Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49755:am-rtj-99-1460-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 21:56:40+00:00

Document:
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460, A.M. No. 99-7-273-RTC and A.M. No. RTJ-06-1988 - Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr./Resolution Dated 11 May 1999 of Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr./Luz Arriego v. Judge F. Floro, Jr.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner, v. JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Respondent.
Re: RESOLUTION DATED 11 MAY 1999 OF JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.
LUZ ARRIEGO, Petitioner, v. JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Respondent.
5) DISMISS the charge in A.M. No. 99-7-273-RTC (Re: Resolution Dated 11 May 1999 of Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.) for MOOTNESS.
Subsequent thereto, on three separate dates,1 Judge Floro filed three Partial Motions for Reconsideration as well as supplements thereto.
In obvious disregard of the aforementioned directive, Judge Floro filed several more pleadings, i.e., "Verified Letter/Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court to Admit and Grant the (a) Second Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's Decision dated 31 March 2006 and (b) Conjunctive Omnibus Motion; Verified Complaint/Letter-Affidavit with Memorandum of Law/Authorities, and Urgent Prayer for Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution dated 25 August 2006;" and "Verified Another/Supplemental Complaint/Letter-Affidavit with Memorandum of Law/Authorities, and Urgent Prayer for Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution dated 1 September 2006."
In a Resolution dated 26 September 2006, the Court En Banc resolved to treat the Verified Complain/Letter Affidavit and Verified Another/Supplemental Complaint/Letter-Affidavit as separate matters from the subject case.
which the Court En Banc, in essence, expunged9 from the records of the case at bar in view of its signed Resolution dated 11 August 2006 wherein it already resolved to deny with finality Judge Floro's Partial Motions for Reconsideration as well as the Supplements thereto, for lack of merits.
The Court had already thoroughly studied the present case. Likewise, it had meticulously reviewed each and every evidence on record when it rendered its 31 March 2006 Decision and 11 August 2006 Resolution. Seeing that Judge Floro failed to present, and continuously fails to present, any meritorious argument or substantial evidence in support of the various pleadings he has filed thereafter, We were constrained to deny them.
In this Resolution, We wish to remind Judge Floro that the Court cannot be swayed to modify or reverse its Decision and various Resolutions by inundating the ponente with numerous pleadings avowing ungodly reprisal as well as personal letters/telephone calls seeking audience with the latter, if, as in this case, they are only in furtherance of repeating issues and arguments already passed upon by the Court En Banc's earlier Decision and Resolution. Otherwise stated, only meritorious arguments and substantial evidence can convince Us to modify or reverse our previous ruling.
Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must therefore guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them.
While the denial of a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order is normally accompanied by the modifier, "final," or "with finality," there may be a denial not so qualified. That is of no consequence. By no means may it be taken as indicating any uncertainty or indecisiveness on the part of the Court regarding its denial of reconsideration, or an encouragement or expectation of a second motion for reconsideration. The modifier serves simply to emphasize the import and effect of the denial of the motion for reconsideration, i.e., that the Court will entertain and consider no further arguments or submissions from the parties respecting its correctness; that in the Court's considered view, nothing more is left to be discussed, clarified or done in the case, all issues raised having been passed upon and definitely resolved, and any other which could have been raised having been waived and no longer being available as ground for a second motion. A denial with finality stresses that the case is considered closed.
Apart from the original directive in its Resolution of March 1, 1995, the Court twice reiterated the admonition that no further pleadings, motions or papers should be filed in these cases, except only as regards issues directly involved in the 'Motion for Reconsideration' (Re: Dismissal of Respondent Judge). This it did in its Resolutions dated July 24 and October 25, 1995, respectively.
Judge Floro should be guided accordingly by the aforequoted jurisprudence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as it is hereby Resolved, Judge Floro's "ORIGINAL PETITION/LETTER WITH LEAVE OF COURT [For Re-Opening of Judge Floro's Separation Case based on "G.R. No. 72670, 12 September 1986 - Saturnina Galman v. Sandiganbayan] with Conjunctive Omnibus Motions"15 and his "VERIFIED SUPPLEMENT TO THE ORIGINAL PETITION/LETTER, WITH LEAVE OF COURT [For Re-Opening of Judge Floro's Separation case based on G.R. No. 72670, 12 September 1986, Saturnina Galman v. Sandiganbayan] with Alternative Urgent Petition to assign i) a New Docket Number to this Original Petition, and ii) to Designate Acting Chief Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing or S.C. Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, as New Ponente of this New Case,"16 are hereby NOTED WITHOUT ACTION and are ordered EXPUNGED from the records. It is hereby firmly reiterated that NO FURTHER PLEADING/S WILL BE ENTERTAINEDin this case. Judge Floro is hereby given a WARNING that he can be held liable for indirect contempt should he persist in disregarding lawful orders of this Court and committing acts which tend to abuse, obstruct, impede, and degrade the administration of justice.
1 21 April 2006, 28 April 2006 and 5 May 2006.
2 WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge Floro's Partial Motions for Reconsideration as well as the Supplements thereto are hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY there being no merits. No other pleading, however denominated, shall henceforth be entertained by the Court.
3 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court NOTES WITHOUT ACTION the Verified Letter/Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court to Admit and Grant the (a) Second Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's Decision dated 31 March 2006; and (b) Conjunctive Omnibus Motion filed by Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.
4 Dated 3 November 2006.
5 Dated 27 December 2006.
6 Addressed to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno and Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, dated 16 January 2007.
7 Dated 2 February 2007.
8 Addressed to the JBC and the Supreme Court En Banc, dated 2 February 2007.
9 In several Resolutions dated 28 November 2006, 30 January 2007, 6 February 2007, and 20 February 2007, respectively.
10 Dated 4 May 2007.
11 Dated 1 June 2007.
12 82 Phil. 776, 778 (1949).
13 324 Phil. 483, 492-493 (1996).
15 Dated 4 May 2007.
16 Dated 1 June 2007.

References: v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V.