ChanRobles Virtual law Library
PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
A collection of Philippine laws, statutes and codes not included or cited in the main indices of the Chan Robles Virtual Law Library.
:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 128 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF SIX (6) MONTHS SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY FOR
SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY ON DR. GREGORIO T. DE LA ROSA, PRESIDENT, LEYTE
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
This refers to the letter-complaint dated
September 11, 1999, with enclosures, filed with the Presidential
Commission Against Graft and Corruption (PCAGC) and the action taken
thereon by the said Commission with respect to respondent Gregorio T.
de la Rosa, a presidential appointee.
The present complaint charges respondent de la Rosa for the
non-implementation of certain decisions and issuances of the Commission
on Audit (COA), particularly with respect to its audit findings and
recommendations as summarized in COA letter dated January 28, 1997,
addressed to said respondent, which are hereunder quoted:
"1.
Recommendation: Management should require the grantees to refund the amount paid for their scholarship expenses.
"2.
Recommendation: Management should execute a Scholarship Contract with Engr. Caidic to assure faithful adherence to the terms and conditions thereto and to safeguard the interest of the government.
"3.
Recommendation: The school should devise an effective mechanism of monitoring its scholars/grantees to forestall the occurrence of the same in the future.
"4.
"We
request that the foregoing recommendations be fully implemented and the
audit disallowances contained under COA Decision No. 647 dated November
21, 1995 be settled" (Emphasis supplied).
Finding sufficient basis to commence an administrative investigation against the respondent, the Commission required him to submit his counter-affidavit/verified answer, together with other documents in his defense, with which he complied through counsel as per letter dated October 20, 1999.
The action of the Commission on the complaint as well as its findings thereon as contained in its Resolution dated February 3, 2000 are as follows:
"In
his sworn Counter-Affidavit dated October 18, 1999 (Records, pp.
27-30), respondent de la Rosa declares that the accusations against him
by the fictitious complainant are not true, and expresses his honest
belief that he has not committed any violation of any law, rule or
regulation, nor has he been remiss or negligent in the performance of
his duties as LIT President as mandated under R.A. No. 4572, and more
specifically in the implementation of COA decisions and other issuances.
"Regarding Specifications Nos. 1
and 4 of the aforecited COA letter (Exhibit "3"), which he points out
are related to each other, respondent de la Rosa explains that the
matter of the scholarship grants to Engr. Caidic and Atty. Tezon
started in 1986 before he assumed office as President of the Leyte
Institute of Technology in 1992; that at the first instance when the
matter of the questioned scholarships was officially brought to his
knowledge sometime in 1994, he issued Special Order No. 45, s. 1994
(Exhibit "5"), creating a Fact-Finding Committee "to investigate the
complaint against Engr. Gonzalo B. Caidic, Vice-President, and Atty.
Miguel T. Tezon, Professor, re: alleged possible disbursement of
government funds as LIT-SAIDI scholar"; that when the said Committee
submitted its findings and recommendations on the case on June 15, 1995
(Exhibit "6"), he implemented the same "by ordering Engr. Caidic and
Atty. Tezon to refund the expenses for scholarships granted them"
(Records, p. 28); that the four (4) specifications of the aforequoted
COA letter (Exhibit "3"), were the same subject-matter of an earlier
letter dated July 9, 1996 (Exhibit "7"), which was sent to him by LIT
Resident Auditor Aurora S. Guy-Uyco, and on which he had acted through
his letter dated July 25, 1996 (Exhibit "8"), favorably recommending
approval of respondent Caidic's request for extension of his (Caidic)
scholarship at SAIDI for a period of another forty (40) months as per
letter dated July 22, 1996 (Exhibit "9"); that he acted on the COA
letter dated June 11, 1997 (Exhibit "10") and the COA Decision No.
95-647 dated November 21, 1995 (Exhibit "11"), "by instructing the
Chief Accountant, Elvira C. Valdemoro, to effect the refund as far as
Engr. Caidic is concerned . . ."; that the said LIT Chief Accountant,
however, went "on AWOL for the period from October 06, 1994 to February
28, 1995 and the records were with her until finally when he had to
drop her from employment and declare her position vacant effective
March 01, 1995, for abandonment" (Exhibit "14"); and that on account of
lack of records to refer to, the implementation of COA Decision No.
