ChanRobles Virtual law Library

A.M. No. 2006-24-SC. November 14, 2006]

JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR. v. MRS. MARILYN PUNO SANTIAGO AND JASMIN MATEO

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV. 14, 2006 .

A.M. No. 2006-24-SC (Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. v. Mrs. Marilyn Puno Santiago and Jasmin Mateo)

x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

For consideration are the Verified Complaint/Letter-Affidavit dated August 25, 2006 and Verified Another/Supplemental Complaint/Letter-Affidavit (sic) dated September 1, 2006 filed by former Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. against two court personnel from the Office of Senior Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno of this Court.

While this Court, in cases of this nature, would normally have proceeded to a statement of relevant facts and allegations, it bears noting early on that the complaint is couched in such obscure language as to render that task very difficult, if not impossible.

Parenthetically, it may be recalled that, earlier this year, this Court, in Office of the Court Administrator v. Floro, ^[1] cralaw relieved herein complainant of his duties as a trial judge. Cited among the grounds for his relief were complainant's unusual beliefs which were "at odds with the critical and impartial thinking required of a judge under our judicial system." Thus, this Court noted:

Moreover, Judge Floro himself admitted that he believes in "psychic visions," of foreseeing the future because of his power in "psychic phenomenon." He believes in "duwendes" and of a covenant with his "dwarf friends Luis, Armand and Angel." He believes that he can write while on trance and that he had been seen by several people to have been in two places at the same time. . . . ^[2] cralaw (Emphasis supplied)

Regrettably, the complaint displays vagueness of expression and want of logical thought that it may be described as bearing a trance-like character. Consider, inter alia, the following statement in the complaint:

"Respondents Jasmin Mateo's and Marilyn Puno Santiago's formidable Lust for Power and Glory --- brought them not to the Land of Fantasy, not to Never Land, not to the Island of the Fairies, but to the Enchanted Kingdom of the 3 Mystic and Healing Dwarves --- They would try anything just to . . . They wanted to look inside the CRYSTAL BALL of Luis Armand and Angel[.]" ^[3] cralaw (Underscoring, emphasis, and ellipsis in the original)

The surreal frame in which the complaint was crafted is heightened by the several pictures, printed in full color, interspersed therein, none of which contributes to clearing the obscurity. In one page of the complaint, for instance, there are three pictures: two appear to be logos or seals bearing the Latin word "veritas," while the other seems to be a cover of a foreign religious comic book bearing the title "Veritas". ^[4] cralaw While they almost fill up an entire page, the pictures appear to have no relevance other than complainant's mention of the word "veritas" somewhere in the complaint.

Add to these pictures of clouds and flowers, icons of Mary and St. Peter, pictures of Mahatma Gandhi, Edu Manzano and Justice Sabino de Leon, the logo of a restaurant, a cartoon character, etc., and one would look at the complaint as more reminiscent of a dream-like stream of consciousness than a seriously drafted pleading for the Supreme Court, or any court of justice for that matter.

To consider the complaint any further would only waste precious time which this Court can more fruitfully devote to cases of significance and more pressing urgency.

The complaint must thus be dismissed outright.

WHEREFORE, the Verified Complaint/Letter-Affidavit dated August 25, 2006 and Verified Another/Supplemental Complaint/Letter-Affidavit dated September 1, 2006 are DISMISSED.

Puno, J., no part.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 66.

^[2] cralaw Id. at 135.

^[3] cralaw Verified Another/Supplemental Complaint/Letter-Affidavit, p. 7.

^[4] cralaw Id. at 5.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011