In its one-page order to Barbers to answer within 10 days the charges against him, the Ombudsman said it found enough basis to proceed with the administrative investigation of the case as the complaint filed by the illegally dismissed PTA employees is "sufficient in form and substance and supported by evidence."
"Failure to comply as herein directed within the period prescribed by the rules shall be deemed a waiver of the right to present the party’s counter-affidavit or reply and the investigation shall proceed according to existing rules," the Ombudsman told Barbers.
In their complaint-affidavit, the PTA employees decried the dismissal order issued by Barbers despite the absence of a court ruling on the legality of his appointment.
The employees charged him with violation of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and RA 6713 or Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees and RA 6770 of the Ombudsman Law.
The employees decried Barbers’ wanton disregard for their rights and welfare when he terminated their services on Jan. 9, 2003 despite the fact that the Court of Appeals has yet to rule on the legality of his appointment as general manager Nixon Kua’s replacement.
Kua had filed a petition for quo warranto with Damages and Prayer for Temporary Restraining order and a Writ for Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction. The petition also asks the CA to declare Kua as the legitimate PTA general manager.
The employees argued that Barbers’ acts were in violation of their existing and valid contracts of services and the constitutional and statutory guarantee of security of tenure which is extended to both those in the career and non-career positions.
They added it has been ruled in the case of Jocom vs. Regalado 201 SCRA 73 (1991) that an employee who belongs to the non-career service is protected from removal or suspension without just cause and non-observance of due process.