REPUBLIKA NG PILIPINAS

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

TANGGAPAN NG MANANANGGOL PAMBAYAN
KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN
5th Floor DOJ Agencies Building
NIA Road Corner East Avenue
Diliman 1104 Quezon City

EXPLANATION/COMMENT

FOR: ELPIDIO C. BACUYAG

OIC-Deputy Chief Public Attorney

FROM: ATTY. CULBERT G. REYNES

Public Attorney I, Special and Appealed Cases Service

SUBJECT: MERLINDA MARQUESES’ LETTER COMPLAINT DATED 15

AUGUST 2014 (LC No. 2014-150)

DATE: 08 September 2014

__________________________________________________________________

This is respectfully submitted in compliance to the Memorandum

dated 28 August 2014 and received by the undersigned on 3 September
2014, directing him to explain/comment on his alleged refusal to prepare a
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for Ms.
Marqueses (MRM) because of her failure to file a timely Motion for
Reconsideration (in behalf of her son KJRM)1 to the Resolution of the
Secretary of Justice and despite her claim that she possessed evidence to
prove that she was deprived of due process and that there was extreme
urgency for relief, in violation of Section 46 (B) (6) of the Revised Rules of
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS). Attached to said
Memorandum is Mrs. Marqueses’ Salaysay ng Reklamo for Grave
Misconduct. Note that at that time, she already had contact with two (2)
lawyers from the PAO-SACS handling her other previously filed cases.

For a clearer appreciation of the facts herein, the undersigned is

obliged to provide an abbreviated timeline for the instant case.

MRM claimed to have received the above-mentioned Resolution on

24 June 2014, which gave her until 04 July 2014 to file a Motion for
Reconsideration and until 23 August 20142 to file a Petition for Certiorari.

1
MERLINDA MARQUESES y RODA assisting KJRM- Minor Victim versus FERDINAND MABANAG, NPS
Docket Number XV-09-INV-12J-01431.
2
Since 23 August 2014 falls on a Saturday, the Petition’s due date is on 26 August 2014 or the next
succeeding working day from 23 August 2014.
EXPLANATION/COMMENT Page 2 of 5
MS. MERLINDA MARQUESES’ LETTER-COMPLAINT
DATED 15 AUGUST 2014 (LC No. 2014-150)

On the afternoon of 06 August 2014, she sought the aid of the Public
Attorney’s Office (PAO) in order to file a Petition for Certiorari before the
Court of Appeals notwithstanding her neglect to file a Motion for
Reconsideration. Her case was assigned to the undersigned for evaluation3
at a quarter past 5 p.m. of the same day.

At about 5:30 of the same day, the undersigned engaged MRM in a

brief interview and informed her of his initial observation. After she
revealed that Atty. Ma. Sheryl Harina-Laure (then a handling lawyer for
another case by the same candidate client) had instructed her to return on
12 August 2014, the undersigned likewise set the following meeting on 12
August 2014 in order to avoid said candidate client from incurring
unnecessary costs and to afford the undersigned time to review the
records/documents that MRM submitted in support of her claim.

After carefully examining said records, the undersigned was of the

opinion that said remedy was no longer available in the instant case.
Complainant’s (KJRM) failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration was an
egregious error on his part as he failed to exhaust the administrative
remedies available. Furthermore, the undersigned could not conclude that
the Resolution issued by the Secretary of Justice was committed with grave
abuse of discretion. Observing office protocol, his findings and arguments
in support thereof were detailed in a Memorandum of Denial dated 18
August 2014, which was approved in a Memorandum dated 22 August
2014.4 The undersigned promptly drafted a letter of denial to MRM on the
same day and sent the same together with her records to the address she
provided.5

Nonetheless, the undersigned informed MRM of his opinion on 13

August 2014 to preclude raising her hopes on the merits of her claim and
allow her, if she still decides to pursue the issue, to secure the services of
another lawyer who may be willing to represent her.

Verily, as the above narration will show, the undersigned performed

his official duty. Unfortunately, his opinion, which was approved by the
Office of the Chief Public Attorney,6 was not favorable to MRM.

Anent MRM’s charge of Grave Misconduct in her Salaysay ng

Reklamo, the undersigned is compelled to point out that said complaint,
filed on 15 August 2014, was premature as the undersigned does not have
the authority to deny MRM the office’s representation - he merely
recommends its denial. The power to deny is lodged elsewhere.

3
Hereto attached as Annex “A”.
4
Hereto attached as Annex “B”.
5
A duplicate copy of LBC Express O.R. No. CBA0530922 is attached hereto as Annex “C”.
6
Supra note 4.
EXPLANATION/COMMENT Page 3 of 5
MS. MERLINDA MARQUESES’ LETTER-COMPLAINT
DATED 15 AUGUST 2014 (LC No. 2014-150)

Again, it was in fact for MRM’s benefit that the undersigned informed
her of his assessment in order to afford her time to look for the services of
counsel with what little time she had left.

