REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

QUEZON CITY

SPS. REY RIGOBERTO M.

SANCHEZ & FLORDELIZ B.
SANCHEZ,
Complainants,
OMB-C-A-12-0116-C
FOR: GRAVE MISCONDUCT

-versus-

ROGER C. RAMIREZ,
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, ROGER CADAO RAMIREZ, male, with residence address at Unit 426,

Residencias de Manila, Building I Condominium, Pandacan, Manila and
presently holding the position of Sales Department Manager with Salary Grade
26 of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office or PCSO located at the PICC
Secretariat Building, Pasay City, after having been sworn in accordance with law,
do hereby file this Counter-Affidavit against the malicious, ridiculous, false and
baseless February 7, 2012 ‘Affidavit of Complaint’ of Complainants Rey
Rigoberto M. Sanchez and his spouse Flordeliz B. Sanchez, averring as follows:

1. I vehemently and with indignation deny all the allegations of the

present complaint for grave misconduct against me, a complaint that is nothing
more but a sheer act of desperation, harassment and an attempt to extort on the
part of Complainants who were terminated from their casual employment in
government service by the PCSO;

1
 2. First of all, I have never obtained any personal loan of any amount
whatsoever from Complainant-Spouses Sanchez during their tenure with the
PCSO as casual employees (not contractual employees as claimed by
Complainants). Contrary to the brazen lies spawned by Complainants, I never
borrowed money from them in May 2008, July 2008, on allegedly two occasions
in 2009 or at any time thereafter;

3. The truth of the matter with respect to this Php 45,000.00 alleged loan
is that it was the Homeowners Association of Residencias de Manila-Building I
Condominium (or RDM-1 Homeowners Association Inc. where I was president
from 2006 to 2009), through its then treasurer, Mrs. Josephine Accad-Anapi, that
borrowed this amount from Complainants and which amount said Homeowners
Association also immediately paid in two (2) days. The RDM-1 Homeowners
Association Inc. at the time needed money to settle its outstanding water bill
with Maynilad and so Mrs. Josephine Accad-Anapi, a townmate of
Complainants in Isabela, took the initiative to borrow from them. Attached
hereto as Annex “1” is the sworn statement of Mrs. Josephine Accad-Anapi
attesting to the truth of the facts about the Php 45,000.00 that Complainants are
now brazenly and criminally misrepresenting before this Honorable Office as my
supposed indebtedness;

4. The allegation in paragraph 2 of Annex “B” (Joint Complaint Affidavit

dated May 12, 2011) of the Affidavit of Complaint that I even directed my then
Secretary at the PCSO’s Administrative Department, Ms. Emily B. Justiniani, to
get the Php 45,000.00 from Complainant Flordeliz B. Sanchez is a blatant lie. Ms.
Emily B. Justiniani herself contradicts under oath this another fabricated account
of Complainants by way of her Affidavit, hereto attached as Annex “2”. In stark
contrast to Ms. Emily B. Justiniani’s sworn statement, Complainants’ witness,
Ms. Ursula Aguilar who allegedly saw the hand over of the money to Ms. Emily
B. Justiniani, could only muster a handwritten statement (Annex “A” of the
Affidavit of Complaint’s Annex “B”) that is not even notarized. This is by no
means surprising as Ms. Ursula Aguilar, biased as she is in favor of
Complainants because of her own monetary debts to them, is afraid to execute a
statement under oath lest she risks being hauled to court for perjury;

5. Again, Complainants falsely claimed in paragraph 3 of Annex “B” of

the Affidavit of Complaint that I took another loan of Php 20,000.00 from them in
July 2008 and that it was my driver who picked up this amount from them.
Bereft, again, of any documentary evidence whatsoever of my or my driver’s
receipt of the alleged loan, this preposterous claim is disputed also by my PCSO
2
–assigned driver, Mr. Pio B. Samante, in his Sinumpaang Salaysay a copy of which
is hereto attached as Annex “3”. Their witness to this supposed July 2008 loan is
another discharged casual employee of PCSO, Mr. Ronaldo Azucena whose
handwritten statement (Annex “B” of the Affidavit of Complaint’s Annex “B”) is
also not under oath;

