Anda di halaman 1dari 34

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Integrated Bar of the Philippines


COMMITTEE ON BAR DISCIPLINE
Dona Julia Vargas Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Metro Manila

Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.,


Complainant,
- versus -

ADM. Case No. 7897


For: Disbarment

Atty. Nye N. Orquillas,


(2nd Flr., Hiyas ng Bulacan Convention Center, Capitol Compound,
Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan)
Respondent.
X-------------------------------------------------X

Position Paper & Reply


Hon. Salvador B. Hababag,
Commissioner, CBC, Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Your Honor,
I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., complainant, respectfully SUBMIT this
Position Paper as COMPLIANCE with the Order which undersigned
received on March 16, 2009, and by way of REPLY to respondent Atty. Nye N.
Orquillas Position Paper dated 16 March 2009 (which undersigned received
on March 17, 2009), state, that:

I. Reply To Respondents Position Paper


1. To begin with, undersigned complainant contradicts respondent Atty. Nye
N. Orquillas (Orquillas, for brevity) stance, that the instant disbarment
complaint must be dismissed on the technical ground of violation of two Bar
Matters. Respondents argument is not only absurd but is untenable in the eyes
of the law and settled jurisprudence.
The Supreme Court interpreted Bar Matter No. 1132 and Bar Matter No.
287, saying that "it was not meant to be a ground to dismiss an action or
expunge from the records any pleading in which such PTR or Roll of Attorneys
Number was not indicated."
B.M. No. 1132 & Bar Matter No. 287, both apply only to court pleadings
filed by a counsel/lawyer for a party or litigant. It was never intended to apply
to a complaint filed by anybody (a lawyer, judge, private person, corporation or
even an anonymous litigant), appearing in the case, for itself, himself or herself.
A disbarment case can be filed even by an anonymous complainant, provided,
that, as in this case, the complaint is supported by documents (Rule 139-B,
Rules of Court and settled jurisprudence).

In this complaint, undersigned had filed this pleading not as counsel of or


for any party litigant, but as an ordinary complainant. In the landmark case of
the Oakwood mutiny, many lawyers like Senator Guingona had filed pleadings
appearing as accused therein for themselves, hence, the impertinence of both
Bar Matters.
In G.R. No. 158526, December 16, 2004, 447 SCRA 171, 182 (2004),
"D.O. Plaza Management Corp. v. Co-owners Heirs of Andres Atega," and
"Citibank, N.A. vs. NLRC," G.R. No. 159302, August 22, 2008
(http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/159302.htm#_ftn6),
the Supreme Court held that the requirement to indicate counsels Roll Number
was intended to protect the public by making it easier to detect impostors who
represent themselves as members of the Bar and to help lawyers keep track of
their Roll of Attorneys Number. It was not meant to be a ground to dismiss an
action or expunge from the records any pleading in which such Roll of
Attorneys Number was not indicated.
Vide:
[B.M. No. 1132. April 1, 2003] RE: RESOLUTION NO. 112-2002 OF THE
SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF ILOCOS NORTE (Re: Resolution
No. 112-2002 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte, Requesting to
Require Lawyers to Indicate in their Pleadings their Number in the Roll of
Attorneys.) - It requires all lawyers to indicate their Roll of Attorneys Number
in all papers or pleadings submitted to the various judicial or quasi-judicial
bodies in addition to the requirement of indicating the current Professional Tax
Receipt (PTR) and the IBP Official Receipt or Life Member Number.
All pleadings, motions and papers filed in court, whether personally or by
mail, which do not bear counsels Roll of Attorneys Number as herein required
may not be acted upon by the court, without prejudice to whatever disciplinary
action the court may take against the erring counsel who shall likewise be
required to comply with the requirement within five (5) days from notice.
Failure to comply with such requirement shall be a ground for further
disciplinary sanction and for contempt of court."
[Bar Matter No. 287] Re: Requirement that Official Receipt Number and
Date of Payment of Current IBP Membership Dues be Indicated by Counsel per
IBP Resolution NO. XIV-1999-63, defined on 26 September 2000 the
consequences for non-compliance with the requirement for lawyers to indicate
their IBP Official Receipt Number and Date of Issue in all pleadings, motions
and papers filed in court as follows etc.
2. Respondent, in page 1, par. 1 of his Position Paper, cited and relied upon
the facts narrated by the Br. 16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan Partial Judgment dated
18 April 2008 (in consolidated Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M-98), in
support of his narration of his facts. However, said Partial Judgment was
VACATED ipso facto by the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration thereof by
herein complainant, as provided for by the Rules of Court.

3. Not only that. After the Bulacan court granted respondents Motion to
Dismiss, the Presiding Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz FIRST reversed the dismissal
and gave herein complainant (plaintiff therein) time to pay docket fees; then,
Judge Thelma, for the SECOND time, corrected herself and ruled that the
docket fees were fully paid, contrary to the allegations and documents
submitted by respondent; Judge Cruz, therefore issued a Partial Judgment
dismissing herein complainants case on technical grounds; then, complainant
filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration which VACATED the Partial
Judgment; thereafter, Judge Thelma, for the THIRD time, reversed herself, and
issued the last Order dated 3 September, 2008, recalling the Partial Judgment,
upon timely Motion by herein complainant; and she issued a New Order
declaring the 2 consolidated cases AGAIN submitted for full decision regarding
all parties therein especially defendant Atty. Rodel Gil Villarico who was not
included in the Partial Judgment, due to palpable error of the Judge.
COPIES of the pertinent documents to support the above-allegations are
ATTACHED, collectively marked as Annex A hereof.
4. Par. 2.3, page 3, in relation to par. B, page 6, par.5.4, page 7, par. 5.12
and 5.14, page 10, and par. 5.22, page 12, of respondents Position Paper,
stripped of unessential details, tersely alleged IN SUM, that
respondent Orquillas, in filing the Motion to Dismiss (dated 1 December, 2004)
complainants consolidated cases and supplemental complaint before the
Bulacan court a) merely relied on the Bulacan Clerk of Courts Offices
Certification; b) did his duty as counsel of the Trinidads to protect their rights,
and c) complainant even asked for time to pay docket fees.
Respondents defense, a cover-up, is patently absurd and untenable aside
from being misleading to the investigation, for reasons:
a) When respondent filed the 2004 Motion to Dismiss complainants 1998 cases
and the supplemental pleading, he submitted a non-existent or even false
certification regarding the required docket fees; instead of just looking at the
pages of the expediente or records of the cases (that complainant fully paid all
original and amended complaint docket fees in 1998), respondent devised a new
method of requesting the Office of the Bulacan Clerk of Court to compute the
docket fees based on new (2004) S.C. circulars on legal fees;
b) The Bulacan Office of the Clerk of Court was under Atty. Orgtega, while the
Branch Clerk of Court of the 2004 Executive Judge Danilo Manalastas, was
respondents wife, now Judge Sheila Geronimo Orquillas. These twin offices
issued the certification which led to the dismissal of complainants 2
consolidated cases including the supplemental complaint filed against
respondents clients defendants Alfredo & Florentina Trinidad;
b.1) It is shocking to the conscience of the IBP and judiciary, that respondent,
who was hired and appeared as counsel for spouses Trinidads, instead of
defending their rights and causes of action in (in consolidated Civil Cases Nos.
P-405-98 & 938-M-98), and in the supplemental complaint, DID ask the
3

