You are on page 1of 18

0nueigiauuate Stuuents of the Ateneo Loyola Schools

v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia


}anuaiy 9, 2u14 Nismanagement anu Incompetence Case 1
ATENEO STUDENT JUDICIAL COURT
Ateneo de Manila University - Loyola Schools
Barangay Loyola Heights, Quezon City

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS OF
THE LOYOLA SCHOOLS Petitioner
represented by
CHIEF PROSECUTOR CLYDE
MARAMBA, PROSECUTORS BEATRIZ
BEATO, ROBERT MARI IBAY, JULIA
DARYL LENARZ, MAGDALENA
MARIE PINEDA, JIEGO MICHAEL
TANCHANCO, CRISTINE MARIE
VILLARUEL, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
JAYVY GAMBOA, AND DEPUTY
CLERK OF COURT PATRICK JOSEPH
NG
versus
SOSS SECRETARY-TREASURER
MARVIN LAGONERA Respondent


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

FINAL STATEMENTS AND ARGUMENTS FOR THE MISMANAGEMENT CASE

The case of the Prosecutors’ Office of the Ateneo Student Judicial Court revolves around
four arguments that show why Secretary-Treasurer Marvin T. Lagonera’s inaction to official
duties and responsibilities should ultimately lead to the Respondent’s impeachment from his
position. The first argument aims to prove the inactions done by the Respondent, which is his
failure to keep correspondence with the Secretary-General AJ Elicano. The second argument
is about how, through the Respondent’s inactions, he committed gross neglect of duty. The
third argument tackles the core issue of the case, wherein through the Respondent’s gross
negligence in performing his duties as the Secretary-Treasurer of the School of Social
Sciences School Board, he mismanaged the system of correspondence with the Central
Board, which he is solely accountable and responsible for. The fourth argument proves how
the Respondent’s mismanagement of the system caused grave irreparable harm to the School
of Social Sciences School Board, the Sanggunian Central Board and the undergraduate
students of the School of Social Sciences.


0nueigiauuate Stuuents of the Ateneo Loyola Schools
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia


}anuaiy 9, 2u14 Nismanagement anu Incompetence Case 2
Facts of the Case

The first argument of the Prosecution will talk about three main points. The first point
explains the system of correspondence between the Secretary-Treasurer of a school board and
the Secretary-General of the Central Board. The second point proves the inactions done by
the Respondent through the testimonies and affidavits of the Secretary-General AJ Elicano
and the SOSS Committee Chairperson on Public Information. The third point proves that the
Respondent was aware of his obligations as a Secretary-Treasurer.

On the System of Correspondence

For a clearer understanding of the nature of the Respondent’s inaction, the Prosecution now
discusses the pertinent legal provisions involving the duties and obligations of every
Secretary Treasurer. The Prosecution will tackle each provision to highlight the system of
administration and correspondence, which the Respondent is responsible for.

Article VIII Section 2 of the Sanggunian Constitution states that:

“C. Secretary-Treasurer
(a) To assume the responsibilities of the Chairperson if the Chairperson is absent, or
incapacitated;
(b) To automatically assume the Chairpersonship in the event that such office is permanently
vacated;
(c) To be the Chief Administrative Officer of the School Board, keeping records of the
School Board's proceedings, and correspondence and be responsible for furnishing
copies to the Sanggunian Secretary-General where appropriate;
(d) To be the School Board's budget officer and disburser of funds; and
(e) To perform such other functions the Board or President may so direct.” (emphasis ours)

Under the Loyola Schools Constitution, all Secretary Treasurers including the Respondent
are to be the Chief Administrative Officer of their Respective School Boards. The
Prosecution interprets the responsibility of this position is mainly centered on the proper
management of administrative matters in the School Board, significant of which, as
emphasized in the provision is the system of documentation which begins with the recording
of the School Board’s proceedings and ends with correspondence and submission of these
documents to the Central Board through the Secretary-General.

In effect, the Secretary Treasurer was given the highest power in the management of
administrative matters. This in turn gives the Secretary Treasurer the highest responsibility to
ensure that the administrative processes run smoothly and efficiently.

The Prosecution further believes that the School Board Code of Internal Procedures clearly
describes the administrative process of correspondence between the School Board and all
other bodies of the Sanggunian through the submission of specific documents to the
Secretary General. The Prosecution will discuss the relevance of each cited provision to the
Respondent’s constitutionally mandated obligations.

“Section 24. Minutes of the Meeting. The Secretary-Treasurer together with his/her deputies
is tasked to prepare the minutes of all the meetings of the School Board and ExeCom. He/she
0nueigiauuate Stuuents of the Ateneo Loyola Schools
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia


}anuaiy 9, 2u14 Nismanagement anu Incompetence Case S
is required to transmit a soft copy of the minutes to the e-group of the ExeCom 2 days after
the meeting in PDF file. The Secretary-Treasurer is tasked to submit a soft copy of the
approved minutes to the Secretary-General for compilation. A hard copy of the minutes shall
be kept at the Sanggunian Room. He/she is also tasked to send soft copies of the approved
minutes to all members of the Board within 2 school days after its approval. Other Protocols
regarding minutes, attendance reports and status reports from the Code of Internal Procedures
of the Sanggunian Secretary General will also be followed.”

The first and most specific explicit connection between the Secretary Treasurer’s obligations
set by SB CIP and those stipulated in the LS Constitution is described in Section 24. The
Secretary Treasurer is given the power to appoint and direct help from a deputy. In this
instance, Ms. Lazaro was appointed as such and was instructed to take down the unofficial
minutes of the meeting.

