IN VIEW OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS

Atty. Emiterio C. Manibog

Atty. Joy Anne C. Leong-Pambid

                                          

                                       These defense counsels are from 

 ACCRALAW.

BETTER BE THIS MONKEY THAN SOME LAWYERS

THIS MONKEY FEELS SHAME SOME LAWYERS DO NOT

Please read and find out why Atty. Manibog and Atty. Leong-Pambid  feared and removed this phrase "in view of the requirements of the business" from page 22 of their comments and/or pleadings.

Atty. Raul Quiroz defense lawyers removed with malice intent this phrase "in view of the requirements of the business" from the original source quoted paragraph.  They cited this paragraph and prudence and honesty dictate this paragraph should be presented as a whole paragraph, no omission. This phrase,"in view of the requirements of the business", being removed from the paragraph greatly altered the whole context of the paragraph.  These lawyers deserve public disapproval and criticism based on this exposition.

                  DOCUMENT                                                        SOURCE DOCUMENT

WHERE the phrase"in view of the requirements 

of the business" is omitted.

                                                     click on image to enlarge 

This phrase "in view of the requirements of the business" is a phrase which carries with it an admission of Shell  that there is no redundancy in the workplace during those times when Shell terminated my employment.  Shell and Mr Rico Bersamin  in fact,  since November 28, 2002 (Annex E) had announced redundancy of  positions and likewise informed me  through a letter dated 28 November 2002 that  they will be constrained to terminate my employment effective  31 December 2002.  If this redundancy of positions is true during those times why did Mr  Rico Bersamin needed to write me a letter  dated 17 December 2002 (Annex F) saying 

" Further to our letter dated 28 November 2002, please be advised that "in view of the requirements of the business," the effectivity of cessation of your employment for reasons of redundancy shall be deferred from 31 December 2002 to 15 February 2003."

If the redundancy of positions are true, why have  Mr Rico Bersamin had to extend my employment from December  31, 2002  to February 15, 2003?  If this redundancy of positions is true, Mr Rico Bersamin had no problem to end my employment by the end of December 2002 because there should be a surplus of operators at that time.  But there is none, and  this is the reason why Mr Rico Bersamin advised me to stay " in view of the requirements of the business " until February 15, 2003.  This clearly demonstrated that there was really no redundancy during those times.

 The defense lawyers had intentionally remove this phrase "in view of the requirements of the business" purposely (malice intent) to avoid showing that there is actually no redundancy of positions during those times.

"Ang isda ay nahuhuli sa sariling bibig." by Dr. Jose Rizal 

The Fish is Caught by its Mouth

HULI KAYO, NAKAKAHIYA  KAYO TALAGA.

                    

BETTER BE THIS MONKEY THAN SOME LAWYERS

THIS MONKEY FEELS SHAME SOME LAWYERS DO NOT

To Atty. Raul Quiroz,  Atty. Emiterio Manibog and Atty. Joy Anne Leong-Pambid :  

Just in case you happened to feel being humiliated and lost your honor and dignity with this exposition,  I know how painful it is because I have been through it and all the three of you knew it well as the three of you joined Shell on this action against my person, my honor and dignity.

You knew it well.  Both of you together with Atty. Raul Quiroz that taking me out employment by supporting a rigged ranking procedure which placed me among the poor job performers, and declared it publicly that had I not been at the bottom of the ranking list,  then I would not have been terminated. You knew well  that I have been greatly embarrassed, degraded and humiliated by this action and yet the three of you wholeheartedly supported this action though you knew as lawyers yourselves that this is unconstitutional as it is contrary to Article II Declaration of Principles and State Policies Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. 

As the three of you yourselves,   Atty. Raul Quiroz, Atty. Emiterio Manibog and Atty. Joy Anne Leong-Pambid had violated Article II Declaration of Principles and State Policies Section 11: The state values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. Your action forbids you to take refuge on this constitutional provision which you yourselves had violated in case you need to rely on that provision as a matter of defense alibi in connection with this case later.

BETTER BE THIS MONKEY THAN SOME LAWYERS

THIS MONKEY FEELS SHAME SOME LAWYERS DO NOT

click on the image to enlarge  17th December 2002

click on the image to enlarge                    28th November 2002

 Atty Raul Quiroz Comments page 22 showing where the phrase "in view of the requirements of the business" is maliciously and intentionally omitted.

