City lawyer Sonalan finally breaks silence
Finally, beleaguered lawyer Reynaldo Sonalan broke his silence over the recommendation of his colleagues at the City Legal Office to have him charged of criminal and administrative raps due to alleged negligence which caused the dismissal of the power pilferage case against former City Treasurer Romeo Manikan.
Sonalan, in his position letter addressed to Mayor Jerry Treñas said the fact-finding committee report should be set aside for being 'ultra vires, gratuitous and not supported by evidence for being mere conjectures.'
His position letter is dated October 20, 2005 but was released only to the media Thursday afternoon.
The fact-finding committee headed by Atty. Edgar Gil, chief of the City Legal Office and his members Atty. Mario Caoyonan and Atty. Lorna Laurea recommended the filing of administrative charges for gross negligence and grave misconduct under the Revised Administrative Code as well as criminal charges under Article 209 of the Revised Penal Code against Sonalan.
Article 209 refers to the betrayal of trust by an attorney or revelation of secrets.
Sonalan even said the 'committee is ignorant of the filing of the case.' He said the committee also misrepresented and exceeded in its mandate when it claimed 'the fact-finding committee is also tasked to make a recommendation to the city mayor as to the proper course of action to take relative to the dismissal of the case.'
He added it was Engr. Dan Caipang and Joel Umetin who requested his legal assistance in the prosecution of the case against Manikan. Earlier, the fact-finding team said Sonalan appeared in court without clearance.
'The case against Manikan was diligently prosecuted and exhibits duly marked in the course of the proceedings. It was unfortunate, however that Liaison Officer Joel Umetin untimely died,' said Sonalan.
Sonalan added that the committee members who are seasoned trial lawyers should know that when the proceeding is already on the offer of exhibits stage, it presupposes that the testimonial evidence is already closed or terminated.
He also contested the findings of the fact-finding committee that he did not file any opposition or comment to the motion to close prosecution file evidence filed by Manikan and did not file motion for reconsideration of the order of the court last May 5, 2005.
'On what ground should he file for opposition?' What else shall you oppose or move to be considered when you have no documentary evidence to present? It will just be an exercise in futility,' stressed Sonalan.