1

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Orosa Street, Ermita, Manila

VICTOR R. REYES,
Petitioner,

-Versus- CA. G.R. No. 71677

OMB 0-00-1399
HERNANDO B. GARCIA, OMB 0-00-1400
EMMANUEL R. SISON,
JAIME P. VALENCIA, JR. and
GLORIA C. QUILANTANG,
Respondents.

x------------------------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR REVIEW

PETITIONER, VICTOR R. REYES, by counsel to this Honorable Court,

respectfully state that:

Parties

1. Petitioner VICTOR REYES is of legal, married, Filipino, resident

of #80 Vermont Street, Filinvest I, Batasan Hills, Commonwealth Avenue,

Quezon City;

2. Respondent HERNANDO B. GARCIA is of legal age, married,

with office address at City Assessor’s Office City of Manila.

3. Respondents EMMANUEL R. SISON and JAIME P.

VALENCIA, JR are both of legal, married, with office address at Secretary to the

Mayor’s Office, City of Manila;

4. Respondent GLORIA C. QUILANTANG is of legal age, married

with office at the City Accounting Office, City of Manila.

 2

All the respondents hold office at the City Hall of Manila, Burgos corner

Concepcion Streets, Manila where they may be served with summons and other

court processes.

Nature of the Case

This is a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the 1997 New Rules of Civil

Procedure and in accordance with the ruling in the case of Fabian vs. Desierto

(295 SCRA 470), concerning the Joint Resolutions of the Office of the

Ombudsman in OMB-0-00-1399 and OMB-0-00-1400. Copies of the Verified

Complaints filed before the Ombudsman are hereto attached as Annexes “A” and

“B” respectively.

a. OMB-0-00-1399 involves the receipt of respondent Hernando Garcia

of unearned Commutable and Transportation allowance amounting to P8,500.00.

The respondents in this case are: HERNANDO B. GARCIA, Atty. EMMANUEL

R. SISON, GLORIA C. QUILANTANG, and Atty. JAIME P. VALENCIA, JR.

b) OMB-0-00-1400 involves the receipt of respondent Hernando Garcia

of unearned salaries and CAF & PERA amounting to P26,107.63. The respondents

in this case are: HERNANDO B. GARCIA, Atty. EMMANUEL R. SISON and

GLORIA C. QUILANTANG,

Averments of Material Dates

The assailed Resolutions involve the Joint Resolution dated December 4,

2001 dismissing the above said cases for insufficiency of evidence. The

Resolution was received by petitioner on February 13, 2002. Copy of the Joint

Resolution is attached as Annex “C”;

 3

On February 21, 2002, within the reglamentary period, petitioner filed a

Motion for Reconsideration. Copy of the Joint Resolution is attached as Annex

“D”;

On May 21, 2002, the Office of the Ombudsman in a Joint Resolution,

denied the Motion for Reconsideration on ground of lack of merit. The Joint

Resolution was received by petitioner on July 3, 2002. Copy of the Joint

Resolution is attached as Annex “E”;

Petitioner has fifteen (15) days from July 3, 2002, the date of receipt of the

denial of the Motion for Reconsideration to file the Petition for Review under

Section 4, Rule 43 of the 1997 New Rules of Procedure. Petitioner has until July

18, 2002 to file the present petition. However, due to constraint of work,

undersigned counsel on July 17, 2002, filed a motion for extension of time 15 days

time or until August 2, 2002 to file Petition for review. Simultaneous with the

filing of the Motion for Extension of time, petitioner paid the docket fee and other

fees as evidenced by OR Nos. 5738639, 5285087 and 14997822 at dated July 17,

2002. This petition is filed within the allowed time.

Statement of the Case

The assailed Joint Resolutions disposed the twin cases this way:

