G.R. No. 205632, June 02, 2020
BANK OF COMMERCE, PETITIONER, VS. JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
The petitioner, Bank of Commerce, filed a Petition praying that the Court hold respondent Joaquin T. Borromeo in indirect contempt of court. Borromeo had previously been declared guilty of constructive contempt by this Court in a 1995 Resolution. The protracted litigation stems from loans obtained by Borromeo from Traders Royal Bank (predecessor of Bank of Commerce) from 1978 to 1980, secured by real estate mortgages on properties in Cebu City. Upon Borromeo’s default, the bank foreclosed the mortgages. This led to decades of litigation where Borromeo filed multiple civil cases (e.g., RTC Case Nos. R-22506, CEB-8750, CEB-9485, CEB-10368, CEB-6452, CEB-8236, CEB-13069) against the bank, its officers, lawyers, and even Justices of the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, all essentially concerning the same foreclosed properties. These cases were repeatedly dismissed on grounds of res judicata, litis pendentia, lack of cause of action, or being the wrong remedy. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court had issued final and executory judgments against Borromeo.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Joaquin T. Borromeo should be held in indirect contempt of court for filing multiple suits re-litigating issues already settled with finality, thereby defying and frustrating the Court’s orders and decisions.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court found respondent Joaquin T. Borromeo guilty of indirect contempt under Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. His actions constitute improper conduct that impedes, obstructs, or degrades the administration of justice. By persistently filing cases seeking to re-litigate matters already conclusively adjudicated by final judgments, Borromeo has engaged in a scheme to frustrate the execution of the Court’s final and executory decisions. This conduct squanders the Court’s time and resources, mocks the judicial process, and defeats the orderly administration of justice. The Court emphasized the importance of the finality of judgments and its duty to put an end to any machination to defeat its decisions. All litigants are warned that the Court does not tolerate attempts to re-hear cases that are final and executory.