EXCERPT TAKEN FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE SANGGUNIANG

PANLUNGSOD OF THE CITY OF ALAMINOS, PANGASINAN HELD ON NOVEMBER 07, 2016.

PRESENT:
Vice Mayor Jose Antonio Miguel Y. Perez - Presiding Officer
Councilor Apolonia G. Bacay - Presiding Officer Pro-Tempore
Councilor Rufina J. Gabriel - Majority Floor Leader
Councilor Margielou Orange Humilde-Verzosa, DPA - Minority Floor Leader
Councilor Joselito O. Fontelera - Member
Councilor Carolyn D. Sison - Member
Councilor Alfred Felix E. de Castro - Member
Councilor Rany S. de Leon - Member
Councilor Perlito V. Rabago - Member
Councilor Cirilo B. Radoc - Member
Councilor Froebel A. Ranoy - Member
LBP Raul B. Bacay - Ex-Officio Member
-----oOo-----

AMADITO O. BARRIDO ADMINISTRATION CASE NO. 2015-04

Complainant, For: GRAVE MISCONDUCT

- versus -

BRGY. KGD. JORGE D. BALBALOSA, JR.

Respondent,
x------------------------------------------------------x

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE RESOLUTION NO. 2016-01

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A verified complaint was filed before this body through the office of the secretary to
the Sanggunian by the complainant Amadito 0. Barrido against Barangay Kagawad Jorge D.
Balbalosa, Jr, both residents of Barangay Bisocol, Alaminos City, Pangasinan, for Grave
Misconduct.

FACTS

The complainant alleged in his affidavit that sometime on September 15, 2015 at
around 7:00 O’clock in the evening, respondent Balbalosa, Jr. taking advantage of his
position as Elective Barangay Official reported to the Public Order and Safety Office (POSO)
this City, that complainant was mauling his wife. After an hour from the alleged report,
complainant was shocked, surprised and frightened when police officers cordoned his house
and sought his arrest. According to the complainant, such fabricated report caused him
immense embarrassment, humiliation and mortification.

Respondent categorically denied the allegations made in the complaint and instead,
respondent averred that at around 7:00 0’ clock in that same evening, he was having a
conversation with Mrs. Bernadette Basobas in front of the latter’s house when Mrs. Basobas
received a text message from Michel Bongais begging for help as she wanted to leave.
Mrs. Basobas advised the respondent to report it to the proper authorities. Later,
respondent called the Alaminos Action Center and reported that someone was asking for a

-page 1 of 4-
(Cont. of Adm. Case Res. No. 2016-01 Barrido vs Brgy. Kgd. Balbalosa, adopted on 7th of November, 2016) “

rescue at the house of Onyok Barrido, and then Police Officers came and proceeded to the
house of the complainant. Respondent countered that there is nothing wrong with what he
had reported as he was merely performing his duties by conveying to the authorities the
text messages received by Ms. Bernadette Basobas from Michel Bongais.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent be held administratively liable for Grave Misconduct.

RESOLUTION

The Committee on Rules and Laws to which the aforesaid administrative case was
referred was tasked to continue the investigation and hearing of said case which was filed
during the previous set of SP Members but suspended temporarily on account of the
Election held on May 9, 2016.

After a hearing and thorough study of the testimonies and supporting documents
submitted by both parties, this committee finds that the ground of Grave Misconduct relied
to by the complainant has no basis in fact and in law.

Misconduct in office as a ground for disciplinary action refers to maladministration

or willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office. Complainant
treated the false information allegedly relayed by respondent to the authorities as the main
cause of his self-proclaimed humiliation and embarrassment, and none was mentioned by
the complainant that respondent willfully neglected and failed to discharge his duties.
Complainant insisted only that had not been for that false information allegedly reported by
respondent, he would not have been humiliated.

Complainant premised squarely his charges of an alleged false information based on

the report of Mr. Casipit, who received the same from other receiver, in short, Mr. Casipit’s
report was merely relayed to him.

It bears to stress that the office of the Hundred Islands Radio Communications
Group (HIRCG) relayed such report it received from the POSO which the latter received
from CDRRMO, So, there are series of message relays done here, that is, from CDRRMO to
POSO and then to HIRCG.

In a letter submitted to this Body by Ms. Andrea dela Cruz, (Action-Officer on duty,
of CDRRMO and where such report was originated), nothing was specifically stated in her
report that complainant was mauling his wife.

The letter as mentioned in its second paragraph, quoted as follows:

“Instead of answering my queries, the caller said that it was a different kind of
emergency and asked for POSO assistance at that moment.”

In addition, the officer_ in_ charge stated in the last paragraph of her letter, the
following:

“I would just like to give emphasis that details/information relayed to the POSO
officer was just as is the information that I have received from the unidentified caller.”

-page 2 of 4-
(Cont. of Adm. Case Res. No. 2016-01 Barrido vs Brgy. Kgd. Balbalosa, adopted on 7th of November, 2016) “

The committee is perplexed how did such a phrase mauling his wife finally occurred
in the report of the last receiver without cutting the trend of information, unless, of course,
when the respondent called the POSO again or the last receiver with different version, but
insofar as this case is concern, respondent did not make another call. Such trend of event
would put every prudent person in a state of suspicion and this would also negate the
credence of the allegation of complainant.

Verily, this committee is not certain whether respondent really relayed that
complainant was mauling his wife, neither to rule against respondent based on such
uncertainty. Hence, said committee hereby gives credence to the straightforward report of
the CDRRMO as the only receiver of the message coming from the mouth of respondent. No
other evidence showing the existence of such alleged false report/information was ever
established during the hearings, except that one recorded by the last receiver, Mr. Casipit
which is inconsistent with the very report received by the Office of the CDRRMO from the
respondent. The CDRRMO report encompasses with the testimony of respondent that he
merely reported to the CDRRMO that somebody was begging for help via text messages.

The Committee however, cannot close its eyes of the apparent shortcoming
displayed by respondent. It is incumbent upon respondent to source out other ways or
means how to reach the person begging for help in his area of responsibility whatever it
takes rather than to stand idly waiting for the fire to blow rapidly. The committee does not
want to suggest to respondent what to do or how to deal with it since the committee is
aware that respondent is presumed to know better as he had undergone public safety
training. Moreover, the law clothed him with authority to wield power and exact obedience
and order over anybody else, but it seems that in the present scenario, respondent failed to
avail of the same and consequently became coward.

Even assuming that respondent’s seminar requires him to call the assistance of law
enforcers, the same will be done only where there are no other appropriate remedies
available that would ease the situation and when the situation becomes unmanageable to
the extent that danger would inevitably occur. In this situation, nothing imminent danger
happened yet. Even assuming further, that he called already the police authorities, the
respondent should be at the forefront and accompany the police officers. Moreover, and for
the sake of courtesy and statesmanship, respondent should be the first one to approach
complainant and utilize the Police Officers as back-up. In this case, respondent resorted a
wrong alternative.

Respondent is expected by his constituents to be ready at all times to act promptly

and render comfort and assistance to anybody on any events/ circumstances like the
foregoing. His lack of diligence was compounded by his erroneous belief and frightening
attitude about the character of the complainant. Pressure and large volume of work provide
no excuse for respondent’s inability to exercise diligence in the performance of his duties.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the committee finds respondent not liable for
Grave Misconduct.

However, this committee holds respondent liable for Simple Negligence and
hereby resolved to impose upon respondent the penalty of REPRIMAND and to be,
henceforth, more careful in the performance of his duties.

So Ordered.

This 7th day of November, 2016

-page 3 of 4-
(Cont. of Adm. Case Res. No. 2016-01 Barrido vs Brgy. Kgd. Balbalosa, adopted on 7th of November, 2016) “

-page 4 of 4-

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing administrative case resolution consisting of

four (4) pages including this page was unanimously adopted.

LUZ B. VALE
Secretary
ATTESTED:
JOSE ANTONIO MIGUEL Y. PEREZ
City Vice Mayor/Presiding Officer

APOLONIA G. BACAY RUFINA J. GABRIEL

Presiding Officer Pro-Tempore Majority Floor Leader

MARGIELOU ORANGE HUMILDE-VERZOSA, DPA JOSELITO O. FONTELERA

Minority Floor Leader Member

CAROLYN D. SISON ALFRED FELIX E. DE CASTRO RANY S. DE LEON

Member Member Member

PERLITO V. RABAGO CIRILO B. RADOC FROEBEL A. RANOY RAUL B. BACAY, LBP

Member Member Member Ex-Officio Member