B$ CRI1INAL CASESMention has alread# been %ade of Borro%eo7s atte%pt D "ith 4all the &alor of inorance4 D to fasten not onl# ci&il' but also cri%inal liabilit# on TRB' its officers and la"#ers$ 20 Se&eral other atte%pts on his part to cause cri%inal prosecution of those he considered his ad&ersaries' "ill no" be dealt "ith here$-$ I$ S$ Nos$ 40-!!" a&( 40-!!""On March 1' -00>' Borro%eo filed cri%inal co%plaints "ith the Office of the Cebu Cit# Prosecutor a$a%&s' 2a*%&'o 2a+ero ,'/e& s'%)) TRB Bra&*/ 1a&a$er/' 42o/& Doe a&( o66%*ers o6 Tra(ers Ro7a) Ba&=$4 The co%plaints ,doc*eted as I$S$ Nos$ 0>6--21622/ accused the respondents of 4Estafa and 3alsification of Public Cocu%ents$4 ;e clai%ed' a%on others that the ban* and its officers' thru its %anaer' (acinto (a%ero' sold properties not o"ned b# the%9 that b# fraud' deceit and false pretenses' respondents neotiated and effected the purchase of the ,foreclosed/ properties fro% his ,Borro%eo7s/ %other' "ho 4in duress' fear and lac* of leal *no"lede'4 areed to the sale thereof for onl# P.1-'>>>$>>' althouh in liht of then pre&ailin %ar*et prices' she should ha&e recei&ed P=22'>8>$>> %ore$In a (oint Resolution dated April --' -00>' 21 the Cebu Cit# 3iscal7s office dis%issed the co%plaints obser&in that actuall#' the Ceed of Sale "as not bet"een the ban* and Borro%eo7s %other' but bet"een the ban* and Mrs$ Tha*uria ,his sister/' one of the oriinal o"ners of the foreclosed properties! and that Borro%eo' bein a straner to the sale' had no basis to clai% in5ur# or pre5udice thereb#$ The 3iscal ruled that the ban*7s o"nership of the foreclosed properties "as be#ond )uestion as the %atter had been raised and passed upon in a 5udicial litiation! and %oreo&er' there "as no proof of the docu%ent alleedl# falsified nor of the %anner of its falsification$a$ I$S$ Nos$ "-#45 a&( "4-52#5E&identl# to hihliht Borro%eo7s penchant for rec*less filin of unfounded co%plaints' the 3iscal also ad&erted to t"o other co%plaints earlier filed in his Office b# Borro%eo D in&ol&in the sa%e foreclosed properties and directed aainst respondent ban* officers7 predecessors ,includin the for%er Manaer' Ronald S#/ and la"#ers D both of "hich "ere dis%issed for lac* of %erit$ These "ere9a$ I$ S$ No$ 216810= ,(OAHUIN T$ BORROMEO &s$ ATTG$ MARIO ORTIJ and RONALC SG/ for 4Estafa Throuh 3alsification of Public Cocu%ents' Ceceit and 3alse Pretenses$4 D This case "as dis%issed b# Resolution dated (anuar# -0' -022 of the Cit# Prosecutor7s Office because based on nothin %ore than a letter dated (une @' -02=' sent b# Ban* Manaer Ronald S# to the lessee of a portion of the foreclosed i%%o&ables' ad&isin the latter to re%it all rentals to the ban* as ne" o"ner thereof' as sho"n b# the consolidated title! and there "as no sho"in that respondent Att#$ OrtiF "as %oti&ated b# fraud in notariFin the deed of sale in TRB7s fa&or after the lapse of the period of rede%ption' or that OrtiF had benefited pecuniaril# fro% the transaction to the pre5udice of co%plainant! andb$ I$S$ No$ 206@?8@ ,(OAHUIN T$ BORROMEO &s$ RONALC SG' ET AL$/ for 4Estafa Throuh 3alse Pretenses and 3alsification of Public Cocu%ents$4 D This case "as dis%issed b# Resolution dated (anuar# 8-' -00>$?$ I$S$Nos$ ""-205 'o ""-20./ "as still pendin before the Supre%e Court' 22 an affida&it "as e+ecuted in behalf of TRB b# Arceli Busta%ante' in connection "ith the for%er7s fire insurance clai% o&er propert# reistered in its na%e D one of t"o i%%o&ables for%erl# o"ned b# Socorro B$ Tha*uria ,(oa)uin Borro%eo7s sister/ and foreclosed b# said ban*$ 23 In that affida&it' dated Septe%ber ->' -021' Busta%ante stated that 4On ?@ (une -028' TRB thru foreclosure ac)uired real propert# toether "ith the i%pro&e%ents thereon "hich propert# is located at 3$ Ra%os St$' Cebu Cit# co&ered b# TCT No$ 21802 in the na%e or TRB$4 The affida&it "as notariFed b# Att#$ Manuelito B$ Inso$Clai%in that the affida&it "as 4falsified and per5urious4 because the clai% of title b# TRB o&er the foreclosed lots "as a 4deliberate' "ilful and blatant fasehood in that' a%on others9 $ $ $ the consolidation "as pre%ature' illeal andin&alid'4 Borro%eo filed a cri%inal co%plaint "ith the Cebu Cit# 3iscal7s Office aainst the affiant ,Busta%ante/ and the notariFin la"#er ,Att#$ Inso/ for 4falsification of public docu%ent' false pretenses' per5ur#$4 On Septe%ber ?2' -022' the 3iscal7s Office dis%issed the co%plaint$ 20 It found no untruthful state%ents in the affida&it or an# %alice in its e+ecution' considerin that Busta%ante7s state%ent "as based on the Transfer Certificate of Title in TRB7s file' and thus the docu%ent that Att#$ Inso notariFed "as leall# in order$8$ O1B-VIS-"4-00!#6This Resolution of this Court ,3irst Ci&ision/ in E$R$ No$ 288>. dated Auust -=' -022 D sustainin the 5ud%ent of the Court of Appeals ,->th Ci&ision/ of (anuar# ?1' -022 in CA6E$R$ CA No$ >1>-=' supra' "as %ade the sub5ect of a cri%inal co%plaint b# Borro%eo in the Office of the O%buds%an' Aisa#as' doc*eted as OMB6AIS6206>>-8.$ ;is co%plaint D aainst 4Supre%e Court (ustice ,3irst Ci&$/ and Court of Appeals (ustice ,->th Ci&/4 D "as dis%issed for lac* of %erit in a Resolution issued on 3ebruar# -@' -00> 25 "hich' a%on other thins' ruled as follo"s9It should be noted and e%phasiFed that co%plainant has re%edies a&ailable under the Rules of Court' particularl# on ci&il procedure and e+istin la"s$ It is not the preroati&e of this Office to %a*e a re&ie" of Cecisions and Resolutions of 5udicial courts' rendered "ithin their co%petence$ The records do not "arrant this Office to ta*e further proceedins aainst the respondents$In addition' Sec$ ?>$ of R$A$ .11>' 4the O%buds%an Act states that the Office of the O%buds%an %a# not conduct the necessar# in&estiation of an# ad%inistrati&e act or o%ission co%plained of if it belie&es that ,-/ the co%plainant had ade)uate re%ed# in another 5udicial or )uasi65udicial bod#!4 and Sec$ ?