Bulacan Court to dismiss his clients LRC Petition to cancel adverse claim
annotated upon the back of the subject title bought by the Trinidads, and worst,
respondent even DID ask the Court to dismiss the Trinidad cause of action to
annul the mortgage in said consolidated Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M98; as a result of respondents Motion to Dismiss, his clients, the Trinidads
LOST in the legal battle, since the adverse claims cancellation was thus denied
by the Court with the dismissal;
b.2) Worst, respondent never filed any pleading afterwards, since 2004 until
today, to defend his clients rights: to have the adverse claim on their titles
cancelled in consolidated LRC Case Nos. P-405-98 & C.C. No. 938-M-98; the
result? Respondents clients the Trinidads, because of the dismissal of their
1998 LRC Petition, practically and legally lost the P 3.2 million value of the
subject house and lot (they paid for), due to the mortgage lien thereon; so, who
will buy the lot, who will rent the house, and how can the heirs or children of
the Trinidads use, enjoy, transfer or abuse their property rights over the subject
house and lot, with the permanent adverse claim annotated thereon since 1998,
or for 11 years now!
b.3) Under the law and rules on legal ethics, particularly the Code of
Professional responsibility, respondent, under his oath of office as attorney or
counsel of record of the Trinidads, is bound to: i) cause the cancellation of the
adverse claim, b) object to the payment of any sum of money to herein
complainant, or plaintiff therein, based on any valid ground, such as,
compensation, ambiguity, etc.; but instead, respondent, to the damage and
prejudice of his clients, the Trinidads, permanently made the subject house and
lot bought by the Trinidads from herein complainant, plaintiff therein, without
any value in law and if fact, thereby, violating his oath of office and the laws;
c) When Judge Cruz dismissed all the consolidated cases, complainant asked
for time to pay the docket fees due on the supplemental complaint filed against
respondents clients the Trinidads, even if complainant had already fully paid
the 1998 docket fees on the 2 consolidated cases and amended pleadings;
d) Complainant was the counsel of record of respondents client, the Trinidads
at the time of the filing of the 2 consolidated cases in September, 1998, until
complainant was appointed RTC, Br. 73, Malabon Judge on November 4/5,
1998, whereby, by operation of law, the attorney client relationship ceased;
e) From 1998 until today, 2009, all the defendants in the 2 consolidated cases
never appeared despite having filed some pleadings. Judge Thelma gave them
all the time to appear and present evidence and cross-examine plaintiff,
complainant herein but they all failed;
f) In 2004, when Judge Thelma ordered all the cases submitted for Partial
Judgment, complainant had knowledge that: the sum of money due to be paid,
based on a March, 1998 contract of 1998, to complainant, had been used by
respondents clients the Trinidads children, for cockfighting and business,
which failed due to estafa. The sum of P 2 million that should be paid to
complainant (based on the contract which was admitted in evidence by the
4

Court without objection), was, instead used by the Trinidads children Ann
Trinidad for failed business, while Alfred Trinidad has invested the money in
buying fighting cocks and lost most of them in the Meycauayan Cockpit.
Hence, complainant filed a supplemental complaint against the Trinidads who
were warned by the Bulacan court to appear and hire a lawyer; at the time,
when the court process Server Leo served the court summons on the Trinidads,
defendant Alfredo Trinidad suffered 2-3 major strokes and had been bedridden
ever since, while Florentina Trinidad had been on and off the hospital and had
since been on and off suffering lingering illnesses; The Trinidads last
appearance in their consolidated Bulacan cases was in 1998, and they never
ever appeared due to their illnesses;
g) Hence, respondent was hired and filed the subject of this cases Motion to
Dismiss; since the Trinidads were and are disabled, only Mr. Alfred Trinidad
and his sister Mrs. Gigi Trinidad appeared in Court before the serving of Court
summons; due to this factual backdrop, there could be no chance why the
defendants Trinidads could have filed a case against respondent;
h) It was only by mere accident that complainant had discovered some of these
facts, during a visit of the ancestral house and lot subject of the Bulacan case in
Meycauayan, Bulacan (where complainant lived since birth in 1953-1989); as
stated, Mr. Alfred Trinidad blocked the entire road right of way owned by
complainant servicing the 2 other subject lots, with his fighting cocks and
teepees; and he refused to clear the same, except on the condition expressly
conveyed to undersigned through Ms. Belen Gomez (complainants maid and
secretary) to reimburse Mr. Alfred of P 80,000 reduced to P 60,000, which Mr.
Alfred had said he paid respondent as attorneys fees and bribe to Ms. Lerida
Socorro-Joson and Judge Thelma Cruz;
i) Because of respondents Motion to Dismiss, in 2004, complainants 2
consolidated cases had not been even fully decided until today, since Judge
Thelma Cruz had filed with the Supreme Court a request for extension of time
to render judgment which was due on December 3, 2008; usually the S.C.
grants 3 months extension, but on March 3, 2009, the cases were still
undecided, while Judge Cruz will retire at the age of 70 on July 25, 2009;
TO REPEAT, from September, 1998 until today, 2009, despite the fact that all
the defendants in the subject Bulacan cases never appeared despite court orders,
and only complainant as plaintiff therein appeared and finished his evidence in
2004, complainant suffered the 11 years pain of justice delayed, justice
denied by sheer technicality, violation of respondents oath of office,
falsification of documents and bribery.
Copies of the pertinent OCAD/SC pleadings and Orders in the 350-pages
BRIBERY administrative cases filed by complainant against respondents
Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz and Branch Clerk of Court Lerida Socorro-Joson are
ATTACHED and marked collectively as Annex B hereof.

II. Position Paper

The contents, allegations and argument, including the supporting


documents (Annexes) of complainants disbarment complaint and all other
pleadings filed are herein REPRODUCED and made integral part hereof.
Facts
Stripped of unessential details, and avoiding repetition of submissions of
facts in other pleadings, the FACTS of this case is as follows:
1. TCT No. T-328106 (M), 1/3 of complainant Judge Floros 723 sq.m.
Meycauayan, Bulacan ancestral house-lot (the front, bounded by the road), was
sold by complainant to spouses Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad, in 1997-1998;
the spouses obliged themselves to pay the balance stated in the March 30, 1998
Kasunduan, upon promulgation of the required court order to cancel the
annotated adverse claim of real estate mortgage on the subject title they bought.
Part of the Kasunduan, among others, is the obligation of complainant to file
in court the necessary actions/cases to cancel the 1998 adverse claim and clear
the subject title/lot of the mortgage adverse lien, especially by means of proper
court appearances/pleadings by complainant;
2. Accordingly, complainant performed his obligations in the Kasunduan
by filing the said 2 Bulacan consolidated Cases Nos. LRC P-405-98 & C.C.
938-M-98, on September, 1998, paying in full all the docket and legal fees
required on all the original and amended pleadings. Meanwhile, complainant
was appointed RTC Judge of Malabon City on November 5, 1998, hence the
consequential legal termination of the client-lawyer relationship with the
Trinidads, who never appointed any counsel in these cases;
3. From 1998 until today, 2009, all the defendants in the 2 consolidated cases
never appeared despite having filed some pleadings. Judge Thelma gave them
all the time to appear, present evidence and cross-examine plaintiff,
complainant herein, but they all failed;
4. In 2004, when Judge Thelma ordered all the cases submitted for Partial
Judgment, complainant acquired knowledge that: the sum of money due to be
paid to complainant, based on the March 30, 1998 Kasunduan, had been used
by respondents clients the Trinidads children, for cockfighting and business
(which failed due to estafa). The sum of P 2 million that should be paid to
complainant (based on the contract which was admitted in evidence by the
Court without objection), was, instead used by the Trinidads children Ann
Trinidad for failed business, while Alfred Trinidad had invested the money in
buying fighting cocks and lost most of them in the Meycauayan Cockpit.
Hence, complainant filed a supplemental complaint against the Trinidads who
were warned by the Bulacan court to appear and hire a lawyer; during the time,
when the court process Server Leo B. Ebina served on 2004, the court summons
on the Trinidads, defendant Alfredo Trinidad suffered 2-3 major strokes and had
been bedridden ever since, while Florentina Trinidad had been on and off the
hospital and had since been on and off suffering lingering illnesses; the
Trinidads last appearance in these consolidated Bulacan court cases was in
6

