Anda di halaman 1dari 7

c 


  
c  c 
   
 



 
c
    !""#"$# %
 &
p 
- versus- '

% %c
()( c )
*   
c)!
c  %(
c  

u u

 
  c

  + Respondents, Gladys Hope Tesoro and Rhoda


Ablaza, through the undersigned counsel, in compliance with
the Order of the Honorable, through the Hearing Officer ,
respectfully submits this Position Paper and, in support
hereof, avers that:

c 
c*




³Public service is a public trust. Public


officers and employees must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency,
act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest
1
lives.´ This is the substratum of the democratic
republican character of the State which simplifies
the intricate precepts and canons for public
servants who hold public office as mere agents and
representatives of the people, to whom they owe
honest and unselfish public service.

It is disappointing, especially for obedient


citizens, to behold public servants who could only
qualify in reciting or putting down the letters of

???????????????????????????????????????? ????????
O
 O
   O 
POSITION PAPER (for the Complainant) Page 2 of 7
 
 
  
 ! "## $  
%   & '(   

the above provisions upon entering the civil


service. After employment, these supposed servants
become oblivious of the principles upon which the
government subsists. They will exact obedience from
rather than obey the will of their principals. They
would prostitute public office to advance their
personal and family interest, finding every
possible ways to fatten their pockets, most classic
of which is the exaction of unnecessary fees in the
form of feigned regulation.

% 

 

1. On October 26,2007, upon the order of Ms. Virginia


Mangubat, herein respondents submitted their written
explanation to Mrs. Mangubat concerning the incident
which took place at the Office of the Professional
teachers (OPT) Releasing Unit on October 15, 2007
which is the subject of the instant complaint.

2. Briefly stated the explanation of herein


respondents states, thus:
2.1 That on the date of said incident,pursuant to our
mandated duties and responsibilities, we were encoding
information of teachers, who were applying for renewal of
their license and attending to other clerical work at the
window where the public transacts their business;

2.2. That around 11:00 in the morning, Ms. Dana Joy de


Pedro filed for an application for the renewal of her
license;That around 1:00 in the afternoon, Ms. Dana Joy
de Pedro came back and askedif she can claim her renewed
license earlier than the prescribed release date of her
license. We received instructions from Ms. Ma. Luisa
Ortiz to advise Ms. Dana Joy de Pedro to avail of the
express lane services. We followed Ms. Ortiz¶ order,Ms De
Pedro,indeed availed of the express lane service;

2.3 That when Ms. De Pedro gave the payment for the
express service, we gaveit to Ms. Ortiz but the
latterinstructed respondents to give it to Mr.
ZoiloFlores.Thereafter,Ms. Ortiz gave us a folded paper
and again instructed us to give it to Ms. DePedro. We
followed her instructions not knowing that the said
folded paper was a used receipt in the name of Lulu, M.
J. Q.
POSITION PAPER (for the Complainant) Page 3 of 7
 
 
  
 ! "## $  
%   & '(   

1 About first week of November 2010, herein Complainant


Edna Mudto approached respondent Victorino A. Caceres,
Security Officer I, detailed at the Public Order and Safety
Department (POSD) and designated as Operations Officer of
Task Force, Gate 2, to inquire about the feasibility of her
plans to put up stalls in a vacant lot near CMA and along
Alfelor Avenue, during and a little after the Christmas
season;

2. Adamant to act on the Complainant¶s request,


Respondent Caceres directed the Complainant to course
through her request to a certain Gringo Valdez. Upon
meeting with Gringo Valdez, Complainant asked him if the
City Government of Antipolo would allow her to sell dry
goods in the mentioned lot. Gringo readily replied that it
may be approved, but he was going to bring the matter first
to Mr. Randy Cabanza, OIC/Executive Assistant of City Hall-
Annex C. Thereupon, the Complainant told Gringo Valdez her
willingness to lease out the entire lot for a Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php 100, 000.00) for a period of fifty (50)
days. The said lot has an area of more or less 400 square
meters;

3. On the night of November 10, 2010, Complainant


withdrew , ) % from her bank account intended as
initial payment for the rent of the vacant lot. Thereafter,
accompanied by Gringo Valdez, she proceeded to the Office
of Respondent Randy Cabanza. Inside the Office of
Respondent Cabanza and in the distant presence and view of
the Complainant, Gringo Valdez handed the , )% to
Respondent Cabanza;

4. Four days later, the Complainant was informed by


Gringo Valdez that respondent Victorino Caceres wanted to
talk to her and that he was expecting the complainant to
POSITION PAPER (for the Complainant) Page 4 of 7
 
 
  
 ! "## $  
%   & '(   

come to the Office of POSD by night of the same date. As


expected, Complainant Mudto showed up at POSD office, where
she was informed by Respondent Caceres that her application
for lease of the vacant lot was about to be approved.
Thereupon, the Complainant handed to Respondent Caceres,
through Gringo Valdez, the , ) % additional
initial rental. To complete the , -)% representing
the fifty percent (50%) of the rental, the Complainant, the
following day, gave to Gringo Valdez the sum of , .)
%.

