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
(To: “Comment/Opposition”
of Respondent)
THE
UNDERSIGNED COMPLAINANT respectfully states:
I.
INTRODUCTION.
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.
III.
DISCUSSION.
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.
IV.
RELIEF.
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
Complainant
Cc:
xxx LAW OFFICE
Counsel
for Respondent xxx
(address)
Reg. Rec.
Date PO
EXPLANATION
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.
xxx
Complainant
