ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 31 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF SIX MONTHS SUSPENSION ON LIBERTY C. TUPAZ,
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(TESDA) REGION IX
This refers to the administrative case
against Liberty C. Tupaz, Regional Director, Technical Education and
Skills Development Authority (TESDA) Region IX, for violation of the
General Appropriations Act and other related laws.
The findings and recommendation of the then Presidential Commission
Against Graft and Corruption (PCAGC), as embodied in its Resolution
dated April 17, 2001, are quoted as follows:
"On
October 10, 1999 and November 10, 1999, this Commission issued a
subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum requiring the State Auditor
of TESDA Region IX to submit to this Commission some pertinent
documents relative to the alleged violation of the respondent. (pp. 17
and 18, Records)
"Upon evaluation of the
documents thus submitted, it was found that there was sufficient
evidence to commence an administrative investigation, hence, this
Commission pursuant to its powers under Executive Order No. 151, as
amended, issued on January 17, 2000, an order requiring the respondent
to submit her counter-affidavit/verified answer to the complaint
together with the affidavits of witnesses and other documents/papers in
her defense. (pp. 134 to 136, Records)
"On January 14, 2000, the
complaint was referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for appropriate
action on the criminal aspect of the case. (p. 133, Records)
"On 11 February 2000, the
respondent filed her counter-affidavit/verified answer together with
certain attached documents. (pp. 137 and 268, Records)
"A preliminary conference was
conducted on 23 February 2000 wherein both parties were duly
represented by their respective counsel. (pp. 280 and 281, Records)
"As agreed upon, the complainant
filed an amended verified complaint on March 7, 2000. (pp. 282 to 290,
Records)
"The amended complaint charged
the respondent of the following acts/omissions, to wit:
(1) that the
respondent received transportation allowance (TA) despite the fact that
a government vehicle was assigned to her;
(2) that the
respondent used the assigned vehicle without the appropriate mark "FOR
OFFICIAL USE ONLY";
(3)
that she failed to appoint an officer-in-charge to sign papers and
official documents in her absence during her frequent travels to
Dipolog City;
(4) that the
respondent failed to observe proper decorum in the discharge of her
official functions; and
(5) that the
respondent violated the law against nepotism when she designated Mr.
Edgar S. Cadavedo as officer-in-charge of the Provincial Office in
Zamboanga.
"In her
counter-affidavit/verified answer, the respondent averred as follows:
(1)
that she denies all the charges levelled against her;
(2) that while
she admitted to have received her transportation allowance from
November 1997 to December 1998, she altogether desisted from receiving
the transportation allowance when the Supreme Court issued a ruling in
the case of Aida Domingo vs. Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 112371,
October 7, 1998) in relation to COA Circular No. 2000-005 'that
whenever an official or employee entitled to transportation allowance
uses the government vehicle issued to his office, a corresponding
proportionate reduction on his transportation allowance shall be made';
(3) that she
claimed that her acts of designating Edgar Cadavedo did not constitute
a violation of the rules on nepotism because the latter is not related
to her within the third degree prohibited by the Civil Service
Law;
(4) she
averred that she used the government vehicle assigned to her without
the designated mark 'For Official Use Only' because of the threats
against her life and security;
(5) on the
charge of her frequent travels, she stated that there were some
national projects and programs which were personal accountability of
the Regional Director; and
(6) she denies
that she had never appointed any officer-in-charge during her travels.
(pp. 343 to 348, Records)
"On
October 2, 2000, the parties were directed to submit their respective
formal offer of evidence for the complainant on or before October 12,
2000 and for the respondent on or before October 17, 2000.
"The exhibits thus submitted,
disclosed that: (1) the respondent issued an office order dated
February 10, 1998 which provided that Tamaraw FX (Plate No. 611) should
be for the official use of the Regional Director (p. 293, Records); (2)
that the respondent designated Mr. Edgar S. Cadavedo, in her office
order dated January 12, 2000 (p. 283, Records); (3) that the
transportation allowance received by the respondent from November 1997
to November 1998 amounting to P73,800.00 was disallowed. (pp. 294 to
296, Records)
"Sec. 41 of the General Appropriations Act provides that:
'The transportation allowance
herein authorized shall not be granted to officials who are assigned a
government vehicle or use government motor vehicle'.
"The respondent by receiving a
transportation allowance despite the fact that she was assigned a
government vehicle violated the above-quoted provision in the General
Appropriations Act.
"Although the respondent denied
all the charges levelled against her, it was, however, indubitably
shown that she was administratively liable for violation of Sec. 41
General Appropriations Act (GAA) in relation to Republic Act No. 3019,
as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, for receiving transportation allowance notwithstanding the fact
that she was assigned a government motor vehicle.
"Her
defense that, from the time of the ruling of the Supreme Court in the
case of Aida Domingo vs. Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 112371, October
7, 1998), she desisted from receiving said transportation allowance is
unavailing considering that the law prohibiting the collection of
transportation allowance when an officer is assigned/using a government
vehicle was already in place/in effect. The best that she could have
done was to have refunded the amount.
"On the charge of nepotism
against the respondent, Sec. 6, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Law is
applicable, reading as follows:
'No appointment in the national,
province, city and municipal government or in any branch or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporation with original charters shall be made in favor of a relative
of the appointing or recommending authority, or of the chief of the
bureau or office, or of the persons exercising immediate supervision
over the appointee.
'Unless otherwise specifically
provided by law, as used in this Section , the word "relative" and
members of the family referred to those related within the third degree
either of consanguinity or of affinity.'
"The
records of the case failed to show, however, that the appointee is
related to the respondent within the third degree either of
consanguinity or of affinity, hence, respondent is not administratively
responsible therefore."
"As regards the other charges,
the same are dismissed for insufficiency of evidence."
"WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing, this Commission finds respondent Liberty C. Tupaz, Regional
Director, Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA)
Region IX, GUILTY for violation of Sec. 41, General Appropriations Acts
in relation to Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and so recommends to Her
Excellency, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, that the penalty of
suspension from the service for six (6) months be imposed."
"SO RESOLVED."
After an exhaustive review of the records of the case, this Office
concurs with findings and conclusions of the Presidential Commission
Against Graft and Corruption supported as they are by substantial
evidence.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing and as recommended by the
Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption, respondent
Liberty C. Tupaz, Regional Director, Technical Education and Skills
Development Authority (TESDA), Region IX, is hereby suspended from
office without pay for a period of six (6) months effective upon
receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.
Manila, Philippines, March 4, 2002
|