- ATTENTION
-
SENATOR RICHARD "DICK" GORDONCHAIRMANAccountability of Public Officers & Investigations (Blue Ribbon)
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE CHAIRMAN
- COUNT 251 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 FROMThe Lawyer's OathThe Oath: The Lawyer's IdealBy J. Jose L. Sabio, 
- Atty. Quiroz presented the document "Annex 5" shown above as a valid quitclaim document though that piece of document 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.
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. -
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.
- COMPLAINT REMINDER_15MAR16_REPUBLIC ACT 7641 CIRCUMVENTED BY SHELL ...PROMOTER GUARDIANS OF LAW SHOULD BE DISCIPLINED
- 17TH TIME_15MAR16_TWELFTH PERSUASIVE APPEAL_SERENO LECTURES ARTICLE XI SECTION 1 OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
- ATTY. THEODORE TE_15MAR16_ E-MAIL RESPONSE MODEL FROM THE PHILIPPINE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM
- ATTY THEODORE TE_15MAR16_9TH COUNT _PERSUASIVE APPEAL _ MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE
- ATTY THEODORE TE:_15MAR16_PERSUASIVE REMINDER_8TH COUNT PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT E-MAIL RESPONSE MODEL FROM THE USA
- SUPREME COURT_15MAR16 _89th FOLLOW UP_E-MAIL ADDRESS INQUIRY PERSONNEL NAME AND POSITION
-
- LAPITAN_15MAR16_67th FOLLOW UP_ OBJECTION ON THE MATTER OF SENDING NOTICE BY THE THIRD DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
-
- 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.
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.
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.
It is not true that there existed redundancy of positions when I was terminated from employment.
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.
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.
This is the set of 14 persuasive appeals filed. Last update 11 April 2016
