REPLY OF THE COMPLAINANT, PROF. MILLER C.

DURON, FACULTY,
DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGES TO THE JOINT COUNTER-
AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENTS, DR. JULIET A. CATANE, DEAN,
CLA and PROF. GINA B. ARAOJO, HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF
LANGUAGES

I, MILLER C. DURON, of legal age, Filipino and with office address at the
Department of Languages, College of Liberal Arts, Technological University of the
Philippines (TUP) – Manila, Ayala Boulevard Ermita, Manila, after having been
duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:

1. That I am the Complainant in the Formal Complaint dated December 18,

2018 pursuant to Office Order No. 09, s. 2019 dated January 14, 2019,
against herein Respondents, Dr. Juliet A. Catane, Dean, CLA and Prof. Gina
B. Araojo, Head, Department of Languages, for the violation of my right for
due process and others as therein stated;

2. That I received a copy of the Respondents’ JOINT COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

on January 21, 2018 and by which the Respondents (“Dr. Catane” and
“Prof. Araojo”) denied the infractions they have committed against me.

3. That I am submitting this REPLY to the Respondents’ JOINT COUNTER-

AFFIDAVIT to your good office to reaffirm the MERIT of my complaint as
stated therein and to refute the following whimsical, malicious and illogical
arguments of the Respondents:

4. FIRST, the herein Respondents (“Dr. Catane” and “Prof. Araojo”)

claimed in their Joint Counter-Affidavit that their act of de-loading me to 6
units is NOT CONTRARY TO LAW. But the Respondents only tried to
feign ignorant on the following noticeable ACTS which are contrary to the
law as stated in my Complaint:

4.1. The Respondent (“Dr. Catane”) de-loaded me immediately to 6 units

within that day (November 13, 2018) after the said General Faculty
Meeting without issuance of any warning notice or of notice of violation
of any existing academic policies. Through a memorandum from the
Respondent (“Dr. Catane”), my immediate superior, “Prof. Araojo,”
de-loaded me at once despite the fact that she had already given me 18
units of teaching load which I attached to my Complaint as “Annex B.”
Therefore, the Respondents (“Dr. Catane” and “Prof. Araojo”) have
clearly violated the law by depriving me of my right to DUE PROCESS.

4.2. The Respondents (“Dr. Catane” and “Prof. Araojo”) have

immediately de-loaded me without the proper conduct of
CONSULTATION and INTERVENTION if ever they found my teaching
performance poor. Proper conduct of consultation and intervention are
essential part of their duties as university officials to their subordinates.
Therefore, the Respondents (“Dr. Catane” and

Page 1/7
 “Prof. Araojo”) have clearly violated the law by their failure to conduct
proper consultation and intervention.

4.3. Issuance and implementation of a DEFECTIVE Memorandum No. 20

dated November 14, 2018 which I attached to my Complaint as “Annex
A.” The said memorandum declares that Prof. Vanessa D. Cenizal has
“NO TEACHING LOAD” but later on she was given 3 units which
made the said memo INVALID. Therefore, the Respondents (“Dr.
Catane” and “Prof. Araojo”) have clearly violated the law by issuing
and implementing a defective and invalid memorandum.

4.4. Further, the said Memorandum No. 20 has declared that I am de-loaded
to 6 units while Prof. Vanessa D. Cenizal has “NO TEACHING LOAD
but there is NO JUSTIFICATION as to the difference of the teaching
loads given to us wherein we were lumped into only one memorandum.
Again, it is crystal clear that I and Prof. Cenizal have different cases
which require separate and different memorandum. Therefore, the
Respondents (“Dr. Catane” and “Prof. Araojo”) have clearly violated
the law by compiling two (2) faculty members with different cases into
only one memorandum.

4.5. Finally, the said Memorandum No. 20 which the Respondents have
issued and implemented has violated the Academic Policy on the
Required Teaching Loads of Faculty Members with Mixed Functions
(Half teaching and half admin) which requires 9 units of teaching load
as stipulated in the TUP Memorandum No. 10, s., 2002 / Implementing
Order No. 98-15 / BOR Resolution No. 10, s. 1997 which I attached to
my Complaint as “Annex I.” Therefore, the herein Respondents, “Dr.
Catane” and “Prof. Araojo,” have clearly violated the law by violating
the TUP Academic Policy on the Required Teaching Loads of Faculty
Members with Mixed Functions (Half teaching and half admin) as
stipulated in the TUP Memorandum No. 10, s., 2002 / Implementing
Order No. 98-15 / BOR Resolution No. 10, s. 1997.

