Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS)

DA RO7 Compound, Velez St., Brgy. Guadalupe, Cebu City
-o0o-

Department of Education
Region VIII, Schools Division of Ormoc City

NELIA T. SANTO,
Complainant, RE: IC-OV-22-0327
(Conduct Prejudicial to the
Best Interest of the Service)

-versus-

JIMMY D. SASING,
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

REPLY AFFIDAVIT

I, NELIA T. SANTO, under the same oath, and, in accordance

with law, and by way of reply to the counter-affidavit, depose and
states:

1.The respondent must rely on the strength of his own evidence

to controvert the report submitted and presented by respondent’s
school principal, photocopy of which, is hereto attached, to quote:

xxx

2. Per verification with the Administrative Services

Section, no such leave of absence was recorded.

3. Regarding the events of October October 22, 2019,

the District was conducting a three-day District Level In
Service Training. During a break in the session, Mr.
Jimmy Sasing, asked permission to leave for a short
period of time to conduct personal business. Permission
was granted on the understanding that he will
immediately return and complete the entire afternoon
session. Mr. Sasing did return right away and completed
the training’s session.

2. The foregoing report or narration of facts is not binding upon

this Honorable office. It is neither the duty of the complainant much
more the office to help and guide the respondent on what should be
the focus of respondent’s defense.

3.Here, the respondent seems to be shifting the burden of

proving the defense upon the complainant and the Office which
should not be the case. In one case, the Supreme Court, has
explained:

“Jurisprudence dictates that anyone who asserts an

affirmative must substantiate it with evidence. Thus, the
adage that “he who asserts not he who denies, must
prove. As a basic rule in evidence, the burden of
proof lies on the party who makes the allegations –
ei incumbit probation, qui decit, non qui negat; um rerum
naturam factum negates probation null sit. (Advincula v.
Atty. Macabat, A.C. No. 7294, March 7, 2007. The basic
rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not
equivalent to proof.”

4. In his counter affidavit, there is, however, no evidence to

prove respondent’s contention. Neither the claim of leave of absence
is supported with the respondent’s application and approved leave of
absence. Judicial notice is hereby invited to the attention of the
Honorable Office that, except for sick leave, respondent must have
applied first before undertaking his leave of absence, yet, nowhere in
the record would tell us that he has applied for leave of absence. In
his complete action to misled complainant and the office, he is
deemed guilty of grave misconduct.

5. Admittedly, when respondent has made his leave from the

premises of his work without the approved leave of absence, yet,
respondent has collected and received his full salary for that period,
he is deemed guilty of gross dishonesty, amounting to grave
misconduct.

6. The report of respondent’s school principal is barren of the

any conclusive fact and/or evidence to support the principal’s
narration of facts that indeed respondent had returned immediately to
his station of work, in fact, during the conference, respondent had did
so well in arguing or making arguments and defending his cause in
representing in behalf of the farmer beneficiaries since the
commencement of conference from 2:00 pm to 4:00pm of October
22, 2019 inside the DAR, Ormoc City. It is therefore irrelevant for
respondent to just sit down and immediately went away outside the
conference while sitting his momentum in arguing his flight to
represent the farmer beneficiaries in the office.

7. Stated differently, it would appear unthinkable that the

claimed of the principal, without further proof, was taking the cudgels
of the respondent’s unlawful acts to exonerate the respondent’s
unlawful acts. Clearly, the respondent’s conduct belies his pretense.
To refute the respondent’s ratiocination, as cited in his counter
affidavit, the respondent, who asserts an affirmative must
substantiate it with evidence. Thus, the adage that “he who asserts
not he who denies, must prove. As a basic rule in evidence, the
burden of proof lies on the respondent who makes his allegations.
7.The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is
not equivalent to proof.
8. To allow respondent from his misleading facts it would run
counter to the tenet of the law, he should be formally charge for gross
dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, in violation of the definite rule of
law, and in violation of Sec 3, par. (e), R.A. 3019, as amended,
should be dismissed from service on the ground of grave misconduct.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunder affix my signature
this 7 day of December 2022 at Tacloban City.
th

NELIA T. SANTO
Complainant/Affiant

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this___day of

December 2020 at Tacloban City. Affiant personally appeared
exhibiting her evidence of identity, to wit:_________________, known
to me and known to be the same person who executed the foregoing.

Doc. No.___;
Page No.___;
Book No.___;
Series 2022

Copy furnished:
Jimmy Sasing
Ormoc City
Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas)
DA RO7 Compound, Velez St., Brgy. Guadalupe, Cebu City, 6000