Urgent Ex-Parte Motion

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Third Judicial Region Branch 16, Malolos City, BULACAN ATTY. FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Plaintiff, - versus -

CIVIL CASE No. 938–M–98

SPS. MARIANO P. BLANCO & LIGAYA BLANCO, The PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, The MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT JUDGE, BR. 1, MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, JOSELITO V. FLORO, ATTY. RODEL GIL VILLARICO and Sps. ALFREDO TRINIDAD & FLORENTINA A. TRINIDAD, Defendants. x----------------------------------------------------x IN RE: PETITION TO CANCEL THE ADVERSE CLAIM ANNOTATED ON TCT. NO. T-328106 (M), T-316135 (M), & T-316136 (M)BULACAN. ATTY. FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., JOSELITO V. FLORO, ROBERT V. FLORO, and SPS. ALFREDO TRINIDAD & FLORENTINA A. TRINIDAD, Petitioners, - versus -

P – 405 - 98

SPS. MARIANO P. BLANCO & LIGAYA BLANCO, Respondents. x----------------------------------------------------x

URGENT EX-PARTE MANIFESTATION -

with - Prayer for Early Resolution / To Grant Omnibus Motions

Plaintiff / Petitioner Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., (“Judge FLORO”, for brevity) by HIMSELF, unto this Honorable Court most respectfully MOVES for DECISION / Cancellation of Adverse Claim on

the subject 2 titles of the three involved in T-316135 (M), & T-316136 (M)-BULACAN this suit, and states, that: NO OPPOSITION WHATSOEVER WAS FILLED TO CHALLENGE THE OMNIBUS MOTIONS (DESPITE THE COURT’S ORDER); NO EVIDENCE WAS EVER PRESENTED BY DEFENDANTS SINCE THESE CASES WERE FILED, UNTIL TODAY. 1.

At the May 29, 2007 hearing of the subject

OMNIBUS MOTIONS dated 22 June, 2007, all defendants failed to appear despite due notice; the Court, therefore, gave them 5 days to file comments/oppositions thereto, as it ordered that: “xxx thereafter, the pending incidents will be deemed submitted for resolution.” (Annex “A” hereof). 2.

The process server of this Court duly served the

said Order upon all defendants, through their counsels, on May 31 /June 1, 2007, as evidenced by the RETURN OF SERVICE dated June 1, 2007 (Annex “B” hereof). Accordingly, defendants had until June 6, 2007, to file the required pleadings. But until today, defendants never filed any pleading/OPPOSITION to plaintiff’s OMINIBUS MOTIONS. 3.

The mailing clerk of this Court also mailed the

Order of the Court to Mr. Mariano P. Blanco and his counsel, Atty. Donato Mabbayad, # 14, on June 1, 2007 as evidenced by the mailing paper, # 8 (Annex “C” hereof). 4.

On June 4, 2007, defendant Mariano P. Blanco

filed the WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE of his counsel, Atty. Donato Mabayad, dated April 12, 2007; the Court NOTED said pleading, and “the defendants are hereby required to secure the services of a new counsel to represent them in the aforesaid cases.” (Annex “D” hereof). The Order was mailed by the clerk to defendants Rodel Gil Villarico, Mariano P. Blanco and Atty. Donato Mabbayad, on June 13,

- Page 2 -

2007 (as evidenced by the mailing paper, # 866, 867 & 868, Annex “E” hereof).

Considering that the ORDER of the Court to file

5.

OPPOSITION was not obeyed, and since the same was binding upon defendants, more specifically, upon Mr. Blanco, even if his counsel withdrew, as he was notified thereof (since the Orders were mailed to him by the Court per the clerk on June 1 and June 13, respectively), ergo, the instant OMNIBUS MOTIONS, per force, with all due respect, must accordingly be GRANTED, as a matter of course, and on the merits thereof. NO EVIDENCE WAS EVER PRESENTED BY DEFENDANTS SINCE THESE CASES WERE FILED, UNTIL TODAY. STRIPPED of unessential details, the instant consolidated cases are simple. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION/CIVIL CASE NO. 938-M-98. On September 30, 1998, petitioner Judge FLORO filed the first case against respondents spouses MARIANO P. BLANCO,

the

Provincial

Prosecutor,

and

Br.

