Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 25

Republic of the Philippines

Civil Service Commission


Constitution Hills, Batasang Pambansa Complex
Diliman, Quezon City
*****

JUDITH A. JOSOL, Case No.


_______
Appellant,

- versus -

TANDAG WATER DISTRICT, hereto


represented by General Manager
ENGR. RUBEN C. ELPA,
Appellee.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/

MEMORANDUM
ON
APPEAL

APPELLANT, by the undersigned Law Office, most


respectfully files her Memorandum on Appeal pursuant to
the directive of this Honorable Commission, dated 14 July
2010, copy of which was received on 18 August 2010.

I
Prefatory Statement

"Democracy cannot be a reign of progress, of liberty, of


justice, unless the law is respected by him who makes it
and by him for whom it is made. Now this respect
implies a maximum of faith, a minimum of idealism. On
going to the bottom of the matter, we discover that life
demands of us a certain residuum of sentiment which is
not derived from reason, but which reason nevertheless
controls ..."1 [Emphasis Ours].

1
See Aberca vs. Ver, 34 160 SCRA 590, 601, April 15, 1988.
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 2 of 25
x--------------------------------/

II
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

2.1. This is an APPEAL to the Decision of appellee

Tandag Water District, dated 26 February 2010, dismissing


appellant from service under the following dispensation,
thus -

“WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises


and after she was found guilty as charged of
DISHONESTY AND FALSI-FICATION OF OFFICIAL
DOCUMENTS, MALVERSATION OF FUNDS AND GRAVE
MISCONDUCT while in the performance of official duty,
employee Josol is hereby DISMISSED from the service of
TWD effective 1 March 2010. Other accessory benefits
due her is hereby forfeited..."2 [Emphasis Ours].

2.2. On 31 March 2010, appellant forthwith filed her

Motion for Reconsideration3, which, rather expectedly, was


denied per Answer to the Motion for Reconsideration, thus
-

2
See Decision No. 10-001-A, dated 26 February 2010, original
copy of which is hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES "A" to "A-
3".
3
See Motion for Reconsideration, dated 31 March 2010, original
copy of which is hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES "B" to "B-
2".
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 3 of 25
x--------------------------------/

“WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises,


her Motion for reconsideration is hereby denied..."4
[Emphasis Ours].

2.3. Left with no recourse, appellant seasonably filed

her Notice of Appeal5 before this Honorable Commission, in


which she was later directed to file her Memorandum on
Appeal ...

III
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

3.1. The antecedent facts relative to the instant case

and the appointments to various positions of appellant are


aptly narrated in the Decision, thus -

“Judith A. Josol was appointed permanent


employee of this office on 6 March 2000 as Customer
Service Assistant D and assigned as support staff of the
Accounting Unit until she was promoted to Corporate
Budget Assistant and Senior Accounting Processor B on 1
June 2001 and 1 March 2002, respectively. As a result of
our recategorization, the subject employee became head
of said unit being the Senior Corporate Accounts
Analysts effective 1 February 2004.

However, due to various complaints against Ms.


Josol for the massive irregularities with the accounting
systems and procedures involving the loan accounts of
different employees of this Office, the undersigned
relieved her from her function and assigned her to the
Commercial Services Unit effective 31 October 2006.

Ms. Josol was the same employee subjected to an


investi-gation and had correspondingly meted the
penalty of one (1) year suspension from the service
4
See Answer to the Motion for Reconsideration, dated 14 April
2010, original copy of which is hereto attached and marked as
ANNEXES "C" to "C-1".
5
See Notice of Appeal, dated 9 June 2010, original copy of
which is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX "D".
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 4 of 25
x--------------------------------/

without salary after being found guilty of the charges


thereof under Decision No. 09-001. She was again the
subject of another investigation when the undersigned
received additional report from Ms. Michelle L.
Patrimonio and Ms. Ivy B. Paganpan, the Corporate
Budget Assistant and desig-nated Accounting Clerk,
respectively of the Accounting Unit dated 13 October
2009 pertaining to the fictitious data for the account on
installment receivable for service connection fee
controlled in the Book of New Service Connection and
reflected to the Service Application and Construction
Order. Involved in the process were employees Josol, J.
and Trinidad, A., who were assigned in controlling the
book and accepting customers' payment, thus directly
became the focus of said investigation..." 6 [Underscoring
Ours].

