Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City, 1104

MARIANO P. FLORES,
Complainant,

- versus - Case No. __________

For: Gross Neglect of Duty,
Grave Misconduct, Gross
Ignorance of the Law, Unjust
Vexation, Misfeasance,
Malfeasance, and Nonfeasance.

ATTY. MONA LISSA C. MONJE-

VIRAY,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT WITH
PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF
PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION

Complainant-Petitioner, MARIANO P. FLORES (Mariano, for brevity),

Filipino, single, and currently residing at 1418 Penafrancia St., Brgy. 682 Zone
74, Paco Manila, by himself, unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully avers
as follows:

1. Complainant is hereby lodging a complaint against respondent ATTY.

MONA LISSA C. MONJE-VIRAY (Atty. Viray, for brevity) for Gross
Neglect of Duty, Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary
or ecclesiastical minister, Violation of Section 5, Article 3 Chapter IX of 2016
Amended PAO Operations Manual; Grave Misconduct, Gross Ignorance of the
Law, Unjust Vexation, Misfeasance, Malfeasance, and Nonfeasance;

2. Atty. Viray is a Public Attorney of PAO-Urdaneta City District Office who

was assigned as Mariano’s PAO lawyer, of legal age, Filipino with office
address at PAO Urdaneta District Office, Urdaneta City Hall of Justice, Brgy.
Anonas, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan where she may be served summons and
other processes of this Honorable Office;
 3. That in order to better elucidate the grounds for the complaint, the
complainant deems it best to re-visit the factual backgrounds which lead to this
instant complaint;

4. After the submission of all the requirements that ATTY. FLORANTE

NATIVIDAD (Atty. Natividad, for brevity) required for Mariano to be assisted
by PAO-Urdaneta, Atty. Natividad assigned the case of Mariano to Atty. Viray;

5. Sometime in August 2020, Mariano called Atty. Viray to follow-up the

status of Mariano’s request for legal assistance;

6. During their celphone conversation, Atty. Viray told to Mariano that she will
prepare a complaint for Falsification of Documents;

7. Since, a free patent had already been issued through fraud and has been
registered under the name of Estelita Delizo, Mariano sent an e-mail dated
August 19, 2020 to Atty. Viray, requesting that an action for reconveyance be
also filed ; 1

8. Instead of Falsification of Documents and Action for Reconveyance, Atty.

Viray prepared a complaint for Perjury against Estelita Delizo and made a
reservation to file a separate case for the nullification and recovery of
possession ; 2

9. Considering that Mariano strongly believes that, Action for Reconveyance

with Injunction are his proper cause of actions, he called Atty. Natividad to
discussed his arguments. However, according to Atty. Natividad, his evidences
are insufficient to prove that he is the legal heir of his late great grandfather
Paulino Toralba that is why Mariano suggested the execution of Joint
Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons, attesting that he is the legal heir of
Paulino Toralba with respect to the lot in dispute;

10. Although Mariano did not agree to the contentions of Atty. Natividad that
he has insufficient evidence to prove that he is the legal heir of Paulino
Toralba with respect to the lot in dispute and Joint Affidavit of Two
Disinterested Persons is insufficient to prove that he is the legal heir of
Paulino Toralba with respect to the said lot, the former agreed to file Recovery
of Possession with Injunction instead of Action for Reconveyance ; 3

11. However, after Mariano discussed to Atty. Natividad his arguments why
Reconveyance and Injunction are his proper cause of actions, the latter agreed to
file Reconveyance with Injunction and advised me to bring my two (2)
witnesses in their office on September 3, 2020;
12. On September 3, 2020, Liezel Lorenzo and Trinidad Fontanilla accompanied
by Mariano’s late father Herminigildo Flores’s sibling, Fedencia Andrada went

1 Copy of Mariano’s e-mail dated August 19, 2020 address to PAO-Urdaneta is hereto attached as Annex “A”.
2 Copy of Atty. Natividad’s e-maiL to Mariano dated August 20, 202 and complaint for Perjury prepared by Atty. Viray
is hereto attached as Annex “C” and the reservation made by Atty. Viray is highlighted and marked as Annex C-1”.
3 Copy of Mariano’s e-mail dated September 4, 2020 address to PAO-Urdaneta is hereto attached as Annex “D”.
 to PAO Urdaneta to execute a Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons,
attesting that Mariano is the legal heir of Paulino Toralba with respect to the lot
that Mariano wants to recover to Estelita Delizo as per agreement between
Mariano and Atty. Natividad. However, Atty. Viray REFUSED to prepare
their Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons because Trinidad is late
Herminigildo’s second cousin;