4.6. That is why, the Respondents (“Dr. Catane” and “Prof. Araojo”) had
wretchedly failed in their Joint Counter-Affidavit to present any
academic policies or legal anchors to prove the VALIDITY of the said
Memorandum No. 20 dated November 14, 2018. Therefore, the herein
Respondents, “Dr. Catane” and “Prof. Araojo,” who miserably failed
to counter the aforementioned arguments had admitted the fact that the
Memorandum No. 20 which they issued and implemented for my de-
loading this 2nd semester 2018-2019 is completely DEFECTIVE AND
INVALID.

4.7. My immediate superior (“Prof. Araojo”), also failed, in the Joint

Counter-Affidavit, to refute the fact that she failed to discuss with me the
truth that I had been already in the “FLOATING STATUS.” Because
based on the Academic Policy on the Required Teaching Loads of

Page 2/7
 Faculty Members with Mixed Functions (Half teaching and half admin),
I cannot be classified either faculty with admin function which requires 9
units or faculty with pure teaching assignment which requires 18 units of
FTE (Full Time Equivalent). But I was given only 6 units which fits only
to Department Head, College Secretary, and Research and Extension.
Therefore, the herein Respondent, “Prof. Araojo,” who wretchedly
failed to rebut the aforementioned fact presented, had been guilty of
violating her mandated function as the Head of the Department of
Languages as stipulated in Designations of the Officials of the TUP
and TUP Order No. 90, s. 2004 (July 5, 2004) which states that, “The
Department Head shall conduct and preside meetings with the faculty of
the department to discuss relevant concerns and issues” which I attached
to my Complaint as “Annexes G and H.”

4.8. In the same manner, my immediate superior (“Prof. Araojo”), had

failed, in the Joint Counter-Affidavit, to disprove the fact that the 24
hours per week she gave me for my Quasi Library Assignment is fair,
just and legal. In fact, the Joint Counter-Affidavit of the Respondents
(“Dr. Catane” and “Prof. Araojo”) had miserably failed to present any
relevant academic policies or any legal anchors to support the validity of
the Respondent’s (“Prof. Araojo”) implementation of my 24 hours/week
office schedule for my Quasi Library Assignment which is CONTRARY
to the law because it violates the Office Order No. 119, s. 2018 dated
January 26, 2018 which requires faculty members with half-teaching and
half-admin function to serve only 7.5 hours per week which I attached in
my Complaint as “Annex K.” Further, my Official Teaching Load during
2nd semester 2017-2018 which I attached as “Annex L” is also a PROOF
that I should serve only 7.5 hours/week for my office function.
Therefore, the herein Respondent, “Prof. Araojo,” who failed to refute
the aforementioned fact presented, had been guilty of violating the
Office Order No. 119, s. 2018 dated January 26, 2018 which articulates
the details of my office assignment such as the No. of hours shortage in
FTE, Total number of hours to be rendered, Schedule of alternative
workload, Temporary office of quasi-assignment, and Expected outputs.

5. Further, the Respondents (“Dr. Catane” and “Prof. Araojo”) contended in

their Joint Counter-Affidavit that the Complainant herein, “Prof. Duron,”
does not alleged, not at all, that he suffered an injury (physical or moral or
financial, etc.) as a result of the Respondents alleged act of de-loading him.
Obviously, I filed Formal Complaint against the herein Respondents because
I was deprived of my right to DUE PROCESS of the law. It is to be
understood with a simple mind that when a person has not received what is
due to him, then someone or something has caused that person an injury or
injustice. In my case, I am supposed to receive 18 units of teaching load
which I am lawfully entitled to as a regular faculty member of the
Department of Languages but I was only given 6 units by the herein
Respondents (“Dr. Catane” and “Prof. Araojo”) without proper

consultation and intervention. This caused me injury by deprivingPage

me 3/7
of my
 PRIMARY FUNCTION as faculty member with pure teaching assignment,
that is, TO TEACH. Hence, it caused me injury by depriving me of my
constitutional right to DUE PROCESS. Therefore, the Respondents (“Dr.
Catane” and “Prof. Araojo”) have violated the law by depriving me of my
right to DUE PROCESS of the law.

6. Also, the Respondents (“Dr. Catane” and “Prof. Araojo”) claimed in their
Joint Counter-Affidavit that my Complaint was not supported by the
required Affidavit/Certificate of Nonforum Shopping. There is NO existing
TUP policy that requires ALL Formal Complaints filed within the University
must be supported by Certificate of Nonforum Shopping. However,
Certificate of Nonforum Shopping is a must in the filing of cases before any
court, tribunal, and quasi-judicial agencies like Ombudsman, Civil Service
Commission (CS), etc.. Therefore, my Formal Complaint is VALID and it
must be evaluated according to merits.

