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. 135 -
CENSURING MR. ROMEO N. ALCASID, DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF ANIMAL
INDUSTRY, WITH WARNING
This refers to the Administrative case
filed by Messrs. Romulo S. Directo and Crisanto P. Cerezo against
Director Romeo N. Alcasid, Martiniano dela Cruz, Lilia B. Bernal,
Aurora Capiral and Lolita Castillo, all of the Bureau of Animal
Industry for Graft and Corruption, and Harassment arising from the
withholding of complainants' salaries from July 1, 1994 until they
report to their place of assignment at the Domarao Livestock Production
Center in Capiz. The case was investigated by the Presidential
Commission Against Graft and Corruption (PCAGC).
Records show that on September 1, 1991, complainant Directo was
appointed as Agriculturist II, and was assigned at the Domarao
Livestock Production Center in Domarao, Capiz. The other complainant
Cerezo applied for the position of Agricultural Technologist at the
Livestock Development Division, Central Office (Manila). His
appointment was approved, but instead of being assigned to the Central
Office, he was likewise deployed to Domarao Livestock Production Center
in Capiz.
On September 6, 1991, complainants were each asked to sign a
Certification by respondent Romeo N. Alcasid, Director of the Livestock
Development Division, to the effect that they were agreeable to the
assumption of their duties at the Domarao Livestock Production Center
in Capiz. This Certification was presented as common evidence by both
parties during the trial.
On September 23, 1991, respondent Alcasid wrote a Memorandum to
complainant Directo informing him that his appointment was already
approved, and that he has to report, effective October 1, 1991, to the
Chief, Livestock Development Division, for assignment to duty at the
Domarao Livestock Production Center in Domarao, Capiz.
However, instead of reporting to Domarao, complainant Directo continued
to report for work at the main office in Manila up to the present time.
He visited his work station in Capiz only on certain occasions, at
least eight (8) times since his appointment in 1991. But despite such
arrangement, complainant never stopped receiving his salary until July
1994. Hence, this complaint for alleged illegal withholding of his
salary.
Respondents justified the withholding of complainant's salary for the
month of July, 1994 on the sole ground that since "complainant has not
assumed his duties as Agriculturist II at Domarao, Capiz, he certainly
is not entitled to receive the increased salaries corresponding to said
position." (Memorandum of Arguments for the Respondents).
Complainant Directo countered that he reported for work to their main
office in Manila for the whole month of July 1994, as evidenced by his
daily time record for the said month, duly signed by his supervisor. He
further alleged that he was reluctant to sign the said Certification,
but he was prevailed upon by his immediate head, Director Onofre S.
Bonifacio, and was assured that such Certification would not in any way
disturb his present work assignment in their main office, as he was
actually proposed for the vacant position existing at the office of the
Livestock Development Division in Manila.
Complainant Directo further contended that the Certification
requirement was being applied by respondent Alcasid on a selective
basis, as not all those who were newly-appointed and assigned to the
field were asked to sign the same. Complainant alleged that he and the
other complainant Cerezo were the first to be asked to do so for no
other reason but to harass them.
Incidentally, a complaint against herein complainants Directo and
Cerezo was filed by respondent Alcasid before the Office of the
Ombudsman on September 16, 1993 for alleged violation of Sec. 3(e)
of Republic Act No. 3019, for their willful refusal to report to their
place of assignment in Domarao Livestock Production Center in Capiz. In
a Resolution dated August 19, 1994, the Office of the Ombudsman
dismissed said complaint on the ground that no injury was caused to the
government by Directo and Cerezo's failure to stay permanently in
Domarao, Capiz. Furthermore, the Office of the Ombudsman found that the
Certification-requirement of complainant Alcasid (respondent herein)
was applied on a "selective basis". Thus,
"xxx
. . From the facts gathered herein, the assignment of respondents to
Domarao, Capiz was unnecessary and therefore uncalled for. It appearing
that the other personnel (who were) promoted were not subjected to the
same requirement of signing a certification of willingness to be
assigned any where, it can only (be) surmised that complainant is
biased against herein respondents, as further shown by complainant's
inaction on the two previous recommendations of the promotion of herein
respondent Directo, Jr. When asked why Director Alcasid is (sic)
prejudiced against them, respondents alleged that they have been active
in exposing anomalies and graft in the Bureau of Animal Industry. The
very satisfactory performance ratings of herein respondents belie the
charge that they are causing undue injury to the government by their
failure to assume their assignments in Domarao, Capiz. It also appears
that herein respondents are effective and productive in their present
work at the LDD Central Office.