This is the essence of the  

     PANLABINDALAWANG PANDARAYA NI  ATTY.  RAUL QUIROZ

 OTHER DECEITFUL ACTS OF ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ  PRESENTED 
     IN THE DISBARMENT COMPLAINT against Atty. Raul Quiroz :

     UNANG PANDARAYA NI  ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ

         Pag gamit sa Retirement Pay bilang pambayad sa Separation Pay.
                           (unlawful)

     PANGALAWANG PANDARAYA  NI  ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ
         Pag papakilala kay Mr. Rico Bersamin bilang respondent ngunit
         si Ms. Remedios Vargas, na walang kinalaman sa asunto ang
         pinapirma  sa  Position Paper niya. (gross misrepresentation)
         
     PANG-TATLONG PANDARAYA NI  ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ

         Pag pepresenta ng dokumento,  Annex 5, "Quit claim"na hindi
         verified at igiit na yun ay may bisa ng isang notaryadong
         dokumento.

     PANG-APAT NA PANDARAYA NI ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ

         Pag sisinungaling na testimonya mula di umano kay
         Ms. Eva Rojas, bilang depensa sa kawalan ng verification
         ng Annex 5, "quit claim" document.

     PANG-LIMANG  PANDARAYA NI  ATTY.  RAUL QUIROZ

         Dapat una muna maganap ang ranking    [page  1     2 ]    

       bago magkaroon ng LISTAHAN  ng mga kawaning

         tatangalin,  ngunit naunang nagkaroon ng listahan ng

         mga kawaning tatanggalin  bago naganap ang ranking.

   

     PANG-ANIM NA PANDARAYA  NI  ATTY.  RAUL QUIROZ
         Pagbibigay sa akin ng PRB (Performance Related Bonus) 

         Patunay sa pandarayang   "RATING"[page 1    2] 

         na itinaguyod ni  ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ 

     PAMPITONG PANDARAYA NI  ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ

         Pagsisinungaling na pahayag :  na FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES, 

         kaya  nagsarado ng isang planta ang Shell.

     PANG-WALONG PANDARAYA NI  ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ

         Nagsisinungaling si  ATTY.  RAUL QUIROZ  ng sabihin niya

         " reduced tariff rates of imported petroleum products" 

         na idinulot ng OIL DEREGULATION SA INDUSTRIYA NG 

         LANGIS ay nagbigay  FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES sa SHELL .

     PANG-SIYAM NA PANDARAYA  NI  ATTY.  RAUL QUIROZ

         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.

     PANG-SAMPUNG PANDARAYA NI  ATTY.  RAUL  QUIROZ

         Ang intensyon  na  manglinlang na  tawagin ni Atty. Raul Quiroz, 

         na  ang BITUMEN  IMPORT FACILITY na isang

         "commercial business  unit " at  hindi  isang 

         "refinery business unit" upang bigyang katwiran ang pagkuha 

         ng ibang tao para mag-operate nito.

     PANG-LABING-ISANG  PANDARAYA  NI  ATTY.  RAUL QUIROZ

          Ang "management prerogatives" ay may hangganan. Ito po, 

          Your Honor, ay ang siya mismong sinasabi sa dokomentong

          isinumite  ni Atty. Raul Quiroz sa page 7 ng SHELL 

          Position Paper No.20,  ngunit hindi niya  inunawa.

CASE RELATED VIDEO

CASE RELATED VIDEO

The Truth will set you Free.

JOHN DONOVAN MARCH 4, 2014 ARTICLES

BP To Establish US Shale Assets As Separate Unit

Mar 4th, 2014 

by John Donovan. 

No comments yet

Extracts from an article by Sarah Young & Dmitry Zhdannikov published on 4 March 2014 by Reuters

LONDON, March 4 (Reuters) – British oil company BP plans to separate its onshore U.S. oil and gas assets into a new wholly-owned business to improve the competitiveness of its shale gas portfolio there. A number of big oil companies, including rival European operators Shell and BG, have struggled after making big investments in U.S. shale which have left them exposed to depressed gas prices, dragging on their profits.

FULL ARTICLE

RELATED BP PRESS RELEASE: BP to Form Separate Business to Manage US Lower 48 Onshore Oil and Gas Assets

COMMENT BY “OUTSIDER”

The question is whether they will move to take on Shell’s liabilities relating to unconventionals in the US – are we about to see a merger of Shell and BP, perhaps starting with the onshore US assets?