7. SECOND, the Respondents (“Dr. Catane” and “Prof. Araojo”) argued in

their Joint Counter-Affidavit that they did not direct or order me to work
with a load less than the said FTE. But the Respondents both admitted that
they DIMINISHED my teaching load by assigning me to the Library so that
at the end of the day, my FTE was not affected. And according to the
Respondents, I should be happy that while they ordered the decrease of my
teaching load – but not my FTE – my salary remains undiminished. It is very
clear that the Respondents kind of reasoning is whimsical, malicious and
illogical because they cannot provide legal bases/provisions to justify their
actions as to why they ordered the decrease of my teaching load. To say that
I should be happy because my FTE was not affected and that my salary
remains undiminished is against my basic right, that is, TO RECEIVE
WHAT IS DUE TO ME. They cannot deny the fact that I must receive 18
units of teaching load and NOT 6 units. Therefore, the herein Respondents,
“Dr. Catane” and “Prof. Araojo,” have clearly violated the law by
decreasing my teaching load just based on their WHIMS and CAPRICE.
They even tried to feign ignorant on the fact that they deprived me to teach
as my primary function as a faculty member with pure teaching
assignment.

8. THIRD, the Respondents (“Dr. Catane” and “Prof. Araojo”) claimed in

their Joint Counter-Affidavit that there was an IMPLIED CONSENT and
APPROVAL on the part of the President thru the VPAA about her
justifications to my diminished teaching load of 6 units. But the Respondents
failed to present as their proof of evidence a/an TUP/OFFICE ORDER
indicating my No. of hours shortage in FTE, Total number of hours to be
rendered, Schedule of alternative workload, Temporary office of quasi-
assignment, and Expected outputs just like the Office Order No. 119, s. 2018
dated January 26, 2018 which I attached in my Complaint as “Annex K.”
Unfortunately, up to this date, the Respondents still failed to produce the
said document to prove their claim and by which put me in the “FLOATING

STATUS” since I cannot proceed to the Library because I DO NOT HAVE

Page No.
the said TUP/Office Order. As stipulated in the TUP Memorandum 4/7 10,
 s. 2002 / Implementing Order No. 98-15 / BOR Resolution No. 10, s.1997
which states that, “For quasi-teaching assignments, pursuant to the time
frame for completion and the number of hours de-loading determined jointly
by the Dean and VPAA shall be submitted for the approval by the university
President.” Therefore, the Respondents (“Dr. Catane” and “Prof. Araojo”)
have violated the law by de-loading me to only 6 units and giving me quasi
library assignment without a/an TUP/OFFICE ORDER.

9. FOURTH, the herein Respondent (“Dr. Catane”), argued that she had
given me DUE PROCESS of law by furnishing me a copy of her letter dated
November 15, 2018 which I attached in my Complaint as “Annex D.” Again,
the herein Respondent pretended to be ignorant of the fact which I have
stated in my Complaint which I quote, “The Dean, Dr. Juliet A. Catane,
instructed my immediate superior, Prof. Gina B. Araojo, through an Office
Memorandum No. 20 dated November 14, 2018 to give me only 6 units of
teaching load WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION” (item 8. A.). Here, the
Respondent, “Dr. Catane,” had already de-loaded me to 6 units without
justification before she furnished me a copy of her letter to the President on
November 15, 2018 to present her alleged arguments and justifications. In
other words, the Respondent had IMPLEMENTED the memorandum on
November 14, 2018 before she JUSTIFIED it to the President on November
15, 2018. So, the Respondent (“Dr. Catane”) DEPRIVED me for an
OPPORTUNITY to contest her arguments because how could I still defend
myself if the de-loading had already been implemented even before she
justified it to the President? This corroborates with my statement in my
Complaint when I said and I quote, “I was de-loaded by Dr. Juliet A. Catane
without DUE PROCESS because the said meeting happened in the morning
of November 13, 2018 and immediately in the afternoon she de-loaded me to
only 6 units of teaching load. Dr. Juliet A. Catane has NOT given me even a
single warning written notice expressing her DISGUST about any
problems in my GRADING SYSTEM; about my TEACHING
PERFORMANCE; and about COMMENTS from my students….(item 8.,
G1.)” Therefore, the Respondent (“Dr. Catane”) has violated the law by de-
loading me to only 6 units WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION and WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS.