- the sa%e la" pro&ides that the Office of the O%buds%an does not ha&e disciplinar# authorit# o&er %e%bers of the (udiciar#$II$ CASES INVOLVING ANITED COCONAT.LANTERS BANK (AC.B)As earlier stated' 26 Borro%eo ,toether "ith a certain Mercader/ also borro"ed %one# fro% the United Coconut Planters Ban* ,UCPB/ and e+ecuted a real estate %ortae to secure repa#%ent thereof$ The %ortae "as constituted o&er a -??6s)uare6%eter co%%ercial lot co&ered b# TCT No$ 1=.2> in Borro%eo7s na%e$ This sa%e lot "as after"ards sold on Auust 1' -02> b# Borro%eo to one Sa%son K$ Lao for P-1>'>>>$>>' "ith a stipulation for its repurchase ,pa*'o (e re'ro/ b# hi% ,Borro%eo' as the &endor/$ The sale "as %ade "ithout the *no"lede and consent of UCPB$A$ CIVIL CASESNo"' 5ust as he had defaulted in the pa#%ent of the loans and credit acco%%odations he had obtained fro% the Traders Ro#al Ban*' Borro%eo failed in the fulfill%ent of his obliations to the UCPB$Shortl# after learnin of Borro%eo7s default' and ob&iousl# to ob&iate or %ini%iFe the ill effects of the latter7s delin)uenc#' Lao applied "ith the sa%e ban* ,UCPB/ for a loan' offerin the propert# he had purchased fro% Borro%eo as collateral$ UCPB "as not a&erse to dealin "ith Lao but i%posed se&eral conditions on hi%' one of "hich "as for Lao to consolidate his title o&er the propert#$ Lao accordinl# instituted a suit for consolidation of title' doc*eted as Ci&il Case No$ R6?->>0$ ;o"e&er' as "ill shortl# be narrated' Borro%eo opposed the consolidation pra#ed for$ As a result' UCPB cancelled Lao7s application for a loan and itself co%%enced proceedins foreclose the%ortae constituted b# Borro%eo o&er the propert#$This sinaled the beinnin of court battles "aed b# Borro%eo not onl# aainst Lao' but also aainst UCPB and the latter7s la"#ers' battles "hich he ,Borro%eo/ fouht conte%poraneousl# "ith his court "ar "ith Traders Ro#al Ban*$-$ RTC Case No$ R-2!004! AC-G$R$No$ CV-0#46! G$R$ No$ "22#The first of this ne" series of court battles "as' as 5ust stated' the action initiated b# Sa%son Lao in the Reional Trial Court of Cebu ,Branch -?/' doc*eted as Case No$ R6?->>0' for consolidation of title in his fa&or o&er the -??6s)uare6%eter lot sub5ect of the UCPB %ortae' in accordance "ith Article ->>1 of the Ci&il Code$ In this suit Lao "as represented b# Att#$ Alfredo PereF' "ho "as later substituted b# Att#$ Antonio Reis$ Borro%eo contested Lao7s application$(ud%ent "as in due course rendered b# the RTC ,Branch -?' ;on$ 3rancis Militante' presidin/ den#in consolidation because the transaction bet"een the parties could not be construed as a sale "ith pa*'o (e re'robeinin la" an e)uitable %ortae! ho"e&er' Borro%eo "as ordered to pa# Lao the su% of P-1>'>>>$>>' representin the price stipulated in the sale a re'ro' plus the a%ounts paid b# Lao for capital ains and other ta+es in connection "ith the transaction ,P->'@01$=>/$Both Lao and Borro%eo appealed to the Court of Appeals$ Lao7s appeal "as dis%issed for failure of his la"#er to filebrief in his behalf$ Borro%eo7s appeal D AC6E$R$ No$ CA6>180. D resulted in a Cecision b# the Court of Appeals dated Cece%ber -@' -021' affir%in the RTC7s 5ud%ent %& 'o'o$The Appellate Court7s decision "as' in turn' affir%ed b# this Court ,Third Ci&ision/ in a four6pae Resolution dated Septe%ber -8' -020' pro%ulated in E$R$ No$ 2??18 D an appeal also ta*en b# Borro%eo$ Borro%eo filed a %otion for reconsideration on se&eral rounds' one of "hich "as that the resolution of Septe%ber -8' -020 "as unconstitutional because contrar# to 4Sec$ @ ,8/' Art$ AIII of the Constitution'4 it "as not sined b# an# (ustice of the Ci&ision' and there "as 4no "a# of *no"in "hich 5ustices had deliberated and &oted thereon' nor of an# concurrence of at least three of the %e%bers$4 Since the %otion "as not filed until after there had been an entr# of 5ud%ent' Borro%eo ha&in failed to %o&e for reconsideration "ithin the rele%entar# period' the sa%e "as si%pl# noted "ithout action' in a Resolution dated No&e%ber ?1' -020$Notices of the foreoin Resolutions "ere' in accordance "ith established rule and practice' sent to Borro%eo o&er the sinatures of the Cler* of Court and Assistant Cler* of Court ,na%el#9 Att#s$ (ulieta G$ CARREON and Alfredo MARASIEAN' respecti&el#/$a$ RTC Case No$ CEB-"643ollo"in the sa%e aberrant pattern of his 5udicial ca%pain aainst Traders Ro#al Ban*' Borro%eo atte%pted to &ent his resent%ent e&en aainst the Supre%e Court officers "ho' as 5ust stated' had i&en hi% notices of the ad&erse dispositions of this Court7s Third Ci&ision$ ;e filed Ci&il Case No$ CEB62.10 in the Cebu Cit# RTC ,C3I/ for reco&er# of da%aes aainst 4Att#s$ (ulieta G$ Carreon and Alfredo Marasian' Ci&ision Cler* of Court and Asst$ Ci&ision Cler* of Court' Third Ci&ision' and Att#$ (ose I$ Ilustre' Chief of (udicial Records Office$4 ;e chared the% "ith usurpation of 5udicial functions' for alleedl# 4%aliciousl# and de&iousl# issuin biased' fa*e' baseless and unconstitutional 7Resolution7 and 7Entr# of (ud%ent7 in E$R$ No$ 2??18$4Su%%onses "ere issued to defendants b# RTC Branch -2 ,(ude Rafael R$ GbaLeF' presidin/$ These processes "ere brouht to the attention of this Court7s Third Ci&ision$ The latter resol&ed to treat the %atter as an incident in E$R$ No$ 2??18' and referred it to the Court E& Ba&* on April ?