Mayor faces graft for not acting on employee's performance evaluation form

MANILA, Philippines - The Office of the Ombudsman has affirmed the indictment of a town mayor in Capiz province for refusing to act on the performance evaluation report of a municipal budget officer in 2005.

In a five-page order, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales affirmed the finding of sufficient ground to indict Mambusao Mayor Jose Alba Jr. for graft charges.

The Office of the Ombudsman said that sometime in 2005, Alba proposed to increase the salary only of the municipal government's rank-and-file personnel in December 2005.

However, upon checking with the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), municipal budget officer Alma Moises said thatthe implementation of a salary increase only for rank-and-file employees was a violation of the Joint Civil Service Commission.

It also violated DBM circulars which provide that salary increase shall be granted to all deserving officials and employees of the government based on length of service and merit.
?
Despite being apprised of the guidelines, Alba insisted on implementing the salary increase and directed Moises to prepare the budget for the funding.

For fear of being cited for insubordination, Moises complied with the mayor's order. The municipal council, however, disapproved the proposal.

Blaming Moises for disapproval, Alba relieved her as municipal budget officer and detailed her to the Office of the Mayor.

The mayor filed an administrative case against Moises questioning her competence, qualification and efficiency. He also refused to act on the budget officer's Performance Evaluation Sheet (PES) for the periods January to June 30 in 2005 and Performance Target for July 1 to December 31 in the same year.

The CSC Regional Office 6 declared MOises' reassignment to the office of the mayor as constitutive of constructive dismissal and ordered her reinstatement, which Alba ignored on account of the appeal he filed with the CSC Central Office.

“The filing by respondent of an administrative case against the complainant was absent of any proof that the latter was preventively suspended. It also does not justify the withholding of her benefit,” the Ombudsman's order read.