Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD

COMMITTEE ON GOOD GOVERNMENT
Zamboanga City

--0o0
HON. TUNGKUH B. HANAPI and
HON. ABDUL-AZIZ C. HANAPI

ADMIN CASE NO.

2014-R584-01

Barangay Kagawad/Complainant,

- FOR

-versusHON. ANAM B. HANAPI

Respondent,

DISHONESTY , GROSS
NEGLECT OR DERELICTION
OF DUTY, ABUSE OF
AUTHORITY AND
VIOLATION OF IRR RA
8184

x--------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER
COMES NOW, the undersigned counsel for Respondent ENGR.
GILBERT B. SAN ANTONIO in the above-entitled administrative case and
to this Honorable Commision most respectfully states that:

1. A summon dated 17 October 2013 was issued by the Honorable

Commission ordering me to submit a Counter-Affidavit/Verified
Answer, was received on October 21, 2013 and thus he have until
November 5, 2013 to submit the same, however a Motion for
Extension of Time to File Counter-Affidavit/Verified Answer was filed
and thus he has 15 days from November 20, 2013 to submit the
same;
2. He VEHEMENTLY DENIES having committed the charge against him
by ROGELIO V. DE SOSA in his Complaint. The truth of the matter is
detailed in the proceeding paragraphs;
PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION (PRC) HAS NO JURISDICTION
OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

3. Philippine Regulation Commission (PRC) has no jurisdiction nor was it

mentioned in its power and functions, over the subject matter.
Under R.A 8293 sec. 4 of the Intellectual Property Code:

Intellectual Property code recognizes that the intellectual-property rights include the
protection of undisclosed information that requires courts to adopt measure to protect the
manufacturing and business secrets of a company in a patent infringement case;

POWERS AND FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 223 June 22, 1973
Section 5. Power of the Commission.
a) To administer, implement and enforce the regulatory policies of the National
Government with respect to the regulation and licensing of the various
professions and occupations under its jurisdiction including the maintenance of
professional and occupational standards and ethics and the enforcement of the
rules and regulations relative thereto.
Section 6. Powers, functions and responsibilities of various Boards. The various Boards
shall retain the following powers, functions and responsibilities:
a) To look from time to time into the condition affecting the practice of the
profession or occupation under their respective jurisdictions and whenever
necessary, adopt such measures as may be deemed proper for the
enhancement of the profession or occupation and/or the maintenance of high
professional, ethical and technical standards and for this purpose the members
of a Board may personally or through subordinate employees of the Commission
conduct ocular inspection or visit industrial, mechanical, electrical or chemical
plants or works, hospitals, clinics and other engineering works where registered
practitioners of the profession or occupation are employed or are working for the
purpose of determining compliance with the provisions of laws relative to the
practice of the profession or occupation or as an aid in formulating policies
relative thereto in accordance with the established policies promulgated by the
Commission;
b) To investigate violations of their respective laws and the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder and for this purpose may issue summons, subpoenas
and subpoena ducestecum to alleged violators or witnesses thereof and compel
their attendance to such investigations or hearings;
c) To delegate the hearing of investigation of administrative cases filed before
them except in cases where the issue involved strictly concerns the practice of
the profession or occupation, in which case the hearing shall be presided by at
least one member of the Board concerned assisted by a legal or hearing officer
of the Commission;
d) To promulgate decisions on such administrative cases subject to review by the
Commission. If after thirty (30) days from the receipt of such decision no appeal
is taken therefrom to the Commission, the same shall become final and
immediately enforceable;
e) Subject to review by the Commission to approve registration without
examination and the issuance of the corresponding certificates of registration;
f) After due process, to suspend, revoked or reissue certificates of registration for
causes provided for by law or by the rules and regulations promulgated therefor;
g) To determine and prepare the contents of licensure examinations; score and
rate the examination papers and submit the results thereof to the Commission

within one hundred twenty (120) days after the last examination day unless
extended by the Commission; and, subject to approval by the Commission
determine the appropriate passing general rating if not provided for in the law
regulating the profession.

