The legal counsel of the two regular traffic aides of Bacolod City, who have been ordered dismissed from service after being found guilty of the administrative charges filed against them, said they will appeal the decision of the mayor.

Mayor Evelio Leonardia has ordered Traffic Aides 1 Arnel Mondejar and Germale Federico dismissed from service with forfeiture of benefits for unauthorized absences, falsification and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.  Federico was also charged for habitual tardiness.

Cesar Beloria Jr., counsel for the respondents, yesterday said they will file a motion for reconsideration with the City Mayor’s Office. If this is denied, they will file an appeal with the Civil Service Commission, he said.

The investigating committee, created on April 28 to conduct a formal investigation on the matter, submitted its findings and recommendations on May 21 because the respondents failed to file their counter-affidavits after the lapse of 10 days, which was extended to May 16.

City Legal Officer Allan Zamora said he fully concurred with the committee’s findings and recommended to the mayor the dismissal of the traffic aides, which is immediately executory.

The decision dated May 23, 2008, signed by Leonardia, stated that Mondejar was absent or did not report for work on August 17 and 24, 2007 and on April 8, 10 and 11, 2008 as reflected in the Bacolod Traffic Authority Office Daily Attendance Sheets.

While Federico was also absent on August 17 and 24, 2007, and on April 10 and 11, 2008.

It was all the time that the respondents committed unauthorized absences, but they indicated in their DTR that they were present so they were able to receive their salaries even for those days, the decision said.

Beloria said they expected the decision. He said that from the start of the investigation, the respondents have answered the violations of habitual tardiness and unauthorized absences filed against them. But their answers were never considered, he added.

Instead of submitting a counter-affidavit, they submitted an answer with a request to dismiss the charges filed against them, Beloria said.

They also asked for the deferment of the investigation because they are questioning the procedure, he said.

The request of the respondents was denied by the investigating committee which cited Section 48, Book V, Administrative Code of 1987 that states that “administrative proceedings may be commenced against a subordinate officer or employee by the secretary or head of office, or head of the local government, or chief of agencies….or upon sworn, written complaint of any other person.”

Beloria said “Our only concern is that if my clients have committed violation, the city should observe the proper rules applicable to the case and we will submit to their decision.”

He believes that the city should observe Sections 78 and 84 of the Local Government Code concerning matters pertaining to human resource and development including administrative discipline, he said, as well as, Rule 3 Section 40 of Uniformed Rules of Administrative Procedure.

Beloria said they will stick to their stand. However, they will submit to the decision of the CSC, he said.

He said they are also studying the possibility of filing separate charges against the officials concerned before the Office of the Ombudsman.*CGS

back to top