Za ™ CSC ~ (GV SERVICE COMMISSION Republic of the Philippines TOMILAO,LEAH Y. ET AL. Re: Violation of Sec. 5 (a) of R.A. No. 6713, Serious Dishonesty, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Grave Misconduct, Usurpation of Authority Oppression, Corruption and Violation of the Code of Conduct For Public Officials and Employees (Petition for Review) (11720005620) NOTICE OF DECISION Sir/Madam: Please take notice that on January 26, 2022 Decision No. 220181 copy attached herewith was promulgated by the Commission in the above cited-case, the original of which is now on file with the Commission. February 2, 2022 Very truly yours, SC. AZIS hief Nefman Resource Specialist Office for Legal Affairs Copy Furnished ‘Mr. JUN J, RUBIN ET AL. Ms. LEAH Y. TOLIMAO ET AL. _ Civil Security Unit Office of the City Mayor Office of the City Mayor 9500 General Santos City 9500 General Santos City Dir. IV RESURRECCION P. PUEYO Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. XII Regional Government Center, Carpenter Hill 9506 Koronadal City w/RECORDS oLApoLoncie Bawat Kawani, Lingkod Bayani ‘FCSC Building, IBP Road, Batasan Hilt, 1126 Quezon City S@ (02) 931-7935/(02) 931-7930/02) 931-6092 Gcscphil@cscgov.ph @ wwwicscgov.phCSC com sence commision Republic of the Philippines TOMILAO, Leah Y., et al. Number: 22018: Re: Violation of Sec. 5 (a) of R.A. No. 6713, Serious Dishonesty, Conduct Promulgated: 26 January 2022 Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Grave Misconduct, ‘Usurpation of Authority, Oppression, Corruption and Violation of the Code of Conduct For Public Officials and Employees (Petition for Review) (1720005620) DECISION Jun J. Rubin, Raymond P. Bass and John Anthony B. Cabatingan, employees of the Civil Security Unit, City Government of General Santos, file a Petition for Review dated January 20, 2020 from Decision No, 19-0012 dated October 7, 2019 of the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSC RO) XU, Koronadal City, which dismissed their Complaint against Leah Y. Tomilao, HRMDO Head, for alleged Violation of Section 5 (a), RA No. 6713°, Danilo G. Ferrer (retired), Rodrigo V. Buot, Karl Vincent M. Quiepo and Eduardo G. Quiachon, Ir. same agency, for alleged commission of Serious Dishonesty, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Grave Misconduct, Usurpation of Authority, Oppression, Corruption and Violation of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials and Employees. Pertinent portions of Decision No. 19-0012 dated October 7, 2019 issued by the CSC RO XII are, as follows: x00 a ali raison Ouice ‘Civd Secvice Comaaccsivn S “This Office noticed that the cases filed all boiled down to the claim of = & the complainants for the recovery of back wages for their alleged authorized a extra services rendered on 10 November 2017 and 28 June 2018. Since the = cases involve similar or related questions to be decided, this Office consolidated the same to eliminate duplicate conduct of investigation. ‘so uation Secretariat aad 1 Section 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees. — In the performance of their duties, all public officials. é and employees are under obligation to: (a) Act promptly on letters and requests. — All public officials and ceaployees shall, within fifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof, respond to letters, telegrams or other jeans of communications sent by the public. The reply must contain the action taken on the request. ‘An act establishing the code of conduct and ethical standards for public officials and employees. Bawat Kawani, Lingkod Bayani "P CSC Building, IBP Road, Batasan Hills, 1726 Quezon City (02) 931°7935/(02) 931-7939/(02) 931-8092 Zacscphil@cscgouph > www.csc.gov.phFVTOMILAO, Leah, etal Page 2 of 6 woo “It can be gleaned from the evidence adduced that the question asked by the complainants as to their unpaid back wages was already catered in the Jirst instance it was raised before Ms. Tomilao in February 2019. Records also ‘show that the same issue was subsequently endorsed to the Grievance Committee of the City Government of General Santos of which the respondents and the complainants were both given the opportunity to air their grievances and be heard. so “WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the complaint against ‘MS. LEAH Y. TOMILAO for Violation of Section 5 (a) of RA 6713 and LTC DANIO G. FERRER PA (RET,), DEPUTY CHIEF RODRIGO V. BUOT, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER KARL VINCENT M. QUIEPO, and MR. EDUARDO G. QUIACHON, JR. for the alleged commission of Serious Dishonesty, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Grave Misconduct, Usurpation of Authority, Oppression, Corruption and Violation of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials and Employees is hereby DISMISSED. It is further recommended, however, that the City Government of General Santas should endeavor the payment