=' -00>$ B# Resolution ,issued in said E$R$ No$ 2??18' supra/ dated (une -' -00>' the Court E& Ba&* ordered (ude GbaLeF to )uash the su%%onses' to dis%iss Ci&il Case No$ CEB62.10' and 4not to issue su%%ons or other"ise to entertain cases of si%ilar nature "hich %a# inthe future be filed in his court$4 Accordinl#' (ude IbaLeF issued an Order on (une .' -00> )uashin the su%%onses and dis%issin the co%plaint in said Ci&il Case No$ CEB62.10$The Resolution of (une -' -00> 27 e+plained to Borro%eo in no little detail the nature and purpose of notices sent b# the Cler*s of Court of decisions or resolutions of the Court E& Ba&* or the Ci&isions' in this "ise9This is not the first ti%e that Mr$ Borro%eo has filed charesBco%plaints aainst officials of the Court$In se&eral letter co%plaints filed "ith the courts and the O%buds%an' Borro%eo had repeatedl# alleed that he 4suffered in5ustices'4 because of the disposition of the four ,@/ cases he separatel# appealed to this Court "hich "ere resol&ed b# %inute resolutions' alleedl# in &iolation of Sections @,8/' -8 and -@ of Article AIII of the -021 Constitution$ ;is in&ariable co%plaint is that the resolutions "hich disposed of his cases do not bear the sinatures of the (ustices "ho participated in the deliberations and resolutions and do not sho" that the# &oted therein$ ;e li*e"ise co%plained that the resolutions bear no certification of the Chief (ustice and that the# did not state the facts and the la" on "hich the# "ere based and "ere sined onl# b# the Cler*s of Court and therefore 4unconstitutional' null and &oid$4+++ +++ +++The Court re%inds all lo"er courts' la"#ers' and litiants that it disposes of the bul* of its cases b# %inute resolutions and decrees the% as final and e+ecutor#' as "ere a case is patentl# "ithout %erit' "here the issues raised are factual in nature' "here the decision appealed fro% is in accord "ith the facts of the case and the applicable la"s' "here it is clear fro% the records that the petition is filed %erel# to forestall the earl# e+ecution of 5ud%ent and for non6co%pliance "ith the rules$ Theresolution den#in due course al"a#s i&es the leal basis$ As e%phasiFed in I& Re9 @? ,Branch 2' ;on$ Bernardo Salaspresidin/$ Therein he co%plained essentiall# of the sa%e thin he had been harpin on all alon9 that in relation to E$R$ No$ 0->8> D in "hich the Supre%e Court dis%issed his petition for 4technical reasons4 and failure to de%onstrate an# re&ersible error in the challened 5ud%ent D the notice sent to hi% D of the 4unsined and unspecific4 resolution of 3ebruar# -0' -00>' den#in his %otion for reconsideration D had been sined onl# b# the defendant cler*s of court and not b# the (ustices$ Accordin to hi%' he had thereupon "ritten letters to defendants de%andin an e+planation for said 4patentl# un5ust and un6Constitutional resolutions'4 "hich the# inored! defendants had usurped 5udicial functions b# issuin resolutions sined onl# b# the% and not b# an# (ustice' and "ithout statin the factual and leal basis thereof! and defendants7 4"anton' %alicious and patentl# abusi&e acts4 had caused hi% 4ra&e %ental anuish' se&ere %oral shoc*' e%barrass%ent' sleepless nihts and "orr#!4 and conse)uentl#' he "as entitled to %oral da%aes of no less than P?>'>>>$>> and e+e%plar# da%aes of P->'>>>$>>' and litiation e+penses of P='>>>$>>$On (une 2' -00>' (ude Renato C$ Cacudao ordered the records of the case trans%itted to the Supre%e Court confor%abl# "ith its Resolution dated (une -' -00> in E$R$ No$ 2??18' entitled 4(oa)uin T$ Borro%eo &s$ ;on$ Courtof Appeals and Sa%son6Lao'4 supra D directin that all co%plaints aainst officers of that Court be for"arded to it for appropriate action$ 21Borro%eo filed a 4ManifestationBMotion4 dated (une ?1' -00> as*in the Court to 4rectif# the in5ustices4 co%%itted aainst hi% in E$R$ Nos$ 288>.' 2@000' 21201' 11?@2 and 2@>=@$ This the Court ordered e+puned fro% the record,Resolution' (ul# -0' -00>/$?$ RTC Case No$ R-2!""0! CA-G$R$CV No$ !045!! G$R$ No$ ""4Borro%eo also sued to stop UCPB fro% foreclosin the %ortae on his propert#$ In the Cebu Cit# RTC' he filed a co%plaint for 4Ca%aes "ith In5unction'4 "hich "as doc*eted as Ci&il Case No$ R6?-22> ,(oa)uin T$ Borro%eo &s$ United Coconut Planters Ban*' et al$/$ Na%ed defendants in the co%plaint "ere AC.B' E&r%8ue @arraro&s,AC.B Ce-u Bra&*/ 1a&a$er) a&( Sa+so& K$ Lao$ UCPB "as represented in the action b# Att#$ Canilo Ceen' and for a ti%e' b# Att#$ ;onorato ;er%osisi%a ,both bein then resident partners of ACCRA La" Office/$ Lao "as represented b# Att#$ Antonio Reis$ Once aain' Borro%eo "as rebuffed$ The Cebu RTC ,Br$ --' (ude Aaleriano R$To%ol' (r$ presidin/ dis%issed the co%plaint' upheld UCPB7s riht to foreclose' and ranted its counterclai% for %oral da%aes in the su% of P?>'>>>$>>! attorne#7s fees a%ountin to P->'>>>$>>! and litiation e+penses of P-'>>>$>>$Borro%eo perfected an appeal to the Court of Appeals "here it "as doc*eted as CA6E$R$ CA No$ ->0=-$ That Court' thru its Ninth Ci&ision ,per MartineF' 2$, po&e&'e' "ith de la 3uente and Pe' 22$' concurrin/' dis%issed his appeal and affir%ed the Trial Court7s 5ud%ent$Borro%eo filed a petition far re&ie" "ith the Supre%e Court "hich' in E$R$ No$ 21201 dis%issed it for insufficienc# infor% and substance and for bein 4larel# unintelliible$4 Borro%eo7s %otion for reconsideration "as denied b# Resolution dated (une ?=' -020$ A second %otion for reconsideration "as denied in a Resolution dated (ul# 8-' -020 "hich directed as "ell entr# of 5ud%ent ,effected on Auust -' -020/$ In this Resolution' the Court ,3irst Ci&ision/ said9The Court considered the Motion for Reconsideration dated (ul# @' -020 filed b# petitioner hi%self and Resol&ed to CENG the sa%e for lac* of %erit' the %otion ha&in been filed "ithout 4e+press lea&e of court4 ,Section ?' Rule =?' Rules of Court/ apart fro% bein a reiteration %erel# of the a&er%ents of the Petition for Re&ie" dated April -@' -020 and the Motion for Reconsideration dated Ma# ?=' -020$ It should be noted that petitioner7s clai%s ha&e alread# been t"ice re5ected as "ithout%erit' first b# the Reional Trial Court of Cebu and then b# the Court of Appeals$ ' -020$ ;is letter "as ordered e+puned fro% the record because containin 4false' i%pertinent and scandalous %atter ,Section =' Rule 0 of the Rules of Court/$4 Another letter of the sa%e il*' dated No&e%ber 1' -020' "as si%pl# 4NOTEC "ithout action4 b# Resolution pro%ulated on Cece%ber -8' -020$8$ RTC Case No$ CEB-5"52! CA G$R$S. No$ !55!4! G$R$ No$ "5444In arrant disreard of established rule and practice' Borro%eo filed another action to in&alidate the foreclosure effected at the instance of UCPB' "hich he had unsuccessfull# tried to pre&ent in Case No$ CEB6?