For every meeting, it is the Secretary Treasurer who is required to follow a procedure, which
includes the sending of this file to the Executive Committee, the approval of the document
and the submission to all SB officials in the span of two days immediately after the meeting
had transpired. The allowance of two days is given so that the Secretary Treasurer may
accomplish the approval of these minutes and the full dissemination of the document.

The Secretary Treasurer is also called to follow the instruction of the Secretary General in his
submission of other documentation such as the status reports, committee membership reports
and attendance. In this instance, the Secretary General has obligated all the Secretary
Treasurers of their respective School Boards to submit all of these documents particularly the
Minutes of the Meeting which is to be accompanied by a full list of attendees on the first
Monday of every Month.

Section 23 discusses further the Attendance Reports required by the SB CIP:

“Section 23. The Secretary-Treasurer will remind each member of the Board of the number of
cuts he/she has incurred by posting an Attendance Report at the school board e-group per
month. Heshe shall also submit an Attendance Report per month to the Secretary-General for
general posting in all Sanggunian information portals. The Student Judicial Court prosecutors
shall also be furnished a copy of attendance records at the end of the month, through the
Secretary-General.”

According this procedure, the Secretary Treasurer is in charge of fostering a culture of
responsibility and pro action in his Central Board by sending Attendance Reports to all levels
of Sanggunian governance, including the executive level of the School Board and Central
Board which would then send the information to the judicial level of governance which is the
Student Judicial Court’s Prosecution. Per instruction of the current Secretary General, an
attendance list for each meeting is to be sent together with the official and final copy of the
minutes on the deadline set of every first Monday of the month. The summation of the list of
attendees for every month is to be prepared and provided for by the Secretary Treasurer.

The Secretary Treasurer is also responsible for making sure that the Secretary General has all
the necessary records from his School Board as these will affect the Secretary General’s own
records of the entire Sanggunian.

0nueigiauuate Stuuents of the Ateneo Loyola Schools
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia


}anuaiy 9, 2u14 Nismanagement anu Incompetence Case 4
In connection to this, Sections 25 and 35 also obligate the Secretary Treasurer to provide
correspondence between the School Board and the Central Board by the submission of
documents on the proceedings of the School Board to the Secretary General.

“Section 25 The Secretary-Treasurer shall also send a status report on the current projects and
thrusts of the Board to the Secretary-General for posting in all official Sanggunian
information portals every two months.”

“Section 35 Committee Membership. Membership in committees shall be left to the
discretion of the ExeCom. It is expected that the committee be composed of members of both
the Board and the ExeCom. The Secretary-Treasurer shall submit a formal report on the
membership of the committee to the Secretary-General.”

Bi-monthly submitted status reports and formal committee reports from the Secretary
Treasurer contribute to the Central Board’s consistent check and balance of the School
Board’s proceedings and efficiency. Each status report, which is to be made accessible for
any Sanggunian official and constituent through posting in the official Sanggunian
information portals, creates a system of awareness between the Sanggunian bodies of
governance. The Secretary Treasurer is then held accountable for the full operationalization
of the creation, submission and publication of the documents pertinent to his School Board.

Respondent’s Failure to Keep Correspondence with the Secretary-General

According to the testimony of Ms. Fiona Lazaro, the SOSS Committee Chairperson on
Public Information, Mr. Lagonera assigned her to take the minutes of the School Board and
Executive Committee meetings that she attends. In fulfilling this duty, Ms. Lazaro, produced
the minutes of the following meetings:

August 27, 2013 – First Executive Committee Meeting
September 4, 2013 – Executive Committee Meeting
September 10, 2013 – Executive Committee Meetings
September 30, 2013 – Meeting for Projects (video)
October 14, 2013 – Committee Meeting

Ms. Lazaro claims that of the five minutes she made, she was only asked by the Respondent
to upload only the minutes of the September 4, 2013 meeting in the SOSS SB Facebook
group. She adds that the Respondent only asked for the copies of the other minutes on
November 18, 2013, after the Prosecution asked the Respondent to produce copies of the said
documents.

It is with this knowledge that the Prosecution proves the following the facts; firstly, the
Respondent is not keeping the records of the School Board as stipulated by Article 8, Section
2 (c) of the 2005 Undergraduate Students of the Loyola Schools Constitution, and secondly,
that it was impossible for the Respondent to have followed the Section 24 of the School
Board Code of Internal Procedure that tasks him to send the minutes of the meetings to the
Executive Committee two days after the meetings and have it approved by the same body.

The Prosecution believes that with the claim of Ms. Lazaro that she exclusively has the
minutes of the meetings of four meetings, it is impossible for the respondent to have copies
0nueigiauuate Stuuents of the Ateneo Loyola Schools
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia


}anuaiy 9, 2u14 Nismanagement anu Incompetence Case S
of these before the investigation. This shows that from August to November, the Respondent
has incomplete records of the School Board even when according to the Constitution he
should have kept the records of the School Board proceedings.

Moreover, the Prosecution also conjectures that if the Respondent has not asked for the
copies of the minutes he asked Ms. Lazaro to make, it is impossible that he was able to send
these minutes, two days after it was made, to the Executive Committee for their approval. It
was only on November 18, 2013 that the Respondent asked for the copies of the minutes
exclusively with Ms. Lazaro. With that in mind, it is impossible that the Respondent was able
to perform the duty and the process asked from him in Section 24 of the SB CIP.

It becomes evident here that the Respondent failed to keep the records of the School Board
proceedings and failed to send the minutes of the meetings to the Executive Committee e-
group, two days after it is made. It is also evident that it could have been impossible for the
Respondent to submit to the Secretary-General the minutes of the meetings exclusively with
Ms. Lazaro not until November 18, 2013, months late for the deadline of submission of the
document.