“In their Joint-Counter Affidavit dated October 26, 2000,

respondents Hernando Garcia, Atty. Emmanuel Sison, Atty. Jaime Valencia
and Gloria Quilantang denied committing the crimes charged to them.
They averred, among others, that respondent Garcia believed in good faith
that he is entitled to the benefits accruing to his position reckoned from the
date of his appointment on July 1, 1998; that respondents Sison, Valencia
and Quilantang signed the subject vouchers in utmost good faith relying on
their subordinates who prepared the vouchers (Arias doctrine); that
respondent Atty. Sison cannot be held liable for falsification of the DTR
because Mr. Garcia physically and directly reported at the Office of the
Mayor during the questioned period.
 4

To support his defense of good faith, respondent Garcia said that he

physically and directly reported for work to the Office of the Mayor
immediately upon his appointment; that as such his DTR was signed at the
Office of the mayor; that the Memorandum of Atty. Sison dated August 10,
1998 directing Mr. Garcia to report at the Department of Assessment is
consistent with the fact that since July 1, 1998, he has been reporting
directly to the Office of the Mayor; that he even sent a letter inquiring to
Mr. Josefino Reoma, City Personnel Officer, dated August 1, 2000
requesting for an opinion as to the reckoning date of his salary reckoned
from August 10, 1998, he immediately returned the remunerations he
received corresponding to July 1, 1998 to August 9, 1998.

Complainant maintains, among others, that respondents cannot hide

behind the Arias doctrine. Atty. Sison acted without authority. The
vouchers and documents allegedly do not show any participation of a
subordinate. No initials of subordinates can be found on the documents.

In their Rejoinder dated November 20, 2000, respondents belied that

there are no initials. They also alleged that complainant has no personal
knowledge as to whether or not respondent Garcia reported to the Office of
the City Mayor during the questioned period.

The Sur-Rejoinder of complainant dated December 1, 2000 is

substantially a reiteration of his complaint and reply.

After careful study of the arguments of the parties, it can be

concluded that respondent defense of good faith is sustainable.

Complaint has no personal knowledge as to when respondent

Hernando Garcia actually reported for work in any of the offices of Manila
City Hall. Weighed against the assertion of the respondents that Mr.
Garcia started reporting for work, although not at his intended station at
the Department of Assessment, in City Hall on July 1m 1998, it may be said
that respondents could be speaking the truth. On the score, it is in accord
with fair play that respondents should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Respondent Garcia asked, although belatedly, for the opinion of the

Personnel Officer as to when is the reckoning date, whether July 1, 1998 or
August 10, 1998, of his salary. He returned his salary and benefits
corresponding to the period July 1, 1998 to August 9, 1998 based on the
opinion of the Personnel Officer. These facts sit well with the claim of good
faith of respondents.

Undue injury to the government is absent in this case because the

alleged overpayment to respondent Garcia had been returned.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

recommended that the instant cases be DISMISSED for insufficiency
of evidence.

SO RESOLVED.
(Excerpt from Annex “C”)
 5

From the foregoing resolution, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.

(See Annex “D”). The Office of the Ombudsman denied the motion in the

following manner:

“The movant contends, among others, that the Investigating

Prosecutor erred in finding that respondents acted in good faith and
that the bad faith of respondents has enough basis on record.
Movant likewise did not agree that there is no damage to the
government and that the reimbursement is not a defense in these
cases.
The motion for reconsideration is virtually a rehash of the
complaint. There are no new matters raised. Neither there are new
evidence introduced.

Refund or reimbursement, coupled with good faith, is enough

to negate criminal liability for violation of Section 3(e) R.A. 3019.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

recommended that the subject Motion for reconsideration dated
February 21, 2002 be DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

(Excerpt from Annex “E”).

Statement of Facts

Petitioner is the Assistant City Assessor for Operation of the Department of

Assessment Manila. He was supposed to retire, but his retirement application was

not acted upon. While working for his reinstatement he came across documents

showing respondent Hernando B. Garcia to have been appointed to his item. A

copy of the Appointment Paper of Garcia is hereto attached as Annex “F”;

From the appointment papers of Mr. Garcia, we can find the material

information to wit:

a. Date the appointment was signed is on July 1, 1998 (Annex F-1).

b. Date forwarded and received at the Civil Service Commission is

August 3, 1998 (Annex F-2).

