Republic of the Philippines

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

Pasig City

MARIANO P. FLORES,
Complainant,

- versus - Case No. __________

For: Disbarment.

ATTY. FLORANTE NATIVIDAD

AND ATTY. MONA LISSA C.
MONJE-VIRAY,
Respondents.
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

Complainant MARIANO P. FLORES (Mariano, for brevity), Filipino,

single, and currently residing at 1418 Penafrancia St., Brgy. 682 Zone 74, Paco
Manila, by himself, unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully avers as follows:

1. Complainant is hereby lodging a disbarment case against respondents

ATTY. FLORANTE NATIVIDAD and ATTY. MONA LISSA C. MONJE-
VIRAY;

2. Respondent ATTY. FLORANTE NATIVIDAD (Atty. Natividad, for

brevity) in his capacity as District Public Attorney of PAO-Urdaneta City,
Pangasinan (PAO-Urdaneta, for brevity) approved the Denial/Disqualification
Form issued by PAO-Urdaneta against herein Complainant, of legal age with
office address at Urdaneta City, Pangasinan Hall of Justice, Brgy. Anonas,
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan where he may be served with summons, processes and
notices;

3. Respondent ATTY. MONA LISSA C. MONJE-VIRAY (Atty. Viray,

for brevity) in his capacity as Public Attorney of PAO-Urdaneta prepared the
aforementioned Denial/Disqualification Form, of legal age with office address at
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan Hall of Justice, Brgy. Anonas, Urdaneta City,
Pangasinan where she may be served with summons, processes and notices;

4. That in order to better elucidate the grounds for the complaint, the
complainant deems it best to re-visit the factual backgrounds which lead to this
instant complaint;
 5. After the submission of all the requirements that Atty. Natividad required
for Mariano to be assisted by PAO-Urdaneta, Atty. Natividad assigned the case of
Mariano to Atty. Viray;

6. Sometime in August 2020, Mariano called Atty. Viray to follow-up the

status of Mariano’s request for legal assistance;

7. During their celphone conversation, Atty. Viray told to Mariano that she
will prepare a complaint for Falsification of Documents;

8. Since, a free patent had already been issued through fraud and has been
registered under the name of Estelita Delizo, Mariano sent an e-mail dated August
19, 2020 to Atty. Viray, requesting that an Action for Reconveyance be also filed ; 1

9. Instead of Falsification of Documents and Action for Reconveyance, Atty.

Viray prepared a complaint for Perjury against Estelita Delizo and made a
reservation to file a separate case for the nullification and recovery of
possession ; 2

10. Considering that Mariano strongly believes that, Action for

Reconveyance with Injunction are his proper cause of actions, he called Atty.
Natividad to discussed his arguments. However, according to Atty. Natividad,
Mariano’s evidences are insufficient to prove that he is the legal heir of his late
great grandfather Paulino Toralba that is why Mariano suggested the execution
of Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons, attesting that he is the legal heir
of Paulino Toralba with respect to the lot in dispute;

11. Although Mariano did not agree to the contentions of Atty. Natividad
that he has insufficient evidence to prove that he is the legal heir of Paulino
Toralba with respect to the lot in dispute and Joint Affidavit of Two
Disinterested Persons is insufficient to prove that he is the legal heir of Paulino
Toralba with respect to the said lot, the former agreed to file Recovery of
Possession with Injunction instead of Action for Reconveyance ; 3

12. However, after Mariano discussed to Atty. Natividad his arguments why
Reconveyance and Injunction are his proper cause of actions, the latter agreed to
file Reconveyance with Injunction and advised me to bring my two (2) witnesses
in their office on September 3, 2020;

13. On September 3, 2020, Feliciana Fontanilla (Feliciana, for brevity) and

Trinidad Fontanilla (Trinidad, for brevity) accompanied by Mariano’s late father
Herminigildo Flores’s sibling, Fedencia Andrada (Fedencia, for brevity) went to
PAO Urdaneta to execute a Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons, attesting
that Mariano is the legal heir of Paulino Toralba with respect to the lot that
1 Copy of Mariano’s e-mail dated August 19, 2020 address to PAO-Urdaneta is hereto attached as Annex “A”.
2 Copies of Atty. Natividad’s e-mail to Mariano dated August 20, 2020 and Complaint for Perjury prepared by Atty.
Viray are hereto attached as Annexes “B” and “B-1” respectively. The reservation made by Atty. Viray is highlighted and
marked as Annex “B-2”.
3 Copy of Mariano’s e-mail dated September 4, 2020 address to PAO-Urdaneta is hereto attached as Annex “C”.
Mariano wants to recover to Estelita Delizo as per agreement between Mariano
and Atty. Natividad. However, Atty. Viray REFUSED to prepare said affidavit
because Trinidad is Mariano’s late father’s second cousin;