The meat of this trial is about the alleged non-submission of documents of the Respondent to
the Secretary-General AJ Elicano. According to the testimony and affidavit of the Secretary-
General AJ Elicano, he has yet to receive any document coming from the School of Social
Sciences. Mr. Elicano claims that the SOSS Secretary-Treasurer Marvin Lagonera has not
submitted any of the following documents required by the School Board Code of Internal
Procedures;

a. Monthly Attendance Reports (Sec. 23, SB CIP)
b. Minutes of the Meetings (Sec. 24, SB CIP)
c. Status Reports on Projects and Thrusts (Sec. 25, SB CIP)
d. Report on the Membership of the Committee (Sec. 35, SB CIP)

According to Sec. 23 of the SB CIP, the Secretary-Treasurer has to submit a monthly
attendance report of members of the board to the Secretary-General. Mr. Elicano claims that
the Respondent has never submitted any attendance report to him. This covers four
attendance reports not submitted to the Secretary-General.

According to Sec. 24 of the SB CIP, the Secretary-Treasurer has to submit the approved
minutes to the Secretary-General for compilation. According to Mr. Elicano, he collects these
minutes every first Monday of the month, together with the collection of the financial reports
of the School Board to be submitted to the Finance-Officer Tin Andujare. The deadlines that
have passed are the following;

a. September 2, 2013
b. October 7, 2013
c. November 4, 2013
d. December 2, 2013

Secretary-General AJ Elicano claims that not once did the Respondent pass minutes of the
meetings to him.
0nueigiauuate Stuuents of the Ateneo Loyola Schools
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia


}anuaiy 9, 2u14 Nismanagement anu Incompetence Case 6

According to Sec. 25 of the SB CIP, the Secretary-Treasurer was tasked to send status reports
on projects and thrusts of the School Board every two months to the Secretary-General. Once
again, Mr. Elicano claims that the Respondent did not pass any of the said documents to him.
The status reports the Respondent should have passed should have at least included the two
reports; one from August-September and another one from October-November. No such
document was passed to the Secretary-General.

According to Sec. 35 of the SB CIP, the Secretary-Treasurer was also tasked to submit a
report on the membership of the SOSS SB Committees to the Secretary-General. As said
before, Mr. Elicano claims that he has not received the report the SB CIP requires the
Secretary-Treasurer to pass.

Here it becomes clear that the Respondent Mr. Lagonera has not been passing any of the
documents he has to pass, in accordance with the SB CIP, to the Secretary-General. The
Prosecution even questions if the documents were made in the first place. Even as of writing,
these documents never saw the light of day.

Awareness of the Respondent with regards to his Obligations as the Secretary-Treasurer

The Prosecution believes that the Respondent is very much aware of his obligations and
duties as the Secretary-Treasurer. The Prosecution believes that it is his responsibility to
know his obligations and duties especially as the enforcer of the Code of Internal Procedures
of the SB. Moreover, he admitted during the trial for the Illegal Appointment of Executive
Officers and Central Board Representatives that he is aware of the provisions of the
Constitution and the SB CIP. Lastly, the Secretary-General oriented the Respondent about the
former’s administrative policies for the latter during the start of the Respondent’s term. This
was coupled with reminders the Secretary-General’s reminders for the Secretary-Treasurer to
pass the necessary documents to him.

On the first level, the Prosecution believes that it is the Respondent’s responsibility to fully
understand and be knowledgeable of his obligations and duties as the Secretary-Treasurer of
the School of Social Sciences. To begin with, all officers are expected to have read the
Constitution and the Code of Internal Procedures that applies to them. That is the only logical
and basic way for one to understand his responsibilities as an officer of the Sanggunian.
Secretary-Treasurer Marvin Lagonera is not exempted from this basic task. Thus, he should
at the very least have knowledge of his duties and responsibilities of a Secretary-Treasurer.
However, much more is expected from the Secretary-Treasurer. According to Title I Section
4 of the School Board Code of Internal Procedures, the Secretary-Treasurer is tasked to
implement and enforce the SB CIP. Because of the said responsibility, the Secretary-
Treasurer’s obligation to honour and uphold the provisions of the School Board CIP is raised
to a higher level. More than for any other official bounded by the School Board CIP, the
necessity of the Secretary Treasurer’s competency in the knowledge of the very rules he
seeks to implement and administer is of great consequence to the efficacy of the School
Board’s governance.

On the second level, the Prosecution submits that the Respondent has already admitted that
he is knowledgeable of the contents of the Sanggunian Constitution and the SB CIP in the
0nueigiauuate Stuuents of the Ateneo Loyola Schools
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia


}anuaiy 9, 2u14 Nismanagement anu Incompetence Case 7
trial for his alleged Illegal Appointment of Executive Officers and Central Board
Representatives. In fact, the Respondent has been using the provisions of the SB CIP for his
defence. The Prosecution then believes that to claim that the Respondent is not
knowledgeable of his duties and responsibilities do not only show negligence on his part, but
also causes him to be in estoppel.

On the third and final level, the Prosecution believes that the Respondent must be truly aware
of his duties and responsibilities, especially in relation with his correspondence with the
Secretary-General, as the Secretary-General oriented the Respondent about the Secretary-
General’s administrative procedures on an orientation done on August 16, 2013 during the
start of their term as officers. Moreover, the Secretary-General reminds the Secretary-
Treasurer during the Central Board meeting to pass the necessary documents to him.

According to Secretary-General AJ Elicano’s affidavit, he oriented the Respondent about the
Sanggunian’s administrative policies. In this orientation that the Respondent attended, Mr.
Elicano tells the people in attendance that the deadline for passing minutes of the meetings to
him is every first Monday of the month, a deadline also shared by the Finance-Officer for the
submission of School Board financial reports. In fact, in the affidavit of Mr. Elicano, a slide
coming from the presentation used in the orientation clearly shows about that monthly
deadline.