1998, and they never ever appeared due to their illnesses; since the Trinidads
were and are disabled, only Mr. Alfred Trinidad and his sister Mrs. Gigi
Trinidad appeared in Court before the serving of Court summons; due to this
factual backdrop, there could be no chance why the defendants Trinidads could
have filed a case against respondent;
5. Hence, respondent was hired by the spouses Trinidads, and filed the
subject of this cases Motion to Dismiss; because of respondents Motion to
Dismiss, in 2004, complainants 2 consolidated cases had not been even been
fully decided until today, since Judge Thelma Cruz had filed with the Supreme
Court a Request for Extension of time to render judgment which was due on
December 3, 2008; usually the S.C. grants 3 months extension, but on March 3,
2009, the cases were still undecided, while Judge Cruz will retire at the age of
70 on July 25, 2009.
Issues
Complainant has raised the issues in the instant complaint and reproduces
them herein: whether or not respondent violated his oaths of office, and
therefore, must be disbarred?
Argument
Respondent Orquillas, as counsel-of-record of Spouses Alfredo &
Florentina Trinidad, as officer of the court, is bound by his sworn Oath of
Office and the Code of Professional Responsibility, to defend said clients.
Respondent even presented and filed in Court his June, 2005 Suplemental
Manifestation with his Annexed contract of attorney-client relationship in
consolidated Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M-98, and the supplemental
complaint, duly signed and thumb marked (by the Trinidad spouses).
As their attorney-at-law, respondent is specifically mandated by the Rules,
to have filed in the Bulacan Court, all the pleadings necessary to cancel the
1998 annotated adverse claim and clear the Trinidads purchased subject title/lot
of the mortgage lien claimed by defendants Mariano/Ligaya Blanco.
As stated, the Trinidads bought the lot/title from complainant, having paid
sums of money with obligations to pay the agreed balance based on the
Kasunduan upon court cancellation of the adverse claim. With the annotation
of the adverse claim since 1998 until today, the Trinidadss title remains under a
cloud of legal doubt and uncertainty, and as a result, they cannot freely and
legally sell, transfer, encumber or dispose of the same to any encumbrancer for
value, because of the superior lien of the adverse claimant, the Blancos. The
Supreme Court held that:
The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect
the interest of a person over a part of real property, and serves as a
notice and warning to third parties dealing with the said property that
someone is claiming an interest over it or has a better right than the
registered owner thereof. [Sajonas v. CA, 258 SCRA 79, 91, July 5, 1996].
7

Sworn Duty of Respondent Clear Violation: Clients Case Sold


Respondent must, perforce, be ordered by the Court/IBP to explain why,
until today, he still, miserably have failed to file the necessary Motion to
Reconsider the Bulacan Courts Orders which dismissed the Trinidads
LRC/Civil Case to cancel both the adverse claim and annul the mortgage lien
upon their purchased lot/title.
It is very clear from the facts admitted by the Bulacan Court, that
complainant and the Trinidads offered admitted and unrebutted evidence, which
proved that the adverse claim and the mortgage must be cancelled/annulled,
especially since all the defendants failed to appear, cross-examine complainant
and present evidence.
Because of the respondents 2004 Motion to Dismiss all consolidated Cases
Nos. LRC P-405-98 & C.C. 938-M-98, and the supplemental complaint,
complainant and respondents clients the Trinidads, had to suffer the 5 years
delay amid the highly irregular dismissals of his and the Trinidads cases.
Not only that.
Complainant had to file several letters to the Bulacan Executive Judge (now
deceased) Petrita Braga Dime, so that these Bulacan court cases would be
decided by Judge Cruz. Since 2005, complainant started flooding the Executive
Judges office with letters pleading this matter of no decision in these
consolidated cases since 1998.
On January 29, 2008, complainant wrote Judge Dime to require Judge Cruz
to decide these cases. But Judge Cruz, due to accepted BRIBE money, refused,
since her hands were tied. So, complainant filed a Writ of Amparo case with the
Court of Appeals but Justices Edgardo Sundiam, Conrado Vasquez and Monina
Zenarosa ruled that complainant should rather file an administrative case
against Judge Cruz and her co-conspirator, Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson.
Vendetta: Judge Cruz dismissed the consolidated Cases Nos. LRC P-405-98
& C.C. 938-M-98, on mere technicality not even raised in the pleadings, despite
the fact that she ruled that all defendants failed to appear and rebut all the tons
of evidence presented by complainant. Thus, complainant filed a 350-pages
bribery administrative case against Judge Cruz and Ms. Joson.
Complainant timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Partial
Judgment penned by Judge Cruz. Meanwhile, as predicted verbally and in
writing, in the pleading called SUMPA (pages 1 and 2 of the Reply and Motion
for Reconsideration dated May, 2008), Judge Petrita Braga Dime+ died in pain
on July, 2008, while Justice Edgardo Sundiam+ who denied complainants
Amparo petition on June 5 and March 4, 2008 (and whose entire CA office was
burned months before on his last birthday celebration on this planet) died due to
lingering illnesses on February 3, 2009, after the husband+ of Judge Cruz died
8

of cancer-leukemia on 2005, while original Judge Roy D. Masadao,+ who


inhibited in these consolidated C.C. 938-M-98, died of cancer in 2006, and after
defendants Blancos lawyer, Atty. Rafael Santos+ died in 2003 before the P 100
million fire which obliterated the tannery of defendants Blancos.
It is very clear that until today, due to respondents violation of his lawyers
oath of office, the non-cancellation of the adverse claim and mortgage lien upon
his clients, the Trinidads purchased lot/title, resulted in the acquisition of
superior real rights over the title/lot by the adverse claimants, the spouses
Mariano and Ligaya Blanco, whose property rights were protected against the
Trinidads real rights over the subject title, which were rendered nugatory or
useless, by virtue of respondents violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
IN SUM, respondent acted in favor of Alfred and Ann, the children of his
clients, the Trinidads, who, until today, practically lost any and all rights over
the subject lot/title due to the outstanding adverse claim lien, still held by the
defendants Blancos.
Copies of the
*Joint Stipulation of Facts dated/filed on May 11, 1999 in the Bulacan Court
(admitted by the parties and admitted in evidence by Bulacan Court);
*TCT No. T-328106 (M), subject title/lot bought by and in the names of
spouses Alfredo & Florentina Trinidad, clients of respondent, with the
annotated 1998 adverse claim at the back of the title;
*KASUNDUAN dated March 30, 1998;
*Return of Service dated November 22, 2004, by Bulacan Court process server
Leo B. Evina, which proved the very sick/bedridden and 3 time stroke patient
Alfredo Trinidad, client of respondent Orquillas;
*Supplemental Manifestation with Attached Contract of attorney-client
relationship between the Trinidads and respondent, in the subject consolidated
Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M-98;
*CA Resolution and Entry of Judgment in complainants Writ of Amparo
Petition, dated March 4 and June 5, 2008;
*Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruzs Order dated September 3, 2008, AGAIN ruling
that all the 1998 consolidated Civil Cases Nos. P-405-98 & 938-M-98, were
deemed submitted ANEW for decision;
*Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruzs Request for Extension of Time to render
judgment, dated October 27, 2008,
and other pertinent documents are collectively ATTACHED and marked as
Annex C hereof.
RELIEF

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that


the instant VERIFIED DISBARMENT COMPLAINT / LETTER9

AFFIDAVIT [Under Rules 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia,
With - Motions - for Leave of Court to Admit this Complaint, for
PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution]
against respondent, Atty. Nye N. Orquillas, be duly GRANTED.
Further, it is respectfully prayed, that - after filing of respondents
COMMENT / ANSWER, and after due notice, hearing, and Report of the
Commissioner / Investigator, - judgment be rendered declaring Atty. Nye N.
Orquillas, GUILTY of all the charges and that supreme penalty of
DISBARMENT be imposed upon him, ordering that his name be stricken from
the Roll of Attorneys, and punished accordingly, under Rule 139-B, Revised
Rules of Court, inter alia.
Special Prayer:
Furthermore, petitioner most respectfully petitions this Court to
SUSPEND Atty. Nye Orquillas, pendent elite, from the practice of law,
indefinitely and until further orders from this Honorable Court, and that the
suspension should take effect immediately.
Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading, this 25th
March, 2009, at Malolos City , BULACAN.

day of

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,


Petitioner, on behalf of himself, by himself and as litigant,
123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos City, 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].

