The Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas suspended Balilihan vice mayor Adonis Roy Olalo for 30 days due to simple misconduct.
Moreover, he is suspended without pay as the Ombudsman warned Olalo stiffer penalties will be imposed on him if similar violations will happen in the future.
The decision was penned by Farrah Fortich-Quimada, Graft Investigator and Prosecution Officer II on Oct. 28, 2021.
The said decision was reviewed by Jane Aguilar, Director of the Preliminary Investigation Administrative Adjudication & Prosecution Bureau-B and Carla Juris Narvios-Tanco, the Asst. Ombudsman-Visayas.
Furthermore, Paul Elmer Clemente, the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, approved the decision on Nov. 4, 2021.
The Ombudsman said that: “In the event that the penalty of suspension can no longer be enforced due to respondent’s separation from the service, the same shall be converted into a Fine in the amount equivalent to respondent’s salary for one (1) month, payable to the Office of the Ombudsman and may be deductible from his accrued leave credits or any receivable from his office.”
Olalo remains as the vice mayor of Balilihan until noon of June 30, 2022.
He ran but lost to Mayor Chatto in the last May 2022 elections where the former ran for town mayor of Balilihan.
Chatto originally filed a grave misconduct charge against Olalo.
However, the Ombudsman said, “In this case, the elements particular to Grave Misconduct were not adequately proven by substantial evidence. Records are bereft of proof that respondent deliberately absented himself from office for the period that he was absent or that his failure to act on complainant’s letter and failure to immediately inform complainant and the SB [Sangguniang Bayan] Members of the reason for his prolonged absence was tainted with corrupt intention amounting to an open defiance or a flagrant disregard of the rules.”
THE BACKGROUND
“Complainant [Chatto] sues respondent [Olalo] for his unauthorized travel outside his territorial jurisdiction; continued unauthorized absences; and for failure to act on her letter dated 16 March 2020 requesting him to advise the SB members who attended the Philippine Councilor’s League Convention (PCL) in Metro Manila on February 26-28, 2020 to undergo additional 14 days home quarantine upon the directive of Bohol Governor Art Yap and to make necessary adjustments on the conduct of their regular sessions owing to the fact that a PCL member from Negros Oriental who attended the convention tested positive for COVID-19 [Coronavirus disease],” the decision stated.
The decision further mentioned: “It is alleged that based on the municipality’s Human Resources Management Office’s (HRMO) records, respondent only has an approved vacation leave for 13 March 2020, however, he was absent during the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) Regular Session on 11 March 2020 sans notice until 10 June 2020. That on 16 March 2020, respondent filed for vacation leave application for 19 days, covering the period of 18 March 2020 to 15 April 2020 which complainant denied in accordance with the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) advisory dated 14 March 2020 directing all Local Government Unit (LGU) officials to stay within their areas of jurisdiction due to the declaration of a nationwide public health emergency and due to respondent’s failure to file his application five days prior to its effectivity date as prescribed under Civil Service Rules.”
The Ombudsman wrote in the same decision: “On 14 April 2020, complainant wrote [to the] respondent requiring him to explain his continued absence. On 21 April 2020, complainant learned from respondent’s public Facebook post that he was in Manila and has not returned to the municipality since. On 22 April 2020, complainant received respondent’s explanation letter where he admitted having left for Manila on 07 March 2020 and that he failed to return to Bohol on 11 March 2020 because he got sick before his return flight and he was stranded in Manila due to quarantine declaration. According to complainant, respondent represented to have filed a sick leave application for his absence but none was filed. That respondent even attempted to justify his continued unauthorized absence by citing CSC [Civil Service Commission] Memorandum Circular No. 8, s. 2020 which allows a 14-day quarantine period for all officials and employees in public sector who come from official or personal travel which is inapplicable to his case as he has not returned to his station yet.”
The decision further reads: “Complainant stresses that since February of 2020, the National Government has been preparing to fight the COVID-19 pandemic that has greatly affected some parts of the country. Being a public official, respondent could have at least returned to Balilihan prior to the declaration of community quarantine or during the window period allowing those stranded in Manila to return to their provinces, but respondent opted to take a vacation instead. Complainant also points out that this is not the first time respondent left his constituents without applying for leave of absence or authority to travel because even prior to this incident, he is frequently out of Balilihan to attend to his bakery business in Novaliches, Quezon City without applying for leave of absence or authority to travel.”
It was further averred in the decision of the Ombudsman: “In an Order of 23 February 2021, respondent was required to submit his counter-affidavit and complainant, her reply. Both parties were likewise required to submit their respective verified position paper in an Order of 27 September 2021.”
OLALO’S EXPLANATION
“In his Counter-Affidavit submitted on 25 May 2021, respondent contends, among others, that the level of pettiness displayed by complainant in questioning his absence despite his leave application she deliberately and unreasonably denied is reflective of her priorities during this difficult time of Covid. That complainant interpreted the DILG and CSC Guidelines to suit her biased and politically motivated end goal to get back at him or his camp as she, herself, is facing several cases of malversation and graft and corruption,” the Ombudsman said.