13. Worst, Atty. Viray advised Fedencia to: look for two persons who are at
least eighty years old and willing to execute a Joint Affidavit of Two
Disinterested Persons attesting that Mariano is the legal heir of Paulino with
respect to the aforementioned lot; get a copy of their valid identification cards;
present it to a notary public; and request for the preparation of their Joint
Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons4;

14. In compliance to Atty. Viray’s instructions, Fedencia asked permission to

Marcela A. Millano and Lourdes A. Cabar to sign the aforementioned affidavit
which certain Atty. Sevilleja will prepare;

15. After Marcela and Lourdes agreed to sign the aforestated affidavit, Fedencia
requested for a photocopies of their government issued identification cards as
per Atty. Viray instruction;

16. When Fedencia went to certain Silvestre’s notarial office to request for the
preparation of Marcela and Lourdes’s Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested
Persons, she did not present any document to support said affidavit that is why
Atty. Silvestre REFUSED to prepare said affidavit;

17. Since Atty. Silvestre REFUSED to prepare said affidavit, Fedencia went
back to Atty. Viray and told her that Atty. Silvestre REFUSED to prepare said
affidavit because she don’t have any supporting document to prove that Mariano
is the legal heir of Paulino with respect to the above-mentioned property;

18. Instead of giving any document to prove the aforementioned affidavit to

Fedencia, Atty. Viray prepared the Joint Affidavit of Two
Persons of Marcela and Lourdes and then instructed
Fedencia to secure the signatures of Marcela and Lourdes
and to get a copy of their valid identification cards;
19. On September 8, 2020, Atty. Natividad sent the complaint for Annulment of
Title, Documents, Reconveyance with a Prayer for Writ of Preliminary
Injunction and Damages prepared by Atty. Viray;
5

4 Duplicate Original copy of Fedencia Andrada and _____________ is hereto attached as Annex “E” and the reservation
made by Atty. Viray
5 Copy of Atty. Natividad’s e-mail dated September 8, 2020 and a copy of complaint for Annulment of Title and
Documents, Reconveyance with a Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Damages are hereto attached as Annex “G” and
“H” respectively.
 20. When Mariano received the aforestated complaint, he called Atty. Viray.
During their cellphone conversation she instructed him to sign said complaint
by himself

ATTY. VIRAY IS GUILTY OF

GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY

21. “xxx to be administratively liable for neglect of duty, the duty need not be
expressly included in the respondent's job description. Gross neglect of duty is
"characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences, insofar as other
persons may be affected. This omission of care is that which even "inattentive
and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property. " 6

22. A careful evaluation of the complaint for Annulment of Title, Documents,

Reconveyance with a Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Damages 7

prepared by Atty. Viray reveals that Atty. Viray REFUSED to file said
complaint in behalf of Mariano and worst, she instructed Mariano to
sign said complaint by himself which a very clear violation
of section 5, Article 3 Chapter IX of PAO Operations
Manual ; 8

23. Moreover, Atty. Viray REFUSED to prepare and notarize the Joint
Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons of Liezel and Fedencia without any
legal ground;

24. Hence, it is very clear that Atty. Viray is GUILTY of Gross Neglect of
Duty;

ATTY. VIRAY IS GUILTY OF

GRAVE MISCONDUCT

25. Misconduct is the "transgression of some established and definite rule of

action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public
officer. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of
corruption, willful intent to violate the law or disregard of established rules,
which must be proved by substantial evidence." 9

6 The Honorable Office of the Ombudsman vs. Leovigildo delos Reyes, Jr., G.R. No. 208976, February 22, 2016.
7 The Honorable Office of the Ombudsman vs. Leovigildo delos Reyes, Jr., G.R. No. 208976, February 22, 2016.
8 Section 5. Signature on pleadings. All complaints, petitions, answers, replies and other important pleadings to be filed in
the lower court, quasi-judicial bodies and other offices, must be signed by the lawyer handling the
case and co-signed:
a) In the District Offices – by the District Public Attorney
b) xxx
xxx.”