3.2. As Senior Corporate Accounts Analysts,


appellant enjoys the rank of a Division Head. Yet, in 2006,
she was relieved of her functions and assigned as an
ordinary rank-and-file of Commercial Services Unit.

3.3. On 3 September 2007, respondent issued


Memorandum No. 07-0053 whereby appellant was
"INSTRUCTED" as a Cashiering Assistant and explicitly
assigned the following functions, thus -

“In view of the designation of MS. ANALIZA E. TRINIDAD


as Cashiering Assistant of this office, and in the exigency
of service, effective 3 September 2007, you are hereby
instructed to perform the functions of the latter, such as:

1. Receive application of service connection;


2. Respondent to the complaints of the customers;
3. Properly log all concerns of the customers;
4. Perform other functions related to Customer
Service

You are further instructed to refer to MR. ALFREDO P.


BAGOOD, Administrative Services Officer B, matters with
6
See Supra, ANNEX "A".
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 5 of 25
x--------------------------------/

regards to promis-sory note of water bill payment and


service disconnection... "7 [Emphasis Ours].

3.4. On 13 November 2007, appellee issued


Memorandum No. 07-00748 wherein appellant's
"INSTRUCTION" was now made to appear as an
"ASSIGNMENT" which was even extended effective 14
November 2007. Notably, she was made to perform the
same functions enumerated in her original "INSTRUCTION".

3.5. Under date 6 November 2008, appellee was

again given another extension to his "REASSIGNMENT" per


Memorandum No. 08-0549, performing exactly same
functions as enumerated in her original "INSTRUCTION".

3.6. Notably, this was the position and the job


description she held until her eventual dismissal from
service...

IV
THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

4.1. Sometime on 13 October 2009, a letter-


complaint10 was filed by Michelle L. Patrimonio and Ivy B.

7
See Memorandum No. 07-0053, dated 3 September 2007,
original copy of which is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX "E".
8
See Memorandum No. 07-0074, dated 13 November 2007,
original copy of which is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX "F".
9
See Memorandum No. 08-054, dated 6 November 2008,
original copy of which is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX "G".
10
See Letter-Complaint, dated 13 October 2009, certified true
copy of which is hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES "H" to "H-
1".
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 6 of 25
x--------------------------------/

Paganpan with the office of respondent General Manager


Ruben C. Elpa. Notably, said letter-complaint was not
made under oath.

4.2. Solely on the basis thereof, respondent forthwith

created an Investigating Committee which, pursuant to a


Letter-Directive11, required appellant to file his Answer to
the charges. Upon receipt of the Letter-Directive, appellant
submitted her Answer/Explanation12 Letter.

4.3. On 11 November 2009, the Investigating


Committee submitted its findings13 recommending proper
and legal action to be taken against appellant, and, after
five (5) days therefrom, the Formal Charge engendered,
thus -

“WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises,


you JOSOL, Judith A. is hereby FORMALLY CHARGED with
the offenses of DISHONESTY, FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL
DOCUMENT, MALVERSATION OF FUNDS and GRAVE
MISCONDUCT. Accor-dingly, you are given five (5) days
from receipt hereof to submit your answer in writing and
under oath. Further, you have the right to engage the
services of a counsel of your own choice and to elect a
formal investigation..."14 [Emphasis Ours].