Mr. Elicano adds that that was not the only time he reminded the Respondent and the other
Secretary-Treasurers from the other School Boards about this deadline. In the testimony of
Mr. Elicano, he claims that he reminded the officers of passing the minutes of their meetings
on the following dates;

a. September 27, 2013 – Budget Hearing
b. November 22, 2013 – Central Board Meeting
c. November 29, 2013 – Central Board Meeting

In fact, Secretary-General AJ Elicano claims that from all the School Boards, it is only the
Respondent Secretary-Treasurer Marvin Lagonera who has not been submitting the minutes
to Mr. Elicano. With these, the Prosecution then claims that Mr. Elicano indeed oriented Mr.
Lagonera on the deadlines for submission of minutes and even reminded him of these
deadlines in multiple events such as meetings of the Central Board.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Mr. Elicano did not remind the respondent about the
monthly deadline for the submission of minutes, the Prosecution then argues that it is still the
Respondent’s responsibility to know of these deadlines. He cannot simply blame Mr. Elicano
as the Secretary-General has already oriented him about the deadline, and as the enforcer of
the Code of Internal Procedure, he should clearly know what the Code of Internal Procedure
says about the deadline. By blaming Mr. Elicano, he shows his incompetence as an elected
public officer of the Sanggunian.

Therefore the Prosecution respectfully submits that upon analysis of pertinent facts, the
Respondent failed to submit any of the documents he is required to submit to Secretary-
General AJ Elicano even if he is aware and knowledgeable that he has to submit them.

0nueigiauuate Stuuents of the Ateneo Loyola Schools
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia


}anuaiy 9, 2u14 Nismanagement anu Incompetence Case 8
Respondent’s Gross Neglect of Duty

The second argument of the Prosecution aims to prove that the Respondent, Secretary-
Treasurer Marvin T. Lagonera’s inaction and non-submission of the pertinent documents to
the Secretary-General should be considered gross neglect of duty. The Prosecution will first
show why and how gross negligence can be used to support and prove the mismanagement
charge. The Prosecution will then talk about the criteria for gross neglect of duty according to
multiple important sources and prove how the Respondent indeed fulfils these criteria,
showing he is guilty for gross neglect of duty with respect to the system correspondence
between him and the Secretary-General.

Gross Negligence as an Important and Vital Element to the Mismanagement Case

The Prosecution upon reviewing the multiple instances of the respondent’s failure to submit
the pertinent documents to the Secretary-General, saw that this failure can be categorized as
gross negligence. The Prosecution believes that the totality of his actions still show
mismanagement and incompetence on his part. However it also believes that it is only
through showing his wilful, habitual and gross negligence that the mismanagement and
incompetence case can be proven. Section 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court talks about the
technicality behind this;

“When an offense includes or is included in another. – An offense charged necessarily
includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former,
as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is
necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former
constitute or form part of those constituting the latter.”
1


In fact, in a fairly recent decision, the Supreme Court stated;

“The rule is that when there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint
or information, and that proved or established by the evidence, and the offense as
charged necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the
offense proved included in that which is charged. According to Section 5, Rule 120, Rules
of Court (1985), the rule then applicable, an offense charged necessarily includes that which
is proved, when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as this is alleged
in the complaint or information, constitute the latter."
2
(emphasis ours)

As the Prosecution believes that gross negligence is a prerequisite for the Respondent to
mismanage the system of correspondence between him and the Secretary-General, the
Prosecution will prove that the Respondent is guilty of gross negligence. If proven, the
Respondent can and shall also be convicted for gross negligence, which according to Article
2, Section 19 of the Sanggunian Constitution, is an impeachable offense.

Criteria for Gross Negligence


1
Section S, Rule 12u of the Rules of Couit (198S)
2
People of the Philippines vs. Chau Nanansala, u.R. No. 17S9S9, Apiil S, 2u1S
0nueigiauuate Stuuents of the Ateneo Loyola Schools
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia


}anuaiy 9, 2u14 Nismanagement anu Incompetence Case 9
In order to look for the criteria on what constitutes an act of gross negligence, the Prosecution
consulted the School Board Code of Internal Procedure, a decision of the Ateneo Student
Judicial Court involving gross negligence and a decision of the Supreme Court again
involving gross negligence.

Title XII, Section 62 of the School Board Code of Internal Procedure defines neglect of duty;

“Because following this code is considered part of the duties of the officer, willful and
repetitive violations of this code shall be considered neglect of duty, which is an impeachable
offense.” (emphasis ours)

In this document, the important criteria for gross neglect of duty are that the act is wilful and
repetitive.

However, the honourable Court, in its decision on the impeachment case against Commission
on Elections Chief Commissioner Jon Andre V. Vergara in 2011, did not use the standard of
the action being wilful or repetitive in showing Mr. Vergara committed gross negligence but
used the gravity of the circumstance and exertion of due diligence as the standard for the
offense. The Prosecution quotes the decision;

“Given the context of his position in the Commission, and the nature of the Freshman
elections being one of only two major activities of the Commission on Elections (the other
being the General Elections), the court finds that Mr. Vergara did not exert the due
diligence expected of a project head for carrying out the freshman elections in a manner
that was fitting to his title and responsibilities towards the event.