xxx
After due evaluation, the PCAGC issued a resolution on September 28,
1994, finding respondent Alcasid guilty of discrimination against
complainants and recommending that he be censured, with a warning that
any repetition of said act shall be dealt with more severely. As to the
other respondents, the complaint against them was dismissed for lack of
evidence of their complicity to the discriminatory act of respondent
Alcasid.
After careful study, this Office concurs in the findings and
recommendation of the PCAGC.
The evidence veritably shows that complainants were indeed
discriminated against by respondent Alcasid, as shown by the fact that
they were the only ones asked to sign a Certification that they were
willing to report to their place of assignment at Domarao Livestock
Production Center in Capiz, while the other newly-appointed personnel
of the same Division were not; or if they were, their salaries were not
withheld even if they did not report regularly to their designated work
station.
If the sole reason for the withholding of complainants' salaries was
their refusal to assume their duties as Agriculturist II and
Agricultural Technologist, respectively, in Domarao Livestock
Production Center, Capiz, it strikes us that it was only their salary
for the month of July 1994 that was withheld, and not those for the
past months, years even, after their appointment as Agriculturist II
and Agricultural Technologist in Domarao, Capiz was approved in
September, 1991.
Respondent Alcasid's explanation that he allowed complainants to
collect their salaries from September 1991 up to June 1994 although
they were not regularly reporting to their duly designated station at
Domarao, Capiz, because at first, he was lenient with the complainants,
but later decided to be strict for their continued defiance of his
orders to report to their designated station, only to relent later, and
direct the release of their salaries starting 1995 upon threats of
being haled to court, fails to impress us. If respondent Alcasid
believed in the lawfulness of his orders, no amount of threats, real or
imagined, could have stopped him from implementing the same for then,
he would have the law to protect him from any lawsuit the complainants
may file against him.
Parenthetically, this Office, cannot countenance complainants conduct
of agreeing to their promotion as Agriculturist II and Agricultural
Technologist, respectively, in Domarao, Capiz without reporting
regularly to their place of assignment. Complainants committed mental
dishonesty when they signed their promotion papers without meaning to
carry out the corresponding duties of the same because they were
assured that such Certification would not in any way disturb (their)
present work assignment in the main office. While this practice may
have been tolerated in the past, this Office finds the same
reprehensible.
If complainants did not want to go to Capiz because their families were
in Manila, and in the case of complainant Directo, he was at that time
pursuing his Ph. D. in a university in the same place, then they should
not have agreed to their promotion as Agriculturist II and Agricultural
Technologist, respectively in Domarao Livestock Production Center.
Instead, they should have held on to their former positions in the main
office and waited for any vacancy which they could apply for.
Consequently, this Office is convinced that the withholding of ROMULO
DIRECTO JR. and CRISANTO CEREZO'S salaries for the month of July, 1994,
was justified.
WHEREFORE, Director Romeo N. Alcasid of the Bureau of Animal Industry
is hereby censured and warned that repetition of the same act in the
future will be dealt with more severely.
The complaint against the other respondents is dismissed for lack of
evidence that will establish their complicity with the discriminatory
act of respondent Alcasid.
Done of the City of Manila,
Philippines, this 4th day of September, in the year of our Lord, Two
Thousand.
chan
robles virtual law library
Back
to Main
Since 19.07.98.