MERCADO GEOTINA VIAGEDOR BAUTISTA CONDE & PABRIAGA ‘2nd Floor CAO Mercado Bldg. Osmeria Blvd., Cebu City Tel. No. (032) 238-1763 Email: mgvb12law@gmail.com HON. SALVACION B. SANICO Statement No. C/O AL PRUDENTE Date: 22 March 2017 prudenteal011064@gmail.com ‘Thru: o e-mail 0 courier Re: “JOSEPH V. GREY VS. SALVACION B. SANICO” (OMB-V-A-15-0362) 5 Litigation 5 Labor o Taxation o Corporate a Administrative a Special Project 1. Legal Services: | 1. Research, preparation, documentation of initial draft | Re:URGENT,MOTION FOR REINVESTIGATION ‘2.Edit and finalization of final copies (6) Re: URGENT | MOTION FOR REINVESTIGATION 3.Furnishing of copies to adverse party and filing at the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas). TOTAL AMT. DUE 5,000.00 Prepared by: KeRepublic of the Philippines OPEICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (Visayas) M. Velez Street, Guadalupe, Cebu City JOSEPH V. GREY, Complainant, - versus - OMB-V-A-15-0362 FOR: DISHONESTY and GRAVE MISCONDU! SALVACION B. SANICO, Punong Barangay/Ex Officio Member, Sangguniang Bayan (SG-24) Barangay Buenavista IT Municipality of San Jorge, Province of Samar Respondent. URGENT MOTION FOR REINVESTIGATION RESPONDENT, by newly engaged counsel’, most respectfully moves for a reinvestigation of the above-captioned case. ‘TIMELINESS Respondent received a copy of the DECISION on March 13, 2017. Under Sec. 8, RULE III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, a motion for reconsideration of reinvestigation is allowed and the same is to be filed within ten days from notice thereof. ‘That being the case, the last day for filing therefore falls on. Match 23, 2017. ‘Thus, this motion has been timely submitted. PREF, TORY In seeking the kind consideration of the Office of the Ombudsman to grant this urgent motion for teinvestigation, the following matters are respectfully pointed out: ale her cage in the afternoon of March 17. 2017.(1) Newly engaged counsel for respondent was verily informed by the latter that being totally ignorant on legal matters, she entrusted this case to Atty. Jasper Sumagang: (2) It is to be noted that respondent is in a critical area and her life is under constant threat. Her husband, though injured, was fortunate enough to narrowly escape an attempt on his life after he was ambushed by armed men. (3) Nevertheless, despite this factual backdrop, respondent would contact y. Sumagang about her case who would repeatedly assure her that hing was “okay”. To stress, tespondent is ignorant about legal matters, and she fally trusted her lawyer to take care of this matter, (4) Thus, she was utterly shocked and disappointed to discover that her lawyer neglected to perform his duty and she was not able to answer the charges against her. As a consequence, an adverse decision was issued against the respondent. DIS PLEA SSION ON URGENT OR REINVESTIGATION Article III, Section 1 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, provides: “NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE , LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE DENIED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.” From the foregoing narrative from respondent, it is clear that Atty. Sumagang’s gross neglect resulted in the deprivation of respondent's right to due process and is prejudicial to the interest of respondent. Indubitably, a person’s tight to work or livelihood is property in the constitutional sense’. A more conscientious and dutiful counsel could have presented evidence for respondent that would have materially affected the decision of the case. ‘Though it is true that as a general rule the negligence of counsel binds the client, such a rule admits of certain exceptions. In one case’, the Supreme Court ruled that negligence of counsel does not bind the client when such mistake or negligence does not bind the client when such mistake or negligence is reckless or gross that deprives the client of * Antonio M. Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc, and Marlow Navigation, Co., Ine. G.R. No. 167614.due process of law or when its application will result in outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property or where the interests of justice so require and accord relief to the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer's gtoss or palpable mistake or negligence. It is respectfully submitted that in the instant case, respondent was unfairly deprived of the opportunity to submit her evidence due to Atty. ‘Sumagang’s gross neglect. Newly engaged counsel has been verily informed by respondent that if given an opportunity, it can readily be shown that the charges against her are malicious and ill motivated and that there is no basis to penalize respondent administratively. We humbly beg the kind indulgence of the Honorable Office of the Ombudsman that respondent be granted the much needed opportunity to present her side. WHEREFORE, premises considered, and in the highest interest of justice, it is most respectfully prayed that the foregoing urgent motion for reinvestipation BE GRANTED. Other just and equitable reliefs are prayed for. Cebu City. 20 March 2017. MERCADO GEOTINA VIAGEDOR BAUTISTA CONDE & PABRIAGA, 2/F CAO Mercado Building Osmefia Blvd., Cebu City 6000 e-mail addre: gvb12law@gmail.com Tel No. (032) 238-1763 RE} PAO nan PIR :262838/1.5.17/CC TBP NOS¥059108 /1.5.17/CC Attorney’s Roll No. 37311 MCLE Compliance # V — 0005548; 01.20.2015; Pasig CityThe Administrative Clerk Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) Joseph V. Grey Complainant Due to its urgent nature, kindly submit the foregoing motion to the attention of Michael M. Mernado, Jr. for the latter’s consideration and approval immediately upon receipt hereof. ‘Thank you very much, a -V. BAUTISTA Copy furnished by registered mail: JOSEPH V. GREY Jd 067 Office of the Vice-Mayor Municipality of San Jorge af aly Samar EXPLANATION Albeit the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires, whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings to be personally done, the service of a copy of the foregoing to the plaintiff was done via registered mail duc to distance to effect personal service.MERCADO GEOTINA VIAGEDOR BAUTISTA CONDE & PABRIAGA 2nd Floor CAO Mercado Bldg, Osmefia Blvd., Cebu City Tel. No. (032) 238-1763 Email: mgvb12law@gmail.com HON. SALVACION B. SANICO Statement No. C/O AL PRUDENTE