Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

Fourth Judicial Region
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
SABLAYAN, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO

JANETTE ACOSTA DE SARZATE

Petitioner,

----versus---- For:
QUO WARRANTO

NOEMER FERNANDEZ SONIO

Respondent.

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

ANSWER TO VERIFIED ANSWER

WITH SPECIAL AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES
PETITIONER, thru the undersigned counsel unto this Honorable
Court, most respectfully submits this ANSWER to Respondent’s
Answer with Special Affirmative Defenses:

1. Respondent, in paragraph 3, by way of Special Affirmative

Defenses paragraphs 1 (1.1) (1.2) of his Answer with Special
Affirmative Defenses alleged that- “the decision in the case
entitled Janette Acosta De Sarzate et. al vs. Noemer Fernandez
before the Honorable Ombudsman has not yet attained finality
because after the Decision of the Ombudsman a Motion for
Reconsideration and Petition for Review can still be made. In
fact no, no Certificate of Finality was attached to fully effect
and executes the subject Decision. Consequently, the Decision
imposing the penalty of dismissal from service, with
cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits,
perpetual disqualification from holding public office and bar
from taking civil service examination should not be the proper
ground for this Petition Quo Warranto. ”

*It is noteworthy to point out that under Rule III,

Section 8 of Administrative Order No. 07 otherwise
known as RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE OFFICE OF

1
OMBUDSMAN, it is provided that “Whenever allowable, a
motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation may only be
entertained if filed within (10) days from the receipt of the
decision”. Further, Under Section 4 and 5, Rule 43 of the
Rules of Court, “The appeal shall be filed within (15) days
from the notice of the award, judgment or final order or
resolution, or from the date of last publication, if publication is
required by law for its effectivity or of the denial of petitioner’s
motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance
with the governing law of court or agency a quo. Appeal shall be
taken by filing a verified petition for review”. UNDENIABLY
THEREFORE, that the remedies alleged by the Respondent
still available to him, are no longer feasible and are barred by
prescription, hence the Decision in OMB-L-A-16-0387 entitled
Janette Acosta De Sarzate et. al vs. Noemer Fernandez
dated June 9, 2017 has already become final, executory and
unappealable prior to the filling of this petition.

2. Respondent, alleged by way of Special Affirmative Defense,

paragraphs 2, (2.1) and (2.2) and (2.3) states that-The second
document attached as Annex “B” by the Petitioner is an
indorsement letter directing the issuance of an order
dismissing the Respondent and the Submission to the
Ombudsman a Compliance Report certifying that the
Respondent has been officially dismissed; It can be gleaned
from the attachments the absence of the Compliance Report
by the Ombudsman to be submitted thereto; As such the
dismissal has actually not been realized and effected; This
Petition for Quo Warranto is devoid of merit, absent of any
ground that will prove the Respondent’s ineligibility to hold the
public office considering that he was voted for by the
electorate”

*The truth of the matter is that, the representatives

from the Department of the Interior and Local Government
(DILG)-Occidental Mindoro forgot to furnish the Petitioner of
the copy of the accomplishment report and only upon
notification that the Petitioner has filed the present action,
that she was furnished by the Memorandum addressed to the
Respondent with Subject: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
DECISION DATED 9 JUNE 2017 OF THE OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON IN OMB-L-A-16-0387
ENTILED JANETTE ACOSTA DE SARZATE, ET. AL. VS.
NOEMER FERNANDEZ SONIO”, which MEMORANDUM was
received by the herein Petitioner and Respondent on August
15, 2017 as evidenced by their signatures above printed name.
The DILG-Occidental Mindoro however insist that the copy of
the Accomplishment Report will be made available only to the
Petitioner via Subpoena Duces Tecum ad Testificandum as

2
such is covered by Rule on Confidentiality under their rules.
(For the consumption of the Court, herein attached the copy of
Memorandum addressed to Noemer Fernandez Sonio, with
Subject: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION DATED 9
JUNE 2017 OF THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN
FOR LUZON IN OMB-L-A-16-0387 ENTILED JANETTE
ACOSTA DE SARZATE, ET. AL. VS. NOEMER FERNANDEZ
SONIO, dated August 9, 2017 with signature above printed
name of Janette A. Sarzate and Noemer F. Sonio, marked as
ANNEX “A, A-1 and A-2”).

