The Unethical and Criminal Involvement of Judge Abraham Borreta in Benguet Green Meadows (UPDATE 1 – with improved documents)

The involvement of Judge Abraham Borreta in Benguet Green Meadows and the extent of his PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT needs further elaboration because it involves numerous VIOLATIONS of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canons of Judicial Ethics, and it brings the Philippine Judicial System into DISREPUTE, it is of public interest, and it is a matter that requires further scrutiny and DISCIPLINARY ACTION by the Supreme Court.

Borreta was found GUILTY by the Supreme Court in AM-RTJ-05-1929 (see ) of violating Canon 5.02 of the Judicial Code of Conduct and SC Administrative Circular No. 5 issued on October 4, 1988.

This was because he entered into one Special Power of Attorney with Purita Llorente dated 14 July 2000 involving properties “belonging to or (supposedly) entrusted to Purita Llorente” [Supreme Court Wording] and he made representations on her behalf to government agencies.

The mere fact that the Supreme Court used the word “supposedly” indicates that Borreta did not demonstrate or prove to that Court that Llorente actually had any entrusted authority granted by other land owners.

Borreta should clearly have carried out a background check to verify the claimed “entrusted” authority of Llorente to act for any other un-named landowner, and before he accepted that SPA, and such that he would not potentially become an ACCOMPLICE to any FALSIFIED claims in that public document that he represented any landowners that Llorente was herself claiming to represent.

The carrying out of such a prudent and necessary check by Borreta was critical given that not only was he a judge but that Purita Llorente had already been initially CONVICTED by RTC Branch 6 in 1996 for FALSIFYING A PUBLIC DOCUMENT, and that decision was under appeal.

It would also have been prudent for him to check the background and legally recognized identity of the person claiming to be Lovely Ladignon, as any association with Lovely Ladignon de Vera, the subject of several OUTSTANDING ARREST WARRANTS, would raise questions about the INTEGRITY of the judicial system.

During July 2000 and July 2001 Borreta wrote to several Government agencies claiming to either act for or to be attorney-in-fact for the listed registered owners of several hectares of land, including Benjamin Garcia, Rodolfo Dizon, Cecile Salmin, Eduardo Jimenez, David Llorente, PNB, Emilia Llarenas and Imelda Mangabat.

However, some of those Garcia lands had been foreclosed in 1982 by a bank which was later liquidated by the Philippine Deposit and Insurance Corporation, a Government Agency that administers liquidated banks.

Those lands were being administered by PDIC at the time of the Llorente SPA execution and thus clearly were NOT LEGALLY ENTRUSTED to her, a FACT that Borreta, as an qualified attorney (No. 8 Notcher when he passed the Bar in 1973) and Judge, should CLEARLY HAVE ASCERTAINED before writing to those Government agencies.

In essence, Judge Borreta was engaging in FALSIFICATION and he was CRIMINALLY VIOLATING Articles 171 and 172 of the New Penal Code.

In addition, no SPAs or agencies of trust in favor of Purita Llorente were annotated as encumbrances on the TCTs of the registered owners.

Strangely, more than one Llorente – Borreta SPA was executed.

A second un-notarized SPA with different wording was executed on the same date, 14 July 2000, and submitted to La Trinidad Municipal Government (LTMG). See LTMG Report below.

That SPA made reference to selling the lands to Antonio G. Marfori / Galaxy Homes Inc.

As the Securities and Exchange Commission does not have a registered corporation named Galaxy Homes Inc, Borreta and Llorente were probably parties to a FALSIFIED public document.

A third notarized Llorente – Borreta SPA dated 26 July 2000 was issued to LTMG. See below.


A fourth notarized Llorente – Borreta SPA dated 10 May 2002 was submitted to the Registry of Deeds, La Trinidad and annotated on TCTs. See below.

So those four additional Special Powers of Attorney mean that the Supreme Court has grounds to motu propio place Borreta on trial and find him guilty of four new violations of Canon 5.02 of the Judicial Code of Conduct.  