NOTICE
Hon. Salvador B. Hababag,
Commissioner, CBC, Integrated Bar of the Philippines

10

Please CONSIDER and INCLUDE the foregoing pleading in the


Deliberation and Resolution of the Honorable IBP, immediately upon receipt
hereof.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.
COPY FURNISHED:
Note and Explanation:
Due to lack of manpower and distance, this pleading was filed both by
registered mail with return card and LBC with return card at Malolos, Bulacan.
Undersigned had instructed his secretary Ms. Belen Gomez to furnish a
copy of this pleading upon Atty. Nye Orquillas,
Respondent,
2nd Flr., HIyas ng Bulacan Convention Center,
Capitol Compound Bldg.,
Capitolyo, Malolos City,
3000 Bulacan.

11

VERIFICATION & 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 this
pleading 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 on March 24, 2008, I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in
this DISBARMENT case Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant, - versus Atty. Nye
Orquillas , A.C. No. 7897, upon respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas, by personal service, at his
office address, 2nd Flr., RTC Compound Bldg., Capitolyo, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan, as
evidenced by the signature / initial receipt, as hereunder indicated, after his name and
address, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Rules of Court.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,


PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME, a Notary Public of Bulacan,
Philippines, Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., who SUBSCRIBED AND
SWORN to the foregoing document, and who avows under the PENALTY OF
LAW to the whole of the contents of the foregoing document, before me, on this
24th day of March, 2009, here at Malolos City , Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me
his CTC NO. CC12005 # 21783592, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 2-27, 2007.
I hereby certify that the affiant has been identified by the undersigned Notary
Public through competent Evidence of Identity, as follows:
Evidence of Identity: ___________________________
Which bears his picture and signature and basing on the same, his picture
appearing thereon is one and the same signature on this document.
DOC. NO. _____, PAGE NO. ____,
BOOK NO. ____, SERIES OF 2009.

BERNAR D. FAJARDO
12

Notary Public,
Until Jan.31, 2009,
PTR NO. 4591703, 1- 2,08,
Atty.s Roll No. 33633,
IBP OR # 708299, 1-2,08
Malolos City, Bulacan.

MCLE Compliance II-0011645, 8-1708


COPY FURNISHED:
(By Personal Service):
Atty. Nye Orquillas,
Respondent,
2nd Flr., HIyas ng Bulacan Convention Center,
Capitol Compound Bldg.,
Capitolyo, Malolos City,
3000 Bulacan

with the NOTICE I received on January 27, 2009, respectfully, states, that:
Jobless - Homeless - 8, 8, 8
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/52837/(Update)-Fire-hits-CA-main-office
Fire hits CA main office - July 26, 2007
A fire broke out Thursday at the main building of the Court of Appeals
along Maria Orosa Street in Ermita, Manila City. Radio station dzMM reported
that the blaze reportedly broke out at the room of Associate Justice Edgardo
Sundiam at the fourth floor.
13

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2009/feb/03/yehey/metro/20090203met5.html

CA mourns death of peer - Tuesday, February 03, 2009


THE Court of Appeals will have a sad day when it celebrates its 73rd
Anniversary owing to the sudden death on February 1, of one of their most
respected magistrates, Justice Edgardo Sundiam, due to lingering illness.
On March 4, 2008, the Philippine Court of Appeals Presiding Justice
Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Justices Edgardo P. Sundian & Monina ArevalaZenarosa, dismissed Floro's CA-G.R. Sp No. 00015, Writ of Amparo and
Habeas Data lawsuit against Malolos RTC Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz. On July,
2008, RTC Executive Judge Petrita Braga Dime's untimely demise was
mourned by the judiciary.
On January 29, 2008, Floro begged for mercy from Malolos City,
Bulacan Executive Judge, RTC, Br. 14, Hon. Petrita Braga Dime (University
of the Philippines College of Law Class '62 classmate of Minita Chico-Nazario,
Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Alicia Austria-Martinez, Reynato Puno, and
Malolos RTC, Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz WHO SIGNED THE DEATH OF
THE JUDICIAL CAREER OF JUDGE FLORO ON MARCH 31, 2006).
Undaunted, Floro appealed to the Court of Appeals by filing the January
30, 2008 Amparo lawsuit and supplemental disbarment case No. 7897 against
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Bulacan lawyer Nye Orquillas, who was
ordered to file Comment by the Supreme Court of the Philippines' Resolution
dated July 7, 2008. Meanwhile, Court of Appeals Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes
and Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas inhibited in the Amparo suit.
I. Admissions
Complainant cannot admit the allegations of respondents answer which
betray the TRUTH. Amid the pains of loosing his job and only ancestral home
and lot because of respondents actuations, complainant continues to suffer the
pains of 10 years delay of his civil and criminal persecutory lawsuits. In
addition, it was only on September 3, 2008, that the Malolos RTC, Br. 16 had
ordered complainants consolidated cases again for the nth time submitted for
decision, all because of the violation of his oath of office as lawyer by
respondent. For this, complainant hereby submits the CRITICAL FACTS which
reveal and unveil the TRUTH, nothing more, nothing less: in the following 100
pages, which undersigned painfully collected, collated and created in detail as
proof that respondent must be disbarred under the law and rules.
II. Stipulations
Though the papers of this case are voluminous, the FACT is so simple:
complainants ancestral house-lot was sold to spouses Trinidads and they
obliged themselves to pay the balance upon court order to cancel the annotated
adverse claim on the subject title they bought. Respondent appeared for the
Trinidads to defend their rights. Instead of winning the case, respondent,
14

conspiring with Mrs. Lerida Socorro-Joson and Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz,


(classmate of C.J. Puno, and the other 3 UP Class 62 S.C. Associate Justices)
and for the consideration of the bribe of about P 60,000.00, filed a motion to
dismiss not only the LRC case but even all the other cases not involved in his
lawyer-client relationship. Because of this, complainant suffered so much, lost
his only home-lot, where he was born in 1953 and lived until 1989. Not only
that. Despite the fact that none of the defendants in those consolidated civil
cases which respondent moved to dismiss, had appeared in court to submit
evidence, complainant lost the cases due to the bribe. After a series of
administrative cases filed by complainant against respondents co-conspirators,
Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz and Ms. Lerida Socorro-Joson, complainant until
this day, failed to smell even the elusive quality of JUSTICE. This is too much.
III. Issues
Complainant has raised the issues in the instant complaint and reproduces
these herein: whether of not respondent violated his oaths of office, and
therefore must be disbarred. Bold and daring, complainant adds: he will prove
this issues by his GODLY REPRISALS, since, it will unveil the truth.
RELIEF

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that


the

instant

COMPLIANCE

and

the

VERIFIED

DISBARMENT

COMPLAINT / LETTER-AFFIDAVIT [Under Rules 138 & 139-B, Revised


Rules of Court, inter alia, With - Motions - for Leave of Court to Admit this
Complaint, for PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION, Immediate Docketing and Early
Resolution] against respondent, Atty. Nye Orquillas, be duly NOTED,
ADMITTED, GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED.
Further, it is respectfully prayed, that - after filing of respondents
COMMENT / ANSWER, and after due notice, hearing, and Report of the
Commissioner / Investigator, - judgment be rendered declaring him GUILTY
of all the charges and that supreme penalty of DISBARMENT be imposed
upon him, ordering that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and
punished accordingly, under Rule 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia.
Special Prayer:
Furthermore, petitioner most respectfully petitions this Court to
SUSPEND Atty. Nye Orquillas, pendent elite, from the practice of law,

15

indefinitely and until further orders from this Honorable Court, and that the
suspension should take effect immediately.
Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading - letter-affidavitcomplaint, this 26th day of February, 2009, at Malolos City , BULACAN.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,
Complaint, on behalf of himself, by himself and as litigant,
123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos City, 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].