-22>$ This "as Ci&il Case No$ CEB6@2=? of the Cebu Cit# RTC ,(oa)uin T$ Borro%eo &s$ UCPB' et al$/ for 4Annul%ent of Title "ith Ca%aes$4 ;ere' UCPB "as represented b# Att#$ Laurence 3ernandeF' in consultation "ith Att#$ Ceen$On Cece%ber ?.' -021' the Cebu Cit# RTC ,Br$ AII' ;on$ Eeneroso A$ (uaban' presidin/ dis%issed the co%plaint on the round of )%'%s pe&(e&'%a and ordered Borro%eo to pa# attorne#7s fees ,P='>>>$>>/ and litiation e+penses ,P-'>>>$>>/$Borro%eo instituted a *er'%orar% action in the Court of Appeals to annul this 5ud%ent ,CA E$R$ SP No$ -@=-0/! but his action "as dis%issed b# the Appellate Court on (une 1' -022 on account of his failure to co%pl# "ith that Court7sResolution of Ma# -8' -022 for sub%ission of certified true copies of the Trial Court7s decision of Cece%ber ?.' -021 and its Order of 3ebruar# ?.' -022' and for state%ent of 4the dates he recei&ed $ $ $ ,said/ decision and $ $ $ order$4Borro%eo "ent up to this Court on appeal' his appeal bein doc*eted as E$R$ No$ 2@000$ In a Resolution dated October ->' -022' the Second Ci&ision re)uired co%%ent on Borro%eo7s petition for re&ie" b# the respondents therein na%ed' and re)uired Borro%eo to secure the ser&ices of counsel$ On No&e%ber 0' -022' Att#$ (ose L$ Cerilles entered his appearance for Borro%eo$ After due proceedins' Borro%eo7s petition "as dis%issed' b# Resolution dated March .' -020 of the Second Ci&ision for failure to sufficientl# sho" that the Court of Appeals had co%%itted an# re&ersible error in the )uestioned 5ud%ent$ ;is %otion for reconsideration dated April @' -020' aainco%plainin that the resolution contained no findins of fact and la"' "as denied$a$ RTC Case No$ CEB-"!"Predictabl#' another action' Ci&il Case No$ CEB62-12' "as co%%enced b# Borro%eo in the RTC of Cebu Cit#' this ti%e aainst the Trial (ude "ho had latel# rendered 5ud%ent ad&erse to hi%' 2u($e Ge&eroso 2ua-a&$ Also i%pleaded as defendants "ere UCPB' and ;o&$ A&(res Nar9asa ('/e& C/a%r+a&, @%rs' D%9%s%o&), Es're))a G$.a$'a&a* a&( 1ar%ssa V%))ara+a ('/e&, respe*'%9e)7, C)er= o6 Cour' a&( Ass%s'a&' C)er= o6 Cour' o6 '/e @%rs' D%9%s%o&/' and others$ (ude Eer%an E$ Lee of Branch -= of said Court D to "hich the case "as raffled D caused issuance of su%%onses "hich "ere in due course ser&ed on Septe%ber ??' -020' a%on others' on said defendants in and of the Supre%e Court$ In an E& Ba&* Resolution dated October ?' -020 D in E$R$ No$ 2@000 D this Court' re)uired (ude Lee and the Cler* of Court and Assistant Cler* of Court of the Cebu RTC to sho" cause "h# no disciplinar# action should be ta*en aainst the% for issuin said su%%onses$Shortl# thereafter' Att#$ (ose L$ Cerilles D "ho' as alread# stated' had for a ti%e represented Borro%eo in E$R$ No$ 2@000 D filed "ith this Court his "ithdra"al of appearance' allein that there "as 4no co%patibilit#4 bet"een hi% and his client' Borro%eo D because 4Borro%eo had been filin pleadins' papers! etc$ "ithout $ $ $ ,his/ *no"lede and ad&ice4 D and declarin that he had 4not ad&ised and $ $ $ ,had/ no hand in the filin of ,said/ Ci&il Case CEB 2-12 before the Reional Trial Court in Cebu$ On the other hand' (ude Lee' in his 4Co%pliance4 dated October ?8' -020' apoloiFed to the Court and infor%ed it that he had alread# pro%ulated an order dis%issin Ci&il Case No$ CEB62-12 on %otion of the principal defendants therein' na%el#' (ude Eeneroso (uaban and United Coconut Planters Ban* ,UCPB/$ Att#$ Cerilles7 "ithdra"al of appearance' and (ude Lee7s co%pliance' "ere noted b# the Court in its Resolution dated No&e%ber ?0' -020$@$ RTC Case No$ CEB-#5! CA-G$R$CV No$ 0504! G$R$ No$ 25"It is er%ane to ad&ert to one %ore transaction bet"een Borro%eo and Sa%son K$ Lao "hich a&e rise to another action that ulti%atel# landed in this Court$ 29 The transaction in&ol&ed a parcel of land of Borro%eo7s *no"n as the 4San (ose Propert#4 ,TCT No$ 8@12=/$ Borro%eo sued Lao and another person ,Mariano Loarta/ in the Cebu Reional Trial Court on the theor# that his contract "ith the latter "as not an absolute sale but an e)uitable %ortae$ The action "as doc*eted as Case No$ CEB681@$ (ud%ent "as rendered aainst hi% b# the Trial Court ,Branch -?/ declarin &alid and bindin the purchase of the propert# b# Lao fro% hi%' and the subse)uent sale thereof b# Lao to Loarta$ Borro%eo appealed to the Court of Appeals' but that Court' in CA6E$R$ CA No$ >@>01' affir%ed the Trial Court7s 5ud%ent' b# Cecision pro%ulated on October ->' -02.$Borro%eo ca%e up to this Court$ on appeal' his re&ie" petition bein doc*eted as E$R$ No$ 11?@2$ B# Resolution of the Second Ci&ision of March -.' -021' ho"e&er' his petition "as denied for the reason that 4a/ the petition as "ell as the doc*et and leal research fund fees "ere filed and paid late! and ,b/ the issues raised are factual and the findins thereon of the Court of Appeals are final$4 ;e %o&ed for reconsideration! this "as denied b# Resolution dated (une 8' -021$;e thereafter insistentl# and persistentl# still souht reconsideration of said ad&erse resolutions throuh &arious %otions and letters' all of "hich "ere denied$ One of his letters D %&'er a)%a co%plainin that the notice sent to hi% b# the Cler* of Court did not bear the sinature of an# (ustice D elicited the follo"in repl# fro% Att#$ (ulieta G$ Carreon' Cler* of Court of the Third Ci&ision' dated (ul# ->' -021' readin as follo"s9Cear Mr$ Borro%eo9This refers to #our letter dated (une 0' -021 re)uestin for a cop# of the actual resolution "ith the sinatures of all the (ustices of the Second Ci&ision in Case E$R$ No$ 11?