95-647 was finally effected through the issuance by respondent of
Memorandum dated October 11, 1999, directing Engr. Caidic "to settle
these matters as early as possible so as to avoid further stern action
from the Commission on Audit" (Exhibit "15").
"Anent Specifications Nos. 2 and
3 of the COA letter above, respondent de la Rosa states that
"scholarship grants to other employees" are already covered by
corresponding scholarship agreements, about which he submitted sample
Agreements as evidence therefore (Exhibits "16", "16-A", "16-B", "16-C"
and "16-D"); that certain reforms have been "implemented only during
his (sic) incumbency in dutiful compliance with pertinent laws, rules
and regulations" such as the provision for scholarship agreements with
LIT scholars and grantees; and that for the responsibility of
monitoring the progress of LIT scholars and grantees, among others, he
had initiated the formation of a Staff Development Committee headed by
Dr. Iluminado Nical under Special Order No. 07, s. 1998 (Exhibit "17").
"The crux of the issue in the
case at bar is whether or not respondent de la Rosa had in fact been
remiss in the discharge of his duties and responsibilities as LIT
President, particularly in the implementation of the COA audit findings
and recommendations as summarized in the letter dated January 28, 1997.
"Since the only hearing
conducted on the instant case was the preliminary conference hearing
held on October 25, 1999, and considering the fact that during said
hearing the respondent through counsel had decided to submit the case
for resolution based on the records, the evidence in chief against him
are essentially the documents/records which are annexed to the
letter-complaint dated September 11, 1999 (Records, pp. 2-14).
"On the other hand the herein
respondent through counsel formally submitted in support of his
averments and/or explanations relative to the charges against him,
various documents/records through Respondent's Memorandum and Formal
Offer of Exhibits dated November 17, 1999 (Records, pp. 85-95), all of
which have been admitted by the Commission (Records, p. 96).
"A careful review and evaluation
of the records of the case at bar discloses that it is true as
indicated by respondent de la Rosa — who was first appointed as
President of the Leyte Institute of Technology on February 20, 1992, by
then President Corazon C. Aquino (Exhibit "1"), and subsequently,
re-appointed pursuant to R.A. 8292 (1997) by the LIT Board of Trustees,
effective March 9, 1998 (Exhibit "2") — that the awards of scholarship
grants to Engr. Caidic and Atty. Tezon effective as of the Second
Semester of SY 1988-1989), were indeed given before he assumed the
presidency of the Leyte Institute of Technology.
"However, it is likewise
indubitable that the enforcement of the COA audit findings and
recommendations on the issues or specifications as contained in the
aforequoted COA letter dated January 28, 1997 (supra), including the
resignation of Atty. Tezon effective November 3, 1992, which was
approved under LIT Board of Trustees Resolution No. 68, s. 1992
(Records, p. 42), all came about during the period of respondent de la
Rosa's incumbency as LIT President. This fact is made crystal clear
through the COA letters dated July 9, 1996, January 28, 1997 and July
29, 1997, which are all addressed to respondent de la Rosa (see
Records, pp. 41-44; 33-34; and 10-11).
"At any rate, with the view to
afford a more orderly presentation and deeper appreciation of the
charges against the respondent, the specifications as indicated in the
COA letter dated January 28, 1997 (supra), are hereunder, seriatim, viz:
"1.
"The first action taken by
respondent de la Rosa on the questioned scholarship grants of Engr.
Caidic and Atty. Tezon had been the creation of a Fact-Finding
Committee through his issuance of Special Order No. 45, s. 1994
(Exhibit "5"), to investigate an alleged possible disbursement of
government funds as LIT-SAIDI scholars involving said LIT officials;
and that the said Committee submitted its findings and recommendations
on the matter through a Memorandum dated June 15, 1995 to the LIT
President (Exhibit "6").