User:Florentino Floro/MyViralVideo
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Florentino_Floro

, si Mary Ann Deasis Osilleva, hindi kasal, ng 111 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan,
Malolos, 3000 Bulacan, Pilipino, matapos makapanumpa alinsunod sa batas,
ay nagsasaad, na:
Mahal na Chief Justice Puno, at Atty. Layusa,
1. Ako po ay naninirahan sa Looban, 111 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan,
Malolos, Bulacan, mula mga 1990, at noong mga 1993 nang ipanganak ko sa
Olongapo City, ang ika-3 anak namin ni Cris, na si Jamilo Osilleva (ngayon ay
3rd year High School na sa Negros) (ang panganay ko ay si Exequiel, na na kay
Cris, at pangalawa ay si Shaira, na pinaampon ko kay pinsan, Mary Jane, sa
Pasig City). Dahil wala akong salapi, at isang katulong-labandera, inampon
ng aking kapatid na si Joel Osilleva at asawang Marilyn Tahom, (092116

4599892) si Jamilo Osilleva, mula pagka-sanggol, at nanirahan kami sa Alido,


Malolos. Tricyle driver ang kapatid kong si Joel Osilleva at nagtrabajo sa
America, sa among isang Consultant, and asawa niya at ina ni Jamilo,na si
Marilyn Tahom, ng 7 taon humigit kumulang, hanggang umuwi siya ng 2006-7
at ngayon, ay naninirahan na sila ni Joel at Jamilo sa Negros.
2. Ako po ay pinanganak ng Disyembre 25, Pasko, 1966, sa Negros.
Dahil walang trabaho, napadpad ako sa Manila at nagkatulong noong mga
1988. Naging katulong ako ng ina ni Senator Dick Gordon noong mga 1990 at
doon sa Olongapo, at pinanganak ko doon ang 3 anak naming ni Cris, sa
Olongapo City. Ako ay nagtrabaho rin bilang saleslady sa Paper, Milrose
Bakery, at ngayon bilang katulong-labandera ng maraming mga amo, at ni
Philamlife Manager Tembong Sebastian, lahat sa Malolos, Bulacan.
3. Dahil mahal nila ang aking anak, mula sanggol pa nila inalagaan,
hanggang ngayon, at 100% tinustusan, pumayag ako na legalin ang ampunan,
kaya dumulog kami sa Malolos Korte at naghain ng petisyon tungkol dito at
pagamyenda ng Birth Certificate sa Olongapo City. Siningil kami ni Atty. Nye
Oquillas, at ang kabuuang naibayad namin sa kaniya at P 30,000 attorneys fees
mula ihain ang kaso sa Br. 13, RTC, Malolos, noong mga 2000 hanggang
madesisyonan ito. Kaya hinain ko ang kasong ito, o namin, ay upang si Jamilo
ay mabigyan ng magandang kinabukasan, dahil gusto kong maayos ang
kaniyang petition o visa sa USA, dadalhin siya doon ni Joel at Marilyn. Ako po
ay umupo at tumestigo sa Corte sa kasong ito. Subalit, pagdating ni Marilyn sa
Pilipinas noong 2006-7, napagalaman namin na hindi pala ayos ang papel sa
Korte, dahil walang Entry of Judgment na hinihingi sa amin, nang iFollowup
namin, sa mga opisyales o Opisina ng Gobyerno gaya ng NSO at Olongapo City
Municipal Registrar o Treasurers Office. Nagpunta kami sa RTC, Malolos Archive
Section, pero bigo kami, wala raw ang Record naming.

4. Kaya, ako, si Marilyn Tahom at si Belen Gomez (na kasambahay ko)


ay nagtungo sa opisina ni Atty. Nye Orquillas, kung saan, ang sikritarya niyang
Bakla-ngongo, ay pinahiram kami ng record, at pinaxerox namin. Tapos,
nagpunta uli kami kay Atty. Nye, kinabukasan, mga July, 2007, ito humigit
kumulang, at sinamahan kami ni Atty. Nye sa OIC, Ms. Arlene de la Cruz, ng
Br. 13, RTC, Malolos. Wala raw record at entry of judgment, kaya tinuro-turo
kami sa Archive Section, RTC, Malolo. Bigo rin kami, uli, walang documentong
makita sila, wala raw ang Expediente or Record ng buong kaso ni Jamilo Osilleva sa
Br. 13 at sa Archive Section at walang makitang Entry of Judgment.

5. Dahil dito, hiningan ako at si Marilyn ni Atty. Nye Oquillas ng P 5,000


na gastos daw niya para raw makuha ang Entry of Judgment, pareceive sa
Olongapo, Solicitor General at iba pang opisina, at gasoline, siya raw ang
personal na lalakad. Kaya, nagbayad kami sa kaniya ng P 100 kapalit ng isang
notaryadong papel na Ingles: na binibigyan daw ni Marilyn Tahom, ako, upang
iFollow-up ang kaso sa Br. 13, RTC, Malolos, dahil uuwi noon sa Negros sina
Marilyn. Handa na sana ang salapi kong P 5,000 subalit, hindi ko binigay kay
Atty. Nye Orquillas, dahil, titignan lang daw niya kung makukuha ko ang Entry
17

of Judgment, walang kasiguraduhan, kahit may hawak na akong Desisyon ng


Br. 13. Dahil dito, kami ng anak ko, si Jamilo, at Marilyn, ay BIGO, at
nasayang lang ang aming P 30,000 binayad kay Atty. Nye Orquilas, and
pagtestigo ko, at pagod, lakad, at mga pera, na pinagpaguran ni Marilyn sa
USA, dahil kahit isang Original or duplicate ng Desisyon, wala kaming hawak,
at wala ang Record ng kaso namin raw ang RTC Malolos at Archive. Dahil dito,
kami at and pamilya ni Jamilo ay nawalan ng pagasa at pagkakataong maayos
ang Birth Certificate, Passport at VISA, para makapunta sa USA.
DAHIL SA LAHAT NG ITO, dumudulog uli ako kay Atty. Nye
Orquillas, sa OIC ng Br. 13, Malolos, Bulakan, at sa Archive Section, RTC,
Malolos, at bibigyan ko sila ng 3 araw, mula Oktubre 2, 2008, na, alinsunod sa
ating mga BATAS, ibigay nila po sa akin ang a) Duplicate kopya ng Desisyon
sa kaso ni Jamilo, hawak ni Atty. Nye Orquillas, Xerox ng buong record ng
kaso, at b) Entry of Judgment, at c) kung wala silang maibibigay, dahil
naghintay na kami ng wala, tinuro-turo kung saan-saan, nagpahinog, mahigit
nang 1 taon na, mula July, 2007, ang CERTIFICATE OF NO RECORD, O,
CERTIFICATE OF LOST OR NO ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, O NO
DESISYON, O RECORD ng kaso, at nawawala ito, para maisumite ko sa
Office of the Bar Confidant, Office of the Court Administrator at Office of the
Chief Justice, Korte Suprema, at maisama sa maihahain kong mga Reklamo,
laban kay Atty. Nye Orquillas at iba pa.
Sertipikasyon:
Ako ay sumusumpa na, ang sulat-Petisyon-salaysay-reklamo na ito, ay
gawa ko, binasa ko, totoo lahat, may prueba akong mga dokumento, at
nagtanong-tanong ako, o asistado ng mga marunong sa batas.
Kalakip ditto bilang Annex A at parte nito ang kopya ng aking Cedula,
Voters ID, at litrato ko at ni Jamilo.
Gumagalang, ngayong ika-2 ng Oktubre, 2008, Malolos.
Mary Ann Deasis Osilleva,
111 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos,3000 Bulacan, (0927-7996642)
Nagrereklamo
BERIPIKASYON, SERTIPIKASYON AT SALAYSAY
Ako, si Mary Ann Deasis Osilleva, hindi kasal, ng 111 Dahlia, Alido,
Bulihan, Malolos, 3000 Bulacan, Pilipino, matapos makapanumpa alinsunod
sa batas, ay nagsasaad, na:
Ako ang nagreklamo sa kasong ito laban kay Atty. Nye Orquillas. Ang sulat-

petisyon-salaysay-reklamo na ito, ay gawa ko, binasa ko, pinirmahan ko, totoo


lahat nang nakasaad dito alinsunod sa alam ko or base sa mga totoong
documento, may prueba akong mga dokumento, at nagtanong-tanong ako, o
asistado ng mga marunong sa batas.