As both his responsibilities in Comelec and DSWS are extra-curricular endeavours, the court
finds that in the case in question, given the gravity of the circumstances regarding the
failure of certain voting stations to open its booths, Commissioner Vergara should have seen
it as an emergency situation which should have been given higher priority than that of a
casual task in another organization.”
3


The Supreme Court provides the clearest definition and criteria for gross negligence. In its
decision on Century Iron Works, Inc. v. Eleto B. Banas, the Supreme Court reiterated its
definition of gross negligence, which states;

“Gross negligence connotes want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence,
or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without
exerting any effort to avoid them. Fraud and willful neglect of duties imply bad faith of the
employee in failing to perform his job, to the detriment of the employer and the latter’s
business. Habitual neglect, on the other hand, implies repeated failure to perform one's
duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances.”
4
(emphasis ours)

In fact, in the same case, the Supreme Court ordered the dismissal of the accused because of
his repeated violations.


S
Case 2u11-uu1 Becision u9u12u11
4
Centuiy Iion Woiks, Inc. v. Eleto B. Banas, u.R. No. 184116, }une 19, 2u1S
0nueigiauuate Stuuents of the Ateneo Loyola Schools
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia


}anuaiy 9, 2u14 Nismanagement anu Incompetence Case 1u
“To our mind, such numerous infractions are sufficient to hold him grossly and
habitually negligent. His repeated negligence is not tolerable. The totality of infractions or
the number of violations he committed during his employment merits his dismissal.”
5

(emphasis ours)

Using the three documents as source, the Prosecution then believes that the following are the
criteria or standard for gross neglect of duty in relation with the mismanagement case:

a. Was the Respondent’s non-submission of documents to the Secretary-General
done wilfully?
b. Was the Respondent’s non-submission of documents to the Secretary-General
habitual and repetitive?
c. Did the Respondent’s non-submission of document to the Secretary-General result
to grave harm?

On the First Criterion for Gross Negligence – Wilful

The Prosecution asserts that the multiple infractions of the Respondent on the School Board
Code of Internal Procedures were done wilfully. This stems from the idea that the
Respondent is aware and knowledgeable of his duties and responsibilities in relation with the
submission of the pertinent documents to the Secretary-General, but chose not to act on these
duties and responsibilities.

In the Prosecution’s first argument, the idea that the Respondent is and must be fully aware
and knowledgeable of his duties and responsibilities was proven. The Prosecution claimed
that first, it is part of the Respondent’s duties and responsibilities to know and understand the
SB CIP and the Constitution, second, the Respondent has already admitted in oath that he
knows the provisions of the SB CIP and the Constitution, and third, the Respondent was
oriented about his deadlines and was repeatedly reminded of these.

With this in mind, the Prosecution now argues that, the decision of the Respondent not to
pass the necessary documents to the Secretary-General given that he is fully aware of his
responsibility and duty to pass these was indeed done wilfully. According to legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com, the word wilful, even when there is no single definition,
can be defined as “intent to refrain from performing an act the law requires” and
“indifference to whether or not action or inaction violates the law.”
6
When the law is clear,
and a person is aware and knowledgeable of the law, “to refrain from performing an act the
law requires” is a wilful violation as the burden to follow the law always lies on the person
the law has jurisdiction over. It is the case in the Respondent’s failure to submit the
documents to the Secretary-General, which the SB CIP requires. Since it has been established
that the Respondent is aware of the law, the burden to follow the law rests on the
Respondent. Now, that the Respondent repeatedly violated the law he knows about, the
action done can only be said to be done with intent to do so and must be wilful by definition.

On the Second Criterion of Gross Negligence – Habitual and Repetitive


S
Ibiu
6
http:¡¡legal-uictionaiy.thefieeuictionaiy.com¡willful
0nueigiauuate Stuuents of the Ateneo Loyola Schools
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia


}anuaiy 9, 2u14 Nismanagement anu Incompetence Case 11
The Prosecution thinks it is but logical to believe that the multiple infractions and violations
of the Respondent when it comes to the failure of submission of documents to the Secretary-
General can only be described as habitual and repetitive.

Time and time again, the Prosecution asserts that the Respondent, Secretary-Treasurer
Marvin T. Lagonera, has never submitted any document of the School of Social Sciences to
Secretary-General AJ Elicano. The Respondent himself has actually never refuted this
assertion. This non-submission has not only violated the Sanggunian Constitution, but has
repeatedly violated the School Board Code of Internal Procedures and the procedures set
upon by the Secretary-General.

Going back to the first argument, the Prosecution reasserts that the Respondent has failed to
pass any copies of the minutes of the meetings to the Secretary-General. This includes
multiple meetings starting from August and four separate monthly deadlines to submit them.
Other than this, never did the Respondent pass a monthly attendance report of the SOSS SB
members, which in quantity should have already been four attendance reports by December.
The Respondent has also not passed any status reports on the projects and thrusts of the
School Board, which he is required to submit every two months, making him in violation of
the stipulation for two times. Lastly, the Respondent never passed a report on the
membership of the SOSS Committees, once again violating the SB CIP.

If the School Board Code of Internal Procedures will be strictly followed, according to
Section 66, the third and succeeding offenses of the Code satisfies the requirement in order
for an official to be filed an impeachment case against. This implies that on the third and
succeeding offenses, the idea that the actions are repetitive violations becomes open. The
Prosecution then argues that the reported inaction of the Respondent on his duties, given that
he has never submitted any document that he is required to submit to the Secretary-General
making him in violation of the SB CIP for at least eleven times, should be considered
repetitive and habitual in nature.

On the Third Criterion of Gross Negligence – Grave Harm

The Prosecution shall answer this criterion in its fourth argument, as the Prosecution believes
that this criterion deserves an argument of its own. The Prosecution will prove that the
Respondent’s failure to submit the necessary documents to the Secretary-General has gravely
harmed the School of Social Sciences School Board, the Central Board, and the constituents
of the School of Social Sciences.