"Regarding this matter, it is
not intrinsically correct for respondent to have indicated in his
Counter-Affidavit (Records, p. 28) that "(o)n the first instance that
the issue officially came into my knowledge sometime in 1994, I issued
Special Order No. 45, s. 1994 . . .", since it is self-evident on the
face of the Order itself that the issuance thereof had been "(p)ursuant
to the Institute's Board of Trustees order during its 231st board
meeting dated December 11, 1994 at the University of Eastern
Philippines, University Town, Northern Samar . . ."; and that moreover,
respondent has not submitted any proof or evidence to support his
statement that in 1994, "(p)er findings and recommendations of the
committee, I implemented the same by ordering Engr. Caidic and Atty.
Tezon to refund the expenses for scholarship granted them"
(Ibid).
"The second action taken by
respondent on the aforesaid specification appears to have been through
his letter dated July 25, 1996 (Exhibit "8"), addressed to the LIT
Resident Auditor, favorably recommending the grant of an extension of
another forty (40) months on the questioned scholarship grant,
including such other additional benefits as book allowance, travel
fares and expenses for training modules, as requested by Engr. Caidic
through his letter dated July 22, 1996 (Exhibit "9"). The said action
by respondent de la Rosa which seems to be comparatively prompt, was
apparently taken by him after his receipt of the LIT Resident Auditor's
Memorandum dated July 9, 1996 (Exhibit "7"), or a period of sixteen
(16) days only. However, except for his favorable recommendation on the
request of Engr. Caidic, it is clear that respondent had not taken any
action at the time on the other subject-matter of the LIT Resident
Auditor's Memorandum dated July 9, 1996 (Exhibit "7").
"The third action taken by
respondent on this issue appears to have been through his Memorandum
dated October 11, 1999 (Exhibit "15"), addressed to Engr. Caidic,
calling his attention on the COA Decision No. 95-647 (Exhibit "11"),
the letter dated June 11, 1997 of COA Chairman Celso D. Gangan (Exhibit
"10") and the LIT Resident Auditor's Memorandum dated July 9, 1999
(Exhibit "7"), and directing him "to settle these matters as early as
possible so as to avoid further stern actions from the Commission on
Audit".
"It will be noted that in
contrast to his second action, it took the respondent more or less two
(2) years and four (4) months after his receipt of COA Chairman
Gangan's letter dated June 11, 1997, and three (3) years, three (3)
months and two (2) days after his receipt of the LIT Resident Auditor's
letter dated July 9, 1996, before he took his action of October 11,
1999, which not surprisingly, it was not heeded since even its wordings
are neither clear-cut nor categorical. It will further be noted that
the wishy-washy action taken by respondent does not square with the
urgency of the COA request in its two (2) letters dated January 28,
1997, wherein the respondent had been asked to have the audit findings
and recommendations "be fully implemented and the audit disallowance
contained under COA Decision No. 647 dated November 21, 1995 be
settled" (Records, pp. 35-34; Exhibit "3"), and dated July 29, 1997,
wherein he was further reminded that the subject disallowance on the
salaries paid to Engr. Caidic had become "final and executory"
(Records, p. 10).
"The fourth action taken by the
respondent on this specification appears to have been through his
Memorandum dated November 3, 1999 (Exhibit "19"), directing Engr.
Caidic to effect the refund of the amounts of P103,260.00, representing
salaries received by him as Assistant Administrator of evening classes
at LIT, and P36,089.30 representing the expenses incurred for his
scholarship at SAIDI, effective December 1, 1999. In the same
Memorandum, which is an addendum to his earlier Memorandum dated
October 11, 1999 (Exhibit "15"), respondent de la Rosa further stated
that "(i)f you opt for a staggered payment, you are directed to submit
a written schedule of payment within five (5) days from receipt hereof
with the approval of the LIT Resident Auditor".
"It should be pointed out that
the aforesaid fourth action on November 3, 1999 was taken by respondent
de la Rosa after the filing with the Commission of the present case and
after he and his counsel attended the scheduled initial preliminary
conference hearing thereon held on October 25, 1999 (Records, p. 82).
"The fifth and final action
taken by the respondent on this issue appears to have been through his
Memorandum dated November 15, 1999 (Records, p. 99), addressed to Engr.
Caidic, which specifically directed him to effect the payment of the
amounts of P103,260.00 and P36,089.30 on December 1, 1999" (Records, p.
