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 quasi-
judicial 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 quasi-
judicial 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 employee-
employer 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 quasi-
judicial 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