A.M. No.

93-7-696-0 February 21, 1995

In Re JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO, Ex Rel. Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Facts:
The respondent in this case, Joaquin T. Borromeo, who has, for some sixteen (16) years now, from 1978 to the present, been
instituting and prosecuting legal proceedings in various courts, dogmatically pontificating on errors supposedly committed by
the courts, including the Supreme Court. Under the illusion that his trivial acquaintance with the law had given him competence
to undertake litigation, he has ventured to represent himself in numerous original and review proceedings. Expectedly, the
results have been disastrous. In the process, and possibly in aid of his interminable and quite unreasonable resort to judicial
proceedings, he has seen fit to compose and circulate many scurrilous statements against courts, judges and their employees,
as well as his adversaries, for which he is now being called to account. In those publicly circulated writings, he calls judges and
lawyers ignorant, corrupt, oppressors, violators of the Constitution and the laws, etc.
ISSUE: Are lawyers entitled to the same degree of latitude of freedom of speech towards the Court?
RULING:
No. There can scarcely be any doubt of Borromeo's guilt of contempt, for abuse of and interference with judicial rules and
processes, gross disrespect to courts and judges and improper conduct directly impeding, obstructing and degrading the
administration of justice. He stubbornly litigated issues already declared to be without merit, rendered adversely to him in
many suits and proceedings, rulings which had become final and executory, obdurately and unreasonably insisting on the
application of his own individual version of the rules, founded on nothing more than his personal (and quite erroneous) reading
of the Constitution and the law; he has insulted the judges and court officers, including the attorneys appearing for his
adversaries, needlessly overloaded the court dockets and sorely tried the patience of the judges and court employees who have
had to act on his repetitious and largely unfounded complaints, pleadings and motions. On the contention that he "was
exercising his rights of freedom of speech, of expression, and to petition the government for redress of grievances as
guaranteed by the Constitution (Sec. 4, Art. III) and in accordance with the accountability of public officials." The constitutional
rights invoked by him afford no justification for repetitious litigation of the same causes and issues, for insulting lawyers,
judges, court employees; and other persons, for abusing the processes and rules of the courts, wasting their time, and bringing
them into disrepute and disrespect.