11
See Letter-Directive, dated 23 October 2009, certified true
copy of which is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX "I".
12
See Answer/Explanation Letter, dated 27 October 2009,
certified true copy of which is hereto attached and marked as
ANNEX "J".
13
See Investigation Report, dated 11 November 2009, certified
true copy of which is hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES "K"
to "K-2".
14
See Formal Charge, dated 16 November 2009, original copy of
which is hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES "L" to "L-1".
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 7 of 25
x--------------------------------/

4.4. Upon her receipt of the Formal Charge on 23

November 2009, Memorandum No. 11-04015 was issued


putting appellant under Preventive Suspension for a period
of thirty (30) days, to restrain her from interfering with the
Formal Investigation, thus -

"In view of the result of preliminary investigation


made by the Investigating Committee, prima facie
evidence was observed resulting to the Formal Charge
issued to you this day for the offenses of DISHONESTY,
FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL DOCU-MENT, MALVERSATION
OF FUNDS and GRAVE MISCONDUCT. And thus, a Formal
Investigation will follow.

In relation herewith, the undersigned being the


disciplining authority finds it necessary for you to be
PREVENTIVELY SUSPEN-DED from work of this office for
thirty (30) days effective November 23, 2009 -
December 24, 2009 for purposes of restraining you from
interfering said investigation.

This office will further notify you as soon as result


from the Formal Investigation Report will finally be
settled..." [Emphasis Ours].

4.5. On 1 December 2009, appellant submitted her

Answer16 reiterating her lack of participation to the acts


constitutive of the charges.

4.6. Realizing the futility of the Formal Investigation,

with no formal complainants, with the Investigating


Committee created by the Disciplining Authority under his
control, with him to ultimately act as the Sole Judge,

15
See Memorandum No. 11-040, dated 20 November 2009,
original copy of which is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX "M".
16
See Answer, dated 1 December 2009, original copy of which
is hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES "N" to "N-3".
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 8 of 25
x--------------------------------/

appellant opted instead for the filing of Position Paper 17


which she did file on 18 January 2010.

4.7. As expected, the Decision18 was finally handed

down by the lesser God finding appellant guilty of the


charges, including the criminal offenses of FALSIFICATION
OF OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC
FUNDS! Ironically, appellant's alleged co-conspirator
likewise formally charged together with her, was only
meted out the penalty of Suspension for six (6) months
without pay in a separate Decision19.

4.8. Thus, this Memorandum on Appeal...

V
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

5.1. Is the administrative proceedings


conducted at the behest of the appellee
vis-a-vis the charges hurled against
appellant in accordance with the
procedure under the Civil Service Laws,
rules and regulations?

5.2. Is there substantive evidence supporting


and/or establishing the guilt of appellant
for the various charges?

VI

17
See Position Paper, dated 18 January 2010, original copy of
which is hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES "O" to "O-4".
18
See Supra, ANNEX "A".
19
See Decision, dated 5 March 2010, original copy of which is
hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES "P" to "P-2".
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 9 of 25
x--------------------------------/

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS
OF THE ISSUES

6.1. FIRST : Appellee practically circumcised the


important stages in the administrative proceedings against
appellant to ensure her dismissal from service.

6.1a. Prefatorily, appellant belabors to


reproduce the provisions of Chapter 6, Subtitle
A, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987,
thus -

"Section 46. Discipline: General Provisions. –

x x x

(c) Except when initiated by the


discip-lining authority, no complaint against
a civil service official or employee shall be
given due course unless the same is in
writing and subscribed and sworn to by the
complainant ...” [Emphasis Ours].
6.1b. The foregoing provision is
complemented by Section 8, Rule II of Resolution
No. 99-1936, otherwise known as the “Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service”, which provides, thus -

“Section 8. Complaint. – A complaint against


a civil service official or employee SHALL not be
given due course unless it is in writing and
subscribed and sworn to by the complainant.
However, in cases initiated by the proper
disciplining authority, the complainant need not
be under oath..." [Emphasis Ours].
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 10 of 25
x--------------------------------/

6.1c. Utilizing CSC Resolution No. 99-1936

and Executive Order No. 292 as the common


yardstick, it is beyond cavil that the Letter-
Complaint20, which initiated the conduct of the
administrative proceedings against the
appellant, miserably fell short of the mandated
requirements.

