G.R. No.

L-006969 March 7, 2010

FRANCIS BIRONDO, Plaintiff-appellant , v. MARC JAY CARILLO, Defendant-

appellee.

Atty. Ronald Luib Jr. for plaintiff-appellant

Atty. Emmanuel Birao for defendant-appellee

BARRIOS, J.:

The present action involves pure questions of mediocrity. This is an appeal by

petition for review on certiorari under Rule 69 of the Sagabal Rules of Court, seeking
the reversal of the Sagabal Supreme Court’s (The Tribunal for brevity) decision
dated March 4, 2010 granting defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Factual Antecedents

Plaintiff and defendant herein are colleagues; members, in fact, of this tribunal. It
was a dark and stormy night on March 3, 2010 when Francis Birondo, plaintiff
herein, innocently turned on his computer only to find defendant Carillo’s fateful
post --Birondoctrines—staring at him blankly on the screen. Plaintiff immediately
questioned said post as an act of judicial legislation and argued that the
‘parameters of the Sagabal Convention’ was not observed in associating his name
to principles of law. His dissent unheeded, plaintiff later filed suit.

Plaintiff claims he suffered injuries in the form of ‘emotional anxiety, wounded

feelings, sleepless nights, and a besmirched reputation’ entitling him to an award of
damages plus attorney’s costs. He also asked that the court declare the questioned
Birondoctrines invalid and unconstitutional as they are arbitrary, unreasonable,
oppressive, and despotic. Defendant Carillo, thru counsel, filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment which was granted by the Tribunal, the dispositive portion of
which is reproduced to wit:

“WHEREFORE, for reasons totally unsupported by logic, the questioned

Birondoctrines are held valid and are not to be struck out from the records of
the Sagabal Archives. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby
GRANTED. No Motion for Reconsideration from this order shall be
entertained.

SO ORDERED.”

Plaintiff later found out that the ponente of aforesaid decision was defendant CJ
Carillo himself concurred by AJ Yecyec of the Tribunal’s first division. Motion for
Reconsideration was unavailable for plaintiff, hence this appeal.
 The Court’s Discussion

Before proceeding further, the Court notes that this case involves two extremely
likeable lawyers, who have together delivered some of the most amateurish
pleadings ever to cross the hallowed halls of The Tribunal, an effort which leads the
Court to surmise but one plausible explanation. Both attorneys have obviously
entered into a secret pact – complete with hats, handshakes, and cryptic words – to
draft their pleadings entirely in crayon on the back sides of gravy-stained
McDonald’s paper place mats, in the hope that the Court would be so charmed by
their child-like efforts that their utter dearth of legal authorities in their pleadings
would go unnoticed. Whatever actually occurred, the Court is now faced with the
daunting task of deciphering their submissions. With a bottle of Red Horse beer
readied, thick black pencil in hand, and a devil-may-care laugh in the face of death,
life on the razor’s edge sense of exhilaration, the Court begins.

Summary judgment is appropriate if no genuine issue of material fact exists

and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When a
motion for summary judgment is made, the nonmoving party must set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Therefore, when
a defendant moves for summary judgment based upon an affirmative
defense to the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff must bear the burden of
producing some evidence to create a fact issue some element of defendant's
asserted affirmative defense.

Defendant Carillo begins the descent into Alice’s Wonderland by submitting a

Motion that relies only on one legal authority. The Motion cites a 1901 case
decided in Afghanistan, holding that the right to use other people’s name in
vain is covered by the right to freedom of speech and expression. That is all
well and good – the Tribunal is fond of foreign cases to which it does not take
judicial notice of. Defendant, however, does not even cite to its desired case
law and further fails to even begin to analyze why the Court should approach
the shores of the cited jurisprudence. Any other court in the country would
have recognized that the Motion is patently insipid, ludicrous, and utterly and
unequivocally without merit whatsoever in light of veritable mountains of
case law on the subject of making a proper Motion – the Tribunal however, is
no ordinary court. A just plain blatantly wrong pleading, in the eyes of a
mediocre court, is never to be dismissed.

Plaintiff Birondo responds to this deft, yet minimalist analytical wizardry with
an equally idiotic wisp of an argument, although plaintiff has at least cited
the provisions of the Sagabal Constitution. Naturally, Plaintiff also neglects
to provide any analysis whatsoever of why his claim versus Defendant Carillo
is a ‘justiciable controversy’. Instead, Plaintiff cites to a single case from
2006 decided by a less mediocre Supreme Court.
Plaintiff’s citation however, points to a non-existent Volume “1337” of the
Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) and neglects to provide a pinpoint
citation for what, after being located, turned out to be a 120-page decision
(Estrada v. Escritor). Ultimately, to the Court’s dismay after reviewing the
opinion, finds the case has no relevance to the issues now presented. The
Tribunal could not even begin to comprehend why this case was selected for
reference. It is as if Plaintiff’s counsel chose the opinion by throwing long
range darts at the SCRA books (remarkably enough hitting a non-existent
volume!) And though the Court often gives great heed to dicta from courts
as far flung as those of Africa, it finds this case unpersuasive. There is
nothing in this case about bullying through name-associations. This is all
that can be said positively of the Plaintiff’s memorandum which does not
even explain why on the facts of the case, it has a cause of action against
Defendant (which probably makes some sense because Plaintiff doesn’t).
Despite the shortcomings of Plaintiff’s submission, the Court commends
Plaintiff for his vastly improved choice of crayon – Black is much easier on
the eyes than Fuchsia Pink.

The Issue

Now, alas, the Tribunal must return to grownup land. As vaguely alluded to
by the parties, the issue in this case turns upon whether or not the
questioned Birondoctrines are valid and within the ambit of the Sagabal
Constitution.

The Court’s Ruling

Anyone is susceptible of mediocrity as demonstrated by all parties in this

case including the ponente of this decision. As advocate of mediocrity,
Plaintiff should realize that the utilization of his name to promote mediocrity
does not necessarily result to the detriment of his healthy reputation. As
member of the Sagabal High Council and fellow justice of this Tribunal, he
ought to know that a name is really never forsaken, just like the birds in the
sky whom God takes care of. Plaintiff’s reliance on the Sagabal Convention
is misplaced, for, what governs us strictly is the Constitution that breathes
life to our existence. Sure enough, the broad terms of the Constitution of
Mediocrity covers the unpermitted use of a name without consent from the
name-owner. The Tribunal is in the opinion of affirming, as it now affirms,
the questioned decision of the Tribunal’s first division.

At this juncture, Plaintiff retains albeit seemingly to his

befuddlement/consternation, a right to make fun of anyone’s name like what
defendant has done.

After this remarkably long walk on a short legal pier, having received no useful
guidance whatever from either party, the Court has endeavored, primarily based
upon its affection for both counsel, but also out of its own sense of morbid curiosity,
to resolve what it perceived to be the legal issue presented. Despite the waste of
perfectly good crayon seen in both parties' briefing the Court believes it has
satisfactorily resolved this matter.

WHEREFORE, the questioned decision is hereby AFFIRMED. Defendant's Motion for

Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONE this 7th day of March 2010, Cebu City

Justice Angelo “Kapitan” Barrios.

Sagabal Associate Justice