99).
"The aforesaid fifth and final
action of the respondent on this issue was received through fax by the
Commission on December 1, 1999, which it could be surmised, was sent by
the respondent or his counsel on account of its non-inclusion on the
respondent's Memorandum and Formal Offer of Exhibits dated November 17,
1999 (Records, pp. 85-95).
"Also received by the
Commission, together with the aforesaid fifth and final action by
respondent de la Rosa, is a copy of a letter dated November 9, 1999, of
LIT Vice-President Caidic, addressed to the COA Resident Auditor at
LIT, in which he is appealing that the "refund of disallowance relative
to COA Decision No. 95-647 and tuition fee for SAIDI Scholarship . . .
be effected upon my retirement to be charged from the retirement funds. ." (Records, p. 98).
"On this issue, therefore, aside
from lack of proof to support certain explanations that he submitted,
respondent de la Rosa not only took an unreasonably long period of time
to take action on the COA audit finding and recommendation on the
manner but also showed an unwarranted conduct or attitude thereon which
may be viewed as giving undue advantage to his co-respondent Gonzalo B.
Caidic and/or lack of commitment to public interest.
"Accordingly, respondent de la
Rosa's explanation and/or defense on this specification is undoubtedly
unsatisfactory and unacceptable, about which he should be held liable
therefore.
"2.
"It is gathered that the COA
recommendation regarding scholarship contracts to be signed by and
between the scholars grantees and the school administration had been
earlier brought to the attention of the LIT administration in the COA
1990 Annual Audit Report on the Institute; that in relation to the
respondent in particular, the COA through its LIT Resident Auditor has
brought to his attention the same matter in two (2) separate instances,
first, through Memorandum dated July 9, 1996 (Exhibit "7"), and second,
through the letter dated January 28, 1997 (Exhibit "3"); that in the
two (2) COA letters (Exhibits "7" and "3"), it was explicitly indicated
that "(m)anagement should execute a Scholarship Contract with Engr.
Caidic to assure faithful adherence to the terms and conditions thereto
and to safeguard the interest of the government", which respondent
failed to comply and has not at all complied with until the present
time; and that while it appears that the respondent has implemented the
said requirement in a number of other cases, it also took him a
considerably long period of time to do so, as evidenced by the dates of
the copies of the scholarship contracts/agreements he submitted which
are respectively dated June 7, 1999 (Exhibit "16"), May 24, 1999
(Exhibit "16-a"), dated May 24, 1999 (Exhibit "16-b"), dated May 24,
1999 (Exhibit "16-c") and dated May 24, 1999 (Exhibit
"16-d").
"Viewed in the context of time
from July 9, 1996 when respondent de la Rosa was first requested to
implement the requirement on scholarship agreements with LIT scholars
grantees to the time when he actually implemented the said requirement
as of May 24, 1999, when he signed as Grantor the agreements of same
date (Exhibit "16-a" and "16-b"), or a period of two (2) years, eight
(8) months and sixteen (16) days, and more importantly, on account of
his unexplained failure to provide Engr. Caidic with the required
scholarship contract as repeatedly recommended by the COA, it is
axiomatic that respondent's explanation and/or defense relative to this
issue must likewise fall.
"3.
"While it cannot be denied that
there are indeed certain reforms implemented during the incumbency of
respondent de la Rosa as he pointed out in his counter-affidavit, such
as the designation through Special Order No. 07, s. 1998 of Dr.
Iluminado Nical as Chairman of the LIT Staff Development Committee,
whose functions, among others, is to monitor the progress of LIT
scholars/grantees (Exhibit "17"), yet it is a fact that the copy of
"Implementing Guidelines of the Training and Staff Development of the
Leyte Institute of Technology" (Exhibit "18"), has yet to be approved
by the LIT Board of Trustees for the same to be considered as effective.
"Thus, the same observations
specifically in relation to the factor of time in taking action
vis-a-vis the first two (2) issues or specifications above should
likewise be applied to the present issue or specification.
"4.
"The explanation of respondent
to the effect that he "acted on said decisions by instructing the Chief
Accountant, Elvira C. Valdemoro, to effect the refund as far as Engr.