6.1d. In addition, the Letter-Complaint was

bereft of the proper supporting documents


provided for under CSC Resolution No. 99-1936,
thus -

"The complaint should be written in a


clear, simple and concise language and in a
systematic manner as to appraise the civil
servant concerned of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him and to enable
him to intelligently prepare his defense or
answer.

The complaint shall contain the following:

a. Full name and address of the


complainant;
b. Full name and address of the person
complained of as well as his position
and office of employment;
c. A narration of the relevant and
material facts which shows the acts or
omissions allegedly committed by the
civil servant;
d. Certified true copies of documentary
evidence and affidavits of his
witnesses, if any; and
e. Certification or statement of non-forum
shopping.

20
See Supra, ANNEX "H".
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 11 of 25
x--------------------------------/

In the absence of any one of the


aforementioned requirements, the complaint
SHALL be dismissed ...” [Emphasis Ours].

6.1e. In the instant case, the Letter-


Complaint of Michelle L. Patrimonio and Ivy B.
Paganpan was bereft of the proper supporting
documents. While it mentioned of documents
supporting their claim, what was attached was
only a schedule of Installment Receivable,
which, aside from not being a public record or
document, bears no corresponding signature of
the person who prepared the same and the basis
thereof.

6.1f. In the case of Civil Service


Commission vs. Court of Appeals (Former
Second Division) and Neolito Dumlao, the
Honorable Supreme Court emphasized that the
use of the word "SHALL" qualifying the
requirements of a valid complaint provided
under CSC Resolution No. 99-1936 is mandatory.
So that a Formal Charge based on the defective
complaint suffers a congenital defect, thus -
"The employment of the word “shall”
connotes a mandatory character. A formal
charge may only be filed upon establishment
of a prima facie case. A prima facie case
must be found to exist on the basis of sworn
statements of the complaint and his
witnesses, and certified true copies of
documentary evidence. Absent these, the
complaint shall be dismissed. Corollarily, a
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 12 of 25
x--------------------------------/

formal charge is not in order ..."21 [Emphasis


Ours].

6.1g. Demonstrative of the ill-motive and

respite shown by appellee Ruben C. Elpa against


appellant is Memorandum No. 11-040 which put
the latter under preventive suspension, thus -

"In relation herewith, the undersigned


being the disciplining authority FINDS IT
NECESSARY for you to be PREVENTIVELY
SUSPENDED from work of this office for thirty
(30) days effective November 23, 2009 -
December 24, 2009 for purposes of
restraining you from interfering said
investiga-tion..."22 [Emphasis Ours].

6.1h. It may not be amiss to point out that

the person subject of the Formal Investigation is


appellant herself. It is, thus, an affront to logic
and reason that she would otherwise be
restrained from making any inter-ference in the
said investigation when it is her legal right to
participate therein, confront the witnesses and
other evidences submitted against her.

6.1i. Otherwise stated, the preventive


suspension slapped against appellant to restrain
her from making any interference in the Formal
Investigation conducted by appellee is devoid of
any legal basis. On the contrary, the same was a
21
See Civil Service Commission vs. Court of Appeals and Neolito
Dumlao, G.R. No. 147009, 11 March 2004.
22
See Supra, ANNEX "M".
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 13 of 25
x--------------------------------/

calculated move to altogether deny her of the


basic rudiments of due process.

6.1j. In fact, perusal of Decision No. 10-001-

A would show that appellee went beyond the


ambit of its jurisdiction. Notwithstanding that
appellant was charged ADMINISTRATIVELY, she
was even pronounced guilty of FALSIFICATION OF
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS as well as MALVERSATION
OF FUNDS which are essentially penal in nature
and made as an integral part justifying her
dismissal from service, thus -

“WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing


premises and after she was found guilty as
charged of DISHONESTY AND FALSI-FICATION
OF OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS, MALVERSATION
OF FUNDS AND GRAVE MISCONDUCT while in
the performance of official duty, employee
Josol is hereby DISMISSED from the service
of TWD effective 1 March 2010. Other
accessory benefits due her is hereby
forfeited..."23 [Emphasis Ours].