 6

c. Effectivity date is “not earlier that 30 days form the receipt of the

Commission (August 3, 1998). In other words, the effectivity

date

is July 4, 1998 (Annex F-3).

Another document found among the appointment papers of Garcia is the

Memorandum to him dated August 10, 1998 made by respondent Emmanuel

Sison. Copy is hereto attached as Annex “G”. This document directs respondent

Garcia to “assume the duties of said position at the Department of Assessment, for

your first day of service in the City of Manila.”. The import of this memorandum

is that Garcia has not been reporting to the City Assessor’s office and his first day

to that office can only be earliest on August 11, 1998 as directed.

Petitioner also stumbled upon fraudulent money claims of Garcia for un-

rendered services to wit:

i. Salaries for the period July 1, 1998 to August 15, 1998, under

Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9808-15978. Copy of which is

hereto attached and marked as Annex “H”) and

ii. Commutable and Transportation allowances, for the period July

1 to August 31, 1998 under Disbursement Voucher No. 101-

9808-16228. Copy of which is hereto attached and marked as Annex

“I”.

The foregoing payments to Garcia could not have been made possible

without the willing participation and connivance of respondent Gloria Quilantang

who made available unallocated funds to pay the unearned money claim. This is

evidenced in the Request for Obligation of Allotment (ROA). Copy of the ROA is
 7

hereto attached as Annex “J”; Marked as Annex “J-1” is the signature of

respondent Quilantang;

Similarly, the payments to Garcia could not have been made possible

without the willing participation and connivance of respondent Emmanuel Sison,

Secretary to the Mayor in fabricating the following documents:

a. Certification that Garcia started to work in the Department of

Assessment on July 1, 1998. Copy of the certification is attached as

Annex “K”. Annex “K” is contrary to his Memorandum date

August 10, 1998 (Annex “G“).

b. Administering the Panunumpa sa Katungkulan of Garcia and

indicating therein the date July 1, 1998, when in truth and in fact,

Garcia did not report for work on said date. Copy of the Panunumpa

sa Katungkulan is attached as Annex “L”. Again the alleged fact

that Garcia started to work on July I, 1998 is negated by Annex

“G”.

c. In verifying the Daily Time Record (DTR) of Garcia for the periods

July 1-31, 1998 and August 1-15, 1998 which were in truth and in

fact not rendered. Copies of the spurious DTR of Garcia are attached

as Annexes “M” and “N” respectively. The signatures of Sison are

accordingly marked as Annexes “M-1” and “N-1”;

d. Deliberately certifying in the General Voucher No. No. 101-9808-

15978 (Annex “H”-1) that Garcia rendered services for the period

covered contrary to the actual truth and fact.

It is also worth mentioning here that Garcia and Sison are brothers in law.

The sister of Sison is the wife of Garcia.

 8

Similarly, the payments to Garcia could not have been made possible

without the willing participation and connivance of respondent Atty. Jaime

Valencia, Assistant-Secretary to the Mayor in making the following:

a. Deliberately certifying in the General Voucher No. 101-9808-16228

(Annex “I”) that the disbursement for Commutable and Transportation

allowance of Garcia was incurred under his direct control and supervision

for the period July 1, 1998 to August 15, 1998 (Annex “I-1”) contrary to

the established actual truth and fact.

b. Approving the payment of the same General Voucher No 101-9808-

16228 (Annex “I-2”) without authority. The approval could only be made

by the Mayor and could only be delegated to the Secretary to the Mayor but

not to the Assistant Secretary to the Mayor.

On August 18, 2000, the City Assessor, of the City of Manila, Lourdes G.

