Facts:

The case, Bank of Commerce vs. Joaquin T. Borromeo, G.R. No. 205632, was resolved by the Philippine Supreme Court on June 2, 2020. The petitioner, Bank of Commerce, filed a petition against the respondent, Joaquin T. Borromeo, who had a long-standing history of litigation against multiple banks including Traders Royal Bank (TRB). Between 1978 and 1980, Borromeo obtained several loans from TRB, one of which was secured by a real estate mortgage over three lots in Cebu City. After Borromeo defaulted on these loans, the bank proceeded to foreclose the properties, leading to protracted legal battles.

The first significant litigation, Civil Case No. R-22506, began when Borromeo sought specific performance and damages to compel TRB to allow the redemption of the properties at auction price. The Cebu City RTC ruled in his favor initially, but this decision was overturned by the Court of Appeals, which found he had lost his right to redeem the properties. Borromeo's appeal to the Su

...

Facts:

Background of the Parties and Underlying Transactions

• Joaquin T. Borromeo, the respondent, had previously obtained several loans from Traders Royal Bank between 1978 and 1980.
• Among these loans was a P45,000.00 loan secured by a real estate mortgage covering two lots in Cebu City (TCT Nos. 59596 and 59755) and a third lot (TCT No. 71509) used to secure another loan.
• Upon Borromeo’s default, Traders Royal Bank foreclosed the mortgages and subsequently acquired ownership of the properties by sale, prompting decades-long disputes relating to foreclosure and redemption.

Multiple Litigations and Judicial Proceedings

• Borromeo initiated an extensive series of civil actions involving the foreclosure and alleged fraudulent consolidation of the foreclosed properties:
• Civil Case No. R-22506 (filed October 29, 1982) for specific performance and damages was initially decided in his favor in 1984; however, on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision on January 27, 1988 by holding that Borromeo lost his right of redemption.
• He elevated the matter to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 83306, and after successive motions for reconsideration, the final judgment was rendered on May 12, 1989.
• Additional civil cases (CEB-8750, CEB-9485, CEB-10368, CEB-6452, CEB-8236, and CEB-13069) were filed subsequently with claims essentially reverting to the same issues concerning the foreclosure, redemption of the properties, and the consolidation of the titles by the bank.
• Concurrent criminal proceedings involved charges against Borromeo for violations such as estafa and perjury related to the foreclosed properties and fraudulent transactions. These criminal complaints (identified by various information and case numbers such as CBU-19344 and those filed under I.S. Nos. 90-1187, 87-3795, 89-4234, and others) were consistently dismissed for lack of merit.
• Borromeo also filed a petition for certiorari and even lodged cases against judicial officers, thereby demonstrating a pattern of repetitive and groundless filings.

Petition for Indirect Contempt

• In 2013, Bank of Commerce, which acquired the foreclosed assets from Traders Royal Bank in 2001, filed a petition for indirect contempt against Borromeo.
• The petition alleged that Borromeo’s repetitive filing of cases on the same subject matter—specifically his effort to reverse or disturb final, executory judgments—constituted an abuse of judicial process.
• It was emphasized that such repeated actions were in flagrant disregard of the doctrine on finality of judgment and the promotion of judicial efficiency, thereby disturbing the administration of justice.

Procedural Developments and Responses

• Respondent Borromeo, despite several warnings and the earlier imposition of a constructive contempt finding in 1995 (which resulted in a sentence of 10 days imprisonment and a fine), persisted in initiating additional cases and criminal complaints.
• His actions spanned civil and criminal proceedings against banks, bank officers, and even court personnel, all alleging fraudulent foreclosure or misrepresentation regarding his right to redeem the properties.
• His motion to refer the contempt case for mediation and conciliation was denied, underscoring that contempt proceedings are not amenable to compromise, mediation, or conciliation.

Issue:

Whether Borromeo’s continuous filing of civil and criminal cases on the already settled issues of foreclosure and redemption constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.

• Does the repetitive litigation amount to an intentional disregard of the finality of judgments rendered by the courts?
• Is the persistence in re-litigating settled issues sufficient to establish grounds for indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court?

Whether the improper conduct by Borromeo in repeatedly challenging the definitive actions or orders of the courts is inherently designed to delay or obstruct the execution of final judgments.

• Does his conduct exhibit willful disobedience or resistance to the court’s orders and established legal rulings?
• Are Borromeo’s actions in direct violation of the prohibition against obstructing the administration of justice?

• Whether imposing a sanction for indirect contempt, including a fine and the threat of imprisonment for further violations, is a proper and proportionate measure to deter similar future conduct and to preserve judicial authority.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)