6.1k. Coupled with the creation of an


Investigating Committee at the sole discretion of
appellee Ruben Elpa, the final results of which
is still at his disposition, what

really transpired in the entire administrative


proceedings is an orchestrated useless formality
with pre-determined outcome, whereby

23
See Supra, ANNEX "A".
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 14 of 25
x--------------------------------/

appellant appears to be the villain and appellee


was the actor.

6.1l. The uneven application of justice and

the lack of fair play are best exemplified in the


separate Decision against appellant's alleged co-
participant, Analiza E. Trinidad, whereby the
latter was only meted out the penalty of six (6)
months suspension, notwithstanding that she
too, was found guilty of the grave offense of
Dishonesty, thus -

"WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing


premises and after she was found guilty as
charged of DISHONESTY AND FALSIFICATION
OF OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS while in the
performance of official duty and from the
classification of said act, employee Trinidad
A is hereby penalized for SIX (6) MONTHS
SUSPENSION from the service of TWD
without salary, effective 8 March 2010. Other
benefits due her within the specified period
are hereby forfeited..."24 [Emphasis Ours].

6.1m. The observance of the equal


protection clause, guaranteed no less than the
1987 Constitution, dictates that the penalty
imposed against an alleged conspirator should
have been the same penalty with the other
participants, befitting the adage that ...

"What is sauce to the goose


must likewise be sauce to the gander..."

24
See Supra, ANNEXES "P" to "P-2".
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 15 of 25
x--------------------------------/

6.2. SECOND : There is no substantial evidence


establishing the guilt of appellant to the multifarious
charges of Dishonesty, Falsification of Official Documents,
Malversation of Fund and Grave Misconduct hurled against
her.

6.2a. For purposes of clarity, appellant


belabors to summarize the Flowchart involving
the Water Service Connection of customers, thus
-

CUSTOMER
Accomplishes Service Application Form
and Construction Order by filling-up
his name, date, address and
affixing his signature and that of his spouse

APPELLANT JOSOL
Reflects the Amount of Charges Due on the
application and forwards the document to
Engineering Department for Inspection

ENGINEERING
Conducts Inspection
Fills-up Service Location and Distribution Size and
Data in the Inspector's/Investigators Report/Findings

GENERAL MANAGER
Approval of Application
Affixes his signature on the
Approved for Construction/Installation

APPELLANT JOSOL
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 16 of 25
x--------------------------------/

Gives to the Approved Application


to the Commercial Department for assignment of
Account Number

COMMERCIAL DEPARTMENT
Assigns Account Number to the Approved Application
by filling-up the Service Connection Number

CUSTOMER
Gets back his Approved Application
and make payment to the teller

TELLER/COLLECTOR
Receives Payment from Applicant,
Issues corresponding Official Receipt, indicate the
O.R. Number, the Date of Payment and
Affixes signature above the name Collector

APPELLANT JOSOL
Records approved application in the
Book of New Service Connection by entering
Name of Concessionaires, Address,
Official Receipt No. based on the Approved Application,
Date of Payment

ENGINEERING
Installation of Water Connection
Plumber affixes signature under Installed By

APPELLANT JOSOL
Retains Copy of the Fully-Accomplished
Service Application and Construction Order
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 17 of 25
x--------------------------------/

6.2b. From the foregoing Flowchart, it


is crystal clear that appellant has nothing to do
with the collection of the payment from the
customers. It is ANALIZA E. TRINIDAD, the
Cashiering Assistant/Teller who is fully
responsible for the receipt and custody of the
collections and the issuance of the
corresponding Official Receipts.

6.2c. This fact is fully supported by


Memorandum No. 07-0053 issued by appellee to
appellant, thus -

"In view of the designation of MS.


ANALIZA E. TRINIDAD, as Cashiering
Assistant of this Office, and in the exigency
of service, effective September 3, 2007, you
are hereby instructed to perform the
functions of the latter ... "25 [Emphasis Ours].