@8 "hereb# the %otion for reconsideration of the dis%issal of the petition "as denied for lac* of %erit$In connection there"ith' allo" us to cite for #our uidance' Resolution dated (ul# .' -02- in E$R$ No$=.?2>' Rhine Mar*etin Corp$ &$ 3eli+ Era&ante' (r$' et al$' "herein the Supre%e Court declared that 4,%/inute resolutions of this Court den#in or dis%issin un%eritorious petitions li*e the petition in the case at bar' are the result of a thorouh deliberation a%on the %e%bers of this Court' "hich does not and cannot deleate the e+ercise of its 5udicial functions to its Cler* of Court or an# of its subalterns' "hich should be *no"n to counsel$ >'>>>$>> on its liabilit# thereunder$ Aain' as in the case of his obliations to Traders Ro#al Ban* and UCPB' Borro%eo failed to dischare his contractual obliations$ ;ence' SBTC brouht an action in the Cebu Cit# RTC aainst Borro%eo and Su%%a for collection$The action "as doc*eted as Ci&il Case No$ R6?-.-=' and "as assined to Branch ->' (ude Leonardo CaLares' presidin$ Plaintiff SBTC "as represented b# Att#$ Edar Eica' "ho later "ithdre" and "as substituted b# the la" fir%' ;ERSINLA>>$>>/! and P='>>>$>> as litiation e+penses! and the costs$ A "rit of e+ecution issued in due course pursuant to "hich an i%%o&able of Borro%eo "as le&ied on' and e&entuall# sold at public auction on October -0' -020 in fa&or of the hihest bidder' SBTC$On 3ebruar# =' -00>' Borro%eo filed a %otion to set aside the 5ud%ent b# default' but the sa%e "as denied on March .' -00>$ ;is Motion for Reconsideration ha&in li*e"ise been denied' Borro%eo "ent to the Court of Appealsfor relief ,CA6E$R$ No$ ?>.-1/' but the latter dis%issed his petition$ 3ailin in his bid for reconsideration' Borro%eo appealed to this Court on *er'%orar% D his appeal bein doc*eted as E$R$ No$ 0@1.0$ On Septe%ber -1' -00>' this Court dis%issed his petition' and subse)uentl# denied "ith finalit# his %otion for reconsideration$ Entr# of (ud%ent"as %ade on Cece%ber ?.' -00>$;o"e&er' as "ill no" be narrated' and as %iht no" ha&e been anticipated in liht of his histor# of recalcitrance andbellicosit#' these proceedins did not sinif# the end of litiation concernin Borro%eo7s aforesaid contractual co%%it%ents to SBTC' but onl# %ar*ed the start of another coneries of actions and proceedins' ci&il and cri%inal concernin the sa%e %atter' instituted b# Borro%eo$?$ RTC Case No$ CEB-426$ On March ?-' -00>' said Court rendered 5ud%ent affir%in the Trial Court7s decision' and on 3ebruar# 1' -00-' issued a Resolution den#in Borro%eo7s %otion for reconsideration$ ;is appeal to this Court' doc*eted as E$R$ No$ 020?0' "as i&en short shrift$ On Ma# ?0' -00-' the Court ,3irst Ci&ision/ pro%ulated a Resolution den#in his petition for re&ie" 4for bein factual and for failure $ $ $ to sufficientl# sho" that respondent court had co%%itted an# re&ersible error in its )uestioned 5ud%ent$4Stubbornl#' in his %otion for reconsideration' he insisted the notices of the resolutions sent to hi% "ere unconstitutional and &oid because bearin no sinatures of the (ustices "ho had ta*en part in appro&in the resolution therein %entioned$B$ RTC Case No$ CEB-!!52"s D1a&%6es'a'%o&D o6No9e+-er 26, !44#Borro%eo after"ards filed a 4Manifestation4 under date of No&e%ber ?.' -008' ad&ertin to 4the failure of the IBP and Att#$ Leaspi to substantiate his chares under oath and the failure of the concerned (ustices to refute the chares in the alleded 4libelous circular4 and' construin these as 4and ad%ission of the thruth in said circular'4 theoriFed that it is 4incu%bent on the said (ustices to rectif# their ra&e as "ell as to dis%iss Att#$ Leaspi7s baseless and false chares$4AII$ T;E COART CONCLASIONSA$ Respo&(e&'>s L%a-%)%'76or Co&'e+p' o6 Cour'Upon the indubitable facts on record' there can scarcel# be an# doubt of Borro%eo7s uilt of conte%pt' for abuse of and interference "ith 5udicial rules and processes' ross disrespect to courts and 5udes and i%proper conduct directl# i%pedin' obstructin and deradin the ad%inistration of 5ustice$ 00 ;e has stubbornl# litiated issues alread# declared to be "ithout %erit' obstinatel# closin his e#es to the %an# rulins rendered ad&ersel# to hi% in %an# suits and proceedins' rulins "hich had beco%e final and e+ecutor#' obduratel# and unreasonabl# insistin on the application of his o"n indi&idual &ersion of the rules' founded on nothin %ore than his personal ,and )uite erroneous/ readin of the Constitution and the la"! he has insulted the 5udes and court officers' includin the attorne#s appearin for his ad&ersaries' needlessl# o&erloaded the court doc*ets and sorel# tried the patience of the 5udes and court e%plo#ees "ho ha&e had to act on his repetitious and larel# unfounded co%plaints' pleadins and %otions$ ;e has "asted the ti%e of the courts' of his ad&ersaries' of the 5udes and court e%plo#ees "ho ha&e had the bad luc* of ha&in to act in one "a# or another on his un%eritorious cases$ More particularl#' despite his attention ha&in been called %an# ti%es to the ereious error of his theor# that the so6called 4%inute resolutions4 of this Court should contain findins of fact and conclusions of la"' and should be sined or certified b# the (ustices pro%ulatin the sa%e' 05 he has %ulishl# persisted in &entilatin that self6sa%e theor# in &arious proceedins' causin %uch loss of ti%e' anno#ance and &e+ation to the courts' the court e%plo#ees and parties in&ol&ed$-$ A&'e&a-%)%'7 o6 .ro66ere( De6e&sesThe first defense that he proffers' that the Chief (ustice and other Me%bers of the Court should inhibit the%sel&es 4since the# cannot be the Accused and (ude at the sa%e ti%e $ $ $ ,and/ this case should be heard b# an i%partial and independent bod#' is still another illustration of an entirel# un"arranted' arroant and reprehensible assu%ption of a co%petence in the field of the la"9 he aain uses up the ti%e of the Court needlessl# b# in&o*in an aru%ent lon since declared and ad5uded to be untenable$ It is a+io%atic that the 4po"er or dut# of the court to institute a chare for conte%pt aainst itself' "ithout the inter&ention of the fiscal or prosecutin officer' is essential to the preser&ation of its dinit# and of the respect due it fro% litiants' la"#ers and the public$ @ of the Re&ised penal Code 4$ $ $ and for deliberatl# causin 4undue in5ur#4 to respondent $ $ $ and her co6heirs because of the 4un5ust Resolution4 pro%ulated' in &iolation of the Anti6Eraft and Corrupt Practices Act $ $ $ D the follo"in pronounce%ents "ere %ade in reaffir%ation of established doctrine9 50$ $ $ As aptl# declared in the Chief (ustice7s State%ent of Cece%ber ?