Republic of the Philippines

Philippine Health Insurance Commission

Citystate Centre, 709 Shaw Boulevard
Pasig City

Philippine Health Insurance

Corporation,
Complainant,

-versus- Admin. Case No: 2018-135-XI

FOR: Grave Misconduct; Gross
Insubordination; Gross Neglect of
Duty; and/or Conduct Prejudicial to
the Best Interest of the Service.
Dennis B. Adre,
Regional Vice-President (SG-26),
PhilHealth Regional Office (PRO) XI,
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------x

AFFIDAVIT

Respondent most respectfully files this Affidavit relative to the Formal Charge of
the complainant, charging him with the administrative offenses of grave misconduct,
gross insubordination, gross neglect of duty and/or conduct prejudicial to the best
interest in the service under 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

Respondent under oath, hereby deposes and says that:

On the allegation that respondent failed to

comply with Corporate Memorandum 2018-
0008:

The IPCEO cannot compel the respondent to do an unlawful act. CM 2018-0008

violates the basic principles of contracts.

1. In Philippine Today vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 112965. January 30, 1997, the
Supreme Court recognized the contractual nature of employment which requires
mutuality of consent between the parties and it opines that “An employment contract
is consensual and voluntary.”

2. The reduction of the contract period to three (3) months is a breach of

contract. It must be pointed out that the casual employees have previously signified in
their Letter of Intent that they intend to be renewed for a period of one year. Thus,
reducing their contract period to three (3) months is an ambush and direct insult to the
lowly casual employees who never had the chance to look for better employment
opportunities because the Corporation made them believe that they will be appointed
for one year.

3. The Fact Finding and Preliminary Investigation Report, which is the

primary basis of this Formal Charge, has criminally and unabashedly failed to take into
consideration the fact that the BELATED issuance of CM 2018-0008 severely affected
casual employees by violating their rights to be notified and consent to the new terms
(shorter contract period) provided for in said Memorandum.

4. CM 2018-0008 also violated Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 24,

series of 2017 which clearly provides under Rule 3, section 7 par. 9 that: “Date of
Signing: The date of signing, which is the date of the issuance and the date of effectivity of the
appointment, shall be indicated below the signature of the appointing officer/ authority”.

5. The date of signing, (which is the date of the issuance and the date of
effectivity) of the contract of all casual employees started on January 1, 2018, but OIC-
IPCEO Celestina dela Serna issued CM 2018-0008 only on January 18, 2018.

6. Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 24, series of 2017 clearly provides
under RULE VI EFFECTIVITY AND SUBMISSION OF APPOINTMENTS Section 17
that: “An appointment issued in accordance with pertinent laws and rules shall take effect
immediately, on the date it was signed by appointing officer/ authority. The date of signing shall
be indicated below the signature of the appointing officer / authority in the appointment form.”

7. Based on the two cited CSC MC provisions, the date of effectivity of

appointment of all casual employees is based on the date of signing, which is the date of
issuance and the date of effectivity of the appointment. The contract of all casual
employees was January 1, 2018 yet the contract of all casual employees were not yet
signed by January 18, 2018 because former OIC IPCEO dela Serna issued CM 2018-0008.

8. Contrary to afore-cited provisions of Civil Service MC 24 series of 2017,

because of CM 2018-0008, former OIC IPCEO dela Serna did not / could not have signed
the contract on January 1, 2018. Consequently, an order to revise the recommendation
issued only on January 18, 2018, should not, and cannot be given due course. Former
OIC-IPCEO dela Serna caused the late signing of the contracts of all casuals many of
which have not yet been signed even way into February 2018.

9. OIC-IPCEO issued CM 2018-0008 on January 18, 2018, eighteen (18) days

after the date of the contract of casual employees for 2018. All documents from the
HRD prove that former OIC-IPCEO dela Serna had not signed the contracts of casual
employees not only in PRO XI, but in many other regional Offices as well, as evidenced
by a letter dated February 5, 2018, from then HRD Manager Henry Almanon stating
among others that PCAs and RAIs of several regions have not yet completed.
(Memorandum from Almanon addressed to OIC-IPCEO dela Serna, through MSS SVP
Mas and COO Basa dated February 05, 2018 attached as Annex “A”)

Assuming that CM 2018-0008 is lawful, respondent neither failed nor refused to

comply with CM 2018-0008.

10. The very next day CM 2018-0008 was received by respondent, respondent
immediately reiterated his recommendation to renew all 182 employees. The duty of the
respondent is to merely RECOMMEND employees for renewal, and for this duty, the
regional vice president would normally submit a list of casual employees recommended
for renewal.

11. For the contract period starting January 1, 2018, respondent made two (2)
submissions: First, on December 28, 2017, on account of the MSS Memo No. 2017-0019;
and second, on January 19, 2018 (Annex F of the Formal Charge), on account of CM
2018-0008.

12. On the January 19, 2018 Memo of the respondent, he reminded the senior
Philhealth officers of the possible suits that may arise by reason of the reduction of the
contract period from one year to 3 months. He also emphasized that the casual
employees had already been officially informed (through MSS Memo 2017-0019) of the
renewal of contract for one year.

13. With respect to his duty and responsibility of RECOMMENDING casual

employees for renewal, the respondent has sufficiently and timely complied with CM
2018-0008 through his Memorandum dated January 19, 2018.
On the allegation that respondent unnecessarily delayed the
approval of casual employees’ renewal appointments and the
submission of the same to the Civil Service Commission:

Respondent had no hand in the delayed approval of casual employees’ renewal of

appointments. The issuance by former OIC IPCEO Celestina dela Serna of CM 2018-
0008 on January 18, 2018, was the ultimate cause of unnecessary delay.

14. Respondent, as early as December 28, 2017, already submitted his

recommendation. The HRU of PRO XI has also previously submitted on time, the
necessary documents needed for the renewal of the casual employees’ appointments. It
is already upon the HRD to secure the needed signature of the IPCEO to facilitate the
renewal of appointments. However, from December 14, 2017 up to January 15, 2018,
the submissions of PRO XI were not acted by the IPCEO and the HRD. No renewal of
casual appointment had yet been approved while the current contract period was
already running, and despite the fact that an appointment is necessary before any
casual employee may be allowed to report to work and receive compensation.

On the allegation that respondent compromised the continuous

service being rendered by the casuals:

It was the respondent who ensured the casual employees to remain in their posts
despite the unreasonable delay of their appointments.

15. As a region rendering frontline services, it is incumbent upon the

respondent to ensure that the transacting public be served and for that reason,
respondent ascertained that continuous delivery of services to the public was
unhampered.

16. On account of the MSS Memorandum No. 2017-0019, the casual

employees of PRO XI were required to individually submit their Letters of Intent. This
Letter of Intent is submitted by every casual employee to signify their intention that
they wish to be renewed for another term. The same Letter of Intent documents the
period upon which a casual employee signifies to serve in the Corporation. For 2018,
PRO XI casual employees submitted Letters of Intent which are for a period of one year
in accordance with MSS Memorandum No. 2017-0019. (Please refer to the Judicial
Affidavits & Testimonies of Johanna Blason, Carleo Mosqueda & Pamela Orilla as part
of the records of the case)
 17. The practice of PRO XI in requiring the Letter of Intent for its casual
employees was not only to ensure the availability of manpower to ensure the continuity
of services to the public, but also to inform the casual employees of the period of
contract that they are entitled to. This is in line with the practice wherein casual
employees nationwide reported for work continuously while contracts are being
prepared. (Please refer to the Judicial Affidavit and Oral Testimony of Johanna Blason
as part of the records of the case)

18. After the submission of Letter of Intent, the HRU of PRO XI screened the
employees and prepared the documents necessary for transmittal to the Central Office.
(Please refer to the Judicial Affidavit of Johanna Blason & Pamela Orilla as part of the
records of the case)

Prior to the issuance of CM 2018-0008, the Corporation had a preexisting policy of

informing casual employees their contract period prior to the beginning of the
contract period.

19. The policy of the Corporation, consistent with practice and legal
requirements for a valid contract, is to inform all offices and concerned parties of the
period of contract for all casual employees PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE
CONTRACT PERIOD.

20. On December 16, 2016, former Acting President and Chief Executive
Officer (APCEO) Ramon F. Aristoza Jr. issued an order for the following year, 2017,
providing for a one-year period of contract for all casual employees. The formal charge
(ADMIN CASE 2018-135-XI) itself, cited and attached the aforementioned Corporate
Policy on renewal of casual employees for 2017, Corporate Memorandum No, 2016-
0221.

21. Consistent with the policy of informing the concerned parties prior to the
start of the contract period, earlier than the previous issuance concerning the period of
contract for casual employees, on 18 October 2017, Management Services Sector (MSS)
OIC-Senior Vice-President Dr. Shirley Domingo issued MSS Memorandum No. 2017-
0019 which provided for a one (1) year renewal of casual appointments for CY 2018. In
the same Memorandum, it was stated that the appointments for a shorter period (e.g.
six months or three months) are prohibited.
 22. The formal charge (ADMIN CASE 2018-135-XI) itself, cited and attached
the aforementioned Corporate Policy on renewal of casual employees for 2018, MSS
Memorandum No. 2017-0019.

23. Following the MSS Memorandum issued by former OIC MSS SVP Shirley
Domingo, former HRD Senior Manager (SM) Henry Almanon issued an advisory MSS
Memorandum No. 2017-0014 reminding all concerned offices to observe the policy of
renewal of contract for casual employees for not less than one year, emphasizing that
“no contract shall be issued for three months or six months”. (MSS Memorandum No.
2017-0014 attached as Annex “B”)

The mere issuance of CM 2018-0008 is the ultimate cause of unnecessary delay.

24. It is wrong to attribute any delay to the respondent because as far as PRO
XI is concerned, the appointment papers were already waiting for the Central Office’s
action. Had the IPCEO acted upon the previous submissions and not arbitrarily issued
CM 2018-0008, the renewal of appointments would have been completed earlier.

25. Assuming, without admitting, that MSS Memorandum 2017-0019 was

validly amended by CM 2018-0008, it also does not in any way, shape or form invalidate
respondent's compliance to CSC MC No. 4, s. 2017 because it does not change
respondent's RECOMMENDATORY nature in the reappointment of casual employees.

26. As far as respondent is concerned, he has reiterated his recommendation

to renew all the 182 employees no later than one day after the issuance of CM 2018-
0008.

27. Moreover, although not categorically stated, even if CM 2018-0008 strictly

mandates that the Plantilla of Casual Appointments (PCA) and Report on
Appointments Issued (RAI) be revised by the Regional Offices, it is not the
responsibility of the respondent, as regional vice president, to revise the PCA and
RAI. In fact, nowhere in the PCAs and RAIs can you find the signature of the RVP,
because these forms are to be certified by the MSD Chief and the President, only.

28. There is no showing that the Corporation cannot use the previously-
submitted appointment papers. The 2017 Omnibus Rules on Appointment does not
preclude erasures and alternations, as can be gleaned from Sec. 5 of the 2017 Omnibus
Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions.
 29. If indeed the Corporation is concerned on the timeliness of the
submission of the appointment documents, the IPCEO can very well make notations
on the very same documents that she approved the appointment of casual employees
up to March 31, 2018 only. In fact, respondent never questioned the authority of the
former OIC IPCEO dela Serna to approve the appointments.

30. If the Complainant asserts that it was the simple revision of the period of
the date of appointment, then it is incumbent upon them to revise the PCA and RAI of
PRO XI themselves, as they are the ones pushing for an empirically worse period of
employment than that of private corporations strongly criticized by the
administration.

31. The reduction of the appointment period to 3 months is a breach of

contract. Respondent must not be compelled to recommend a shorter contract period
than that which the casual employees consented to. If complainant wants to violate a
contract, she should have done so with full accountability, without implicating the
respondent.

32. PRO XI, through the MSD Chief Atty. Arneil B. Subibi, again resubmitted
a Plantilla of Casual Appointments and Report on Appointments Issued on February 9,
2018, or merely two days behind the other regions. This fact alone only shows that there
is a double-standard so to speak wherein the respondent was clearly singled-out.

33. The HRD allegedly reconstructed the PCA and RAI for PRO XI on 13
February 2018 yet they transmitted the very same documents only on 13 March 2018, or
one month after the alleged date of reconstruction. These reconstructed appointment
papers were received by the region only on March 14, 2018.

On the allegation that respondent unduly exposed the

appointing authority and Philhealth personnel to personal and
administrative liabilities:

34. This allegation is false. The claim of undue exposure to any liabilities is a
SELF-SERVING, SPECULATIVE, AND IMAGINARY allegation on the part of Fact-
Finding Committee. The Fact-Finding Committee did not even specifically point out the
so-called liabilities that the appointing authority and Philhealth personnel was
supposedly exposed. It is a bare allegation without a single evidence to prove it.
 35. Further, it is the respondent’s position that the allegation that the
respondent “unduly exposed the appointing authority and Philhealth personnel to
personal and administrative liability” if indeed they are merely applying to the letter
the law and any administrative issuances, is but a tacit admission on the part of the
Fact-Finding Committee that there is something wrong with the directive addressed to
the respondent to “REVISE” the recommendation after the period covered by the
contract has already commenced.

The Issuance of CM 2018-0008 on January 18, 2018 was untimely. Casual employees
are informed of the period of the contract PRIOR TO, and not DURING, the period
of the new contract.

36. In an undated ADVISORY signed by COO Ruben John Basa, as OIC for
PCEO, issued sometime in March 2018, COO Basa issued a Notice requiring all casual
employees to continue reporting for the next contract period while the contract is being
prepared. (Undated Advisory of Ruben John Basa attached as Annex “C”)

37. The undated Advisory of COO Basa was issued PRIOR TO, and NOT
DURING the beginning of the period of new contract for the period covered, April to
June 2018.

38. For the renewal of contract of casual employees for the period from July 1,
2018 to December 31, 2018, former OIC IPCEO dela Serna issued Corporate
Memorandum No. 2018-0053 dated May 17, 2018. (Corporate Memorandum No. 2018-
0053 attached as Annex “D”)

39. Unlike CM 2018-0008, this CM No. 2018-0053 issued by former OIC-

IPCEO dela Serna herself, was issued PRIOR TO, and NOT DURING, the period of new
contract.

40. As provided in CM 2018-0053, the deadline of submission of the PCAs

and RAIs was set on June 8, 2018. The said deadline was PRIOR to the START OF THE
PERIOD covered by the new contract, July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018.

41. The same CM 2018-0053 provided: “PRO HRU heads are reminded that non-
compliance with the deadline of submission of the documents, particularly the RAI which is
being submitted to the CSC Makati and DBP Field Office on the 30 th day of the succeeding
month, shall be ground for administrative disciplinary action for neglect of duty.”
 42. For the renewal of contract of casual employees for the period from
January 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019, former APCEO Roy Ferrer issued Corporate
Memorandum (CM) No. 2018-0085 on October 15, 2018, informing all concerned parties
of the period of contract for January 2019. (Attached as Annex “E”)

43. Unlike CM 2018-0008 issued by former OIC IPCEO dela Serna, this CM
2018-0085 was issued on October 15, 2018, PRIOR TO, and NOT DURING the period of
new contract in 2019.

On the allegation that respondent caused the delay in the submission of the PCAs and
RAIs:

The issuance of CM 2018-0008 on January 18, 2018 was the ultimate cause of
unnecessary delay. The issuance of CM 2018-0008 was ARBITRARY.

44. On 18 January 2018, instead of releasing an approved casual appointment

for one (1) year, the regional office received Corporate Memorandum No. 2018-0008
from the Interim President and Corporate Executive Officer (IPCEO) reducing the
contract period from one (1) year to three (3) months. The memorandum also advised
all PhilHealth Regional Offices (PRO) to submit their revised appointments not later
than January 19, 2018.

45. The change of contract period was communicated for the first time, only
on January 18, 2018, through CM 2018-0008. At this point, the casual employees have
already rendered almost one month of service to Philhealth despite the delay of the
Central Office in the release of their contracts/appointments. (Please refer to the
Affidavit and Oral Testimony of Maria Teresa Tesoro as part of the records of this case)

CM 2018-0008 violated the rules on pre-termination of casual employment

46. Section 2(3), Article IX-B of the Constitution provides that no officer or
employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided
by law. The Civil Service Law echoes this constitutional edict of security of tenure of the
employees in the civil service in Section 46 (a) of the Civil Service Law which provides
that no officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed except
for cause as provided by law after due process.
 47. In the instant case, the contract period has already commenced when
CM 2018-0008 was issued by the IPCEO. The reduction of the contract period has the
effect of pre-terminating casual employees whose contract period should have been for
a duration of one year. Notwithstanding the absence of the appointment papers, the
Corporation must respect the consent previously given by the casual employees to be
renewed for a term of one year.

48. The Plantilla of Casual Employees or CSC Form No. 001 provides that a
casual employee may only be terminated before the expiration of contract only on valid
grounds. Thus, they may be laid-off anytime  before the expiration of the employment
period provided any of the following occurs: (1)  when their services are no longer
needed; (2) funds are no longer available; (3) the project has already been
completed/finished; or (4)  their performance are below par. 

49. CM 2018-0008 did not provide any ground at all why the contract period
will be pre-terminated to March 31, 2018 only. The allegation that the reduction was to
correspond with the need to conduct performance review is not among the valid
grounds for pre-termination.

The duty of respondent as RVP is to recommend

50. On 19 January 2018, in compliance to CM 2018-0008, respondent reiterated

its previous compliance to MSS Memorandum No. 2017-0019, and in compliance to CM
2018-0008, immediately endorsed the same list consisting of 182 employees, all
recommended for renewal for the year 2018. (Please refer to the Affidavit and Oral
Testimony of Maria Teresa Tesoro as part of the records of this case)

51. The duty of respondent RVP is only to RECOMMEND, as contained in the

Delegation of Signing Authority. (Corporate Order No. 2017-0080, provides for
Delegation of Signing Authority attached as Annex “F”)

52. The meaning of recommendation, which as defined in Webster’s

Dictionary, is to endorse as fit, worthy or competent. That a recommendation is an
independent act, thus a recommendation cannot be forced upon the person doing the
recommendation.

53. The respondent dutifully submitted his recommendation of names as

listed in the December 28, 2018 list he submitted. That a recommendation is always
subject to approval or disapproval. The PCEO has the power to approve or disapprove
the contract of employees.

54. The duty of the respondent RVP to RECOMMEND the names of casual
employees and the power of the former OIC IPCEO dela Serna to APPROVE was
acknowledged by the respondent in his letter to the COO Ruben John Basa, dated
February 8, 2018, part of the exhibits attached to the Formal Charge of Admin Case #
2018-135-XI.

55. The undersigned presents copies of memoranda from RVP del Rosario,
RVP of PRO I who is now SVP for Legal Department, clearly expressing that the RVP’s
role as to PERIOD OF CONTRACT is purely recommendatory. (Copies of Memoranda
from PRO I as presented by witnesses Maricel Laforteza and Mary Joy Ferandez
attached as Annex “G”)

NO RESPONSE ON THE JANUARY 19, 2018 COMPLIANCE

56. Respondent did not receive a single response to his 19 January 2018
memo to the IPCEO. However, he was in constant correspondence with the Executive
Vice President/Chief Executive Officer (EVP/COO) urging the latter to cause the
immediate issuance of the casual employees’ appointments as the employees in PRO XI
are working without an approved contract. (Please refer to the Affidavit and Oral
Testimony of Maria Teresa Tesoro as part of the records of this case)

RESPONDENT WROTE SEVERAL LETTERS TO THE COO WHO NEVER

RESPONDED

57. There was no direct response to the January 19, 2018 memorandum of
compliance from respondent until COO Ruben John Basa sent a memorandum dated
February 8, 2018, asking undersigned to explain his alleged failure to comply with
memorandum 2018-0008.

58. Thereupon, the respondent immediately replied to said memorandum

from COO Basa. In his memorandum dated February 8, 2018, pointing out among
others, the memorandum dated January 19, 2018, recommending all the names in the
list contained in the recommendation submitted in December 2017.
 59. On February 23, 2018, the undersigned sent a memorandum to COO
Ruben John Basa, through the area Office in Cagayan de Oro, a letter enjoining the COO
to look into the situation of the casual employees not only in the region, but nationwide.

60. That the undersigned presents the affidavit of Maria Teresa Tesoro who
has testified, among other matters, that the same memorandum had been sent through
the office of the Area Vice President but there was just a miscommunication between
her and the receiving office. ( Please refer to Affidavit and Oral Testimony of Maria
Teresa Tesoro)

Instead, a Show Cause Order was issued

61. Much to respondent’s surprise, a Show-Cause Order dated February 19,

2018 was issued, directing respondent to explain why no administrative charges should
be filed against him for the alleged failure of PRO XI to timely comply with CM No.
2018-0008.

62. On February 23, 2018, respondent wrote a memorandum to COO Basa,

acknowledging the absolute authority of the former OIC -IPCEO and reminding him of
his duty as COO to ensure the timely approval of the contracts of casual employees in
PRO XI.

63. The Show-Cause Order was Corporate Memorandum dated January 30,
2018 issued by the OIC-IPCEO, which the Fact Finding Committee, alleged, was sent
to respondent. Respondent received the said memorandum from former OIC-IPCEO
dela Serna for the first time only on February 21, 2018, as an attachment to the show
cause order. (Please refer to the Affidavit and Oral Testimony of Maria Teresa Tesoro as
part of the records of this case)

64. On 13 March 2018, in ONLY TWENTY (20) DAYS, a Formal Charge

with Order for Preventive Suspension was issued by IPCEO based on the Report
submitted by a Fact-Finding and Investigating Committee which recommended the
filing of an exaggerated formal charge for Grave Misconduct; Gross Insubordination;
Gross Neglect of Duty; and/or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service
with a 90-day preventive suspension against respondent for alleged failure or refusal
of respondent to comply with the requirements for the renewal of casual appointments
provided under Corporate Memorandum (CM) No. 2018-0008.
 65. On April 5, 2018, during the Regional Consultative Meeting in Clark,
Pampanga, the Formal Charge was served to respondent where he was prevented from
attending the important regular meeting of the Operations Sector.

66. The Fact-Finding Committee alleged that Respondent refused to heed CM

2018-0008 and caused the delay in the submission of the PCAs and RAIs of PRO XI
casual employees.