14. Worst, Atty. Viray advised Fedencia to: look for two persons who are at
least eighty years old and willing to execute a Joint Affidavit of Two
Disinterested Persons (Joint Affidavit, for brevity), attesting that Mariano is the
legal heir of Paulino with respect to the aforementioned lot; get a copy of their
valid identification cards; present it to a notary public; and request for the
preparation of their Joint Affidavit4;

15. In compliance to Atty. Viray’s instructions, Fedencia asked permission

to Marcela A. Millano (Marcela, for brevity) and Lourdes A. Cabar (Lourdes,
for brevity) to execute a Joint Affidavit, , attesting that Mariano is the legal heir
of Paulino with respect to said lot which Atty. Sevilleja will prepare;

16. After Marcela and Lourdes agreed to execute the aforestated affidavit,
Fedencia requested for a photocopies of their government issued identification
cards as per Atty. Viray instruction;

17. When Fedencia went to certain Atty. Sevilleja to request for the
preparation of Marcela and Lourdes’s Joint Affidavit, she did not present any
document to support said affidavit that is why Atty. Sevilleja REFUSED to
prepare said affidavit;

18. Since Atty. Sevilleja REFUSED to prepare said affidavit, Fedencia went
back to Atty. Viray to tell her that Atty. Sevilleja REFUSED to prepare said
affidavit because she don’t have any supporting document to prove that Mariano is
the legal heir of Paulino with respect to the above-mentioned property;

19. Instead of giving any document to prove the aforementioned affidavit to

Fedencia, Atty. Viray prepared the Joint Affidavit of Marcela and
Lourdes and then instructed Fedencia to secure the signatures
of Marcela and Lourdes;
20. On September 8, 2020, Atty. Natividad sent the Complaint for
Annulment of Title, Documents, Reconveyance with a Prayer for Writ of
Preliminary Injunction and Damages prepared by Atty. Viray;
5

21. When Mariano received the aforestated complaint, he called Atty.

Viray;

4 Copy of Fedencia Andrada and Lourdes Cabar’s Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons dated January 25, 2021
is hereto attached as Annex “D”.
5 Copies of Atty. Natividad’s e-mail dated September 8, 2020 and Complaint for Annulment of Title and Documents,
Reconveyance with a Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Damages prepared by Atty. Viray are hereto attached as
Annex “E series”.
 Atty. Viray instructed
22. During their cellphone conversation
Mariano to sign said complaint by himself ;
23. A careful evaluation of the above-stated complaint reveals that the
assessed value of the land in dispute was not alleged which is a ground for
dismissal; Atty. Viray did not include some of the important facts like the
defendants entered the subject property without undergoing judicial process; the
allegation in support of Writ of Preliminary Injunction is very generic, and there is
no allegation that the plaintiff is willing to post a bond that is why Mariano decided
to conduct a thorough legal research;

24. Since Mariano will sign his complaint by himself as per instruction of
Atty. Viray and Atty. Natividad allowed him to peruse the above-mentioned
complaint, he decided to edit said complaint and then he will make a request
letter to Atty. Viray to check said edited complaint;

25. On October 6, 2020, Mariano requested Atty. Viray through an e-mail to 6

check his Complaint-Affidavit for Action for Forcible Entry and Damages with
Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction
because he decided to file Action for Forcible Entry instead of Annulment of
Documents and Title, Reconveyance, Injunction, and Damages;

26. Since Mariano did not receive any response from Atty. Viray, he decided
to call her on October 12, 2020 to follow-up the status of his request to her;

27. During their cellphone conversation, she told him that if he will file an
Action for Forcible Entry instead of Annulment of Title his complaint for
Forcible Entry will be DISMISSED by the court because Estelita Delizo has
certificate of title under her name covering the subject property;

28. When Mariano told her that he will also filed Annulment of Documents
and Title and Reconveyance, Atty. Viray mentioned to him that said complaint
will also be DISMISSED by the court because the Action for Forcible Entry was
DISMISSED;

29. Moreover, according to Atty. Viray, Mariano will be committing forum

shopping if will file an Action for Forcible Entry and then Annulment of Title;

30. For Mariano to have an evidence that Atty. Viray is denying his request
for legal assistance because according to the latter, if he will file an Action for
Forcible Entry instead of Annulment of Title his complaint for Forcible Entry
will be DISMISSED by the court because Estelita has certificate of title under
her name covering the subject property and he will be committing forum
shopping if he will file Action for Forcible Entry and then Annulment of Title he
sent an e-mail to Atty. Viray to request a certification stating that she denied his
7

request for legal assistance because if he will file an Action for Forcible Entry

