Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M A N I L A In the matter of the Allegations contained in the column of Mr. A.P.

Macasaet Published in Malaya dated September 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2007 A.M. No. 07-09-13SC
For: Indirect Contempt (Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).

X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.,


Complainant, - versus -

A.M. NO. ___________________


For: Indirect Contempt - Section 3 (c) & (d), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), and Gross Misconduct, etc.

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago,


(Rm. 521-A 5th Flr., GSIS Bldg., Financial Center, Roxas Blvd. , Pasay City) Respondent. X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Senior Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, and the MEMBERS, En Banc, SUPREME COURT, Padre Faura, Manila, and Chairperson, Retired Associate Justice Carolina-Grino Aquino, Retired Associate Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, Retired Associate Justice Romeo Callejo, Sr., SUPREME COURT, Padre Faura, Manila

Verified Motion / Letter-Affidavit of Merit


[To Reconsider the Denial / Dismissal Resolution (dated 16 October, 2007) for Non-payment of Docket / Legal Fees] - with -

Urgent Prayer
For LEAVE OF COURT, To Allow Payment of Docket / Legal Fees (Duly Reserved), To Intervene in this Case, For Consolidation with A.C. No. 7663 (En Banc, Disbarment Case, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. vs. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago) and For Immediate Docketing / Resolution

Your Honors, Undersigned complainant / intervenor Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., most respectfully moves to reconsider the dismissal / denial Resolution
-1-

dated 16 October, 2007 (for non-payment of docket / legal fees), WHICH HE PERSONALLY RECEIVED ON NOVEMBER 8, 2007, and further, he petitions to be allowed to pay the required docket and legal fees (duly reserved), to intervene in this case, to present evidence, to be heard, to consolidate the related disbarment case A.C. No. 7663, and under oath, he most respectfully depose and say, that: GROUNDS: 1. Complainant was duly informed per television, internet breaking news and video reports, thusly: S.C. PIO, Atty. Midas Marquez (September 26, 2007), stated: There are no hard and fast rules in the Supreme Court on how to handle such allegations, according to Marquez. There's no SOP really because cases like this aren't really very common, Marquez said. The court welcomes complaints, even anonymous complaints. We try to conduct investigations whenever we receive complaints, but we would really appreciate if these complaints would state in particular detail some of the allegations so that we could begin the investigation at some point. He lamented that such allegations could be bandied about in the media and tarnish the high court's reputation. "And then it would be picked up by the media. It's bringing the entire Supreme Court down. (By Leila
Salaverria, Tetch Torres, Inquirer, INQUIRER.net, 10:41 pm, 09/24/2007).

2. Complainant forthwith (about the last week of September and first week of October, 2007) called the Offices of the PIO, Clerk of Court, and OCAD, inter alia, to inquire regarding a) where to file or what offices would receive his contempt pleading, and b) how much legal / docket fees he should pay. Since he never got any correct information on the matter, he again called Atty. Winston Banel, but complainant again failed to get the answers to his questions on said procedure and fees. Complainant therefore called Atty. Midas Marquez, but complainant miserably failed to contact this officer. 3. While complainant was preparing his initiatory pleading in an internet caf, he accidentally met a classmate of Atty. Midas Marquez. The following critical facts were duly NOTED by undersigned lest they be lost in his memory (storage), to wit: The Ateneo alumni and Midas (from Pampanga, as she said) were classmates at Loyola Heights and they resided at the Eliazo and Cervini Halls; she studied Interdisciplinary Studies; . 4. On October 5, 2007, complainant personally approached Atty. Winston Banel of the OCC, since he was the only one thereat who
-2-

