2009 Global Corruption Barometer: Judicial corruption - Bulacan-Olongapo Judges Dismissed
An earlier survey showed that only seven percent of Filipinos believe that the Judiciary is affected by corruption, according to the 2009 Global Corruption Barometer, which had conducted survey among 73,132 respondents across 69 countries.
Global Corruption Barometer
http://download.repubblica.it/pdf/2009/GCB2009.pdf
Judicial corruption
GSIS-Meralco bribery case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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].
Dire Prophecy and Administrative Charge
On July 20, 1999 Judge Floro's Justice Alfredo Benipayo's Indefinite preventive suspension memorandum of charges stated that Judge Floro berated the judiciary. Judge Floro allegedly said that the Judiciary is 85% corrupt.
On July 20, 2002 2004 2005, Judge Floro in writing submitted to the Court CURSED Ateneo Law School classes 1980 to 1989, the entire judiciary including Malolos Regional Trial Court Judges, among others.
On August 2005 Judge Floro filed an anonymous complaint called "Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan vs Judge Pornillos." The Supreme Court sustained Judge Floro's charge that Judge Pornillos borrowed money from her litigants.
Judge Floro's classmate Judge Ramon Caguioa was dismissed also, hereunder:
YouTube - florentinofloro's Channel
YouTube - florentinofloro2's Channel
YouTube - judgefloro's Channel
YouTube - judgefloro4's Channel
Supreme Court of the Philippines
Judge Florentino Floro, Philippines' Martyr-Patron Saint of Psychotic-Crab Mentality Justices
May 23, 2008; at Capitol View, Malolos City, Bulacan, Philippines - Judge Saint Florentino Floro, Filipino Martyr-Patron Saint of Psychotic-Crab Mentality Justices: the Living CURSE of the 68 months July 20, 1999 Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo, Indefinite Preventive Suspension, upon the entire Philippine Judiciary, Ateneo Law School Classes '80 to '85, Wikipedia-Wikinews Editors-Administrators, and all the enemies, detractors, persecutors and nemesis of Canonized Saint Florentino Floro with holy angels LUIS, Armand and Angel
Judge Florentino Floro, Moral Farce: Rule of Law - Corruption in Philippine Judiciary
YouTube - Dwarf Judge Florentino Floro, Moral Farce: Rule of Law - Corruption in Philippine Judiciary
YouTube - Dwarf Chief Justice Florentino Floro: The CURSE of LUIS, Armand and Angel
YouTube - Judge Florentino Floro, Philippines' Martyr-Patron Saint of Psychotic-Crab Mentality Justices
Reporter
Florentino Floro (judgefloro) on Twitter
Cash-strapped judge sacked for borrowing money
Cash-strapped judge sacked for borrowing money
Court News FlashJuly 2009 SC Dismisses “Borrower” Judge
Posted: July 8, 2009 By Jay B. Rempillo
A judge shalt not borrow cash or property from a subordinate nor from lawyers or litigants in one’s sala or face the severe penalty of dismissal from service. The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed a Regional Trial Court judge for borrowing P5,000 from a lawyer who had at least two cases pending before her sala. It was also found that the said judge had also obtained loans from court personnel. In a 22-page per curiam decision, the Court found Judge Victoria Villalon-Pornillos of Malolos City Regional Trial Court, Branch 10 guilty of violating paragraph 7, section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court (borrowing money from a lawyer in a case pending before her court) which also constitutes a gross misconduct for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, aggravated by, inter alia, undue delay in rendering decisions or orders and violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars. The High Court also ordered the forfeiture of all her retirement benefits except accrued leave credits and her perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government.
“That the loans had already been paid or waived by the creditors do not detract from the fact that certain prohibitions were violated….There is a standing legal proscription on ‘borrowing money by superior officers from subordinate,’ a violation of which is punishable, under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service….More severely prohibited is the serious charge of ‘borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case pending before the court,” the Court said. In imposing the maximum penalty of dismissal, the Court noted that it was the third time that Judge Pornillos has been administratively charged. “Considering that [Judge Pornillos] is not a first-time offender and taking into account respondent’s less serious violations as aggravating circumstance, the Court imposes the penalty of dismissal for service…Those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity have no place in the Judiciary. The various violations of respondent reflect a totality of transgressions of one who no longer deserves a seat in the bench. This Court will not withhold penalty when called for to uphold the people’s faith in the Judiciary,” the Court ruled.
