ANTIQUE – Belison municipal mayor Christopher H. Piccio has been slapped with a six-month suspension by the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas (OPV).
This stemmed from the administrative complaint for alleged simple misconduct and oppression filed by Municipal Accountant Edna B. Escaner against Piccio and Belison Municipal Police Station (MPS) former acting police chief Haidee P. Sobrino in 2019.
Escaner claimed the respondents withheld her personal belongings and depositing the same with the Belison Municipal Police Station, following her reassignment through Office Order No. 046-2019 dated Oct. 7, 2019 issued by Piccio to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer.
The OPV, in a decision dated July 20, 2022 penned by Deputy Ombudsman Dante Vargas, found “substantial evidence that the administrative infraction of simple misconduct and oppression was committed”.
Piccio, who could not be reached for comment as of this writing, was meted with six months suspension without pay.
“Respondent Piccio is further warned that an infraction of the same nature in the future will be dealt with more severely,” the Ombudsman decision further read.
Meanwhile, the complaint against Sobrino was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
It can be recalled that Escaner appealed Piccio’s order to the Civil Service Commission Regional Office 6 (CSCRO-6), as she believed that her reassignment constitutes constructive dismissal.
The Commission granted the appeal of Escaner through its Decision No. 200016 and declared Piccio’s Office Order No. 046-2019 to be “not in order” and further directed him to restore Escaner to her position as Municipal Accountant.
The Ombudsman said the liability of respondents can be determined in the CSC-6 ruling.
“Holding on to the personal files and belongings of complainant has therefore become a wrongful act which is not only contrary to law but also is injurious to the rights of complainant. It is an act of cruelty, domination, or excessive use of authority over the complainant who is a subordinate,” the Ombudsman’s decision read.
It stressed that Piccio cannot pretend that he did not have a hand in the disposition of the items of complainant which were deposited with the Belison MPS, because Sobrino was under instructions to release the said items only upon the conformity of the mayor.
It further added that Piccio cannot also pretend that the seizure of the documents and personal effects of complainant was for the purpose of safekeeping as some of it were owned by the local government unit (LGU) and that she was not denied access thereof.
“The truth is that since October 1, 2019, to the time that respondent Piccio initiated an administrative case against herein complainant on October 21, 2019, and up to the time of the filing of the instant complaint on January 16, 2020, complainant was deprived of access, custody and is not free to enjoy the items she owned. Worse, respondent Piccio and other LGU employees could not agree as to what are owned by the LGU, which of the items are subject to the case he allegedly filed with this Office, and what are the personal belongings of complainant,” it added.
In a formal charge dated Nov. 8, 2019, respondent Piccio also accused Escaner of dishonesty, gross insubordination and misconduct.
“The records will bear it out that after complainant filed an appeal dated Oct. 18, 2019 to the CSCRO-6 questioning the validity of Office Order No. 046, respondent Piccio railroaded the filing of a formal charge dated Nov. 8, 2019 with his own office for dishonesty, gross insubordination and misconduct against herein complaint, acted as complainant and judge, and adjudicated the same by handing down a decision penalizing complainant…” it added.
Meanwhile, the Ombudsman cited Section 2, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution which provides “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures or whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable.”
It also stressed that nothing in the records will show that the seizure of the personal effects and documents of complainant was by virtue of a search warrant, subpoena duces tecum or any order from a court of competent jurisdiction or the Ombudsman or any court for that matter, if indeed cases were filed against the complainant./PN