* It is noteworthy however, that the herein

Petitioner was furnished by the GSIS-Mamburao Branch
of their Accomplishment Report to the Ombudsman part
of the letter reads : “This refers to your indorsement letter
dated October 26, 2017 addressed to the GSIS President
and General Manager, furnishing the GSIS a copy of the
Ombudsman Decision in IN OMB-L-A-16-0387 ENTILED
JANETTE ACOSTA DE SARZATE, ET. AL. VS. NOEMER
FERNANDEZ SONIO, which DENIED the MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION dated August 14, 2017 for
information and immediate implementation with further
reference to 1st Indorsement dated July 13, 2017. (For the
consumption of the Court attached is the letter of the
Branch Manager of GSIS Mamburao submitting the
Accomplish Report marked as ANNEX ”B” the copy of
the duly Accomplished Report of GSIS marked as ANNEX
“C and C-1”)

* Beyond doubt therefore, the judgment in OMB-L-

A-16-0387 has been duly executed and the dismissal of
the Respondent has actually been realized and effected.
Moreso, the Petitioner is not questioning the election and
return of the Respondent but whether he possess all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications to hold
the Office of the Punong Barangay thus, making the
present Petition for Quo Warranto meritorious in all
respects.

3. Respondent alleged by way of Special Affirmative Defense in

paragraphs 3,(3.1), (3.2) and (3.3) allege that- the Petitioner
erroneously prayed for her to be declared as entitled to the
Office of the Punong Barangay and that she be placed in the
possession thereof; Paragraph 1 of the Petition only mentioned
that the Petitioner was ”one of the registered candidates voted
for in the general election” and an incumbent Punong
Barangay of Barangay San Francisco, Sablayan Occidental
Mindoro; Clearly, the Petitioner only made assertion

3
uncorroborated by proper evidence to prove her claim; Hence,
Petitioner’s allegation that she was a registered candidate
voted for in general election and an incumbent Punong
Barangay of Barangay San Francisco, Sablayan Occidental
Mindoro cannot prove in any way that she is entitled to her
prayer to be declared as the one entitled to the Office of the
Punong Barangay.

*It should be noted that the Petitioner did not only pray
for the Court to declare her entitled to the Office of Punong
Barangay but also for a Writ of Quo Warranto ousting and
altogether excluding Respondent from the Office of Punong
Barangay”. Is rests upon the Court, upon proper proceedings
and careful examinations of the evidence presented whether or
not to grant all the reliefs prayed for. Noteworthy is that,
under the Omnibus Election Code, the Petitioner in a Quo
Warranto Petiton needs only to be a registered voter to have
the required Locus Standi, to file the Petition.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby

respectfully prayed that the foregoing ANSWER to
Respondent’s Verified Answer with Special Affirmative Defenses
be given due credence and consideration and the reliefs
prayed for in the Petition for Quo Warranto be granted.

Finally, Petitioner respectfully prays for such and

other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable under the
premises.

June 8, 2018, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro.

ATTY. MELVIE E. SILVERIO

Counsel for the Petitioner
1261 Claudio Salgado Street,Buenavista
Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro
Roll of Attorneys No. 68003
IBP Lifetime Roll No. 016948
PTR No. B-8378984, Occ. Mindoro
MCLE No. Exempt
bhem197896@gmail.com

4
Copy Furnished:

ATTY. RENE S. GRAPILON

4665 Liboro St., San Jose,
Occidental Mindoro

NOEMER F. SONIO
Barangay, San Francisco
Municipality of Sablayan
Province of Occidental Mindoro

EXPLANATION

Due to distance and lack of sufficient messengers and in

compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, a
copy of this ANSWER TO VERIFIED ANSWER WITH SPECIAL
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES is served to the other party by
registered mail.

MELVIE E. SILVERIO