Verified Answer.docx

Republic of the Philippines MUNICIPALITY OF JONES OFFICE OF THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN IN RE: Complaint of MRS. LUISA LINDA G. JUAN against JUNMARK CAUAN for the case of PERJURY, MISCONDUCT and a violation of R.A 6713 otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employee xxxxxx

ANSWER Respondent JUNMARK CAUAN, unto this most Honorable Office, by way of answer to the charges filed against me, respectfully states THAT: 1. The undersigned is the Respondent in the administrative case of PERJURY, MISCONDUCT and a violation of R.A 6713 otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employee before the Committee on Good Government of the Office of the Sanggunian Bayan of Jones, Isabela. 2. The undersigned, as stated in the first paragraph of the complaint admit being an employee of the Local Government Unit of Jones, Isabela under the Legislative Office with a status of a JOB ORDER EMPLOYMENT. 3. The undersigned vehemently deny the allegations of the complainant Luisa Linda Gallardo-Juan for being conclusions of law and for lack of basis either in law or Jurisprudence. 4. The truth of the matter is that the statements that I made in my “Sinumpaang Salaysay” was based on my personal knowledge of such fact and made on my own volition without any external influence whatsoever. 5. The complaint against me levied by Mrs. Juan is nothing more than retaliation for making the above statements as the same was made part of the record in an inquiry before the Office of the Sangguinang Panlalawigan. In fact, Mrs. Juan just cannot accept the fact that she erred when she refused to recognize S.B. member Willen Cabugon. 6. Having stated the root of this malicious complaint against me, by way of AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, I hereby state as follows:

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. That being employed under a Job Order status, it is undisputed that there exist no employer-employee relationship between the Job Order and the Agency who employed the former. 8. The above statement is consistent with existing rules and regulations of the Civil Service Commission to cite a few are Memorandum Circular No. 17 of 2002 in relation to Resolution No. 021480 clearly stated that: “Section 1. a. Contract of Service- refers to the engagement of the services of a person, private firm, non-governmental agency or international organization to undertake a specific work or job requiring special or technical skills not available in the agency to be accomplished within a specific period not exceeding on (1) year. The person engaged performs or accomplishes the specific work or job under his own responsibility and with minimum supervision by the hiring agency. For purposes of this issuance, contract of services shall include the hiring of consultants and personnel engaged to perform work for special projects whether funded by the agency itself or externally funded. b. Job Order- refers to the hiring of a worker for piece work or intermittent job of short duration not exceeding six months and pay is on a daily or hourly basis. It is to be understood that the piece work or job to be performed requires special or technical skills not available in the agency and the same is to be accomplished under the worker's own responsibility and with minimum supervision by the hiring agency. A contract of service or job order which does not cover special or technical skills or where the functions to be performed are clerical or administrative in nature or where the work is also performed by the regular personnel of the agency may be entered only when done in the exigency of the service and it is not feasible for the agency to hire said services under a casual or contractual appointment. In contracts of services and job orders, THERE EXISTS NO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HIRING AGENCY AND THE PERSONS HIRED and it should be made clear in their contracts that services rendered there under can never be accredited as government service. Furthermore, the persons hired are not entitled to benefits enjoyed by government employees such as PERA, ACA and RATA.”(Emphasis supplied)

9. Moreover, CSC, COA and DBM Joint Circular No. 01 of 2017, specifically 7.4 states that: “The services of the contract of service and job order workers are NOT covered by Civil Service law and rules thus, not creditable as government service.” 10.Now that it is well established that no employer-employee relationship between me and the Agency who hired the former, thus, I am not covered by Civil Service laws and rules. 11.Since no employer-employee relationship exist, the disciplinary jurisdiction over employees under Contract of Service and Job Order is therefore lodged before the Local Chief Executive and not with the Sanggunian Bayan. 12.A crystal Clear reading of the pertinent provision of the Local Government Code of 1991 will reveal that Administrative Disciplinary Jurisdiction over appointive officials and employees of the agency belongs to the Local Chief Executive. Likewise, over other employees under the latter’s Jurisdiction. A reproduction of the provision of the law states that: “Section 87. Disciplinary Jurisdiction. - Except as otherwise provided by law, the local chief executive may impose the penalty of removal from service, demotion in rank, suspension for not more than one (1) year without pay, fine in an amount not exceeding six (6) months salary, or reprimand and otherwise discipline SUBORDINATE OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES UNDER HIS JURISDICTION.” 13.In contrast, the Administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the Sanggunian Bayan is found in Section 61 paragraph (c) of the Local Government Code which reads: “A complaint against ANY ELECTIVE BARANGAY official shall be filed before the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan concerned whose decision shall be final and executory.” 14.Corollarily, the Sangguniang Bayan of Jones LACKS JURISDICTION to hear and decide the administrative complaint against the undersigned, thus, the same should be dismissed. 15.A judgment rendered without jurisdiction is a void judgment. Any proceedings by an Agency without Jurisdiction do not have any legal effect.

