22ND PERSUASIVE APPEAL_14JUNE16_MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE BOUNDED BY GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FAIR PLAY AND JUSTICE(20DAY WORK=1GE FLAT IRON).

JUNE 14, 2016  SALUTATION Dear Chief Justice Sereno, et al: MESSAGE PREFATORY  1     PACKET 11 : LABEL 5.11.1  SHELL                                              Position Paper p.7 No.20 "20. It is respectfully submitted that the reorganization undertaken by the Company is a valid exercise of management prerogative.  It was made imperative by the conditions still persist even up to the present.  The Supreme Court ruled in The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Employees Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. that: "It is a well-settled rule that labor laws do not authorize interference with the employers judgment in the conduct of his business. The Labor Code and its implementing rules do not vest in the labor arbiters nor in the different divisions of the NLRC nor in the courts managerial authority.[16] The hiring, firing, transfer, demotion, and promotion of employees has been traditionally identified as a management prerogative subject to limitations found in the law, a collective bargaining agreement, or in general principles of fair play and justice. This is a function associated with the employers inherent right to control and manage effectively its enterprise. Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of employees, it must also protect the right of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. The free will of management to conduct its own business affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied.".[17] REGALADO, J.: As quoted by Atty. Raul Quiroz [16] Almodiel vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 100641, June 14, 1993, 223 SCRA 341. [17] Abbot Laboratories (Phils.), Inc. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 76959, October 12, 1987, 154 SCRA 713. NARRATIVES SHELL management concocted a PERFECT ATTENDANCE PROGRAM and called this PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARD SYSTEM. At the beginning of the year the supervisors under the direction of SHELL management instructs their respective operators, mechanics and other rank and file employees to become PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARDEES to the end of the year. But how does one become an awardee? Being part of our benefit package we got through our collective bargaining agreement, we have fifteen (15)  days vacation leaves, fifteen (15) days sick leaves and five (5) days personal/emergency leaves annually. In order to become a PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARDEE an employee can only avail of his fifteen (15) days of vacation leaves and leave behind his fifteen (15) days of sick leave  and five (5) days personal/emergency leaves.  If the employee happened to consume even a day of his sick leave or personal/emergency he will no longer be entitled to become a PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARDEE and may suffer unfavorable consequences of it. Now, at the end of the year those sick leaves and personal/emergency leaves of awardees shall be forfeited in favor of SHELL. These fifteen days sick leaves and five days personal/emergency leaves shall all be collected by greedy SHELL and gives back a gift, just worth one-half day work; in my case : one G.E. flat iron during one Christmas party occasion. WHY not give a gift commensurate to at least to the 20 day work? Actually, if the employee consumed all the fifteen days sick leave and five days emergency leaves, these 20 day leaves will cost SHELL  50 days worth of work. Look when the employee avail of these 20 days leaves, he got  20 days. then another will work in his  place and will be paid  overtime  1.5 x 20 days and got 30 days. Therefore, 20 days for the employee who was on leave plus 30 days for the employee who is working overtime for the employee who is on leave is equal to 50 days. So why just give a half day worth of gift?  This is a real SCAM , a scandalous extortion racket. SHELL management forced employees into submission to this SCAM by warning non-conforming employees that they will not be promoted or will be transferred to other work assignment which the employee will find to be a difficult or ridiculous one. And we find ourselves in these predicament since I joined SHELL. Every year I asked for MANAGEMENT to give  sanity to the PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARD SYSTEM but they never did. They kept doing this SCAM over and over again. On year 2000, January  I made a vow that I will not cut my hair to remind SHELL management that there is a constant plea for SANITY in the PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARD SYSTEM. But before my hair could grow any longer  SHELL management opted to terminate my employment in the guise of redundancy on February 2003. A case of illegal termination of employment I filed against SHELL (GR-183273)  and disbarment complaint against its lawyer (ATTY. Raul Quiroz, AC-10084) and are now pending in the SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES. I am by myself, my counsel, have longed abandoned me after this case passed by the NLRC and lawyers whom we asked for assistance  practically advise me and my family to quit because SHELL is our opponent ….I can have all the winning arguments in facts and law but SHELL has the remarkable influence on the judges and/or justices making the decision. At this point, these "practical " lawyers seemed to be correct with their assessment. The court is tilted in favor of Shell. Nevertheless, though on my own, nothing will ever diminish my will to fight for a cause I believe is right and that justice shall prevail in the end. This PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARD SCHEME though on the outset may look to be  free will of management to conduct its own business affairs however the court must struck this  down for being violative of the court's ruling which Atty. Raul Quiroz himself presented (The Supreme Court ruled in The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Employees Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.) to support the company's stand on the principle of managements' prerogatives where he had victoriously mislead the court into believing that managements' prerogative is absolute contrary to the meaning of the mentioned ruling,  as management prerogative is limited by general principles of fair play and justice, among others, which, again for emphasis, Atty. Raul Quiroz, himself,  presented.  I am sending you this message as a matter of  22nd PERSUASIVE APPEAL for this honorable court to consider review of GR-183273 and AC-10084 respectively and to institute corrective applicable disciplinary proceedings against erring guardians of law in connection with these two cases. May your honors be enlightened with the following citation: "SEC 200 Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another. This is acknowledged in subordinate magistrates. He that hath authority to seize my person in the street, may be opposed as a thief and a robber, if he endeavours to break into my house to execute a writ, notwithstanding that I know he has such a warrant, and such a legal authority, as will impower him to arrest me abroad. And why this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most inferior magistrate, I would gladly be informed. Is it reasonable, that the eldest brother, because he has the greatest part of his father's estate, should thereby have a right to take away any of his younger brothers portions? or that a rich man, who possessed a whole country, should from thence have a right to seize, when he pleased, the cottage and garden of his poor neighbour? The being rightfully possessed of great power and riches, exceedingly beyond the greatest part of the sons of Adam, is so far from being an excuse, much less a reason, for rapine and oppression, which the endamaging another without authority is, that it is a great aggravation of it: for the exceeding the bounds of authority is no more a right in a great, than in a petty officer; no more justifiable in a king than a constable; but is so much the worse in him, in that he has more trust put in him, has already a much greater share than the rest of his brethren, and is supposed, from the advantages of his education, employment, and counsellors, to be more knowing in the measures of right and wrong."         _ John Locke : Second Treatise of Civil Government,           Chapter xviii : Of  Tyranny Sincerely, Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

13JUNE16_56TH TIME_SHELL ROBBED EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PAY

SHELL ROBBED 

EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PAY

A case of David vs. Goliath by Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

image credit:david-and-goliath-shane-robinson.

Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation robbed employee's retirement pay by circumventing the Retirement Pay Law, while ranking Supreme Court of the Philippines personnel, the PIO chief, is delaying and preventing due course to its recovery, whereby:

 NUMBER 1. ATTY. THEODORE TE COMMITTED AND CONTINUE TO BE COMMITTING ACTS   CONSTITUTING CORRUPT PRACTICES OF A PUBLIC OFFICER UNDER RA 3019_ANTI GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

REPUBLIC ACT 3019

ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party (myself, Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.) including the Government, or giving any private party (PSPC, SHELL) any unwarranted benefits, (NON-PAYMENT OF RETIREMENT PAY) advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative (ATTY. THEODORE TE, functions) or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices (Atty. Theodore Te, an officer of one offices of the Supreme Court, the PIO) or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

NUMBER 2. ATTY. THEODORE TE COMMITTED AND CONTINUE TO BE COMMITTING ACTS WHICH OBSTRUCT OR FRUSTRATE OR TEND TO OBSTRUCT OR FRUSTRATE THE SUCCESSFUL APPREHENSION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS BY VIOLATING WILLFULLY,  DELIBERATELY THE PROVISION OF THE LAW PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1829 SECTION 1(e)

Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:

(e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts;

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1829 PENALIZING 

OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION AND 

PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS

MALACAÑANG
M a n i l a

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1829

PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS

WHEREAS, crime and violence continue to proliferate despite the sustained vigorous efforts of the government to effectively contain them;

WHEREAS, to discourage public indifference or apathy towards the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders, it is necessary to penalize acts which obstruct or frustrate or tend to obstruct or frustrate the successful apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND, E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law do hereby decree and order the following:

Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:

(e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts;

NUMBER 3. ATTY. THEODORE TE COMMITTED AND CONTINUE TO BE COMMITTING ACTS  WILLFULLY,  DELIBERATELY in violation of RULE VI, of the  Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713) 

RESPONSE TO REQUESTS AND PETITIONS MANDATED BY THE Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713)

(Republic Act No. 6713) RULE 6 _Duties of public officials and employees

Section 3. In case of written requests, petitions or motions, sent by means of letters, telegrams, or the like, the official or employee in charge shall act on the same within fifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof, provided that:

(a) If the communication is within the jurisdiction of the office or agency, the official or employee must:

(1) Write a note or letter of acknowledgement where the matter is merely routinary or the action desired may be acted upon in the ordinary course of business of the department, office or agency, specifying the date when the matter will be disposed of and the name of the official or employee in charge thereof.

NUMBER 4. ATTY. THEODORE TE COMMITTED AND CONTINUE TO BE COMMITTING ACTS  WILLFULLY,  DELIBERATELY in violation of ARTICLE XI SECTION 1 OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, to wit: 
Article XI section 1 of the Philippine constitution

ARTICLE XI : Accountability of Public Officers

Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

      TO THE JUSTICES OF THE                 SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

IN RE : AC NUMBER 10084 

AND GR NUMBER 183273

At this point, AC NUMBER 10084 and GR NUMBER 183273 by virtue of the evidences showing prima facie proofs of miscarriage of justice are needed to be reviewed and accorded proper adjudication.  Farther neglect through your gross inexcusable negligence will cause irreparable damage not only to the Filipino peoples' interest and mine but most importantly to your own interest  in keeping legitimacy of holding your position as Justices of the Supreme Court.  Your Honors, kindly correct the administrative and judicial errors you have committed while there is still time. When there is conflict between the Constitution or Law versus the Supreme Court internal rules, the Constitution and/or the law prevail.  Your Honors, with all due respect, please be reminded that the discretionary power in your possession  is for the advancement of justice not for the promotion of injustice .
  
Kindly, show us your people that the Supreme Court is not really composed of people and Justices beholden to Big Money interest,  pretending to be deaf and blind to the plight of the oppressed and the defenseless. Your Honors, please scrape the hardened calluses from your eyes...see your people, hear what they are saying...your people suffer from injustice...they cry for justice then deliver justice to them....not tomorrow but now. 

  

Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE.

13JUNE16_62ND TIME_CONTINUING DAILY FOLLOW UP OF SET OF FOLLOW UP E-MAILS DATED MARCH 15, 2015

• COUNT 62 RENEWAL
  

  
  IN RE A.C. NUMBER 10084

  _

  
  

  ATTY RAUL QUIROZ  DISBARMENT CASE

  
  

  
  

  “It is a fair characterization of the lawyer’s responsibility in our society that he stands “as a shield,” …, in defense of right and to ward off wrong. From a profession charged with such responsibilities there must be exacted those qualities of truth-speaking, of a high sense of honor, of granite discretion, of the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility, that have, throughout the centuries, been compendiously described as “moral character”.” 
  Schware v. Board  of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239.

  
  

  By swearing the lawyer's oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial administration of justice,  a vital function of democracy, a failure of which is disastrous to society. While the duty to uphold the constitution and obey the laws is an obligation imposed upon every citizen, a lawyer assumes responsibilities over and beyond the basic requirements of good citizenship. As servant of the law, a lawyer ought to make himself an example for others to emulate. He should be possessed of and must continue to possess good moral character.

  EXCERPTED FROM

  The Lawyer's Oath

  The Oath: The Lawyer's Ideal

                                By J. Jose L. Sabio,       

• 
  
• 
• • 5TH TIME-15MAR16-QUIROZ MISLED THE COURT BY PRESENTING AN ILLEGITIMATE QUITCLAIM DOCUMENT 

  Atty. Quiroz presented the document "Annex 5" shown above  as a valid quitclaim document though that piece of document was not verified.       
  