THERE WAS MALICIOUS PROSECUTION COMMITTED BY ENGR. ROGELIO V. DE

SOSA

4. ENGR. ROGELIO V. DE SOSA As Plant Manager of Universal

Canning Corporation dismissed herein repondent from his
employment with Universal Canning Corporation charging him with
Dishonesty, gross misconduct, gross neglect of duty and
insubordination, abandonment of work, falsification of company
records and lost of trust and confidence due to dishonesty which has
no sufficient basis, in which the herein respondent suffered due to
said termination. It was the only job which the respondent depend to
support his family;
5. Showing his belligerence towards herein respondent ENGR. DE
SOSA did not content in just arbirarily and illegally dismissing
respondent but went on with his tortious act of filing this insant case
before the Philippine Regulation Commission (PRC) asking for the
revocation of Certificate Of Registration of ENGR. SAN ANTONIO as
even though he is not anymore employed in their company. This is
manifestation of the abuse of Complainants rights;
6. There was no even clear evidence showing that the herein
respondent wrongfully acquired the information and misappropriated
the same. In fact complainant, in bad faith, in an effort to mislead this
Honorable Commission, were the ones who inserted some
unnecessary papers on his book which they submitted to the PRC
that formed part as their evidence, particularly Annexes D-9 to D-17
and D-19 to D-40; these documents were never part of the
documents which the herein respondent submitted before the Board
of Mechanical Engineers. Attached herewith is the ENGINEERING
REPORT of ENGR. GILBERT B. SAN ANTONIO as ANNEX A;
7. ENGR. DE SOSA alleged that he only recently learned the
Engineering Report of herein respondent, where in truth and in fact,
he knew it very well considering that his signature appeared on the
Engineering Report of ENGR. GILBERT B. SAN ANTONIO sometime
in the month of November 2010. If stealing had transpired, he should
have confronted and/or asked him about his design, in which the
design of herein respondent has four Rotary Can Drainer and their
machine has only one, in the year 2010 when ENGR. SAN
ANTONIO was still working out his Engineering Report.;
8. Evidence submitted in support of the instant Complaint lacks integrity
worst but a product of afterthought of herein complainant ENGR.
ROGELIO V. DE SOSA to destroy the personality and integrity of
herein respondent; it is but of a reasonable mind not to be entertained

and accepted to adequately justifies a conclusion that herein

Respondent ENGR. GILBERT B. SAN ANTONIO is liable for
Unprofessional and/or Dishonorable conduct;
9. In the Memorandum dated December 8, 2012, based on the
Universal Canning Incorporated investigation report, the herein
respondent committed acts of dishonesty, gross misconduct, gross
neclect of duty and insubordination as production manager. They
terminated the herein respondent on the following grounds: a.
Insubordination b. abandonment of work c. falsification of company
files and d. lost of confidence due to dishonesty. Attached herewith is
the Memorandum dated December 8, 2012 as ANNEX B;
10.
It was never mentioned in the above-mentioned memorandum
that the herein respondent violated Republic Act 8293 Section 4 of
the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. Had complainant
discovered that respondent stole vital informations from the company
such fact should have been included as a ground in dismissing
respondent but such was not the case, it clearly shows that the filing
of this complaint is prompted by a design to vex and degrade the
personality of herein repondent ENGR. GILBERT B. SAN ANTONIO
considering that it was initiated deliberately by the complainant
knowing that the basis of this charges are false and fabricated;
THE RESPONDENT NEVER
DISHONORABLE CONDUCT

COMMITTED

UNPROFESSIONAL

AND/OR

11.
In his allegation that ENGR. SAN ANTONIO stole Vital
Company Files and Operational Manuals has no factual basis. As the
production Manager the herein respondent is fully equipped, with
respect to the Operational Manuals because the management has
provided him the same since it has something to do with ENGR. SAN
ANTONIO line of work to know the Operation and the Process flow to
fully understand the processing Operation and to effectively
dissiminate the Opeartional instruction/information to his subordinates
(e.g. processing supervisor, foremens and line checker).How can you
effectively work as production manager without fully understanding
the Operational Manuals in the factory?
12.

