REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Optical Media Board
Legal Services Division
Quezon City

OPTICAL MEDIA BOARD,

Complainant,

- versus - Administrative Case No.:

2019-08-1744
For:Violation of Title IV,
Section 1(a)(i) of the
Implementing Rules and
Regulations of RA 9239

CITI CABLE WORLD,

Respondent,
x-----------------------------------------------x

OMNIBUS MOTION TO FURNISH COPY OF THE

COMPLAINT
AND OTHER DOCUMENTS(BILL OF PARTICULARS)
AND/OR DISMISS THE CASE WITH ENTRY OF
APPEARANCE

The undersigned is respectfully entering his appearance as counsel

for the respondent in the above-entitled case. Henceforth, all pleadings,
processes and the like is requested to be duly furnished at his law office
address as shown herein below.

Moreover, the undersigned counsel for the RESPONDENTin the

above-entitled case, most respectfully submit this OMNIBUS MOTION,
and avers:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not

always and in all situations require a trial-type
proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a person is
notified of the charge against him and given an
opportunity to explain or defend himself. In
 administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and
giving reasonable opportunity for the person so
charged to answer the accusations against him
constitute the minimum requirements of due process.
The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as
applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity
to explain one’s side, or an opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of[1].

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This administrative complaint stemmed from the allegations that

herein respondent was found to be potentially conducting business with a
possible violation of Section 19(a)(1) and (3) of RA No. 9239 otherwise
known as “ The Optical Media Act of 2003”.
Relative to the above stated paragraph, a show cause order dated 29
August 2019 was issued by the Optical Media Board, Legal Services
Division addressed to the respondent to appear at the Legal Services
Division of the Optical Media Board on the 12th and 19th day of September
2019 at 10:30am for a Clarificatory Hearing. Pertinent portion of the said
order is stated in this manner:

Pursuant to the various reports of showing, televising,

telecasting, exhibiting, and showcasing the pirated version of
the Blockbuster Movie “ Hello Love, Goodbye”, your Company
was found to be potentially conducting business under the
jurisdiction of this office with a possible violation of Section
19(a)(1) and (3), of RA No. 9239 otherwise known as “ The
Optical Media Act of 2003”. Identify and explain the electronic
media or medium used in the operation of the video through the
cable network. Also, provide the specifications of the electronic
storage media where the said video was saved prior to telecast.
( Bold and Italic supplied)

The copy of the said Show Cause Order [2] was personally served by
Atty. FerdinoCondoz from Optical Media Board Legal Services Division,
Quezon City and was received by one of the staff of herein respondent at
their business address located at G/C Building, Carreon Street, Centro
East, Santiago City, Isabela.
On 12 September 2019, respondent through the undersigned counsel
appeared before Atty. FerdinoCondoz from the office of Optical Media
Board Legal Services Division, Quezon City for the scheduled Clarificatory
Hearing. During the course of the hearing, respondent’s counsel disclosed
that a one page copy of Show Cause Order was handed to the respondent’s
1
Ledesma v. Court of Appeals
2
Annex “1”
staff and asked the investigating officer to furnish the respondent a copy of
the complaint and/or available documents and/or videos if any to prove
the allegations hurled against the respondent. But no such copy of
documents and/or videos was given and/or shown. Hence, the respondent
through the undersigned counsel cordially manifested and claimed that
the allegations against them were not true. Moreover, the respondent
denied of having knowledge of playing or exhibiting the movie “ Hello
Love, Goodbye” in their cable system.
Prior to the termination of the Clarificatory Hearing, a subpoena [3]
dated 6 September 2019 was issued by the Optical Media Board, Legal
Services Division and handed the same to the undersigned counsel.
In the said subpoena, the respondent was ordered to submit position
paper/answer to the complaint as well as pertinent supporting documents
to be submitted on 3 October 2019. And again, theundersigned counsel
politely asked for a copy of the complaint and/or any documentary
evidence to support the allegations hurled against the respondent inorder
to prepare an intelligent answer/position paper but the investigating
officer failed to hand over any copy of complaint and/or documents or
whatsoever. Hence, this OMNIBUS MOTION.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The respondent has the right to be

informed of the nature and cause
of accusation against him

Respondent was charged with administrative case before this

Honorable Office for Violation of Title IV, Rule 1, Section 1(a)(i) of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9239 provided hereunder:

Title IV – ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES AND PENALTIES

Rule 1- Offenses And Penalties

Section 1. Administrative Sanctions. – Without prejudice to

the filing of criminal or civil actions in appropriate cases, the OMB
shall file administrative complaints against and impose
administrative penalties in the following cases:

a) Closure of establishment, confiscation of manufacturing

equipment, parts, materials or optical media products and/or
a fine of not less than Php 300,000.00, but not more than
Php1,500,000.00, shall be imposed upon any person,

3
Annex ”2”
 establishment or entity who shall commit any of the
following:

(i) Suspension of operations of the establishment for a period

of not less than one (1) month, but not more than three (3)
months, confiscation of manufacturing equipment, parts,
materials or optical media products and/or a fine of not less
than Php 50,000.00, but not more than Php 100,000.00, shall
be imposed upon any person, establishment or entity who
shall engage in the sale, rental, distribution, importation,
exportation of, or any other commercial activity involving
optical media that are in violation of this Act.

