EN BANC IN RE JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO

100%

EN BANC

IN RE JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO. Ex Rel. Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

It is said that a little learning is a dangerous thing; and that he who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. There would seem to be more than a grain of truth in these aphorisms; and they appear to find validation in the proceeding at bench, at least.

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 years now, from nineteen seventy-eight to the present, been instituting and prosecuting legal proceedings in various courts, dogmatically pontificating on errors supposedly committed by the courts, including the Supreme Court. In the picturesque language of former Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando, he has, "with all the valor of ignorance," been verbally jousting with various adversaries in diverse litigations; or in the words of a well-known song, rushing into arenas "where angels fear to tread." Under the illusion that his trivial acquaintance with the law had given him competence to undertake litigation, he has ventured to represent himself in numerous original and review proceedings. Expectedly, the results have been disastrous. In the process, and possibly in aid of his interminable and quite unreasonable resort to judicial proceedings, he has seen fit to compose and circulate many scurrilous statements against courts, judges and their employees, as well as his adversaries, for which he is now being called to account.

Respondent Borromeo's ill-advised incursions into lawyering were generated by fairly prosaic transactions with three 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, United Coconut Planters Bank, Security Bank and Trust Company. 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 original or review proceedings, civil, criminal, administrative. For some sixteen years now, to repeat, he has been continuously cluttering the Courts with his repetitive, and quite baseless if not outlandish, complaints and contentions.

I. CASES INVOLVING TRADERS ROYAL BANK

A. CIVIL CASES

Two. RTC Case Number CEB eight seven five zero; CA-G.R. SP Number two two three five six

Three. RTC Case Number CEB nine four eight five; CA-G.R. SP Number two eight two two one

Four. RTC Case Number CEB ten three six eight; CA-G.R. SP Number two seven one zero zero

Five. RTC Case No. CEB-sixty-four fifty-two

Six. RTC Case No. CEB-eight two three six

Seven. RTC Case No. CEB-one three zero six nine

Eight. RTC Criminal Case No. CBU-one nine three four four; CA G.R. SP No. two eight two seven five; G.R. No. one one two nine two eight

a. Clarificatory Communications to Borromeo Re "Minute Resolutions"

B. CRIMINAL CASES

One. I.S. Nos. ninety-1187 and ninety-1188

a. I.S. Nos. eighty-seven-3795 and eighty-nine-4234

Two. I.S. Nos. eighty-eight-205 to eighty-eight-207

Three. OMB-VIS-89-00136

Two. Cases Involving United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB)

A. Civil Cases

One. R.T.C. Case Number R-two one zero zero nine; A.C.-G.R. Number C.V.-zero seven three nine six; G.R. Number eight two two seven three

A. R.T.C. Case Number CEB-eight six seven nine

B. RTC Civil Case Number CEB-six five zero one six seven four zero; G.R. Number eight four zero five four

c. RTC Case Number CEB-nine thousand four hundred forty-two

Two. RTC Case Number R-two hundred eighteen eighty; CA-G.R. CV Number ten thousand nine hundred fifty-one; G.R. Number eight hundred seventy-eight nine seven

a. RTC Case Number CEB-eight one seven eight

Four. RTC Case Number CEB-three hundred seventy-four; CA-G.R. CV Number zero four zero nine seven; G.R. Number seven seven two four eight

B. CRIMINAL CASES

One. Case Number O M B-VIS-eighty-nine-zero zero one eight one

Two. Case Number O M B-VIS-ninety-zero zero four one eight

Three. CASES INVOLVING SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (SBTC)

One. R T C Case Number R-two one six one five; C A-G.R. Number two zero six one seven; G.R. Number nine four seven six nine

Two. Regional Trial Court Case Number CEB-one-zero-four-five-eight; Court of Appeals G.R. C.V. Number three nine zero four seven

Four. OTHER CASES

B. RTC Case Number CEB-one hundred fifteen twenty-eight

V. ADMINISTRATIVE CASE Number three thousand four hundred thirty-three

B. Answer of Respondent Lawyers

C. Decision of the IBP

VI. SCURRILOUS WRITINGS

VI. IMMEDIATE ANTECEDENTS OF PROCEEDINGS AT BAR

B. Resolution of July twenty-two, nineteen ninety-three

C. Borromeo's Comment of August twenty-seven, nineteen ninety-three

D. Resolution of September thirty, nineteen ninety-three

E. Borromeo's Supplemental Comment of October fifteen, nineteen ninety-two

F. Borromeo's "Manifestation" of November twenty-six, nineteen ninety-three

Seven. THE COURT'S CONCLUSIONS

One. Untenability of Proffered Defenses

B. Basic Principles Governing the Judicial Function.

One. Reason for Courts; Judicial Hierarchy

Two. Paramount Need to End Litigation at Some Point

Three. Judgments of Supreme Court Not Reviewable

Four. Final and Executory Judgments of Lower Courts Not Reviewable Even by Supreme Court

C. Administrative, Civil or Criminal Action Against Judge, Not Substitute for Appeal; Prescribed by Law and Logic

One. Common Basis of Complaints Against Judges

Two. Exclusivity of Specific Procedures for Correction of Judgments and Orders

Three. Only Courts Authorized, under Fixed Rules, to Declare Judgments or Orders Erroneous or Unjust

Four. Contrary rule results in Circuitousness and Leads to Absurd Consequences

Five. Primordial Requisites for Administrative, Criminal Prosecution

D. Judges Must be Free from Influence or Pressure

E. Afterword

Overview

The resolution addresses the case of Joaquin T. Borromeo, who has been involved in numerous lawsuits against banks and court officials, stemming from his failure to fulfill loan obligations. The court evaluates his self-representation in these legal matters and the consequences of his actions.

Key Points

1Joaquin T. Borromeo has initiated over fifty legal proceedings against banks and courts over sixteen years
2His lack of legal knowledge led to repeated failures in court and baseless claims
3The court found his actions to be an unreasonable use of the judicial system
4His disputes stemmed largely from loan defaults and foreclosure issues with multiple banks
5The court emphasizes the dangers of self-representation in legal matters without proper knowledge.

Details

Category: Law and Legal Studies

PDF
H. Settlement of Estate Upon Dissolution of Marriage by Death: AGTARAP v. AGTARAP
This document discusses the Supreme Court ruling in the case of AGTARAP v. AGTARAP, focusing on the intestate settlement of the estate of Joaquin Agtarap following his death and the ensuing disputes over ownership and distribution of his properties from two marriages.
PDF
H. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE UPON DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE BY DEATH AGTARAP v. AGTARAP
This document discusses the legal proceedings surrounding the settlement of an intestate estate following the death of Joaquin Agtarap, detailing the conflicts between heirs from two marriages regarding property distribution.
PDF
The Rules and Regulations Implementing the Provisions of Republic Act No. 9266, otherwise known as "The Architecture Act of 2004"
This document outlines the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9266, which establishes the framework for the registration, licensing, and practice of architecture in the Philippines, highlighting definitions, scope, and standards for architects.
PDF
H. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE UPON DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE BY DEATH AGTARAP v. AGTARAP G.R. Nos. 177099 & 177192, June 8, 2011
This document discusses the settlement of the intestate estate of Joaquin Agtarap following his death, focusing on the disputes between heirs from his two marriages regarding the ownership of properties and the proper proceedings for estate distribution.
PDF
The Independence of a Lawyer
This document outlines the principles of a lawyer's independence in legal practice, emphasizing the importance of unbiased representation and the avoidance of improper influences.