6 Copies of Mariano’s e-mail dated October 6, 2020 and said complaint are hereto attached as Annex “F series”.
7 Annex “G” hereof.
instead of Annulment of Title his complaint for Forcible Entry will be
DISMISSED by the court because Estelita has certificate of title under her name
covering the subject property and he will be committing forum shopping if he
will file an Action for Forcible Entry and then Annulment of Title but as usual
she did not send any reply to him that is why he was constraint to request for
issuance of denial form in accordance to 2016 Amended PAO Operations Manual
so that he will have sufficient basis in questioning said denial form;

31. On October 28, 2020, PAO-Urdaneta issued a denial form against 8

Mariano, withdrawing it’s legal representation to Mariano;

32. On November 3, 2020, Mariano sent an e-mail address to Atty. Viray, 9

asking for reconsideration of the aforementioned denial;

33. On November 12, 2020. despite that Atty. Natividad has no

authority to deny the aforementioned Motion for Reconsideration as stated
by the Public Attorney’s Office, Atty. Natividad denied it ; 10

ATTY. VIRAY AND ATTY.

NATIVIDAD ARE GUILTY OF
GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY

34. “xxx to be administratively liable for neglect of duty, the duty need not
be expressly included in the respondent's job description. Gross neglect of duty is
"characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences, insofar as other
persons may be affected. This omission of care is that which even "inattentive and
thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property. " 11

35. A careful evaluation of the Complaint for Annulment of Title,

Documents, Reconveyance with a Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and
Damages prepared by Atty. Viray reveals that Atty. Natividad and Atty.
12

Viray REFUSED to file said complaint in behalf of Mariano

and worst, Atty. Natividad and Atty. Viray did not sign said
complaint which is a very clear violation of section 5, Article 3
Chapter IX of PAO Operations Manual ; 13

8 Annex “H” hereof.

9 Annex “I” hereof.
10 Annex “J” hereof.
11 The Honorable Office of the Ombudsman vs. Leovigildo delos Reyes, Jr., G.R. No. 208976, February 22, 2016.
12 Copy of said complaint is previously marked as Annex “E-1”.
13 Section 5. Signature on pleadings. All complaints, petitions, answers, replies and other important pleadings to be filed
in the lower court, quasi-judicial bodies and other offices, must be signed by the lawyer handling
the case and co-signed:
a) In the District Offices – by the District Public Attorney
b) xxx
xxx.”
 36. Moreover, Atty. Viray REFUSED to prepare and notarize the Joint
Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons of Feliciana and Trinidad without any
legal ground which Atty. Natividad tolerated;

37. Hence, it is very clear that Atty. Natividad and Atty. Viray are GUILTY
of
Gross Neglect of Duty;

ATTY. NATIVIDAD AND

ATTY. VIRAY ARE GUILTY
OF GRAVE MISCONDUCT

38. Misconduct is the "transgression of some established and definite rule of

action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public
officer. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of
corruption, willful intent to violate the law or disregard of established rules,
which must be proved by substantial evidence." 14

39. As stated above, a careful evaluation of said complaint shows that

Atty. Natividad and Atty. Viray did not sign said complaint
even if they are very much aware that under section 5, Article
3 Chapter IX of 2016 Amended PAO Operations Manual they
must sign said complaint;

40. Further, despite that under the law, the contents of the affidavit must be
personally narrated by the executor/s of an affidavit, Atty. Viray prepared
the Joint Affidavit even no one narrated to her the contents of
15

said affidavit which Atty. Natividad tolerated and worst Atty. Natividad
notarized said affidavit even if Marcela and Lourdes did not
16

subscribe and swear before him ; 17

41. Based on the above-cited jurisprudence, it is very clear that Atty. Viray
is GUILTY of Grave Misconduct;

ATTY. NATIVIDAD AND

ATTY. VIRAY ARE GUILTY
OF CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL
TO THE BEST INTEREST OF
SERVICE

14 Please see footnote 11.

15 Annex “K” hereof.
16 The Jurat part of said affidavit and the name and signature of Atty. Natividad are highlighted and marked as Annex
“K-1” and “K-2” respectively.
17 Paragraph 8 of Fedencia and Lourdes Joint Affidavit (Annex “D” hereof) is highlighted and marked as Annex “D-1”.
 42. Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service deals with a demeanor
of a public officer which "tarnished the image and integrity of his/her public
office" ;18

