Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY

QUEZON CITY
NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY,
Complainant
Administrative Case No. 16-03-006
For: GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY
AND
CONDUCT
PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST
INTEREST OF THE SERVICE

- versus -

JULIAN N. VALDEZ JR.,

Respondent.

COMMENT
(TO THE RESPONDENTS ANSWER WITH OMNIBUS MOTION)
COMPLAINANT, NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, through the
undersigned Prosecutor and unto this Honorable Office, most
respectfully avers that:
1. This Comment is respectfully submitted in compliance
with the Order from this Honorable Office dated
August 01, 2016 and duly received on September 02,
2016 requiring the undersigned prosecutor to file its
comment to the Respondents Answer with Omnibus
Motion dated March 21, 2016;
A MOTION TO DISMISS IS A PROHIBITED PLEADING
UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REVISED
RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
2. Section 22, Rule 5 of the Civil Service Commission
Revised Rules on Administrative Cases provides:
Sec. 22. Prohibited Pleadings.-The disciplining
authority
1

shall

not

entertain

requests

for

NFA vs. Julian N. Valdez Jr.

Admin. Case No. 16-03-006
For: Gross Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial
to the Best Interest of the service

clarification, bills of particulars, motions to

dismiss or motions to quash or motions for
reconsideration. If any of these pleadings are
interposed by the respondent, the same shall be
considered an answer and shall be evaluated as
such. (emphasis supplied);
3. Thus, Complainant respectfully submits that the
instant Omnibus Motion filed by Respondent should
be denied for being a prohibited pleading under CSCs
Revised Rules on Administrative Cases (RRACS).
Nevertheless, all allegations under the said omnibus
motion shall be considered as an answer and will be
evaluated as such;
4. Further, Respondents allegation that there is a serious
issue on impartiality considering that NFA will be the
Complainant, Prosecutor and Hearing Officer/Judge at
the same time lacks factual and legal basis.
NFA HAS CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WITH THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION TO HEAR
AND DETERMINE ADMINISTRATIVE CASES OVER
ITS PERSONNEL
5. Complainant also submits that under the RRACS,
NFA has concurrent original jurisdiction with the CSC
in taking cognizance of administrative cases over its
personnel. Section 9, Rule 2 of the RRACS provides:
Sec on 9. Jurisdiction of Heads of Agencies.
The Secretaries and heads of agencies, and
other instrumentalities, provinces, cities and
municipalities shall have original concurrent
jurisdiction with the Commission over their
respective officers and employees. They shall
take cognizance of complaints involving their
2

NFA vs. Julian N. Valdez Jr.

Admin. Case No. 16-03-006
For: Gross Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial
to the Best Interest of the service

respective personnel. Their decisions shall be

final in case the penalty imposed is suspension
for not more than thirty (30) days or ne in an
amount not exceeding thirty (30) days salary. In
case the decision rendered by a bureau or office
head is appealable to the Commission, the same
may be initially appealed to the department and
finally to the Commission and pending appeal,
the same shall be executory except when the
penalty is removal, in which case the same shall
be executory only after confirmation by the
Secretary concerned. (emphasis supplied);
6. It is also worthy to mention that Section 47, Chapter 7,
Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of Executive Order No. 292
otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987,
the second paragraph of which states that heads of
agencies and instrumentalities "shall have jurisdiction
to investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary
action against officers and employees under their
jurisdiction,";
7. Thus, in view of all the above premises, the law clearly
recognizes the authority of the heads of agencies to
institute disciplinary proceedings against its personnel
and Respondents premature allegation of impartiality
should not divest NFA of its authority to institute the
instant administrative case;
THE FORMAL CHARGE WAS ISSUED MOTU PROPIO AND
DOES NOT REQUIRE A SHOW CAUSE MEMORANDUM
8. Respondent moves to quash the subject formal charge
allegedly

for

NFAs

failure

to

comply

with

the

procedural guidelines such as the non-issuance of a

show cause memorandum requiring Respondent to
3

NFA vs. Julian N. Valdez Jr.

Admin. Case No. 16-03-006
For: Gross Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial
to the Best Interest of the service

explain why no administrative case should be filed

against him;
9. As cited by herein Respondent, Section 10 Rule 03 of
the RRACS provides:
Sec on 10. Who May Initiate. Administrative
proceedings may be initiated by the disciplining
authority motu proprio or upon complaint of any
other person. (emphasis supplied)
10. Thus, an administrative proceeding is initiated either:
(a) Motu Propio by the disciplining authority; or (b)
upon complaint of any other person;
11. While Rule 4 of the RRACS provides for a Preliminary
Investigation which aims to determine whether a prima
facie case exists to warrant the issuance of a formal
charge, the same is undertaken ONLY when the
case is initiated by a complaint either by (a)
private persons or (b) the disciplining authority.;
12. Section 16 Rule 4 of the RRACS provides:
Section 16. How conducted. Within five (5)
days from receipt of the complaint sufficient in
form and substance, the person/s complained of
shall

be

required

to

submit

his/her/their

counter-affidavit/comment. Where the complaint

is initiated by the disciplining authority, the
disciplining
representative

authority

or

his

authorized

shall

issue

show-cause

memorandum directing the person/s complained

of to explain why no administrative case should
be filed against him/her/them. The latters
failure

to

submit

the

comment/counter-

affidavit/explanation shall be considered a waiver

4

NFA vs. Julian N. Valdez Jr.

Admin. Case No. 16-03-006
For: Gross Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial
to the Best Interest of the service

thereof and the preliminary investigation may be

completed

even

without

his/her

counter-

affidavit/comment. (emphasis ours);

13. Thus, Complainant respectfully submits that since the

present case was instituted motu propio by the
disciplining authority, the filing of a complaint or a
show cause memorandum prior to the issuance of
the subject Formal Charge is not required;
RESPONDENTS POSITION THAT THERE WAS VIOLATION OF
DUE PROCESS, LACK OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AND
NFAS FAILURE TO PROVIDE RESPONDENT COPIES OF
TRANSCRIPT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE MATTERS OF
HIS DEFENSE WHICH ARE EVIDENTIARY IN NATURE AND
BEST TRESHED OUT DURING TRIAL
14. Considering Respondents Omnibus Motion to Dismiss
is a prohibited pleading under the RRACS, nevertheless,
the allegations contained therein will be evaluated as an
answer to the Formal Charge;
15. Complainant further submits that all other allegations
under the Respondents Omnibus Motion are matters of
defense and evidentiary in nature which should be best
presented during the course of the proceedings;
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, it is most
respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Office that the instant
Comment be NOTED and that the Respondents Omnibus Motion to
Dismiss be DENIED for lack of merit.
Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed under the
premises. Respectfully submitted.
5

NFA vs. Julian N. Valdez Jr.

Admin. Case No. 16-03-006
For: Gross Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial
to the Best Interest of the service

Quezon City, Philippines, September 22, 2016

BY AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT
CORPORATE COUNSEL
NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY
Directorate for Legal Affairs
th
7 Floor PHILSUGIN Bldg. North Ave., Diliman
Quezon City
By:
ATTY. JAIRUS B. RUBIO
Prosecutor
Roll No. 64701; April 28, 2015
PTR No. 2182274; January 06, 2016; Quezon City
IBP No. 1022990; Quezon City
MCLE No. V-0022377
Email Ad: jairusbaldemorrubio@gmail.com

COPY FURNISHED WITH EXPLANATION:

ATTY. JOEL M. SANTOS
Counsel for the Respondent
BARIOGA CASTILLO CHUA CABIEDES SANTOS
DELA CRUZ MATIAS & ASSOCIATES
6

NFA vs. Julian N. Valdez Jr.

Admin. Case No. 16-03-006
For: Gross Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial
to the Best Interest of the service

Door 1, RFG Bldg., Del Pilar St., Brgy. Fatima

Cabanatuan City
JULIAN N VALDEZ JR.
Respondent
Brgy. Sibul, Talavera,
Nueva Ecija
c/o National Food Authority
Cabanatuan Provincial Office
EXPLANATION
Copies of this COMMENT (TO THE RESPONDENTS ANSWER
WITH OMNIBUS MOTION) was served to the other parties by means
of registered mail with return receipt due to distance and lack of
personnel to effect personal service thereof.

ATTY. JAIRUS B. RUBIO

Prosecutor

NFA vs. Julian N. Valdez Jr.

Admin. Case No. 16-03-006
For: Gross Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial
to the Best Interest of the service