A.M. No.

93-7-696-0 February 21, 1995

In Re JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO, Ex Rel. Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines.

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.

*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 (3) 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 (TRB), United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB),
Security Bank & Trust Co. (SBTC).

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.

He has initiated or spawned in different fora the astounding number of no less-than fifty
(50) original or review proceedings, civil, criminal, administrative.

I. CASES INVOLVING TRADERS

ROYAL BANK (TRB)

*- first bank to have dealt with

- first loan – June 2, 1978; sum of 45,000; real estate mortgage as security; two parcels
of land; owned by Socorro Borromeo-Thakuria (his sister) & Teresita Lavarino
- second loan – June 16, 1978; sum of 10,000; mortgage as security; parcel of land;
owned by Heirs of Vicente Borromeo
- letter of credit – 80,000; April 23, 1980; executed a Trust Receipt due July 22, 1980
At the public sale conducted by the sheriff on September 7, 1981, the three mortgaged
parcels of land were sold to TRB as the highest bidder, for P73,529.09.

A. CIVIL CASES

1. RTC Case No. R-22506 (granted); CA G.R.

CV No. 07015 (reversed); G.R. No. 83306 (denied by SC First Division)
- On October 29, 1982 Borromeo filed a complaint in the Cebu City Regional Trial Court
for specific performance and damages against TRB and its local manager, Blas Abril,
docketed as Civil Case No. R-22506.
- The complaint sought to compel defendants to allow redemption of the foreclosed
properties only at their auction price, with stipulated interests and charges, without need
of paying the obligation secured by the trust receipt above mentioned.

2. RTC Case No. CEB 8750;

CA-G.R. SP No. 22356 (affirmed)
- Borromeo initiated another civil action in the same Cebu City Regional Court by which
he attempted to litigate the same issues. The action, against the new TRB Branch
Manager, Jacinto Jamero, was docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-8750.
- dismissed on the ground of res judicata (judged matter)

3. RTC Case No. CEB-9485 (dismissed);

CA-G.R. SP No. 28221 (dismissed as well)
- Borromeo filed complaints (criminal offense) in the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Cebu against the bank officers and lawyers. These complaints were however, and quite
correctly, given short shrift by that Office. Borromeo then filed suit in the Cebu City RTC,
this time not only against the TRB, TRB officers Jacinto Jamero and Arceli Bustamante,
but also against City Prosecutor Jufelinito Pareja and his assistants, Enriqueta
Belarmino and Eva A. Igot, and the TRB lawyers, Mario Ortiz and the law, firm,
HERSINLAW.

4. RTC Case No. CEB-10368 (dismissed);

CA-G.R. SP No. 27100 (dismissed)
- Borromeo filed, on May 30, 1991, still another civil action for the same cause against
TRB, its manager, Jacinto Jamero, and its lawyers, Atty. Mario Ortiz and the
HERSINLAW law office. It was described as one for "Recovery of Sums of Money,
Annulment of Titles with Damages." The case met the same fate as the others.
- litis pendentia – pending suit; other cause of action is unnecessary

5. RTC Case No. CEB-6452 (dismissed)

6. RTC Case No. CEB-8236M (dismissed)

- Borromeo now took a different tack by also suing the members of the appellate courts
who had ruled adversely to him.
- The complaint also prayed for reconveyance of the "fake titles obtained fraudulently by
TRB/HERSINLAW," and recovery of "100,000.00 moral damages; 30,000.00 exemplary
damages; and P5,000.00 litigation expenses."
II. CASES INVOLVING UNITED COCONUT
PLANTERS BANK (UCPB)

- Lao applied with the same bank (UCPB) for a loan, offering the property he had
purchased from Borromeo as collateral. UCPB was not averse to dealing with Lao but
imposed several conditions on him, one of which was for Lao to consolidate his title
over the property.
- This signaled the beginning of court battles waged by Borromeo not only against Lao,
but also against UCPB and the latter's lawyers, battles which he (Borromeo) fought
contemporaneously with his court war with Traders Royal Bank.

A. Respondent's Liability
for Contempt of Court

Upon the indubitable facts on record, there can scarcely be any doubt of Borromeo's
guilt of contempt, for abuse of and interference with judicial rules and processes, gross
disrespect to courts and judges and improper conduct directly impeding, obstructing and
degrading the administration of justice.

He has stubbornly litigated issues already declared to be without merit, obstinately

closing his eyes to the many rulings rendered adversely to him in many suits and
proceedings, rulings which had become final and executory, obdurately and
unreasonably insisting on the application of his own individual version of the rules,
founded on nothing more than his personal (and quite erroneous) reading of the
Constitution and the law; he has insulted the judges and court officers, including the
attorneys appearing for his adversaries, needlessly overloaded the court dockets and
sorely tried the patience of the judges and court employees who have had to act on his
repetitious and largely unfounded complaints, pleadings and motions

B. Basic Principles Governing

the Judicial Function
The facts and issues involved in the proceeding at bench make necessary a
restatement of the principles governing finality of judgments and of the paramount need
to put an end to litigation at some point…

1. Reason for courts; Judicial

Hierarchy
Courts exist in every civilized society for the settlement of controversies. In every
country there is a more or less established hierarchical organization of courts, and a
more or less comprehensive system of review of judgments and final orders of lower
courts.
2. Paramount Need to end
Litigation at Some Point
It is withal of the essence of the judicial function that at some point, litigation must end.
Hence, after the procedures and processes for lawsuits have been undergone, and the
modes of review set by law have been exhausted, or terminated, no further ventilation
of the same subject matter is allowed.

3. Judgments of Supreme Court

Not Reviewable
The sound, salutary and self-evident principle prevailing in this as in most jurisdictions,
is that judgments of the highest tribunal of the land may not be reviewed by any other
agency, branch, department, or official of Government. Once the Supreme Court has
spoken, there the matter must rest. Its decision should not and cannot be appealed to or
reviewed by any other entity, much less reversed or modified on the ground that it is
tainted by error in its findings of fact or conclusions of law, flawed in its logic or
language, or otherwise erroneous in some other respect. 49 This, on the indisputable
and unshakable foundation of public policy, and constitutional and traditional principle.

4. Final and Executory Judgments of

Lower Courts Not Reviewable
Even by Supreme Court
However, should judgments of lower courts — which may normally be subject to review
by higher tribunals — become final and executory before, or without, exhaustion of all
recourse of appeal, they, too, become inviolable, impervious to modification. They may,
then, no longer be reviewed, or in anyway modified directly or indirectly, by a higher
court, not even by the Supreme Court, much less by any other official, branch or
department of Government.