18

Sinesertipikahan ko na hindi ako nagdulog nang kahit anong kaso laban


kay Atty. Nye Orquillas, kahit saang Korte at iba pa, tungkol sa mga nakasaad
dito ni sa anomang tribunal o ahensya, at sa kaalaman ko, walang anomang
akson o kaso ang nakasampa ko, at kung malalaman ko, ay ipaaalam ko sa loob
ng 5 araw sa Korte at dito sa Korte Suprema ito mula pagkahain nito.
Sinesertipikahan ko rin, na binigyan ko ng isang kopya nito at annex nito
si Atty. Nye Orquillas sa opisina niya noong ika-2 ng Oktubre, 2008, ng kasong
ito Mary Ann Deasis Osilleva vs. Atty. Nye Orquillas, A.C. _____ personal,
at prueba ang tatak at pirma sa ibaba, ng opisina niya alinsunod sa Rule 13 at
iba pa, Rules of Court.
Mary Ann Deasis Osilleva,
111 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos,3000 Bulacan, (0927-7996642)
Nagrereklamo

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 2nd day of


October, 2008, here at Malolos City, Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me her CTC
NO. 20313488, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 9-30, 2008.
DOC. NO. 396, PAGE NO 81,
BOOK NO 76, SERIES OF 2008.

BERNAR D. FAJARDO
Notary Public,
Until Jan.31, 2009,
PTR NO. 4591703, 1- 2,08,
Atty.s Roll No. 33633,
IBP OR # 708299, 1-2,08
Malolos City, Bulacan.

COPY FURNISHED:
(By Personal Service):
Atty. Nye Orquillas,
Respondent,
2nd Flr., Hiyas ng Bulacan Convention Center,
Capitol Bldg., RTC Compound Bldg., Capitolyo,
Malolos City,
3000 Bulacan

19

Your Honors,
I, the undersigned petitioner, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under
oath, by MYSELF and for MYSELF, as litigant / complainant in this case, AND
WITH LEAVE OF THIS COURT, most respectfully depose and say, that:
CRITICAL AND UNDISPUTED FACTS
Bill of Particulars:
1. On September 28, 1998, undersigned filed with Br. 19, RTC, Malolos,
Bulacan, LRC P-405-98 petition to cancel adverse claim on TCT Nos.
T-328106- (M), T-316135(M), and T-316136 (M)-Bulacan; duplicate
original copy of pertinent pages 1, 4 & 5, of the Petition, copy of TCT
No. T-328106-(M), and the March, 1998 Affidavit of Adverse claim, are
respectively attached, as Annexes, A-1, and A-2 hereof;
2. On September 29, 1998, undersigned also filed with Br. 9, RTC, Malolos,
Bulacan, Civil Case No. 938-M-98 complaint to annul / cancel the
mortgage contract on said 3 titles; these twin suits were filed, in order to
clear or quiet the title, TCT Nos. T-328106-(M), inter alia, sold by
undersigned to LRC P-405 petitioners spouses Alfredo and Florentina
Trinidad; said spouses bought said lot from undersigned by virtue of a
KASUNDUAN dated 30 March, 1998, inter alia; undersigned was
thereby obliged to represent the spouses in Court, and they, in turn, were
bound to pay undersigned sums of money, upon court cancellation of said
adverse claim upon their title; duplicate original copy of pertinent pages

20

1, 6 & 7, of the Petition / complaint, and copy of the KASUNDUAN


are respectively attached as Annexes B and B-1 hereof;
3. Both cases were ordered submitted for decision on 17 June, 2005 and 22
September, 2004; duplicate originals of the Court orders are respectively
attached as Annexes C and C-1 hereof;
4. All defendants in said cases never cross-examined undersigned and they
also refused / failed to present evidence to rebut undersigneds admitted
testimonial and documentary evidence (Vide: Annexes C, C-1);
5. Despite repeated demands, however, the spouses Trinidads failed and
refused to pay undersigned the amount due on the contract; later,
undersigned discovered that LRC petitioner Alfredo Trinidad suffered a
stroke, while LRC petitioner, his wife, Florentina Trinidad suffered
lingering illnesses; further, their daughter Ann Trinidad was allegedly
swindled and separated from her spouse, while Anns daughter Bea
suffered great physical crab deformity of both legs; her brother Alfred
Trinidad was hooked on cock fighting; ergo, undersigned opted to file a
Supplemental pleading, to join them as co-defendants before judgment;
but considering that undersigned was appointed Judge on November 5,
1998, the Court ordered them to hire services of counsel;
6. Respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas (Orquillas, for brevily) appeared as
the counsel of LRC P-405 petitioners spouses Alfredo and Florentina
Trinidad; instead of asking the Court to cancel the adverse claim,
respondent, in bad faith, with badges of fraud, and with greatest malice,
for money and / or attorneys fees, did, unlawfully and feloniously, file a
Motion to Dismiss not only a) the collection or sum of money
supplemental case file

by undersigned against the Trinidads, but

respondent Atty. Orquillas even moved b) to dismiss both the above twin
cases filed by undersigned, on the sole and non-existent / false ground of
non-payment of docket fees; duplicate original of respondent Atty.
Orquillas 10 pages Motion to Dismiss dated 1 December, 2004, is
attached as Annex D hereof;
21

7. Respondent Atty. Orquillas deceived the lower Court by submitting


falsified Certificates of (alleged by him) required docket fees: which he
alleged must have been paid by undersigned a) P 103, 156 and b) P
94,278, inter alia; certified copies of the Office of Clerk of Court, RTC,
Malolos, Bulacan, assessment of docket fees for the above-twin cases are
attached as Annexes D-1and D-2 hereof;
8. Despite oral and written oppositions by undersigned, the lower court, on
February 24, 2004, dismissed these twin cases due to non-payment of
docket fees - specifically, undersigneds October, 1998 Amended Verified
Complaint and the supplemental pleading dated October 25, 2004; copy
of the Court dismissal order is attached as Annex E hereof;
9. Undersigned filed motions to reconsider, insisting on the payment of
correct docket fees; the Court made a FIRST turn around, and issued an
order, reversing the dismissal, and required undersigned to pay the docket
fees within a reasonable time; copy of the Court order dated September 7,
2005 is attached as Annex F hereof;
10. When the mortgage prescribed on January 6, 2006, and the defendants in
the twin cases failed to foreclose within the prescriptive period,
undersigned asked the lower court to cancel the adverse claim and to
annul the contract of mortgage; conjunctively, undersigned submitted
certified copies of his payments of correct / fully paid docket and all legal
fees for these twin cases; despite court orders for respondent Atty.
Orquillas to file comment / opposition, he disappeared; he miserably and
in bad faith, further failed and refused to file any pleading; he also failed
to appear in court as required by it, to contradict or deny undersigneds
accusations that he lied to the court, that he sold his clients case, and
that he allowed them to loose the case, so that undersigned would not be
paid based on the Kasunduan; and worst, respondent Atty. Orquillas
refused to cooperate to fight for his clients rights to have the adverse
claim cancelled so that the purchased lot / title would be made quiet;
certified copies of the OCC issued receipts are attached and marked
collectively, as Annex G,
22

11. Meanwhile, the Court made a SECOND turn around, reversing its latest
FIRST reconsideration order; on October 22, 2007, the Court admitted its
mistake, and ruled that undersigned already paid all the docket fees
(contrary to the lies submitted by respondent); it set the cases anew for
hearing; copy of the court Order is attached as Annex H hereof;
12. In a move to delay the cases, and to hide his overt acts of obstruction of
justice, respondent failed to appear and defend his clients, the
Trinidads title and rights; however, a new counsel appeared for different
defendants, spouses Mariano and Ligaya Blanco, and moved to dismiss
these cases on the ground that undersigned did not indicate his PTR
(Privilege Tax Receipt) and IBP O.R. number, in the pleadings; the court
however, denied the new motion as it noted and granted undersigneds
filed opposition grounded on the critical fact, that undersigned never
appeared as lawyer, but as mere litigant for himself; the court therefore,
on March 31, 2008, ordered the twin cases submitted for decision,
thereby reiterating its 2004 and 2005 Orders, and further ruling that these
cases were submitted for decision as of 2004 and 2005; duplicate original
copy of the Order is attached as Annex I hereof; BECAUSE OF
respondents false, sham and illegal / malicious pleadings which mislead
the court and delayed these cases (filed and tried in 1998, and submitted
for judgment on 2004 / 2005), undersigned, inter alia, suffered damages
(under Arts. 14, 15 and 6, inter alia, of the NCC) , malicious delays and
issuance of unjust interlocutory orders and resolutions.