In summation, the Prosecution then believes that the Respondent is guilty of gross neglect of
duty in relation with keeping correspondence with the Secretary-General. The Prosecution
has already shown and proved that the Respondent’s non-submission of the pertinent
documents to the Secretary-General was done wilfully and habitually, constituting gross
negligence based on the definition given by the School Board Code of Internal Procedures
and the definition the Supreme Court has given. It has also become evident that the
Respondent did not exert due diligence in managing the system of information he is
accountable for. The Prosecution has also shown that the mismanagement case inherently
includes the offense of gross negligence and the pieces of evidence prove such claim, thus
0nueigiauuate Stuuents of the Ateneo Loyola Schools
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia


}anuaiy 9, 2u14 Nismanagement anu Incompetence Case 12
making Section 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court applicable in this case, where if proven
guilty for gross negligence, the Respondent should be penalized by impeachment.

Respondent’s Mismanagement and Incompetence

The Prosecution’s main argument and point in this case is that the Respondent, Secretary-
Treasurer Marvin T. Lagonera’s failure to submit multiple pertinent documents to the
Secretary- General AJ Elicano caused the system of correspondence of information between
the two to be grossly mismanaged. This system of correspondence of information between
the Secretary-Treasurer and the Secretary-General is well defined in both the Sanggunian
Constitution and the Code of Internal Procedures. This argument will then prove that the
Respondent, Mr. Lagonera failed to administer this system of correspondence that he is
solely responsible and accountable for.

Mismanagement and incompetence are words that have no exact legal definition. The
Prosecution, in order to have a clear understanding of the two offenses proposed the
following definition in its initial complaint that went uncontested.

Mismanagement – wherein an official fails to properly administer the system he is held
accountable for.
7


Incompetence – wherein an official is unfit and unable to fulfill his responsibilities as an
official.
8


The critical elements of mismanagement and incompetence in relation with the case at hand
can therefore be summarized in the following;

a. The system of correspondence between the Respondent and the Secretary-
General, which the former is accountable for
b. The duties and responsibilities of the Respondent in relation with the system
c. The failure of the Respondent to properly administer the system

In its first argument, the Prosecution has heavily talked about the system of correspondence
between the Respondent and the Secretary-General. It is in that argument that the Prosecution
illustrated the system of correspondence, which includes the creation and submission of
documents like the minutes of the meetings, attendance reports, status reports, and a report on
the membership of the School of Social Sciences Committees. The Prosecution also showed
that according to the Code of Internal Procedures, it is solely the responsibility of the
Secretary-Treasurer to submit the pertinent documents to the Secretary-General. The
Prosecution in its first argument has already established the first two critical elements that
would show mismanagement and incompetence of the Respondent in relation with the system
of correspondence between him and the Secretary-General.


7
"Nismanagement." !"#$!%&'()'*+$,-.)/"0,""&'()'*+$,-.(*1. Buiton's Legal Thesauius, 2uu7.Web. 2S
Novembei 2u1S
8
"Incompetence." !"#$!%&'()'*+$,-.)/"0,""&'()'*+$,-.(*1. Buiton's Legal Thesauius. 2uu7. Web. 2S
Novembei 2u1S
0nueigiauuate Stuuents of the Ateneo Loyola Schools
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia


}anuaiy 9, 2u14 Nismanagement anu Incompetence Case 1S
Failure of the Respondent to Properly Administer the System

The Prosecution firmly believes that all the pieces of evidence show that the Respondent,
Secretary-Treasurer Marvin T. Lagonera, failed to properly administer the system of
correspondence between him and the Secretary-General. Mismanagement and incompetence
is be characterized in this point in the Respondent’s failure to submit all of the necessary
documents to the Secretary-General, which ultimately led to the failure of the system he is
accountable for.

As explained in the previous sections, the Respondent has repeatedly and habitually not
passed the documents like the minutes of the meetings, status reports and attendance reports
to the Secretary-General. The Respondent’s duty to pass the documents to the Secretary-
General is part of a greater responsibility, which is to keep the system of correspondence,
accountability and transparency towards the Central Board. The Respondent’s habitual
inaction to his duties related to submitting documents to the Secretary-General, as shown in
the first argument, caused the eventual failure of the system of correspondence. The
Prosecution even argues, that in the span of the Respondent’s tenure as the Secretary-
Treasurer of the School Board, the system of correspondence never functioned, as the
Respondent was never able to pass any document to the Secretary-General. Not once did the
Respondent exert due diligence in a matter required of him by the Sanggunian Constitution
and the School Board Code of Internal Procedures. Thus, the purpose of the system, to act as
a check and balance, and a vehicle for transparency never came to fruition. The Respondent
never even cared for the negative and harmful consequences of his negligence, and never
even tried to avoid these. The Respondent then was unable to fulfil his responsibility and
duty to administer the correspondence system he is accountable for.

The Prosecution believes that this act of habitual negligence that led to the failure of the
system the Respondent is solely accountable for constitutes mismanagement and
incompetence, offenses that are punishable by impeachment.



Grave Irreparable Harm Caused

The institutionalization and operation of the system of correspondence that the Secretary
Treasurer was responsible for is not without reason. This system has specific functions that
aid both SB and CB officials in their duty of serving the LS student body.

First, the system of creation, approval, dissemination and submission of minutes allow the
Central Board to act upon it’s obligation to keep all governing bodies in the Sanggunian
collected and aligned in their vision for the LS student body. The submission of these
minutes is crucial as a formal link between the Central Board and the separate School Boards.

These documents are clear representation of the activities and agenda of the School Board,
which keeps the Central Board abreast of the goals and the manner that they are being
actively pursued by the School Board. Removing this link would greatly incapacitate the
Central Board from making sure that these goals and activities are in line with the entire
Sanggunian’s thrusts and mission to serve their constituents. The constant correspondence
0nueigiauuate Stuuents of the Ateneo Loyola Schools
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia


}anuaiy 9, 2u14 Nismanagement anu Incompetence Case 14
between the School Board such as the SOSS SB and the Central Board through the
submission of minutes maintains a dialogue that only produces solutions for both governing
bodies as they serve their constituents.