It was further stated, “Respondent recounts that on 07 March 2020, Saturday, he left for Manila to check on her wife who had just given birth to their fourth child in February of the same year with an intention to return to Bohol in time for the 11 March 2020 SB Regular Session, but he got sick before his intended flight back, so he immediately sent a text message to the SB Secretary that he will be on sick leave. That because of the rising number of Covid cases in Metro Manila and out of fear of being infected, he underwent self-quarantine. Thereafter, there were no means for him to return to Bohol since all flights were cancelled. Allegedly, Metro Manila was placed on quarantine on 12 March 2020; on 13 March, 2020, the Governor of the Province of Bohol issued Executive Order No. 08 mandating the suspension of domestic and international air and sen travel of passengers bound for Bohol starting 16 March 2020 until 20 March 2020; on 15 March 2020, domestic flights were stopped: and on 16 March 2020. Luzon was placed under Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ).”
“Respondent asserts that complainant’s denial of his leave application was capricious because the DILG directive only applies to those local officials who are in their jurisdiction and not to those who are stranded somewhere else, like him. That the slightest possibility that he might be infected with COVID-19 is enough for him to decide to file vacation leave, as it would be a violation of government protocols and would be reckless, callous, and disservice to the Boholanos and people in Balilihan if he immediately return to Bohol despite feeling sick,” the Ombudsman narrated.
It was further stated in the Ombudsman’s decision: “That given there is localized Covid transmission in Metro Manila, and he became sick when he arrived, he considered himself as Person Under Monitoring (PUM) or Person Under Investigation (PUI) and underwent a 14-day quarantine period counting from his last day of his applied leave period in accordance with CSC Memorandum Circular No. 08, s. 2020, otherwise known as the Revised Interim Guidelines on the Use of Leave Credits for Absences Due to Quarantine and/or Treatment Relative to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). That it was only on 10 June 2020 that he was able to return to Bohol due to travel restrictions. On 25 June 2020 after undergoing 14 days quarantine, he was issued a Quarantine Clearance by the Local Officer of Balilihan, and on even date he filed for sick leave application for 11 to 12 March 2020 but complainant allegedly required him to present a medical certificate as he was absent from 07 March to 10 June 2020. Respondent asserts that even while he was away, he continued rendering public service to his constituents.”
THE CORE ISSUE
The core issue is whether or not respondent may be held administratively liable for grave misconduct and/or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for his prolonged absence without leave and for his inaction on complainant’s written directive on March 16, 2020.
The facts and circumstances of the case have established that respondent was absent for more than 15 consecutive working days, or 95 calendar days, more or less, according to the Ombudsman.
The vice mayor was in Manila from March 7 to June 9, 2020, which is outside Balilihan.
As such, he could not have been considered on call during said period and could not be expected to be of service to his constituents, the Ombudsman observed.
Except for March 13, 2020, the rest of the days, Olalo was absent.
There was no approved official leave as Mayor Chatto denied the vice mayor’s leave application for March 18 to April 15, 2020 which was filed by Olalo’s mother on March 16, 2020.
However, Olalo attributes his prolonged absence to various reasons and justifications.
“It bears pointing out that while President Duterte announced partial lockdown on Metro Manila, placing the entire Metro Manila under community quarantine for thirty days beginning 15 March 2020, it was only on 16 March 2020 when the President imposed an enhanced community quarantine covering the entire Luzon, including Metro Manila, suspending mass public transportation; restricting land, air and sea travel; imposing strict home quarantine and closing most private establishments until 30 April 2020. Had
it been respondent’s desire to come home to his constituents and to help the other LGU officials in carrying out emergency measures to combat the pandemic, he could have done so between 07 March to 15 March prior to the declaration of total lockdown, but he did not, claiming he was sick, which claim is unsubstantiated. At any rate, granting respondent was sick, he could not be expected to file his corresponding leave of absence as he is unable to report to work. This is precisely the reason for the provision under Sections 53 and 54 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 41, 1998, the Omnibus Rules on Leave, as amended,” the Ombudsman said.
The Ombudsman added: “In ordinary application for sick leave already taken not exceeding five days, the head of department or agency concerned may duly determine whether or not granting of sick leave is proper under the circumstances. In case of doubt a medical certificate may be required. In the same manner that granting respondent was stranded in Manila due to travel restrictions, he could not have predicted the same to have filed for leave in advance,” the Ombudsman quipped.
“In the present case, respondent failed to inform complainant, who is the agency head of his predicament and the alleged “unfortunate event underlying his absence” in violation of CSC rules. It was only on 22 April 2020 that respondent disclosed his whereabouts and explained his continued absence through a letter dated April 20, 2020 after complainant and the SB Members asked him to do so. Had he not been required to explain, he would have left complainant and the SB Members wondering where he has been, which conduct hampers the efficiency of public service,” the Ombudsman observed.
The Ombudsman’s resolution pointed out Olalo’s omission to immediately inform the head of the agency and/or the SB Members of his absence and the reason therefor cannot be “countenanced”.
“Such omission constitutes breach of his oath as public officer to obey the laws, legal orders and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities,” the Ombudsman explained.
The vice mayor’s omissions render him liable for simple misconduct, the Ombudsman declares.