IN VIEW OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS
IN RE : A.C. NUMBER 10084
DECEITFUL ACT NUMBER 12 BY ATTY. QUIROZ
DEFENSE COUNSELS MALICIOUS REMOVAL OF THE PHRASE "IN VIEW OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS" FROM THE DOCUMENT THEY CITED.
 |
| Atty. Emiterio C. Manibog |
 |
| Atty. Joy Anne C. Leong-Pambid |
These defense counsels are from
ACCRALAW.
BETTER BE THIS MONKEY THAN SOME LAWYERS
THIS MONKEY FEELS SHAME SOME LAWYERS DO NOT
Please read and find out why Atty. Manibog and Atty. Leong-Pambid feared and removed this phrase "in view of the requirements of the business" from page 22 of their comments and/or pleadings.
Atty. Raul Quiroz defense lawyers removed with malice intent this phrase "in view of the requirements of the business" from the original source quoted paragraph. They cited this paragraph and prudence and honesty dictate this paragraph should be presented as a whole paragraph, no omission. This phrase,"in view of the requirements of the business", being removed from the paragraph greatly altered the whole context of the paragraph. These lawyers deserve public disapproval and criticism based on this exposition.
DOCUMENT SOURCE DOCUMENT
WHERE the phrase"in view of the requirements
of the business" is omitted.
click on image to enlarge
This phrase "in view of the requirements of the business" is a phrase which carries with it an admission of Shell that there is no redundancy in the workplace during those times when Shell terminated my employment. Shell and Mr Rico Bersamin in fact, since November 28, 2002 (Annex E) had announced redundancy of positions and likewise informed me through a letter dated 28 November 2002 that they will be constrained to terminate my employment effective 31 December 2002. If this redundancy of positions is true during those times why did Mr Rico Bersamin needed to write me a letter dated 17 December 2002 (Annex F) saying
" Further to our letter dated 28 November 2002, please be advised that "in view of the requirements of the business," the effectivity of cessation of your employment for reasons of redundancy shall be deferred from 31 December 2002 to 15 February 2003."
If the redundancy of positions are true, why have Mr Rico Bersamin had to extend my employment from December 31, 2002 to February 15, 2003? If this redundancy of positions is true, Mr Rico Bersamin had no problem to end my employment by the end of December 2002 because there should be a surplus of operators at that time. But there is none, and this is the reason why Mr Rico Bersamin advised me to stay " in view of the requirements of the business " until February 15, 2003. This clearly demonstrated that there was really no redundancy during those times.
The defense lawyers had intentionally remove this phrase
"in view of the requirements of the business" purposely (malice intent) to avoid showing that there is actually no redundancy of positions during those times.
"in view of the requirements of the business" purposely (malice intent) to avoid showing that there is actually no redundancy of positions during those times.
"Ang isda ay nahuhuli sa sariling bibig." by Dr. Jose Rizal
The Fish is Caught by its Mouth
HULI KAYO, NAKAKAHIYA KAYO TALAGA.
To Atty. Raul Quiroz, Atty. Emiterio Manibog and Atty. Joy Anne Leong-Pambid :
Just in case you happened to feel being humiliated and lost your honor and dignity with this exposition, I know how painful it is because I have been through it and all the three of you knew it well as the three of you joined Shell on this action against my person, my honor and dignity.
You knew it well. Both of you together with Atty. Raul Quiroz that taking me out employment by supporting a rigged ranking procedure which placed me among the poor job performers, and declared it publicly that had I not been at the bottom of the ranking list, then I would not have been terminated. You knew well that I have been greatly embarrassed, degraded and humiliated by this action and yet the three of you wholeheartedly supported this action though you knew as lawyers yourselves that this is unconstitutional as it is contrary to Article II Declaration of Principles and State Policies Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.
As the three of you yourselves, Atty. Raul Quiroz, Atty. Emiterio Manibog and Atty. Joy Anne Leong-Pambid had violated Article II Declaration of Principles and State Policies Section 11: The state values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. Your action forbids you to take refuge on this constitutional provision which you yourselves had violated in case you need to rely on this provision as a matter of defense or complaint alibi in connection with this case later.
BETTER BE THIS MONKEY THAN SOME LAWYERS
THIS MONKEY FEELS SHAME SOME LAWYERS DO NOT
 |
| click on the image to enlarge 17th December 2002 |
 |
Atty Raul Quiroz Comments page 22 showing where the phrase "in view of the requirements of the business" is maliciously and intentionally omitted.
This is the essence of the
The following Justices of
the Supreme Court of the
Philippines are DEEMED
provided with copy of this
"IN VIEW OF THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE BUSINESS"
through Atty. Theodore
Te's PIO e-mail
address on February 17, 2015
to the present and prayers
for corrective and/or
and/or investigative
and/or administrative
and/or judicial and/or
disciplinary actions
be instituted in due time.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment