The Office of the Ombudsman Visayas has offered to absorb the public lawyers whose contracts were not renewed allegedly because of their roles in the on going intramurals at the Public Attorneys’ Office after they signed a petition against their regional chief.
Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Pelagio Apostol said the anti-graft office is willing to take in these lawyers to fill in the vacant positions there but they have to apply first then go through the normal process of hiring personnel.
At least eight contractual lawyers at the PAO-7 were denied renewal of their contracts, and this was viewed as retaliatory act for their filing of a petition against regional public attorney Maria G-Ree Calinawan.
These lawyers were Alfred Yann Oguis, Graciano Espina, Jr., Edsel Ensomo, Irish Inabangan, Desireee Joyce Santiago, Karen Gonzalez, Luanne Ivy Cabatingan and Rizalina Zozobrado.
Chief public attorney Persida Rueda Acosta however denied allegations that the non renewal of the contracts was a retaliatory move.She said that it was a matter involving trust and confidence between the appointing authority and the appointee.
The leaking to the media of what was supposed to be an internal problem of the office had breached her trust and confidence. The problem should have been confined with the PAO office and not leaked to the media, Acosta said.
The squabble within the PAO in Cebu started with the reassignment of lawyer Elisa Porio and administrative officer Carmelita Dacanay to the Barili district office. The two questioned their reassignments and this triggered a petition against Calinawan. The contracts of the lawyers were not renewed after they signed the petition.
Meanwhile, Regional Trial Court judge Ramon Daomilas deferred the hearing, scheduledge yesterday, of the petition for injunction of Porio and Dacanay against Calinawan and Acosta, in connection with their questioned transfer to Barili. The judge gave way first the motion of Acosta and Calinawan for the dismissal of the case.
Acosta and Calinawan asked for a dismissal and questioned the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case. In their motion to dismiss, They cited at least four arguments: Complainants have no clear rights that were violated, and that their reassignment order was legal.
They further questioned the court’s jurisdiction of the court over the matter contending that it involved a reassignment order, a non-disciplinary action, which exclusively belongs to the Civil Service Commission.
Acosta and Calinawan alleged that the petitioners did not come to court “with clean hands” because the latter actually filed a case against the state, considering that the issues in question were officials acts of the heads of the PAO.
Acosta and Calinawan said that, as held by the Supreme Court, the designation of a person is merely temporary which does not confer security of tenure. They pointed out that Porio have been reassigned to different PAO district offices before but did not raise any question.
Porio is now questioning her reassignment to PAO-Barili district office. Acosta and Calinawan said while reminding Porio and Dacanay that they are civil service employees and are subject to CSC rules and regulations.
Before Porio and Dacanay filed the case, the respondents said, they should have first exhausted administrative remedy, which they allegedly failed. The court will hear this afternoon the motion to dismiss. — Fred P. Languido/RAE