9 Please see footnote 5.

 Atty. Viray required Mariano to sign the
26. As stated above,
complaint that she prepared even if she is very much aware
that under section 5, Article 3 Chapter IX of 2016 Amended
PAO Operations Manual she must sign said complaint;
27. Further, despite that under the law, before a lawyer may prepare any kind of
affidavit, the executor/s of an affidavit must be personally interviewed by the
lawyer who will prepare an affidavit, Atty. Viray prepared the above-
mentioned affidavit even if she was not able to interviewed Marcela and
Lourdes personally;

28. Based on the above-cited jurisprudence, it is very clear that Atty. Viray is
GUILTY of Grave Misconduct;

ATTY. VIRAY IS GUILTY OF

GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE
LAW

29. Gross ignorance of the law is the disregard of the basic rules and settled
jurisprudence. 10

30. The perusal of the text messages between Mariano and Atty. Natividad
11

reveals that Atty. Viray gave the following advised to him, to wit:

a) If Mariano will file an Action for Forcible Entry instead of Annulment of

Title, the Action for Forcible Entry will be dismissed because a title was
issued under the name of Estelita Delizo;

b) If Mariano will file Annulment of Title after he filed an Action for

Forcible Entry, his Annulment of Title will be dismissed also because the
Action for Forcible Entry was dismissed; and

c) Moreover, Mariano will commit Forum Shopping if he will file Action for
Forcible Entry and then Annulment of Title.

31. Section 1 of Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

“SECTION 1. Who may institute proceedings, and

when. - Subject to the provisions of the next
succeeding section, a person deprived of the
possession of any land or building by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, xxx, may at
any time within one (1) year after such unlawful
deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an
action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against
the person or persons unlawfully withholding or
depriving of possession, or any person or persons
10 Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Winlove Dumayas, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2435, March 6, 2018.
11 Annex “M” hereof.
 claiming under them, for title restitution of such
possession, together with damages and costs. (1a)

32. Furthermore, it is humbly submitted that issuance of title does not vest
ownership of a parcel of land but only shows or evidences who the owner/s of
the land is/are. In the case of Heirs of Clemente Ermac vs. Heirs of Vicente
Ermac (G.R. No. 149679, May 30, 2003), the Supreme Court pronounced the
following:

“Ownership should not be confused with a

certificate of title. Registering land under the
Torrens System does not create or vest title, because
registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. A
certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership
or title over the particular property described
therein.”

33. “xxx it must be stressed that the fact that the petitioner possesses a
Torrens Title does not automatically give her unbridled authority to
immediately wrest possession. It goes without saying that even the owner of
the property cannot wrest possession from its current possessor. This was
precisely the Court's ruling in Spouses Munoz v. CA, viz.:

If the private respondent is indeed the owner of the

premises and that possession thereof was deprived from him
for more than twelve years, he should present his claim
before the Regional Trial Court in an accion publiciana or
an accion reivindicatoria and not before the Municipal Trial
Court in a summary proceeding of unlawful detainer or
forcible entry. For even if he is the owner, possession of the
property cannot be wrested from another who had been in
possession thereof for more than twelve (12) years through a
summary action for ejectment.

Although admittedly petitioner may validly claim

ownership based on the muniments of title it presented,
such evidence does not responsibly address the issue of
prior actual possession raised in a forcible entry case.

It must be stated that regardless of actual condition of the title

to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall
not be turned out by a strong hand, violence or terror. Thus, a
party who can prove prior possession can recover such
possession even against the owner himself. xxx”

34. In view of the foregoing, Estelita’s title cannot be the basis of the dismissal
of Mariano’s action for forcible entry contrary to the contention of Atty. Viray;

35. Further, “The Rules are clear that if the entry into the property is illegal,
the action which may be filed against the intruder is forcible entry and this
action must be brought within one (1) year from the illegal entry. xxx” ; 12

12 Teresita Bugayong-Santiago, Earl Eugene Santiago, Edward Santiago, and Edgardo Santiago, Jr. vs. Teofilo
Bugayong, G.R. No. 220389, December 6, 2017.
 36. “xxx for a forcible entry suit to prosper, the plaintiff must allege and prove:
(1) prior physical possession of the property; and (2) unlawful deprivation of it
by the defendant through force, intimidation, strategy, threat or stealth.” ; 13

37. Here, for more than fifty (50) years, Mariano’s predecessor in interest’s
occupation and Mariano’s possession for fifteen (15) years over the subject
property of this case was undisturbed until on April 9, 2020 despite that the
whole Luzon is under Enhanced Community Quarantine wherein strict home
quarantine shall be followed, Jaime and Estelita with their cohorts entered the
above-mentioned lot without my consent armed with bolo and “panabas” and
then proceeded to cut down different trees planted by his late parents Dedinia P.
Flores and Herminigildo T. Flores without permit from Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), burned it and cleaned the area. 14