6. Continuing to heap lies and falsehoods, Complainants cap their

allegations of my loan indebtedness by claiming that I obtained two more loans
of Php 20,000.00 and Php 10,000.00, respectively, in 2009. Apart from the self-
serving claims in their February 7, 2012 ‘Affidavit of Complaint’, ‘Joint Affidavit
of Complaint of Rey Rigoberto M. Sanchez and Flordeliz B. Sanchez’ dated April
29, 2011 (Annex “A” of the Affidavit of Complaint) and ‘Joint Complaint
Affidavit’ dated May 12, 2011 (Annex “B” of the Affidavit of Complaint), no
competent documentary, again for the umpteenth time, were adduced with this
Honorable Office to substantiate such claims;

7. To further unmask the intrinsic dishonesty, falsity, equivocation and

vexatiousness of the February 7, 2012 Affidavit of Complainant of Sps. Sanchez,
the serious inconsistencies in their tall tales and that of their witnesses must be
dissected. Both in their April 29, 2011 Joint Affidavit of Complaint (Annex “A” of
the Affidavit of Complaint) and May 12, 2011 Joint Complaint Affidavit (Annex
“B” of the Affidavit of Complaint), Sps. Sanchez alleged that I obtained the Php
45,000.00 loan sometime in May 2008. Yet in their initiatory Affidavit of
Complaint dated February 7, 2012 before this Honorable Office, Complainants
changed their previous claim that I borrowed the money in May 2008, alleging
instead that it was in March 2008, as follows:

5. Affiants wanted to add and explain that the first loan of

respondent Roger C. Ramirez was that given to him on a
Saturday in March of 2008 at around noontime, when they
handed the money to Roger C. Ramirez at the Gate 2 of the
PCSO which was then located along Santol Street in Quezon
City. At that time during Saturdays, Complainant Rey
Rigoberto Sanchez is the one on duty at the Gate 2 of the
PCSO. (Underscoring supplied)

So which then is the correct and true date? May 2008 or March 2008?
Complainants could not even afford to have one version of their falsehood. Also,
the aforequoted paragraph 5 of the Affidavit of Complaint is in total conflict with
the earlier claim by Complainants that Complainant Flordeliz B. Sanchez handed

3
the Php 45,000.00 to my secretary, Ms. Emily B. Justiniani, as shown in paragraph
2 of their May 12, 2011 Joint Complaint Affidavit reading as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

1. Sometime in May of 2008, we, as casual employees of the

Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, met with respondent Roger C.
Ramirez, who was then our superior being then the Administrative
Department Manager of PCSO the located at E. Rodriguez Sr. Avenue,
Quezon City;

2. Being his fellow townmate at Naguilian, Isabela, we developed

a sort of kinship and this relationship was taken advantage by Mr. Roger
Ramirez when he asked for a personal loan from us in the amount of
forty five thousand pesos (P45,000) allegedly to be used to pay for the
water bills of the members of a Condominium Association in Residencias
de Manila Condominium where he resides and where he was then a
President. This incident was even witnessed by our officemate, Ms.
Ursula Aguilar, when she saw the secretary of Mr. Ramirez, Ms. Emily
Justiniani, who approached me (Mrs. Sanchez) and who served as the
messenger of Mr. Roger Ramirez at that time. In fact, we were so
pressured by Mr. Ramirez for this loan that we even encashed our EMAP
check just so to comply with his demands. Anyway, he promised to pay
within two (2) days but miserably failed to do so. A copy of the
handwritten affidavit of Ms. Ursula Aguilar is hereby attached as
Annex “A”. (Underscoring mine)

xxx xxx xxx

I thought that the amount of Php 45,000.00 was handed by Complainants

personally to me at Gate 2 of PCSO, as per paragraph 5 of the Affidavit of
Complaint? Did Ms. Ursula Aguilar truly witness the delivery of the Php 45,000
loan? Why was there no mention of Ms. Ursula Aguilar in said paragraph 5
compared to paragraph 2 of the Joint Complaint Affidavit? These questions only
highlight the grave and unmistakable discrepancies in Complainants’ ludicrous
allegations of my supposed indebtedness to them;