The ACCUSATION / CHARGES


With Legal Argument and Memorandum of Law / Authorities
With due respect Undersigned complainant charges / accuses respondent Atty. Nye
Orquillas --- with ---

23

a. conduct unbecoming of a lawyer, gross ignorance of the law, indirect


contempt of court, contempt of court in facie curiae and of gross misconduct, as
an officer of the court and member of the Bar / legal profession, to wit:
Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides that a person may
be punished for indirect contempt for: (c) Any abuse of or any
unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court
not constituting direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule; (d) Any
improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct,
or degrade the administration of justice; xxx (Vide: NICOLAS O.
TAN vs. ATTY. AMADEO E. BALON, JR., August 31, 2007 A.C. No.
6483, YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: EN BANC)
Respondent, with malice and bad faith, due to lust for money, and corrupt
or evil motives, filed the frivolous, sham and false / prohibited pleading (Annex
D); he deliberately, willfully, and feloniously misled the lower court, by
submitting false certificates of required legal / docket fees, from the Clerk of
Court; specifically, he sold his clients case for money and financial gain, to let
them / the Trinidads, to have lost the case for quieting of their title; respondent
violated Article 171, par. 4, in relation to Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code
when he made untruthful statements in a narration of facts; by said act, he
allowed the prestige of the legal profession to be jeopardized; respondent also
violated:
Sec. 3. Signature and address. RULE 7, PARTS OF A PLEADING,
Revised Rules of Court - The signature of counsel constitutes a
certificate by him that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his
knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it;
and that it is not interposed for delay. Counsel, who deliberately signs
a pleading in violation of this Rule, shall be subject to appropriate
disciplinary action.
b. professional indiscretion, violation of oath of office and his duty as attorney
or counselor-at-law, which include the statutory grounds enumerated under Sec.
27 of Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court (Arrieta vs. Llosa, 282 SCRA 248),

24

including grossly unethical behavior, malice and bad faith in filing a sham and
false pleading, inter alia.
c. grave VIOLATIONS of --i.) Sec. 20 (a), Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court, including the Canons, to wit:
Respondent, like all other members of the bar, failed to live up to the
standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly
the following Canons, viz:
CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD
FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.
CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of
the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (Promulgated June 21, 1988)


CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY - CANON 1 - A LAWYER
SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL
PROCESSES.
CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND
SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

25

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY,
FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL
COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST
OPPOSING COUNSEL.
CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE
RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND
SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the
contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the
text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already
rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has
not been proved.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse
them to defeat the ends of justice.
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND
CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a
judgment or misuse Court processes.
CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS
CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL
WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or
threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage
in any case or proceeding.
Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the
course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall

26

promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall
terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of
Court.
Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in
handling the case.
in that respondent Atty. Orquillas miserably failed to be the embodiment of
competence, integrity, and independence; (due to his ardent desire and lust for
money and financial gain); he did not behave to promote public confidence in
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; he failed to follow the strict
mandates of Rules 138, Rules of Court, and the Bill of Rights, RULE OF
LAW, and due process.
These violations / acts and omissions of respondent definitely show him to
be wanting in moral character and probity / good demeanor or unworthy to
continue as officer of the Court, or unfit or unsafe person to enjoy the privileges
of attorneys or for conducts which tend to bring reproach on the legal
profession and to the High Tribunal, or to injure it in the favorable opinion of
the public. He clearly demonstrated attitudes and courses of conduct wholly
inconsistent with the approved professional standards, of having failed to live
up to his duties as lawyer in consonance with the strictures of the lawyers oath,
the cited Canons and Codes, thereby having occasioned unwarranted sufferings,
humiliations and hardships on the undersigned and on his ailing clients,
Trinidads. He was propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions, coupled
with greed and lust for MONEY, having failed in conscientiously seeing to it
that justice permeates every aspect of her duties and profession, in conformity
with the avowed duties of worthy members and officers of the Bar and the
Bench.
Petitioner respectfully cited the foregoing norms, code and laws, to
support his contention that a) the decision in the subject twin cases should
have been rendered and released on December 23, 2004 / 2005, at the very
least; b) and respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas is accordingly liable under these
laws, civilly, (under Articles 14, 15 and 16, New Civil Code, inter alia)

27

criminally and administratively, due to palpable obstruction of justice and


delay of petitioners cause / cases, because of the resultant unjust and unlawful
orders which stopped the judgments issuance as of December 23, 2004.
Petitioner's constitutional rights to due process of law and property were
violated when respondent disobeyed the Constitutional provisions, Code of
Professional Responsibility, Revised Penal Code, Rule 139-B, 139 and 140,
Rules of Court, inter alia.
Burning issue Respondent, for money, delayed these cases for 3 years
Urgent and compelling - chilling effect on litigants' and lawyers' recourse
to the Courts first and foremost cause of extra-judicial killings
Respondents acts and omissions have far-reaching consequences,
because every litigant especially the pauper and less privileged have to worry
that he or she may be forced to pay huge sums or bribes to magistrates in the
Bulacan Bulwagan ng Katarungan, specifically to the a) MAGICIANS b)
CARDIOLOGISTS c) and Marilao, Bulacan LATIAN fixers, inter alia.
Petitioner believes in the Supreme Courts long history of vigilance on
this matter of paramount import. Petitioner cites authority:
Judicial corruption
On January 25, 2005, and on December 10, 2006, Philippines Social
Weather Stations released the results of its 2 surveys on corruption in the
judiciary; it published that: a) like 1995, 1/4 of lawyers said many/very many
judges are corrupt. But (49%) stated that a judges received bribes, just 8%
of lawyers admitted they reported the bribery, because they could not prove
it. [Tables 8-9]; judges, however, said, just 7% call many/very many judges
as corrupt[Tables 10-11];b) "Judges see some corruption; proportions who
said - many/very many corrupt judges or justices: 17% in reference to RTC
judges, 14% to MTC judges, 12% to Court of Appeals justices, 4% i to
Shari'a Court judges, 4% to Sandiganbayan justices and 2% in reference to
Supreme Court justices [Table 15].1

Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Extrajudicial_Killings_and_Desaparecidos#Judicial_
corruption
1

28

Petitioner runs to this Honorable Court with urgent and compelling


reasons: since the filing of these twin cases on 1998, undersigned was always
present in the lower court hearings or trials, while all defendants never
appeared; these cases were ordered submitted for decision on 2004 / 2005; but
suddenly, respondent MISLED the court, and maliciously delayed these cases
for 3 years. If petitioner (as lawyer, judge, world-famous prophet, psychic,
healing magistrate, a Second Honors Ateneo alumni and 1983 Bar Exams, 12th
placer, 87.55%) could not obtain justice in his own town and province, for he
could hardly, by any legal means (including scholarly written and filed court
pleadings) obtain justice per the Bulacan RTC rule of law, how can an ordinary
mortal / litigant, unlike undersigned, fight in the lowest / local courts of law?
Twin killing of COMELEC law department chiefs Alioden Dalaig and
Wynne Asdala
Bakit po ba ang dami ng EJ killings and Desaparecidos? Bakit pinapatay
and mga abogado? Lately the COMELEC lost its 2 law department chiefs. It is
because of corruption in courts, per SWS surveys of 1995 / 2005: the UN Philip
Alston and FIDH Reports, the Eric G. John and G. Eugene Martin Testimonies
on March 14, 2007 at the USA Senate point to judicial corruption as ROOT of
all extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances:
Recent Events
* Twin horrible deaths happened on / circa the same day last year, January 15,
2007, that the Supreme Court of the Philippines' (logo or seal) was mysteriously burned into
halves by an almost one hour afternoon fire.[87][88] Despite different appeals by local and
international groups, the spate of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines continued. On
January 15, 2008, Reynato Puno condemned the murder of Judge Roberto Navidad,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Calbayog City, Samar, the 15th judge to be ambushed
since July 20, 1999, the 14th under the Arroyo government. On Tuesday, Catholic missionary
Rey Roda, Oblates of Marry Immaculate (OMI), 54, was shot dead at 8:30 p.m., when he
resisted abduction attempt by unidentified 10 armed men in a chapel at ikud Tabawan village,
South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, South Ubian. In February 1997, another OMI leader, Bishop
Benjamin de Jesus was shot dead in front of the Jolo cathedral.[90] In 2006, the Asian
Human Rights Commission stated that there had been 26 priests, pastors, and churchmen
who were liquidate or were victims of violence under the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
29