6.2d. Not only that. Even a simple


reading of the Job Description of appellant based
on three separate Memoranda issued by
appellee, there is nothing therein that would
show, beyond an iota of doubt, that she is
responsible for the collection from customers
and the issuance of the corresponding Official
Receipts.

25
See Supra, ANNEX "E".
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 18 of 25
x--------------------------------/

6.2e. For emphasis, appellant's Job


Description is provided below, thus -

" ... you are hereby instructed to perform the


functions of the latter, such as:

1. Receive application of service


connection;
2. Respondent to the complaints of the
customers;
3. Properly log all concerns of the
customers;
4. Perform other functions related to
Customer Service... "26 [Emphasis Ours].

6.2f. These facts belie the basis of the

findings and even the basis of charges of


Malversation of Funds. Notably, not a single
customer/client whose account was involved in
the alleged anomaly executed a sworn
statement pointing appellant as the person to
whom they tendered their payments, if such
were really the facts.

6.2g. While admittedly, appellant was the

person one who made entries of the Official


Receipt Numbers in the Book of New Service
Connection27, such act was only a ministerial
function. She based the information from the
approved Service Application and Construction
Order where the data/information vis-a-vis the

26
See Supra, ANNEXES "E", "F" and "G".
27
See Book of New Service Connection, certified true copies of
which are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES "N" to "N-2".
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 19 of 25
x--------------------------------/

Official Receipt Numbers were written by the


Cashiering Assistant herself in the person of
Analiza E. Trinidad.

6.2h. This inescapable conclusion maybe


drawn thru a punctilious examination of the
accomplished Service Application and
Construction Order28 wherein the handwriting in
the "O.R. Number" and "Date Paid" made by the
Collector/Teller Analiza Trinidad is conspicuously
different from the handwriting in the "Amount"
made by appellant Judith Josol.

6.2i. Suffice to say, if there were errors in

the Official Receipt Numbers as indicated in the


approved Service Application and Construction
Order, the said errors were inevitably copied by
appellant. Such act of copying the entries made

by another does not ipso facto make her a


conspirator to any irregularity committed by the
Teller or Collector.

6.2j. From this ratiocination, it is beyond

doubt that there are no legal and factual bases


for the charge and the corresponding findings of
Dishonesty as well as Falsification of Official
28
See Service Application and Construction Order of Ramilo,
Bautista, Bagcal, Rebarter. Ramos, Dableo and Japzon, certified true
copies of which are hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES "O" to
"O-6", respectively.
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 20 of 25
x--------------------------------/

Documents both of which were imputed against


herein appellant.

6.2k. Appellant hastens to add that the


findings of Grave Misconduct suffered from some
congenital defects.
The outright rejection of the defenses she
interposed is not supported by facts, but only
conclusions, thus -

“The Committee revealed that the


justifica-tions of respondent JOSOL are purely
self-serving and without merit. They further
claim that evidences on record are sufficient
to establish substantial evidence warranting
a finding of guilt with the charges against
her…”29 [Emphasis Added].

6.2l. Needless to say, the declarations that

the justifications proffered by appellant are


purely "self-serving" and "without merit" are
here conclusions, not factual findings.

6.2m. Yet, at the bottom, the


conclusions drawn by appellee are totally
contradictory to the evidence on record. As
such, there is no substantial evidence to warrant
the findings of guilt against appellant.

6.3. ONE LAST POINT. The filing of an Administrative

Case against a superior should not be rewarded with ill-will


29
See Supra, ANNEX "A", page 3.
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 21 of 25
x--------------------------------/

and respite, but viewed as a constructive criticism if,


indeed, appellee sought to uphold the high standard of
ethics in public service.

6.3a. Intentionally omitted from the records

and isolated from the antecedents facts is the


administrative case30 instituted by appellant
against appellee Ruben E. Elpa before the Office
of the Ombudsman.
6.3b. The aforementioned case ignited the

ill-will and respite of appellee Ruben C. Elpa


against appellant, and the instant case provided
the perfect opportunity to ventilate the same.