Another function of these documents is that it allows the Central Board to foster a culture of
balance and check. The SOSS constituents are also constituents of the Central Board, which
is the highest college wide governing body of the Sanggunian. It is their welfare along with
other constituents from different School Board that the Central Board is charged to care for.
The correspondence system is the most formal avenue that the Central Board possesses as a
way to keep abreast of it’s constituents and the officials caring for them. When the School
Board is in need of realignment or of assistance from a higher entity, it is the Central Board
who has the obligation and power to relieve it. In order to do such action effectively, the
Central Board relies on the system of correspondence, which the Secretary Treasurer
maintains to understand how best to address an issue.

The system and process of correspondence was set up to provide the Central Board with up to
date information on the progress or delay of all School Board proceedings. It’s existence as a
legal administrative process in both the LS Constitution and SB CIP emphasizes a persistent
and present necessity for School Boards to maintain connections with the entire Sanggunian
through correspondence with the Central Board. As one of the only rigid formal systems
discussed in both the SB CIP and LS Constitution, there is a great emphasis for the need of
transparency within the Sanggunian through the documentation and publication of SOSS SB
proceedings.

In effect of the Respondent’s inaction and gross neglect, the functionality and efficiency of
the bodies governing the SOSS constituents has deteriorated.

The Respondent’s failure to record and submit all SOSS proceedings to the Central Board has
severely cut the connection between the SOSS School Board and the Central Board. The
system the Respondent is held accountable is centered upon the documents, which function
as the primary source of information on SOSS SB proceedings for the Central Board. This
system which also provides that the Respondent be accountable for the Central Board’s
receipt of these documents is the primary process that the Central Board uses to engage with
the School Board.

The Central Board was unable to aid the SOSS School Board in creating and administering
programs that both assimilate the university wide thrusts while answering the SOSS student
body’s unique needs because it has no formal correspondence with the SOSS SB. The
Central Board was unable to give comment on the efficacy of the SOSS School Board’s
programs in serving the constituents because it did not have the full access to the information
that they could base their suggestions and observations on.

The Central Board then lost its ability to take accountability of possible missteps in the
governance of the SOSS SB because it was deprived of the avenue of correspondence
through the Respondent’s inaction.

Another significant harm from the Respondent’s inaction is found through the Central
Board’s performance of administering transparency through the uploading of files to the
0nueigiauuate Stuuents of the Ateneo Loyola Schools
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia


}anuaiy 9, 2u14 Nismanagement anu Incompetence Case 1S
information portals. The Central Board could not properly fulfill its obligation to keep a
transparent student body through the reporting of all proceedings and agenda of the entire
Sanggunian as it never had a full record of the documents pertaining to these. The
Respondent’s neglect of his duty, to provide the Central Board with the minutes of the SOSS
meetings negatively affects the Central Board’s capacity to inform the entire Sanggunian and
even the SOSS constituents of SOSS proceedings. In relation to the Central Board’s inability
to post SOSS SB information online, the SOSS constituents and other Sanggunian officials
have lost the primary source of knowledge and data pertaining to the SOSS SB.

The Respondent’s inaction has therefore isolated the SOSS SB from all governing bodies of
the Sanggunian and his constituents. He has effectively removed one major avenue for his
constituents and his peers to scrutinize the proceedings and actions of the SOSS SB.

Given these results, the Prosecution argues that the Respondent’s inaction has resulted to
damage to the public interest of the SOSS student body. The gravity of the consequences
from the Respondent’s inaction weighs heavily on the SOSS SB.

The Prosecution submits the definition of damage to public interest as proclaimed by the
Supreme Court in the case of Kataniag versus The People of the Philippines as such;

“DAMAGE TO PUBLIC INTEREST OR TO THIRD PARTY. — Upon the matter of
damage to public interest or to third party, it is true that such damage must be actual and not
hypothetical. But an actual damage need not necessarily be pecuniary or material. It may
consists in mere alarm to the public or in the alienation of its confidence in any branch of
the government service. In the instant case, aside from the necessity of maintaining the
integrity of public records, the removal for illicit purposes by petitioner of the documents in
question from their usual place of safekeeping against the strictest surveillance ordered buy
the higher authorities and in the midst of the immigration scandal when the probe was in full
swing, constitutes such a perversity of officials. Such effect constitutes damage to public
interest, and such damage is, under the circumstances stated, unquestionably a serious one.”
9


In context of the case in question, the Prosecution believes that the Respondent’s actions has
resulted into the further loss of confidence of the SOSS constituents for their governing
School Board. The Respondent’s inaction to administer a system which would have provided
the transparency and proof of a School Board working to serve it’s constituents only deepens
the disinterest and distance which the Respondent himself repeatedly belated. Rather than
regaining the trust of the constituents, the Respondent’s omission of duty has provided the
constituents and the Sanggunian in its entirety further space to reasonably doubt the influence
of the School Board in the betterment of their stay in the university.

A quick perusal of the unreleased documents is enough for any individual to recognize the
sheer amount of topics undisclosed to the public and to the Central Board. These documents
by their very nature contained “official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as government
research data used as basis for policy development” which the 1987 Constitution defines as
“matters of public concern.”
10



9
u.R. No. L- 48S98
1u
1987 Constitution is Ait.111. Sec. 7
0nueigiauuate Stuuents of the Ateneo Loyola Schools
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia


}anuaiy 9, 2u14 Nismanagement anu Incompetence Case 16
The SOSS School Board has only publicized a bare minimum of its proceedings through its
Facebook account by the promotion of programs and release of certain documents. To equate
all of the School Board’s actions for it’s constituents as that which is available would be a
disservice to the officials themselves, however this limited release of information is all the
constituents and the Central Board has opened to them.