Date: 22 March 2017 prudenteal01 1064@gmail.com ‘Thru: 0 e-mail o courier Re: “JOSEPH V. GREY VS. SALVACION B. SANICO™ (OMB-V-C-15-0339)) 5 Litigation 5 Labor a Taxation co Corporate a Administrative Special Project ft | 1. Legal Services: __ | 1. Research, preparation, documentation of initial draft | Re:URGENT,MOTION FOR REINVESTIGATION | 2.Edit and finalization of final copies (6) Re: URGENT MOTION FOR REINVESTIGATION 3,Fumishing of copies to adverse party and filing at the | Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas). | P5,000.00 | | TOTAL AMT. DUE Prepared by: betRepublic of the Philippines OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (Visayas) fy M. Velez Street, Guadalupe, Cebu City : JOSEPH V. GREY, Complainant, versus ~ OMB-V-C-15-0339 FOR: MALVERSATION and FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS SALVACION B. SANICO, Punong Barangay/Ex Officio Member, Sangguniang Bayan (SG-24) Barangay Buenavista II Municipality of San Jorge, Province of Samar Respondent. URGENT MOTION FOR REINVESTIGATION RESPONDENT, by newly engaged counsel’, most respectfully moves for a reinvestigation of the above-captioned case. ‘TIMELINESS Respondent received a copy of the RESOLUTION on March 13, 2017. Under Sec. 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, a notion for reconsideration or rcinvestigation is allowed and to be filed within five days from notice thereof. Since the fifth day falls on a Saturday, the last day for filing therefore falls on March 20, 2017. ‘Thus, this motion has been timely submitted. PREFATORY In seeking the kind consideration of the Office of the Ombudsman to grant this urgent motion for reinvestigation, the following matters are respectfully pointed out:(1) Newly engaged counsel for respondent was verily informed by the latter that being totally ignorant on legal matters, she entrusted this case to Atty. Jasper Sumagang. 2) Itis to be noted that respondent is in a critical atea and her life is under constant threat. Her husband, though injured, was fortunate enough to narrowly escape an attempt on his life after he was ambushed by armed men. (3) Nevertheless, despite this factual backdrop, respondent would contact ‘Atty. Sumagang about her case who would repeatedly assure her that everything was “okay”. To stress, respondent is ignorant about legal matters, and she fully trusted her lawyer to take care of this matter. (4) ‘Thus, she was utterly shocked and disappointed to discover that her lawyer neglected to perform his duty and she was not able to answer the charges against her. As a consequence, an adverse decision was issued against the respondent. DISCUSSION ON URGENT PLEA FOR REINVESTIGATION Article IIL, Section 1 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, provides: “NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE , LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE DENIED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.” From the foregoing narrative from respondent, it is clear that Atty. Sumagang’s gross neglect resulted in the deprivation of respondent's right to due process. ‘Though it is true that as a general rule the negligence of counsel binds the client, such a rule admits of certain exceptions. In one case’, the Supreme Court ruled that negligence of counsel does not bind the client when such mistake or negligence does not bind the client when such mistake or negligence is reckless or gross that deprives the client of due process of law ot when its application will result in outright deprivation of the client’s liberty o property or where the interests of justice so require and accord relief to the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer's gross or palpable mistake or negligence.It is respectfully submitted that in the instant case, respondent was unfairly deprived of the opportunity to submit her evidence due to Atty. Sumagang’s gross neglect. Newly engaged counsel has been verily informed by respondent that if given an opportunity, it can readily be shown that the charges against her are malicious and ill motivated and that there is in fact, palpable want of probable cause. Indeed, the Supreme Court had occasion to rule’, that: “We cannot overemphasize the admonition to agencies tasked with the preliminary investigation and prosecution of crimes that the very purpose of a preliminary investigation is to shield the innocent from precipitate, spiteful and burdensome prosecution. They are duty- bound to avoid, unless absolutely necessary, open and public accusation of crime not only to spare the innocent the trouble, expense and torment of a public trial, but also to prevent unnecessary expense on the part of the State for useless and expensive trials. Thus, when at the outset the evidence cannot sustain a prima facie case or that the existence of probable cause to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused cannot be ascertained, the prosecution must desist from inflicting on any person the trauma of going through a trial.” We humbly beg the kind indulgence of the Honorable Office of the Ombudsman that respondent be granted the much needed opportunity to present her side. WHEREFORE, premises considered, and in the highest interest of justice, it is most respectfully prayed that the foregoing urgent motion for reinvestigation BE GRANTED. Other just and equitable reliefs are prayed for. Cebu City. 20 March 2017. MERCADO GEOTINA VIAGEDOR BAUTISTA CONDE & PABRIAGA 2/F CAO Mercado Building, Osmefia Blvd., Cebu City 6000 e-mail address: mgvb12law@gmail.com ‘Tel No. (032) 238-1763V. BAL ISTA 62838/1.5.17/CC 59103 /1.5.17/CC Roll No. 37311 MCLE Compliance # V — 0005548; 01.20.2015; Pasig City ‘The Administrative Clerk Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) Joseph V. Grey Complainant Due to its urgent nature, kindly submit the foregoing motion to the attention of Michael M. Mernado, ¢ latter’s consideration and approval immediately upon receipt hereof Thankyou very much. V. BAUTISTA Copy furnished by registered maif JOSEPH V. GREY KG Office of the Vice-Mayor wea > Municipality of San Jorge 4 Samar EXPLANATION Albeit the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires, whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings to be personally done, the service of a copy of the foregoing to the plaintiff was done via registered mail due to distance to effect personal service.