Under RA 9239, Optical Media is defined as a storage medium or

device in which information, including sounds and/or images, or software
code, has been stored, either by mastering and/or replication, which may
be accessed and read using a lens scanning mechanism employing a high
intensity light source such as a laser or any such other means as may be
developed in the future. The term shall include, but not be limited to,
devices which shall be listed in the IRR of this Act, or as prescribed by the
OMB.
Aside from the fact that no object, testimonial and/or documentary
evidence to prove that respondent committed the alleged violation,
respondent has no actual knowledge of having engaged in the sale, rental,
distribution, importation, exportation of, or any other commercial activity
involving optical media that are in violation of RA No. 9239. No
substantial evidence that would support the claim that herein respondent
committed such illegal act.

Substantial evidence is defined as such amount of relevant

evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla of evidence.
The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is
reasonable ground to believe, based on the evidence submitted, that
the respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of. It
need not be overwhelming or preponderant, as is required in an
ordinary civil case, or evidence beyond reasonable doubt, as is
required in criminal cases, but the evidence must be enough for a
reasonable mind to support a conclusion.[4]

Absent a showing of relevant evidence to support the charge hurled

against the respondent and based on the evidence submitted, that the
respondent is responsible for the violation complained of is a valid ground
for the outright dismissal of this case.

4
G.R. Nos. 172532 172544–45 / November 20, 2013
 CONCLUSION

It is basic that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proving,

by substantial evidence, the truthfulness of the allegations on the
complaint rest on the complainant. [5] Only substantial evidence, or that
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion, is required. [6] In this case, the
complainant utterly failed to satisfactorily discharge such burden.
Moreover, in Department of Health v. Camposano restates the
guidelines laid down in AngTibay v. Court of Industrial Relations that
due process in administrative proceedings requires compliance with the
following cardinal principles: (1) the respondents’ right to a hearing, which
includes the right to present one’s case and submit supporting evidence,
must be observed; (2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
(3) the decision must have some basis to support itself; (4) there must be
substantial evidence; (5) the decision must be rendered on the evidence
presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed
to the parties affected; (6) in arriving at a decision, the tribunal must have
acted on its own consideration of the law and the facts of the controversy
and must not have simply accepted the views of a subordinate; and (7) the
decision must be rendered in such manner that respondents would know
the reasons for it and the various issues involved.
In the present case, the requirements stated above was not complied
with. Respondent was not properly apprised of any
evidence(object,documentary,testimonial) in relation to the complaint
offered against him, which were eventually made the bases of the decision
that found him liable in the above captioned offense.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most fervently prayed of this Honorable Office

to ALLOW THE RESPONDENT TOFURNISH COPY OF THE
COMPLAINTAND OTHER DOCUMENTS and/orDISMISS this
administrative complaint against the respondent there being no substantial
evidence to support the same.
Such other relief and remedy that is deemed just and equitable
under the circumstances are being prayed for.

Santiago City for Quezon City, 1 October 2019.

5
Honorable Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo v.L e o p o l d o F . B u n g u b u n g A n d H o n . C o u r t o f A p p e a l s ,
G . R. N o. 1 7 5 2 0 1, April 23, 2008.
6
Aranda, Jr. v. Alvarez, A.M. No. P-04-1889, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 162.
 THE LAW OFFICE OF ATTY. RICHARD V. GOMEZ
88 Diamond Street, Plaridel Subdivision, Santiago City
E-mail: 1972.richardgomez@gmail.com
Mobile No.: 09756977381

By:

ATTY. RICHARD V. GOMEZ

Counsel for the respondent
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0013821
PTR No.SC 2597099/Santiago City/01-03-2019
IBP No. 056748/12-12-2018/Manila
Roll No.69120/05-30-17

Notice of Hearing

The Optical Media Board

Legal Services Division
Quezon City

Please submit the foregoing omnibus motion to this

Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof for its
consideration and approval and set the same for hearing on
October3, 2019at10:30 o’clock in the morning for oral
arguments.

Santiago City for Quezon City, 1October 2019.

ATTY. RICHARD V. GOMEZ

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES}
SANTIAGO CITY}:s.s.
X----------------------------------------------X

VERIFICATION

I, POMPEYO R. ABERGAS,, of legal age, married, Filipino

andPresident CITI CABLE WORLD located at G/C Building, Carreon
Street, Centro EastSantiago City, Isabela after having been duly sworn
to in accordance with law, do hereby deposes and states:

1. That I am the respondent in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Position

Paper;

3. That I have read and understood all the allegations contained

herein which are true and correct of my own personal knowledge;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ____

day of September, 2019 at Santiago City.

POMPEYO R. ABERGAS
Affiant
Driver License no. B02-05-005313

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this ____ day of September,

2019 at Santiago City; Affiant exhibited to me his identifying evidence as
required by the Rules; who signed the said instrument in my presence. I
further certify that I have personally examined the affiant and I am
convinced that the same is his own free and voluntarily act and deed.

Doc. No. ____

Page No. ____
Book No. ____
Series of 2019