6.3c. It may be worth to stress that


appellant is an ordinary government worker
solely dependent upon her salary as the source
of her living, if not, survival. Her dismissal from
public service based on highly precarious
findings of guilt and because she took the
cudgel of seeking redress of her grievances to
proper authorities create a very dangerous
precedence that this Honorable Commission
should consider...

30
See Joint Order with Attachments, original copies of which are
hereto attached and marked as ANNEXES "P" to "P-5".
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 22 of 25
x--------------------------------/

VII
PRAYER

7.1. WHEREFORE, ALL PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is

most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Commission


that the assailed Decision, dated 26 February 2010 and
the Answer to the Motion for Reconsideration, dated 14
April 2010, be VACATED and SET ASIDE, for having been
promulgated in utter disregard to the procedural
requirements under CSC Resolution No. 99-1936, for being
bereft of evidence, in gross violation of the rudiments of
justice, equity and fair play and for lack of legal and
factual bases.

7.2. In their lieu, appellant prays that judgment be

issued exonerating her from the charges and ordering her


reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other
benefits.

7.3. Other reliefs deemed just and equitable under

the cir-cumstances are likewise prayed for.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.


Butuan City, (for Manila) Philippines,
31 August 2010.

HENRY C. FILOTEO
Roll No. 44949
PTR No. 1126598, 1/07/09, Surigao City
IBP Lifetime No. 06979
MCLE Compliance No. III-0001453, 12-17-08
RESERVA-FILOTEO LAW OFFICE
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 23 of 25
x--------------------------------/

Counsel for Appellant


Rm. 205, Onghoc Building
Montilla Boulevard., Butuan City, Philippines

VIII
VERIFICATION
AND
CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING

I, JUDITH A. JOSOL, of legal age, married and a


resident of Tandag City, after being duly sworn to in
accordance with law, depose and state that:

1. I am the appellant in the instant case and I


caused the preparation and filing of this Memorandum;

2. I have read the contents of the Memorandum


on Appeal and all the allegations herein are true and
correct to my personal knowledge and based on
authentic documents;

3. I certify that I have not heretofore


commenced any other action or proceeding involving the
same party, the same issues and the same subject-
matter in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 24 of 25
x--------------------------------/

any other tribunal or agency, and that no such action or


proceedings pending before the aforementioned;

4. If I should learn hereafter that a similar


action or proceedings has been filed or is pending with
the foregoing court, tribunal or agency, I undertake to
report that fact to this Honorable Commission within five
(5) days from knowledge thereof.

WITNESS MY HAND, this 31st day of August 2010 in


Butuan City, Philippines.

JUDITH A. JOSOL
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 31st day


of August 2010 in Butuan City, Philippines, after affiant
exhibited to me her TWD Identification Card No. 010,
bearing her picture and signature, serving as competent
evidence of her identity.

IX
COPY FURNISHED

1. ENGR. RUBEN C. ELPA, CE


Appellee
Tandag Water District
National Highway, Mabua
Tandag, Surigao del Sur
Registry Receipt No. : __________________
Date : __________________

2. HON. ADAMS D. TORRES


CSC, Caraga Administrative Region
Doongan Road, Butuan City
Registry Receipt No. : ____________________
Date : ____________________

X
EXPLANATION
JOSOL vs. TANDAG WATER DISTRICT
Memorandum on Appeal
Page 25 of 25
x--------------------------------/

Copies of the foregoing Memorandum on Appeal were


prepared by the undersigned counsel in his home address
at Km. 1, Surigao City, during the three (3)-day break 28-
31 August 2010. Due to time constraints and in
consideration of the relative distances between the parties
and this Honorable Commission, copies thereof were
furnished to the appellee Tandag Water District and filed
with this Honorable Civil Service Commission via registered
mail. This is in compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.

HENRY C.
FILOTEO