38. In explaining what amounted to force, the Honorable Supreme Court ruled
that:

“Unlawfully entering the subject property and

excluding therefrom the prior possessor would
necessarily imply the use of force and this is all that
is necessary. In order to constitute force, the
trespasser does not have to institute a state of
war. No other proof is necessary. 15”

39. The Honorable Supreme Court further explained what constitutes force,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth in David v. Cordova - 16

“The words "by force, intimidation, threat,

strategy or stealth" include every situation or
condition under which one person can wrongfully
enter upon real property and exclude another, who
has had prior possession therefrom. If a trespasser
enters upon land in open daylight, under the very
eyes of the person already clothed with lawful
possession, but without the consent of the latter, and
there plants himself and excludes such prior
possessor from the property, the action of forcibly
entry and detainer can unquestionably be
maintained, even though no force is used by the
trespasser other than such as is necessarily implied
from the mere acts of planting himself on the ground
and excluding the other party.”

40. As stated above, on April 9, 2020 despite that the whole Luzon is under
Enhanced Community Quarantine wherein strict home quarantine shall be
13 Nenita Quality Foods Corp. vs. Crisostomo Galabo, Adelaida Galabo, and Zenaida Galabo-Almacbar, G.R. No.
174191, January 30, 2013.

14 Copies of Trinidad Fontanilla and Fedencia Andrada’s Judicial Affidavits are hereto attached as Annex “N” and “O”
respectively.

15 Georgia T. Estel vs. Recaredo P. Diego, Sr. and Recaredo R. Diego, Jr., G.R. No. 174082, January 16, 2012.
16 G.R. NO. 152992 July 28, 2005.
 followed, Jaime and Estelita with their cohorts entered the subject property of
this case without plaintiff’s consent armed with bolo and “panabas” and then
proceeded to cut down different trees planted by his late parents Dedinia P.
Flores and Herminigildo T. Flores without permit from Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), burned it and cleaned the area;

41. Hence, it is very clear that Mariano was in prior possession of the disputed
property and Jaime and Estelita deprived him of his possession by force;

42. Furthermore, with due respect to Atty. Viray, it is Mariano’s humble opinion
that since as stated in the above-stated jurisprudence that “the fact that the
petitioner possesses a Torrens Title does not automatically give her unbridled
authority to immediately wrest possession. It goes without saying that even the
owner of the property cannot wrest possession from its current possessor.” still
he cannot dispossess Estelita and all other persons claiming rights under her on
the land dispute without undergoing judicial process even if the court will annul
and then reconvey the title of Estelita to Mariano. Thus, “There are three (3)
remedies available to one who has been dispossessed of property: (I) an action
for ejectment to recover possession, whether for unlawful detainer or forcible
entry; (2) accion publiciana or accion plenaria de posesion, or a plenary
action to recover the right of · possession; and (3) accion reivindicatoria, or
an action to recover ownership. ” 17

43. With regard to the advised of Atty. Viray that Mariano will commit forum
shopping if he will file action for forcible entry and then annulment of title, it is
humbly submitted that “There is forum shopping when a party files different
pleadings in different tribunals, despite having the same "identit[ies] of parties,
rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought." Consistent with the principle of
fair play, parties are prohibited from seeking the same relief in multiple forums
in the hope of obtaining a favorable judgment. The rule against forum shopping
likewise fulfills an administrative purpose as it prevents conflicting decisions by
different tribunals on the same issue. ” 18

44. In the case at bar, Mariano is invoking his right to possess the subject
property being the actual occupant and possessor of said lot before Estelita and
Jaime with their cohorts illegally entered said lot by force in an Action for
Forcible Entry. While in Annulment of Title, his right to due process since “An
action for annulment of title questions the validity of the title because of lack
of due process of law. There is an allegation of nullity in the procedure and
thus the invalidity of the title that is issued” ; 19

17 Eversley Childs Sanitarium vs Spouses Anastacio Perlabarbarona, G.R. No. 195814, April 4, 2018.
18 Ibid.
19 Sps. Roberto Aboitiz and Maria Cristina Cabarrus vs. Sps. Peter L. Po and Victoria Po, G.R. No. 208450, June 5,
2017.
 45. Moreover, the relief sought in an Action for Forcible Entry is to get a
declaration from court that the plaintiff has a better right to possess the subject
property. While in Annulment of Title is a declaration from court that the
defendant’s certificate of title is null and void;

46. Thus, there is no forum shopping if Mariano will file Action for Forcible
Entry and then later on he will file Annulment of Title;

47. Considering the above-mentioned documents, it is very clear that Atty.

Viray is GUILTY of Gross Ignorance of the Law.

THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE

TO INDICT ATTY. VIRAY
FOR UNJUST VEXATION

48. The Supreme Court also in the case of Melchor Maderazo v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 165065, September 26, 2006, discussed the crime of of
unjust vexation as:

“Unjust vexation may exist without compulsion or restraint. However,

in unjust vexation, being a felony by dolo, malice is an inherent
element. Good faith is a good defense to a charge for unjust vexation
because good faith negates malice. The paramount question to be
considered is whether the offenders act caused annoyance, irritation,
torment, distress or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is
directed.”;

49. In the case at bar, Atty. Viray issued a denial form against Mariano,
20

withdrawing as Mariano’s PAO lawyer on October 28, 2020;

50. A careful evaluation of the aforementioned denial form shows that the legal
basis of Atty. Viray in withdrawing as PAO lawyer of Mariano is paragragh 5,
Article 4, Chapter IX of the 2016 Revised PAO Operations Manual;

51. Article 4, Chapter IX of the 2016 Revised PAO Operations Manual

provides:

“ARTICLE 4. Withdrawal of Representation. – A Public

Attorney may, on justifiable instances, withdraw
representation of a client’s cause, upon approval of his
superior, and through a proper motion filed in Court.

Withdrawal may be warranted in the following

situations.
1) xxx;
2) xxx;
3) xxx;

20 Annex “L” hereof.

 4) xxx;
5) When, despite proper advice from the Public
Attorney, the client cannot be restrained from doing
things which the lawyer himself ought not to do,
particularly with reference to their conduct towards
the courts, judicial officers, witnesses, and litigants
(Cannons of Professional Ethics), or the client insist
in having control of the trial, theory of the case, or
strategy in procedure, which would tend to result in
incalculable harm to the interests of the client; and
6) xxx.

the advised of Atty.

52. Considering the above-mentioned arguments,
Viray is not proper advice and the refusal of Mariano to
listen to the advice given by Atty. Viray will not result in
incalculable harm to him;
53. Since the advice given by Atty. Viray is not proper and the refusal of
Mariano to listen to the advice given by Atty. Viray will not result in
incalculable harm to him, the refusal to listen on the part of Mariano in Atty.
Viray’s advice is not within the ambit of paragragh 5, Article 4, Chapter IX of
the 2016 Revised PAO Operations Manual which requires that the
advice given by the PAO lawyer must be proper advice and
the action of the PAO client will result in incalculable harm
to him. A basic rule in statutory construction finds application in this case, i.e.,
expression unius est exclusion alterius. “Where a statue, by its terms, is
21

expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or

construction, be extended to others.” Thus, without a provision that
22

allows the PAO lawyer to withdraw his/her representation

even if his/her advice is not proper and the action of the
PAO client will not result in incalculable harm to him, any
PAO lawyer cannot withdraw his/her representation if
his/her legal advice is improper;

the arguments of Mariano are in accordance to

54. In addition,
the legal advice given by the PAO-LRS to him which the
respondents and the Deputy Chief Public Attorney’s Office
did not rebut and his arguments are within the ambit of the
legal opinion of the Public Attorney’s Office posted by
Manila Times in
21 See Romualdez v. Hon. Marcelo et al., G.R. Nos. 165510-33, July 28, 2006..
22 Ibid.
 https://www.manilatimes.net/2016/09/04/legal-
advice/dearpao/person-dispossessed-of-land-may-seek-
redress-from-court/283901/, jurisprudence, and law;

55.If only respondents Atty. Florante Natividad and Atty.

Mona Lissa C. Monje-Viray SIGNED the complaint that the
former prepared in behalf of Complainant Mariano Flores
in accordance to section 5, Article 3 Chapter IX of PAO
Operations Manual and Atty. Viray, gave an advice which
23

are in accordance to the law, Mariano will not become

suspicious that they want his case to be DISMISSED that is
why they REFUSED TO SIGN SAID COMPLAINT that is
why he conduct a thorough research;
56. The aforementioned suspicion of Mariano was validated by him after he
conducted a thorough research;

57. A careful evaluation of the complaint prepared by Atty. Viray reveals that
the said complaint is dismissible because Atty. Viray
FAILED to allege the assessed value of the subject property;
the allegation in support of Petitioner’s Application for
Issuance of Preliminary Injunction is very generic; and
there is no evidence presented to prove that Mariano
suffered irreparable injury;
58. The above-stated incompetence or negligence of Atty. Viray is so great that
if herein Complainant will not do anything to protect his interest, he will be
prevented by fairly presenting his case because as stated above, the above-
mentioned complaint is dismissible;

59. Thus, “The doctrinal rule is that negligence of the counsel binds the client
xxx.” (Mendoza vs. CA, G.R. No. 182814, July 15, 2015);

should not be
60. Based on the foregoing, Complainant Mariano Flores
faulted in refusing to listen to improper advice of Atty. Viray.

