IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF SIX (6) MONTHS SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY FOR SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY ON DR. GREGORIO T. DE LA ROSA, PRESIDENT, LEYTE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

This refers to the letter-complaint dated September 11, 1999, with
enclosures, filed with the Presidential Commission Against Graft and
Corruption (PCAGC) and the action taken thereon by the said Commission
with respect to respondent Gregorio T. de la Rosa, a presidential
appointee.

The present complaint charges respondent de la Rosa for the
non-implementation of certain decisions and issuances of the Commission
on Audit (COA), particularly with respect to its audit findings and
recommendations as summarized in COA letter dated January 28, 1997,
addressed to said respondent, which are hereunder quoted:

“1.     Engr. Caidic and Atty. Tezon had been inactive from time
of enrollment per SAIDI records, thus, failed to acquire the degree of
M.A./Ph.D. in Organizational Development and Planning within the time
frame set to finish the course.

Recommendation: Management should require the grantees to refund the amount paid for their scholarship expenses.

“2.     Management failed to execute a Scholarship Contract or a
Memorandum of Agreement with the scholars/grantees as recommended in our
1990 Annual Audit Report (AAR) pursuant to Article 96 of the College
Code.

Recommendation: Management should execute a Scholarship
Contract with Engr. Caidic to assure faithful adherence to the terms and
conditions thereto and to safeguard the interest of the government.

“3.     The school did not have an effective system of monitoring
its scholars, thus, full payment of Engr. Caidic’s was made despite his
being “inactive” on the first year of his studies.

Recommendation: The school should devise an effective mechanism
of monitoring its scholars/grantees to forestall the occurrence of the
same in the future.

“4.     The honorarium granted them while they were on scholarship
grant were disallowed in audit. The disallowance on Atty. Tezon, was,
however, lifted under COA Decision No. 93-2635 dated January 6, 1993
while that of Engr. Caidic was upheld/sustained by the Commission Proper
under COA Decision No. 95-647 dated November 21, 1995.

“We request that the foregoing recommendations be fully
implemented and the audit disallowances contained under COA Decision No.
647 dated November 21, 1995 be settled” (Underscoring supplied).

Finding sufficient basis to commence an administrative investigation
against the respondent, the Commission required him to submit his
counter-affidavit/verified answer, together with other documents in his
defense, with which he complied through counsel as per letter dated
October 20, 1999.

The action of the Commission on the complaint as well as its
findings thereon as contained in its Resolution dated February 3, 2000
are as follows:

“In his sworn Counter-Affidavit dated October 18, 1999 (Records,
pp. 27-30), respondent de la Rosa declares that the accusations against
him by the fictitious complainant are not true, and expresses his honest
belief that he has not committed any violation of any law, rule or
regulation, nor has he been remiss or negligent in the performance of
his duties as LIT President as mandated under R.A. No. 4572, and more
specifically in the implementation of COA decisions and other issuances.

“Regarding Specifications Nos. 1 and 4 of the aforecited COA
letter (Exhibit “3”), which he points out are related to each other,
respondent de la Rosa explains that the matter of the scholarship grants
to Engr. Caidic and Atty. Tezon started in 1986 before he assumed
office as President of the Leyte Institute of Technology in 1992; that
at the first instance when the matter of the questioned scholarships was
officially brought to his knowledge sometime in 1994, he issued Special
Order No. 45, s. 1994 (Exhibit “5”), creating a Fact-Finding Committee
“to investigate the complaint against Engr. Gonzalo B. Caidic,
Vice-President, and Atty. Miguel T. Tezon, Professor, re: alleged
possible disbursement of government funds as LIT-SAIDI scholar”; that
when the said Committee submitted its findings and recommendations on
the case on June 15, 1995 (Exhibit “6”), he implemented the same “by
ordering Engr. Caidic and Atty. Tezon to refund the expenses for
scholarships granted them” (Records, p. 28); that the four (4)
specifications of the aforequoted COA letter (Exhibit “3”), were the
same subject-matter of an earlier letter dated July 9, 1996 (Exhibit
“7”), which was sent to him by LIT Resident Auditor Aurora S. Guy-Uyco,
and on which he had acted through his letter dated July 25, 1996
(Exhibit “8”), favorably recommending approval of respondent Caidic’s
request for extension of his (Caidic) scholarship at SAIDI for a period
of another forty (40) months as per letter dated July 22, 1996 (Exhibit
“9”); that he acted on the COA letter dated June 11, 1997 (Exhibit “10”)
and the COA Decision No. 95-647 dated November 21, 1995 (Exhibit “11”),
“by instructing the Chief Accountant, Elvira C. Valdemoro, to effect
the refund as far as Engr. Caidic is concerned . . .”; that the said LIT
Chief Accountant, however, went “on AWOL for the period from October
06, 1994 to February 28, 1995 and the records were with her until
finally when he had to drop her from employment and declare her position
vacant effective March 01, 1995, for abandonment” (Exhibit “14”); and
that on account of lack of records to refer to, the implementation of
COA Decision No. 95-647 was finally effected through the issuance by
respondent of Memorandum dated October 11, 1999, directing Engr. Caidic
“to settle these matters as early as possible so as to avoid further
stern action from the Commission on Audit” (Exhibit “15”).

