Monday, April 1, 2013
(Contrary to 3.1.1 & 3.1.2.1 & 3.1.2.2)
DISBARMENT COMPLAINT AGAINST
ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ FILED DOCUMENT HERE
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ FILED DOCUMENT HERE
Attorneys and Admission to Bar
Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by
Supreme Court on what grounds. -
A member of the bar may be removed
or suspended from his office as attorney
or suspended from his office as attorney
by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct
in such office, grossly immoral conduct,
or by reason of his conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude, or for
any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before admission
to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience
of any lawful order of a superior court,
or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as
an attorney for a party to a case without
authority so to do. The practice of
soliciting cases at law fo the purpose
of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.
Specifically,
3.1.1 XXX .... A member of the bar
maybe removed or suspended
from his office as attorney by
the Supreme Court for
any deceit, xxx.
3.1.2 XXX... or for any violation of
the oath, (Lawyer's Oath shown
below, mine) which he is required
to take before admission to
practice, or...xxx
Lawyers oath
Form 28 of the Judicial Standard Forms
prescribes the following oath to be taken
by the applicant:
I, ______________________ of
___________, do solemnly swear that I
will maintain allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines; I will support its Constitution
and obey the laws as well as the legal orders
of the duly constituted authorities therein;
I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing
of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or
unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the
same; I will delay no man for money or malice,
and will conduct myself as a lawyer according
to the best of my knowledge and discretion with
all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my
clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary
obligation without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion. So help me God.
Specifically,
3.1.2.1 FIRST COUNT, VIOLATION OF
THE LAWYERS OATH
XXX .... I will do no falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of any
in court, xxx
3.1.2.2 SECOND COUNT VIOLATION OF
THE LAWYER'S OATH
XXX......I will not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful
suit nor give aid nor consent
to the same;....xxx
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
FOR HON. CJ MARIA LOURDES SERENO - 12th part
DISBARMENT COMPLAINT AGAINST
ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ FILED DOCUMENT HERE
RA 7641 CIRCUMVENTED BY SHELL,
GUARDIANS OF LAW SHOULD BE DISCIPLINED
4.1.12 PANG LABINDALAWANG PANDARAYA:
HINDI PO TOTOO NA NOONG MGA
PANAHON NA TANGGALIN AKO AY
MAY "REDUNDANCY" NA
ITINAGUYOD NI ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ
Your Honor, nagsinungaling si
Atty. Raul Quiroz na noong panahon
na tanggalin ako sa trabaho ay may
"redundancy" na itinaguyod ni
Atty. Raul Quiroz . Sa totoo lang po,
wala pong "redundancy", siguradong
sigurado po ako noong panahong iyon.
Bakit ko nasabi yun? Ganire po yun :
Your Honor, please, masdan po natin
ang sulat sa akin ni G. Rico Bersamin
ang sulat sa akin ni G. Rico Bersamin
na may petsa 28th November 2002,
sinasabi po rito:
XXX
"Dear Mr. Buensuceso,
As already discussed with you, with the
restructuring of the Tabangao Refinery,
we have exhausted best endeavors to
find a suitable position for you but we
have been unsuccessful. Hence, to
conforme to normal legal requirements,
we would like to serve notice that we will
be constrained to terminate your
employment effective close of business
31st December 2002 with the redundancy
package described in the following
paragraph."xxx
PACKET 12 : LABEL 5.12.1 Complainant Position
Paper,
Annex "E"
28th November 2002
R. Bersamin letter 1st letter
Dito po ay pinabatid sa akin ni G. Rico
Bersamin na dahil sa restructuring ng
Tabangao Refinery ay nagawa na nilang
lahat para makakita ng "suitable position
"sa akin pero sila ay nabigo.Kaya, upang
makasunod sa panuntunan ng batas ay
ipinagbibigay alam nila sa akin na ang
aking pagtatrabaho sa SHELL ay hanggang
31st December 2002 na lang, na may
redundancy package na nakasaad sa
sunod na talata.
Mapapansin po natin ang apat na bagay :
1. Restructuring ng Tabangao Refinery
ay tapos na
2. Nagawa na nila ang lahat ngunit
nag-resulta sa walang suitable position,
di umano, para sa akin
3. At sinabing hanggang
31st December 2002 ang trabaho ko
4. At may redundancy package
na ibibigay sa akin
Your Honor, please, ibig pong sabihin ni
G. Rico Bersamin sa isang pangungusap
ay, na noong gawin niya ang sulat na ito
sa akin, kung papaniwalaan natin siya,
matapos ang Restructuring ng Tabangao
Refinery ay kalabisan na ako sa
kinakailangang operator sa planta,
kaya kailangan na niya akong tanggalin
epektibo sa 31st December 2002.
