REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

OFFICE OF THE OBUDSMAN

Ombudsman Building 
Agham Road, North Triangle 
Diliman, Quezon City

ZOSIMO DIVINGRACIA PAAT

Complainant,

-versus- OMB-C-A-15-0252

JOSE JOBEL BELARMINO

ANITA LUCINA LOMBOYA
NESTOR BERNARDO FLORES
AYLWINSTON CANALE PILLOS
Respondents.
x--------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND CLARIFICATION

(On Decision dated 30 September 2016)

Respondents by counsel and unto this Honourable Office most respectfully

state that:

 Respondents are all regular employees of the Light Rail Transit Authority
(LRTA), evidenced by their duly filed Personal Data Sheets, hereby attached as
ANNEXES “A-1”, “A-2”, “A-3”, and “A-4”;

 Respondents have served the LRTA in their respective and commendable

lengths of service, untainted by other administrative, criminal, or civil charges for
offenses, other than the above-titled case as first offense. Copies of the
Respondents’ individual LRTA Service Records are hereby attached as ANNEXES
“B-1”, “B-2”, “B-3”, and “B-4”;

 Respondents were meted out the penalty of one month suspension without
pay as a result of the findings of this Honourable Office for the above-titled case

1|Page
last September 30, 2016. A copy of the Decision is hereby attached as ANNEX
“C”;

 The penalty was implemented by the Light Rail Transit Authority together
the Department of Transportation and subsequently served by herein respondents.
A copy of the Notice of Implementation and Compliance Report are hereby
attached as ANNEXES “D” and “E”, respectively;

 The same Respondents were also charged in OMB-C-C-15-0267, for

violations of Sec. 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019 and Sec. 23 of Republic Act 9184,
which resulted to a DISMISSAL rendered in a Resolution dated February 1, 2017.
A copy of the Resolution is hereby annexed as ANNEX “F”, and;

 Herein Respondents file this Motion not to undermine or dilute the findings
of this Honourable Office in the above-entitled case, but rather, to seek
reconsideration and clarification as to their entitlement to Government approved
Performance Based Incentives, including, but not limited to:

1. Mid-year Bonuses
2. Year-end Bonuses
3. Performance Based Bonuses
4. Performance Enhancement Incentives

 In the case of Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma1, the Supreme Court

ratiocinated, thus:

“xxxxxxxx respondent was found guilty of simple misconduct by this Court

when she accepted amounts meant for the payment of Environmental
Compliance Certificates and failed to account for P460.00. The Court noted
that [d]ismissal and forfeiture of benefits, however, are not penalties imposed
for all infractions, particularly when it is a first offense.”

1
G.R. No. 154521, 30 September 2005

 Following this doctrine, the case of Cesar S. Dumduma 

vs. Civil Service Commission2 added further:

“While justice exhorts that petitioner suffer the full penalties imposed by
law, temperance cries out that he be recognized for whatever good he has
done prior to his mistake.”

2|Page
  Respondents file this Motion before this Honourable Office to save their
entitlement to the benefits they justly deserve, not just in law or jurisprudence, but
also in justice through compassion. This administrative case have had its effect on
the Respondents, despite being an innocuous event, they accepted the punishment
and to render it just, a plea of leniency is hereby made relating to their entitlement
to Government Performance Based Bonuses or Incentives.

 The Respondents also ask from this Honourable Office due course on this
Motion in as much as the timeliness of its filing is concerned; It is only quite
recently that the Respondents were informed of this seeming issue on their
benefits, which calls for the temperance on the technical rules of this Honourable
Office. Go vs. Tan3 is resonant in declaring:

“The rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate

the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result
in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice,
must always be eschewed.”

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honourable Office that the instant Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification be
granted, and the issue on entitlements be clarified.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

2
G.R. No. 182606, 04 December 2011 
3
G.R. No. 130330, 26 September 2003
City of _____________ for Quezon City, 07 April 2017.

ATTY. JOSE JOBEL V. BELARMINO

Counsel for ___________
Lot 15 Block 25 Midland Drive,
Ridgemont Executive Village, Taytay, Rizal
Roll No. 42377
IBP No. 1068020 / 01- 18 -17 / Quezon City
PTR No. 4760995 / 01-18-17 / Quezon City
MCLE Compliance No. V – 0007074

Copy furnished:

3|Page
CELENE M. ANDREA
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT
G/F, DBM Bldg III, Gen. Solano St., San Miguel, Manila

EXPLANATION ON THE SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

Copy of the foregoing MOTION was served to the adverse party by

registered mail due to lack of material time and office personnel to effect personal
service.

ATTY. JOSE JOBEL V. BELARMINO

Counsel for ___________
Lot 15 Block 25 Midland Drive,
Ridgemont Executive Village, Taytay, Rizal
Roll No. 42377
IBP No. 1068020 / 01- 18 -17 / Quezon City
PTR No. 4760995 / 01-18-17 / Quezon City
MCLE Compliance No. V – 0007074

4|Page