administration since 2001.[91] This includes 3 priests who were reported killed just in
2007: Basilio Bautista of the Iglesia Filipina Reform Group, in Surigao del Sur, Indonesian
priest Fransiskus Madhu, in Kalinga province, and Catholic priest Florante Rigonan, in
Ilocos Norte.[92]
* On March 14, 2008, Filipino lawyer Edre Olalia (lead officer of the National
Union of Peoples Lawyers and the Counsels for the Defense of Liberties) brought the
Philippine case and appealed to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), in its
7th Geneva session "to stop the extrajudicial killings and abductions in the Philippines".
Philippines killings will be examined in the first UNHRC session, periodic review from April
7 to 18, along with those in 15 others of 192 member-countries.2

Shocking to the conscience of the Bulacan courts, respondent maliciously


misled the lower court / Judge Thelma Pinero-Cruz, resulting in his flagrant
violation of the Constitution which he swore as lawyer, to obey, defend and
implement, in the end that he would not delay a mans / litigants cause for
money, inter alia. Petitioner cites the fundamental law:
Section 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this
Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from
date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the
Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three
months for all other lower courts. (2) A case or matter shall be deemed
submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading,
brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.
(4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court,
without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in
consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted
thereto for determination, without further delay.

Critical Facts Detailed narration of respondents DELAY of the cases and


the consequential reversal by Judge Thelma of Orders, to release the
Decision long overdue since 2004 / 2005

Consolidated cases C.C. No. 938-M-98 and P-405-98 were filed on


September 28 / 29, 1998 by petitioner with Brs. 9 and 19, RTC, Malolos,
Bulacan; the parties submitted to the court stipulations of admitted exhibits
and facts with comments and objections, plus the direct testimony of
undersigned in 1998.
2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Extrajudicial_Killings_and_Desaparecidos#Recent_Events

30

These cases were raffled initially in 1998 to Brs. 9, 19, 80 and in 2004
to Br. 16, where they were tried, heard and submitted for decision on
September 22, 2004 and June 17, 2005; certified copies of the Orders dated
September 22, 2004 and June 17, 2005, issued and signed by Judge Thelma P.
Cruz are attached as Annexes C and C -1, respectively hereof.
On February 24, 2005, Judge Thelma dismissed all these 2 consolidated
cases upon motion (Annex D) by respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas (counsel of
the LRC petitioners spouses Alfredo and Florentina Trinidad; this counsel
maliciously caused the loss of the case of his clients Trinidads; petitioner, twice
reserved his right to file disbarment case against respondent attorney), due to
alleged non-payment of docket fees by undersigned on amended complaint filed
on 1998 / 1999; but Judge Thelma found her glaring error; ergo, she rectified
the same, reversing herself, thereby granting undersigneds Motion for
Reconsideration, giving undersigned reasonable time to pay docket fees on the
amended complaint - Interlocutory Order of September 7, 2005; (Vide Annexes
E to I).
Judge Thelma P. Cruz, knowing the glaring mistake, and comprehending
that she rendered the foregoing UNJUST resolutions in violation of the
Revised Penal Code / the Canons of Judicial Ethics, inter alia, reversed herself
for the second time: undersigned submitted certified copies of document parts of the records, which proved payment of docket and all legal fees on the
subject amended complaint; in the Order dated 22 October, 2007, Judge Thelma
ruled that undersigned really paid the docket fees. She issued the final ruling on
March 31, 2008, ordering AGAIN these 10 years cases SUBMITTED for
decision AS OF 2004 / 2005. (Vide Annexes E to I);
P 80,000 CASH paid to Atty. Nye Orquillas by Alfred Trinidad, son of LRC
Petitioners Florentina and Alfredo Trinidad
Meanwhile, undersigned, by accident, discovered the corruption of the
cases to delay undersigneds twin suits, perpetrated by respondent upon / at Br.
16, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, to wit:

31

When undersigned ordered Ms. Belen Gomez (secretary of undersigned,


at Alido, Malolos, Bulacan) to clear the fighting cocks and dirt at the road rightof-way of the subject land of these consolidated cases (owned by undersigned at
Calvario, Meycauayan, Bulacan), Mr. Alfred Trinidad (son and representative
of the MASSIVE stroke patient therein LRC petitioner Alfredo Trinidad and his
spouse co-petitioner very ill Mrs. Florentina Trinidad) demanded P 80,000
reduced to P 60,000 from undersigned (per verbal request / imposition to Belen
Gomez at a merienda in Jolibee, Poblacion, Meycauayan, Bulacan, last year) as
causa / consideration, for removal of the interference / nuisance; Mr. Alfred
Trinidad stated that Yan ang nagastos namin sa kaso stating in no
uncertain terms the payment to respondents counsel Atty. Nye Orquillas (who
merely filed a 10 pages Motion to Dismiss, Annex B, at that time); the other
pertinent rules, circulars and laws violated by respondents are cited hereunder
for reference purposes:
CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH
ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to
attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in
presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client has,
in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or
tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing
which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the
Rules of Court.
Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure
in handling the case.

RELIEF

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that


the instant VERIFIED DISBARMENT COMPLAINT / LETTERAFFIDAVIT [Under Rules 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia,
With - Motions - for Leave of Court to Admit this Complaint, for
32

PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution]


against respondent, Atty. Nye Orquillas, be duly NOTED, ADMITTED,
GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED.
Further, it is respectfully prayed, that - after filing of respondents
COMMENT / ANSWER, and after due notice, hearing, and Report of the
Commissioner / Investigator, - judgment be rendered declaring him GUILTY
of all the charges and that supreme penalty of DISBARMENT be imposed
upon him, ordering that his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and
punished accordingly, under Rule 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia.
Special Prayer:
Furthermore, petitioner most respectfully petitions this Court to
SUSPEND Atty. Nye Orquillas, pendent elite, from the practice of law,
indefinitely and until further orders from this Honorable Court, and that the
suspension should take effect immediately.
Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading - letter-affidavitcomplaint, this 2nd day of May, 2008, at Malolos City , BULACAN.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,
Petitioner, on behalf of himself, by himself and as litigant,
123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos City, 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].

NOTICE
TO: Atty. Christina Layusa,
The Office of the Bar Confidant,
Atty. Ma. Luisa Villarama / Atty. Felipa Anama,
The Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, Manila,
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.,
VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
& AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

33

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 disbarment action or filed any
administrative or other claim against respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas, involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and to the best of my knowledge, no
such other action or claim is pending therein, 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 May 2, 2008, I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in this
DISBARMENT case Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant, - versus Atty. Nye
Orquillas , A.C. No. _______, upon respondent Atty. Nye Orquillas, by personal service, at
his office address, 2nd Flr., RTC Compound Bldg., Capitolyo, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan,
as evidenced by the signature / initial receipt, as hereunder indicated, after his name and
address, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Rules of Court.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,


SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 2nd day of May, 2008, here
at 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 2008.

BERNAR D. FAJARDO
Notary Public,
Until Jan.31, 2009,
PTR NO. 4591703, 1- 2,08,
Atty.s Roll No. 33633,
IBP OR # 708299, 1-2,08
Malolos City, Bulacan.

COPY FURNISHED:
(By Personal Service):
Atty. Nye Orquillas,
Respondent,
2nd Flr., RTC Compound Bldg.,
Capitolyo, Malolos City,
3000 Bulacan
and
Judicial and Bar Council,
c/o the SECRETARIAT, Supreme Court, Manila
34