of overtime services or the availment of CTO by the herein complainants in accordance with the rules.” In their Petition for Review, Petitioners submitted that: sox “I. That "CSC RO 12" committed grave abuse of discretion by allowing the PERSONS COMPLAINT (sic) of not strictly following the dictum of the law particularly Section 5(a) of "RA 6713 requiring an answer to letter-request within prescribed period and Section 19 of "2017 RACCS" requiring the submission of counter affidavit or comment and or other documents from the PERSONS COMPLAINED OF within five (5) days from receipt of the complaint. vor “I That "CSC RO 12" also committed a grave abuse of discretion by discriminately favoring the PERSONS COMPLAINT OF (sic) without the benefit of PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIAL DUE PROCESS.”AVTOMILAO, Leak, exal Page 3 of 6 ox “That "CSC RO 12" also committed a grave abuse of discretion by discriminately and out rightly DISMISSING the administrative case against EDUARDO G. QUIACHON, JR, the PERSONS COMPLAINT (sic) OF without considering the prescriptive period of the case.” ‘Records show that on March 7, 2019, Petitioners gave an authority to Rubin worded as follows: pod “1, To secure all necessary documents from any government agency and Private entity related to our claim for BACK WAGES for EXTRA ‘SERVICES rendered as being officially assigned/ordered by constituted authority “2, To file necessary complaint/s for administrative and legal sanction related to excessive and unnecessary directive/order/work without budget ‘authority and not in accordance to existing rules, regulations and laws. “3. To sign all administrative and legal documents related to above- written transactions.” In a Letter dated March 8, 2019, which was received by the Human Resource Management Development Office (HRMDO) on the same date, Rubin sought for an opinion if they are entitled to payment of their previous authorized overtime services rendered. Then Tye there was a follow up letter dated March 26, 2019 received on May 24, 2019 by the HRMDO. 7 According to them, the HRMDO never replied to these two (2) jet vinoy. fpo acted va Feb As aresult, on jane 28, 2019, Petitioner filed before the CSCRO XII an administrative gw case against Tomilao for violation of Section 5 (a), RA No. 6713. = 1 ‘Copy n Rescurce Spevaist ‘Then another Affidavit-Complaint dated July 11, 2019 were filed by Petitioners against the other herein Respondents for Violation of Section 5(a) of RA No. 6713, Serious Dishonesty, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Grave Misconduct and’ Oppression for alleged failure to reply to their four (4) follow-up letters, replying falsely to! their communication, coercion and for bad management. ia .ATOMILAO, Leah, etal Page 4 of 6 Thereafter, the CSC RO XII conducted its Preliminary Investigation. In the conduct thereof, it directed the persons complained of to submit their comments to the complaints against them. After the conduct of the Preliminary Investigation, the CSC RO XII dismissed the case. In dismissing the same, the CSC RO XII found out that the questions raised by the Petitioners regarding their unpaid back wages were already raised earlier sometime in February 2019 and was in fact endorsed to the Grievance Committee of the City Government of General Santos of which Petitioners and Respondents were given the opportunity to air their grievances and be heard. The issue to be resolved is whether or not the findings of CSC RO XII that there was no prima facie case in the instant case is in order. Foremost, the Commission hereby addresses the contention of Petitioners. They argued that the CSC RO XII committed grave abuse of discretion in not requiring Tomilao, et al. to submit their comments/counter-affidavits within five (5) days from receipt of the Complaint pursuant to Section 19, of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS). Secondly, they alleged that there was violation of their right to procedural and substantial due process as they were not given notices and furnished copies of the counter- affidavits/answers of Tomilao, et al. within the prescribed period. The contentions are without merit. It must be noted that the case was under Preliminary Investigation by the CSC RO XII. Under the 2017 RACCS, the conduct of Preliminary Investigation can be done ex-parte, by evaluation of the records. Specifically, Section 19 of the 2017 RACCS provides: sox “Section 19. How conducted. Preliminary investigation may be conducted in any of the following manner: a) requiring the submission of counter affidavit or comment and/or other documents from the person complained of within five (5) days from receipt of the complaint which is sufficient in form and substance; b) ex-parte evaluation of the records; or c) clarificatory meeting with the parties to discuss the merits of the case.” a a Tyue Copy:AYTOMILAO, Leah, et.al Page 5 of 