How could Borreta have attended the notarization of that SPA in La Trinidad when he was by then the Presiding Judge at RTC Branch 154 Pasig City?

Did he have Supreme Court permission for leave from work on that day? Maybe that will be another violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct?

Why was it necessary to execute four Llorente – Borreta SPAs? Is that not indicative of potential intent to CRIMINALLY DEFRAUD?

Had Borreta been candid to the Supreme Court  during the Ayson administrative complaint proceedings and admitted that he had executed not one but four SPAs with Purita Llorente, would his punishment by the Supreme Court have been far more severe? Would he have been DISMISSED from service?

That question becomes more pertinent given the existence of five more SPAs Borreta entered into for lands at BGM – on 2 May 2002 with Dizon, and on 10 May 2002 with David Llorente, Jimenez and Llarenas. See below.  

With respect to Jimenez, one SPA dated 10 May 2002 and notarized by Atty. Selmo was submitted to DAR in 2003.

An annotated encumbrance entry on the Jimenez TCTs identified another SPA, also dated 10 May 2002, but this time it was notarized by Atty. Bayon in year 2003.

Why were there two Jimenez SPAs, and would Atty. Bayon have notarized one if he had been made aware of the preceding one notarized by Atty. Selmo?

There is probably one further Borreta SPA.

On 8 May 2003, BGMHOA passed Resolution No. 006 Series of 2003 which referred to “the property covered by TCT 39196 … owned by Cecile Salmin” and “the Intent to Sell issued by Abraham B. Borreta, his authority over the above-sOmentioned TCT only being an Authority to Sell”. See below.

So that’s another seven violations of the Canon 5.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct for the Supreme Court to motu propio place Borreta on trial and find him guilty, making at least twelve in total.

Purita Llorente was eventually CRIMINALLY CONVICTED for FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS on 27 September 2002 after she lost her final Supreme Court petition, a decision that became final on 25 March 2003. See below.

Apparently, Llorente is currently EVADING AN ALIAS WARRANT OF ARREST issued by RTC Branch 6 after she failed to attend court for her sentencing and imprisonment.

Does the Supreme Court allow its judges (Borreta) to personally associate with a CONVICTED CRIMINAL?

And would that not be yet another VIOLATION of the Judicial Code of Conduct (Canon 2.01) for which the Supreme Court need to motu propio place Borreta on trial?

An encumbrance annotated on the canceled TCT14614 identifies that Borreta executed a 9 April 2003 Delegation of Authority in favor of Lovely Laldignon (sic) Mandapat, shortly after Ladignon’s Supreme Court testimony and Llorente’s conviction with finality. See Delegation document below.

Why did Borreta use a different name (Mandapat) to that (Ladignon) which had been used to submit testimony to the Supreme Court in his defense against the Ayson complaint, and when that testimony admitted that Mandapat was merely the name of a boyfriend?

Why did Borreta execute a delegated authority when already under investigation by the Supreme Court with respect to an earlier Judicial Code violating power of authority granted to him?

By doing so it would seem that Borreta was displaying a CONTEMPTUOUS ATTITUDE towards the authority of the Supreme Court.

The Delegation document was specifically limited to delegated authority for lands enrolled by the Baguio-Benguet Foundation Inc. with Pag-ibig under its Group Land Acquisition Development Program or GLAD. So why in her website does Mam Lovely include articles that purport the site area to be a CMP project? Yet another example of how Mam Lovely sets out to DECEIVE.

The registered owners of and the boundaries of those lands were not specified in that Delegation of Authority.

Further, inquiries indicate that a foundation with that name has not been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

So why did Borreta use the name of an un-registered and FALSIFIED foundation in his Delegation document?

This is clearly another matter that requires motu propio investigation by the Supreme Court because it again VIOLATES Canon 5.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and it would clearly be unethical for a  Judge to be a party to a document naming a  FALSE corporation.

