Joaquin Borromeo v. Integrated Bar of the Philippines

Posted Feb 21, 1995

By Anonymous

6 min read

Case Title and Citation

In Re Joaquin T. Borromeo, Ex Rel. Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
A.M. No. 93-7-696-0, February 21, 1995
Supreme Court - En Banc
Ponente: Per Curiam

Facts

The respondent, Joaquin T. Borromeo, was not a lawyer but engaged in litigation for about sixteen years (1978–1995), representing himself in numerous original and review proceedings. He frequently criticized courts, judges, and court personnel, and circulated scurrilous statements against them.
His affiliation with three banks—Traders Royal Bank (TRB), United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), and Security Bank & Trust Co. (SBTC)—was the catalyst for his protracted litigation. He obtained loans secured by mortgages on real properties and a trust receipt with TRB, which he defaulted on. When the banks demanded payment, he imposed his own terms inconsistent with the agreements and applicable law.
Borromeo filed dozens of suits against the banks, their officers, and their counsel, as well as public prosecutors, trial judges, Court of Appeals justices, Supreme Court justices, and court clerks. He initiated or spawned at least fifty (50) original or review proceedings across civil, criminal, and administrative fora, many of which were dismissed for res judicata, prematurity, lack of cause of action, or failure to state a claim.
A recurring theme in his campaigns was the attack on so-called “minute resolutions” of the Supreme Court, which are issued by the Clerk of Court and state the Court’s ruling, but do not bear all Justice signatures. Borromeo maintained that such resolutions were unconstitutional; the Court repeatedly explained the doctrine that minute resolutions were legitimate and do not require the signatures of participating Justices.
Borromeo also engaged in a campaign of scurrilous writings and open letters criticizing the Court and its officials, which the Court later characterized as highly reprehensible and derogatory to the dignity of the judiciary.
Administrative proceedings against Borromeo culminated in a finding of contempt and a sanction. The record shows the Court’s extensive efforts to explain the law and procedures to Borromeo, including memoranda and letters from clerks of court clarifying the nature of minute resolutions and the proper channels for challenging court decisions.

Issues

Did Borromeo’s conduct constitute contempt of court due to repeated, baseless litigation and public berating of court personnel and decisions?
Is the Court’s imposition of contempt sanctions (imprisonment and fine) warranted and proportionate to Borromeo’s conduct, given the circumstances and the Court’s prior warnings?

Ruling

Yes — Borromeo is guilty of constructive contempt for repeatedly engaging in baseless litigation and for publicly disparaging courts, judges, and court personnel, thereby obstructing and disrespecting the administration of justice.
Yes — The imposition of ten (10) days’ imprisonment in the Cebu City Jail and a fine of P1,000.00 is warranted to punish the contempt, deter repetition, and protect the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

The Court reaffirmed that finality and orderly review of judgments are fundamental; excess resort to administrative or civil actions to challenge judicial decisions undermines the judiciary’s independence and the separation of powers. The case cites that the judiciary must be free from improper influence or pressure, and that final judgments should be subject to appellate review within the judicial system, not civilian or prosecutorial revisitation (In Re Laureta; Rheem of the Philippines v. Ferrer; related authorities cited in the decision).
Borromeo’s conduct—ongoing, baseless actions against banks, their officers and lawyers, prosecutors, trial and appellate judges, clerks, and even Supreme Court Justices—was disruptive, time-consuming, and insulting to the judiciary. He persisted in arguments already resolved against him, ignored repeated warnings to desist, and produced “open letters” and leaflets that attacked the integrity of the courts and court personnel.
The Court emphasized that the remedy for erroneous or unjust judgments lies in the prescribed appellate processes; when these remedies have been exhausted or unavailable, other actions cannot substitute for the proper channels. Constructive contempt is appropriate where a party’s actions demonstrably impede the administration of justice and undermine court proceedings.
The decision explains the nature of minute resolutions, clarifying that they are authentic Court actions issued via the Clerk of Court, with the Court providing the legal basis in the resolution; signatures of all Justices are not required for such minute resolutions to be valid.
The Court noted that Borromeo’s letters and leaflets showed a pattern of maligning the judiciary, which justified sanctions to preserve the courts’ dignity and independence. The contempts were repeated despite warnings, warranting a firm response.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

Finality of judgments and exclusive appellate remedies: judgments of inferior courts may be reviewed only through the fixed legal channels; collateral attacks by administrative or criminal actions against judges are generally inappropriate.
Judicial independence and separation of powers: judges must be free from external pressure; attempting to override judicial decisions through extrajudicial actions undermines the system.
Contempt as a tool to preserve the administration of justice: the court may impose sanctions for conduct that obstructs or disrespects the judiciary, including repeated baseless litigation and defamatory communications.
Minute resolutions: the Court may issue minute resolutions that are binding and do not require signatures from all participating Justices; communications explaining these principles help litigants understand procedures.
Prohibition on reviewing Supreme Court decisions via other branches: judgments of the Supreme Court are not reviewable by other government entities.

Disposition

The petition/complaint against Borromeo is resolved by finding him GUILTY of constructive contempt for repeated misconduct. He is sentenced to ten (10) days’ imprisonment in the Cebu City Jail and fined P1,000.00. He is warned that repetition or similar offenses against courts, judges, or court personnel will invite more serious sanctions. The Court emphasizes that these measures are intended to protect the integrity of the judiciary and to deter future misconduct.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

This is a per curiam decision; no separate concurring or dissenting opinions are issued. The Court here notes that Justice Puno took no part in the decision.

Significance / Notes

Reaffirms that improper, ongoing litigation and defamatory communications against the judiciary can constitute contempt.
Clarifies that minute resolutions are valid Court actions and do not require the signatures of all Justices.
Reinforces the principle that appellate review remains the sole proper channel for challenging court rulings; extrajudicial actions cannot substitute for this process.
Serves as a cautionary example to practitioners and litigants about the consequences of abusing the judicial process and undermining court personnel.
Highlights the Integrated Bar’s role in addressing professional misconduct and the Court’s willingness to sanction aggressive, baseless behavior that undermines public confidence in the judiciary.

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.