“Anent Specifications Nos. 2 and 3 of the COA letter above,
respondent de la Rosa states that “scholarship grants to other
employees” are already covered by corresponding scholarship agreements,
about which he submitted sample Agreements as evidence therefor
(Exhibits “16”, “16-A”, “16-B”, “16-C” and “16-D”); that certain reforms
have been “implemented only during his (sic) incumbency in dutiful
compliance with pertinent laws, rules and regulations” such as the
provision for scholarship agreements with LIT scholars and grantees; and
that for the responsibility of monitoring the progress of LIT scholars
and grantees, among others, he had initiated the formation of a Staff
Development Committee headed by Dr. Iluminado Nical under Special Order
No. 07, s. 1998 (Exhibit “17”).

“The crux of the issue in the case at bar is whether or not
respondent de la Rosa had in fact been remiss in the discharge of his
duties and responsibilities as LIT President, particularly in the
implementation of the COA audit findings and recommendations as
summarized in the letter dated January 28, 1997.

“Since the only hearing conducted on the instant case was the
preliminary conference hearing held on October 25, 1999, and considering
the fact that during said hearing the respondent through counsel had
decided to submit the case for resolution based on the records, the
evidence in chief against him are essentially the documents/records
which are annexed to the letter-complaint dated September 11, 1999
(Records, pp. 2-14).

“On the other hand, the herein respondent through counsel formally
submitted in support of his averments and/or explanations relative to
the charges against him, various documents/records through Respondent’s
Memorandum and Formal Offer of Exhibits dated November 17, 1999
(Records, pp. 85-95), all of which have been admitted by the Commission
(Records, p. 96).

“A careful review and evaluation of the records of the case at bar
discloses that it is true as indicated by respondent de la Rosa — who
was first appointed as President of the Leyte Institute of Technology on
February 20, 1992, by then President Corazon C. Aquino (Exhibit “1”),
and subsequently, re-appointed pursuant to R.A. 8292 (1997) by the LIT
Board of Trustees, effective March 9, 1998 (Exhibit “2”) — that the
awards of scholarship grants to Engr. Caidic and Atty. Tezon effective
as of the Second Semester of SY 1988-1989), were indeed given before he
assumed the presidency of the Leyte Institute of Technology.

“However, it is likewise indubitable that the enforcement of the
COA audit findings and recommendations on the issues or specifications
as contained in the aforequoted COA letter dated January 28, 1997
(supra), including the resignation of Atty. Tezon effective November 3,
1992, which was approved under LIT Board of Trustees Resolution No. 68,
s. 1992 (Records, p. 42), all came about during the period of respondent
de la Rosa’s incumbency as LIT President. This fact is made crystal
clear through the COA letters dated July 9, 1996, January 28, 1997 and
July 29, 1997, which are all addressed to respondent de la Rosa (see
Records, pp. 41-44; 33-34; and 10-11).

“At any rate, with the view to afford a more orderly presentation
and deeper appreciation of the charges against the respondent, the
specifications as indicated in the COA letter dated January 28, 1997
(supra), are hereunder, seriatim, viz:

“1.     Failure to implement the COA audit
finding/recommendation requiring Engr. Caidic and Atty. Tezon to refund
the amounts for their respective scholarship expenses, on account of
their failure to finish or graduate from their courses at SAIDI.

“The first action taken by respondent de la Rosa on the questioned
scholarship grants of Engr. Caidic and Atty. Tezon had been the
creation of a Fact-Finding Committee through his issuance of Special
Order No. 45, s. 1994 (Exhibit “5”), to investigate an alleged possible
disbursement of government funds as LIT-SAIDI scholars involving said
LIT officials; and that the said Committee submitted its findings and
recommendations on the matter through a Memorandum dated June 15, 1995
to the LIT President (Exhibit “6”).