According to an Absolute Deed of Sale dated 10 November 2003, lands registered in the name of the CONVICTED CRIMINAL Purita Llorente were sold and re-registered in the names of “Lovely Ladignon Mandapat, married to Roel Mandapat; Abraham B. Borreta, widower; and Carmelita V. Royales, single”. See below.

Purchasing lands from a convicted criminal would seem to be CONDUCT MOST UNBEFITTING of a sitting judge, and most probably is a VIOLATION of the Judicial Code of Conduct.

The Supreme Court and the Ombudsman should check whether this property ownership and apparent business involvement in Galaxy Homes has been correctly declared in Borreta’s SALN. They should also check whether the various addresses used by Borreta in the SPAs and Delegation of Authority are properties that should have been declared in his SALN.

If Borreta has failed to declare properties and business interests in his SALN, that would be a VIOLATION of Canon 5.08 of the Judicial Code of Conduct and it would be another matter that would require motu propio trial of Borreta by the Supreme Court.

Earlier, the Dizon – Borreta SPA was used by Borreta to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 27 September 2002 selling lands registered in the name of Dizon to Lovely Ladignon-Mandapat. See below.

During the Supreme Court hearings Borreta was questioned regarding his authority to sell Purita Llorente or Dizon lands, as it seemed to CONFLICT with the outcome of an earlier Llorente – Dizon civil court case (2227-R) presided over by Ayson.

Not only did Borreta FAIL TO CANDIDLY DISCLOSE to the Supreme Court that he had previously secured a SPA from Dizon, but he also did not disclose that he had already used that SPA to sell those Dizon registered lands.

In his Memorandum for the Complainant, Ayson had opined that Borreta was engaging in the criminal act of double selling. Given that Borreta admitted in his testimony that he had executed a letter of intent on behalf of the registered land owners in favor of a Benguet State University organized HOA, it would seem that by using his SPA to sell the same land to a person using the false alias name Lovely Mandapat, Borreta was indeed engaging in the criminal act of double selling. (NEW UPDATE)

Given that the Deed of Sale was executed on 27 September 2002, we would go further to suggest that it is highly probable that Borreta DELIBERATELY DELAYED the notation on the TCT of that Deed of Sale and the actual transfer of the title to Lovely Ladignon Mandapat until over one year later on 17 December 2003, and after the Supreme Court hearings had been completed on the complaint (including double selling) filed against him by Judge Ayson, and because he did not want Ayson to become aware of his actual double-sale of the Dizon lands and present the sale documents as evidence to the Supreme Court.  


In any event, as per the Supreme Court decision in Catbagan vs Barte, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1452,  that land sale executed by Borreta was clearly a VIOLATION of the Canon 5.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct that need to be punished motu propio by the Supreme Court. 

Why also did Judge Borreta permit the alias name Lovely Ladignon to be used for the submission of testimony in his defense when he had clearly earlier executed a land sale document in her favor FALSELY using her boyfriend’s surname Mandapat.

It would appear to us that is quite obvious that Judge Borreta, by delaying the notation of the deed of sale on the Dizon TCT was trying to hide from the Supreme Court the FACT that he was conducting business with and acting as an accomplice to a woman who executed public documents using a FALSE ALIAS NAME.

The Philippine Supreme Court has been made a LAUGHING STOCK by Borreta.

This question of Lovely’s use of a FALSE IDENTITY is surely a matter that requires further coordinated investigation by the Mayors of La Trinidad and Baguio City along with the SEC, HLURB, NHFMC, HLURB, Registry of Deeds, RTC Branch 3 and the Supreme Court, given that any use of a FALSE ALIAS NAME in public documents submitted to Government agencies and Court cases is a CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

Further if Judge Borreta sets out to KNOWINGLY DECEIVE the Supreme Court, knowingly makes use of FALSE ALIAS NAMES in his defense of a complaint being heard by the Supreme Court, displays a LACK OF CANDOR and ASSOCIATES WITH CONVICTED CRIMINALS, then the SC needs to decide whether Borreta, a perennial applicant for the position of Associate Justice at the Court of Appeals, can be trusted by the general public to make fair and reasonable decisions in court.