Besides, a thorough review of her Complaint fails to reveal an

alleged act of the undersigned that amounts to Grave Misconduct.

Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a

rule of law or standard of behavior. To constitute an administrative offense,
misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the
official functions and duties of a public officer. In grave misconduct, as
distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear
intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be
manifest.7

One searches in vain for any rule of law or standard of behavior

allegedly violated by the undersigned. Except for the Complaint’s
denomination, her narration does not support a charge of simple
misconduct, much less, one grave in nature. She just did not like the
undersigned’s assessment of her case.

On her charge that she wasted time, effort and money in trying to
convince the undersigned to draft the Petition for Certiorari, the same
deserves scant consideration, as these are considered necessary
expenses/collateral damage in litigation. The undersigned could have
made his recommendation based on the documents MRM submitted on 6
August 2014, but in fulfillment of his duty and to ascertain the truth behind
her self-serving claims decided to give her a chance to present proof that
she was “indisposed” before making up his mind. Besides, even without
the undersigned’s prodding for her to return and present the necessary
documents, the Office’s logbooks will bare that MRM actually spends an
inordinate amount of time in this office filing new cases and following up on
old ones. This has led the Secretary of Justice to rule (in another case)
that “complainant’s propensity to file cases against those who disagree with
her casts serious doubt on the credibility of her accusations against herein
respondents.”8 Indeed, MRM may be the proverbial boy who cried wolf;
making it very difficult for those who hear her separate fact from fiction, the
truth from lies.

Also, the choice of the word “indisposed” was no accident as it was

meant to unmask whatever record she had on hand without the
undersigned coaching her. This was done because the undersigned
observed a tendency to suppress evidence when MRM failed to attach
Exhibits 1 and 2, which were supposedly annexed to Cristita M. Monilla’s
affidavit for the undersigned’s perusal. Said exhibits were certainly
damaging to her case as these were school records documenting her son’s
7
Narvasa v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 169449, 26 March 2010.
8
DOJ Resolution, LML-IAU-L-13B14-014 dated 13 February 2014, p. 2, hereto attached as Annex “D”.
EXPLANATION/COMMENT Page 4 of 5
MS. MERLINDA MARQUESES’ LETTER-COMPLAINT
DATED 15 AUGUST 2014 (LC No. 2014-150)

disturbing streak and presumably seen by the City Prosecutor before he

rendered the subject resolution as it was opposing party who handed it in.

While lawyers owe entire devotion to the interest of their clients,

warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of their rights; and the exertion
of their utmost learning and ability, to the end that nothing be taken away or
be withheld from them, save by the rules of law legally applied, they should
not forget that they are officers of the court, bound to exert every effort and
placed under duty, to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice. They should not, therefore, misuse the rules of procedure to defeat
the ends of justice or unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a
judgment or misuse court processes.9

In Banogon v. Zerna,10 the High Court held that:

“As officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in

the proper administration of justice. They do not discharge this duty by
filing pointless petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary,
especially this Court, which is burdened enough as it is. A judicious study
of the facts and the law should advise them when a case, such as this,
should not be permitted to be filed to merely clutter the already
congested judicial dockets. They do not advance the cause of law or their
clients by commencing litigations that for sheer lack of merit do not
deserve the attention of the courts.”

The records failed to convince the undersigned that MRM was denied
“due process and there is extreme urgency for relief”. Her conclusion is not
supported by the antecedent facts, rules and jurisprudence on the matter.

In hindsight, it was a mistake to accommodate MRM and cater to her

whims as it has further emboldened her to sacrifice the Rules on the altar
of expediency.

Finally, the undersigned cautions Ms. Marqueses against recklessly

hurling a charge of Grave Misconduct without solid basis and urges her to
grasp the technical meaning of legal terminologies that she has grown quite
fond of using before employing them – particularly when used to accuse
someone of an offense.

Respectfully submitted.

CULBERT G. REYNES
Public Attorney I

9
Gomez v. Hon. Presiding Judge et .al., G.R. No. 118584, 24 October 1995.
10
G.R. No. L-35469, 9 October 1987.
EXPLANATION/COMMENT Page 5 of 5
MS. MERLINDA MARQUESES’ LETTER-COMPLAINT
DATED 15 AUGUST 2014 (LC No. 2014-150)

Copy furnished:

HON. PERSIDA V. RUEDA-ACOSTA

Chief Public Attorney

ATTY. ANA LISA M. SORIANO

Officer-In-Charge
PAO – Special and Appealed Cases Service
Central Office

MS. MERLINDA R. MARQUESES

Purok 1, Block 2, Lot 5, Zone 8
Barangay Cupang, Antipolo City