“Regarding this matter, it is not intrinsically correct for
respondent to have indicated in his Counter-Affidavit (Records, p. 28)
that “(o)n the first instance that the issue officially came into my
knowledge sometime in 1994, I issued Special Order No. 45, s. 1994 . .
.”, since it is self-evident on the face of the Order itself that the
issuance thereof had been “(p)ursuant to the Institute’s Board of
Trustees order during its 231st board meeting dated December 11, 1994 at
the University of Eastern Philippines, University Town, Northern Samar .
. .”; and that moreover, respondent has not submitted any proof or
evidence to support his statement that in 1994, “(p)er findings and
recommendations of the committee, I implemented the same by ordering
Engr. Caidic and Atty. Tezon to refund the expenses for scholarship
granted them” (Ibid).

“The second action taken by respondent on the aforesaid
specification appears to have been through his letter dated July 25,
1996 (Exhibit “8”), addressed to the LIT Resident Auditor, favorably
recommending the grant of an extension of another forty (40) months on
the questioned scholarship grant, including such other additional
benefits as book allowance, travel fares and expenses for training
modules, as requested by Engr. Caidic through his letter dated July 22,
1996 (Exhibit “9”). The said action by respondent de la Rosa which seems
to be comparatively prompt, was apparently taken by him after his
receipt of the LIT Resident Auditor’s Memorandum dated July 9, 1996
(Exhibit “7”), or a period of sixteen (16) days only. However, except
for his favorable recommendation on the request of Engr. Caidic, it is
clear that respondent had not taken any action at the time on the other
subject-matter of the LIT Resident Auditor’s Memorandum dated July 9,
1996 (Exhibit “7”).

“The third action taken by respondent on this issue appears to
have been through his Memorandum dated October 11, 1999 (Exhibit “15”),
addressed to Engr. Caidic, calling his attention on the COA Decision No.
95-647 (Exhibit “11”), the letter dated June 11, 1997 of COA Chairman
Celso D. Gangan (Exhibit “10”) and the LIT Resident Auditor’s Memorandum
dated July 9, 1999 (Exhibit “7”), and directing him “to settle these
matters as early as possible so as to avoid further stern actions from
the Commission on Audit”.

“It will be noted that in contrast to his second action, it took
the respondent more or less two (2) years and four (4) months after his
receipt of COA Chairman Gangan’s letter dated June 11, 1997, and three
(3) years, three (3) months and two (2) days after his receipt of the
LIT Resident Auditor’s letter dated July 9, 1996, before he took his
action of October 11, 1999, which not surprisingly, it was not heeded
since even its wordings are neither clear-cut nor categorical. It will
further be noted that the wishy-washy action taken by respondent does
not square with the urgency of the COA request in its two (2) letters
dated January 28, 1997, wherein the respondent had been asked to have
the audit findings and recommendations “be fully implemented and the
audit disallowance contained under COA Decision No. 647 dated November
21, 1995 be settled” (Records, pp. 35-34; Exhibit “3”), and dated July
29, 1997, wherein he was further reminded that the subject disallowance
on the salaries paid to Engr. Caidic had become “final and executory”
(Records, p. 10).

“The fourth action taken by the respondent on this specification
appears to have been through his Memorandum dated November 3, 1999
(Exhibit “19”), directing Engr. Caidic to effect the refund of the
amounts of P103,260.00, representing salaries received by him as
Assistant Administrator of evening classes at LIT, and P36,089.30
representing the expenses incurred for his scholarship at SAIDI,
effective December 1, 1999. In the same Memorandum, which is an addendum
to his earlier Memorandum dated October 11, 1999 (Exhibit “15”),
respondent de la Rosa further stated that “(i)f you opt for a staggered
payment, you are directed to submit a written schedule of payment within
five (5) days from receipt hereof with the approval of the LIT Resident
Auditor”.

“It should be pointed out that the aforesaid fourth action on
November 3, 1999 was taken by respondent de la Rosa after the filing
with the Commission of the present case and after he and his counsel
attended the scheduled initial preliminary conference hearing thereon
held on October 25, 1999 (Records, p. 82).

“The fifth and final action taken by the respondent on this issue
appears to have been through his Memorandum dated November 15, 1999
(Records, p. 99), addressed to Engr. Caidic, which specifically directed
him to effect the payment of the amounts of P103,260.00 and P36,089.30
on December 1, 1999” (Records, p. 99).