Greater still is the harm resulting from the Respondent’s inaction when put into context of the
SOSS SB’s current state. As the Respondent has mentioned himself, a grand failure of
elections has spoken great depths of the constituents’ mistrust and disinterest in the very body
that is vested with the power to protect their wellbeing. The Respondent who has taken leaps
and bounds to continue to act upon his constituents’ behalf without their full consent and
encouragement has failed to realize that the extant provisions in the SB CIP and the LS
Constitution exist to counter the very culture he continually disparages against.

The Prosecution asserts that the failure of election and apparent disinterest of the public is not
sufficient reasons for the Respondent to neglect the very duties that would have provided the
entire SOSS SB the opportunity to prove their worth to the SOSS student body. By keeping a
constant correspondence with the Central Board and in turn the constituents, the SOSS SB
would exhausted all the provisions open to them to reestablish the trust and connection
between the Sanggunian and the SOSS constituency. The Respondent has irredeemably failed
to do such action.

Given all the evidence and arguments presented, the Prosecution maintains that the
Respondent’s inactions have caused grave and undue harm to the public interest,
incapacitated the Sanggunian Central Board in the performance of its obligations and are
explicit violations against the LS Constitution.

Conclusion

The Sanggunian ng mga Paaralang Loyola ng Ateneo de Manila is undergoing a period that
can be counted as its lowest. The Sanggunian came from multiple failures of elections for
multiple School Boards in its 2013 General Elections and 2013 Freshmen and Special
Elections. Constituents of the acclaimed Student Government are starting to care less and less
to this body. Some of them do no longer see the function of the Student Government in their
daily student lives. Slowly, the Sanggunian is losing the support of the people it aims to
protect, defend and uphold.

Officials of the Sanggunian are called to be more vigilant and careful in their actions as
public officers of the student body given the current context of the Sanggunian. Now that the
constituents of the Sanggunian is slowly losing their interest and even trust in the body, more
is expected from each Sanggunian officer. The burden now in being a public official is no
longer just bounded by the tasks assigned to him or her, but is now about doing these tasks in
a manner that should reinvigorate the people’s interest and trust in the Student Government.
The Sanggunian, in general, is expected to do more, in the Atenean spirit of Magis, to bring
back the trust and interest of its constituents.

Same is expected from the School of Social Sciences Secretary-Treasurer, Mr. Marvin T.
Lagonera.
0nueigiauuate Stuuents of the Ateneo Loyola Schools
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia


}anuaiy 9, 2u14 Nismanagement anu Incompetence Case 17

Mr. Lagonera is very much aware of the crisis his School Board is experiencing. The School
of Social Sciences School Board just came from two major failures of elections in the
General Elections for S.Y. 2013-2014 and the Freshmen and Special Elections for the same
school year. The Secretary-Treasurer is aware of the greatest problem his School Board is
facing. Quoting Mr. Lagonera in the hearing done last December 20, 2013, “wala nang paki
‘yong mga tao,” pertaining to the constituents’ lost of concern in the School of Social
Sciences Government.

However, even if Mr. Lagonera is fully aware of this situation of his School Board, he chose
to do the opposite of what is needed from him. Rather than to help contribute to the
betterment of the Sanggunian and its image, Mr. Lagonera chose to damage the already
dwindling public trust towards the Student Government. Through his mismanagement of the
system of correspondence between him and Secretary-General AJ Elicano, he prevented
mechanisms of the Student Government to ensure that it is aligned with its founding
principles of accountability and efficient and effective service towards the Atenean. Mr.
Lagonera did not just simply failed to submit important documents to Mr. Elicano, he failed
to uphold the system and mechanism of transparency and accountability he is solely liable for
as Secretary-Treasurer of the School of Social Sciences.

This is why the Prosecution prays to the Court and the honourable Magistrates to impeach the
School of Social Sciences Secretary-Treasurer Marvin T. Lagonera. As a defender of the
Sanggunian, the Prosecution believes that the attitude Mr. Lagonera showed towards his
duties, as a Secretary-Treasurer should never be tolerated. The Sanggunian, especially given
its current context, cannot have officers of such incompetence who have a thoughtless
disregard not only their responsibilities and duties, but also of the consequences of their
actions or inactions as public officials. The Student Judicial Court, also as a defender of the
Sanggunian, should uphold the institution as a whole by rectifying the Respondent’s acts of
mismanagement, incompetence and even gross negligence. The Court should send a message
to the constituents and officials of the Sanggunian that it will not allow such acts be left
unheard and unresponded. The Court must bring back the trust and confidence of the people
in the Sanggunian by ruling that it will hold people who repeatedly violate rules and
procedures and step on important mechanisms of the Sanggunian, accountable for their
action.

That can only be done by the impeachment of School of Social Sciences Secretary-Treasurer
Marvin T. Lagonera.











0nueigiauuate Stuuents of the Ateneo Loyola Schools
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia
v.
School of Social Sciences Secietaiy-Tieasuiei Naivin T. Lagoneia


}anuaiy 9, 2u14 Nismanagement anu Incompetence Case 18
RELIEF

WHEREFORE, with the circumstances illustrated above, the Prosecution seeks for the
impeachment of School of Social Sciences Secretary-Treasurer Marvin T. Lagonera for
mismanagement and incompetence related to the system of correspondence between the
Secretary-Treasurer and the Secretary-General





January 9, 2014









Clyde S. Maramba
Chief Prosecutor
Ateneo Student Judicial Court