Date: March 20, 2023

To: The Management, Cebuana Lhuilier

From: Armida Bodejas
Subject: ANSWER TO THE SHOW-CAUSE MEMO dated March 6, 2023 received
by counsel last March 17, 2023

To Whom It May Concern:

I am Atty. Stewart Paul T. Torre of Duremdes Nava Law Office, the legal
counsel of the respondent-Armida Bodejas in her Administrative Case No.
2023-0274. Before we proceed with our client’s specific Answer to the Show-
Cause Memo, we would like to emphasize and put on record that:
Section 13, Rule III-General Guidelines of your own Revised Employee
Code of Conduct and Discipline provides that: “Except as otherwise provided
in this Code or in a subsequent policy, the prescriptive period in filing an
administrative case against an erring employee shall be one (1) year from
the discovery of the incident.”
The incident subject matter of this administrative complaint was
discovered sometime in March 26, 2021 as per March 2021 Report of ATO
Jayvie Silva. Considering the date of discovery of the incident and the date of
this Show Cause Memo which is March 6, 2023, it is apparent that filing of this
administrative complaint has already prescribed, hence, must be dismissed
outright. To rule otherwise would be tantamount to circumvention of the
Revised Employee Code of Conduct and Discipline which is the primary basis
of initiating administrative against erring employees and is a patent violation
of the employee’s right to due process.
Moreover, the delay in the resolution of this complaint is in violation of
Section 1, Rule III-General Guidelines of the Revised Employee Code of
Conduct and Discipline which provides among others to wit:
“Administrative Investigations and other proceedings for the commission
of offenses under this Code shall be expeditiously conducted and shall be
summary in nature.” A two year delay is neither expeditious nor resolved
through summary procedure.

1
 Section 5, Rule III-General Guidelines of your own Revised Employee
Code of Conduct and Discipline provides that: “In all administrative
investigations, administrative due process shall be observed. The employee shall
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him as well as the
acts or omission constituting the offense and the provisions of the Code alleged
to have been violated. The employee shall be duly notified of any and all
hearings or proceedings relative to his administrative case and shall be given
ample opportunity to be heard.”
Pages 1 and 2 of the Show-Cause Memo enumerated in toto the
particulars of the offense to include the acts or omissions under the Revised
Employee Code of Conduct and Discipline to wit: Rule V.A [3]; Rule V.A [12];
Rule V.A [22]; Rule V.A [23]; Rule V.A [29]; Rule V.A [2]; Rule VII, Section 3;
Rule VII, Section 2; Article 2977 of the Labor Code and the Facts of the Case.
For emphasis, Section 5, Rule III-General Guidelines of your own Revised
Employee Code of Conduct and Discipline provides among others that: The
employee shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him as well as the acts or omission constituting the offense and the provisions of
the Code alleged to have been violated.
It is not in compliance with the due process requirement to simply
enumerate the offenses based on your Code in isolation with the facts of
the case. For instance, when you accuse our client under Rule V.A [3], what
specific information did she falsify/fabricate, altered/tampered/falsely
entered on your company record or document? What specifically did she
manipulate or tamper in your information system? What data did she
maliciously furnish and what did she gain from it?
Moreover, on Rule V.A [12], what are the specific acts allegedly
committed by our client which constitute dishonesty, misappropriation, theft
or embezzlement of company funds, assets or property? May you also specify
the acts or omissions which constitute violation of Rule V.A [22]; Rule V.A
[23]; Rule V.A [29]; Rule V.A [2]; Rule VII, Section 3; Rule VII, Section 2; Article
2977 of the Labor Code? As the accusations against our client are general
provisions of violations stated on your revised Code and are not backed up by
specific acts or omissions which constitute said violations, our client has no
other option but to vehemently deny the same.