“The aforesaid fifth and final action of the respondent on this
issue was received through fax by the Commission on December 1, 1999,
which it could be surmised, was sent by the respondent or his counsel on
account of its non-inclusion on the respondent’s Memorandum and Formal
Offer of Exhibits dated November 17, 1999 (Records, pp. 85-95).

“Also received by the Commission, together with the aforesaid
fifth and final action by respondent de la Rosa, is a copy of a letter
dated November 9, 1999, of LIT Vice-President Caidic, addressed to the
COA Resident Auditor at LIT, in which he is appealing that the “refund
of disallowance relative to COA Decision No. 95-647 and tuition fee for
SAIDI Scholarship . . . be effected upon my retirement to be charged
from the retirement funds . . .” (Records, p. 98).

“On this issue, therefore, aside from lack of proof to support
certain explanations that he submitted, respondent de la Rosa not only
took an unreasonably long period of time to take action on the COA audit
finding and recommendation on the manner but also showed an unwarranted
conduct or attitude thereon which may be viewed as giving undue
advantage to his co-respondent Gonzalo B. Caidic and/or lack of
commitment to public interest.

“Accordingly, respondent de la Rosa’s explanation and/or defense
on this specification is undoubtedly unsatisfactory and unacceptable,
about which he should be held liable therefor.

“2.     Failure to execute scholarship contracts with LIT scholars grantees, particularly with Engr. Caidic as recommended by COA to safeguard the interest of the Government.

“It is gathered that the COA recommendation regarding scholarship
contracts to be signed by and between the scholars grantees and the
school administration had been earlier brought to the attention of the
LIT administration in the COA 1990 Annual Audit Report on the Institute;
that in relation to the respondent in particular, the COA through its
LIT Resident Auditor has brought to his attention the same matter in two
(2) separate instances, first, through Memorandum dated July 9, 1996
(Exhibit “7”), and second, through the letter dated January 28, 1997
(Exhibit “3”); that in the two (2) COA letters (Exhibits “7” and “3”),
it was explicitly indicated that “(m)anagement should execute a
Scholarship Contract with Engr. Caidic to assure faithful adherence to
the terms and conditions thereto and to safeguard the interest of the
government”, which respondent failed to comply and has not at all
complied with until the present time; and that while it appears that the
respondent has implemented the said requirement in a number of other
cases, it also took him a considerably long period of time to do so, as
evidenced by the dates of the copies of the scholarship
contracts/agreements he submitted which are respectively dated June 7,
1999 (Exhibit “16”), May 24, 1999 (Exhibit “16-a”), dated May 24, 1999
(Exhibit “16-b”), dated May 24, 1999 (Exhibit “16-c”) and dated May 24,
1999 (Exhibit “16-d”).

“Viewed in the context of time from July 9, 1996 when respondent de
la Rosa was first requested to implement the requirement on scholarship
agreements with LIT scholars grantees to the time when he actually
implemented the said requirement as of May 24, 1999, when he signed as
Grantor the agreements of same date (Exhibit “16-a” and “16-b”), or a
period of two (2) years, eight (8) months and sixteen (16) days, and
more importantly, on account of his unexplained failure to provide Engr.
Caidic with the required scholarship contract as repeatedly recommended
by the COA, it is axiomatic that respondent’s explanation and/or
defense relative to this issue must likewise fall.

“3.     Failure to institute an effective system or mechanism of monitoring the progress of LIT scholars grantees.

“While it cannot be denied that there are indeed certain reforms
implemented during the incumbency of respondent de la Rosa as he pointed
out in his counter-affidavit, such as the designation through Special
Order No. 07, s. 1998 of Dr. Iluminado Nical as Chairman of the LIT
Staff Development Committee, whose functions, among others, is to
monitor the progress of LIT scholars/grantees (Exhibit “17”), yet it is a
fact that the copy of “Implementing Guidelines of the Training and
Staff Development of the Leyte Institute of Technology” (Exhibit “18”),
has yet to be approved by the LIT Board of Trustees for the same to be
considered as effective.

“Thus, the same observations specifically in relation to the
factor of time in taking action vis-a-vis the first two (2) issues or
specifications above should likewise be applied to the present issue or
specification.

“4.       Failure to implement the refund of honorarium paid to Engr. Caidic as Assistant Administrator of evening classes, which was denied in audit as per COA Decision No. 95-647 dated November 21, 1995 and affirmed through letter dated June 11, 1997 signed by COA Chairman Celso D. Gangan.

