Case Summary (A.M. No. 93-7-696-0)
Factual Background
The respondent was not a member of the bar and from 1978 onward obtained successive loans and credit accommodations from several banks, notably Traders Royal Bank (TRB), United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), and Security Bank & Trust Co. (SBTC), securing obligations by mortgages over various parcels of land. He defaulted on those obligations, resisted ordinary foreclosure and collection procedures, and repeatedly sought judicial redress on terms inconsistent with the contracts and governing law. Over a period of some sixteen years he instituted or caused to be instituted an extraordinary multiplicity of civil, criminal and administrative proceedings — the opinion records no fewer than fifty original or review proceedings — and circulated numerous publications, letters and flyers that denounced judges, court officers, lawyers and courts in intemperate and often defamatory language.
Trial and Appellate Litigation Pattern
Respondent prosecuted multiple overlapping suits against the banks, bank officers, lawyers, prosecuting officers and judges. Representative proceedings included TRB litigation (Civil Case No. R-22506; CA G.R. CV No. 07015; G.R. No. 83306) in which the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court ruling in favor of respondent and this Court denied his petition for review; subsequent filings raising substantially the same issues were dismissed by the trial courts and the Court of Appeals on grounds of res judicata, litis pendentia or lack of cause of action. In relation to UCPB respondent litigated in RTC Case No. R-21009 and pursued appeals culminating in G.R. No. 82273 where this Court affirmed the judgment below; he then filed collateral suits against clerks, judges and Justices which were quashed or dismissed. In SBTC litigation a default judgment for collection (RTC Case No. R-21615) was executed and affirmed on review (G.R. No. 94769); respondent again filed repetitious civil suits against the bank, its counsel and judges, which were dismissed. He likewise filed multiple criminal complaints against bank officers, notaries and court personnel which prosecutorial offices or the Ombudsman dismissed. Concurrently, respondent propagated numerous leaflets and open letters attacking minute resolutions and other acts of the Supreme Court and lower courts.
The Parties' Contentions
Respondent persistently contended that minute resolutions and notices issued by the Clerk of Court were unconstitutional because they lacked the signatures of the Justices and did not state findings of fact and law; he insisted on the nullity of many judicial dispositions for that reason and invoked freedom of speech and the right to petition as justification for his public denunciations. He further insisted that the Chief Justice and members of the Court should inhibit themselves from acting in the contempt proceeding. The Integrated Bar relator and the lawyers and judicial officers whom respondent had attacked urged that his publications were scurrilous, defamatory and corrosive of public confidence in the judiciary and that his repetitive, baseless litigation and public attacks constituted obstruction and interference with the administration of justice.
Procedural Disposition Before the Court
Acting on the Cebu City Chapter’s complaint and the record of respondent’s conduct, the Court En Banc docketed the matter as a contempt proceeding and directed personal service of the relator’s letter and supporting exhibits. The Court afforded respondent opportunities to comment and to secure counsel in successive resolutions. After deliberation, the Court found respondent in constructive contempt for repeated abuses of judicial process, obstruction of court functions and gross disrespect for judicial officers and court personnel, and imposed punitive and coercive sanctions.
Ruling of the Supreme Court
The Court, per curiam, found Joaquin T. Borromeo guilty of constructive contempt repeatedly committed over time. The Court sentenced him to serve a term of imprisonment of TEN (10) DAYS in the City Jail of Cebu City and to pay a fine of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00). The Court warned that repetition of similar acts would merit more severe sanctions. The resolution was promulgated En Banc and records the concurrence of the listed Justices; Justice Puno took no part.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court grounded its conclusion on the cumulative facts showing that respondent habitually relitigated matters already finally adjudicated, abused judicial processes, filed vexatious and duplicative suits, levied personal and public attacks against judges, clerks and counsel, and published scurrilous material that impugned the integrity of judicial institutions. The opinion reaffirmed settled principles: (1) that finality of judgment is essential to the judicial function and that litigation must end at some point; (2) that the rulings of the Supreme Court and of collegiate divisions, including minute resolutions, are products of deliberation and are not subject to collateral attack by other branches or agencies; (3) that administrative, civil or criminal complaints cannot substitute for the appellate processes prescribed by law and may not be used as an alternative means to relitigate issues decided by the courts; and (4) that judges enjoy immunity for acts done in the legitimate exercise of judicial functions and that liability — administrative, civil or criminal — arises only where there is demonstrable malice, bad faith, gross ignorance or a final judici
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 93-7-696-0)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Joaquin T. Borromeo was the respondent charged in this contempt proceeding for repetitive and abusive litigation and for circulating scurrilous publications attacking courts and court personnel.
- Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines instituted the proceeding at the relation of said Chapter by letter dated June 21, 1993 and urged imposition of sanctions against respondent.
- The matter was docketed and heard by the Court En Banc pursuant to its Resolution of July 22, 1993 requiring comment and directing personal service of the relator’s letter and annexes on respondent.
- The Court considered respondent’s multiple comments, supplemental submissions, and a history of no less than fifty original or review proceedings instituted by him between 1978 and the date of the Resolution.
- The proceeding invoked contempt powers under Rule 71, Sec. 3 (c) and (d), Rules of Court and addressed respondent’s repeated interference with the administration of justice.
Key Factual Allegations
- Respondent obtained multiple loans from three banks — Traders Royal Bank (TRB), United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), and Security Bank & Trust Co. (SBTC) — and secured them with mortgages which he later failed to pay.
- Respondent repeatedly sued the banks, bank officers, counsel, prosecutors, trial judges, the Court of Appeals, and Justices of the Supreme Court in diverse civil, criminal and administrative actions raising substantially the same issues.
- Respondent circulated numerous letters, flyers and circulars publicly accusing judges, clerks and Justices of issuing unconstitutional, unsigned and unsubstantiated “minute resolutions,” and of condoning bank misconduct.
- Respondent persisted in asserting that minute resolutions lacking signatures and explicit findings violated Sections 4(3) and 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution despite repeated official explanations and judicial precedent to the contrary.
- The record showed that many of respondent’s actions were dismissed for res judicata, litis pendentia, prematurity, lack of cause of action, or for failure to comply with procedural requisites.
Litigation History
- Respondent instituted an avalanche of cases over a period of about sixteen years, including multiple related civil suits: RTC Case No. R-22506 (TRB), R-21009 (consolidation action involving UCPB and Samson Lao), R-21615 (SBTC), and numerous follow-on suits in the RTC, Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court identified in the record.
- The Supreme Court denied review or dismissed petitions in several matters including G.R. No. 83306, G.R. No. 82273, G.R. No. 87897, G.R. No. 84999, and G.R. No. 94769, and repeatedly directed entry of judgment and remand for execution where appropriate.
- The courts below and the ombudsman repeatedly dismissed respondent’s criminal complaints against bank officers, lawyers and Justices for lack of merit or for being an improper vehicle to review judicial decisions.
- The Integrated Bar of the Philippines investigated respondent’s administrative complaints against opposing counsel and recommended dismissal of the disbarment complaints while issuing a cautionary warning to respondent.
Administrative and Criminal Complaints
- Respondent filed a series of criminal complaints and administrative charges against judges, clerks, justices, prosecutors and private lawyers, which were dismissed by the City Prosecutor, the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) and by administrative bodies for lack of merit and for being improper attempts to review judicial acts.