Sei sulla pagina 1di 4

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

OFFICE OF THE OBUDSMAN


Ombudsman Building
Agham Road, North Triangle
Diliman, Quezon City

ZOSIMO DIVINGRACIA PAAT


Complainant,

-versus- OMB-C-A-15-0252

JOSE JOBEL BELARMINO


ANITA LUCINA LOMBOYA
NESTOR BERNARDO FLORES
AYLWINSTON CANALE PILLOS
Respondents.
x--------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND CLARIFICATION


(On Decision dated 30 September 2016)

Respondents by counsel and unto this Honourable Office most


respectfully state that:

 Respondents are all regular employees of the Light Rail Transit


Authority (LRTA), evidenced by their duly filed Personal Data Sheets,
hereby attached as ANNEXES “A-1”, “A-2”, “A-3”, and “A-4”;

 Respondents have served the LRTA in their respective and


commendable lengths of service, untainted by other administrative,
criminal, or civil charges for offenses, other than the above-titled
case as first offense. Copies of the Respondents’ individual LRTA
Service Records are hereby attached as ANNEXES “B-1”, “B-2”, “B-3”,
and “B-4”;

1|Page
 Respondents were meted out the penalty of one month
suspension without pay as a result of the findings of this Honourable
Office for the above-titled case last September 30, 2016. A copy of
the Decision is hereby attached as ANNEX “C”;

 The penalty was implemented by the Light Rail Transit Authority


together the Department of Transportation and subsequently served
by herein respondents. A copy of the Notice of Implementation and
Compliance Report are hereby attached as ANNEXES “D” and “E”,
respectively;

 The same Respondents were also charged in OMB-C-C-15-


0267, for violations of Sec. 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019 and Sec. 23 of
Republic Act 9184, which resulted to a DISMISSAL rendered in a
Resolution dated February 1, 2017. A copy of the Resolution is hereby
annexed as ANNEX “F”, and;

 Herein Respondents file this Motion not to undermine or dilute


the findings of this Honourable Office in the above-entitled case, but
rather, to seek reconsideration and clarification as to their
entitlement to Government approved Performance Based
Incentives, including, but not limited to:

1. Mid-year Bonuses
2. Year-end Bonuses
3. Performance Based Bonuses
4. Performance Enhancement Incentives

 In the case of Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma1, the


Supreme Court ratiocinated, thus:

“xxxxxxxx respondent was found guilty of simple misconduct by this


Court when she accepted amounts meant for the payment of
Environmental Compliance Certificates and failed to account
for P460.00. The Court noted that [d]ismissal and forfeiture of
benefits, however, are not penalties imposed for all infractions,
particularly when it is a first offense.”

1G.R. No. 154521, 30 September 2005

2|Page
 Following this doctrine, the case of Cesar S. Dumduma
vs. Civil Service Commission2 added further:

“While justice exhorts that petitioner suffer the full penalties imposed
by law, temperance cries out that he be recognized for whatever
good he has done prior to his mistake.”

 Respondents file this Motion before this Honourable Office to


save their entitlement to the benefits they justly deserve, not just in
law or jurisprudence, but also in justice through compassion. This
administrative case have had its effect on the Respondents, despite
being an innocuous event, they accepted the punishment and to
render it just, a plea of leniency is hereby made relating to their
entitlement to Government Performance Based Bonuses or
Incentives.

 The Respondents also ask from this Honourable Office due


course on this Motion in as much as the timeliness of its filing is
concerned; It is only quite recently that the Respondents were
informed of this seeming issue on their benefits, which calls for the
temperance on the technical rules of this Honourable Office. Go vs.
Tan3 is resonant in declaring:

“The rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to


facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application,
which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than
promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed.”

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed


of this Honourable Office that the instant Motion for Reconsideration
and Clarification be granted, and the issue on entitlements be
clarified.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

2G.R. No. 182606, 04 December 2011


3 G.R. No. 130330, 26 September 2003

3|Page
City of _____________ for Quezon City, 07 April 2017.

ATTY. JOSE JOBEL V. BELARMINO


Counsel for ___________
Lot 15 Block 25 Midland Drive,
Ridgemont Executive Village, Taytay, Rizal
Roll No. 42377
IBP No. 1068020 / 01- 18 -17 / Quezon City
PTR No. 4760995 / 01-18-17 / Quezon City
MCLE Compliance No. V – 0007074

Copy furnished:

CELENE M. ANDREA
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT
G/F, DBM Bldg III, Gen. Solano St., San Miguel, Manila

EXPLANATION ON THE SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

Copy of the foregoing MOTION was served to the adverse


party by registered mail due to lack of material time and office
personnel to effect personal service.

ATTY. JOSE JOBEL V. BELARMINO


Counsel for ___________
Lot 15 Block 25 Midland Drive,
Ridgemont Executive Village, Taytay, Rizal
Roll No. 42377
IBP No. 1068020 / 01- 18 -17 / Quezon City
PTR No. 4760995 / 01-18-17 / Quezon City
MCLE Compliance No. V – 0007074

4|Page

Potrebbero piacerti anche