Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Agham Rd., Diliman, Quezon City NORTH EAST STEEL MFG. COMPANY (NEMASCO) INC., Represented by Atty. Eulalio B. Menla, Jr., Complainant, versus OMB-C-C-10-10267-F

MELINDA B. ROSANA, et al., Respondents, xxx - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xxx

COMMENT
(On the Reply to Atty. Tams Counter-Affidavit) The undersigned counsel respectfully enters his appearance in the aboveentitled case and herewith attaches his personal information as follows: ATTY. GUALBERTO C. MANLAGNIT Diamond St., Filoville Subdivision, Calauag, Naga City Attorneys Roll No. 17869 PTR No. 8954051 April 15, 2010 IBP No. 818030 April 15, 2010 MCLE No. III-0017143, June 5, 2010 It is therefore requested that all notices and processes of the Honorable Ombudsman be furnished to the above-stated address.

FURTHER, respondent Atty. Celestina Manlagnit-Tam by counsel and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully states that:

1. This comment is intended to rebut the arguments raised by the complainant through its representative ATTY. EULALIO MENLA in its Reply dated December 3, 2010, a copy of which was received by the respondent on December 14, 2010.

2. Firstly, the allegation of the complainant in paragraph 2 of the reply which attacks a simple, explicable and understandable clerical error of placing the wrong date or year of receipt of the copy of the complaint is but a desperate move on the part of the complainant to look into the errors made in the pleading of the respondent.

3. The mistake of the respondent in inadvertently placing the year 2012 instead of 2010 is clearly a manifest clerical error and should not be given too much attention nor should the same unintentional mistake be considered as a false allegation because the same is very trivial and trifling.

4. SECONDLY, the allegation in paragraph 3 of the reply which states:

Complainant maintains that Respondent TAMs legal duty, much more, her inherent power to review MAROs ORDER under protest, is never ministerial, for as Regional Director, she is TASKED to determine the validity of MAROs ORDER, NOT TO BLESS IT WITH HER CELESTIAL EMBRACE. Had she legally performed her legal duty, she could have found out that MAROs recommendation on the subject property to be covered by CARP REFERS TO ONE AND THE SAME PROPERTY, contrary to MAROs CLAIM. And more, importantly, if only COMMON SENSE has been employed, it will highly improbable for the Complainant being a lawyer to cry foul and raise heaven and hell over a property that does not belong to them? Sadly, this particular perception which is assumed to be common to human nature and experience seems to be scarced in Respondents Reals, since, DAR stubbornely maintains THAT WHAT THEY COVERED IS A DIFFERENT PROPERTY. With due respect, there is nothing in the counter-affidavit of the respondent which states that the power of the Regional Director to review is MINISTERIAL. What the respondent firmly stated in her counter-affidavit is that the power to determine the validity of the MAROs order is a LEGAL DUTY ON HER PART AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR. The allegation that this function is ministerial on the part of the respondent is merely a product of wishful thinking on the part of the complainants representative ATTY. EULALIO MENLA.

Also, as already stated in the counter-affidavit of the respondent, her act of affirming the findings of the MARO is purely legal and untainted with any badge of infirmity since she affirmed said order based on evidence at hand.

On this point, may we explain to the complainant that the investigating committee or fact finding committee of