Aside from the apparent double-sale of the Dizon lands, Borreta seemingly used SPAs double sell other lands to Mandapat that had already been sold to HOAs through executed Letter of Intent. (NEW – UPDATED)

The Llarenas – Borreta SPA was used by Judge Borreta to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 14 November 2003 selling Llarenas owned lands to his associate and co-landowner, Lovely Ladignon-Mandapat. See below.

Prior to that sale being executed, Borreta used the same SPA to obtain the cancellation of a Llarenas real estate mortgage which fell under the jurisdiction of PDIC, a government controlled corporation.

According to a mortgage cancellation document dated 22 October 2003, the last payment of Php155,417.64 covered by O.R. No. 39606 was made thru Borreta to PDIC. See below.

Does direct involvement of a judge in settling the arrears of a delinquent mortgage being administered by a government agency and his actual agency selling of lands VIOLATE the Judicial Code of Conduct?

Probably yes based on the Supreme Court decision against Judge Barte of Antique, but let the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Puno confirm that viewpoint and convince the general public that they really do intend to cleanse the Judiciary of CORRUPT AND INTEGRITY DEFICIENT JUDGES.

What is intriguing about this Llarenas land sale is that the selling price of Php 50,000 is much less than Php 155,417.64 paid by Borreta to PDIC for the redemption of the Larenas mortgage. 

Needless to say there would be absolutely no logic to Llarenas herself paying a mortgage redemption amount of 155,000 just to collect 50,000 from selling the same land. It would clearly be cheaper for Llarenas to just let the land be foreclosed.

So Borreta clearly needs to explain to the Supreme Court this rather illogical and odd land transaction and mortgage release.

SHFC and NHFMC also need to investigate how this mortgage release settlement cost has been dealt with from a CMP accounting point of view, and the Supreme Court need to check whether it should have been disclosed in Borreta’s SALN.

Deeds of Absolute Sale dated 10 and 14 November 2003 identify that SPAs executed in favor of Borreta were used to sell lands registered in the names of David Llorente and Jimenez to his co-landowner Mandapat. See below.


With respect to the Llorente lands, there were two deeds of sale notarized by different attorneys which strangely contained two different signatures for Borreta. Also, how strange that the sale of the Llorente lots required two Deeds of Sale within the short time period of four days. Suspicious indeed given the TIN No. 158-347-176 for David Llorente stated on the document was exactly the same TIN No. stated for Emilia Llarenas when her land were sold by Borreta using his SPA.

Why did Borreta use a FALSIFIED TIN No. on one of those Deed of Sales? 

Perhaps he did not have the TIN No. because the registered land owner did not know Borreta was selling his/her land?

Assuming neither of those two Borreta signatures was falsified, seemingly Borreta was present in Baguio City and La Trinidad when the deeds were notarized.

While the general public are not privy to such information based on Supreme Court rules, did Borreta have Supreme Court permission to take leave from court in Pasig City on those two days that fall within the same week?


All of those land sales executed by Boretta using Special Powers of Attorney clearly VIOLATED Canon 5.02 of the Code of Judicial Ethics, and the Supreme Court must punish Borreta accordingly. Chief Justice Puno must cleanse the Judiciary of unethical Judges like Borreta.

To re-quote part of the Decision from the Barte case, “Given these circumstances, respondent judge ought perhaps to seriously consider leaving the judiciary and becoming a full-time real estate broker instead.  The latter calling appears to have a special appeal to him.”

The Supreme Court should also be concerned that a judge is indulging in the AMBIGUOUS and potentially MISLEADING habit of using more than one signature.