“The explanation of respondent to the effect that he “acted on said
decisions by instructing the Chief Accountant, Elvira C. Valdemoro, to
effect the refund as far as Engr. Caidic is concerned, however, said
Chief Accountant was on AWOL for the period from October 06, 1994 to
February 28, 1995 . . .” (Records, p. 29), is simply untenable and
unbelievable, for the reason that Engr. Caidic filed a request for
reconsideration of the COA Decision No. 95-647 and he received a copy of
the decision on his request only on September 23, 1996, and that he
thereafter filed a letter of appeal on the same matter to the President
Fidel V. Ramos, who referred the said appeal to the COA which informed
him that the matter “could not be given due course on the ground that
the decision therefor has already become final and executory” (Records,
p. 47; Exhibit “10”). The further explanation or insinuation of the
herein respondent that as a cause of the delay on his action to the
effect that “we could not finally act on the matter as there were no
available records as yet to refer to” for the reason that the LIT Chief
Accountant who went on AWOL had “the records with her”, is likewise
untenable and unacceptable since he had not given any reason at all as
to why the said school official on AWOL had the records in her
possession in the first place (Records, p. 29).

“Reckoned from the time the LIT Resident Auditor apprised the
respondent through her letter dated July 29, 1997 (Records, p. 10), that
the disallowance on the payment of salaries to Engr. Caidic as
Assistant Administrator of evening classes at LIT for the years 1988 to
1990 “had become final and executory”, and requested him to “facilitate
the prompt settlement of said disallowance”, to the time he actually
took action on the matter through his Memorandum dated October 11, 1999
(Exhibit “15”), it took the respondent a period of two (2) years, two
(2) months and twelve (12) days, to do so, and even the action he took
evinces an attitude of indifference as he directed Engr. Caidic only “to
settle these matters as early as possible so as to avoid further stern
action from the Commission on Audit” (Exhibit “15”).

“In fairness to respondent de la Rosa, the subsequent action he
had taken on this issue or specification, namely, his Memoranda dated
November 3, 1999 and November 15, 1999 (Records, pp. 95 and 99), both
addressed to Engr. Caidic, are definitely more clear-cut and categorical
although as earlier pointed out the said actions came about after the
filing of the present complaint, and more importantly, after the
respondent’s attendance at the initial preliminary conference hearing
thereon held on October 25, 1999. As earlier indicated above Engr.
Caidic has finally submitted an appeal to pay his
accountabilities/disallowances when he retires from the service, which
can be conceded as having been triggered by said two (2) letters of
respondent.

“The relevant observations on Issues 1, 2 and 3 above should also be applied to the present issue or specification herein.

“In sum, this Commission holds that respondent de la Rosa’s
liability in the instant case proceeds from his palpable unjustified
failure to take appropriate action within a reasonable period of time,
on the matter of Issues Specifications Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 above, which
thereby lend credence to the report that there was connivance, between
him and his co-respondent Gonzalo B. Caidic, or more specifically, that
he was giving undue advantage in Caidic’s favor to the prejudice of the
Government. For this, respondent de la Rosa violated Section 1, Chapter 1
and Section 55, Chapter 10, Subtitle B, Title I, Book V of Executive
Order No. 292, Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 6713 and Section 3(f) of
Republic Act No. 3019. Such violations constitute Neglect of Duty which
is a ground for disciplinary action under Section 36(a)(3), Article IX
of Presidential Decree No. 807 (1985) and punishable under Memorandum
Circular No. 30, s. 1989 of the Civil Service Commission.

“WHEREFORE, premises considered this Commission hereby resolves,
and so recommends to His Excellency, President Joseph Ejercito Estrada,
that respondent Gregorio T. de la Rosa, President, Leyte Institute of
Technology, be held liable for SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY and he be
suspended from office for a period of six (6) months without pay.

“SO ORDERED.”

After an exhaustive study of the records of the instant case, this
Office concurs with the findings and conclusions of the Presidential
Commission Against Graft and Corruption, supported as they are by
substantive evidence on record.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing and as recommended by the
Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption, respondent
Gregorio T. de la Rosa, President, Leyte Institute of Technology, is
hereby suspended from office without pay for a period of six (6) months,
effective upon his receipt hereof.

SO ORDERED.

Adopted: 29 June 2000

BY THE PRESIDENT:

(SGD.) RONALDO B. ZAMORA
Executive Secretary