1,

MTC,

Meycauayan, Bulacan Judge Orlando PAGUIO (now retired and replaced by Judge CEDILLO). In essence, petitioner Judge FLORO asked the Court to grant him the following RELIEFS: a.) Declaring the subject real estate mortgage (dated 5

January, 1995, admitted Exhibits B/B-1, ANNEX B/B-1 of the Petition) between Milagros FLORO, mother of Judge Floro, Joselito FLORO, his brother & defendants BLANCOS, null and void; consequently, to declare the subject 3 titles (ANNEXES/EXHIBITS F, D-1, & D-2) quiet/clean and free, and at the same time, to

- Page 3 -

cancel/annul the annotated adverse claim by the defendants BLANCOS therein; b.) Declaring null and void the subpoena, warrant of

arrest,

and

permanently

ENJOINING

respondents

Provincial Prosecutor & MTC, Br. 1, Meycauayan, BULACAN, from continuing with, and to DISMISS with finality/with prejudice, the counterpart CRIMINAL CASE NO. 98-27027 against Judge FLORO, INTER ALIA. Petitioner Judge FLORO also filed additional pleadings which included/added as co-defendants, ATTY. RODEL GIL VILLARICO & JOSELITO V. FLORO. Later, petitioner Judge FLORO, in accordance with the Rules, filed the AMENDED COMPLAINT on October 9, 1998 (pages 123-132, records). After the filing of responsive pleadings by adverse parties, the case was set for pre-trials and trials. The case was later heard by BR. 80, RTC, Malolos, BULACAN.

The

case dragged for more than 4 years, since the parties exerted all efforts to amicably settle the case, but the efforts failed. N. B. Per Order dated April 26, 1999, Br. 9, RTC Judge Masadao INHIBITED himself and transmitted this case to Br. 80, RTC, Malolos. LRC CASE NO. P-405-98. The counterpart LRC case was filed by petitioner Judge FLORO on September 28, 1998. It prayed for the cancellation of the annotated ADVERSE CLAIM of respondents BLANCOS at the back of the subject titles (ANNEXES/EXHIBITS F/F-1, D-1 & D-2).

- Page 4 -

The case was set for INITIAL HEARING on December 8, 1998; the petitioner Judge FLORO marked in evidence ANNEXES A to I of the petition as EXHIBITS A to I, thereby complying with/submitting the JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS. (TSN dated 8 December, 1998, pp. 1 – 7). On March 4, 1999, petitioner Judge FLORO testified on DIRECT EXAMINATION (TSN dated 4 March 1999, pp. 3 – 31). THE CRITICAL FACT --On May 11, 1999, both parties through their counsels, in obedience to the ORDER of the Court dated 21, April 1999 (Vide: TSN dated 21 April 1999, pp. 2-22) duly SUBMITTED the signed “JOINT STIPULATION OF FACTS & MEMORANDUM”, 3 pages; while Atty. Rafael Santos, Jr., counsel of record of the respondents BLANCOS duly filed his COMMENT thereto on even date, May 11, 1999. On May 25, 1999, Br. 19, RTC, acting upon the JOINT MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION, ordered the CONSOLIDATION of this case with CIV. CASE No. 938-M-98, Br. 80, RTC, Malolos. CONSOLIDATED CASES NOS. 938-M-98 & P-405-98 : Pursuant to A.M. No. 03-9-537, Br. 80, RTC was made a drugs court, and thus, these cases were re-raffled to BRS. 15 & 16; however, due to the fact that these cases were consolidated and could not be split, Br. 15 issued an Order dated 23, January 2004, transmitting its case to Br. 16; hence, these two consolidated cases are now pending at Br. 16, RTC, Malolos.

RELEVANT ANTECEDENTS In the order dated March 19, 1999, the Court declared defendant Joselito V. FLoro in DEFAULT for failure to file answer. Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico, defendant, was formerly represented by Atty. Ernesto P. Fernandez; the latter withdrew and was allowed by the Court (Br. 16, RTC, - Page 5 -

Malolos,

Bulacan)

to

be

substituted

by

Atty.

