A sample REPLY of the complainant to the COMMENT/OPPOSITION of the respondent re the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION filed by the complainant in the Office of the City Prosecutor. Falsification, forgery case. The Reply was prepared by our law office.
R E P L Y
THE UNDERSIGNED COMPLAINANT respectfully states:
The subject matter of this Reply is the Comment/Opposition, dated January 28, 2016, of the counsel for the respondent, xxx Law Office, a copy of which was received on January 28, 2016 by the herein complainant.
The said Comment/Opposition of the respondent opposes the pending Motion For Reconsideration, dated January 7, 2016, of the herein complainant.
II. GROUNDS CITED IN THE COMMENT/OPPOSITION OF THE RESPONDENT.
In the Prayer part of her Comment/Opposition, the respondent assigns three (3) grounds to deny the pending motion for reconsideration of the herein complainant, to wit:
(a) Lack of verification by the herein complainant of her motion for reconsideration;
(b) Lack of proof of service by the herein complainant to the respondent of a copy of the former’s motion for reconsideration;
(c) Lack of merit of the motion for reconsideration of the herein complainant.
A. A PURELY LEGAL (AND SINGLE) ISSUE IS RAISED IN THE PENDING MOTION FOR RECONSIDEATION OF THE HEREIN COMPLAINANT.
THE ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COMPLAINANT DO NOT INTRODUCE NEW DOCUMENTS OR NEW TESTIMONIES OR NEW FACTS THAT REQUIRE MANDATORY JURAT, OATH, OR VERIFICATION.
The sole basis of this Honorable Office in dismissing the instant Complaint was that that the proper party-complainant should have been Xxx Xxx (the employer of the herein complainant) and not the complainant herself because the Complainant was not the actual issuer of the falsified Certificate of Employment subject matter of the Complaint but her employer xxx.
The pending motion for reconsideration of the herein complainant (as an affected employee) presents and argues a single purely legal issue, i.e., whether or not the herein complainant has the legal standing or locus standi to be a proper party or a party-in-interest or a necessary party as an affected/injured/harmed employee to initiate a falsification and forgery case against the respondent and her co-malefactor/s who have injured, damaged, and harmed her good name, honor, reputation, employment and livelihood as a law-abiding and innocent citizen, mother, parent and professional.
A single purely legal issue of such nature requires no formal verification because the purely legal arguments are (a) matters of record and (b) matters of judicial notice based on existing laws and jurisprudence.
The arguments of the herein complainant in her pending motion for reconsideration do not present and identify new factual issues or new documentary and testimonial evidence or new facts that require a notarial oath or a jurat or a notarial acknowledgment before a private notary public or an administering assistant city prosecutor to make her motion for reconsideration a valid and admissible pleading worthy of consideration by this Honorable Office.
The three (3) main relevant and material facts in the instant case are undisturbed and uncontroverted by the respondent in her past counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit and in her Comment/Opposition, to wit:
(a) The identity of the employer (alleged issuer of the questioned Certificate of Employment);
(b) The identity of the employee-complainant (the party injured/affected by the falsified Certificate of Employment); and
© The fact of the issuance of the questioned Certificate of Employment (which document came to the knowledge and possession of the employer, when a Bank representative verified the same, and which document became the official basis of the employer in commencing an internal administrative case against the herein complainant for alleged gross dishonesty).
A legal issue is a matter of record and a matter of judicial notice.
No new testimonial and documentary evidence are presented in a motion for reconsideration that raises a purely legal issue.
Such a motion need not be verified because it does not allege, identify, introduce and present new facts or new documents or new testimonies or new witnesses that require a mandatory notarial or jurat-based verification to affirm the veracity, authenticity and due execution of such new documents or new facts or new testimonies of new witnesses.
Finally, a petition for review/appeal filed with the Department of Justice central office/regional office must be verified and must contain an anti-forum shopping certification and, further, its annexes must be certified by the local office of the city prosecutor, because the original case record is not automatically elevated by the local office of the city prosecutor to the DOJ central office/regional office simultaneously with the filing by the appellant of the petition for review/appeal.
B. THE HEREIN COMPLAINANT HAS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH THE RULE ON PROOF OF SERVICE BY ATTACHING THE ORIGINAL OF THE POST OFFICE REGISTRY RECEIPT TO THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THAT SHE FILED WITH THIS HONORABLE OFFICE.
NO SEPARATE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE IS REQUIRED AS A MATTER OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE, ENTRENCHED TRADITION, AND OLD-TIME PRACTICE BY LAWYERS AND LITIGANTS BEFORE LOCAL OFFICES OF CITY AND PROVINCIAL PROSECUTORS AND EVEN BEFORE THE TRIAL COURTS IN THE COUNTRY VIS-À-VIS RULE 13 (AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE) OF THE RULES OF COURT.