  • 5TH TIME_15MAR16_ATTY. QUIROZ DECEITFUL ALIBI ON WHY ANNEX 5 WAS NOT VERIFIED

  In his effort to achieve legitimacy of the illegitimate "Annex 5" quitclaim document, Atty Quiroz concocted a fraudulent alibi on his sworn statement that Annex 5 was not verified because according to him,  when Ms. Eva Rojas, the remunerations supervisor,  asked me my residence certificate, I told Ms. Rojas that I do not have it with me and I will return to give it to her for verification purposes.  That was a lie, deceitful statement of fact because if it was true that Ms. Rojas asked me my residence certificate for Annex 5 verification purposes, why when we met again on October 23, 2003, when I got my PRB (performance related bonus, Annex J), she did not ask for my residence certificate for verification. Let it be known that both Annex 5 and Annex J are not verified. Hence, Atty. Quiroz is again proven to be lying, he should be disbarred.
  
  
  
  
  
  • 7TH TIME_15MAR16_PROOF OF ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ LYING BY VIRTUE OF HIS OWN PRESENTED EVIDENCE 

  As Atty. Quiroz wanted to prove his allegations of financial difficulties that led to the closure of the old plant he swore that in fact the closed plant was undergoing demolition. He even bragged  about the contractor who will be doing the demolition.   However, the demolition of the old plant demolished his credibility and sent him more toward disbarment.  Why ?  Because he is proven to be lying again, that Shell is undergoing financial difficulties due to the fact that the demolition costs Shell an incredible sum of   PHP 129,950,000.00 as per his own presented documentary evidence.  Is this the manner of a company undergoing financial difficulties,  to spend PHP 129,950,000.00 for demolition work alone at the same time of having financial problems. Again, Atty. Quiroz is obviously lying,  hence, he should be disbarred.
• 
  




                                                                    

• 7th TIME_15MAR16_QUIROZ'S LYING BY VIRTUE OFTHE FALSITY OF HIS OWN SWORN STATEMENT
OIL Deregulation Law  as yoke to the shoulders of oil companies doing business in the Philippines is a blatant lie.  The fact is this law shielded oil companies from loses if ever there might be. As we can see, for every change in the cost petroleum products they can automatically adjust the price of their products to a point that is profitable for them.. Atty. Quiroz sworn statement that due to the Oil Deregulation Law it makes it harder for Shell to do business that made Shell decide to close an old plant is deceitful lie.  Oil Deregulation Law is not a yoke but an oxen oil companies can ride on, contrary to Atty. Quiroz sworn statements.  






                                                                                                                                            
8TH TIME_15MAR16_BITUMEN PLANT_ATTY.                  QUIROZ'S DECEITFUL INTENT TO CHEAT      Atty. Raul Quiroz act of calling the BITUMEN PLANT as a "commercial business unit " and differentiating it from the "refinery  business unit" carries with the deceitful intent to cheat.  By exalting that difference he might be able to justify to terminate operators from Process 2 then hire new operators.  But the truth is  the "refinery business unit" is the same as the "commercial business unit".  Both are plants ran and maintained by operators. Both have pipelines, motors, pumps to start and stop, valves to open or close.  Both have raw materials and finished products and storage tanks and control room. The BITUMEN PLANT is just similar to the LPG Terminal (Shell Gas Eastern Inc.) that we ourselves are operating.  In SGEI instead of bitumen, we receive liquified petroleum gas (lpg) in bulk quantities from abroad and the refinery and distribute it to different destinations in the Philippines and Asia. It is not that he called it "commercial business unit" it would be run by employees wearing tuxedos but with operators wearing safety suits.  Clearly, Atty. Quiroz having sworn  that" refinery business unit"  is  different from  "commercial business unit" carries with that assertion his intention to cheat purposely to justify termiinating emplloyess from the old plant and hiring new employees for the BITUMEN plant.  

9TH TIME_ 15MAR16_THERE WAS NO REDUNDANCY_DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 2   
It is a fact that Shell closed an old plant and terminated employees.  Likewise, opened a new plant BITUMEN IMPORT FACILITY and hire new employees. 



• 19TH TIME_ 15MAR16_THERE WAS NO REDUNDANCY_DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 1 
It is not true  that there existed redundancy of positions when I was terminated from employment.