5. On November 17, 2010, respondent Cabanza issued ten


(10) temporary permits to ten different names, the
Complainant included. Under the terms of the temporary
permits, the Complainant and her nine (9) relatives-fellow
vendors will start occupying the lot and do their ³tiangge´
activities therein from November 18, 2010 to January 6,
2011. On the night of November 17, 2010 and before the
Complainant and her relatives could completely put up
stalls, Respondent Cabanza came up to the vacant lot and
recalled the originals of the temporary permits. Except for
the one issued in her name, Complainant Mudto returned to
Cabanza the nine original temporary permits. In the early
morning of the November 18, 2010, respondent Eduardo
Callanta and Col. Julian Pantunial, the Head of POSD,
inspected the area and directed the complainant to
dismantle her stalls despite the latter¶s presentation of
the Temporary Permit issued by Respondent Cabanza;

6. Due to the question on the legality of her temporary


business permit, the Complainant was able to operate
³tiangge´ in the subject lot only on November 27, 2011. The
following day, however, he was again stopped from operating
and was allowed to resume business on December 3, 2011,
accordingly upon the permission of the City Mayor on
humanitarian ground.
POSITION PAPER (for the Complainant) Page 5 of 7
 
 
  
 ! "## $  
%   & '(   

4. Complainant¶s ³tiangge´ business was supposed to last


per November 17, 2010 Temporary Permit until January 6,
2011, but the same was unceremoniously pre-terminated on
January 3, 2011, allegedly upon order of the City Mayor.

5. Aggrieved by the respondents¶ misrepresentation as to


the legality and validity of the temporary business permit,
the Complainant filed a Letter Complaint before the Office
of the City Mayor on January 10, 2010. The Office of the
City Mayor, through its Legal Office, issued its January
20, 2011 Memorandum addressed to respondents Cabanza,
Callanta and Caceres, directing them to submit to the said
Office their Counter-Affidavit/Comment on the allegations
of the Complainant;

6. After the Respondents¶ filing of their respective


Counter-Affidavits, the Investigation Committee of the
Legal Office conducted hearings on the case on February 16
and 22, 2011, March 1, 4 and 7, 2011. Thereafter, the
Investigation Committee issued its March 11, 2011 Order,
directing the parties to submit their respective position
paper within ten (10) days from receipt thereof;

7. The Complainant, through counsel, received the said


Order on March 17, 2011; thus, she has until March 28, 2011
to file her position paper, the tenth day (March 27,2011)
being a non-working day.

%  
 c  

6. The lone issue calling for resolution of the


Board is: Whether or not the respondents could be held
administratively liable for grave misconduct.

%   /c


7. Coming to fore in this case are these primordial


questions: ü  ³Are respondents empowered or legally
POSITION PAPER (for the Complainant) Page 6 of 7
 
 
  
 ! "## $  
%   & '(   

authorized to issue and sign business permits, temporary or


otherwise?; ü May business permits, temporary or
otherwise, in the City of Antipolo be issued to any
applicant without corresponding processing fee or charge?;
and ü If the issuance of a business permit, temporary or
otherwise, in the City of Antipolo requires payment of
processing fee, are respondents authorized to receive the
payment sans official receipt?

8. It was established that respondent Cabanza has


issued ten (10) temporary permits in favor of the
Complainant and her nine fellow-vendors .2 Although
respondent Cabanza affirmed to have issued temporary
permits on November 18, 2011,3 the only original temporary
permit that was left to the Complainant¶s posseesion
indicates its issuance on November 17, 2010.4 During the
hearing on March 7, 2011, Respondent Cabanza affirmed that
he was not authorized to issue permits. He thus testified:

9. Respondent Cabanza¶s admission that he is not


authorized to issue and, much less, sign business permits,
temporary or otherwise, is buttressed by the January 18,
5
2011 Special Report of Retired Col. Julian F. Pantonial,
who stated that he was not informed nor consulted by OIC
Cabanza about the issuance of temporary permits.

10. Respondent Cabanza¶s acts alone of issuing and


signing temporary permits constitute ³grave misconduct´ as
he was misrepresenting himself to have the authority to do
so when, by law, that power is exclusively vested in the
City Mayor as the local chief executive. Worse, in issuing
the same permits, he had the temerity of exacting fees and
charges for its issuance without corresponding official
receipts;

???????????????????????????????????????? ????????
˜
)  
  ˜ OO 
???
??
*
%+' ,-

? ?
?????
POSITION PAPER (for the Complainant) Page 7 of 7
 
 
  
 ! "## $  
%   & '(   

11.

c* c

+ c c , it is respectfully prayed unto the


Honorable Office that after considering the evidence on
record a decision be rendered finding the respondents not
guilty of grave misconduct, and accordingly dismiss the
instant complaint against them and reinstating them to
active duty in government service.

Relief and other remedies just and equitable under the


premises is likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted, Manila, March 28, 2011.

*   
c    c  %(
c  
  c  
 

 c    +c 
 before me this 28th of March
2011 at City of Manila, affiant exhibiting to me her
________________.

Doc. No. ____;


Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2011.