Laderas, the superior of Garcia, executed a Certification that Garcia did not report

for work on July 1 to August 15, 1998. Copy of the Certification is attached as

Annex “O”;

At the Office of the Ombudsman, respondents did not deny the facts

presented above but raised good faith as their defense. The use of good faith as a

defense shifted the burden of evidence to respondents. Such defense accepted

the truth of the facts complained of, and respondents have the burden of

overcoming the admitted facts complained of as a consequence of admission.

Considering the strength of the documentary evidence coupled with the

non-denial of the respondents, petitioner strongly believes that the dismissal of the

cases against respondents by the Office of the Ombudsman were contrary to law

and evidence. Thus, this Petition for Review.

 9

Issue

WHERETHE OR NOT THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASES BY THE

OMBUDSMAN IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND EVIDENCE.

Argument

PETITIONER submits that the dismissal of the complaints before the

office of the Ombudsman was done in a manner contrary to law and evidence.

In dismissing the case, it was the contention of the Office of the

Ombudsman that the Refund or reimbursement, coupled with good faith, is enough

to negate criminal liability for violation of Section 3(e) R.A. 3019.

Petitioner strongly disagrees with the reason of the Ombudsman. Garcia

was in bad faith in collecting unearned salaries, CAF, PERA and Commutable

and Transportation Allowance for the period July 1, 1998 to August 15, 1998.

Petitioner finds the position of the Ombudsman untenable. A refund made

by respondent Garcia after the filing of the cases against him and his cohorts is an

after thought. It cannot ripen to good faith. In fact, such refund was effected not

because of the good faith but because of the Notice of Suspension on the

Disbursement Vouchers issued by the resident COA Auditor.

Good faith as defined is Honesty of intention and absence of information

causing doubt of validity.

The investigating prosecutor obviously sided with respondents and hides

his favor by just saying:

“Respondent Garcia asked, although belatedly, for the opinion of the

Personnel Officer as to when is the reckoning date, whether July 1, 1998 or
August 10, 1998, of his salary. He returned his salary and benefits corresponding
to the period July 1, 1998 to August 9, 1998 based on the opinion of the Personnel
Officer. These facts sit well with the claim of good faith of respondents. (Excerpt
from Annex “C”)
 10

The Ombudsman deliberately omitted mentioning the date of refund which

was on September 1, 2001 because it was made after the filing of the cases against

respondents on August 30, 2001. The refund was made in a desperate attempt to

escape prosecution.

The feigning of ignorance on the reckoning date of his employment is a

shallow excuse. Respondent Garcia is a college graduate not to understand the

import of his appointment. The Ombudsman took the lame excuse hook, line and

sinker.

Respondent Garcia is aware of the infirmity of his monetary claims for

Commutable and Transportation allowance amounting to P8,500.00 and salaries

and CAF & PERA amounting to P31,460.88 for the period July 1, 1998 to August

15,1998.

Exhibit “G” is a documentary proof of feigning ignorance. It is every

explicit. It does not need further interpretation. For emphasis, we take the liberty

to quote:

Republic of the Philippines

City of Mayor
Office of the Mayor

August 10, 1998

Memorandum To:

Mr. HERNANDO B. GARCIA

City Government Asst. Department Head III
Department of Assessment

Pursuant to Seciton 10, Rule V of the Civil Service Omnibus Rules

and Regulation, you are hereby authorized to assume the duties of your
position as:

CITY GOVERNMENT ASST. DEPARTMENT HEAD III

(ASSITANT CITY ASSESSOR FOR OPERAITONS)
Position

To which you have been appointed by His Honor, the City Mayor.
 11

Accordingly, you may assume the duties of said position at the

Department of Assessment, for your first day of service in the City of
Manila.

By authority of the Mayor:

(signed)
EMMANUEL R. SISON
Secretary to the Mayor

CONFORME:

(signed)
HERNANDO B. GARCIA
Signature of Appointee

The signing of his name in the conforme portion of the Memorandum show

without iota of doubt that respondent Garcia understood the import of the

document. Among the stipulation stated in the Memorandum is that “you may

assume the duties of said position at the Department of Assessment, for your first

day of service in the City of Manila”.