@' -02.' "hich the Court hereb#adopts %& 'o'o' 4,I/t is ele%entar# that the Supre%e Court is supre%e D the third reat depart%ent ofo&ern%ent entrusted e+clusi&el# "ith the 5udicial po"er to ad5udicate "ith finalit# all 5usticiable disputes' public and pri&ate$ No other depart%ent or aenc# %a# pass upon its 5ud%ents or declarethe% 4un5ust$4 It is ele%entar# that 4,A/s has e&er been stressed since the earl# case of Ar&e(o 9s$L)ore&'e ,-2 Phil$ ?=1' ?.8 M-0--N/ 4controllin and irresistible reasons of public polic# and of sound practice in the courts de%and that at the ris* of occasional error' 5ud%ents of courts deter%inin contro&ersies sub%itted to the% should beco%e final at so%e definite ti%e fi+ed b# la"' or b# a rule of practice reconiFed b# la"' so as to be thereafter be#ond the control e&en of the court"hich rendered the% for the purpose of correctin errors of fact or of la"' into "hich' in the opinion of the court it %a# ha&e fallen$ The &er# purpose for "hich the courts are oraniFed is to put an end to contro&ers#' to decide the )uestions sub%itted to the litiants' and to deter%ine the respecti&e rihts of the parties$ ,LuFon Bro*erae Co$' Inc$ &s$ Mariti%e Bld$' Co$' Inc$' 2. SCRA 8>=' 8-.68-1/+++ +++ +++Indeed' resolutions of the Supre%e Court as a colleiate court' "hether an e& -a&* or di&ision' spea* for the%sel&es and are entitled to full faith and credence and are be#ond in&estiation or in)uir# under '/e sa+e pr%&*%p)e o6 *o&*)us%9e&ess o6 e&ro))e( -%))s o6 '/e )e$%s)a'ure$ ,U$S$ &s$ Pons' 8@ Phil$ 1?0! Eardiner' et al$ &s$ Paredes' et al$' .- Phil$ --2! Mabana &s$ LopeF Aito' 12 Phil$ -/ The Supre%e Court7s pronounce%ent of the doctrine that 4,I/t is "ell settled that the enrolled bill $ $ $ is conclusi&e upon the courts as reards the tenor of the %easure passed b# Conress and appro&ed b# the President$ If there has been an# %ista*e in the printin of the bill before it "as certified b# the officers of Conress and appro&ed b# the E+ecuti&e Mas clai%ed b# petitioner6i%porter "ho unsuccessfull# souht refund of %arin feesN D o& 0/%*/ 0e *a&&o' spe*u)a'e, 0%'/ou' 3eopar(%:%&$ '/e pr%&*%p)e o6 separa'%o& o6 po0ers a&( u&(er+%&%&$ o&e o6 '/e *or&ers'o&es o6 our (e+o*ra*'%* s7s'e+ D the re%ed# is b# a%end%ent or curati&e leislation' not b# 5udicial decree4 is full# and reciprocall# applicable to Supre%e Court orders' resolutions and decisions' +u'a'%s +u'a&(%s$ ,Casco Phil$ Che%ical Co$' Inc$ &s$ Ei%eneF' 1 SCRA 8@1' 8=>$ ,Citin Pri%icias &s$ Paredes' .- Phil$ --2' -?>! Mabana &s$ LopeF Aito' 12 Phil$ -! Macias &s$ Co%elec' 8 SCRA -/$The Court has consistentl# stressed that the 4doctrine of separa'%o& o6 po0ers calls for the eEe*u'%9e, )e$%s)a'%9e a&( 3u(%*%a) (epar'+e&'s -e%&$ )e6' a)o&e 'o (%s*/ar$e '/e%r (u'%es as '/e7 see 6%'4 ,Tan &s$ Macapaal' @8 SCRA .11/$ It has thus %aintained in the sa%e "a# that the 5udiciar#has a riht to e+pect that neither the President nor Conress "ould cast doubt on the %ainsprin of its orders or decisions' it should refrain fro% speculatin as to alleed hidden forces at "or* that could ha&e i%pelled either coordinate branch into actin the "a# it did$ The concept of separation of po"ers presupposes %utual respect b# and bet"een the three depart%ents of the o&ern%ent$ ,Tecson &s$ Salas' 8@ SCRA ?1=' ?2.6?21/$@$ @%&a) a&( EEe*u'or7 2u($+e&'s o6Lo0er Cour's No' Re9%e0a-)eE9e& -7 Supre+e Cour'In respect of Courts belo" the Supre%e Court' the ordinar# re%edies a&ailable under la" to a part# "ho is ad&ersel# affected b# their decisions or orders are a %otion for ne" trial ,or reconsideration/ under Rule 81' and an appeal to either the Court of Appeals or the Supre%e Court' dependin on "hether )uestions of both fact and la"' or of la" onl#' are raised' in accordance "ith fi+ed and fa%iliar rules and confor%abl# "ith the hierarch# of courts$ 51 E+ceptionall#' a re&ie" of a rulin or act of a court on the round that it "as rendered "ithout or in e+cess of its 5urisdiction' or "ith ra&e abuse of discretion' %a# be had throuh the special ci&il action of *er'%orar% or prohibition pursuant to Rule .= of the Rules of Court$;o"e&er' should 5ud%ents of lo"er courts D "hich %a# nor%all# be sub5ect to re&ie" b# hiher tribunals D beco%e final and e+ecutor# before' or "ithout' e+haustion of all recourse of appeal' the#' too' beco%e in&iolable' i%per&ious to %odification$ The# %a#' then' no loner be re&ie"ed' or in an#"a# %odified directl# or indirectl#' b# a hiher court' not e&en b# the Supre%e Court' %uch less b# an# other official' branch or depart%ent of Eo&ern%ent$ 52C$ A(+%&%s'ra'%9e C%9%) or Cr%+%&a) A*'%o&a$a%&s' 2u($e$ No' Su-s'%'u'e 6or Appea)!.ros*r%-e( -7 La0 a&( Lo$%*No"' the Court ta*es 5udicial notice of the fact that there has been of late a rerettable increase in the resort to ad%inistrati&e prosecution D or the institution of a ci&il or cri%inal action D as a substitute for or supple%ent to appeal$ U$ S$ 88=/$+++ +++ +++To allo" litiants to $o -e7o&( '/e Cour'>s reso)u'%o& and clai% that the %e%bers acted 4"ith deliberate bad faith4 and rendered an 4un5ust resolution4 in disreard or &iolation of the dut# of their hih office to act upon their o"n independent consideration and 5ud%ent of the %atter at hand "ould be to (es'ro7 '/e au'/e&'%*%'7, %&'e$r%'7 a&( *o&*)us%9e&ess of such colleiate acts and resolutions and to disreard utterl# the presu%ption of reular perfor%ance of official dut#$ To a))o0 su*/ *o))a'era) a''a*= 0ou)( (es'ro7 '/e separa'%o& o6 po0ers a&( u&(er+%&e '/e ro)e o6 '/e Supre+e Cour' as '/e 6%&a) ar-%'er o6 a)) 3us'%*%a-)e (%spu'es$Cissatisfied litiants andBor their counsels cannot "ithout &iolatin the separation of po"ers %andated b# the Constitution relitiate in another foru% the final 5ud%ent of this Court on leal issues sub%itted b# the% and their ad&ersaries for final deter%ination to and b# the Supre%e Court and "hich fall "ithin the 3u(%*%a) po0er to deter%ine and ad5udicate eE*)us%9e)7 &ested b# the Constitution %& '/e Supre+e Cour' and in such inferior courts as %a# be established b# la"$This is true' too' as reards 5ud%ents' other"ise appealable' "hich ha&e beco%e final and e+ecutor#$ Such 5ud%ents' bein no loner re&ie"able b# hiher tribunals' are certainl# not re&ie"able b# an# other bod# or authorit#$8$ O&)7 Cour's Au'/or%:e(, u&(er @%Ee(Ru)es 'o De*)are 2u($+e&'s or Or(ersErro&eous or A&3us'To belabor the ob&ious' the deter%ination of "hether or not a 5ude%ent or order is un5ust D or "as ,or "as not/ rendered "ithin the scope of the issuin 5ude7s authorit#' or that the 5ude had e+ceeded his 5urisdiction and po"ers or %aliciousl# dela#ed the disposition of a case D is an essentiall# 5udicial function' loded b# e+istin la" and i%%e%orial practice in a hierarch# of courts and ulti%atel# in the hihest court of the land$ To repeat' no other entit# or official of the Eo&ern%ent' not the prosecution or in&estiation ser&ice or an# other branch! nor an# functionar# thereof' has co%petence to re&ie" a 5udicial order or decision D "hether final and e+ecutor# or not D and pronounce it erroneous so as to la# the basis for a cri%inal or ad%inistrati&e co%plaint for renderin an un5ust 5ud%ent or order$ That preroati&e belons to the courts alone$@$ Co&'rar7 Ru)e Resu)'s %& C%r*u%'ous&essa&( Lea(s 'o A-sur( Co&se8ue&*esPra%atic considerations also preclude prosecution for supposed rendition of un5ust 5ud%ents or interlocutor# orders of the t#pe abo&e described' "hich' at botto%' consist si%pl# of the accusation that the decisions or interlocutor# orders are seriousl# "ron in their conclusions of fact or of la"' or are tainted b# ra&e abuse of discretion D as distinuished fro% accusations of corruption' or i%%oralit#' or other "rondoin$ To allo" institution of such proceedins "ould not onl# be leall# i%proper' it "ould also result in a futile and circuitous e+ercise' and lead to absurd conse)uences$Assu%e that a case oes throuh the "hole a%ut of re&ie" in the 5udicial hierarch#! %$e$' a 5ud%ent is rendered b#a %unicipal trial court! it is re&ie"ed and affir%ed b# the proper Reional Trial Court! the latter7s 5ud%ent is appealed to and in due course affir%ed b# the Court of Appeals! and finall#' the appellate court7s decision is brouht up to and affir%ed b# the Supre%e Court$ The prosecution of the %unicipal trial court 5ude "ho rendered the oriinal decision ,for *no"inl# renderin a %anifestl# un5ust 5ud%ent/ "ould appear to be out of the )uestion! it "ould %ean that the Office of the O%buds%an or of the public prosecutor "ould ha&e to find' at the preli%inar# in&estiation' not onl# that the 5ude7s decision "as "ron and un5ust' but b# necessar# i%plication that the decisions or orders of the Reional Trial Court (ude' as "ell as the (ustices of the Court of Appeals and the Supre%e Court "ho affir%ed the oriinal 5ud%ent "ere also all "ron and un5ust D %ost certainl# an act of supre%e arroance and &er# e&ident supereroation$ Pursuin the proposition further' assu%in that the public prosecutor or O%buds%an should ne&ertheless opt to underta*e a re&ie" of the decision in )uestion D despite its ha&in been affir%ed at all three ,8/ appellate le&els D and thereafter' disareein "ith the &erdict of all four ,@/ courts' file an infor%ation in the Reional Trial Court aainst the Municipal Trial Court (ude' the fate of such an indict%ent at the hands of the Sandianba#an or the Reional Trial Court "ould be fairl# predictable$E&en if for so%e reason the Municipal Trial Court (ude is con&icted b# the Sandianba#an or a Reional Trial Court' the appeal before the Supre%e Court or the Court of Appeals "ould ha&e an ine&itable result9 i&en the antecedents' the &erdict of con&iction "ould be set aside and the correctness of the 5ud%ent in )uestion' alread# passed upon and finall# resol&ed b# the sa%e appellate courts' "ould necessaril# be sustained$Moreo&er' in such a scenario' nothin "ould pre&ent the Municipal Trial (ude' in his turn' fro% filin a cri%inal action aainst the Sandianba#an (ustices' or the Reional Trial Court (ude "ho should con&ict hi% of the offense'for *no"inl# renderin an un5ust 5ud%ent' or aainst the (ustices of the Court of Appeals or the Supre%e Court "ho should affir% his con&iction$The situation is ridiculous' ho"e&er the circu%stances of the case %a# be %odified' and reardless of "hether it is a ci&il' cri%inal or ad%inistrati&e proceedin that is a&ailed of as the &ehicle to prosecute the 5ude for supposedl# renderin an un5ust decision or order$=$ .r%+or(%a) Re8u%s%'es 6or A(+%&%s'ra'%9eCr%+%&a) .rose*u'%o&This is not to sa# that it is not possible at all to prosecute 5udes for this i%propriet#' of renderin an un5ust 5ud%entor interlocutor# order! but' ta*in account of all the foreoin considerations' the indispensable re)uisites are that there be a 6%&a) (e*)ara'%o& -7 a *o+pe'e&' *our' %& so+e appropr%a'e pro*ee(%&$ o6 '/e +a&%6es')7 u&3us' */ara*'er o6 '/e */a))e&$e( 3u($+e&' or or(er, and there be also e9%(e&*e o6 +a)%*e or -a( 6a%'/, %$&ora&*e or %&eE*usa-)e &e$)%$e&*e, o& '/e par' o6 '/e 3u($e %& re&(er%&$ sa%( 3u($e+e&' or or(er$ That final declaration is ordinaril# contained in the 5ud%ent rendered in the appellate proceedins in "hich the decision of the trial court in the ci&il or cri%inal action in )uestion is challened$>>$>>/$ ;e is "arned that a repetition of an# of the offenses of "hich he is herein found uilt#' or an# si%ilar or other offense aainst courts' 5udes or court e%plo#ees' "ill %erit further and %ore serious sanctions$IT IS SO ORCEREC$Nar9asa, C$2$, @e)%*%a&o, .a(%))a, B%(%&, Re$a)a(o, Da9%(e, 2r$, Ro+ero, Be))os%))o, 1e)o, Fu%aso&, V%'u$, Kapu&a&, 1e&(o:a a&( @ra&*%s*o, 22$, *o&*ur$.u&o, 2$, 'oo= &o par'$Foo(!o(e.