04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly xxxx Q: Out of the more than 800 appointees made in March 2010, how many appointment papers and transmittal letters were released through the MRO? A: Only 133 appointment papers were released through the MRO. Q: In some of these transmittal letters and appointment papers which were not released through the MRO but apparently through the OES, there were portions on the stamp of the OES which supposedly indicated the date and time it was actually received by the agency or office concerned but were curiously left blank, is this regular or irregular? A: It is highly irregular. Q: Why do you say so? A: Usually, if the document released by the MRO, the delivery receipt attached to the transmittal letter is filled out completely because the dates when the original appointment papers were actually received are very material. It is a standard operating procedure for the MRO personnel to ask the person receiving the documents to write his/her name, his signature, and the date and time when he/she received it. Q: So, insofar as these transmittal letters and appointment papers apparently released by the OES are concerned, what is the actual date when the agency or the appointee concerned received it? A: I cannot answer. There is no way of knowing when they were actually received because the date and time were deliberately or inadvertently left blank. Q: Can we say that the date appearing on the face of the transmittal letters or the appointment papers is the actual date when it was released by the OES? A: We cannot say that for sure. That is why it is very unusual that the person who received these documents did not indicate the date and time when it was received because these details are very important.[53] The MRO’s exercise of its mandate does not prohibit the President or the Executive Secretary from giving the appointment paper directly to the appointee. However, a problem may arise if an appointment paper is not coursed through the MRO and the appointment paper is lost or the appointment is questioned. The appointee would then have to prove that the appointment paper was directly given to him. Dimaandal’s counsel made this manifestation about petitioners’ appointment papers and their transmittal: Your Honors, we respectfully request for the following markings to be made: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60717 21/75