Very clear is the statement “for your first day of service in the City of

Manila.”. There can be no mistake that his first day of service in the City of

Manila” is after August 10, 1998.

The Appointment Paper (Annex “F”) of Respondent Garcia clearly

indicated at the dorsal portion (Annex “F-1”) therein that it is effective not later

than thirty (30) days from receipt of the Commission (August 3, 1998). Thus, the

most that Garcia can claim is from July 4, 1998. Still the money he claimed from

July 1, 1998 is more of the most possible claim he could make by three (3) days.

The Appointment Paper (Annex “F”) of Garcia and the Memorandum

dated August 10, 1998 of respondent Sison to Garcia (Annex “G”) are plain and

simple to understand. They do not need further interpretation for Garcia to know

that he could only claim payment for services rendered starting August 11, 1998 at
 12

the earliest. Consequently, justification of the Ombudsman in dismissing the cases

against the respondents is bereft of merit.

The rationale of the Joint Resolution of the Ombudsman in saying that

“Respondent Garcia asked, although belatedly, for the opinion of the Personnel

Officer as to when is the reckoning date, whether July 1, 1998 or August 10, 1998,

of his salary” is a manifestation that Garcia entertained doubts in collecting the

money.

Going back to the definition of Good faith, Good faith is the absence of

information causing doubt of validity. The letter of Garcia negated his claim of

good faith. The letter is a proof of his doubt and guilt. Garcia will not bother to

write the Personnel Officer to seek opinion in writing if he did not entertain doubt.

That writing was made as an afterthought.

Certification for Convenience.

To facilitate the processing of the unearned money claims of Garcia,

Respondent Sison on August 25, 1998, issued a Certification to the effect that

Garcia started to work at the Department of Assessment on July 1, 1998. Copy of

the Certification is attached as Annex “K”. Sison’s Counter-Affidavit stating that

Garcia worked in the Office of the Mayor negating his earlier Certification makes

him liable for falsification of public documents.

When asked to answer the complaint of petitioner, respondent Sison shift

gear and stated under oath that Garcia worked in the Office of the Mayor. (See

Paragraph 1 page 4, Joint Counter Affidavit dated October 26, 2000 hereto marked

as Annex “P”).

This statement of Sison in their Answer made on October 26, 2002

confirms the fact that his Certification made on August 25, 1998 (Annex “P) is not

true. Thus, we could clearly see the active participation and connivance of
 13

respondent Sison to the release of the spurious money claim of Garcia using his

position.

Disbursement Procedure:

Money allocated for the Department of Assessor is disbursed through the

authority and with the knowledge of the Department Head. At that time, the

Department Head of the Assessors’ Office is Lourdes Laderas. Personnel salaries

should pass upon her table. It is the job of Laderas to make the certification of

disbursement in the Disbursement Voucher. She is the one to authorize payment.

The Daily Time Record of employees of th eAssessor’s Office are subject

to veirification of the Department Head. In this case, it should have been Laderas.

In the case at bar respondent Sison in grave abuse of his position arrogated

the verification of Garcia’s DTR and made the disbursements, without the

knowledge nor in behalf of Laderas. Sison and Garcia were assisted by Quilantang

and Valencia. Valencia went further to authorize payment and release with out

authority.

Reimbursement is not a defense.

The instant case is squarely similar to the case of Licas, where the Supreme

Court declare: “The fact that defendant municipal treasurer, in charge of

Municipal funds, abstracted these funds and applied them to his own Private use,

and afterwards, of his own accord, reimbursed the sum of money before suit was

brought and without public service having suffered any damages or delay by

reason of such taking, constituted malversation. (Lucas, 4 Phil. 458; Luntao, CA

50 O.G. 1182; Antonio, CA-G.R. No. 5378-R, Feb. 25, 1957; Resano, CA-G.R.

No. 14398-R, Jan. 10, 1957. Nor does this government’s recovery of the amount

misappropriated affect defendant’s criminal liability. (Dowdell, 11 Phil.)

