CEBU, Philippines - For his failure to act on some letters and requests, the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas reprimanded the barangay captain of Labangon, Cebu City.
Graft investigator Llorene Grace Razo-Ompod found sufficient evidence to hold Felix Abella administratively liable for violation of Section 5 (a) of Republic Act 6713 known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
But since it was Abella’s first offense, Ompod meted him the penalty of reprimand pursuant to Section 52 (C) (13) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
In the complaint filed by Victoria Yap, she accused the barangay captain and Lupon ng Tagapamayapa Member Teddy Abella of violating RA 6713 or abuse of authority.
She narrated that on October 9, 2009 she filed a complaint for physical injuries and slander against Maria Amor Tolentino before the office of the barangay captain.
Due to the failure of Tolentino to appear before the barangay hall for mediation and conciliation, Barangay Captain Abella and the Lupon member issued a certificate to file action in favor of Yap.
Yap filed a complaint for qualified less serious physical injures against Tolentino before the City Prosecutor’s Office.
Meanwhile, Tolentino filed a counter-charge against Yap before the office of the barangay captain for slight physical injuries.
Lupon ng Tagapamayapa Teddy Abella and Ernesto Lozarita scheduled the complaint for mediation and conciliation.
However, Yap said that during the two scheduled mediations no settlement was arrived. “Tolentino showed the same disinterest and refusal to conciliate and mediate even if she was the complainant therein,” she said.
In their third scheduled mediation, Yap said Teddy dismissed the complaint filed by Tolentino for her failure to appear before the barangay without “plausible reasons.”
Yap, however, said she was surprised when she learned that there was a complaint filed against her before the court when in fact the complaint filed by Tolentino was already dismissed for her failure to attend their third mediation and conciliation proceedings.
“She was astounded to know that a certificate to file action was indeed issued in favor of Tolentino especially for the specific reason that the complainant willfully failed or refused to appear without justifiable reason at the conciliation proceedings before the Pangkat, which she categorically denied,” complaint reads.
Yap said it was not she who failed to attend the proceedings but Tolentino. She presented a certification issued by Lozarito as evidence.
In order to correct the mistake in the certification, Yap through her counsel wrote a letter to the respondents who failed to act.
Yap alleged that it was evident that respondents showed partiality for Tolentino over the issuance of a certificate to file action.
After finding sufficient evidence to proceed with the preliminary investigation, Ompod directed respondents to file their respective counter-affidavits but they did not reply.
Ompod, in her decision cited Felix violated Section 5 (a) of RA 6713 of his failure to act promptly on letters and requests filed by the complainant to change the certification that it was not Yap who failed to appear in the third scheduled mediation but Tolentino.
She said in line of the performance of Felix’s duties, he has 15 days from receipt of the letter to make a reply of the request containing the action taken.
Ompod however, dismissed the complaint filed against Teddy for lack of substantial evidence. – (FREEMAN)