43. It is humbly submitted that Atty. Natividad and Atty. Viray tarnished the
image and integrity of Public Attorney’s Office when Atty. Viray stated on
the Joint Affidavit Marcela and Lourdes that Mariano was
born in Urdaneta City Pangasinan and Atty. Viray made it 19

appear that Marcela and Lourdes participated in the

preparation of their Joint Affidavit; and Atty. Natividad
notarized said affidavit even if Marcela and Lourdes did not
20

subscribe and swear before him ; 21

Atty. Natividad and Atty. Viray

44. In addition, as stated-above,
flagrantly violated section 5, Article 3 Chapter IX of PAO
Operations Manual;
45. Based on the foregoing, it is very clear that Atty. Natividad and Atty.
Viray are GUILTY of Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service;

ATTY. NATIVIDAD AND

ATTY. VIRAY ARE GUILTY
OF SERIOUS DISHONESTY

46. Dishonesty has been defined as the concealment or distortion of truth,

which shows lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive, or betray,
or intent to violate the truth.23 Under CSC Resolution No. 06-0538, dishonesty may
be classified as serious, less serious or simple. In this case, Fajardo was charged
with serious dishonesty, which necessarily entails the presence of any one of the
following circumstances:
(1) the dishonest act caused serious damage and grave
prejudice to the Government;
(2) the respondent gravely abused his authority in
order to commit the dishonest act;
(3) where the respondent is an accountable officer, the
dishonest act directly involves property, accountable
forms or money for which he is directly accountable
and the respondent shows an intent to commit material
gain, graft and corruption;
(4) The dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on the
part of respondent;

18 Angelica A. Fajardo vs. Mario J. Corral, G.R. 212641, July 5, 2017.

19 Copy of said affidavit is previously marked as Annex “K” and Mariano’s birth certificate is hereto attached as Annex
“L”.
20 Footnote 16.
21 Footnote 17.
 (5) The respondent employed fraud and/or falsification
of official documents in the commission of the
dishonest act related to his/her employment;
(6) The dishonest act was committed several times or
in various occasions;
(7) The dishonest act involves a Civil Service
examination irrregularity or fake Civil Service
eligibility such as, but not limited to impersonation,
cheating and use of crib sheets; and
(8) Other analogous circumstances. (Emphasis.
supplied)22

made it appear that Marcela and

47. Here, Atty. Natividad
Lourdes subscribed and sworn before him despite that they did
not23 and blatantly lied that Mariano “acted in such a way that
disrespect Atty. Viray, thru harsh and uncalled for words xxx.”;

she
48. On the other hand, Atty. Viray committed Serious Dishonesty when
made it appear that her legal advice to Mariano is proper and
her advice will result in incalculable harm to Mariano that is
why she prepared a Denial/Disqualification Form against
Mariano which Atty. Natividad approved ; she made it appear 24

that Mariano was born in Urdaneta City, Pangasinan ; and she 25

made it appear that Marcela and Lourdes participated in the

execution of their Joint Affidavit;
49. In view of the foregoing, it is very clear that Atty. Natividad and Atty.
Viray are GUILTY of Serious Dishonesty.

ATTY. VIRAY IS GUILTY OF

GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE
LAW

50. Gross ignorance of the law is the disregard of the basic rules and settled
jurisprudence. 26

51. The perusal of the text messages between Mariano and Atty. Natividad
27

reveals that Atty. Viray gave the following advised to him, to wit:

22 Angelica A. Fajardo vs. Mario J. Corral, G.R. 212641, July 5, 2017.

23 Footnote 17.
24 Footnote 8.
25 Footnote 19.
26 Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Winlove Dumayas, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2435, March 6, 2018.
27 Annex “M” series”.
a) If Mariano will file an Action for Forcible Entry instead of Annulment of
Title, the Action for Forcible Entry will be dismissed because a title was
issued under the name of Estelita Delizo;

b) If Mariano will file Annulment of Title after he filed an Action for

Forcible Entry, his Annulment of Title will be dismissed also because the
Action for Forcible Entry was dismissed; and

c) Moreover, Mariano will commit Forum Shopping if he will file Action for
Forcible Entry and then Annulment of Title.

52. Section 1 of Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

“SECTION 1. Who may institute proceedings, and

when. - Subject to the provisions of the next
succeeding section, a person deprived of the
possession of any land or building by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, xxx, may at
any time within one (1) year after such unlawful
deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an
action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against
the person or persons unlawfully withholding or
depriving of possession, or any person or persons
claiming under them, for title restitution of such
possession, together with damages and costs. (1a)

53. Furthermore, it is humbly submitted that issuance of title does not vest
ownership of a parcel of land but only shows or evidences who the owner/s of the
land is/are. In the case of Heirs of Clemente Ermac vs. Heirs of Vicente Ermac
(G.R. No. 149679, May 30, 2003), the Supreme Court pronounced the following:

“Ownership should not be confused with a

certificate of title. Registering land under the
Torrens System does not create or vest title, because
registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. A
certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership
or title over the particular property described
therein.”