Refund of the misappropriated money does not exempt culprit from liability;
 14

Refund of the sum misappropriated before the commencement of the

criminal action does not exempt the guilty official from liability for the crime.

(Pedro Reyes, 14 Phil. 718; Miranda, 112 Phil. 197; Benitez, 108 Phil. 921). This

rule was followed in the case of Jose Feliciano, a Municipal Treasurer of Pasig,

Rizal, whose accounts were found short in the sum of P 84. The failure of an

accountable public officer to produce public funds upon demand of the auditor is

prima facie evidence that the missing funds or property had been utilized for

personal uses and were therefore misappropriated. Consequently, the subsequent

act of reimbursement cannot in any way affect the existence of the crime

malversation already committed.” (People vs. Miranda, 2 SCRA 261; Kimpo vs.

CA, 232 SCRA 53).

Reinstitution is a proof of guilt.

The argument (of reinstitution) not only is an inappropriate defense in

Criminal cases but it also even at times tightens a finding of guilt (Kimpo vs. CA,

232 SCRA 53). Moreover, he will also be required to return the same trial. The

reinstitution of the collected money and its misappropriation, without basis to

collect the same, is an admission of the fact, that the money should have not been

collected from the beginning.

Respondent Gloria C. Quilantang for appropriating government funds for

supposed salary during the period July 1 to August 15, 1998, which has no legal

basis, is guilty of the offense as charged. She cannot feign ignorance on this fact,

because an appropriation requires legal basis. Certainly, Quilantang checked the

appointment paper of Garcia particularly as to effectivity. Accordingly, she is

estopped from claiming that she did not make the appropriation without checking

on the legal basis in doing so. For appropriating government money for un-served

and illegal claim, Quilantang is in bad faith and equally liable for the offense
 15

charged. Note that she did this twice (salary and allowance). The acts are

deliberate, with malice and criminal intent.

Respondent Atty. Jaime P. Valencia, Jr. is equally guilty of the offense

charged because, he went out of his way to usurp the function of the City Assessor

and/or the Mayor and/or Secretary for the Mayor, in approving the disbursement

voucher without authority. He put color and title to the fraudulent claim, thus,

facilitating the illegal disbursement. Atty. Valencia can not feign ignorance to

limit of his job. He is a lawyer. He is conversant of the term ultra vires. There is

no other reason for him to sign the illegal money claim of Garcia other than his

bad faith and criminal intent to help facilitate the illegal money claim for un-

served services. He deliberately failed to explain his participation or actuation in

signing for the Mayor and/or for the Secretary to the Mayor and/or the City

Assessor when he signed the subject disbursement voucher. He cannot claim good

faith.

Respondent Atty. Emmanuel R. Sison is one of the most guilty. He took

advantage of his office to help his brother in-law.

1. He approved the spurious Daily Time Records of Garcia.

2. He approved the Disbursement Vouchers which approval is the

function of the City Assessor;

3. He signed the untruthful Oath of office of Garcia dated July 1, 1998.

(Annex “M”);

4. He falsely certified that Garcia started working in the Department of

Assessment since July 1, 1998 (Annex “L”);

5. He falsely certified that Garcia was appointed on July 1, 1998 in

usurpation of the function of City Assessor Ms. Lourdes Ladera.

 16

6. Sison deliberately and falsely justify that Garcia reported and

worked in his office. A convenient justification; The series of documents signed

by Atty. Emmanuel Sison falsely stating July 1, 1998 as the start of Garcia’s

service negates his claim of good faith. That is already deliberate. Once may be

true, twice, thrice, forth and more is unbelievable.