The undersigned, with all humility would like to emphasize,

whose side are we to hear now? One mouth of Complainant ENGR.

ROGELIO V. DE SOSA against five mouths of Respondent ENGR.
SAN ANTONIO with his witnesses? We leave to the wisdom of the
Honorable Commission regarding this matter.

13.

In the case of SPOUSES PATRICIO and MYRNA BERNALES,

Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF JULIAN SAMBAAN, namely: EMMA S.

FELICILDA, ANITA S. SAMBAAN, VIOLETA S. DADSANAN,

ABSALON S. SAMBAAN, AGUSTINE S. SAMBAAN, EDITHA S.
MANGUIRAN, GRACE S. NITCHA, CLODUALDO S. SAMBAAN,
GINA S. SAMBAAN and FE S. YAP, Respondents.
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It is
that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds,
equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.
14. The burden of proof lies before the Complainant ENGR. ROGELIO
V. DE SOSA, however in the instant Complaint failure in
establishing

the

integrity

of

substantial

evidence.

Citing

Ombudsman v. Angeles, GR 152244, 27 September 2004, it

declared that
x x x in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden
of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations of the complaint.
After all, public officers and employees are presumed to have
performed their duties in accordance with law.

15. In the instant case, the instant complaint was solely anchored in the
self serving allegations of Complainant ENGR. DE SOSA. No other
testimonies, concrete and circumstantial evidences that would
corroborate his allegations. There can be no mistaking that
complainant would not but be motivated by malicious and unlawful
intent to harass, oppress, and cause damage to herein respondent;
16. Furthermore, the herein respondent is also assigned/task to escort,
and answer the question of BFAR INSPECTOR and the EU
INSPECTION TEAM, everytime they conduct the HACCP SYSTEM
AUDIT AND RENEWAL INSPECTION for it is their corporate
commitment to manufacture and distribute premium quality canned
sardines and impose strict regulations on sanitation and hygiene;
17. Aside from that, in compliance with the requirements of the Board of
Mechanical Engineering for Professional Mechanical Engineer (PME)
Licensure under RA 8495, a copy of which was submitted to PRC.

Upon the perusal complaint of ROGELIO V. DE SOSA, the book that

he submitted to the Honorable Commission contains malicious
insertions, particularly Annexes D-9 to D-17 and D-19 to D-40; these
documents were never part of the documents which the herein
respondent submitted to the Honorable Commission;
RESPONDENT DID NOT MODEL HIS ENGINEERING REPORT FROM VITAL AND
EXCLUSIVE DOCUMENTS

18. As noted all allegation are only content of the Engineering Report
INTRODUCTION & BASIC COMPANY INFORMATION. These are
the information required by Board of Mechanical Engineers to be
included in the Engineering Report. But the most vital of the report is
in Chapter TWO (ENGINEERING REPORT) comprises the Design
Calculation which was carefully computed to meet the design;
19. After completing the Professional Development Course on 24th day of
July 2010 ENGR. SAN ANTONIO is already prepared to proceed with
his Engineering Report the format of which is provided by the Board
of Mechanical Engineers (BME) for PME Licensure under R.A. 8495.
Attached herein is the PSME Certificate of Completion as ANNEX
C and Engineering Report (Suggested Format) as ANNEX D;
20. That the Engineering Report was done intended for the benefit of
Universal Canning Inc. sometime in the month of September 2011,
even MRS. ANITA KAW, the owner of UCI, was aware when she
personally allowed him to submit the hard bound of his Engineering
Report with PRC IX last September 23, 2013 which is the due date
for its submission with one month extension. And then ENGR. DE
SOSA approved the Engineering Report when he affixed his
signature in the Engineering Report of ENGR. SAN ANTONIO.
Actually when he affixed his signature on the space provided for his
name, I questioned him regarding his licensed registration date which
he did not put and told me in this wise dont worry because it is not
important anymore. What is important is you can show the
computation on your Engineering Report. Attached herewith is the
Certificate of Experience of ENGR. SAN ANTONIO as ANNEX E.
In fact, ENGR. RODEL A. TULANG came to know that ENGR. DE
SOSA already signed the Engineering Report of ENGR. SAN
ANTONIO he asked a favor to also let ENGR. DE SOSA signed his
Cerificate of Experience; A copy of the Certificate of Experience and
Affidavit ENGR. RODEL A. TULANG of attesting to the foregoing
facts is hereto attached as ANNEX F and ANNEX G.
21. With respect to the allegation that ENGR. GILBERT B. SAN
ANTONIO simply copied his report from _________this is considering
that the Board of Mechanical Engineer has thoroughly reviewed his
engineering report even at its inception when he presented the title of
his report in facthe BME made suggesttion to change the title from

INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONING OF ONE UNIT FOUR

HUNDRED FIFTY CAN MINUTE CAN SARDINE AUTOMAIC
ROARY SAUCE FILLER MACHINE FOR UNIVERSAL CANNING
INC and DEDSIGNING OF ONE UNIT FIVE HUNDRED TUBS PER
HOUR AUTOMAIC PLASIC FISH UBS WASHER FOR UNIVERSAL
CANNING INC. instead the BME recommended that the title should
be DESIGN, INSTALLATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OF 170 METRIC ON PER DAY OF CAN SARDINES
MANUFACTURING TO INCLUDE ALL MAJOR COMPONENTS
FOR UNIVERSAL CANNING INCORPORATED to be submitted on
or before August 23, 2011. Attached herewith is the Affidavit (with an
annotation of the recommended title made by the BME) as ANNEX
H;

22. Furthermore contrary to he allegaions made by ENGR. DE SOSA in

his Complaint Affidavit that ENGR. SAN ANTONIO merely modeled
his Engineering Report from the blue prints of the machinery, which
Universal Canning Corporation is using, but view of the actual
machinery as compared with the machinery lay out plan of
respondent would clearly show that the design is very much different
from the design of respondent considering that his design has four
units of rotary can drainer in which they have only one and the fish
grader machine of the reports New Machineries Lay-out Plan is
recommended to be installed inside the Buchering section while the
existing set-up is installed outside the butchering section currently
installed at the cover shed near the warf. Attached herewith are the
design outline of Rotary Can Drainer as ANNEX I,; a picture of the
actual machine shown in RATED K is likewise attached hereto as
ANNEX K for comparison by the Honorable Commision.
23. The Universal canning cannot alleged that there exist trade secret
because they did not establish reasonable precautions to prevent
disclosure of secret information considering that they themselves
showed to the whole world how they process their sardines, which
was, and it is already marketed in the internet not just locally but
internationally. Attached herewith is a copy of the information of
Universal Canning Incorporated as ANNEX I and a video from
rated K as ANNEX J;
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, it is most respectfully
prayed of this Honorable Commission that the Respondent is not guilty of
Unprofessional and/or Dishonorable Conduct.

Other relief as are just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for
City of Zamboanga, for Manila ________________________.

ATTY. ROBERTO A. RIVERO III

Counsel for the Appellant
Not. Com. No. 031-2013 December 31, 2014
PTR No. 0629857: 12-28-2012 Z.C.
Roll No. 59055, April 15, 2011
IBP OR No. 896729, Jan. 7, 2013

EXPLANATION AND PROOF OF SERVICE

Copy of this VERIFIED POSITION PAPER was sent to the Honorable Office via LBC EXPRESS because of
the impracticability of personal service. A copy of the same was furnished to the Complainant at her last known
address in Zone 3, KM. 6, Mampang, Zamboanga City, Philippines.

ATTY. ROBERTO A. RIVERO III

Counsel for the Appellant
Not. Com. No. 031-2013 December 31, 2014
PTR No. 0629857: 12-28-2012 Z.C.
Roll No. 59055, April 15, 2011
IBP OR No. 896729, Jan. 7, 2013