24TH PERSUASIVE APPEAL_16JUNE16_MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE IS NOT UNLIMITED_MOSSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED A RECOGNITION

JUNE 15, 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. SHORT NARRATIVE It is a well-settled rule that labor laws do not authorize interference with the employers judgment in the conduct of his business; however, this is not absolute, as this is subject to limitation, as this prerogative, management prerogative  is subject to limitations found in the law, a collective bargaining agreement, or in general principles of fair play and justice.[1] Mosses was a Shell high school and college scholar. This scholarship program is not given on a silver platter. He earned this scholarship grant through rigid competitive tests among Shell employees siblings  who are pre-qualified to take the examinations. He diligently pursued his studies. He was proud being a Shell scholar and expected that Shell shared the same sentiment with him. So when he successfully got TOP 1 of the April 2002 Electronics and Communications Engineering Board Licensure  Examinations[2], his hopes were high filled with profound infinite enthusiasm; he dreamed of a day  of congratulatory meeting with the refinery General Manager Rico Bersamin, as it has been the practice of Shell management as what happened when he acquired the high school and college scholarship grants. At this time he was looking forward to a even warmer accommodation that Shell had in store for him being a great honor he had to celebrate with Shell.  But days and weeks passed, not even a word of congratulations from Shell management reached him nor myself.  In fact, my son asked me, "Tatay, kelan po tayo pupunta sa Shell para sa congratulatory meeting?  (Father, when are we going to Shell for the congratulatory meeting?).  I  replied, "Pasenya na anak, ako nga di rin nila kinongratulate, eh." (Sorry son, I myself have not been congratulated.)  Being a father, I felt my son's grave frustration. I am deeply disappointed on what they did. He did not expect that Shell being a company of a presumed valuable integrity and reputation would be managed by people with such unprofessional, unbecoming  conduct.  My son understood that though I, his father,  might be espousing ideas sharply in contrast with theirs but being professionals as they should be, they should have treated him(Mosses) as himself a separate and distinct individual and be accorded with credit due him and not as being son of Antonio Buensuceso whom they despised and wanted much to be humiliated. Shell and Bersamin could not deny knowledge of this fact as everyone else is talking about it.  Besides, gallons of ice cream flooded to all departments in the refinery on that day,  facts  in which had not been denied and not been objected to neither by Quiroz, or Bersamin nor Shell. Indeed, Shell and Bersamin through their acts and ommissions had successfully humiliated me in the face of Mosses  and of my family.  The respect that I have earned through their younger years seemed slowly being eroded. The values that I have instilled into their youthful minds had lost its viability given that honesty, righteousness, good name and reputation which we as a family hold dear, now laid to be subservient to dishonesty, cheating and corruption as a means which lead to grandiose way of life.  Sorry po Tatay...pero sira po yata ang ulo ninyo... Tatay..! ( I am sorry , Father, You have been crazy!) It hurts. For me who would prefer starvation than serfdom.  It is painful to hear them giving comments to that effect;  that they wanted to tell me that I should have renounced my principles and should have practiced bootlicking..."Tatay sumipsip na lang sana kayo at di na lang ninyo naisin pang itama ang nakikita ninyong mga mali...Sana di kayo pinag-initan..Tingnan ninyo ang mga sipsip at korap na kasamahan ninyo...Pinagtatawanan lang kayo!"(Father, you should have joined those who practice bootlicking and ignored attempting to right the wrongs ...then they should not have picked on you...look at those bootlickers and the corrupt you left behind....they were just laughing at you...!) Certainly, they might be saying it out of protest and desperation on the social ills prevalent in our society today. But it really hurts, and painful. Above is a classic example of out of bounds application of management prerogative as it transgressed limitation prescribed by generally accepted principles of fair play and justice.[1]    Moreover,  As Article 19 of the Civil Code requires, [e]very person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. A violation of such principle constitutes an abuse of rights, a tortuous conduct. We expounded in Sea Commercial Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[24] that: The principle of abuse of rights stated in the above article, departs from the classical theory that he who uses a right injures no one. The modern tendency is to depart from the classical and traditional theory, and to grant indemnity for damages in cases where there is an abuse of rights, even when the act is not illicit. Article 19 was intended to expand the concept of torts by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide specifically in statutory law. If mere fault or negligence in ones acts can make him liable for damages for injury caused thereby, with more reason should abuse or bad faith make him liable. The absence of good faith is essential to abuse of right. Good faith is an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through the forms or technicalities of the law, together with an absence of all information or belief of fact which would render the transaction unconscientious. In business relations, it means good faith as understood by men of affairs. While Article 19 may have been intended as a mere declaration of principle, the cardinal law on human conduct expressed in said article has given rise to certain rules, e.g. that where a person exercises his rights but does so arbitrarily or unjustly or performs his duties in a manner that is not in keeping with honesty and good faith, he opens himself to liability. The elements of an abuse of rights under Article 19 are: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.