Suspension of Disbursement Vouchers

The Audit of Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9808-15978 (Annex “H”) on

alleged salary was suspended as evidenced by the suspension Notice hereto

marked as Annex “Q“. The grounds for the suspension are the following:

a. No Daily Time Record

b. Certification of the Disbursement Voucher was not made by the

Department Head

c. Disbursement Voucher was not signed by the City Mayor

The Audit of Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9808-16228 (Annex “I”) on

alleged transportation expense was suspended as evidenced by the suspension

Notice hereto marked as Annex “R“. The grounds for the suspension are the

following:

d. No Daily Time Record

e. Certification of the Disbursement Voucher was not made by the

Department Head

f. Disbursement Voucher was not signed by the City Mayor

g. Respondent Valencia was not authorized to sign in behalf of the

Mayor

h. Appointment Paper submitted was not attested by the civil Service

Commission.
 17

The non-filing of the authenticated Appointment Paper of Garcia from the

Civil Service Commission facilitated the processing of the unearned money claim

because the entry therein tells the propriety of the claim.

Summation

The documents and circumstances of the case show convincingly and are

sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The case

is meritorious.

From the foregoing facts supported by public records, it is clearly

established that, on or about August 27 1998, or sometime prior or subsequent

thereto in the City of Manila, Hernando Garcia, Emmanuel R. Sison, Jaime P.

Valencia, Jr. and Gloria C. Quilantang, while in the performance of their official

functions, confederating, conniving and conspiring with one another, did then and

there paid Hernando Garcia for unearned services, the sum of P8,500.00 and

P26,107.69 taken form the General Fund of the City of Manila which was not an

authorized expenditure of the City to the damage and prejudice of the government.

Relief

WHEREFORE, Premise considered, petitioner respectfully prays of the

Honorable Court, that after due review, to set aside the assailed Resolutions of the

Office of the Ombudsman dated December 4, 2001and May 21, 2002 and to

charge all respondents for the crime of Violation of RA 3019.

Other reliefs just and equitable under he premises are also prayed for.

31 July 2002. Quzon City for Manila.

BENJAMIN A. MORALEDA, JR.

Counsel for Petitioner.
PTR # 2855271; 01-02-2002; Q. C.
 18

IBP # 529819; 01-02-2002; Q. C.

3rd Floor, Vargas Building
103 Kalayaan Ave. Diliman, Quezon City

VERIFICATION
With Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping

VICTOR R. REYES, of legal age, married, Filipino and with postal

address at #80 Vermont Street, Filinvest I, Batasan Hills, Commonwealth Avenue,

Quezon City, under oath states that:

1. He is petitioner in the above captioned case;

2. He has caused the preparation of the foregoing Complaint;

3. He has read the contents thereof;

4. All the contents therein are true and correct of his own knowledge and
belief;

5. Complainant have not therefore commenced any other action or

proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals,
or any other tribunal or agency;

6. To the best of his knowledge, no other action or proceeding is

pending in the Supreme Court, and other tribunal or agency;

7. If he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding had

been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, or any other tribunal or agency,
he would undertake to report that fact within five (5) days from notice therefrom
to the Court or agency wherein the original pleadings and sworn certification
contemplated therein have been filed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, he has hereunto affixed his signature this 31 st

day of July 2002 in Quezon City.

VICTOR R. REYES
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 31 st day of July 2002 at

Quezon City, the affiant exhibited to me his Community Tax Certificate No.
___________ issued on ___________ at ____________.

Doc. No. ______;

Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of 2002.
 19

Copy furnished:

HERNANDO B. GARCIA,
ATTY. EMMANUEL R. SISON,
JAIME P. VALENCIA, JR. and
GLORIA C. QUILANTANG
City Hall Manila
Burgos Street, Manila

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Agham Avenue
Diliman, Quezon City

EXPLANATION

The copies for Hernando b. Garcia, Atty. Emmanuel R. Sison, Gloria c.

Quilantang, and Atty. Jaime P. Valencia, Jr. were served by registered mail due to
distance and lack of office messengerial personnel.

BENJAMIN A. MORALEDA, JR.

20
21
22