REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS)

Department of Agriculture RO-7 Compound
M. Velez St, M. Guadalupe, 6000 Cebu City

XXXXXXXX
Complainant,
OMB-V-C-17-0255
-versus- For: Violation of Section 3(e)
of R..A. No. 3019/Violation of
XXXXXXX R.A. No. 9184
XXXXXXX

OMB-V-A-17-0255
For: Grave Misconduct/
XXXXXXXX Violation of Section 5(a) of
R.A.
XXXXXX No. 6713.
XXXXXX
Respondents
X-------------------X

REPLY-AFFIDAVIT

COMPLAINANT, unto this Honorable Office, respectfully states that:

1. Respondents violated Section 5(a) of R.A. 6173, and Section 3(e) of R.A.
3019 and R.A. 9184, and Section, based on the following:

REASONS

A) Both the Respondents Violated

Section 5(a) of R.A. 6713

2. Section 5 (a) of R.A. 6713, otherwise known as “The Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees” provides and quoted
as follows:
“Section 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees. - In the
performance of their duties, all public officials and employees are
under obligation to:
(a) Act promptly on letters and requests. - All public officials and
employees shall, within fifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof,
respond to letters, telegrams or other means of communications sent by
the public. The reply must contain the action taken on the request.”
3. It will be noted that in re: paragraph 38 of the counter-affidavit filed by
respondent XXXXXX, the statements contained therein can be considered to
be without basis. Again, complainant reiterates his statements in paragraph
13 of his complaint-affidavit. If indeed there was an immediate action on
the 100% billing request from herein complainant was done by respondent
Cardoso, the same was not made known to the complainant.

4. Complainant is not aware of the endorsements mentioned in the counter-

affidavit (Annexes “U” and “V” of the counter-affidavit.). The same
annexes is believed to have been purportedly prepared antedated in support
of their allegation after respondents received a copy of herein complaint.
Clearly, such exploits on the part of the respondents in establishing the fact
that the endorsements were done on the date reflected in the said documents
clearly manifests unorthodox act of a public official mandated and expected
to act with high ethical standards and worthy of administrative sanctions.

5. Respondent’s assertions that an endorsement on 15 August 2016 and 25

August 2016 are mere fabrications. In truth and in fact, after the 10 August
2016 request for final inspection and 100% billing, and due to the failure of
herein respondents to act upon the request, subsequent requests were sent on
02 September and 20 October 2016.

6. Further, in her reply, respondent XXXXXX alleged that the endorsements

and the actions to determine the entitlement to 100% billing will take more
than fifteen (15) days, they should have formally informed herein
complainant pursuant to Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 6713 in relation
with Section 3(a)(2), Rule VI of the Rules Implementing Republic Act No.
6713.

7. Indeed, based on official records received by the complainant, it was only

after the subsequent request for 100% billing and inspection report dated 20
October 2016 , or almost two (2) months that respondent XXXXX acted on
the 10 August 2016 billing and inspection report by endorsing the same to
XXXXXX on 21 October 2016. Which the latter further endorsed the same
to respondent XXXXX on 26 October 2016.

8. However, the same endorsement was not acted upon until 12 January 2017.
Prior to 12 January 2017, XXXXXX manipulated to establish issues such as
delays with the end view to terminate the subject contracts. Respondent
xxxxxx attempted to hand over ante-dated letters in December 2016 to
xxxxxx and xxxxxxxx (Paragraphs 20, 21, and 23 of the complaint).

9. Six (6) months from 10 August 2016 request for 100% billing and
inspection, or on 10 February 2017, complainant received the 5th
endorsement from VP xxxxxx. On 17 February 2017 Complainant sent a
final demand to respondents.
10.Clearly, respondents violated Section 5 (a) of R.A. 6713 for their failure to
act promptly on letters and request within fifteen working days.

11.It may be noteworthy to mention that the notices to comply dated 18 May,
31 August, 11 and 19 October 10 November 2016 were furnished to persons
not authorized by herein Complainant to receive any document or
communication for and in his behalf who are not employees of xxxxxxxx.
The notice to comply dated 24 October 2016, including the notices to
comply previously mentioned never reached the hands of herein
complainant.

12.In OMB-C-A-05-0065- , the Supreme Court, finding the petitioners Edita S.

Bueno (National Electrification Administration [NEA] Administrator) and
Milagros E. Quinajon (Director of NEA's Institutional Development
Department) guilty of violation of Section 5 (a) of Republic Act No. (RA)
6713 otherwise known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees."The Ombudsman found sufficient evidence
for violation of Section 5(a) of RA 6713, viz:

Records would show that the letter dated November 3, 2004 of

Alejandro E. Ranchez was received by the NEA Records
Section on November 4, 2004 x x x. It would appear however,
that on May 27, 2004 or almost six (6) months before the said
letter of Ranchez, the NEA Board of Administrator[s] had
already passed Resolution No. 56. Nonetheless, there is nothing
in the records that would show that the NEA administration
exerted efforts to enlighten Ranchez of the effect of Resolution
No. 56 to his petition for review or reconsideration nor put an
end to the issues brought about by his petition for review or
reconsideration.

13.Further, may we register our comment re: paragraph 20 and 21 of the

counter-affidavit filed by respondent xxxxxx. Her statements reflects a
resounding manifestation and admission that respondent xxxxx acted on the
August 10 request beyond the fifteen (15) days period mandated by the
provisions of R.A 6713.

14.The fact alone that complainant requested for final inspection of all projects
evidently proves that he had complied with his obligations under the
contracts, hence, said requests are considered and tantamount to an
accomplishment or progress report required from him.

15.In their individual Counter-Counter Affidavits both respondents miserably

failed to refute the statements in my complaint-affidavit of their failure to act
upon my request for 100% Billing and Final Inspection within the period of
FIFTEEN (15) DAYS as provided for by Section 5 (a) of R.A. 6713.

16.Having failed to refute or deny such statements, such averments are hereby
deemed admitted by both respondents.
B) Both the Respondents Violated
Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019

17.Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, otherwise known as “The Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act” provides and quoted as follows that:
“Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or
omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are
hereby declared to be unlawful:
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government,
or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and
employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant
of licenses or permits or other concessions.”
18.While respondent xxxxxxx denied the allegations of having violated the
above-quoted provisions, the arguments interposed by her are bereft of
merits.
19.Again, we reiterate our position that the highly unorthodox and unethical
conduct of defendant Uy in furnishing copies of ante dated letters, subject
matter of paragraphs 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the complaint-affidavit duly noted
by defendant xxxxxx substantiates and confirms an evident violation of the
provisions of the Act.
20.In paragraph 23 of the counter-affidavit, complainant is not even aware and
did not receive a copy of the subject Board Resolution Nos. 21 and 22, s,
2017 of the Board of Regents of the xxxxxxxxx Subject Board Resolution
was a result of the deliberation during their Board meeting conducted on
June 23, 2017 which significantly is an apparent verification of malicious
intent and bad faith on the part of herein respondents to the prejudice and
injury of herein complainant.
21.On the other hand, defendant xxxxxx failed to refute the allegations in the
complaint –affidavit by a general denial of the allegations.

C) Both the Respondents Violated

Certain Provisions of R.A. 9184

22.Republic Act 9184 which is AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE

MODERNIZATION, STANDARIZATION AND REGULATION OF THE
PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES provides and hereunder quoted as follows:
““ IV. PROCEDURES FOR TERMINATION OF
CONTRACTS

1. Verification. Upon receipt of a written report of acts

or causes which may constitute ground/s for
termination as aforementioned, or upon its own
initiative, the Implementing Unit shall, within a period
of seven (7) calendar days verify the existence of such
ground/s and cause the execution of a Verified Report,
with all relevant evidence attached.
2. Notice to Terminate. Upon recommendation by the
Implementing Unit, the Head of the Procuring Entity
shall terminate contracts only by a written notice to the
Supplier/Contractor conveying the termination of the
contract. The notice shall state:

a) that the contract is terminated for any of the

following ground(s) aforementioned, and a
statement of the acts that constitute the ground(s)
constituting the same;
b) the extent of the termination, whether in whole or
in part;
c) an instruction to the
Supplier/Contractor/Consultant to show cause as
to why the contract should not be terminated; and
d) special instructions of the Procuring Entity, if any.

3. Show Cause. Within a period of seven (7) calendar

days from the receipt of the Notice of Termination, the
Supplier/Contractor/Consultant shall submit to the
Head of the Procuring Entity a verified position paper
stating why the contract should not be terminated.

If the Supplier/Contractor/Consultant fails to show

cause after the lapse of seven (7) days, either by
inaction or by default, the Head of the Procuring
Entity shall issue an order terminating the contract.

4. Rescission of Notice of Termination. The Procuring

Entity may, at any time before receipt of the
Supplier’s/Contractor’s/Consultant’s verified position
paper to withdraw the Notice to Terminate if it is
determined that certain items or works subject of the
notice had been completed, delivered or performed
before the Supplier’s/Contractor’s/Consultant’s receipt
of the notice.
 5. Decision. Within a non-extendible period of ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of the verified position
paper, the Head of the Procuring Entity shall decide
whether or not to terminate the contract. It shall serve
a written notice to the Supplier/Contractor/Consultant
of the notice of decision. The termination shall only be
based on the ground(s) stated in the Notice to
Terminate.

23.Paragraph 35 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent xxxxxx is contrary

to the statements in the complaint affidavit contained in paragraphs 31, 32,
33, 34 and 35. Indeed, complainant quoted the procedures for termination of
contracts which respondents failed to adhere in its entirety.
24.Complainant further reiterates the content of the letter dated 17 February
2017 (paragraphs 6 and 7) addressed to respondent xxxxxx, quoted
hereunder:
“Under the foregoing circumstances, we believe that the statements
stating that we are 278 days and 303 days delayed as contained in the
twin inspection reports are not accurate and the same has no basis. As
the above narration of facts would readily show, we requested for
inspection and Billing on 20 October 2016 (Project No. 1) and 10
August 2016, and the same were only acted upon on 12 January 2017.
Under above circumstances, we were not remiss of our obligations, and
therefore could not be considered negligent and responsible for the
delay.
Further, the twin inspection reports contained punch list of the
inspection matters which are either not within the scope of work or
outside of our construction works. In fact, these are items that we were
able to accomplish such as the item on Retrofitting. It is noteworthy to
mention that previously Retrofitting was already done and complied
with, and yet the same is still reflected in the 12 January 2017
Inspection Report Punch List. Hence, the findings of 93% and 90%
contained in the twin inspection reports are not correct and untrue. xxx
25.Respondent xxxxxxxx failed to refute the allegations in the complaint
affidavit by her general denial. Failure on her part to specifically negate the
same constitutes admission.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my

signature this __th day of ____________ 2017.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Affiant
Copy furnished:

1. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
University President
xxxxxxxxx

2. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Director for the Infrastructure
xxxxxxxxxxxx

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME , a notary public for and

in the City of _________________, on this ___ day of ________________ 2017,
personally appeared before me JOSEPH ESCOBER exhibiting to me his ID No.
_______________.

I hereby certify further that I have personally examined the affiant and he
declared that the reply-affidavit is his free and voluntary act and deed.

Notary Public

Doc. No. ___

Page No. ___
Book No. ___
Series of 2017