54. “xxx it must be stressed that the fact that the petitioner possesses a
Torrens Title does not automatically give her unbridled authority to immediately
wrest possession. It goes without saying that even the owner of the property
cannot wrest possession from its current possessor. This was precisely the Court's
ruling in Spouses Munoz v. CA, viz.:

If the private respondent is indeed the owner of the

premises and that possession thereof was deprived from him
for more than twelve years, he should present his claim
before the Regional Trial Court in an accion publiciana or
an accion reivindicatoria and not before the Municipal Trial
Court in a summary proceeding of unlawful detainer or
forcible entry. For even if he is the owner, possession of the
property cannot be wrested from another who had been in
 possession thereof for more than twelve (12) years through a
summary action for ejectment.

Although admittedly petitioner may validly claim

ownership based on the muniments of title it presented,
such evidence does not responsibly address the issue of
prior actual possession raised in a forcible entry case.

It must be stated that regardless of actual condition of the title

to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall
not be turned out by a strong hand, violence or terror. Thus, a
party who can prove prior possession can recover such
possession even against the owner himself. xxx”

55. In view of the foregoing, Estelita’s title cannot be the basis of the
dismissal of Mariano’s Action for Forcible Entry contrary to the contention of
Atty. Viray;

56. Further, “The Rules are clear that if the entry into the property is
illegal, the action which may be filed against the intruder is forcible entry and
this action must be brought within one (1) year from the illegal entry. xxx” ; 28

57. “xxx for a forcible entry suit to prosper, the plaintiff must allege and
prove: (1) prior physical possession of the property; and (2) unlawful deprivation
of it by the defendant through force, intimidation, strategy, threat or stealth.” ; 29

58. Here, for more than fifty (50) years, Mariano’s predecessor in interest’s
occupation and Mariano’s possession for fifteen (15) years over the subject
property of this case was undisturbed until on April 9, 2020 despite that the whole
Luzon is under Enhanced Community Quarantine wherein strict home quarantine
shall be followed, Jaime and Estelita with their cohorts entered the above-
mentioned lot without my consent armed with bolo and “panabas” and then
proceeded to cut down different trees planted by his late parents Dedinia P. Flores
and Herminigildo T. Flores without permit from Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), burned it and cleaned the area. 30

59. In explaining what amounted to force, the Honorable Supreme Court

ruled that:

“Unlawfully entering the subject property and

excluding therefrom the prior possessor would
necessarily imply the use of force and this is all that
is necessary. In order to constitute force, the
trespasser does not have to institute a state of
war. No other proof is necessary. 31”
28 Teresita Bugayong-Santiago, Earl Eugene Santiago, Edward Santiago, and Edgardo Santiago, Jr. vs. Teofilo
Bugayong, G.R. No. 220389, December 6, 2017.

29 Nenita Quality Foods Corp. vs. Crisostomo Galabo, Adelaida Galabo, and Zenaida Galabo-Almacbar, G.R. No.
174191, January 30, 2013.

30 Copies of Trinidad Fontanilla and Fedencia Andrada’s Judicial Affidavits are hereto attached as Annex “N” and “O”
respectively.

31 Georgia T. Estel vs. Recaredo P. Diego, Sr. and Recaredo R. Diego, Jr., G.R. No. 174082, January 16, 2012.
 60. The Honorable Supreme Court further explained what constitutes force,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth in David v. Cordova - 32

“The words "by force, intimidation, threat,

strategy or stealth" include every situation or
condition under which one person can wrongfully
enter upon real property and exclude another, who
has had prior possession therefrom. If a trespasser
enters upon land in open daylight, under the very
eyes of the person already clothed with lawful
possession, but without the consent of the latter, and
there plants himself and excludes such prior
possessor from the property, the action of forcibly
entry and detainer can unquestionably be
maintained, even though no force is used by the
trespasser other than such as is necessarily implied
from the mere acts of planting himself on the ground
and excluding the other party.”