Donato

Mabbayad***, who represented all defendants/respondents as their counsel of record; Atty. Villarico filed the pre-trial brief and his ANSWER on December 10, 1998. *** Atty. DONATO MABBAYAD formally entered his appearance as counsel of record for all defendants (substituting the deceased Atty. Rafael Santos), at the hearing of August 26, 2002 (pp. 359-361 records).

On October 19, 1998, public respondent provincial prosecutor filed his ANSWER/COMMENT/OPPOSITION. PRE-TRIAL/TRIAL The pre-trial was conducted and was TERMINATED per Order dated 5 February, 2004. Atty. Ernesto Fernandez manifested that he withdrew for client, defendant Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico, while Atty. DONATO MABBAYAD manifested in open court that he is appearing for ALL DEFENDANTS/

RESPONDENTS.

The

Court

approved

the

withdrawal and substitution. Atty. Mabbayad/ defendants failed to appear at the hearing of March 4, 2004, despite due notice (of the Order personally served by the process server). The Court set the trials and plaintiff Judge FLORO finished his direct testimony on March 25, 2004. Atty. Sinfronio BARRANCO manifested that he is REPRODUCING Judge FLORO’s entire testimony/evidences in P-405-98 in the consolidated CIV. Case # 938-M-98; Judge FLORO’s additional DIRECT testimony was offered and received by the Court (TSN dated 25 March, 2004, pp. 1-5). Defendants/respondents/their counsel of record, Atty. Donato MABBAYAD failed to cross-examine plaintiff Judge FLORO despite the Court’s orders and personal services thereof. (Vide: Court orders dated 25 March & 17 June 2004, which were duly served upon them by process

- Page 6 -

server LEO B. EBINA, by personal services). At the hearing of May 13, 2004, defendants/counsel also failed to appear despite due notice.

At the hearing dated 17 June, 2004, per manifestation and request of plaintiff Judge FLORO, through his counsel, Atty. Barranco, that since Judge FLORO, as counsel of record of co-petitioners spouses ALFREDO & FLORENTINA TRINIDAD, was appointed Judge as of November 4, 1998 (hence their lawyer-client relationship was deemed terminated by law), the Court ordered them to appear at the hearings and to hire services of counsel. (Vide: RETURN of service by process server LEO B. EBINA, dated June 23, 2004). Defendants/counsel also failed to appear at the hearing of July 29, 2004 (Vide: RETURNS of SERVICES dated August 9 & 11, 2004). At the hearing dated 12 August 2004, the Court granted plaintiff Judge

FLORO’s

counsel’s

oral

motion

for

leave

to

file

supplemental/appropriate pleading (cross-claim, etc.) against his copetitioners spouses TRINIDADS concerning admitted ANNEX H of the petition, the KASUNDUAN; the Court also ordered that the right of defendants to cross-examine Judge FLORO was deemed waived due to consistent failure on their part/counsel to appear at the trials, despite due notice. The court set the hearings for the reception of defendants’ evidence on September 13, 22, October 6 & 18, 2004. Exhibits A-8 & A-8-1, the 4 pages MANIFESTATION/ LETTER NOTICE dated July 21, 1993, with the registry receipts (both ORIGINALS) were marked and attached to the records. (This Order was duly served upon defendants through counsel Atty. Donato Mabbayad & to the spouses TRINIDADS, both by personal service of LEO B. EBINA, process server; vide – return of personal service dated 6 September, 2004). At the hearing dated 13 September, 2004, the Court: a) ADMITTED plaintiff’s (all) EXHIBITS A to I / sub-markings, for the purposes they were offered; and plaintiff Judge FLORO rested his case; b) ordered the initial presentation of respondents’/defendants’ evidence on September 22, October 6 and 18, 2004; and c) ordered spouses TRINIDADS to engage the services of counsel and to appear at the scheduled hearings. (This order dated 13 - Page 7 -

September,

2004, was personally served

by LEO

B. EBINA

on

defendants/counsel, ATTY. D. MABBAYAD & the TRINIDADS; vide return dated 20 September, 2004). (Vide: also TSNs dated 25 March, 2004, pp. 1-5; dated 12 August, 2004, pp. 1-3 & dated 13 September, 2004, pp. 1-4).