2
 On the other hand, it is patently stated on the Facts of the Case section of
you show-cause memo that “the charges stemmed from reports that Ryan Jay
Caliso allegedly over-appraised two items pawned under the name of Krisa
Mae Cordova” among others. You merely presumed that our client was aware
of the fraudulent acts of Ryan Caliso and that you allege that she failed to
report the offense committed and that she is therefore liable under Rule VII,
Section 3 of your Revised Code. Please note however that the degree of
participation in the offense charged is by nature that of an accomplice or
accessory. Hence, in order for the said complaint to push through, it is
imperative on your part to prove conspiracy between our client and Mr.
Caliso. Records show that you failed to provide evidence that she is in
collusion with Mr. Caliso.
Conspiracy cannot be presumed merely based on alleged “admission”
against self-interest based on Annex “D” of your complaint. During the
drafting of said written statement, our client was not assisted by a counsel of
her own choice. In fact, according to her, since she is not well versed in
constructing her thoughts in English, she sought the assistance of her co-
employee Narcilie Galvan in drafting her written statement.
The main basis of you allegation that our client admitted commission of
your alleged offense was the third paragraph of Annex “D” which provides
among others to wit: “On Sir Ryan’s behalf: My apology for this issue on
tolerating such an acceptable doing. I admitted the wrongest way to accept the
pawned item with additional grams because I was reassured by her earnest
promise to redeem the item. I was not bribed by the pawnee, it’s all clear motive
and decisions for the benefit of the company. I need to humbly ask for your
forgiveness”.
According to our client, the remarks “On Sir Ryan’s behalf” actually
meant that it was a statement which was drafted for and in behalf of Mr.
Caliso. The said admission was in fact Mr. Caliso’s admission which was
approved by him via Facebook Messenger, drafted by Ms. Galvan and
transcribed in our client’s written statement. Please find herein below screen
shot of said facebook conversation:

3
 Apparently, the written statement was submitted by our client with her
name and signature but was inclusive of the statement of Mr. Caliso which
according to our client was made in good faith believing that her written
statement would not only exonerate her from the complaint charged against
her but also her co-worker Mr. Caliso. Regardless of the said written
statement, the fact remains that you have miserably failed to show proof that
Bodejas is aware of a common design to disburse funds favorably to a pre-
identified pawner or has the same mind with his co-respondent expecting that
the pawner might reward her for allowing Caliso to over-appraise. None of the
attachments supports the aforesaid allegations nor that of conspiracy. Perusal
4
of the records of your investigation does not also show proof of her personal
gain from the alleged fraudulent transaction.
On the other hand, you have included in paragraph B of the facts of your
case that our client admitted to AH Ramonita that a certain Ms. Charmaine
was allowed to use other names like that of Nola Doromal. Upon review of the
records of the complaint, said allegation of admission was neither found in
our client’s written statement nor on the testimony/ies of your witness. In
fact, you have no witness testimony to support your claim.
As regards paragraph C of your facts of the case, items you personally
confirmed to have been redeemed by the pawner is obviously not considered
a missing item. If said transaction was not recorded properly in the system, it
could be attributed to any other reasons like system, clerical or typographical
errors and cannot be solely be presumed to be the fault of our client. Since you
in fact confirmed that there was no cash discrepancy, we submit that pursuing
this line argument would be futile. How could a “missing item” complaint
pursue when said item was already found and that said missing item is not a
subject of the client/pawner’s complaint?
We would like to emphasize that for almost four years of being
employed as Area Client Relations Assistant, this is the first instance that
Bodejas received a complaint for disciplinary action. In fact, for the whole
duration of her employment from 2020-2021 (since PAR for year 2022 and
2023 are yet to be determined), she has been receiving a Performance
Appraisal Rating (PAR) of 99% which says a lot about the quality of work she
has rendered to your company.
Thus we invoke presumption of regularity in the performance of her
duties, functions, responsibilities and obligations. Moreover we respectfully
submit that the burden of proof in the determination of probable cause lies
with the complainant. Absence or insufficiency of the pieces of evidence to
establish probable cause must render this complaint nugatory, hence must be
dismissed outright. As rightfully provided under Section 3, Rule III-General
Guidelines of the Revised Employee Code of Conduct and Discipline: “In all
administrative cases, the decision/resolution shall be based on evidence
on record or duly presented in the course of the investigation.

5
 Premises considered, I respectfully pray that the instant complaint be
DISMISSED OUTRIGHT for being a) filed out of time or beyond its
prescriptive period and that b) the documents submitted to support the
allegations in the administrative complaint are insufficient to prove with
substantial evidence that the respondent, our client Armida Bodejas, is
probably guilty of the offenses charged.

Respectfully yours,

ATTY. STEWART PAUL T. TORRE

Counsel for Ms. Armida Bodejas
Duremdes Nava Law Office
Ground Floor TSKI Corporate Center Building
National Highway, Maliao, Pavia, Iloilo
Phone No.: PLDT (033) 325-0148/ +639478929387

With my conformity:

______________________
ARMIDA BODEJAS