23 Section 5. Signature on pleadings. All complaints, petitions, answers, replies and other important pleadings to be filed
in the lower court, quasi-judicial bodies and other offices, must be signed by the lawyer handling the
case and co-signed:
c) In the District Offices – by the District Public Attorney
d) xxx
xxx.”
 It is expected that he will protect his interest which as a law
student he is very much aware;
61. All told is an inescapable conclusion that the
Denial/Disqualification Form dated October 28, 2020 is not
within the ambit of Arcticle 4 (5) of the 2016 Revised PAO
Operations Manual;

62.Hence, Atty. Viray has no legal ground to deny/disqualify

Complainant Mariano P. Flores to avail free legal
assistance;
63. It is very irritating and annoying that despite that Atty. Viray being Public
Attorney has the sworn duty to obey/follow the above-cited law, settled
jurisprudence, PAO Operations Manual, and legal opinion issued Public
Attorney’s Office, she blatantly disregard the above-quoted law,
settled jurisprudence, PAO Operations Manual, and legal
opinion issued by Public Attorney’s Office which caused and
continuously cause deprivation to the Complainant to avail
free access to adequate legal assistance under Article III,
Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution;
64. In fact, due to the illegal issuance of Denial Form against Mariano, PAO-
Manila refused and continuously refused to render free legal assistance to
Mariano (Printed copy of PAO-Manila’s e-mail to Mariano is hereto attached
as Annex “P”)

THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE

TO INDICT ATTY. VIRAY
FOR FALSIFICATION BY
PUBLIC OFFICER,
EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY OR
ECCLESIASTICAL
MINISTER.

65. The elements of Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or

notary or ecclesiastical minister are:

1) that the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public;

2) that he takes advantage of his official position;
3) that he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding; and
4) that such person/s did not in fact so participate in the proceeding.
24

24 https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/4996/, September 1, 2021.

 66. It is the humble opinion of the undersigned Complainant that the above-
quoted elements are evidently present in this case;

67. First, Atty. Viray is a public officer being Public Attorney;

68. Second, Atty. Viray has the duty to prepare the affidavit of her client’s
witness/es;

69. Third, Atty. Viray falsifies the Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons
of when she made it appear that Marcela and Lourdes participated in the
execution of said affidavit and made it appear that the Complaint birth of
place is Urdaneta City, Pangasinan ; 25

70. Section 26. When Issued; Grounds. – Upon petition of the Complainant or
motu proprio, the proper disciplining authority may issue an order of preventive
suspension upon service of the formal charge or notice of charge/s, or
immediately thereafter to any subordinate officer or employee under his/her
authority pending an investigation, if
A) The charge involves:
1. xxx;
2. xxx;
3. Grave Misconduct;
4. Neglect in the Performance of Duty 26
xxx
71. In this instant case, Mariano is also filing a complaint for Grave Misconduct
and Neglect in the Performance of Duty against Atty. Viray. Hence, a preventive
suspension may be issued against ATTY. MONA LISSA C. MONJE-VIRAY.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that upon

filing of this complaint with petition, a preventive suspension be issued against
ATTY. MONA LISSA C. MONJE-VIRAY and after due notice and hearing
judgment be rendered ordering her DISMISSAL and a criminal complaint for

25 ___.

26http://csc.gov.ph/2014-02-21-08-28-23/pdf-files/category/204-rraccs, March
4, 2021.
Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister,
Unjust Vexation, Misfeasance, Malfeasance, and Nonfeasance be filed against
respondent ATTY. MONA LISSA C. MONJE-VIRAY.

Equitable reliefs are likewise sought for under the attendant circumstances.

March 5, 2021, City of Manila for Quezon City.

MARIANO P. FLORES
marianofloresparalegal@gmail.com
09288154395/09676720630

Copy furnished:

ATTY. MONA LISSA C. MONJE-VIRAY

c/o PAO Urdaneta District Office
pao_urdanetacity@yahoo.com