8. Likewise, the supporting affidavit of Sps. Sanchez’s son and daughter-

in-law, Affidavit of Complaint’s Annex “C” (entitled ‘Supplemental Affidavit of
Complaint of Carlo Stephen B. Sanchez and Anabelle V. Sanchez’ dated February
7, 2012), miserably fails to corroborate Complainants’ allegation that I took out a
final loan of Php 10,000.00 from Complainants in 2009. This is because Carlo and

4
Anabell Sanchez’s affidavit contains a detail that is incongruous to the very
allegations of their parents. In their ‘Joint Affidavit of Complaint dated April 29,
2011, Complainants stated the following:

xxx xxx xxx

5. The following year, again respondent asked for another loan

in the amount of Php 20,000.00 from complainants and promised to pay
all the previous loans as soon as her (sic) relatives abroad send the
money;

6. We again had no choice as we are at the mercy of our superior

officers taking into consideration that we are both contractual employees
of the PCSO and depended on his favorable recommendation for our
renewal of employment contracts;

7. At this juncture, after a few days he again asked for the

amount of Php 10,000.00 and without further ado and to avoid trouble,
complainants instructed their daughter-in-law, ANABELLE
VILLANUEVA SANCHEZ the amount of Php 10,000 to handover to
respondent ROGER C. RAMIREZ which she did (Underscoring
supplied)

xxx xxx xxx

Examining closely these allegations, Complainants’ insistence is that after my

alleged Php 45,000.00 and Php 20,000.00 loans in May 2008 and July 2008,
respectively, I again obtained loans from them in 2009, that is, “the following
year.” One in the amount of Php 20,000.00 and the other, in the amount of Php
10,000.00. It was this allegedly last loan of Php 10,000.00 that Complainants’
daughter-in-law, Anabelle Villanueva Sanchez, delivered to me supposedly
sometime in 2009. However, in the ‘Supplemental Affidavit of Complaint of
Carlo Stephen B. Sanchez and Anabelle V. Sanchez’, paragraph 5 says:

xxx xxx xxx

5. That undersigned affiant ANABELLE VILLANUEVA

SANCHEZ handed the money to respondent Roger Ramirez
at around 2:00 pm of April of 2008 in front of our computer
shop located at No. 8 Visayas Street Galas Quezon City which
undersigned affiant CARLO STEPHEN B. SANCHEZ

5
 personally saw as the money came from him via the latter’s
mother Flordeliz B. Sanchez

xxx xxx xxx

If I borrowed from Complainants the third loan of Php 20,000.00 “the following
year,” that is, 2009, then the last loan of Php 10,000.00 I sought “after a few days”
should have been also sometime in 2009 and not, as Anabelle V. Sanchez
declared, “at around 2:00 pm of April 2008.” Yet, such is just one of the
absurdities, inconsistencies, contradictions and anomalies of Complainants’
asseverations as they begin to unravel under the weight of judicious scrutiny to
unearth their truth or the lack of it;

9. Why Complainant-Spouses Sanchez filed their Affidavit of Complaint

dated February 7, 2012 before this Honorable Office is the offshoot of an undue
motive or illicit desire to get back at and vex me for what they falsely believed as
my alleged role in the end of their employment tenure at PCSO. For the
information of this Honorable Office, on March 1, 2011, PCSO through its
incumbent General Manager, Atty. Jose Ferdinand M. Rojas II, duly issued
separate Notices of Employment Termination to herein Complainants Rey
Rigoberto M. Sanchez and Flordeliz B. Sanchez. The termination was by virtue
of PCSO Board Resolution No. 0067 s. 2011 which decreed the non-renewal of
their employment as casual personnel of the Agency. Attached hereto as
Annexes “4” and “4-a” are certified photocopies of said Notices;

