9 DepEd-9 employees clarify arrest warrants PDF Print E-mail
Tuesday, 14 August 2012 14:39

Nine employees of the  Department of Education Regional Office-9 (DepEd RO-9) who were issued warrants of arrest last July 31, 2012 in connection with a libel case filed  against them have appealed to the media to allow them to explain their side in the case.

The employees were reacting to the banner story of Daily Zamboanga Times on August 6 titled “Court issues arrest warrants on nine DepEd-9 employees”. Similar news item were published in other newspapers including Manila Bulletin.

A DepEd-9 empoyee, who was speaking on behalf of his nine co-employees, told this reporter that the libel case filed by spouses Napoleon Caezar M. Tolosa, Jr. and Marilou T. Tolosa stemmed from an Ombudsman case the Tolosa couple has filed against top DepEd -9 officials wherein they (nine
employees) executed affidavits in the Joint-Answer of the DepEd officials.

The nine accused employees are Susan Callao, Clarissa Agravante, Lucshil Pioquinto, Gerson Serafin, Ma. Rosa Fermia, Jocelyn La Plana and Annie lee Abad, all of DepEd-9 employees based in the city while Concepcion L. Pineda and Romeo M. Vicente are both assigned at the DepEd office in Pagadian City. They posted P10,000 bail bond their temporary liberty on the day the warrants were served.

The employee source said that “DepEd RO-9 employees abhor the facts presented as the case of libel stemmed from a graft case pending before the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao on the alleged purchase of computer units, of which such procurement is in fact of the kind and generous project of District 2 Congressman Erbie Fabian through his PDAF.”

The same employee said that “the nine employees are the principal witnesses in a Joint affidavit executed on June 25, 2010, narrating and attesting to the truthfulness of their statements about the characteristic of Napoleon M. Tolosa Jr., who happens to be the complainant of the case pending with the Office of the Ombudsman, against the present DepEd-9 administration on the alleged irregular purchase of P3 million worth of computer units... in rebuttal to his (Tolosa’s) Reply Affidavit for which the above said Joint Affidavits were actually attached to the Joint Answer executed on June 26, 2010 as Annexes 7 & 8 thereof, and not to the Joint Counter Affidavit as alleged by spouses Tolosa.”

The employee said that “Mr. Tolosa’s complaint before the Ombudsman is grounded on fishing expedition as he has no knowledge of such, in proof of that the facts he presented in the complaint were actually the transaction during the active dispense of functions of his wife Mrs. Marilou T. Tolosa, as Chief Accountant of  the DepEd RO No. 9, which was left unpaid after they have been delivered, due to the fact that she was issued with preventive suspension related to the ongoing  Motu Propio Administrative cases with the DepEd Central Office. Such transaction is in violation of the DepEd Moratorium on the purchase of multi-media software,. if not for the vigilance of the present management, it would have turned out as irregular transaction, hence it was cancelled and entered anew which is the purchase of IT computer equipment instead of multimedia, for which the former is no longer subject of moratorium  and strictly followed the provisions of R. A. 9184, otherwise known as the Procurement Law, considering the legitimate source of fund from Hon. Congressman) Erbie Fabian.”

The DepEd employee said in their statement that the “complaint is so perjurious that a case against the complainant is being contemplated to be filed anytime soon for even his basis which is accordingly from COA, the issued Notice of Suspension (NS), repelled, for COA had actually lifted such as containing in the DECISION No. 12-001-101(07) through 1st Indorsement dated January 15, 2012  of Remegio G. Suico, Jr.,  State Auditor IV, Audit Team Leader, as so written that the questioned transaction has been proven to be a regular transaction after all. “

Furthermore, the Statement of Audit Suspensions, Disallowances and Charges (SASDC) for the Period June 30, 2012 by Remegio G. Suico, Jr., Audit Team Leader and Mr. Fermo T. Avila, Supervising Auditor will further prove the lifting and/or settlement of the P3 million transaction, according to the employee.

“Mr. Tolosa’s allegation is wanting of proof, hence,  so highly perjurious as COA has never ordered  disallowance to the purchase of IT computer  equipment  and  that, the issued Notice of Suspension (NS) which is his sole basis, is not a conclusive proof of any irregularity as it only requires compliance with the requirements stated therein within  90 days from receipt.  Worst, because subject NS has not prescribed yet when Mr. Tolosa raised his defense and made an advance conclusion thereof, (pre-empting COA’s) which is to the contrary per the above mentioned COA DECISION No. 12-001-101(07) and Statement of Audit Suspensions, Disallowances and Charges (SASDC) For the period June 30, 2012, thus said suspension has never ripened into DISALLOWANCE,” he said.

“I hope for the good and intelligent readers will be enlightened and able to surmise that the one actually pointing their finger to the persons  accused of libel  as the wrongdoers, have three other fingers pointing back at them.” — Monch L. Follosco