Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sample Counter Affidavit 2
Sample Counter Affidavit 2
-versus-
ROGER C. RAMIREZ,
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------x
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
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;
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:
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:
5
personally saw as the money came from him via the latter’s
mother Flordeliz B. Sanchez
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;
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;
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;
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;
(5) The complaint was filed after one (1) year from the occurrence
of the act or omission complained of.
9
Complaint is well beyond a period of one year from the happening of the
complained acts or omissions.
PRAYER
____________________________, Philippines.
10
Copy furnished By Registered Mail deposited on
No. _____________________ :
11