29 Novemeber 2021

TO : MS. DULCE D. MARTINEZ

HR MANAGER

FROM : ARIEL G. BELITA

SUBJECT: REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE

That the undersigned respectfully submits his answer to the SHOW Cause received
on November 26, 2021 and avers the following:

1. That the report submitted to the office by Chainstore Operations are a

hearsay , baseless and without merit . Accordingly, the report alleges that:

1.1 Sometime in July 2021, at around 2:00 PM you were seen by one of
the Cashiers, who was about to go out of the restroom, passed by said room
with Cashier Cecilia Lomibao and upon reaching the hallway, stopped and kissed
each other at the lips once after pulling down your respective face masks;

- In response to the allegation, I do not recall any incident on July

2021, and the allegation is not specific as to when the alleged
incident happened. Ms. Lomibao is a close friend and it is normal
that we will be seen together. Because I am a widow and she is a
single mom for many years malicious imputation are being hurled
against me. Ms. Lomibao is the only one whom I am being seen
with. If indeed the the cashier saw me and Ms. Lomibao why did
she not make herself known to us at that time she saw us. It
would be more easier for this office to hear the incident and so that
I could just acknowledge the act. But since the cashier was not
identified and that the incident was not specific as to when it
happened, it is respectfully submitted that the imputation is a
hearsay. It is malicious , unfounded and baseless aimed to
jeopardize my retirement.

1.2 Sometime in August 2021 at around 9:00 am one of the agency personnel
saw you and Cashier Lomibao hugging and kissing each other inside the canteen
area at the second floor.

Likewise, I do not recall any incident that happened implicating

me and Ms. Lomibao on August 2021. Again the complaint did not
mention when did the alleged incident happened. The personnel
should have made his presence felt so that I can validate whether he is
lying or not. How can he bear witness against me when he cannot
remember the day he allegedly saw me and Ms.Lomibao. It is not a
 secret that I am close to Ms. Lomibao and because of my closeness to
Ms. Lomibao malicious implications are being imputed against me.

1.3 On October 22, 2021, at around 4:00 pm o of the Pharmacy Assistant

who was about to have a coffee break witnessed an intimate kissing
between you and Cashier Lomibao at the corner of the Canteen area
located at the second Floor.

I vehemently deny the accusation alleged on October 22, 2021.The

pharmacy Assistant, is maliciously imputing allegations that are not
true. She is ill motivated because she personally hates me.. This is
evident from the Group chat handed to me by Ms. Lomibao. In the said
group chat. The witness Pharmacy Assistant was very vocal on how
she treats me. She calls me names and does not like the way I manage
the branch because I am strict in implementing the company rules and
regulations. And I inform my district manager with regard to this
issue, but no action was taken. In support of my defense, I am
attaching the screenshots of the conversation in the group chat
between the personnel.. The members in the group chat are the
employees at our branch and all of them have mutual hate for me. And
because of that hate, they conspired to remove me as branch manager
to the point of terminating me from my 30 years in service. Their
concerted acts are jeopardizing my retirement to which I am due on
December 1, 2021. And because of that my application for retirement
was put on hold.

In your letter you stated that the employee manual prohibits any act of indecency or
immorality with or against the employee and punishes such acts with a Type D
offense for dismissal. In the said Manual, the act of indecency or immorality was
not defined. And before the act be considered indecent and immoral the totality of
the attendant circumstances must be considered in determining whether an
employee’s conduct is immoral.

In my defense, nowhere in the Employee Manual was it stated that the

company adheres to the “Non Fraternizing Policy”. In fact a lot of
relationships between employees where consummated within the company
and none of them were sanctioned.

In the case of ZAIDA R. INOCENTE,  vs. ST. VINCENT FOUNDATION FOR

CHILDREN AND AGING, INC./VERONICA MENGUITO,G.R. No. 202621. The
Supreme Court has stated that :

In determining whether the acts complained of constitute

"disgraceful and immoral" behavior under the Civil Service Laws, the
distinction between public and secular morality on the one hand, and
religious morality, on the other hand, should be kept in mind. This
distinction as expressed –  albeit  not exclusively – in the law, on the one
 hand, and religious morality, on the other, is important BECAUSE THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT EXTENDS ONLY TO PUBLIC AND
SECULAR MORALITY.31 ( emphasis supplied)

Xxx xxx xxx

We thus reiterate that mere private sexual relations between two

unmarried and consenting adults, even if the relations result in pregnancy
or miscarriage out of wedlock and without more, are not enough to
warrant liability for illicit behavior. The voluntary intimacy between two
unmarried adults, where both are not under any impediment to marry,
where no deceit exists, and which was done in complete privacy, is
neither criminal nor so unprincipled as to warrant disciplinary action. 33

To use an example more recent than Shakespeare’s, if the Court did not
consider the complained acts in Escritor immoral, more so should the
Court in this case not consider Zaida’s consensual intimate relationship
with Marlon immoral.

Where no less than the Supreme court has ruled that the acts committed by
the parties in the above cited case do not constitute immorality then by
implication the acts I am being implicated with, are not prohibited under any
law nor are they contrary to conduct generally accepted by society. It is
important to stress that I and Ms. Lomibao are not under no impediment to
enter into any relationship. I am a widow and and Ms Lomibao is a single
mom. We are two consenting adults who met at work.

It is submitted that the acts being complained are not per se  immoral
based on secular morality standards. Nor did the complaint allege a showing
that the acts are prejudicial to the interest of the company and one that it
has the right to protect against.

That the undersigned submits the instant reply to the show cause
notice be admitted. And that in the interest of justice and fair play, the
incident report should not be given basis and should therefore be dismissed.

Respectfully;

Ariel Belita
Branch Manager