LONDON, March 4 (Reuters) – British oil company BP plans to separate its onshore U.S. oil and gas assets into a new wholly-owned business to improve the competitiveness of its shale gas portfolio there. A number of big oil companies, including rival European operators Shell and BG, have struggled after making big investments in U.S. shale which have left them exposed to depressed gas prices, dragging on their profits. – See more at: http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/131916/BP_To_Establish_US_Shale_Assets_As_Separate_Unit#sthash.aX4M8Quk.dpuf

Sarah Young & Dmitry Zhdannikov

|

Sarah Young & Dmitry Zhdannikov

|

Posted in: BP, Gas, Oil, Reuters, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, United States.
Tagged: BP · Gas · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

Ukraine queries Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron shale deals

Mar 4th, 2014 

by John Donovan. 

No comments yet

Extract from an article by Pavel Polityuk and Tom Bergin of Reuters, published on 4 March 2014 by The Chicago Tribune

Ukraine queries shale deals as Yanukovich era under scrutiny

KIEV/LONDON (Reuters) – Commercial deals concluded by Ukraine during the presidency of Viktor Yanukovich are already coming under scrutiny, less than two weeks since he was deposed, with lucrative gas projects involving Western companies among the first. Some Ukrainian parliamentarians have called for the new government to examine how, without significant financial outlay, a small Kiev-based consultancy received interests in shale gas projects led by Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Andrew Neff, analyst at IHS Global Insight, said any investigation raises questions about whether Shell and Chevron’s contracts would be respected by the new government and that at the very least a probe would likely delay the projects.

FULL ARTICLE

RELATED

Forbes: What Ukraine Needs Is An American-Style Shale Gas Revolution

Even Ukraine’s ousted President Yanukovich, despite his dealmaking with Russia, had clearly acquiesced to pressure to explore Ukraine’s other energy options. Last year Ukraine signed natural gas exploration deals with Royal Dutch Shell as well as Chevron, which pledged to invest as much as $10 billion if adequate supplies of shale gas were found. The government said it hoped the two companies’ projects would add more than 50% to Ukraine’s current domestic natgas supply. Ukraine could hold more than 40 trillion cubic feet of recoverable shale gas, enough to satisfy decades of demand. Now with Yanukovich gone it’s as if Putin has taken the Crimea as a kind of hostage…

FULL ARTICLE

RELATED

The Motley Fool: How ExxonMobil Corp. Could Be Affected by Russia’s Move Into Ukraine

The world is obviously waiting raptly for an indication of the next occurrence in the chaos gripping Ukraine. There also is a group of western companies preparing to begin exploratory drilling in Ukraine, an effort being undertaken with an eye toward reducing the country’s dependence on Russian gas. For instance, Shell’s docket for the year includes the drilling of 15 appraisal wells in eastern Ukraine’s Yuzivska field. That effort is slated to cost a not-inconsequential $10 billion.

FULL ARTICLE

Posted in: Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Gas, Reuters, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
Tagged: Chevron · Gas · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

Future Bright For BP and Royal Dutch Shell Shareholders?

Mar 4th, 2014 

by John Donovan. 

No comments yet

Extracts from an article by Rupert Hargreavespublished on 4 March 2014 by The Motley Fool

One of the problems that these oil majors face is the sheer size of their operations, making it hard to keep track of everything. In particular, it has been estimated that up to 30% of Shell’s assets are not currently generating a return on investment. Further, Shell is having a problem with free cash flow, which is not growing nearly as quickly as management said it would. The company said in 2012 that it would generate $200bn of operating cash flow over the ensuing four years, so far it has only realised about $40bn a year. Shell has been divesting assets left, right and centre, with $15bn of asset sales planned, although this figure could double.

FULL ARTICLE

Posted in: BP, Oil, Oil Company Profits, Royal Dutch Shell Firesale, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell Job Cuts.
Tagged: BP · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

The Gas Pipeline Map That Shows Why The Crisis In Ukraine Affects All Of Europe

Mar 4th, 2014 

by John Donovan. 

No comments yet

Map and extracts from article by Michael Kellypublished by businessinsider./com on 3 March 2014

(In answer to LondonLad…)

This Is The Gas Pipeline Map That Shows Why The Crisis In Ukraine Affects All Of Europe: If you question the strategic location of Ukraine, check out this map that Agence France-Presse made last in December — two months before protesters in Kiev forced President Viktor Yanukovych out of office.

Full map and full article

RELATED

Could the Ukrainian Crisis Send Energy Prices Skyrocketing?

Posted in: Gas.
Tagged: Gas · Ukraine

The TRUTH will set you FREE.