10. Prior, however, to Complainants’ discharge from PCSO, a formal

administrative case was filed by PCSO against the couple. Pending to date,
Administrative Case No. 10-01 indicts Complainants for Serious Dishonesty and
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Attached hereto as Annex
“5” is a Certification from PCSO’s Legal Department attesting to the pendency of
said administrative suit against Sps. Sanchez. The case stemmed from a
complaint lodged by a retired employee of Quezon Institute, Ms. Pacita Jimenez,
together with her relatives, against Sps. Sanchez due to the couple’s
misappropriation and conversion of moneys totaling over Php 14 Million which
Ms. Pacita Jimenez and her relatives entrusted to Sps. Sanchez for the latter to
lend the same to PCSO employees at interest. Attached hereto as Annex “5-a” is
a copy of the Amended Complaint-Affidavit filed by Ms. Pacita Jimenez and her
co-complainants. To this Amended Complaint-Affidavit, Complainants herein
filed their ‘Joint Counter-Affidavit’ a copy of which is hereto likewise attached as
Annex “5-b”;

6
 11. Similar to the misrepresentations and falsities enveloping their
allegations against me before this Honorable Office, Complainants again falsely
related to Ms. Pacita Jimenez that I was one of the PCSO officers who allegedly
received as loans portions of the more than Php 14 Million erstwhile entrusted to
Complainants for lending purposes. Fortunately, Ms. Pacita Jimenez was not
fooled by Complainants’ misrepresentation as it was only Sps. Sanchez who
were eventually administratively charged before the PCSO. At present,
Complainants are the accused in a pending criminal case for estafa before the
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City where Ms. Pacita Jimenez and her relatives
are also the private complainants therein;

12. Without any iota of proof yet with pure malice, Complainants are
unjustly blaming me for what had happened to them at PCSO -- from their
being charged administratively up to being terminated from employment
thereat. I was not the one who filed the initiatory complaint leading to their
prosecution at present for Serious Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service. It was Ms. Pacita Jimenez and her kins. I was not the one
who decided not to renew their employment with PCSO as casual employees. It
was the decision of the Honorable Board of Directors of PCSO to terminate
Complainants’ employment therewith. Why on earth are Complainants pinning
on me the responsibility for these matters? Definitely, I am not a Member of the
PCSO Board of Directors. I am not also part of PCSO’s Legal Department. In
fact, at the time Complainants were issued their Notices of Termination on
March 1, 2011, I was also transferred by PCSO’s top Management to the position
of Sales Department Manager from my erstwhile post as Administrative
Department Manager. Proof of this transfer is Special Order No. 2011-038 by the
PCSO General Manager, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “6”.
Besides, if I truly had a hand in their termination from PCSO’s employ, I, as then
Administrative Department Manager, would not have recommended the
renewal of Complainants’ services on three (3) periods or occasions: from July 1
to December 31, 2009, January 1 to June 30, 2010 and from July 1 to December 31,
2010. And yet I did. This, in spite of the fact that Ms. Pacita Jimenez and her
relatives already filed their Amended Complaint-Affidavit (Annex “5-a” hereof)
against Sps. Sanchez with the PCSO as early as June 17, 2009;

13. On March 18, 2011, Complainant-Spouses Sanchez wrote a Letter,

hereto attached as Annex “7”, to the PCSO Chairman, Honorable Margarita P.
Juico, appealing their termination from the employ of PCSO. Yet in the same
Letter, Complainants, to my shock and consternation, attributed their
termination to what they called as “reasons to believe that we are now suffering
7
the effects of harassment from one of our debtors, Roger Ramirez, Department
Manager of Sales, who we issued a loan in the amount of Php 95,000.00 without
interest but until now has not paid us said amount.” Thus, Complainants are
insinuating that I might have influenced the PCSO Board, Chairman Juico and/or
General Manager Rojas in the decision to terminate their casual employment.
What a preposterous thought on the part of Complainants. I asked then: how is
it possible for me to influence in any way imaginable the decisions of the
highest ranking Officials of PCSO who have authority over me?

14. In my entire tenure with the PCSO and until now, I have never used
my position or authority to gain undue favor or advantage from my officemates,
never oppressed in any way those lower in rank, never profited from my
interpersonal relations with other PCSO personnel or situations involving my
station or rank and never engaged in immoral or irregular conduct. Hence, the
name-calling that Complainants resorted to in alluding to me as “kotong king” is
flagrantly below-the-belt and definitely uncalled for. It is slanderous, and
defamatory for which Complainants shall be held properly accountable and shall
be brought to justice at the time and forum of my own choosing;

15. Complainants, by filing their present Affidavit of Complaint dated

February 7, 2012 before this Honorable Office, have shamelessly and
scandalously put my name and reputation as a long-time public servant in a bad
light. Without the slightest piece of competent and admissible evidence,
Complainants have recklessly charged me with Grave Misconduct and violations
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act based on unsubstantiated allegations
that I obtained personal loans amounting to Php 95,000.00 from them without re-
paying the same. This, in spite of the fact that these facts alleged by
Complainants as constitutive of the offenses imputed to me in their Affidavit of
Complaint do not have anything to do with my performance of my duties as an
officer of the PCSO. The Honorable Supreme Court has clearly defined what
misconduct, simple or grave, is in government service in this wise:

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 (Narvasa vs. Sanchez,
Jr., G.R. No. 169449 [March 26, 2010]). (Emphasis supplied)

8
 16. If Complainants truly believe in the justness of their cause against me,
why did they not file a collection suit before the regular courts to recover what
they claimed as my outstanding loan indebtedness to them? A civil case for
sums of money is the fitting and proper remedy for Complainants to try to
recover whatever loans they claimed as having extended to me. Yet
Complainants did not. Instead, they come before this Honorable Office in an
obvious effort to intimidate, harass and annoy me;

17. Hence, I hereby ask this Honorable Office to dismiss outright

Complainants’ February 7, 2012 Affidavit of Complaint not only because it is
utterly bereft of merit and devoid of any supporting evidence whatsoever. More
importantly, it is my humble submission that the provisions of Section 20 of
Republic Act No. 6770 or The Ombudsman Act of 1989 are squarely applicable
to Complainants’ February 7, 2012 Affidavit of Complaint where this Honorable
Office may not conduct the requisite investigation of any administrative act or
omission complained of if this Office believes that --

(1) The complainant has an adequate remedy in another judicial or

quasi-judicial body;

xxx xxx xxx

(3) The complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad

faith;

xxx xxx xxx

(5) The complaint was filed after one (1) year from the occurrence
of the act or omission complained of.

As already adverted to, Complainants have an adequate remedy in a civil case

for collection of sums of money if they seek to recover the alleged Php 95,000.00
that I allegedly owe them. Secondly, I have sufficiently shown in the foregoing
how the subject Affidavit of Complaint is absolutely preposterous,
unmeritorious, lacking in any competent documentary evidence whatsoever,
fraught with serious inconsistencies and contradictions and a bunch of
speculations or surmises. Complainants’ filing of the same with this Honorable
Office was likewise made in bad faith due to Complainants’ underhanded
motives against me. Finally, assuming without conceding that I did obtain loans
from Complainants in 2008 and 2009, then the filing of the Affidavit of

9
Complaint is well beyond a period of one year from the happening of the
complained acts or omissions.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that

the February 7, 2012 Affidavit of Complaint by herein Complainant-Spouses Rey
Rigoberto M. Sanchez and Flordeliz B. Sanchez be DISMISSED for being totally
bereft of merit, supporting evidence and propriety.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

___________________________ at __________________________, Philippines.

ROGER CADAO RAMIREZ

Respondent

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this

________________________________ in _____________________________, affiant

exhibiting to me his ________________________________ No.

____________________________ issued on _______________________ at

____________________________, Philippines.

Doc. No. _________;

Page No. _________;
Book No._________;
Series of 2012.

10
Copy furnished By Registered Mail deposited on

April _______, 2012 at ________________________

Post Office with Registry Receipt

No. _____________________ :

Sps. Rey Rigoberto M. Sanchez & Flordeliz B. Sanchez

536 Calabash Road, Balic-Balic
Sampaloc, Manila

11