Consolidated cases ordered submitted for partial/several judgment on September 22, 2004 (Secs. 3 & 4, Rule 36, Rules of Court): At the hearing dated 22 September, 2004, the Court: a) ordered the case against all defendants/respondents deemed submitted for partial judgment and

that they have deemed waived their right to present evidence, due to their consistent failure to appear at the hearings despite due notices. REPRODUCED HEREUNDER are parts of the OMNIBUS MOTIONS, for reference purposes: SUPERVENING EXTINCTIVE PRESCRIPTION (AND RESULTANT MOOT AND ACADEMIC) OF THE LOAN & MORTGAGE / ADVERSE CLAIM UPON THE SUBJECT TORRENS TITLES. A. On January 5, 1995 defendants Joselito Floro (and deceased

Milagros Floro) and spouses BLANCOS entered into a principal written contract of LOAN and/with accessory REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE contract where the subject lots, covered by the subject titles [T-316135 (M), & T-316136 (M)-BULACAN, inter alia] of this case (from the cancelled mother title) was/were

encumbered by said respondents, using the co-

owners title; the OWNERS duplicate certificates of titles were and are possessed by petitioner; (ADMITTED EXHIBITS, ANNEXES A, A-1, A-2 hereof, for reference). B. The term of payment thereof is one year, thus, until January 6,

1996; the actions to foreclose the loan and/or to collect the sums of money due on that date accrued from that critical date of January 6, 1996; BUT RESPONDENTS slept on their rights: respondents BLANCOS never filed any action to collect the loan and/or to foreclose the mortgage until today, - Page 8 -

until January 7, 2006; hence, the LOAN and MORTGAGE as written principal and accessory obligations and contracts, PRESCRIBED due to EXTINCTIVE PRESCRIPTIONS on January 7, 2006; PRESCRIPTION legally CONVERTED the loan, contract and the lien of adverse claim MOOT and ACADEMIC, that is – IT LEGALLY EXTINGUISHED THEM by operation of law; and NECESITATING NO DECLARATION FROM ANY COURT, IPSO FACTO, or by sheer PRONOUNCEMENT OF CIVIL LAW, specifically –

Articles 1106, 1139, 1142, 1150, 1144, inter alia, THE LOAN, THE MORTGAGE and THE ADVERSE CLAIM LIENS WERE DULY EXTINGUISHED ON JANUARY 7, 2007, LEAVING NOTHING BUT THE MINISTERIAL TWIN DUTIES OF THIS COURT TO i) CANCEL THE ANNOTATED LIENS ON THE SUBJECT TITLES, AND ii) TO PERMANENTLY ENJOIN / DISMISS THE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST MOVANT / Joselito Floro. C. On September 7, 2005, this Court issued an INTERLOCUTORY Reconsideration Resolution which ruled that Petitioner /movant, in the interest of substantial justice, should be allowed to pay the required ADDITIONAL docket fees for the cancellation of mortgage due to the filing of amended complaint, within a reasonable time; movant received copy of the same, on October 10, 2006, which is not a final decision but a mere interlocutory order under Rule 36, of the Rules of Court (which defined decision or final judgment as that which finally settles a suit or controversy leaving nothing to be ruled upon), considering that the Court has yet to rule upon the adverse claim cancellation etc. D. Considering that petitioner / movant DULY PAID all the required

legal, filing and docket fees for the LRC P – 405 - 98 case, and for the special civil action with INJUNCTION case - CIVIL CASE No. 938–M–98, JURISPRUDENCE is settled on the matter, that when jurisdiction attaches / attached upon the full payment of legal, filing and docket fees and the timely