Of graver concern to the Supreme Court  should be the court cases in which Lovely Ladignon-Mandapat executed several Affidavits of Loss that were submitted to RTC Branch 10, La Trinidad for the purpose of obtaining duplicate TCTs for lands registered in the names of Purita Llorente, David Llorente and Llarenas, without which the title transfers could not take place.

The affidavits claimed that she lost the owners duplicate TCTs in a taxi on 3 November 2003, a date that preceded 10 and 14 November 2003 when the Deeds of Absolute Sale were actually executed. Those dates seemingly being the “wrong way round” because the buyer would not normally get the duplicate TCTs until after the sale had been executed are indicative that there must be some doubt that the TCTs were actually lost and that the land owners may not be aware of the sale.

Attached to those affidavits were copies of certifications executed by Borreta and some SPAs executed in his favor.

It would be IMPROPER for Mandapat and IMPRUDENT AND CONTEMPTUOUS for Borreta to present before the court SPAs and certifications executed in favor of or by a sitting judge, especially as one Borreta – Llorente SPA document has since been held by the Supreme Court to VIOLATE the Judicial Code of Conduct, and at the time Borreta was already under Supreme Court investigation.

Further, Canon 2.04 of the Judicial Code states “A judge should refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation pending before another court”, and seems to have been very clearly VIOLATED.

Similarly, a judge (de Rivera) should refrain from allowing his decisions or orders to be influenced by submitted supporting documents signed by another judge (Borreta), or he too will breach Canon 2.04.

In an Order dated 13 May 2004 issued by RTC Branch 10, Judge Edgardo B. Diaz de Rivera stated “Lovely bought those properties from the owners through Judge Abraham Borreta who was issued a Special Power of Attorney by the registered owners” and “She also submitted a “Certification” issued by Judge Abraham B. Borreta authorizing her to file the instant petition in behalf of the erstwhile registered owners”.

Surprizingly, Judge de Rivera seemed to be unfamiliar with the requirements of the Code of Judicial Conduct and unaware of Borreta’s ongoing investigation by the Supreme Court and eventual proven guilt for violation of the same.

It would have been more appropriate for Judge de Rivera to have declared the Borreta documents to be inadmissible and reject Mandapat’s request for the issue of duplicate titles or first have ordered Mandapat to provide certifications issued by the actual landowners, particularly as the lands owned by Purita Llorente were to be jointly transferred in the name of Judge Borreta himself.

The court orders (Admin. Cases Nos. 03-AD-0965 etc.) issuing several duplicate TCTs need investigating motu propio by the Supreme Court to ascertain the full extent of  these VIOLATIONS of the Code of Judicial Conduct.


Why didn’t Mandapat get the registered owners to file an affidavit of loss?

Indeed, as the criminally convicted Purita Llorente apparently signed a deed of sale on 10 November 2003, then why did Mandapat need to execute an affidavit of loss on the same date?

Very puzzling indeed. Except we know a little bit more about why it happened than Mam Lovely would like us to know.

Unfortunately Llorente cannot be asked for clarification and why her signature on the Deed of Sale differs from those affixed at earlier dates to the Llorente – Borreta SPAs and a Cristina Hinayo (her daughter) Affidavit of Loss for the same TCTs executed in April 2000, because Purita is hiding from arrest and a prison sentence.

Didn’t the notary public, Juan Antonio Reyes Alberto III,  consider it strange to be requested by Llorente to notarize a deed of sale, but not to be requested by her at the same time to notarize an affidavit of loss with respect to her duplicate TCTs that were supposedly lost just 7 days earlier? He should have.

Did Atty. Alberto not also find it strange that the Mandapat affidavit was being supported with documents executed by Borreta and not documents executed by Llorente, who he had met the same day?

Did not Judge de Rivera also find that to be strange? He should have.

The use of SPAs to sell lands and support subsequent affidavits of loss to secure the issue of duplicate TCTs, and the lack of direct involvement of the registered land owner arouses suspicion about the whole land transfer process.