61. As stated above, on April 9, 2020 despite that the whole Luzon is under
Enhanced Community Quarantine wherein strict home quarantine shall be
followed, Jaime and Estelita with their cohorts entered the subject property of this
case without plaintiff’s consent armed with bolo and “panabas” and then proceeded
to cut down different trees planted by his late parents Dedinia P. Flores and
Herminigildo T. Flores without permit from Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), burned it and cleaned the area;

62. Hence, it is very clear that Mariano was in prior possession of the
disputed property and Jaime and Estelita deprived him of his possession by force;

63. Furthermore, with due respect to Atty. Viray, it is Mariano’s humble

opinion that since as stated in the above-stated jurisprudence that “the fact that the
petitioner possesses a Torrens Title does not automatically give her unbridled
authority to immediately wrest possession. It goes without saying that even the
owner of the property cannot wrest possession from its current possessor.” still
he cannot dispossess Estelita and all other persons claiming rights under her on the
land dispute without undergoing judicial process even if the court will annul and
then reconvey the title of Estelita to Mariano. Thus, “There are three (3)
remedies available to one who has been dispossessed of property: (I) an action
for ejectment to recover possession, whether for unlawful detainer or forcible
entry; (2) accion publiciana or accion plenaria de posesion, or a plenary action
to recover the right of · possession; and (3) accion reivindicatoria, or an action
to recover ownership. ” 33

64. With regard to the advised of Atty. Viray that Mariano will commit
forum shopping if he will file action for forcible entry and then annulment of title,
it is humbly submitted that “There is forum shopping when a party files different
pleadings in different tribunals, despite having the same "identit[ies] of parties,
32 G.R. NO. 152992 July 28, 2005.
33 Eversley Childs Sanitarium vs Spouses Anastacio Perlabarbarona, G.R. No. 195814, April 4, 2018.
rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought." Consistent with the principle of fair
play, parties are prohibited from seeking the same relief in multiple forums in the
hope of obtaining a favorable judgment. The rule against forum shopping likewise
fulfills an administrative purpose as it prevents conflicting decisions by different
tribunals on the same issue. ” 34

65. In the case at bar, Mariano is invoking his right to possess the subject
property being the actual occupant and possessor of said lot before Estelita and
Jaime with their cohorts illegally entered said lot by force in an Action for Forcible
Entry. While in Annulment of Title, his right to due process since “An action for
annulment of title questions the validity of the title because of lack of due
process of law. There is an allegation of nullity in the procedure and thus the
invalidity of the title that is issued” ; 35

66. Moreover, the relief sought in an Action for Forcible Entry is to get a
declaration from court that the plaintiff has a better right to possess the subject
property. While in Annulment of Title is a declaration from court that the
defendant’s certificate of title is null and void;

67. Thus, there is no forum shopping if Mariano will file Action for Forcible
Entry and then later on he will file Annulment of Title;

68. Considering the above-mentioned arguments, the advised of Atty. Viray

is not proper advice and the refusal of Mariano to listen to the advice given by
Atty. Viray will not result in incalculable harm to him;

69. Since
the advice given by Atty. Viray is not proper and
the refusal of Mariano to listen to the advice given by Atty.
Viray will not result in incalculable harm to him, the refusal to
listen on the part of Mariano in Atty. Viray’s advice is not
within the ambit of paragraph 5, Article 4, Chapter IX of the
2016 Revised PAO Operations Manual which requires that the
advice given by the PAO lawyer must be proper advice and the
refusal to listen will result to incalculable harm to the client . A
basic rule in statutory construction finds application in this case, i.e., expression
unius est exclusion alterius. 36 “Where a statue, by its terms, is expressly limited to
certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to
others.”37 Thus, without a provision that allows the PAO lawyer to withdraw
his/her representation even if his/her advice is not proper and the refusal to listen
will not result in incalculable harm to his/her client, any PAO lawyer cannot
withdraw his/her representation if his/her legal advice is improper;
34 Ibid.
35 Sps. Roberto Aboitiz and Maria Cristina Cabarrus vs. Sps. Peter L. Po and Victoria Po, G.R. No. 208450, June 5,
2017.

36 See Romualdez v. Hon. Marcelo et al., G.R. Nos. 165510-33, July 28, 2006.
37 Ibid.
 70. The statements of Mariano on his appeal which the Public Attorney’s
Office quoted to justify the unlawful issuance of denial/disqualification form were
averred to support his arguments that the advice given by Atty. Viray is not proper
advice and the refusal of Mariano to listen to the advice given by Atty. Viray will
not result in incalculable harm to him not to insist his strategy/opinion;

71. In fact, the perusal of the Petitioner’s e-mail address to PAO-Urdaneta

dated September 4, 202038 reveals that the petitioner AGREED to file Recovery
of Possession instead of Reconveyance despite that he did not agree to Atty.
Natividad which means that he follows the advice of his PAO lawyer despite that
he did agree on Atty. Natividad’s legal advice as long as it has legal basis;