- Page 9 -

filing of the pleadings, then, the subsequent amendment thereof or even the non-payment of the required additional fees, can and will never oust the court of jurisdiction it once acquired. E. When the subject loan, mortgage and annotated adverse claims

were LEGALLY EXTINGUISHED by EXTINCTIVE PRESCRIPTION on January 7, 2006, ergo, the amended and supplemental pleading admitted by the Court which required payment of additional fees (contested by movant at that time), became LEGALLY MOOT AND ACADEMIC, for the Court cannot legally annul or declare void or voidable, the principal contract of loan, the accessory real estate mortgage contract, and the real right of annotated adverse claim on the subject titles, which are and were legally EXTINCT: in other words, MOOT and ACADEMIC. To be clearer, movant states with legal certainty that the subjects of this suit – LOAN, MORTGAGE and ADVERSE CLAIM - prescribed, had been legally extinguished by EXTINCTIVE PRESCRIPTION, and the filed amended pleading to cancel the mortgage was LEGALLY converted on January 7, 2006, into a MOOT and ACADEMIC complaint; the COURT cannot anymore rule on moot and academic cases and accordingly the Clerk of Court or this Court can no longer require payment of any docket, filing or additional legal fees to cancel academically an EXTINCT loan, mortgage as extinguished contracts and the moot adverse claim liens. RELIEF PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed to this Honorable Court, that after due notice and hearing, judgment / RESOLUTION be rendered / promulgated: 1) DIRECTING

THE

REGISTER

/

DEPUTY

/

BRANCH

REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN TO CANCEL THE ANNOTATED ADVERSE CLAIMS ON T-316135 (M), & T-316136 (M)-BULACAN, AND DECLARING THESE

- Page 10 -

TITLES FREE FROM ALL LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES, and 2) TO DIRECT PUBLIC RESPONDENT MTC, BR. I, JUDGE TO

PERMANENTLY CEASE AND DESIST FROM PROCEEDING WITH THE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST PETITIONER JUDGE FLORO AND TO FORTHWITH DISMISS THE SAME WITH PREJUDICE. Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for. Malolos City, Bulacan, for Manila, June 25, 2007. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Movant/Petitioner-in-intervention, 123 Dahlia, Alido, Malolos, 3000 BULACAN, Tel/#(044) 662-82-03; (Presiding Judge, Branch 73, RTC, MALABON, NCJR, M.M.) [I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300; ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV (Note: Motion For Leave to Admit 4th Appeal to be reinstated is pending.]

NOTICE OF HEARING TO:

The Branch Clerk of Court, Br. 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, Respondents – Atty. Nye N. Orquillas, Counsel of Record for defendants Spouses Alfredo & Florentina Trinidad, SPS. MARIANO P. BLANCO & LIGAYA BLANCO, JOSELITO V. FLORO, ATTY. RODEL GIL VILLARICO, The PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, Malolos, Bulacan, c/o Fiscal B. Medrano, Public Respondent, nominal part party, and The MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT JUDGE, BR. 1, MEYC., BULACAN, Public Respondent, Nominal Party.

Please take NOTICE that undersigned will submit the instant EXPARTE MANIFESTATION - PLEADING for the consideration / resolution of the Court on June 28 & July 3, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. or soon thereafter; Please CALENDAR the same immediately upon receipt, in view of the urgency of the matter. This an EX-PARTE MANIFESTATION and not a MOTION that requires the 3-day notice RULE. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Petitioner/Movant

COPY FURNISHED: - Page 11 -

By Personal Service: Atty. Nye N. Orquillas, Counsel of Record for co-petitioners/defendants Spouses Alfredo & Florentina Trinidad, 2nd Flr., Capitol Compound Office, Malolos City, Bulacan, The PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, Malolos, Bulacan, c/o Fiscal B. Medrano, Public Respondent, nominal part party, and JOSELITO V. FLORO, Defendant, Calvario, Meycauayan, 3020 Bulacan, ___________________ By Registered Mail with return card: EXPLANATION: Due to distance and lack of messenger, service was made by registered mail with return card, with receipts attached hereunder upon: SPS. MARIANO P. BLANCO & LIGAYA BLANCO, defendants, # 63 Bancal, Meycauayan, 3020 Bulacan,

ATTY. RODEL GIL VILLARICO, Defendants, Villarico Law Office, Poblacion, Meycauayan, 3020 Bulacan,

The MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT JUDGE, BR. 1, Poblacion, MEYCAUAYAN, 3020 BULACAN, Public Respondent, Nominal Party.

- Page 12 -