Caidic is concerned, however, said Chief Accountant was on AWOL for the
period from October 06, 1994 to February 28, 1995 . . ." (Records, p.
29), is simply untenable and unbelievable, for the reason that Engr.
Caidic filed a request for reconsideration of the COA Decision No.
95-647 and he received a copy of the decision on his request only on
September 23, 1996, and that he thereafter filed a letter of appeal on
the same matter to the President Fidel V. Ramos, who referred the said
appeal to the COA which informed him that the matter "could not be
given due course on the ground that the decision therefore has already
become final and executory" (Records, p. 47; Exhibit "10"). The further
explanation or insinuation of the herein respondent that as a cause of
the delay on his action to the effect that "we could not finally act on
the matter as there were no available records as yet to refer to" for
the reason that the LIT Chief Accountant who went on AWOL had "the
records with her", is likewise untenable and unacceptable since he had
not given any reason at all as to why the said school official on AWOL
had the records in her possession in the first place (Records, p.
29).
"Reckoned from the time the LIT
Resident Auditor apprised the respondent through her letter dated July
29, 1997 (Records, p. 10), that the disallowance on the payment of
salaries to Engr. Caidic as Assistant Administrator of evening classes
at LIT for the years 1988 to 1990 "had become final and executory", and
requested him to "facilitate the prompt settlement of said
disallowance", to the time he actually took action on the matter
through his Memorandum dated October 11, 1999 (Exhibit "15"), it took
the respondent a period of two (2) years, two (2) months and twelve
(12) days, to do so, and even the action he took evinces an attitude of
indifference as he directed Engr. Caidic only "to settle these matters
as early as possible so as to avoid further stern action from the
Commission on Audit" (Exhibit "15").
"In fairness to respondent de la
Rosa, the subsequent action he had taken on this issue or
specification, namely, his Memoranda dated November 3, 1999 and
November 15, 1999 (Records, pp. 95 and 99), both addressed to Engr.
Caidic, are definitely more clear-cut and categorical although as
earlier pointed out the said actions came about after the filing of the
present complaint, and more importantly, after the respondent's
attendance at the initial preliminary conference hearing thereon held
on October 25, 1999. As earlier indicated above Engr. Caidic has
finally submitted an appeal to pay his accountabilities/disallowances
when he retires from the service, which can be conceded as having been
triggered by said two (2) letters of respondent.
"The relevant observations on
Issues 1, 2 and 3 above should also be applied to the present issue or
specification herein.
"In
sum, this Commission holds that respondent de la Rosa's liability in
the instant case proceeds from his palpable unjustified failure to take
appropriate action within a reasonable period of time, on the matter of
Issues Specifications Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 above, which thereby lend
credence to the report that there was connivance, between him and his
co-respondent Gonzalo B. Caidic, or more specifically, that he was
giving undue advantage in Caidic's favor to the prejudice of the
Government. For this, respondent de la Rosa violated Sec. 1, Chapter
1 and Sec. 55, Chapter 10, Subtitle B, Title I, Book V of Executive
Order No. 292, Sec. 4(a) of Republic Act No. 6713 and Sec. 3(f)
of Republic Act No. 3019. Such violations constitute Neglect of Duty
which is a ground for disciplinary action under Sec. 36(a)(3),
Article IX of Presidential Decree No. 807 (1985) and punishable under
Memorandum Circular No. 30, s. 1989 of the Civil Service Commission.
"WHEREFORE, premises considered
this Commission hereby resolves, and so recommends to His Excellency,
President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, that respondent Gregorio T. de la
Rosa, President, Leyte Institute of Technology, be held liable for
SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY and he be suspended from office for a period of
six (6) months without pay.
"SO ORDERED."
After an exhaustive study of the records of the instant case, this Office concurs with the findings and conclusions of the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption, supported as they are by substantive evidence on record.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing and as recommended by the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption, respondent Gregorio T. de la Rosa, President, Leyte Institute of Technology, is hereby suspended from office without pay for a period of six (6) months, effective upon his receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.
Done in the City of Manila, this 29th day of June, in the year of our Lord, Two Thousand.
chan robles virtual law library
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.