6 Inthis case, the CSC RO conducted the preliminary investigation by evaluating the records of the case and also by requiring comments from Tomilao, ef al. The purpose of CSC RO XII in requiring comments from them is for further evaluation of the tase, Thus, it is not necessary that the CSC RO XII furnish Petitioners copies of the comment/counter-affidavits of Tomilao, et al. In administrative cases, complainants are deemed witnesses and the real complainant is the ‘government, Therefore, there can be no violation of procedural and substantive due process. After the conduct of the Preliminary Investigation, the CSC RO XII dismissed the Petition of Review filed by Petitioners for lack of prima facie case, as the issues raised by Petitioners were suit, Sl*eady acted upon even before they submitted their written queries to Respondents. However, agpilen! - there is no proof to this effect. While it is true that there were Minutes of Meeting showing the py othe referral of the case to thé Grievance Committee, the same was done only after the filing of the — ead*? case against Tomilao, et al. What is evident is, there were two (2) commiunieations addressed to f+, Tomilao which were not responded to by her. Such act is in violation of F (12), Section 50, Rule qvt#mne 10, of the 2017 RACCS, in relation to of Section 5 (a), RA No. 6713. nm ane 20h F.12, Section 50, Rule 10, 2017 RACCS provides: applavts (er + attcdnbends wax “F, The following light offenses are punishable by reprimand for the first offense; suspension of one (1) to thirty (30) days for the second offense; and dismissal from service for the third offense: var “12. Failure to act promptly on letters and request within fifteen (15) working from receipt, except as otherwise provided in the rules implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public officials and Employees.”” With respect to the charges against Ferrer, Buot, Quiepo and Quiachon, Jr., for alleged commission of Serious Dishonesty, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Grave Misconduct, Usurpation of Authority, Oppression, Corruption and Violation of the Code of, a Conduct for Public Officials and Employees, the same cannot stand. Records do ngt show any Ps evidence, which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain finding of guilt against (\Q 25 them, Besides, they were not the officials or employees in charge, to whom the two (2) letters gs ‘were presented. . S38 gE _ ri Us of Be t <3? tey ‘YTOMILAO, Lea, etal Page 6 of 6 a WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review dated January 20, 2020 of Jun J. Rubin, Raymond P. Bass and John Anthony B. Cabatingan, Civil Security Unit, City Goverment of General Santos, is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, Decision No. 19-0012 dated October 7, 2019 of the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSC RO) XII, Koronadal City, which dismissed their Complaint against Leah Y. Tomilao, for alleged Violation of Section 5 (a), RA. No. 6773, Danilo G. Ferrer (retired), Rodrigo V. Buot, Karl Vincent M. Quiepo and Eduardo G. Quiachon, Jr., same agency, for alleged commission of Serious Dishonesty, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Grave Misconduct, Usurpation of Authority, Oppression, Corruption and Violation of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials and Employees, for lack of prima facie case, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION such that Leah Y. Tomilao is. hereby FORMALLY CHARGED with Failure to act promptly on letters and request within fifteen (15) working days from receipt, pursuant to F.12, Section 50, Rule 10, 2017 RACCS and in relation to Section 5 (a), RA No. 6713. < Tomilao is given a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt hereof to submit her written answer under oath, together with affidavit/s of her witnesses and documentary evidences, if any She is further directed to indicate‘in her answer whether she elects a'formal investigation of the case or waive the same. Likewise, she is advised of her right to counsel of her own choicg- a sth per a ‘The Commission shall not entertain any requests for clarification, bills of particulars, motions to dismiss, motions to quash, motions for reconsideration and motion for extension of time to file answer. The same shall be noted without action and attached to the records of the case. The CSGRO XI is)hereby directed to conduct the Formal Investigation of this case_and issue the neces fon on the case pursuant to Section 8, RUE 2vfthe 2017 RACCS. Accordingly, the records of this case including the answer“that would be filed, are Hereby forwarded to the CSCRO XI Se Quezon City. ATTY. N ES A. LIZADA Aviator Tmatbner ALICTA dela ROSA - BALA Chairperson . 5 3 VACANT ‘a Commissioner 5 Attested by KATHERINE LIMARE-DELMORO § ‘Acting Director IV Commission Secretariat and Liaison Office ‘ART. &. (OLA 44875 Thnco-wib/CSLOMieha