• • 19th TIME_15MAR16_IN VIEW OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS

  This phrase "in view of the requirements of the business" was intentionally omitted from the sentence from where it is supposed to be included.  tthis phrase having been taken out from the sentence by Atty. Quiroz's defense lawyers avoided showing that there was actually " no redundancy" at the time when i was terminated from employment.





• 5TH TIME_ 15MAR16_RANKING WAS RIGGED_CIRCUMSTANTIAL  DOCUMENTARYEVIDENCE
This document is PRB(performance related bonus) paid to me about 8 months after I was terminated from employment, a circumstantial  evidence that the Ranking which showed that I was second from the poorest work performer was rigged and untrue as Atty. Quiroz deceitfully promoted.



• 21ST TIME_14MAR16_RANKING WAS RIGGED _IN RE A.C NUMBER 10064  ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ DISBARMENT CASE 
The Ranking from where the result of which serve as the basis on who is to be terminated was rigged. It was rigged due to the fact that the list of employees to be terminated was already prepared and submitted to DOLE (Department of Labor and Employment before the Ranking exercise was conducted.. This is the most vicious lie that Atty. Raul Quiroz is guilty of.  He must be disbarred. I was illegally terminated from employment on account of Atty. Quiroz promotion of Shell's wrongdoing.  I should have been  reinstated back to my work until my retirement.



• COMPLAINT REMINDER_15MAR16_REPUBLIC ACT 7641 CIRCUMVENTED BY SHELL ...PROMOTER GUARDIANS OF LAW SHOULD BE DISCIPLINED
RA 7641  THE RETIREMENT PAY LAW was circumvented by Shell as promoted by Atty. Raul Quiroz et al.  This is unlawful. Therefore, promoters guardian of law disciplined administratively and/or criminally prosecuted.



• ATTY. THEODORE TE_15MAR16_CONTINUING PERSUASIVE APPEALS FILED
This is the set of 14 persuasive appeals filed. Last update 11 April 2016



• 17TH TIME_15MAR16_TWELFTH PERSUASIVE APPEAL_SERENO LECTURES ARTICLE XI SECTION 1 OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
This is the twelfth persuasive  where the Honorable Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno lectures the Philippine Constitution Article XI Section 1.

• ATTY. THEODORE TE_15MAR16_ E-MAIL RESPONSE MODEL FROM THE PHILIPPINE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM
Shown above is an e-mail response model from the Social Security System.  This is the e-mail response which is most recommended to the Supreme Court of the Philippines Public Information Office.  Atty. Theodore Te please be guided by this model.



• 
  
• ATTY THEODORE TE_15MAR16_9TH COUNT _PERSUASIVE APPEAL _ MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE
This is one among the set of 12 persuasive appeals which Atty. Theodore Te et al refused to take cognizance of.



• ATTY THEODORE TE:_15MAR16_PERSUASIVE REMINDER_8TH COUNT PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT E-MAIL RESPONSE MODEL  FROM THE USA
Public Information Office as signature to your e-mails denies the constitutional concept of accountability.  Instead, please sign your name with great pride, honor and dignity.and not just PIO, the runaway, hiding  and no face guy.







• 
  
• SUPREME COURT_15MAR16 _89th FOLLOW UP_E-MAIL ADDRESS INQUIRY PERSONNEL NAME AND POSITION
The righteousness of the blameless will direct his way aright, but the wicked will fall by his own wickedness....Proverbs Chapter11 v.5



• 
  
• • • • • LAPITAN_15MAR16_67th FOLLOW UP_ OBJECTION ON THE MATTER OF SENDING NOTICE BY THE THIRD DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

      When pride comes, then comes shame;  but with humble is wisdom....Proverbs chapter 11 v. 2
      
      
  • 
• 
  
• 
  
• GEUS_15MAR16_66th FOLLOW UP_REITERATION OF DEMAND  PAYMENT OF RETIREMENT PAY
  
  

  • • Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is His delight... Proverbs Chapter 11  v. 1
    • Retirement Pay Law circumvented by Shell subject to penal provision provided for by Article 288 of the Labor Code of the Philippines.
• 
  
• 
  

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE.