Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Health
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Building 1, San Lazaro Compound, Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, 1003 Manila

IN RE: Department of Health Internal


Audit Service (DOH-IAS) Fact-Finding
Investigation Report in Relation to the
Procurement Process including the Supply
Management of the DOH-Regional Office
No.XII

X---------------------------------------------X

FRANCISCO V. MATEO, MD, MPH,CESE


CHERRY PINK P. DIOCERA, CPA
LEO A. CHIONG, RN.MPH
ZANDRO C. CASADO, RPT, SHPO
NORMA M. MIDTIMBANG, ALHADJ
EARL A. GRANADO, RPh
JOHN ERNESTO O. TOBIAS, RN
RAMON O. BUENBRAZO
ADELAIDA S. BASERA
ENGR. REY C. SANTELLA, SE
RENANTE C. NATANO, MPA
MAYEN P. ABDULLAH, RPh
GEORGE BONES
MA. FE. P. ABU
Respondents.
X------------------------------------------------X

C OUNTER- AFFIDAVIT

I, FRANCISCO V. MATEO, of legal age, married, Filipino,


residing at 46 Plaridel Street, Kidapawan City, after being duly sworn
in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that:

1. That I am a former employee of the Department of Health-


Center for Health Development XII, Cotabato City (DOH-CHD
XII) holding the position of Assistant Regional Director. I just
recently retired from the service last October 10, 2018;

2. That I received the SHOW CAUSE ORDER issued by the


Undersecretary of Health, Office of the Chief of Staff and Health
Regulation on January 25, 2019 directing me to submit my
Comment under oath or Counter Affidavit on the findings of the
fact-finding committee of this Honorable Office within five (5)

Page 1 of 4
days from receipt thereof and explain why no disciplinary action
shall be taken against me;

3. That the show-cause order pertains to the DOH-IAS Report 0n


the Fact-Finding Investigation regarding the alleged irregularities
in the procurement process and supply management of this
region. The following findings/issues that needs to be clarified
and make comments with, in so far as my personality as the OIC,
Regional Director of the Office at that time is concerned, are as
follows:

a.) Drugs and medicines with remaining shelf life below


18 months are being accepted contrary to Item
3.3.1(f) of the Guidelines for the Procurement of
Drugs and Medicines, Medical Equipment and other
related Health Goods of DOH Customized
Procurement Manual-Volume 2.
b.) Drugs and medicines distributed from March 1, 2017
onwards were excluded from the Report on Physical
Count of Inventories as of February 29, 2017.
c.) Suppliers incurring delays in deliveries were not in
accordance with contract.

4. As to the first issue at hand. It is the duty of the Program


Managers/End-Users to identify the drugs and medicines to be
procured and thereafter will issue an Allocation List. This drugs
and medicines will be brought or delivered to several Rural
Health Units (RHUs) within our region depending on their needs.
Once procured pursuant to the bidding process, the winning
bidder will deliver the medicines to the Office, in which the
Supply Officer has the duty to either accept or not. The latter will
then notify the inspection committee to inspect the medicines if
it is in accordance to what is provided under the Purchase
Request and Order. There are instances however, that the
available medicines from the suppliers are those with below 18
months shelf life. These are being accepted by the Office only
under exceptional circumstances, such as when the Recipients-
RHUs are badly in need of medicines or when there is a scarcity
and non-availability to the market and in emergency cases such
as disaster and natural calamities. Nonetheless, there is no way
that we accept drugs and medicines with below 15 months shelf
life and not within the specifications and standards of what is
stipulated in the bidding documents or its technical
specifications.

5. Further, it has been a customary practice that whenever there


are drugs and medicines delivered with less than 18 months shelf
life, the inspecting team immediately notifies the Supply Officer;
Page 2 of 4
after inspection, they will indicate their observation and notify
the Supply Officer to inform the Supplier regarding the matter
and instruct them to execute Affidavit of Undertaking to replace
the items delivered (See attached copy as Annex “B”). This
strongly indicates that our Office does not have any intention to
cause harm or damage to anyone including the government. In
other words, we perform our duties under the precept of good
faith. In addition, we have also considered the fact that even the
DOH-Central Office is delivering drugs and medicines with less
than 18 months shelf life (See attached copy as Annex “C”), to
bolster our argument that it is made under the precept of good
faith and customary practice;

6. As the Former OIC Regional Director at that time, I appeal to you


that I performed my duties and functions with due diligence,
faithfulness, integrity and loyalty to the public;

7. As to the second issue at hand. As the OIC, Regional Director


my part in the Report on Physical Count of Inventory is to
approved those made by the Inventory Committee. It is not my
duty therefore to do the physical count.

8. In connection to the above, allow me to invoke a ruling by the


Supreme Court in the case of Amado C. Arias v.
Sandiganbayan, GR No. 81563, December 19, 1989):

“We would be setting a bad precedent if a head of office


plagued by all too common problems – dishonest or
negligent subordinates, overwork, multiple assignments or
positions, or plain incompetence – is suddenly swept into
conspiracy conviction simply because he did not personally
examine every single detail, painstakingly trace every step
from inception, and investigate the motives of every
person involved in a transaction before affixing his
signature as the final approving authority."

9. As to the third issue at hand. In the same ruling above, I invoke


that it is not my duty to account for any possible liquidated
damages that an erring supplier may have incurred due to their
delays in deliveries. I solely rely to the Accounting Office, as it is
their duty to do so. But I do believe, that imposition of liquidated
damages may depend on the attending surrounding
circumstances of the delay which requires consideration from
your Office.

10. Finally, it is my humble assertion that there has been no malice


or bad faith attached to my performance of duty, particularly in
Page 3 of 4
the procurement process and supply management. As ruled in the
case of Bienvnido L. Punzalan v. Rumel M. Macalisang, A.M.
No. P-06-2268, November 27, 2006, in the absence of bad
faith or malice, the penalty imposed was reprimand and not
suspension. On the other hand, I just would like to point out other
relevant matters or circumstances, such as first investigation that
I have been involved for the whole duration of my service in this
Office for more than 36 years and more importantly there is no
injury or harm resulted to any person including the government.
With this, I am humbly asking for mercy for I just recently retired
from the service and I don’t want to leave this Office tainted with
bad record.

11. As such, I am executing this counter-affidavit to certify or attest


to the truth of the foregoing statements and circumstances for
whatever legal purposes that this counter-affidavit may serve.

I N WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand this 29th day


of January 2019, at Cotabato City, Philippines.

FRANCISCO V. MATEO
Affiant

S UBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 29th day of


January 2019 at Cotabato City, Philippines, by the affiant, after
exhibiting to me her competent proof of identity -
______________________________________________________.

Doc No._______;
Page No.______;
Book No.______;
Series of 2019.

Page 4 of 4