72. Further, it is worthy to mention that the arguments of Mariano are in

accordance to the legal advice given by the PAO-LRS to him which the
respondents and the Deputy Chief Public Attorney’s Office did not rebut and his
arguments are within the ambit of the legal opinion of the Public Attorney’s
Office posted by Manila Times in https://www.manilatimes.net/2016/09/04/legal-
advice/dearpao/person-dispossessed-of-land-may-seek-redress-from-
court/283901/;

73. If only respondents Atty. Florante Natividad and Atty. Mona Lissa C.
Monje-Viray SIGNED the complaint that the former prepared on behalf of
Complainant Mariano Flores in accordance to section 5, Article 3 Chapter IX of
PAO Operations Manual39 and Atty. Viray, gave an advice which are in
accordance to the law, Mariano will not become suspicious that they want his
case to be DISMISSED that is why they REFUSED TO SIGN SAID
COMPLAINT that is why he conduct a thorough research;

74. The aforementioned suspicion of Mariano was validated by him after he

conducted a thorough research;

75. A careful evaluation of the complaint prepared by Atty. Viray reveals

that the said complaint is dismissible because Atty. Viray FAILED to allege the
assessed value of the subject property; the allegation in support of Mariano’s
Application for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction is very generic; and there is
no evidence presented to prove that Mariano suffered irreparable injury;

38 Copy of said e-mail is previously marked as Annex “C”.

39 Section 5. Signature on pleadings. All complaints, petitions, answers,

replies and other important pleadings to be filed in the lower court, quasi-
judicial bodies and other offices, must be signed by the lawyer handling
the case and co-signed:
c) In the District Offices – by the District Public Attorney
d) xxx
xxx.”
 76. The above-stated incompetence or negligence of Atty. Viray is so great
that if herein Complainant will not do anything to protect his interest, he will be
prevented by fairly presenting his case because as stated above, the above-
mentioned complaint is dismissible;

77. Thus, “The doctrinal rule is that negligence of the counsel binds the
client xxx.” (Mendoza vs. CA, G.R. No. 182814, July 15, 2015);

78. Based on the foregoing, Complainant Mariano Flores should not be

faulted in refusing to listen to improper advice of Atty. Viray. It is expected that
he will protect his interest which as a law student he is very much aware;

79. All told is an inescapable conclusion that the Denial/Disqualification

Form dated October 28, 2020 is not within the ambit of Article 4 (5) of the 2016
Revised PAO Operations Manual;

80. Based on the foregoing premises, it is very clear that the PAO failed to
abide the command of PAO Operations Manual particularly ARTICLE 4,
CHAPTER IX OF THE 2016 REVISED PAO OPERATIONS MANUAL
when Atty. Natividad and Atty. Viray exercises their administrative functions;

81. Considering the above-mentioned arguments, it is very clear that Atty.

Natividad and Atty. Viray disregarded the above-quoted law and jurisprudence;

82. Hence, it is very clear that Atty. Natividad and Atty. Viray are GUILTY
of Gross Ignorance of the Law;

THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE

TO INDICT ATTY.
NATIVIDAD AND ATTY.
VIRAY FOR USURPATION OF
OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS.

83. Since Atty. Natividad and Atty. Viray failed to abide the command PAO
Operations Manual particularly ARTICLE 4, CHAPTER IX OF THE 2016
REVISED PAO OPERATIONS MANUAL, it is humbly submitted that they
have no authority to issue a Denial/Disqualification Form dated October 28, 2020
against herein Complainant;

84. Thus, Atty. Natividad and Atty. Viray have no authority to issue said
Denial/Disqualification Form . Thus:

“Art. 177. Usurpation of authority or official

functions. - Any person who shall knowingly and
falsely represent himself to be an officer, agent, or
representative of any department or agency of the
Philippine Government or of any foreign
government, or who, under pretense of official
position, shall perform any act pertaining to any
person in authority or public officer of the
 Philippine Government or of any foreign
government, or any agency thereof without being
lawfully entitled to do so, shall suffer the penalty of
prison correctional in its minimum and medium
periods. (As Amended by R.A. No. 379)

85. Further, Atty. Natividad DENIED Mariano’s Motion for

Reconsideration address to Atty. Viray despite that he has no authority to do so as
stated by the Public Attorney’s Office;

86. Thus, there is probable cause to indict Atty. Natividad and Atty. Viray
for Usurpation of Official functions;

THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE

TO INDICT ATTY.
NATIVIDAD AND ATTY.
VIRAY FOR FALSIFICATION
BY PUBLIC OFFICER,
EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY OR
ECCLESIASTICAL
MINISTER.