The case stemmed from the administrative complaint filed in August 2005 by the Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan who had accused respondent judge of graft and corruption by “fixing” cases and “selling” decisions or orders and alleged illicit relationships with her driver and bodyguards. After investigating the matter, the Office of the Court Administrator found that the allegations of corruption and extortion, or even the illicit amorous relationships were hearsay. However, the OCA confirmed that Judge Pornillos had indeed obtained loans from court personnel and lawyers. The High Court subsequently ordered an investigation by a judicial audit team which in turn found that Judge Pornillos, among others, had not been promptly acting on several cases.
However, it dismissed OCA’s earlier conclusion that Judge Pornillos has no longer any administrative liability for the loans she had obtained from court personnel and lawyers. The Court held that she had violated certain prohibitions and it does not matter whether the loans had been paid or waived. The High Court found that respondent judge also failed to fulfill the duties to “dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods,” to “diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, and facilitate the performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court personnel,” and to “organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.”(AM No. RTJ-09-2183, Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan v. Judge Villalon-Pornillos, July 7, 2009)
Supreme Court of the Philippines
Court News Flash June 2009 SC Dismisses Judge, Sanctions Lawyer
Posted: June 29, 2009 By Jay B. Rempillo
The Judiciary’s relentless effort to purge its ranks has claimed another casualty in the person of an Olongapo City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge. The Supreme Court has dismissed the Judge Ramon S. Caguioa, presiding judge of the Olongapo City RTC, Branch 74, for gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. In a 31-page per curiam consolidated decision, the Court also ordered the forfeiture of Judge Caguioa’s retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits. Judge Caguioa was faulted for his erroneous issuances of writ of preliminary injunctions in cases pending before his sala. “Ignorance of the law is the mainspring of injustice. Judges are called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules. Basic rules should be at the palm of their hands their inexcusable failure to observe basic laws and rules will render them administratively liable,” the Court said.
The first administrative case stemmed from the civil case Indigo Distribution Corp. Inc v. Secretary of Finance filed before Judge Caguioa’s court. Indigo, et al., importers and traders licensed to operate inside the Subic Bay Freeport Zone, have been granted by Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) certificates of registration and tax exemptions.Indigo, et al. filed a case before Judge Caguioa’s sala when SBMA, pursuant to RA 7227 (An Act Accelerating the Conversion of Military Reservations into Other Public uses, Creating the Bases Conversion and Development Authority for this Purpose, Providing Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes), subsequently required them to pay corresponding duties and taxes on their importation of cigars, cigarettes, liquors and wines. Judge Caguioa granted Indigo’s petition for the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction and approved the injunction bond amounting to PhP1 million for all petitioners. During the pendency of Republic’s appeal before the High Court, Judge Caguioa granted various ex parte motions for interventions of different corporations claiming to be similarly situation with Indigo and allowed them to ride on the injunctive bond posted by Indigo. The High Court subsequently declared the assailed order of judge null and void citing for grave abuse of discretion.
The High Court ruled that taxes are the lifeblood of the government and it is of public interest that the collection of which should not be restrained. It held that the applicants for the writ showed no clear and unmistakable right that was material and substantial to warrant the issuance of writ, nor the urgency and necessity of such. Worst, Judge Caguioa, in his issuance of the said writ, had failed to observe due process when the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the Republic, was not served copies of the motions for intervention. In a similar case, Judge Caguioa erroneously issued a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction in the petition for mandamus filed by District Collector of Customs in the Port of Subic Andres D. Salvacion, Jr. against his then would-be replacement Gracia Z Caringal, et al. Subsequently, he enjoined the CIR and the Finance Secretary to observe and respect his issuances. On appeal, the CA ruled that Judge Caguioa should have dismissed the case for improper venue. The CA said that the petition for mandamus, which relates to the acts of officers, must be filed in the RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area covering said officers, which in this case was Manila because the main office of Commission was in Manila.