The original of the Post Office Registry Receipt was attached by the complainant to the original copy of her motion for reconsideration that she filed with this Honorable Office.
The rest of the extra copies of the motion filed with this Honorable Office (as well as the copy of the motion served on the respondent via registered mail) also contained the following official data on the last page of such individual copies, tow wit:
· Post Office Registry Receipt Number No. xxx
· Date of mailing (January 12, 2016) via registered mail of the copy of the motion to the respondent, and
· Location of the Post Office (xx City) where the copy of the motion mailed via registered mail to the respondent was mailed/posted.
The respondent admits in Par. 1 of her Comment/Opposition that she actually received on January 19, 2016 a copy of the motion for reconsideration via registered mail.
Hence, the issues of due process and of proof of service (i.e., whether or not the respondent received a copy of the motion and whether or not she was afforded a fair opportunity to be heard thereon) are now deemed moot and academic.
Her right to due process of law was not injured and harmed in any manner whatsoever.
The service by the complainant to the respondent of a copy of the motion for reconsideration via registered mail is a sufficient proof of service.
It was a substantial compliance with the rule on proof of service.
The fact remains that the respondent was duly and actually notified of the said motion by actually receiving a copy thereof and by subsequently filing her Comment/Opposition thereto.
The act of attaching (as proof of service) the original of the post office registry receipts to the originals of the pleadings filed with the local offices of the city and provincial prosecutors and even those pleadings filed with local trial courts is an the entrenched and accepted tradition and old-time practice among lawyers and litigants which the said local offices/courts allow and accepts as a substantial compliance with Rule 13 (affidavit of proof of service) of the Rules of Court.
Furthermore, for the record, the complainant is attaching to the original of this Reply as Annex “A” hereof the original of the Post Office Registry Return Card (a) to prove the fact of service by the complainant to the respondent of a copy of the motion for reconsideration and (b) to prove the fact of actual receipt of a copy thereof by the respondent of the motion on January 19, 2016 as admitted by her in Par. 1 of her Comment/Opposition and as shown in the dorsal side of the said Post Office Registry Return Card.
C. THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS NOT PRO FORMA.
IT IS NOT A REHASH.
IT CONTAINS LEGAL AND JURISPRUDENTIAL ARGUMENTS THAT DISCUSS THE SOLE PURELY LEGAL ISSUE OR ERROR OF THIS HONORABLE OFFICE IN DISMISSING THE INSTANT COMPLAINT BASED ONLY ON THE
TECHNICALITY THAT THE HEREIN COMPLAINANT IS NOT A PROPER PARTY OR A INDISPENSABLE PARTY OR A NECESSARY PARTY WHO HAS THE LOCUS STANDI TO COMMENCE THE INSTANT COMPLAINT.
The motion for reconsideration deserves consideration by this Honorable Office.
It is not a rehashed motion.
It contains strong legal and jurisprudential arguments in support of the legal theory of the complainant that the technical dismissal by this Honorable Office of the instant complaint was erroneous in the eyes of the applicable law and jurisprudence.
It cites legal and jurisprudential authorities in support of its arguments against the sole purely legal issue or error assigned in the motion for reconsideration which were not heretofore discussed in the complaint-affidavit and in the rejoinder-affidavit of the complainant.
In fact, it is the respondent -- in a short, simple, generic and shotgun-style claim in a 9-line single paragraph (i.e., Par. 4) of her Comment/Opposition -- who is guilty of raising a pro forma defense.
Without discussing and controverting the strong and lengthy legal and jurisprudential authorities cited by the complainant in her motion for reconsideration, the respondent is satisfied with making a general and sweeping, and indeed a pro forma, claim that the motion for reconsideration is allegedly a rehash/repetition and unmeritorious, without extensively presenting her counter-arguments to support her pro forma claim and without rebutting the authorities and citations in the motion for reconsideration of the complainant.
WHEREFORE, premises considered and in the interest of justice, the complainant respectfully prays that the questioned Resolution, dated 11 September 2015, be reconsidered and set aside and a new one be issued indicting the respondent for the crime of Falsification and Forgery of Private Commercial Document as charged in the Complaint.
Further, it is respectfully prayed (a) that the Investigating Assistant City Prosecutor be disqualified from participating in any manner whatsoever in the resolution of the pending motion for reconsideration for reasons of delicadeza and legal ethics and (b) that the Case Record hereof be elevated to the Office of the Chief City Prosecutor for further review.
Finally, the complainant respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.
Las Pinas City, February 2, 2016.
xxx LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Respondent xxx
A copy of this pleading is served on the adverse counsel via registered mail due to the urgency of filing the same and due to the lack of personal field assistants of the undersigned complainant at this time.