STRL SUPPORT BLOG: 03/03/16

Thursday, March 3, 2016

SUPREME COURT'S BABY

THERE WAS NO REDUNDANCY_DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE -2

SINCE March 3, 2016

IN RE :

A.C. NUMBER 10084

ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ

DISBARMENT CASE

DECEITFUL ACT NUMBER 9

(FAKE REDUNDANCY)

TRANSLATED

4.1.9 NINTH DECEITFUL ACT

BY ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ :

(Contrary to 3.1.1 & 3.1.2.1 & 3.1.2.2)

The Company while it is true that they closed

an old plant, PROCESS-2 but on the other hand,

they opened a new plant, which I called

BITUMEN PLANT, and which they called

BITUMEN IMPORT FACILITY.

We can see this fact from the REJOINDER

p.6 p.7 Nos.16&17, which was presented

by Atty. Raul Quiroz himself :

XXX

"16. Likewise misleading is Complainants

claim in paragraph 14 of his Reply

that the Company is not encountering

difficulties in its operations because

it was erecting a bitumen plant as well

as a future project that would modify the

remaining units the remaining units

in the Process 2 facilities into high profit

margin Naptha Upgrading Complex.

17. The bitumen project that the complainant

was referring to was a Bitumen Import

Facility that involved direct importation of

bitumen products from other countries.

This is consistent with the Company's

position that current economic conditions

make it more profitable for the Company

to import directly than refine raw

materials. The Bitumen Import Facility

does not involve refining operations.

In fact, it is not the Complainant's refinery

business unit that handles the facility but it

is commercial business unit because it

involves finished products."xxx

PACKET 9 : LABEL 5.9.1 SHELL Rejoinder

p.6&p.7 Nos. 16&17

It is a fact that the company closed a plant

PROCESS-2 and terminate employment of

operators and likewise it is a fact that the

Company opened a new plant, the BITUMEN

IMPORT FACILITY then hired new operators.

These facts only showed that there should be

no redundancy of operators for the simple

reason that Mr. Rico Bersamin should have

transferred operators from the closed plant

PROCESS-2 to the BITUMEN IMPORT

FACILITY. From here, we could deduce that

Mr. Rico Bersamin should have given the

operators from PROCESS-2 training, if needed,

to learn the new plant as a matter of just and

humane course of action than terminate them from

employment.

With these circumstances how could Mr. Rico

Bersamin be able to justify that I am in excess

of the number of operators the Company needed ?

It could be seen very clearly the REDUNDANCY

PROGRAM of the Company is a lie; a lie which

was supported and promoted by Atty. Raul Quiroz.

It is therefore, earnestly prayed that Atty. Raul

Quiroz be disbarred for having violated the

Lawyer's Oath by supporting and promoting a

deceitful act.
.
(Contrary to 3.1.1 & 3.1.2.1 & 3.1.2.2)

EXCERPTED FROM A.C. 10084

ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ DISBARMENT CASE

(ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN PILIPINO)

4.1.9 PANGSIYAM NA PANDARAYA :

(Contrary to 3.1.1 & 3.1.2.1 & 3.1.2.2)

Ang kumpanya, totoo mang nagsarado ng

isang lumang planta,PROCESS-2, ay

nagbukas naman ng bago na aking

tinawag na BITUMEN PLANT, na

tinawag naman nilang BITUMEN IMPORT

FACILITY.

Makikita po natin ang tinuran kong kaganapan

sa Rejoinder p.6 p.7&nsbp;Nos.16&17; na si

Atty. Raul Quiroz mismo ang nagsabi :

XXX

"16. Likewise misleading is Complainants

claim in paragraph 14 of his Reply

that the Company is not encountering

difficulties in its operations because

it was erecting a bitumen plant as well

as a future project that would modify the

remaining units the remaining units

in the Process 2 facilities into high profit

margin Naptha Upgrading Complex.

17. The bitumen project that the complainant

was referring to was a Bitumen Import

Facility that involved direct importation of

bitumen products from other countries.

This is consistent with the Company's

position that current economic conditions

make it more profitable for the Company

to import directly than refine raw

materials. The Bitumen Import Facility

does not involve refining operations.

In fact, it is not the Complainant's refinery

business unit that handles the facility but it

is commercial business unit because it

involves finished products."xxx

PACKET 9 : LABEL 5.9.1 SHELL Rejoinder

p.6&p.7 Nos. 16&17

Katotohanan pong nagsara sila ng planta,

PROCESS-2, nagbawas ng kawani at

katotohanan rin pong nagbukas ng bagong

planta, BITUMEN IMPORT FACILITY,

at kahit hindi sabihin, ay nag- emplyeo ng

bagong kawani.

Nangangahulugan po ito na walang nangyaring

kalabisan sa kawani dahilan sa ang mga

kawaning inalis ni G. Rico Bersamin sa

PROCESS-2 ay siya rin namang mga kawani

na ililipat ni G. Rico Bersamin sa BITUMEN

IMPORT FACILITY. Kaya, ang tumpak at

kapuripuri at makataong solusyon na sana ay

isinakatuparan ni G. Rico Bersamin ay ang

magbigay ng training para sa mga Ililipat na

mga operator na galing sa PROCESS-2 at

hindi ang tanggalin ang mga ito sa trabaho.

Sa ganitong mga kaganapan papaanong

masasabi nila na ako ay magiging kalabisan

sa dami ng kailangan nila ? Malinaw pong

natunghayan natin salat po sa katotohanan at

wastong katuwiran ang REDUNDANCY

PROGRAM ng kumpanya, na todong lakas at

talino na sinuportahan at itinaguyod ni

Atty. Raul Quiroz. Kaya, Your Honor, please,

si Atty. Raul Quiroz ay batik sa propesyon

ng batas, disbarment lang po ang karapat

dapat sa kanya .

(Contrary to 3.1.1 & 3.1.2.1 & 3.1.2.2)

N O T I C E

The following Justices of

the Supreme Court of the

Philippines are DEEMED

provided with copy of this

"THERE WAS NO REDUNDANCY
_DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 2"

through Atty. Theodore

Te's PIO e-mail

address on MARCH 3, 2016

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.