G.R. No. RTJ-99-1460, RTJ-06-1988, and 99-7-273-RTC; July 12, 2007
Office of the Court Administrator and Luz Arriego, Petitioners, vs. Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

This consolidated resolution addresses multiple administrative cases against Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. In a Decision dated March 31, 2006, the Court En Banc found Judge Floro administratively liable for several charges, fined him, and most significantly, relieved him from his position as a Regional Trial Court Judge. The Court ordered his separation from service due to a medically disabling condition of the mind rendering him unfit for judicial office, while awarding him three years of back salaries and benefits as a matter of equity. The charges in the companion cases were dismissed for lack of merit and mootness.
Subsequent to this final decision, Judge Floro filed multiple motions for reconsideration and supplements. In a Resolution dated August 11, 2006, the Court denied these motions with finality and explicitly stated that no further pleadings would be entertained. In defiance of this directive, Judge Floro filed a series of additional pleadings, including various motions for leave, omnibus motions, petitions for reopening, and letters requesting reinstatement or reassignment. The Court, in prior resolutions, had noted these without action or ordered them expunged from the records.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should act upon the latest pleadings filed by Judge Floro seeking the reopening of his separation case and other relief, despite a prior final and executory resolution barring further submissions.

RULING

The Court resolved to NOTE WITHOUT ACTION and ORDER EXPUNGED from the records Judge Floro’s “Original Petition/Letter” and “Verified Supplement” both dated in 2007. The Court firmly reiterates that no further pleadings will be entertained in this case and issues a warning that Judge Floro may be held liable for indirect contempt for persisting in disregarding lawful orders.
The legal logic is grounded in the doctrines of finality of judgments and respect for judicial authority. The Court’s March 31, 2006 Decision and August 11, 2006 Resolution, which denied reconsideration with finality, have long become final and executory. The filing of repeated, successive motions for reconsideration or petitions for reopening after a judgment has attained finality is a mere scrap of paper that the court has no obligation to act upon. Such actions constitute an abuse of the judicial process, obstruct the administration of justice, and demonstrate contempt for the Court’s lawful directives. The Court’s prior resolutions had meticulously reviewed the evidence and found the separation justified; the subsequent pleadings presented no new meritorious arguments or substantial evidence to warrant a deviation from the final judgment. The warning for indirect contempt is justified as Judge Floro’s continued filings are acts that tend to impede, degrade, and abuse the Court’s processes after a clear and final adjudication.