Tama po ba?
Ngunit, Your Honor, hindi kaya ninyo
pagdudahan ang kadalisayan ng mga
sinulat niya sa akin, hindi kaya ninyo siyang
sabihing nagsisinungaling kapag nabasa
ninyo ang pangalawang liham niya sa akin ,
na may petsang 17th December 2002?
Tunghayan po natin :
XXX
Dear Mr. Buensuceso,
Further to our letter dated 28th November 2002,
please be advised in view of the requirements
of the business, the effectivity of the cessation
of your employment for reasons of redundancy
shall be deferred from
31st December 2002 to 15th February 2003. xxx
PACKET 12 : LABEL 5.12.2 Complainant Position Paper,
Annex "F",
17th December 2012 R. Bersamin 2nd letter
Sinulat po sa akin ni G. Rico Bersamin, na
susog doon sa kanilang sulat sa akin na may
petsang 28th November 2002, Sabi niya ay
ganito : "please be advised in view of the
requirement of the business", ibig sabihin po ,
Sana ay unawain mo na dahilan sa
pangangailangan ng negosyo, ang
"effectivity" ng pagtanggal sa iyo sa trabaho
dahil sa "redundancy" ay ipinagpapaliban
mula sa 31st December 2002 patungo sa
15th February 2003.
Hindi po ba tamang isipin na nagsisinungaling
si G. Rico Bersamin sa pagsasabing may
redundancy, na ako ay kalabisan na sa
kinakailangan sa planta? Hindi po ba kung
tunay na ako ay kalabisan na sa kinakailangan,
sa totoo lang , eh kahit po ora mismo, ngayon din,
ay maaari na niya akong pakawalan? Sa
pangyayaring nagkaroon na sila ng plaso mula
28th November 2002 to 31st December 2002
ay humirit pa sila ng panahon hanggang
15 February 2003 bago ako tanggalin ,
kaya maliwanag na may pangangailangan
sa akin noong panahong iyon ; na si G. Rico
Bersamin mismo ang nagsabing kailangan
niya ako na manatili Siya po mismo ang nagsabi ..
Sa Ingles po ang sabi niya:XXX please be
advised in view of the requirements of
the business the effectivity of the cessation
of your employment for reasons of
redundancy shall be deferred from
31st December 2002 to February 15, 2003.xxx
Hindi po ba ninyo kaya naiisip na naghanap
muna si G. Rico Bersamin ng tao upang
ipanghalili sa akin at hindi tunay na may
"redundancy" na tulad ng sinasabi niya noong
panahong iyon ? Kung totoo pong kalabisan
na ako eh bakit hiniling pa niyang manatili ako
hanggang 15th February 2003?
Your Honor, please, kung totoong labis
kaming mga operator , eh tsugi na agad
sana ako sa buwan ng Disyembre pa lang,
tutal nasunod na naman ni G. Rico Bersamin
ang sinasabi niyang one month requirement
na "notice" di po ba? Bakit humingi pa sila sa
akin ng extension hanggang
15 February 2003?
Kaya po, Your Honor, wala pong kaduda
duda hindi maaring magsinungaling
ang dalawang sulat na ebidensya. Wala pong
"redundancy," maliwanag pong walang
kalabisan sa tao noong panahong iyon.
Si G. Rico Bersamin ay buking o bistado na
nagsisinungaling at ang pagsisinungaling
naman niya ay buong lakas at talino at husay
na itinaguyod ni Atty. Raul Quiroz. Kaya,
Your Honor, please, nararapat lamang at
dapat tiyakin ng lubusan na si
Atty. Raul Quiroz ay ma-disbar upang wala
nang mangahas pang siya ay pamarisan.
With all due respect, Your Honor, DISBARMENT
po ang karapat dapat sa isang abogadong
katulad ni Atty. Raul Quiroz.
SEE 13th part LAST PART here,
DISBARMENT COMPLAINT AGAINST
ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ FILED DOCUMENT HERE
RA 7641 CIRCUMVENTED BY SHELL,
GUARDIANS OF LAW SHOULD BE DISCIPLINED
DISBARMENT COMPLAINT AGAINST
ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ FILED DOCUMENT HERE
RA 7641 CIRCUMVENTED BY SHELL,
GUARDIANS OF LAW SHOULD BE DISCIPLINED
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
SYNDICATED ESTAFA
MY QUEST FOR SWINDLED
RETIREMENT PAY BY SHELL
 
SWINDLING ITO, SYNDICATED ESTAFA
HOT PURSUIT
DUTY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES
SHELL SWINDLING OF RETIREMENT PAY 5TH YEAR
|