could answer the filing questions; then, complainant asked him where he should file and pay but Banel said he had no idea ergo, complainant also went to the OCAD and an officer told him to go to the Documentation Division; complainant asked Mang Odi, the veteran employee thereat who handles all administrative cases or dockets; he stated that he had no idea about these matters, but he would accept the pleading, and Mang Bito would report the same to the Court; finally, complainant went to the ground floor filing office of all criminal and civil old and new cases; complainant personally went inside the room instead of just filing the 20 copies outside; but Sally and the other personnel thereat stated that they never and do not accept A.M.s since they only accept G.R.s, meaning, therefore, that complainants case isAdministrative Matter and there is no docket fee required for that even if it is indirect contempt. 5. Complainant again went to Atty. Winston Bannel, OCC, and told him that the former wanted to talk to Atty. Felipa Anama or Atty. Ma. Luisa Villarama, but both were not available at that time. Along the corridors complainant accidentally met Atty. Midas Marquez who was talking to a woman. So, complainant approached Midas, and showed him more than 20 copies of the pleading plus the ORIGINAL. Complainant asked Midas, regarding where would file the pleading versus Senator Santiago and where to pay. Midas was in a great hurry and told complainant to file it anywhere, since he said, it is up to the Court to decide. Complainant then showed Atty. Marquez page 1 thereof, which the former read to the latter: S.C. PIO, Atty. Midas Marquez (September 26, 2007), stated: There are no hard and fast rules in the Supreme Court on how to handle such allegations, according to Marquez. There's no SOP really because cases like this aren't really very common, Marquez said. The court welcomes complaints, even anonymous complaints. We try to conduct investigations whenever we receive complaints, but we would really appreciate if these complaints would state in particular detail some of the allegations so that we could begin the investigation at some point. He lamented that such allegations could be bandied about in the media and tarnish the high court's reputation. "And then it would be picked up by the media. It's bringing the entire Supreme Court down. (By Leila
Salaverria, Tetch Torres, Inquirer, INQUIRER.net, 10:41 pm, 09/24/2007).

6. Complainant therefore asked Midas for help in filing the same, since the 3 offices of the OCC, OCAD and ground floor filing did not know about the procedure and the fees, since the instant case is an ADMINTRATIVE MATTER and there was no precedent in their 3
-3-

offices. But Midas insisted that it may be filed anywhere. Complainant told him that the OCC and the ground floor filing would not accept it, but the OCAD would, but would not accept any payment for fees. So, the last word of Atty. Midas was go ahead file it and let the Court decide. So, complainant had no option but to file it with the OCAD Documentation Division and Mang Odi and Mang Bito promised to report the same to the Court. 7. When the October 16, 2006 first Resolution was released, Atty. Winston Banel informed complainant that the particular resolution was still to be signed and the latter had to wait. So, on November 5, 2007, complainant personally went to the OCC, to get a copy thereof but Atty. Banel said that it was not yet released. So, complainant again called Atty. Banel on November 6 and the latter read through the phone the denial due to non-payment of docket fees. So, complainant again asked Banel regarding where to pay and how much docket and legal fees should be paid, considering that the only office which receives payment (ground floor receiving) refused to assess fees much less to receive the pleading and repeatedly informed complainant that there is no docket fee required for A.M. or administrative matter or administrative case. 8. With all these, it is not complainants fault that he failed to pay the docket fees. This is the first time in judicial history that an indirect contempt is being filed against a Senator and in an Administrative Matter. Complainant based his case and pleas upon the very statements and representations of Atty. Midas Marquez, who is the spokesman of the Court, PIO chief and p.s. of the Chief Justice. 9. Finally, complainant reproduces herein as integral part hereof all the allegations and contents of his filed October 5, 2007 pleading in this case to prove that if this and such initiatory pleading are given due course and granted, he could, beyond reasonable doubt show that respondent Miriam Santiago is guilty of indirect contempt of Court, gross misconduct and utter destruction of the Temples of Justice. Specifically, her lust for power (to become Chief Justice by 2010) goes beyond the legal, moral and the boundaries of fairness and justice. She, in no uncertain terms, wanted to destroy the persona of S.C. Associate JusticeAntonio T. Carpio, and for this, she must not escape unpunished lest she further annihilate the entire judicial department by her EVIL touch.

RELIEF
-4-

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that the instant -

Verified Motion / Letter-Affidavit of Merit


[To Reconsider the Denial / Dismissal Resolution (dated 16 October, 2007) for Non-payment of Docket / Legal Fees] - with -

Urgent Prayer
For LEAVE OF COURT, To Allow Payment of Docket / Legal Fees (Duly Reserved), To Intervene in this Case, For Consolidation with A.C. No. 7663 (En Banc, Disbarment Case, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. vs. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago) and For Immediate Docketing / Resolution

- against respondent Senator Miriam Santiago, be duly Noted, given Due Course and Granted. Further, it is respectfully petitioned that after filing of respondents COMMENT / ANSWER, after due notice, and hearing, judgment be rendered declaring her GUILTY of indirect contempt of Court and gross misconduct, inter alia, and punished accordingly under Rule 71, inter alia, of the Rules of Court. Special Prayer:

Further, petitioner most respectfully petitions this Court 1) To set this case for Oral Argument, in order that Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, as lawyer and officer of the Court may properly defend herself in the right FORUM, and be disciplined accordingly, and 2) After all the proceedings, to PUNISH her with the same penalties that this Court imposed upon Raul M. Gonzales, because, the facts of that case and this case are interestingly similar if not duplicate in character:
Court itself as an institution that has been falsely attacked, libel suits cannot be an adequate remedy. The Court concludes that respondent Gonzalez is guilty both of contempt of court in facie curiae and of gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the Bar. ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND Atty. Raul M. Gonzalez from the practice of law indefinitely and until further orders from this Court, the suspension to take effect immediately.
(EN BANC - October 7, 1988, G.R. No. 79690-707 - G.R. No. 80578 - February 1, 1989 -ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALEZ, claiming to be and

-5-

acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution, respondents. G.R. No. 80578 February 1, 1989)

Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading - letter-affidavitcomplaint, this 8th day of November, 2007, at Malolos City, BULACAN. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., 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 - PTR No. 503411, dated 1-11-07, Malolos, Bulacan.

NOTICE & REQUEST


TO: Atty. Ma. Luisa D. Villarama, Clerk of Court, En Banc, SUPREME COURT, MANILA c/o Atty. FELIPA ANAMA & Atty. LANI PAPA,

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.,


Complainant

VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION OF NONFORUM SHOPPING & 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 complaint 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: I have not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and to the best of our knowledge,no such other action or claim is pending therein, EXCEPT the filed A.C. No. 7663 - Disbarment Case Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. vs. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, October 5, 2007, and if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof will be made, but there is none; if I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within 5 days there from to the court wherein the aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. I CERTIFY that on November 8, 2007, I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in this case: In the matter of the Allegations contained in the column of Mr. -6-

A.P. Macaset Published in Malaya dated September 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2007 - A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant, - versus - Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, upon respondents Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Mr. Amado Macasaet, and upon Ms. Daisy Cecilia Munoz Delis, via registered mail with return card at their offices / addresses as hereunder indicated, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Rules of Court, by depositing said copies at the Malolos Post Office, as evidenced by reg. receipt hereto attached, hereunder, PAGE 8, and indicated after the name of the addressee, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mails to the sender after 10 days if undelivered; and I served by personal service copies of this pleading to Public Information Office, and all the members of the Commission thru the Office of the Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, Manila, by depositing copies thereof at their said offices / Clerk of Court, Supreme Court Manila, as proved by the rubber stamp receipts after their names hereunder, in accordance with the said Rules.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,


SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 8th day of November, 2007, hereat Malolos City, Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12005 # 21783592, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 2-27, 2007.
DOC. NO. ____, PAGE NO. ___, BOOK NO. ____, SERIES OF 2007. BERNAR D. FAJARDO Notary Public, Until Jan.31, 2008, PTR NO. 2417109, 1- 3,07, Atty.s Roll No. 33633, IBP OR # 688744, 1-5,07 Malolos, Bulacan.

COPY FURNISHED:

Names of Addressees

Addresses

Registry Receipt No.

Office of the Court Administrator, (Personal Service) OCAD, Supreme Court, Manila , Public Information Office, (Personal Service) Supreme Court, Manila The Committee, (Personal Service) c/o The Office of the Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, Manila Retired Associate Justice Carolina-Grino Aquino, (Personal Service) No. 59-G Tuazon St., Quezon City, c/o The Office of the Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, Manila Retired Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza, (Personal Service) No.3, Aster St., Fairview, Quezon City c/o The Office of the Clerk of Court,

-7-

Supreme Court, Manila Retired Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., (Personal Service) No. 9 Ruego St., BF Homes, Commonwealth, Quezon City c/o The Office of the Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, Manila By registered mail with receipt and return card. Explanation: Due to lack of time and messenger and impracticality, I served copies of this complaint and annexes to respondent by registered mail with attached receipt, hereunder. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Respondent, Rm. 521-A 5th Flr., GSIS Bldg., Financial Center, Roxas Blvd. , Pasay City. Mr. Amado Macasaet, Respondent, Publisher, Malaya, 371 A., Bonifacio Drive, Port Area, Manila (Atty. Rogelio Velarde represented him, at the hearing dated October 30, 2007)

Ms. Daisy Cecilia Munoz Delis, 125-B, F. Roman St., Brgy. Balong Bato, San Juan City (Atty. Ricardo Pamintuan represented her at the hearing)

Glenda M. Gloria, Newsbreak managing editor appeared before the panel on behalf of Marites Vitug.

-8-