The High Court said that Judge Caguioa’s issuance of the writ in the above case did not satisfy the legal requisite for its issuances and was enforced outside his territorial jurisdiction. It upheld the CA ruling that the applicant had failed to establish that he has a clear and unmistakable right that was violated so as to warrant the issuance of an injunction. Judge Caguioa was also found guilty of simple misconduct and ordered suspended from office without pay for three months in a third administrative case which stemmed from another civil case. The case against his co-respondent Sheriff Christopher T. Perez, however, was dismissed for lack of merit. The Court said Sheriff Perez cannot be faulted for implementing a writ of execution pursuant to Judge Caguioa’s order.
The High Court held that Judge Caguioa did not adjudicate any rights of the parties and resolved no other matter except the dismissal of the case on the ground of prescription. Thus, his order to place private respondents in possession of the disputed property is not necessarily included in or necessary to the judgment of the dismissal of the case on the ground of “prescription.” The High Court said that the execution was highly improper because of the fact that Judge Caguioa has been apprised of the pendency of the reversion suits filed by the Republic involving the same parcels of land in another Olongapo RTC.
In a separate decision, the Court has revoked the notarial commission of Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana and disqualified him from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two years. Likewise, he was suspended from the practice of law for six months effectively immediately and was warned that a repetition of the same would be dealt more severely.
An earlier survey showed that only
seven percent of Filipinos believe that the Judiciary is affected by corruption, according to the 2009 Global Corruption Barometer, which had conducted survey among 73,132 respondents across 69 countries.
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno has attributed this opinion of the courts to the Judiciary’s relentless efforts in cleansing its ranks. Efforts, such as the Strengthening the Integrity of the Judiciary (SIJ) Project, to restore the credibility of the Judiciary and increase the public trust in it has been a priority under the Chief Justice’s watch. (AM No. RTJ-07-2063, Republic v. Judge Caguioa; AM No. RTJ-07-2064, CIR v. Judge Caguiao; AM No. RTJ-07-2066, Burns Jr. v. Judge Caguioa; AC No. 7036, Judge Laquindanum v. Atty. Quintana, June 26, 2009)
July 9
Since I was born on Nov 5 1953, today, July 9 is the most important day of my life ever. This proves that a) after 150 years of the world spectacles at Lourdes repeated in 1917 Fatima, Portugal to 3 children amid the 3 dire secrets, LUIS, Armand and Angel are mere servants and members of Mary's Army w/ the Luminous Cross and Eucharist amid the twin Hearts of Jesus and Mary. The magic of twitters
Florentino Floro (judgefloro) on Twitter allows me to faithfully inscribe and share to the world my visions, travels and the APPARITION.
"July 9 Thursday 9am as pure skeptic my luck was pushed to limits. I was bestowed vision of heaven, a place of light, green pasture, repose, of distinct layers/levels (John 14:2): just "heaven" 2nd as "paradise" & 3rd as "the city". I traveled inside 19th century house & trembled w/ fear. I saw a different sky, so vast, horizon, no stars, no clouds but not dark. I then missed by half the first vision of a divine being, multi-colored more than a prism or electromagnetic spectrum, indescribable. Then, like a fast slide show in the internet, I saw successive visions 10 times more intense, clearer and more real than IMAX or Samsung LED TV and I only recall the biggest CROSS ever w/ Christ's linen to pull him down Good Friday. I heard faint audible angelic HARP, kring kring kring. I saw most beautiful Our Lady of Lourdes w/ blue girdle, who 150 years ago on Feb 11 1858 appeared to St. Marie-Bernarde Soubirous. I saw the splendor of white-yellow lights & several beings who covered the vision. I was not able to see the last for I was blinded by the light."
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=291975074
User:Judgefloro - Wikimedia Commons
https://share.acrobat.com/adc/adc.do...c-99c75c560238
https://share.acrobat.com/adc/adc.do...7-21486be08236
https://share.acrobat.com/adc/adc.do...3-fba1cd2c77ed
https://share.acrobat.com/adc/adc.do...b-aeb767dc0792
De La Salle University Library /All Locations
Blogger: User Profile: Judge Florentino Floro
ANGEL OF DEATH, LUIS ARMAND and ANGEL
Pictures by judgefloro - Photobucket
Friendster - Florentino's Photos - Subic_florentino_jr.jpg
Flickr: judgefloro's Photostream
YouTube - judgefloro's Channel
https://share.acrobat.com/adc/adc.do...c-ff996b925587
2009 Global Corruption Barometer: JudicialCorruption Bulacan-Olongapo JudgesDismissed
Reply With Quote