Those Orders issued by Judge de Rivera stated “During the trial, Lovely swore that she never used the missing titles as collateral for loan nor ever sold said properties.” See below.


But Mam Lovely, that sworn statement was UNTRUE was it not. Surely you had not forgotten that you had already pre-sold the properties to the buyers of Benguet Green Meadows?

Mam Lovely, it seems that you committed PERJURY in order to secure an Order for the issue of duplicate TCTs.

Mam Lovely, we know that you had to “FAKE” the loss of the TCTs because Purita Llorente, a CONVICTED CRIMINAL AND FALSIFIER OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS had already sold her lots to another person, who happened to be an attorney, and his relatives told us what happened and showed us the earlier land sale documents.

Mam Lovely, please remember that double selling of land is a CRIMINAL OFFENSE, and under Philippine law the second sale is ILLEGAL and viodable.

Now let’s jog your memory a bit more, Mam Lovely.

Do you recall the fake gold bar deal that resulted in that same attorney being robbed and stabbed in January 2003?

Well bad news Mam Lovely. We know all of the details! 

Why was Borreta selling those lands to Mandapat and not instead directly to BGMHOA?

Did Borreta’s land sales to his co-landowner Mandapat at a time that he was being investigated by the Supreme Court constitute a CONFLICT OF INTEREST that required prior disclosure to and acceptance by the affected landowners he was claiming to represent and the homeowners association?

A BGM “Project Study” document submitted to LTMG identified that a land acquisition cost of Php 700/sq. m was used to ascertain an overall proposed CMP loan availment. Payments being made by City Hall employees reflected that proposed acquisition cost.

However, TCTs record that Mandapat, Borreta and Royales purchased 5 lots from Purita Llorente totaling 1,798 sq. m for Php 200,000 or a mere Php 111/sq. m.

Seemingly, BGMHOA CMP members including the City Hall employees should have been afforded the opportunity to purchase lands directly from Llorente through Borreta for only Php 111/sq. m, and without the introduction of unnecessary intermediary landowners such as Borreta and Mandapat.

TCTs record that lands were purchased through Borreta by Mandapat from Emilia Llarenas and David Llorente for an even lower price of Php 50/sq. m.

As for lands registered in the name of PNB, these seem to have been advertised for sale on their website for only Php 300/sq.m.

So it seems that the intermediate land sale to Mandapat was for the purpose of defrauding socialized housing beneficiaries who should have been paying a much lower land acquisition cost.

Lovely Ladignon Mandapat was the registered President of a non-profit and non-stock association / NGO incorporated with a stated purpose “To assist Urban Poor to own a decent house and lot through government assistance”.

The Judicial Code of Conduct does not allow Borreta to profit from such a business land transaction.

The NHFMC/SHFC must ensure that CMP beneficiaries are only paying land acquisition costs similar to the average actual purchase price from the original registered landowners – the Llorentes, Dizon, PNB, Llarenas, Jimenez, Mangabat etc.

The intermediary Borreta – Mandapat sale arrangement requires investigation by SCFC, NHFMC and HLURB to ascertain if their rules and regulations and RA7279 have been violated.

Aside from the civil complaint filed against Borreta and Mandapat by City Hall employees, another complaint was filed against them at RTC Branch 8, La Trinidad. See below.

Complainants Benjamin and Helen Garcia claimed that they are the rightful owners of the Purita Llorente lands sold and now registered in the names of Mandapat, Borreta and Royales, and that Llorente falsified a 1978 deed of sale.

Many other TCTs registered in Mandapat’s name are also claimed to be owned by the Garcias.

An Adverse Claim was also filed by Marquez and was anotated on two TCTs.

Somewhat contradictory, but the Garcias themselves were 25 years earlier accused of simulating that same deed of sale in Civil Case No. 3843 filed in 1980.

Civil Case No. 90-CV-0455 was also filed against them in 1990.

