Ombudsman sides with Malasiqui’s principal

By Mortz C. Ortigoza

MALASIQUI – The legal squabble at the national high school here between the principal and her male teacher has been stopped by the Ombudsman when it exonerated the former.

On a nine pages resolution dated November 7, 2017, Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Gerard A. Mosquera dismissed the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Acts  (Republic Act No. 3019) and administrative cases filed by Vladimir Y. Laxamana against Principal IV Olive Paragas Terrado for lacks of probable cause and substantial evidence.

VINDICATED: Malasiqui National High School Principal IV Olive Paragas Terrado is all smiles these days after the Ombudsman exonerated her on the criminal and administrative complaints filed at the Anti-Graft Body by her subordinate at the MNHS. Her receipt of the decision coincided with her birthday.

The legal complaint that became acrimonious inside and outside the media circles in the province started when Laxamana filed on March 17, 2017 a complaint at the Ombudsman for Luzon in Metro Manila against Terrado.

Laxamana said respondent committed the misused of the two canteens’ funds that started when she assumed her post in May 2014.

He raised the following complaints that Terrado manipulated the income of the canteen since her assumption as principal in May 2014 and misused the funds; she did not allow the teachers to form a cooperative to manage the canteen; the absence of financial reports of the projects funded by the Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) of MNHS; no financial reports on the popularity contests and other income earning projects spearheaded by respondents; Terrado was not fair in giving teaching loads to faculty members as she gave lesser loads to teachers who were closed to her; she did not accept and act on the promotion papers of complainant and Ms. Rowena Dollente; Terrado did not allow the students to join the Division Schools Press Conference due to lack of funds and MNHS had no school paper upon her instruction; she did not support the projects of the student leaders like the program for Teacher’s Day; and the fire extinguishers are placed in the room of respondent and not in their proper places.

In June 7, 2017 the Ombudsman directly asked Terrado to file her counter affidavits to each of the complaints of Laxamana.

She said that it was the head of the TLE Department and not her who designated the teacher-in-charge of the canteen. The teacher who managed the canteens prepared a monthly “Report on Canteen Operation” which was audited by other teachers. These monthly reports were also filed with the Commission on Audit (COA) by the School Senior Bookkeeper; the canteen funds were not misused nor mismanaged. They were also never used for her personal benefit. They were used to finance activities that were related to or within the ambit of the enumerated items in DepEd Order No. 8, Series of 2007. The COA even approved it; it was the teachers themselves who did not want to pursue the formation of a cooperative due to the required documents to be submitted pursuant to Section 7.0 of DepEd Order No.8, Series of 2007. The DepEd Order also did not mandate that a school canteen be managed by a teachers’ cooperative; there were financial reports on projects funded by the MOOE of MNHS. These financial reports have been and continued to be published and posted in the Transparency Board located at the most conspicuous part of the Administrative Building; Terrado had no participation in the fund-raising activities for the construction of the school gym. The projects mentioned by complainant were project of the Parents-Teachers Community Association (PTCA), MAPEH teachers, Math Department and the MNHS teachers. The financial statements on the construction of the school gymnasium, signed and audited by the concerned teachers/officers, were only noted by her; the absence of school paper and non-participation to the Division School Press Conference were due to financial constraints. Pursuant to DepEd policies, no contributions were asked from the students for school years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 for the school paper; and the fire extinguishers are located in strategic places of the school building.

On August 7, 2017 the parties submitted some of their positions that reiterated their accusation and defenses.

The Ombudsman ruled that Laxamana failed to prove that Terrado controlled the income of the two canteens and that the income from the canteens’ operations was used by the latter for her personal gain or benefit. Terrado had no direct control in the collection, deposit and withdrawal of their funds. Complainant also failed to prove that the canteen funds were devoted to any other endeavor not included in the guidelines prescribed by DepEd Order No. 8 Series of 2007.Laxamana was not able to establish that respondent refuse to form a teachers’ cooperative to manage the school canteen. No evidence was presented to show that the teachers complied with all the documentary requirements for the formation of a cooperative. Laxamana also failed to prove the distribution of teaching loads by respondent was inequitable like the teachers close to Terrado were given lesser teaching load than others. Respondent sufficiently explained that the mentors mentioned by Laxamana have ancillary duties and responsibilities in addition to their regular teaching loads, and that Section 13 of R.A 4670 (Magna Carta for Public School Teachers) was applied to all teachers, without distinction. Finally, complainant was not able to prove that Terrado refused to act on his and Ms. Dollente’s promotions despite their qualifications. The records show that there were no existing items for the positions they applied for.