LA TRINIDAD, Benguet – Two former officials of the State-run Benguet State University (BSU) were cleared by the Office of the Ombudsman for grave misconduct and oppression filed against them by a disgruntled job order worker for lack of substantial evidence.
In an 8-page decision penned by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Maxlen C. Balanon and approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, it found that there is no substantial evidence to hold former BSU president Ben D. Ladilad and former vice president for business affairs Jones K. Feleciano administratively liable for grave misconduct and oppression because the employee who filed the case was in a job order status wherein the institution had no employer-employee relationship.
The decision noted that while there was an order from the labor and employment department which stated that employees of the income-generating projects of BSU should be treated as regular employees entitled to the protection and benefits of the Labor Code, it did not automatically change the complainant’s status from a job order to a regular employee.
“In so far as Ladilad and Feleciano are concerned, they merely followed the terms of contract of the complainant. The employment of the complainant is governed by a job order contract, the expiration of which provides the basis for his removal unless renewed by BSU. It is clear that complainant’s removal from BSU was brought about by the expiration of his contract which does not appear to have been renewed after its expiration. As such, the complaint filed against him could not have been the basis for his removal from service,” the decision stressed.
Earlier, Edgar B. Nabus filed a complaint against Ladilad and Feleciano for grave misconduct, oppression, and violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees for allegedly failing to renew him as a job order worker of the institution after the lapse of his contract.
In their separate counter-affidavits, Ladilad and Feleciano denied the allegations of the complaint against them, asserting that Nabus was never hired as an employee of BSU as his services were merely engaged on a job order basis, the latest of his job order appointment was issued for January 1, 2014, to June 30, 2014.
Ladilad and Feleciano also argued the termination of the services of the complainant was not based on the letter dated July 4, 2014 but due to the expiration of his job order appointment, thus, he cannot claim that he was dropped from the list of employees of BSU because he was never an employee and that there was no basis for the claim that he was denied due process as he knew from the start that his services were engaged on a job order basis and was aware of the state that his services were engaged under a job order contract which was of different nature from and could not give rise to a permanent status.
The Ombudsman also cleared Ladilad for violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees considering that records show that Ladilad, through BSU’s legal officer, verbally answered the letter-inquiry of complainant’s counsel Atty. Selmo which was confirmed and clarified in the letter reply of Ladilad to Atty. Selmo stating that a verbal explanation as to his queries was earlier made by the concerned legal officer and that Ladilad was admonished for his alleged failure to make a written reply on the matter.
By HENT