[25] Principle of Abuse of Rights http://www.abogadomo.com/law-professor/law-professor-archives/principle-of-abuse-of-rights The principle of abuse of rights is found under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which states that: Art. 19. “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith.” Art. 20. “Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.” Art. 21. “Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.” The above articles, depart from the classical theory that “he who uses a right injures no one”. The modern tendency is to depart from the classical and traditional theory, and to grant indemnity for damages in cases where there is an abuse of rights, even when the act is not illicit.  When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. Although the requirements of each provision is different, these three (3) articles are all related to each other. As the eminent Civilist Senator Arturo Tolentino puts it: “With this article (Article 21), combined with articles 19 and 20, the scope of our law on civil wrongs has been very greatly broadened; it has become much more supple and adaptable than the Anglo-American law on torts. It is now difficult to conceive of any malevolent exercise of a right which could not be checked by the application of these articles” (Tolentino, 1 Civil Code of the Philippines 72). There is however, no hard and fast rule which can be applied to determine whether or not the principle of abuse of rights may be invoked. The question of whether or not the principle of abuse of rights has been violated, resulting in damages under Articles 20 and 21 or other applicable provision of law, depends on the circumstances of each case. (Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 176 SCRA 778 [1989]). The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19 are the following: (1) There is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for their own sanction (Tolentino, supra, p. 71). Thus, anyone who, whether willfully or negligently, in the exercise of his legal right or duty, causes damage to another, shall indemnify his victim for injuries suffered thereby. Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores, and has the following elements: 1) There is an act which is legal; 2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; 3) and it is done with intent to injure. Thus, under any of these three (3) provisions of law, an act which causes injury to another may be made the basis for an award of damages. Of the three articles, Art. 19 was intended to expand the concept of torts by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide specifically in statutory law. If mere fault or negligence in one’s acts can make him liable for damages for injury caused thereby, with more reason should abuse or bad faith make him liable. The absence of good faith is essential to abuse of right. Good faith is an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through the forms or technicalities of the law, together with an absence of all information or belief of fact which would render the transaction unconscientious. In business relations, it means good faith as understood by men of affairs. While Article 19 may have been intended as a mere declaration of  principle, the “cardinal law on human conduct” expressed in said article has given rise to certain rules, e.g. that where a person exercises his rights but does so arbitrarily or unjustly or performs his duties in a manner that is not in keeping with honesty and good faith, he opens himself to liability.  Article 19 of the Civil Code, sets certain standards which may be observed not only in the exercise of one’s rights but also in the performance of one’s duties. These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. The law, therefore, recognizes the primordial limitation on all rights: that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. Further, may your honors be enlightened and seek solace and inspiration reading 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 May this message serves as the 24th PERSUASIVE APPEAL for you to reconsider your position with respect to your appreciation of cases GR-183273 and AC-10084 and institute through your own volition disciplinary actions against erring guardians of law in relation to the cases mentioned. Sincerely, Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr. FOOTNOTES [1] MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE IS NOT BOUNDLESS Cruz vs. Medina ( 177 SCRA 565 [1989]) University of Sto. Tomas v. NLRC, 190 SCRA 758 [1990]) [9] Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, 221 SCRA 782 (1993);  Corral v. NLRC, 221 SCRA 693(1993);  Rubberworld (Phils.), Inc. v. NLRC, 175 SCRA 450 (1989) [2]

15JUNE16_58TH 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.

15JUNE16_64TH TIME_CONTINUING DAILY FOLLOW UP OF SET OF FOLLOW UP E-MAILS DATED MARCH 15, 2015

• COUNT 64 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.