Republic of the Philippines

Commission on Audit
Office of the General Council
Legal Services Sector

Commission on Audit
Complainant, Admin Case No. 2012-038

-versus- -for-

Ma. Lourdes C. Centeno

Respondent. GROSS INSUBORDINATION AND
VIOLATION OF REASONABLE
OFFICE RULES AND REGULATIONS

x-----------------------------------------------------x

RESPONDENT’S MEMORANDUM

Respondent, by counsel, respectfully submits her

memorandum in this case

Statement of the Facts

In order that the Commission may be enlightened and guided

in the sequential facts, cited hereunder are the pertinent
details:

1. Respondent Ma. Lourdes C. Centeno made a request on a

letter dated November 5, 2010, addressed to Director
Winnie Rose H. Encallado, for authority to travel to
different regions in connection with the audit of the
selected projects under 2KR and PL480 of National
Agricultural and Fishery Council.

2. In a memorandum dated November 10, 2010, Director

Encallado disapproved the aforesaid request on the
premise that the activities to be undertaken therein can
be done by the Regional Technical Audit Specialists (TAS)
and Audit Team Leaders (ATL).

3. On December 8, 2012, the Respondent filed an

application for leave of absence covering the period
December 14, 15, 28, 29 and 30 of the same year.
 4. On December 14 and 15, 2010, Respondent Centeno
proceeded to Naga City for leisure and to address
personal matters. While in Naga City for vacation, she
took the opportunity to visit and observe NAFC
operations.

5. DA- Supervising Auditor Elnora B. Sta. Maria signed on

Respondent’s application for leave on December 22,
2012.

6. Respondent Centeno used the plane tickets provided by

NAFC in flying to Naga City, thus she accordingly
refunded the amount of Php7,102 to the latter on
December 23, 2010.

Statement of the Issues

1. Whether or not Respondent’s acts of visiting and

observing NAFC operations while on official leave violated
Director Encallado’s implied order for her not to travel to
different regions to audit projects under 2KR and PL480
of National Agricultural and Fishery Council, hence
constitutes gross insubordination.

2. Whether or not Respondent violated reasonable office

rules and regulations when she used the plane tickets
provided by NAFC in getting to Naga City.

Arguments

1. The Respondent could not have committed the

offense of gross insubordination.

In the case of Judge Pelagia Dalmacio-Joaquin versus

Nicomedes C. Dela Cruz, A.M. No. P-07-2321, the
Supreme Court defined Insubordination as a refusal to
obey some order, which a superior officer is entitled to
give and have obeyed. The term imports a willful or
intentional disregard of the lawful and reasonable
instructions of the employer.

Clearly, to be charged with insubordination, it is

important to determine what law, rule, regulation or
order which Respondent was supposed to have violated
or failed to comply with in order to constitute the offense
of insubordination.
It bears stressing that Director Encallado denied the
request of Respondent Centeno to travel to different
regions to audit selected projects under 2KR and PL480
of NAFC for the reason that the activities to be conducted
therein can be performed by the regional TAS and ATL. It
can be deduced from her reason for disapproval that
Director Encallado sought to avoid unnecessary expenses
associated with sending employee to out of town works
such as lodging cost, transportations and meals when
she mentioned that Regional TAS and TAL can do the
jobs.

The decision of Director Encallado rejecting the

aforementioned request produced the effect of giving the
following implied order to Respondent Centeno;

“To cease and desist from travelling to specified

regions to conduct audit of 2KR and PL480 projects of
NAFC to avoid out of town engagement related
expenses.”

When the Respondent travelled to Naga City, she could

not be said to have disregarded the above implied order
of Director Encallado since she went there primarily to
unwind and she was on official leave during those days.
Moreover, there are no laws or rules which prohibit any
government employee from travelling anywhere in the
Philippines while on official leave.

On issue that she actually worked there through

visitation and observation of NAFC operations, these acts
of her could not be considered transgression of the
implied order of Director Encallado since she was not
acting on official capacity when she performed said acts
being on authorized leave. Further, no government funds
were spent for her stay in Naga City because she did not
receive additional compensation for such works and she
neither reimbursed from COA the amount she spent for
her accommodations. The plane fare likewise technically
came from her pocket.

Thus, the essence of the implied order of Director

Encallado which was for the Respondent to cease from
travelling to regions including Naga City to avoid out of
town expenses have not been violated by the herein
Respondent as explained in the foregoing. Interestingly,
the Respondent interrupted her vacation just to observe
 NAFC operations because she was guided by her belief
that she was doing government a favor, hence she should
not be held liable for the offense of insubordination.

2. The Respondent did not violate reasonable office

rules and regulations when she used the plane
tickets provided by NAFC in getting to Naga City.

The Respondent acted in good faith when she

immediately refunded to NAFC the cost of the aforesaid
plane tickets hence she should not be held responsible
for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations. If
at all, the cost of tickets can be considered employee
vale that must be paid within reasonable period of time,
of which Respondent have already settled when she
remitted to NAFC the amount of Php7,102 on December
23, 2010.
Prayer

Wherefore, it respectfully prayed for of this Honorable

Commission that judgment be rendered ordering the
Complainant’s petition DISMISSED for clearly being
unmeritorious.

Respectfully submitted.
Manila City, June 10, 2014.

CONRADO M. BRIONES
4668 Tagumpay Street, Sta. Mesa Manila
PTR No. 2162932/Manila/ 8.28.13
IBP No. 934779/Quezon/ 4.17.13
Roll of Attorney No. 61965
MCLE Compliance not required1

Copy furnished:

Atty. Christopher M. Cancino

Internal Affairs Office
Office of the Chairperson
Commission on Audit
Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City

1
Admitted to the Philippine Bar in 2013.