On allegation that CM 2018-0008 CITED THE NEED FOR PERFORMANCE

ASSESSMENT PRIOR TO RENEWAL:

There was no need for revision of period of contract to give way to Performance
Assessment. Performance Assessment had been in place as a basis for renewal for
several years already, prior to the issuance of CM 2018-0008.

67. Contrary to the allegation of Prosecution and witness former HRD

Manager Almanon that the reason for revising the period was to subject the casual
employees to Performance Appraisal prior to renewal, performance appraisal had been
in place for a long time already. (Please refer to the Affidavits & Oral Testimonies of
Maria Teresa Valenzuela, Pamela Orilla, Mary Joy Fernandez & Maricel Laforteza as
part of the records of this case)

68. Several employees who had OUTSTANDING performance ratings were

in fact, summarily terminated. This proves that the order to revise due to the need to
appraise performance as precondition for the renewal of contracts was untrue, baseless
and whimsical. (Please refer to the Affidavits & Oral Testimonies of Pamela Orilla,
Mary Joy Fernandez & Maricel Laforteza as part of the records of this case)

On the allegation of HRD Manager Almanon that he had to prepare the PCAs and
RAIs for PRO XI because the submission with blanks is not allowed

Contrary to the allegation of former HRD Manager Almanon, blanks in the prepared
PCAs and RAIs are not prohibited, as these can actually can be accomplished by the
HRD.

69. Former HRD Manager Almanon cited the need for HRD to prepare new
PCAs and RAIs for PRO XI, claiming that the submission from PRO XI is not acceptable.
(Please refer to the Judicial Affidavit and Oral Testimony of Almanon as part of the
records of this case)

70. Contrary to the claim of Almanon that blanks in the ending period are not
allowed, the testimony of Carleo Mosqueda and the official documents proved
otherwise. (Please refer to the Affidavit and Oral Testimony of Carleo Mosqueda as part
of the records of this case)

71. Official Records show that PCAs and RAIs left blank by the PRO were
submitted to the Central Office in 2017. The said PCAs and RAIs that were submitted
without dates indicated were simply filled in / accomplished in stamped blue ink by the
Central Office HRD. (Please refer to the Affidavit and Oral Testimony of Carleo
Mosqueda as part of the records of this case)

On the allegation that there was no contract signed yet as of the issuance of CM 2018-
0008 on January 18, 2018 so the former IPCEO may revise the period of the contract

A contract for one-year period from January 1, 2018 to December 30, 2018 was already
prepared and duly signed by former OIC- IPCEO del Serna for PRO I.

72. Contrary to the position of Prosecution and the Fact Finding Committee
that the former OIC-IPCEO Dr. Celestina dela Serna may change the period of the
contract, because no contract has been signed yet, respondent has come to know that a
contract good for one year had already been signed by former OIC IPCEO dela Serna.
(Please refer to the Joint Affidavit and Oral testimony of Mary Joy Fernandez & Maricel
Laforteza as part of the records of this case)

73. PRO I casual employees namely Maricel Laforteza and Mary Joy
Fernandez presented a copy of the contract signed by former OIC- IPCEO dela Serna,
for a period covering January 1 to December 31, 2018. (Please refer to the Joint Affidavit
and Oral testimony of Mary Joy Fernandez & Maricel Laforteza as part of the records of
this case)

74. Respondent witnessed the oral testimony and presentation of Affidavit of

Maricel Laforteza and Mary Joy Fernandez that they received the copy of the one-year
contract for January 1 to December 31, 2018 from former HRD Manager Henry
Almanon. (Please refer to the Joint Affidavit and Oral testimony of Mary Joy Fernandez
& Maricel Laforteza as part of the records of this case)
 75. Contrary to the “finding” of the Fact Finding Committee and the
testimony and affidavit of former HRD Manager Almanon that there was no contract
signed yet, as witnessed by respondent in the affidavit and testimony of both Laforteza
and Fernandez, the document sent by Almanon himself to the PRO I proves otherwise.

On the issue that Respondent RVP caused the delay in Submission of the PCAs and
RAIs:

It is MSD Chief Atty. Arneil Subibi, is responsible to sign and submit PCAs and
RAIs.

76. Sometime in 2017, HRD conducted a training for HRU staff which was
attended by Maria Teresa Valenzuela, where HRD Central Office introduced the new
PCAs and RAIs per CSC policy. (Please refer to the Judicial Affidavit and Oral
Testimony of Maria Teresa Valenzuela as part of the records of this case)

77. In the said training, HRD presented Civil Service Memorandum Circular
No. 24s 2017 which provided among others, the new format in PCAs & RAIs. In the said
CSC prescribed form, the only signatories are the Division Chief of Management
Services Division and the President and Chief Executive Officer. Particularly, Civil
Service Memorandum Circular No. 24s 2017 provides under a Section 8 (a), the
prescribed form called CS Form No. 34-B which will be used by Government Owned
and Controlled Corporations with Originall Charter. (Attached as Annex ”H”)

78. Thus, in the case of PRO XI, only the highest ranking HR officer, the MSD
chief, Atty Subibi, was required to sign.

79. On 28 December 2017, respondent, through a Memorandum, submitted

his RECOMMENDATION that all 182 employees, whose appointment documents were
already previously transmitted to the HRD, were all recommended for renewal for a
period of one year.