16.Complainant filed a case of PERJURY against the undersigned, knowing that the perjury is defined under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Again, this Honorable Office cannot pass a verdict nor find the undersigned guilty of the crime of perjury since the most that it can exercise is Administrative Disciplinary Jurisdiction. 17.The determination of whether a person is guilty of a crime is lodge before our Court of Justice in the exercise of it Judicial Power as vested in the Constitution, and not before an Agency exercising quasijudicial power. 18.Complainant accused MISCONDUCT against the undersigned. Misconduct means “transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the PUBLIC OFFICER” (Samson vs Restrivera, 646 Scraa 481). Furthermore, Section 60 of the Local Government Code of 1991 enumerates the grounds for which an “elective local official” may be disciplined, suspended or removed from office. These include dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office, gross negligence or dereliction of duty (Section 60 (c), Republic Act 7160). To constitute as a ground for disciplinary action, the act(s) complained of must have a “direct relation to and be connected with the performance of his official duties amounting either to maladministration or wilful, intentional neglect or failure to discharge the duties of the office” (GSIS vs. Mayordomo, 649 SCRA 667 citing Manuel vs. Calimag, Jr., 307 SCRA 657). Again, respondent is neither a public officer nor an elective official. 19.Complainant accused Respondent for violating R.A 6713 otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Having stated above that the undersigned is not covered by Civil Service laws and rules, it follows that the undersigned cannot be made to have violated the above mentioned law. Thus, the same must again fail on that merit. 20.Even assuming that the Sangguniang Bayan has Jurisdiction, the rule of law is clear that in filing administrative complaint before any quasijudicial bodies, it must comply with the formal and substantial requirements: To commence a quasi-judicial process a complaint before the authorized body must first be filed with the following requirements: a. FORM- 1. Subscribed written complaint 2. Verification 3. Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping (AO 04-94, SC) b. SUBSTANCE- Jurisdictional Grounds (Sec. 60, LGC)

The failure of the complainant to comply with the formal requisites is fatal to her cause, and the same is considered a ground for dismissal.

21.Based on the foregoing facts being presented in the complaint, the nature of the position of the respondent is Job Order or hired on a “pakyaw” basis and not considered a government service as being rendered by regular employees in the absence of an employeeemployer relationship nor an elective position to acquire jurisdiction over the case. Itis crystal clear that the Sangguniang Bayan in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions acquires no jurisdiction over the person and the case. Jurisdiction of Quasi- Judicial bodies, as commonly understood that the authority to hear and determine a cause or the right to act in a case in one’s jurisdiction be it a court of law or a quasi-judicial body or agency. ( Herrera vs Barreto, 25 Phil. 251) Jurisdiction is essential to give validity to the determination of administrative authorities. Without jurisdiction, their acts are void andopen to collateral attack. The Sanggunians exercising quasijudicial functions are tribunals of limited jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is entirely dependent upon the provisions of law reposing power in them. If without jurisdiction their decisions are devoid of any legal effect. (La Union Labor vs. Philippine Tobacco Fluecuring Corp. G.R No. L-14087, June 30,1960) It is also significant to stress that the complainant was evidently harshon her request for disciplinary action against the complainant with “further recommendation for JunmarkCauan’s disqualification from holding any public office or position in the LGU for being notoriously undesirable”; . “In administrative cases, the injury sought to be remedied is not merely loss of public money or property. More significant are the pernicious effects of such action on the orderly administration of government services. Acts that go against the established rules of conduct for government personnel bring harm to the civil service, whether they result in loss or not. When an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such officer or employee, but the improvement of the public service and preservation of the public faith and confidence in the government, (Civil Service Commission v. Cortez, G.R. No. 1155732, June 3, 2004, 430 scra 593)

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed for unto this most Honorable Office that the complaint be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are likewise sought.

JUN MARK M. CAUAN Affiant

VERIFICATION

I, JUN MARK M. CAUAN Filipino, of legal age, and a resident of Municipality of Jones, Isabela, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:

1 .I am the respondent in the above entitled case; 2. I have caused the preparation and filing of this answer; 3. I have read and understood the contents of this complaint and all the allegation contained therein are true and correct of our own knowledge and based on authentic documents;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this ___ day of _____________________ 2017 at ____________________, Isabela.

JUN MARK M. CAUAN Affiant