10. FIFTH, the Respondents (“Dr. Catane” and “Prof. Araojo”) contended
in their Joint Counter-Affidavit that I have even requested for a TUP Order
…so that I can immediately report to the office where I shall be assigned..”
Indeed, I am a law-abiding subordinate who is willing to follow orders
provided that they are legal and valid. As early as November 15, 2018, I had
already requested for a TUP Order because I wanted to make sure whether or
not my de-loading to 6 units was LEGAL and VALID. In fact, I have stated
in my letter dated November 15, 2018 which I attached in my Complaint as
“Annex J” and I quote, “…I would like to request for a TUP Order with
relevant university policies which justify my faculty with

admin function.” In other words, I asked the Respondent (“Prof. Araojo”)

for legal anchors to validate my office assignment but she MISERABLY
FAILED to provide even one academic policy or legal anchor.Page 5/7 only
This
 proves that I am fully aware that my office assignment must be legally
justified through a/an TUP Order/Office Order which presents the complete
details as to the No. of hours shortage in FTE, Total number of hours to be
rendered, Schedule of alternative workload, Temporary office of quasi-
assignment, and Expected outputs just like the Office Order No. 119, s. 2018
dated January 26, 2018 which I received in 2017 during the K-12 transition.
The Respondents (“Dr. Catane” and “Prof. Araojo”) had even overlooked
the “note” which I have written under my “signature” in my Official
Teaching Load dated August 8, 2018 and I quote, “Still awaiting for TUP
Order,” which I attached in my Complaint as “Annex C.” In other words, I
am willing to accept quasi office assignment PROVIDED THAT, it is with
LEGAL ANCHORS. But even up to this date, the Respondents (“Dr.
Catane” and “Prof. Araojo”) have miserably failed to provide me the
necessary TUP Order/Office Order to validate their action. Therefore, the
Respondents have violated the law by de-loading me to only 6 units
WITHOUT PROVISION of APPROVED TUP/OFFICE ORDER.

11. SIXTH, the Respondent (“Dr. Catane”) argued in their Joint Counter-
Affidavit that as Superior, she has no duty to inform me of the details of the
conference that she was inviting me to attend to where I need to answer
some issues that some BTIT students have raised. I believe I must be given
enough and reasonable time to consider the details of the said issues and to
find and prepare the necessary evidence based on the issues presented
therein in support of my circumstance prior to the scheduled conference
because I have the basic right to proper and complete information to clarify
issues which I am completely unaware of. Therefore, the Respondent (“Dr.
Catane”) has the responsibility and duty to inform me as her subordinate
because I have that basic right to proper and complete information.

12. SEVENTH, the Respondent (“Dr. Catane”) claimed in their Joint

Counter-Affidavit when she said and I quote, “….And both VPAA
Espression and President Torres – also in substantial compliance with this
rule/policy – subsequently accepted and/or approved of the same with their
tacit and implicit act of approval thereof, in consequence of their silence on
and/or acquiescence thereto (absence of explicit approval.” But again, the
Respondent (“Dr. Catane”) had MISERABLY FAILED to provide
TUP/OFFICE ORDER as concrete proof to validate my quasi office
assignment. Therefore, the Respondent (“Dr. Catane”) has violated the law
by de-loading me to only 6 units WITHOUT APPROVED TUP/OFFICE
ORDER.

13. Lastly, the Respondents (“Dr. Catane” and “Prof. Araojo”) still dare to
accuse me of being incompetent and/or neglectful while IN FACT, they were
the ones who had clearly manifested the said incompetence and negligence
by their failure to produce the TUP/OFFICE ORDER for my

quasi office assignment. Clearly, the Respondents (“Dr. Catane” and

“Prof. Araojo”) have whimsically and maliciously de-loaded me to 6 units
of teaching load this 2nd semester 2018-2019 WITHOUT
JUSTIFICATION and WITHOUT DUE PROCESS of the law.Page 6/7
 14. In view of the foregoing, I reaffirm the MERIT of my Complaint as stated
therein.

15. I have read and understood the contents of the present REPLY to the
Counter-Affidavit of the Respondents (“Dr. Catane” and “Prof. Araojo”)
to my Complaint and I attest that the same are true and correct of my own
personal knowledge and on the basis of the records in my possession.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Complainant, Miller C. Duron, respectfully prays that –after

due preliminary investigation, the Respondents (“Dr. Catane” and “Prof.
Araojo”) be held liable for infractions committed against me who was de-loaded
to 6 units of teaching load this 2nd semester 2018-2019 WITHOUT
JUSTIFICATION and WITHOUT DUE PROCESS of the law.

Complainant also prays for such other reliefs and remedies as may be
deemed just and equitable in the premises.

RESPONDENT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.

MILLER C. DURON
Complainant

Copy Furnished:
PROF. GINA B. ARAOJO DR. JULIET A. CATANE
Head, Department of Languages Dean, CLA

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature this ____ day of

____ 2019 at ____ City.
BEFORE ME, a notary public in and for ____ City, this ___ day of ____
2019, personally appeared the abovementioned affiant and exhibited to me his
Community Certificate No. _____issued on _______ at the City of Manila, as well
as competent evidence of identity through his _____, to be the same person who
presented the foregoing document for notarization and signed the document in my
presence, and who took an affirmation before me as to such document.
Doc. No. ______;
Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of 2019.

Page 7/7
Page 8/7
Page 9/7