80. The Human Resource Unit (HRU) of PRO XI which is under the direct
supervision of the Management Services Division (MSD) headed by former MSD Chief
Atty. Arneil Subibi, prepares the PCAs & RAIs after recommendation from the Division
and Unit heads for renewal. (Please refer to the Judicial Affidavit & Testimony of Maria
Teresa Valenzuela as part of the records of this case)
 81. In December 2017, under direct orders from former MSD chief Atty.
Arneil Subibi, HRU personnel Teresa Valenzuela prepared the PCAs & RAIs for casual
employees for 2018. HRU personnel Teresa Valenzuela prepared the PCAs & RAIs
good for one year from January 1 to December 31, 2018 for casual employees.
Recommendations for renewal are based on performance ratings of the casual
employees. (Please refer to the Judicial Affidavit & Testimony of Maria Teresa
Valenzuela as part of the records of this case)

82. After preparing the PCAs & RAIs, HRU personnel Maria Teresa
Valenzuela had them signed by MSD Chief Atty. Arneil Subibi. Subsequently, on
December 14, 2017, PRO XI MSD, transmitted the signed PCAs & RAIs directly to the
HRD in Philhealth Central Office. (Please refer Judicial Affidavit & Testimony of Maria
Teresa Valenzuela as part of the records of this case)

83. When CM 2018-0008 was issued, PRO XI complied when taking direct
orders from former MSD chief Atty. Arneil Subibi, HRU personnel Maria Teresa
Valenzuela prepared the PCAs & RAIs for casual employees for 2018, leaving the spaces
blank for the ending period of the contract, for the Central Office HRD to fill in. (Please
refer Judicial Affidavit & Testimony of Maria Teresa Valenzuela as part of the records of
this case)

84. After preparing the PCAs & RAIs, HRU personnel Maria Teresa
Valenzuela had them signed by MSD Chief Atty. Arneil Subibi. Subsequently, on
February 9, 2018, PRO XI MSD, transmitted the signed PCAs & RAIs directly to the
HRD in Philhealth Central Office. (Please refer to the Affidavit & Testimony of Maria
Teresa Valenzuela as part of the records of this case)

85. HRU personnel Maria Teresa Valenzuela herself, personally prepared the
PCAs and RAIs with blank ending period under the direct instructions from her direct
supervisor, former MSD Chief Atty Arneil Subibi. (Please refer to the Judicial Affidavit
and Oral Testimony of Maria Teresa Valenzuela as part of the records of this case)

86. It is SOLELY the MSD CHIEF who signs and submits PCAs and RAIs and
NOT the respondent RVP.

Philhealth Corporate Order No. 2017-0080, provides for Delegation of Signing

Authority
 87. Corporate Order No. 2017-0080, an Order entitled: “Delegation and
Signing Authority in the Head Office and Regional Offices”, was signed by OIC-IPCEO
dela Serna on December 04, 2017. As clearly expressed in said order, under section F.
Human Resources, on the matter of Issuance of Appointments, for the Regional Offices,
it is the HRD Head and the President and CEO, not the respondent RVP, who is
responsible for recommending and the PCEO is responsible for approving
appointments for rank and file.

The PCAs and RAIs of PRO XI were never held in the office of the respondent.

88. Contrary to the allegation of former HRD Manager Almanon that the
PCAs and RAIs were held in the office of the respondent, HRU employee Maria Teresa
Valenzuela, the primary custodian of the subject documents, had attested to the fact
that she prepared the PCAs and RAIs and submitted the said documents directly to the
MSD Chief Arneil Subibi, and NOT respondent. ( Please refer to the Judicial Affidavit
and Oral Testimony of Maria Teresa Valenzuela as part of the records of this case)

89. Maria Teresa Valenzuela further attested and proved that the PCAs and
RAIs were transmitted directly by the MSD records and not the ORVP (Office of the
Respondent RVP Adre) by presenting the request for transmittal originating from HRU,
thru MSD, on to the HRD in the Central Office. (Please refer to the Judicial Affidavit
and Oral Testimony of Maria Teresa Valenzuela as part of the records of this case)

90. Maria Teresa Tesoro, Head Executive Assistant of respondent RVP Dennis
B. Adre corroborated the testimony of Maria Teresa Valenzuela and attested that the
subject PCAs and RAIs never went through the Office of the Regional Vice President
(ORVP). (Please refer to the Affidavit and Oral Testimony of Maria Teresa Tesoro as
part of the records of this case)

91. Maria Teresa Tesoro presented the logbook of all incoming official
communication showing that the subject PCAs and RAIs for January 1 to December 31,
2018 were not required to pass through as were in fact, never submitted to the ORVP.
(Please refer to the Affidavit and Oral Testimony of Maria Teresa Tesoro as part of the
records of this case)

92. Respondent had no hand in the delayed approval of casual employees’

renewal appointments. Respondent, as early as December 28, 2017, has already
submitted his recommendation. The HRU of PRO XI has also previously submitted on
time, the necessary documents needed for the renewal of the casual employees’
appointments. It is already upon the HRD to secure the needed signature of the IPCEO
to facilitate the renewal of appointments. However, from December 14, 2017 up to
January 15, 2018, the submissions of PRO XI were not acted by the IPCEO and the
HRD. No renewal of casual appointment had yet been approved while the current
contract period was already running, and despite the fact that an appointment is
necessary before any casual employee may be allowed to report to work and receive
compensation.

93. Contrary to the one-sided allegation of former HRD Manager Almanon,

official documents particularly communication logbooks, transmittal registries and the
affidavit and oral testimonies of witnesses Maria Teresa Valenzuela proved that the
same were directly submitted by MSD to the Central Office HRD.

94. The same facts were corroborated by Chirstine Catipay, the records
custodian of the Office of the Regional Vice President (ORVP). Emloyee Catipay was in
charge of recording and monitoring communications and documants coming in and
going out of the ORVP. Records provided by Catipay showed that there were no entries
in the ORVP logbook about PCAs and RAIs from the MSD of PRO XI.

95. Likewise, the testimonies of Maria Teresa Tesoro, Johanna Blason, and
Carleo Mosqueda, proved that PCAs and RAIs were not routed to, nor held in the
office of the respondent.

96. On February 9, 2018, PRO XI HRU employee TERESA VALENZUELA

sent to HRD central office the completed PCAs and RAIs she prepared, which PCAs
and RAIs were signed and approved by former PRO XI MSD chief Atty. Arneil Subibi.
The details of the compliance by PRO XI HRU through the direct instructions given by
her superior Atty. Subibi, had been taken up in her affidavit presented to the Adhoc
Body created for Administrative Case 2018-135-XI.

97. Respondent’s witness Maria Teresa Valenzuela clearly belied the

allegations of former HRD OIC SM Almanon in her memorandum to former IPCEO
dela Serna, claiming that the PCAs and RAIs of PRO XI had been processed, but
remained in the office of the RVP of PRO XI. (Please refer to the Judicial Affidavit and
Oral Testimony of Maria Teresa Valenzuela as part of the records of this case)

Duty / Responsibilty of RVP in Appointment of Casual Employees

98. The respondent as RVP merely recommends and confirms the list of
employees recommended for renewal.
 99. The undersigned presented copies of the memoranda from RVP del
Rosario, who is now SVP for Legal Department, saying that the RVP’s role as to
PERIOD OF CONTRACT is purely recommendatory. (Copies of Memoranda from
PRO I as presented by witnesses Maricel Laforteza and Mary Joy Ferandez)

100. Undersigned personally witnessed the testimonies of PRO I casual

employees proved the purely recommendatory nature of the powers and duties of the
RVP, as in the speciifc instance where both Maricel Laforteza were actually
preterminated by former OIC IPCEO dela Serna.

Impropriety of the Preliminary Investigation

101. The “fact finding report,” which must necessarily be based on facts, is
instead plagued with surmises, opinions, and even propagandas, as follows:

a. The Investigating Committee accorded weight to HRD Senior Manager’s

statement that, “the documents on the adjusted casual appointments have not been
transmitted and have remained in the Office of the RVP and PRO XI.” It is preposterous
that an Investigating Committee, incidentally comprised of three lawyers who are
supposed to know basic rules of evidence, would put so much weight on hearsay as the
allegation that the documents have “remained in the Office of the RVP and PRO XI are
not supported by any proof but a mere conjecture of the HRD Manager.

b. Accusing the respondent with Misrepresentation with respect to his

Memorandum dated 20 February 2018. Respondent stands by the content of his
Memorandum and the fact of sending the same to the Office of the Area Vice President.
He must not be maliciously accused of misrepresentation if, by any chance, the same
letter did not reach its intended recipient for reasons beyond his control.

102. Finding respondent to have unnecessarily exposed Philhealth and its

concerned officers to financial and legal risks, administrative offenses, and nearly
compromised or disrupted the continuous services rendered by the casuals of PRO XI is
frivolous. The issuance of CM 2018-0008 alone, on its face, has already caused
unnecessary delay and exposed the Corporation to risks. The officers of this
Corporation must not, for their convenience and in malevolent fashion, use respondent
as a scapegoat for the liabilities that they are going to face due to their atrocities.
 103. This blatant act of skewing facts to create a narrative that does not tell the
whole truth especially when such tries to downplay the violation of basic principles of
law and logic is abhorrent and should not be given any weight.

104. The report also asserts that there have been instances where a sitting
PCEO has amended existing orders and memoranda affecting the period of
appointment of Casual Employees but it FAILS to state that NONE of these were done
AFTER COMPLIANCE to the requirements for such reappointment. And more
importantly, ALL previous issuances affecting the contract of casual employees were
done BEFORE THE START of the contract period. In all the other previous issuances,
the Corporation was transparent and gave the casual employees enough notice of the
terms and duration of their contract so that they can decide for themselves whether or
not they want to continue working in Philhealth.

Denial Of Access To Official Documents Essential To His Defense

105. That in order to clarify issues surrounding the recommendation to file

formal chages for grave misconduct, gross insubordination, conduct prejudicail to the
best interest of the service, the respondent requested to subpoena the Fact finding
committee and the Adhoc Body had flatly denied the request for subpoena.

On the contention that respondent is guilty of grave

misconduct, gross insubordination, gross neglect of duty,
and/or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service:

106. In Civil Service Commission vs. Juliana E. Ledesma, G.R. No. 154521
September 30, 2005, the Supreme Court defines misconduct and grave misconduct as:
"Misconduct  is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.  The misconduct is grave
if it involves any of the  additional  elements of  corruption, willful intent to violate the
law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial
evidence."

107. The Formal Charge, and its annexed Fact Finding and Preliminary
Investigation Report did not establish in the slightest sense that respondent has
committed any transgression of some established and definite rule of action, unlawful
behavior or gross negligence involving elements of corruption, willful intent to violate
the law or to disregard established rules. The allegations are wanting of such substantial
evidence to warrant even the charge of simple misconduct.
 108. As shown in the immediately preceding discussion, the respondent was
subjected to trumped-up, baseless, oppressive and malicious charges. Considering the
evidently bloated charges coupled with the record speed on the part of the Fact-Finding
Committee to issue the Order of Preventive Suspension and Formal Charge, it is evident
that the said charges had no other purpose but to ensure the DISMISSAL of the
respondent from service.

109. There being no other substantial evidence to establish that the respondent
committed a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer coupled with
corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, respondent
is not guilty of GRAVE MISCONDUCT.

110. Insubordination imports willful disregard of express or implied directions and

refusal to obey reasonable orders of superior (Administrative Order 283 - Exonerating
Rolando M. Libas, Chief of Mission II, Department of Foreign Affairs). The word "gross"
connotes "something out of measure; beyond allowance; not to be excused; flagrant;
shameful" (Manhit vs Ombudsman, 559 Phil. 251, 2007. Initially, the respondent, as the
Regional Vice President and is a part of management, merely aired his opinion yet
complied with the directive when he re-submitted his recommendation and caused the
re-submission of the RAIs. Hence, it cannot be emphasized enough that the
respondent's reiteration of his recommendation for a one-year contract period for casual
employees of PRO XI was not without justifiable reasons considering that compelling
the respondent to RECOMMEND a contract period shorter than that consented to by
the casual employees will cause him commit a breach of contract. After all, the final
decision pertaining to appointment rests on the IPCEO. As such, there can be no willful
disregard on the part of the respondent.

111. It is BASIC in contracts that the terms are the law between the parties
thereto. In this case, the terms were changed only AFTER the casual employees,
through their PROs, complied with what was incumbent upon them for their
reappointment. With all the facts and circumstances involved and using basic logic, it is
easy to conclude that respondent through his insistence of recommending the one (1)
year period of appointment has not committed GROSS INSUBORDINATION but was
merely expressing his opinion on the matter, and to reiterate, he complied with the
directive; and more importantly, expressing an opinion pertaining to a contentious
matter which can be described as unfairly unilateral, arbitrary, and is in disharmony
with the pronouncements of the Chief Executive under whose branch the Complainant
Corporation serves, cannot be considered as INSUBORDINATION. It bears noting that
such expression of opinion is not tantamount to insubordination when such opinion is
meritorious. Therefore, respondent is not guilty of GROSS INSUBORDINATION.

112. The Supreme Court in Office of the Ombudsman  vs. Samson De Leon, G.R.
No. 154083 February 27, 2013, defines GROSS NEGLECT of DUTY as the negligence
characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where
there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious
indifference to the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of
that care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property."  It
denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty.  In cases
involving public officials, gross negligence occurs when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.

113. COMPLIANCE with the MSS Memorandum controlling at the time the
casual employees filed their requirements for reappointment should have prompted the
IPCEO to sign forthwith the RAIs and PCAs and not to arbitrarily reduce the contract
period without prior notice. Thus, contrary to Complainant's assertion that respondent
is guilty of gross neglect of duty, the duty of the respondent in this case was to reiterate
compliance having been duly accomplished. It cannot be said that respondent was not
mindful of the consequences, when in truth and in fact, he was the only RVP to raise
the detrimental effects of the sudden and late amendment to the period of appointment
of casual employees of the complainant corporation.

114. Respondent cited in his Answer to the Formal Charge and maintains that:
It is BASIC in contracts that a contract is perfected upon the meeting of the minds of the
parties involved; and that upon the fulfillment of one of the parties of its obligation the
other must perform that which is incumbent upon it. Furthermore, in contracts of
adhesion, much like a contract of employment - or in this case, reappointment - it is
necessary that the party who authored the contract notifies the one accepting such of
any significant changes and acquires the latter's consent thereto. Under these
circumstances the casual employees were consenting to the period of appointment
provided by MSS Memorandum 2017-0019 and NOT the period and terms provided
by CM 2018-0008. Having duly complied with the requirements under the MSS
Memorandum, the Complainant Corporation through its IPCEO should have signed
the PCAs and RAIs without delay as it was incumbent upon her to do so. Instead, the
IPCEO, in all her want of logic, amended the period of appointment without even
asking for the consent, through revised Letters of Intent, of the casual employees nor
informing them directly of said amendment.”

115. The language of CM 2018-0008 is damning when it failed to state the

necessity of revising the letters of intent of Casual Employees to allow the latter to be
fully informed of the new period and to give them the fair opportunity to consent to
such amendment by accepting the new terms or otherwise by opting not to be
reappointed under the new terms. CM 2018-0008 merely, and with lack of propriety,
ordered the revision of the PCA and RAI and nothing more; even the "performance
review" is bereft of any clear guidelines rendering such nothing more than ink on paper
or pixels on a screen, especially so that as of filing this Answer, nothing was
communicated regarding the conduct of such review.

116. The issuance of CM 2018-0008, although valid on its face for being issued
with authority, carries with it the appalling act of disregarding without just cause the
necessity of the employees affected to be notified, or worse, the need for them to
consent to the new terms.

117. There was also no indifference to the consequences on the part of

respondent as he reiterated, time and again, his reasons for his expression of opinion. In
truth and in fact, he was only being mindful of the consequences of CM 2018-0008.
Again, it would render the consent of the Casual Employees, or the need for them to be
informed, irrelevant. Although it is not entirely prohibited to change the terms of the
contract, doing the same without consent of the other party, and on an untimely
fashion, would allow the Corporation and its IPCEO to act whimsically and arbitrarily
in its future dealings with its employees. Therefore, the opinion advanced by the
respondent, to his mind, is a must in order to comply with the Corporation's quality
policy of providing a conducive and healthy work environment that promotes a culture
of excellence, integrity and accountability across all levels of (its) organization. Thus,
a person in a leadership role should not act whimsically and arbitrarily to the
detriment of those for whom she is responsible just because she can.

118. One of the duties of the respondent is to balance the demands of both the
employees in the region and the top management in the Central Office. And
respondents believe that he was able to satisfy faithfully both on his duties to the lowly
casual employees by standing for their rights to be recommended for a contract period
of one year and also to the top management in reminding them of the consequences of
committing a breach of contract. Therefore, respondent is NOT GUILTY of GROSS
NEGLECT OF DUTY for after all, even in the absence of appointment papers,
respondent has made it his top priority that the region be adequately manned to meet
the exigencies of public service.

119. The Supreme Court in Avenido vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No.
177666 April 30, 2008 states that Acts may constitute Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest
of the Service as long as they tarnish the image and integrity of his/her public office.  The
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No.
6713) enunciates,  inter alia, the State policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost
responsibility in the public service.  Section 4(c) of the Code commands that [public officials and
employees] shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts
contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety
and public interest.

120. The instant case is bereft of any proof that the respondent tarnished the
image and integrity of his office, or that of the Corporation.