Item 24 of the filed 1980 civil case stated “That despite repeated demands and pressure exerted on him by the plaintiffs, defendant Benjamin S. Garcia refused to pay to them the total purchase price of their land and, instead, executed a SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY (Doc. No. 150, Page No. 36, Book No. II, Series of 1979, of the notarial register of Notary Public Alberto B. Cuilan), dated December 17, 1979, ……..authorizing them, instead, to collect the payments of Lots 3-C-1 and 3-C-7 which he (Garcia) sold by virtue of a simulated and fictitious deed of sale to defendant Purita A. Llorente.”.

Irrespective of the merits of that Garcia civil complaint, while this land ownership dispute remains unresolved no government agency can approve, provide funding or issue permits for the Benguet Green Meadows CMP project.

Have CMP beneficiaries, HLURB, NHFMC and LTMG been correctly informed by BBGMFI, Mandapat and Borreta of this court case? They should have been informed as that is what is required under CMP regulations.

Have HLURB, SHFC and NHFMC acted to protect beneficiaries and any moneys that they have paid or are continuing to pay? Most probably no.

Should SHFC, NHFMC and HLURB have ordered suspension of CMP beneficiaries payments until the land ownership dispute was resolved? Most probably yes.

Given that Judge Barte of Antique received a 6 month suspension in 2005 for executing a deed of sale using a Special Power of Attorney, it would seem that Borreta, through his DELIBERATE LACK OF CANDOR when being investigated by the Supreme Court, escaped harsher punishment for using several SPAs to cancel a mortgage, execute a delegation of authority and several deeds of sale, and support several affidavits of loss to secure court orders for the issue of duplicate copies of TCTs.

His use of SPAs, while under investigation by the SC, to cancel mortgages, execute deeds of sale and support affidavits of loss seems to indicate that he was acting in CLEAR CONTEMPT of those unfinished Supreme Court proceedings.

The extent of his many Code of Judicial Conduct violations may even merit his DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE.

Absent any falsification of his documented involvement in the Benguet Green Meadows project, his failure, as claimed agent for the landowners, to prevent criminal violation of Philippine laws caused by the illegal subdivision development work and building of dwellings is the “icing on the cake”.

In conclusion, Judge Abraham Borreta has an awful lot of explaining to do before the Supreme Court and the local/national officers of all the Government Housing Agencies need to publicly investigate this seemingly anomalous CMP project, that has already been the subject of considerable litigation.

In the interests of freedom of speech, Judge Borreta is most welcome to clarify in writing to this weblog whether to his knowledge, the many public documents that have seemingly been executed by him have instead been executed by others without his knowledge, albeit it is noted that he should also at the same time clarify the same to the concerned government agencies including the Supreme Court, NHFMC, HLURB, RTC Branch 10, Registry of Deeds, La Trinidad Municipal Government and NBI so that they can investigate and file criminal charges against the perpetrators.

Judge Borreta may rest assured that in the interests of fairness and transparency, an updated blog post will be published by this weblog to clarify any public documents using his name that he can prove were not executed by him.

Aside from the above, it is noteworthy that  in order to pursue a registration application for a CMP homeowners association, Abraham Borreta, claiming to act for the owners of lands totaling 8 hectares, issued a 17 July 2001 request letter that resulted in La Trinidad Municipal Government (LTMG) issuing a certification dated 1 August 2001.

Borreta MISLED LTMG into issuing that certification because public documents indicate that he did not have permission to legally act for all of the concerned landowners or foreclosing banks, and based on the 26 June 2006 Supreme Court decision, the Judicial Code of Conduct dictated that, in any event, he was not even permitted to act for those land owners.

Documents submitted to the National Irrigation Authority-CAR, LTMG, DENR-MGB-CAR and DAR-CAR during July 2000 identify that Borreta was earlier promoting the subdivision project on behalf of a corporation named Galaxy Homes and under the name Pabahay Ni Erap DILG-PNP Housing Project. So the original involvement of Senator Biazon is likely to reflect the involvement of PNP and not the later involvement of Lovely Ladignon de Vera

Borreta was at that time the Presiding Judge at RTC Branch 59 Baguio City.