- Barrera &$ Barrera' 8@ SCRA 02' ->.! Peo &$ Catolico' 82 SCRA 820' @>1$? SEE Sub6;ead I' A' 1' I&6ra$8 Per (ude Benino E$ Ea&iola' Branch 0' RTC' Cebu$@ Ra%ireF' 2$' po&e&'e' "ith "ho% concurred 3rancisco ,CeFar/ and Aailoces' 22$= (ude Renato C$ Cacudao' presidin$. (ude Celso M$ Ei%eneF' Branch =$1 Euinona' 2$' po&e&'e' "ith "ho% concurred (a&ellana and I%perial' 22$2 Branch ?@' ;on$ Priscila S$ Aana' presidin$0 Per (ude (ose P$ Buros' Branch -1$-> Per (ude ,no" CA Associate (ustice/ Eodardo (acinto$-- SEE Sub6;ead I' A' -' supra$-? SEE Sub6;ead I' A' ?' supra$-8 SEE Sub6;ead I' supra$-@ Cecision dated Ma# ?-' -0089 Austria6MartineF' 2$, po&e&'e' "ith "ho% concurred Puno and Ra%ireF' 22$-= As e&er# la"#er *no"s' the Cler* of Court of a Ci&ision or of the Court E& Ba&* %s, o6 *ourse, &o' a 4+ere *)er=,4 but the hihest ad%inistrati&e officer in the Ci&ision or Court' ne+t onl# to the (ustices$-. Sub6;ead II' A' -' %&6ra$-1 Sub6;ead II' A' @' %&6ra Sub6;eads AI' B' -' and II' A' -'c' %&6ra$-2 Sub6;eads AI' B' -' and II' A' -' c' %&6ra' respecti&el#$-0 Sub6;ead II' A' 8' %&6ra$?> See sub6head I' A' 8' supra DBecause TRB consolidated its o"nership o&er the foreclosed i%%o&ables durin the pendenc# of Ci&il Case No$ R6??=>.' Borro%eo filed cri%inal co%plaints in the Office of the Cit# Prosecutor of Cebu aainst the ban* officers and la"#ers' "hich "ere ho"e&er' and )uite correctl#' i&en short shrift b# that Office$?- Per 8rd Assistant 3iscal Enri)ueta Ro)uillano6Belar%ino$?? See sub6head I' A' -' supra$?8 See sub6head I' supra$?@ B# resolution of 3iscal Rodulfo T$ Usal' appro&ed b# Cit# 3iscal (ufelinito R$ Pare5a$?= Per In&estiator Mario E$ Ca%o%ot' reco%%ended for appro&al b# Cirector IA A$ A$ Aarela' and appro&ed b# (uan M$ ;aad' Ceput# O%buds%an' Aisa#as$?. In the third pararaph of this opinion$?1 Li*e the letter "ritten to Borro%eo' dated 2u)7 !0, !4"' Sub6head A' -' =' supra$?2 Ro))o E$R$ 2??18$?0 This concerned a fourth ban*' the Philippine Ban* of Co%%unications$8> Sub6head II' A '8' supra$8- / other such$4circulars' fl#ers' or letters in the record' all a%ountin %ore or less the sa%e errors and defa%ator# i%putations$80 Sub6;ead II! A' -' %&6ra$@> Sub6;eads AI' B' -' and II' A' - *' %&6ra' respecti&el#$@- Sub6;ead II' A' 8' %&6ra$@? Sub6;ead II' A' -' a, %&6ra$@8 Sub6;ead I' A' 1' supra$@@ Rule 1-' Sec' ,c/ and ,d/' Rules of Court$@= SEE Sub6head II' A' -' a' supra$@. Peo &$ AenturanFa' et al$' 02 Phil$ ?--' cited in Ea&ieres &$ 3alcis' -08 SCRA .@0' ..> ,-00-/! see a)so 3ernandeF &$ ;on$ Bello' ->1 Phil$ --@>$@1 Earbo &$ Court of Appeals' ??. SCRA ?=>' E$R$ No$ ->>@1@' Septe%ber ->' -008! ESIS &$ Eines' ?-0 SCRA 1?@' E$R$ No$ 2=?18' March 0' -008! Eesulon &$ NLRC' ?-0 SCRA =.-' E$R$ No$ 0>8@0' March =' -008! Para%ount Insurance Corporation &$ (apson' ?-- SCRA 210' E$R$ No$ .2>18' (ul# ?0' -00?! Cachola &$ CA' ?>2 SCRA @0.' E$R$ No$ 012??' Ma# 1' -00?! Enri)ueF &$ CA' ?>? SCRA @21' E$R$ No$ 281?>' October @' -00-! Al&endia &$ IAC' -2- SCRA ?=?' E$R$ No$ 1?-82' (anuar# ??' -00>! Tur)ueFa &$ ;ernando' 01 SCRA @28' E$R$ No$ L6=-.?.' April 8>' -02>! Lee Bun Tin &$ Aliaen' 1. SCRA @-.' E$R$ No$ L68>=?8' April ??' -011$@2 ?> SCRA @@-' @@@$@0 Aainst 5ud%ents of the Supre%e Court since ob&iousl# no appeal to a hiher court or authorit# is possible' the onl# re%edies are those set forth in the Rules of Court' particularl# Rule =. in relation to Rules =? and =8' "ith reard to ci&il cases and proceedins' and Rule -?= in relation to Rule -?@' in respect of cri%inal cases$ SEE Calalan &$ Reister of Ceeds' ?>2 SCRA ?-=' E$R$ No$ 1.?.=' April ??' -00?! Tan &$ Court of Appeals -00 SCRA ?-? E$R$ No$ 01?82' (ul# -=' -00-! Church Assistance Prora% &$ Sibulo' -1- SCRA @>2 E$R$ No$ 1.==?' March ?-' -020! Aer &$ Huetulio' -.8 SCRA 2>' E$ R$ No$ 11=?.' (une ?0' -022 An Pin &$ RTC of Manila' -=@ SCRA 11' E$R$ No$ 1=2.>' Septe%ber -1' -021! Air6(en Shippin and Marine Ser&ices' Inc$ &$ NLRC' -?= SCRA =11' E$R$ Nos$ L6=2>--6?' No&e%ber -2$ -028! Tuade &$ CA 28 SCRA ??.! Barrera &$ Barrera' 8@ SCRA 02' E$R$ No$ L68-=20' (ul# 8-' -01>! Albert &$ C3I' ?8 SCRA 0@2' E$R$ No L6?8.8.' Ma# ?0 -0.2! Sho5i &$;ar&e#' @8 Phil$ 888,-0??/! SEE a)so Concurrin Opinion of EutierreF ($ in Enrile &$ SalaFar' -2. SCRA ?-1' E$R$ Nos$ 0?-.8 and 0?-.@' (une =' -00>$=> -@2 SCRA 82?' @-16@-2$=- Aainst a final and e+ecutor# 5ud%ent' the e+traordnar#' e)uitable re%ed# of relief fro% 5ud%ent under Rule 82 %a# be a&ailed of' or in e+tre%e situations' an action to annul the 5ud%ent on the round of e+trinsic fraud$=? Miranda &$ CA' -@- SCRA 8>?' E$R$ No$ L6=081>' 3ebruar# --' -02.' citin Malia &$ IAC' -82 SCRA --.' E$R$ No$ L6..80=' Auust 1' -02=! Castillo &$ Conato' -81 SCRA ?->' E$R$ No$ L61>?8>' (une ?@' -02=! Bethel Te%ple' Inc$ &$ Eeneral Council of Asse%blies of Eod' Inc$' -8. SCRA ?>8' E$R$ No$ L68==.8' April 8>' -02=! Insular Ban* of Asia and A%erica E%plo#ees7 Union ,IBAAEU/ &$ Incion' -8? SCRA ..8' E$R$ No$ L6=?@-=' October ?8' -02@ and the cases cited therein pertainin to 4i%%utabilit# of 5ud%ents!4 ;eirs of Pedro Eu%inpin &$ CA' -?> SCRA .21' E$R$ No$ L68@??>' 3ebruar# ?-' -028! Co%%issioner of Internal Re&enue &$ Aisa#an ElectricCo$' -0 SCRA .0.' E$R$ No$ L6?@0?-' March 8-' -0.1! Ca)uis &$ Bustos' 0@ Phil$ 0-8! Sa"it&$ Rodas' 18 Phil$ 8->$=8 Articles ?>@6?>. of the Re&ised Penal Code define and penaliFe offenses "hich ha&e 4un5ust 5ud%ent4 or 4un5ust interlocutor# order4 for an essential ele%ent$=@ -@2 SCRA ?28' @-2' @-0' @?>6@?-== Rodrio &$ Hui5ano' etc$' 10 SCRA -> ,Sept$ 0' -011/$=. LopeF &$ Corpus' 12 SCRA 81@ ,Alu$ 8-' -011/! Pilipinas Ban* &$ Tirona6Li"a' -0> SCRA 28@ ,Oct$ -2' -00>/$=1 HuiFon & BaltaFar' (r$' .= SCRA ?08 ,(ul# ?=' -01=/$=2 AlFua' et$ al &$ (ohnson' ?- Phil$ 8>2' 8?.$=0 The old Code of Ci&il Procedure$