87. The elements of Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or

notary or ecclesiastical minister are:

1) that the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public;

2) that he takes advantage of his official position;
3) that he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding; and
4) that such person/s did not in fact so participate in the proceeding. 40

88. It is the humble opinion of the undersigned Complainant that the above-
quoted elements are evidently present in this case;

89. First, Atty. Natividad and Atty. Viray are a public officer being Public
Attorneys;

90. Second, Atty. Natividad has an authority to notarized the affidavit/s of

PAO-Urdaneta’s client/client’s witness/es. While Atty. Viray has the duty to
prepare the affidavit of her client’s witness/es;

91. Third, Atty. Natividad and Atty. Viray falsifies the Joint Affidavit when
they made it appear that Marcela and Lourdes participated in the execution of
said affidavit; made it appear that the Complainant birth of place is Urdaneta
City, Pangasinan; and the former made it appear that Marcela and Lourdes
subscribed and sworn before him said affidavit;

40 https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/4996/, September 1, 2021.

 92. Lastly, Marcela and Lourdes did not participate in the preparation and
notarization of their Joint Affidavit;

93. Based on the foregoing, there is probable cause to indict Atty. Natividad
and Atty.Viray Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or
ecclesiastical minister;

THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE

TO INDICT ATTY. VIRAY
FOR UNJUST VEXATION

94. The Supreme Court in the case of Melchor Maderazo v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 165065, September 26, 2006, discussed the crime of of
unjust vexation as:
“Unjust vexation may exist without compulsion or
restraint. However, in unjust vexation, being a felony
by dolo, malice is an inherent element. Good faith is
a good defense to a charge for unjust vexation because
good faith negates malice. The paramount question to
be considered is whether the offenders act caused
annoyance, irritation, torment, distress or disturbance
to the mind of the person to whom it is directed.”

95. As fully discussed above, Atty. Natividad and Atty. Viray signed the
withdrawal of legal presentation of PAO-Urdaneta to herein Complainant despite
that said withdrawal is not within the ambit of paragragh 5, Article 4, Chapter IX
of the 2016 Revised PAO Operations Manual which is very annoying and irritating
considering that Atty. Natividad and Atty. Viray have sworn duty to obey the said
manual but they blatantly disregarded said manual;

96. Atty. Natividad and Atty. Viray had no right to take the law into their
own hands and deprive Mariano in free access to adequate legal
assistance under Article III, Section 11 of the 1987
Constitution Atty. Natividad and Atty. Viray;
Atty. Natividad and Atty. Viray maliciously
97. However,
misinterpreted paragragh 5, Article 4, Chapter IX of the 2016
Revised PAO Operations Manual for them to have legal basis
in withdrawing the legal representation of PAO-Urdaneta to
herein Complainant;
98. Due to the above-mentioned malicious action of Atty. Natividad and
Atty. Viray, the Complainant experienced and continuously experiencing
disturbance on his mind because he is worrying that the property that he wants to
recover to the heirs of late Estelita Delizo will be sold by the latter to a purchaser
in good faith which prohibits him to recover said property since the Annulment of
Title and Document with Injunction are not yet filed and the Public Attorney’s
 refused and continuously to refuse to represent the
Office
Complainant in his other cases due to the above-mentioned
Denial Form;
99. Hence, there is probable cause to indict Atty. Natividad and Atty. Viray
for Unjust Vexation;
100. In the case of Rosalie P. Domingo vs. Atty. Jorge C. Sacdalan (A.C.
No. 12475, March 26, 2019), the Honorable Supreme Court ruled to imposed the
ultimate penalty of disbarment against Atty. Sacdalan and his name was ordered
to be stricken off in the Rolls of Attorney because his acts and omissions of
respondent constitute malpractice, gross negligence and gross misconduct in his
office as attorney;

101. Here, the above-stated acts and omissions of Respondents Florante

Natividad and Atty. Monna-Lissa Monje-Viray constitutes not only
malpractice, gross negligence and gross misconduct in their
office as Public Attorneys but also other offenses which are
considered grave offenses with a penalty of dismissal under
Revised Rules on Administrative Cases and criminal cases;
102. In view of the foregoing, it is the humble opinion of Complainant
Mariano P. Flores that the names of Respondents Florante
Natividad and Atty. Mona-Lissa Monje-Viray must be stricken
off in the Rolls of Attorney;
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that after due

notice and hearing judgment be rendered ordering the the names of
Respondents Florante Natividad and Atty. Mona-Lissa Monje-
Viray to be stricken off in the Rolls of Attorney.
Equitable reliefs are likewise sought for under the attendant circumstances.

September 30, 2021, City of Manila for Pasig City.

MARIANO P. FLORES
marianofloresparalegal@gmail.com
09288154395/09676720630