Borreta should have known that representing a corporation (registered or not) is clearly PROHIBITED by the Judicial Code of Conduct. It also should be declared in his SALN.

Inquiries indicate Galaxy Homes was not a company that had been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in which case it did not legally exist.

So Borreta may have committed another serious VIOLATION of the Judicial Code of Conduct, for which he has yet to be investigated and PUNISHED by the Supreme Court.

The question also arises as to why Judge Borreta was seemingly claiming to represent a BOGUS or FALSIFIED company in order to secure government approvals and permits.

A civil case was filed in December 2004 by City Hall employees against Borreta and Mandapat to recover moneys paid for the unfulfilled BGM CMP project. They also complained that their allocated lots had also been sold to other buyers who offered to pay more money. 

According to a report in the 15 January 2005 edition of the Philippine Inquirer, sometime in September 2001, then Mayor Bernardo Vergara issued a memorandum inviting employees of Baguio City government to avail of CMP lots, following which a briefing apparently took place presided by Mandapat who represented herself as the coordinator of NEJ. See below.

The details of that filed court case which are a public document are  published below.

In January 2002, work was commenced ILLEGALLY at the project site before the necessary government permits had been secured. A Notice of Violation was issued by La Trinidad Municipal Government in February 2002. 

Why didn’t Judge Borreta, who claimed to represent landowners and subsequently became a co-landowner, prevent that VIOLATION of Philippine law from occurring?

As a Judge, surely he was duty bound by his obligation under Judicial Codes of Conduct and Ethics to do so? 

Why has Borreta also not prevented two housing structures from being ILLEGALLY constructed without permits.

The Supreme Court should take note of this EMBARRASSMENT caused by Borreta to the Philippine judicial system.

Further, pursuant to its own regulations, why has NHFMC not punished NEJ, Mandapat and Borreta for this ILLEGAL commencement of a CMP project?

NHFMC and HLURB should remind the two concerned “Off-site” CMP beneficiaries, BBGMFI, Mandapat and Borreta that pursuant to RA7279 and rules and regulations they are not permitted to occupy the proposed “Off-site” CMP area and no houses can be constructed before NHFMC has approved the project and all permits have been secured.

Finally, we note that the project lands for Loakan Green Meadows are adjacent to PEZA, and we also note that Judge Borreta was involved in an erroneous court decision whereby he found in favor of Benedicto Carantes instead of the legally valid land owner, PEZA.

In that Decision for G.R. No. 142669, dated 15 March 2006, the Supreme Court stated “We, therefore, hold that the trial court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the challenged Orders modifying the final and executory Decision of the Court of Appeals.”

We have to ask the question “Why did Borreta amend a finalized decision that had been ordered by the Court of Appeals”. It would seem to indicate a very fundamental ignorance of the law.

The full details of that Supreme Court Decision can be found on the blogroll, but we also have to question whether that clearly errant and puzzling decision of Judge Borreta had any connection with the nearby Loakan Green Meadows project which was being overseen by his co-landowner, Lovely Ladignon-Mandapat?

Further, it would seem that Judge Borreta has developed a very questionable habit of trying to reverse previous final court decisions for land disputes, which can only raise qiestions about his ethics and integrity.

In CA-G.R. SP NO. 104468, SPOUSES LAZARO VIDAL and ENRIQUETA VIDAL, Petitioners, – versus – HON. JUDGE ABRAHAM BORRETA, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 154 and ALADIN CRUZ, DATED 29 May 2009, The C ourt of Appeals similarly found ir necessary to reverse a decision of Judge Borreta, this time while he was at RTC Branch 154. See

Perhaps this is another matter that the Supreme Court need to investigate.

Lack of integrity is not limited to the recent Court of Appeals Scandal. It starts with judges in the RTC before they get promoted to the CA.




Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: