REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO
4TH FLOOR, H&C BLDG., ALVAREZ ST., DAVAO CITY

ALMAIRA MACATANONG-BATO
(Head Teacher 1), ET AL.,
Complainants,

-VERSUS-
CASE NO-M-C-____________
FOR: VIOLATION OF SEC. 3
(E) OF R.A. 3019 and
GRAVE COERCIONS
DR. JOHN A. MAGNO, ET
AL.,

Respondents.
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
X

ALMAIRA MACATANONG-BATO
(Head Teacher 1), ET AL.,

Complainants,
-VERSUS -
CASE NO. M-A-___________
FOR: OPPRESSION, GRAVE
ABUSE OF AUTHORITY
and GRAVE MISCONDUCT
DR. JOHN A. MAGNO, ET
AL.,

Respondents.
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
X

JOINT AND CONSOLIDATED POSITION PAPER

WE, COMPLAINANTS ALMAIRA MACATANONG-BATO,

POTRE-SARAH MACATANONG, MOHAMMAD RASUL
MACATANONG, SARIPA MACATANONG, RASAMALA M.
MANGONDAYA, SITTIE JALILLAH ABDUL JALIL, ASLIAH
MACATANONG, GAFUR M. AMPUAN, NASSIB M. MACABATO
and HADJI ALI B. DISOMA, most respectfully submit our
Position Paper, and in support thereof further state that:
THE PARTIES
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 2 of 27
========================

1. The following complainants are as follows:

a. ALMAIRA MACATANONG-BATO has been employed with the

DepEd-ARMM as Head Teacher 1 of Marawi City Division. Her
appointment and designation is marked as Annex A and
series of the Complaint-Affidavit. She is a resident of Saduc,
Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, where she may be served with
summons, notices, resolutions, writs and other processes of
this Honorable Office;

b. POTRE-SARAH MACATANONG has been employed as

Teacher 1 of Marawi City Division. Her appointment and
designation is marked as Annex A and series of the
Complaint-Affidavit. She is a resident of Saduc, Marawi City,
Lanao del Sur, where she may be served with summons,
notices, resolutions, writs and other processes of this
Honorable Office;

c. MOHAMMAD RASUL MACATANONG has been

employed with the DepEd-ARMM as Teacher 1 of Marawi City
Division. His appointment and designation is marked as
Annex A and series of the Complaint-Affidavit. He is a
resident of Saduc, Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, where he may
be served with summons, notices, resolutions, writs and
other processes of this Honorable Office;

d. SARIPA MACATANONG has been employed with the

DepEd-ARMM Master Teacher 1 of Marawi City Division. Her
appointment and designation is marked as Annex A and
series of the Complaint-Affidavit. She is a resident of Saduc,
Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, where she may be served with
summons, notices, resolutions, writs and other processes of
this Honorable Office;

e. RASAMALA M. MANGONDAYA has been employed

with the DepEd-ARMM as Principal 2 of Marawi City Division.
Her appointment and designation is marked as Annex A
and series of the Complaint-Affidavit. She is a resident of
Saduc, Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, where she may be served
with summons, notices, resolutions, writs and other
processes of this Honorable Office;

f. SITTIE JALILLAH ABDUL JALIL has been employed with

the DepEd-ARMM as Master Teacher 1 of Marawi City
Division. Her appointment and designation is marked as
Annex A and series of the Complaint-Affidavit. She is a
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 3 of 27
========================

resident of 122 Norhaya Village , Marawi City, Lanao del Sur,

where she may be served with summons, notices,
resolutions, writs and other processes of this Honorable
Office;

g. GAFFUR M. AMPUAN has been employed with the

DepEd-ARMM since 2005 or for about 11 years already with
the present rank of Utility Worker 1 of Marawi City Division.
His appointment and designation is marked as Annex A and
series of the Complaint-Affidavit. He is a resident of Saduc,
Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, where he may be served with
summons, notices, resolutions, writs and other processes of
this Honorable Office;

h. NASSIB M. MACABATO has been employed with the

DepEd-ARMM since 2000 or for about 16 years already with
the present rank of Utility Worker 1 of Marawi City Division.
His appointment and designation is marked as Annex A and
series of the Complaint-Affidavit. He is a resident of
Brangay Kilala, Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, where he may be
served with summons, notices, resolutions, writs and other
processes of this Honorable Office;

i. HADJI ALI B. DISOMA has been employed with the DepEd-

ARMM with the present rank of Security Guard of Marawi City
Division. He is a resident of Barangay Kilala, Marawi City,
Lanao del Sur, where he may be served with summons,
notices, resolutions, writs and other processes of this
Honorable Office.

j. ASLIAH MACATANONG has been employed with the

DepEd-ARMM as Teacher 1 of Marawi City Division. His
appointment and designation is marked as Annex A and
series of the Complaint-Affidavit. He is a resident of Saduc,
Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, where he may be served with
summons, notices, resolutions, writs and other processes of
this Honorable Office.

2. On the other hand, the following public officials are

made respondents:

a. DR. JOHN A. MAGNO was the Asst. Secretary for

Operation Dep-Ed-ARMM and at the time some of the
complained acts were committed while he is now the
Regional Secretary of Dep-Ed ARMM, where he may be
served with summons, notices, resolutions, writs and other
processes of this Honorable Office;
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 4 of 27
========================

b. ENGR. BAJURY TWANSI is the Chief, Reg. Payroll

Services, Dep-Ed ARMM, where he may be served with
summons, notices, resolutions, writs and other processes of
this Honorable Office;

c. MRS. ROSALINDA HASAN is the Chief Cashier Division

Dep-Ed ARMM, where she may be served with summons,
notices, resolutions, writs and other processes of this
Honorable Office;

d. Respondent, Mrs. Pharida L. Sansarona, Assistant

Schools Division Superintendent was designated by Dr. John
A. Magno as OIC Schools Division Superintendent of DepEd-
ARMM Marawi City and at the same time OIC Supervisor of
Northeast District 11 and Northwest District of Marawi City,
where she may be served with summons, notices,
resolutions, writs and other processes of this Honorable
Office.

e. Respondent Mrs. Anna Zenaida Unte Alonto, Education

Program Supervisor I was designated by Dr. John A. Magno as
OIC Assistant Schools Division Superintendent and OIC
Supervisor of Angoyao 1 and Angoyao East District of Marawi
City, where she may be served with summons, notices,
resolutions, writs and other processes of this Honorable
Office.

f. Respondent Omaimah Daluma, Principal 2 was

designated by Dr. John Magno as OIC District In-Charge of
Northeast District 2. She can be served with summons,
notices, resolutions, writs and other processes of this
Honorable Office.

g. Respondent Noraida S. Casan, Division Nurse and

designated OIC Assistant District In-Charge of Angoyao 1 and
Angoyao East Districts. She can be served with summons,
notices, resolutions, writs and other processes of this
Honorable Office.

GROUNDS FOR THE COMPLAINTS

3. For so many years, MONA A MACATANONG has been the

duly appointed Schools Division Superintendent (SDS) of DepEd
Marawi City. SDS Macatanong gained our highest respect and
admiration because of her selflessness, utmost dedication to the
public service and even beyond the call of duty, sterling and
unparallel performance, wisdom and able leadership which
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 5 of 27
========================

significantly improved and uplifted the quality of DepEd Marawi

City.

4. The position of Mona A., Macatanong as a Schools Division

Superintendent of DepEd Marawi City is a much coveted item
because it is conceived by other to wield power and influence
especially during elections. Just like bees to pollen, it thus
attracts politicians and those willing collaborators of politicians
and it is very regrettable that some of these are officers of DepEd-
ARMM.

5. For reasons known only to them, albeit appear to be very

obvious to onlookers, the respondents have been attracted to the
position being held by MONA A. MACATANONG. Starting in the
year 2014, they have been using all kinds of manoeuvrings to
wrestle such position from SDS Macatanong. Among these
manoeuvrings are the following designations:

a. Respondent Mrs. Pharida L. Sansarona, Assistant

Schools Division Superintendent was designated by Dr. John
A. Magno as OIC Schools Division Superintendent of DepEd-
ARMM Marawi City and at the same time OIC Supervisor of
Northeast District 11 and Northwest District of Marawi City.

b. Respondent Mrs. Anna Zenaida Unte Alonto ,

Education Program Supervisor I was designated by Dr. John
A. Magno as OIC Assistant Schools Division Superintendent
and OIC Supervisor of Angoyao 1 and Angoyao East District
of Marawi City.

6. Respondents Mrs. Pharida L. Sansarona and Mrs. Anna

Zenaida U. Alonto more than gladly accepted their designations
but even willingly did the following illegal acts not only to impress
their superiors but to force me and other teaching and non-
teaching personnel of DepEd Marawi City to recognize them and
do as they please.

7. Even as the above-named respondents were designated

as such, this has been marked by legal infirmities because MONA
A. MACATANONG stood her ground anchored on legal basis such
as the consistent legal position of Civil Service Commission which
still recognizes her even up to present as the Schools Division
Superintendent of DepEd Marawi City. This is evidenced by the
following documents which are marked as Annexes B and series.

8. As a result of these legal battles and manoeuvrings, we,

the lowly employees of DepEd Marawi City have been suspected
by the above named respondents to take side with SDS MONA A.
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 6 of 27
========================

MACATANONG because of the highest respect and admiration

which we openly accorded to her prior to this battle between the
titans.

9. Starting from the time (year 2014) they wanted to wrestle

the position of MONA A. MACATANONG as Schools Division
Superintendent of DepEd Marawi City, reign of terror and
oppression has been adopted by the named respondents to force
us to bestow to them the same respect and admiration which is
reserved only to deserving people like MONA . MACATANONG.
Little did these respondents know that respect and admiration is
earned and not imposed. Among these acts of terror and
oppression which the respondents committed are the following:

a. The respondents unlawfully withheld the salaries of

more than 500 teaching and non-teaching personnel for the
months of January, February and March 2015 (attached
Annex C of the Complaint-Affidavit) which was stopped
only when media men of Channel 5 called their attention. At
the time of filing of the complaint, these remain withheld
despite our pleas and our demands (Annexes D and
series). Respondent Alonto and Mrs. Noraida S. Casan are
now separately tried before RTC Branch 8 of Marawi City for
violation of R.A. 3019, Sec 3 (e) docketed as Crim Case No.
7466-15 which is marked as Annexes E and series of the
Complaint-Affidavit.

b. Respondents Mrs. Pharida L. Sansarona and Mrs.

Anna Zenaida Unte Alonto withheld the March 2015 salaries
of Myrah Hadji Manan, Marietta Acraman and Norhana
Acraman despite their pleas and demands.

c. Respondents Mrs. Pharida L. Sansarona and Mrs.

Anna Zenaida Unte Alonto also withheld the January,
February and March 2015 of Asnia Astap.

d. Respondents Mrs. Pharida L. Sansarona and Mrs.

Anna Zenaida Unte Alonto also withheld the January,
February and March 2015 and May 2016 including the
monthly Salary Differentials for the months of January to
March 2016, the Performance Based Bonus, 2015 Clothing
Allowance and the 2016 Mid-Year Bonus of Sittie Jalillah
Abdul Jalil, and likewise withheld the April and May Salaries,
the Salary Differentials and 2016 Mid-Year Bonus of Haron M.
Abato and Bedorie Hadji Osoph, despite pleas and demands
which is marked as Annex F of the Complaint-Affidavit.
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 7 of 27
========================

e. We were informed by our colleagues that we have to

personally submit individual explanation and another
evidence of proof of rendered services.

f. We have received a copy of the letter of Dr. John A.

Magno, Regional Secretary of DepEd-ARMM, stating that we
should appear personally in the DepEd Regional Office with
our individual explanations and evidence of proof of services
rendered, which copy is marked as Annex G of the
Complaint-Affidavit.

g. The foregoing requirements of the respondents is

illegal and contrary to Civil Service Rules because we already
submitted Form 48 Daily Time Records from January 10 to
May 2016, and Five (5) months Vacation Leave of Absence
with Pay from January to May 2016, as evidenced by Annex
H and series of the Complaint-Affidavit.

h. The respondents unlawfully withheld our

Performance Based Bonus for the Year 2016-2016, with
hundreds of our teachers in DepEd Marawi City have not
received their Performance Based Bonus amounting to a
minimum of P5,000 to P15,000.00. Our performance Based
Bonus was withheld until now despite our request and
demand letter attached copies as Annex I of the
Complaint-Affidavit.

i. With the withholding of our monthly salaries for the

months of April and May 2016, including the 2016 Mid-Year
Bonus, as bread winners of our families, our children suffered
a lot because we failed to provide them their school supplies,
uniforms, clothings and tuition fee. It also greatly affected
our focus during the observance of the Holy Ramadan. As a
result we were forced to seek loans from high charging
interest rates lenders.

10. To exemplify the reign of terror and oppression by the

mentioned respondents, they unlawfully replaced some itemized
School Principals and teachers (attached as Annex J and series
of the Complaint-Affidavit) who are likewise suspected of taking
side with SDS MONA A. Macatanong, to wit:

a. Mrs. Salamona A. Tawagon, Principal 11 designated

District In-Charge of Northeast District 2 was replaced by Mr.
Didato Monto, Principal 1 as District In-Charge of Northeast
District 2.
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 8 of 27
========================

b. Mrs. Rasamala M. Mangondaya, Principal 11 was

replaced by Mrs. Linda Salic, Principal 1 at Ibango Central
Elementary School.

c. Mrs. Bedorie Acraman H., Osoph, Principal 1

designated District In-Charge of Northwest District was
replaced by Mrs. Ubar Acraman, a Teacher 1 at Mipaga
Elementary School.

d. Mrs. Myrah Magondacan H. Manan, Head Teacher 3

was replaced by Mrs. Noraida Sumaguina, a Teacher 2 at Bito
Elementary School.

e. Mrs. Almaira M. Bato, Head Teacher was replaced by

Mrs. Norma Mangorsi, a Teacher 3 at Marawi City Elementary
School.

11. Aside from the above, the respondents, through the

recommendation of respondent Anna Zenaida U. Alonto, ordered
the closure of existing schools (exemplified by Annex K of the
Complaint-Affidavit) who are not supporting them, namely;

a. Sultan Cosain Naga Elementary School, which has been in

existence for almost 30 years with more than 20 teahers
and 600 students;

b. Dansalan National High School, which is one of the best

performing secondary schools, with about 17 teachers and
800 students;

c. Mipaga Elementary School, which has been in existence

for almost 20 years and more than 400 pupils;

d. Datu Acraman National High School.

12. In addition, some teachers who are suspected of taking

side with SDS MONA A. MACATANONG have been harassed
through the following acts (Annexes L and series of the Complaint-
Affidavit), despite lack of factual and legal basis:
a. Issuance of Show Cause Orders;
b. Issuance of Order to File Complaint;
c. Issuance of Formal Charges;
d. Attempt to Issuance of AWOL Orders.

13. Thus, we instituted the criminal and administrative

complaints for because the respondents violated the prohibited
acts stated under Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. 3019, which is quoted hence:
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 9 of 27
========================

Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.

Xxxxxxxx

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the

Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official, administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith
or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall
apply to officers and employees of offices or
government corporations charged with the grant of
licenses or permits or other concessions.

14. Likewise, due to the foregoing acts of the respondents,

we instituted the criminal and administrative complaints because
they committed GRAVE COERCION under Art. 286 of the Revised
Penal Code which is defined and penalized as follows:

Article 286. Grave coercions. - The penalty of arresto

mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who, without authority of law,
shall, by means of violence, prevent another from doing
something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do
something against his will, whether it be right or
wrong.

ARGUMENTS AND/OR DISCUSSIONS

15. The respondents violated the prohibited acts stated

under Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. 3019, which is quoted hence:

Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.

Xxxxxxxx

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the

Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official, administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith
or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall
apply to officers and employees of offices or
government corporations charged with the grant of
licenses or permits or other concessions.
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 10 of 27
========================

16. There is no doubt that the respondents caused and have

been causing us undue injury through the mentioned acts of
terror and oppression. Our salaries, mid-year bonus, salary
differentials and other benefits which have withheld from us are
our, and our family, only source and means of living and without
which we are gradually succumbing from hunger and moral
depravity. Moreover, their actions are clearly attended by evident
bad faith because only those who are suspected of being loyal to
SDS MONA A. MACATANONG have been the subject of the
following oppressions, harassments and other illegal acts and
maneuverings.

17. The foregoing acts of the respondents are likewise

classified as GRAVE COERCION under Art. 286 of the Revised
Penal Code which is defined and penalized as follows:

Article 286. Grave Coercions, - The penalty of

arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall
be imposed upon any person who, without authority of
law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another from
doing something not prohibited by law, or compel him
to do something against his will, whether it be right or
wrong.

18. There is no doubt that the foregoing acts of the

respondents are intended to force or compel us, as complainants,
to bestow unto them the same respect and admiration which is
reserved only to deserving people. As we stated earlier, respect
and admiration is earned and not imposed.

19. Respondents should be indicted for the crimes

mentioned and should not be allowed to go scot-free for utterly
lacking moral fitness and for protection of public service based on
the time-honored principle that a public office is a public trust.
Said respondents, who are supposed to be role models and ought
to possess the highest degree of moral fitness required of their
lofty positions, are morally depraved as demonstrated by their
willingness and eagerness to commit the crimes of violation of
Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 and GRAVE COERCIONS under the Revised
Penal Code just to achieve their common objectives and purpose
of forcing us to bestow loyalty, respect and admiration that are
reserved only to those who deserve it.

20. Aside from being criminally liable, the named

respondents are likewise administratively liable for grave abuse of
authority, oppression and grave misconduct which are penalized
by dismissal from service with perpetual disqualifications and
forfeiture of benefits.
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 11 of 27
========================

21. Respondents should be dismissed from service for utterly

lacking moral fitness and for protection of public service based on
the time-honored principle that a public office is a public trust.
Said respondents, who are supposed to be role models and ought
to possess the highest degree of moral fitness required of their
lofty positions, are morally depraved as demonstrated by their
willingness and eagerness to commit the crimes of violation of
Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 and GRAVE COERCIONS under the Revised
Penal Code just to achieve their common objectives and purpose
of forcing us to bestow loyalty, respect and admiration that are
reserved only to those who deserve it.

22. Finally, there is conspiracy between and among all of the

foregoing respondents because their mentioned individual acts
are intended for a common objective and purpose. This is very
clear on the above-mentioned acts of the respondents, whose
individual performance aided one another to accomplish the
complained acts.

23. From the foregoing circumstances, it is not hard to see

the unity of purpose and concerted action of all the named
respondents in ensuring the consummation of their conspiratorial
acts against us. As annotated by Prosecutor Mario Campanilla in
Book One of the Revised Penal Code, citing the case of Aguilos,
G.R. No. 1211828, June 27, 2003, the overt act in pursuance or
furtherance of conspiracy may consist of active participation in
the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consists of
moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the
time of the commission of the crime, or by exerting a moral
ascendance over the other co-conspirators by moving them to
execute or implement the criminal plan.

24. In Antonio vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No., L-57937,

October 21, 1988 the Supreme Court held that there is conspiracy
where several accused by their acts aimed at the same object,
one performing one part and another performing another part so
as to complete it with a view to the attainment of the same
object, and their acts, though apparently independent are in fact
concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal
association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.

The respondents intentionally

withheld our salaries, bonuses and
benefits
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 12 of 27
========================

25. One of the excuses of the respondents is that allegedly

the salaries of the complainants were not withheld but were
instead converted to checks and returned to the Cashier as they
were not claimed by the complainants. This excuse is too shallow
because to start with, it is apt to refresh the minds of all
concerned that both monthly salaries, salary differentials,
performance based bonus, clothing allowance, 2016 mid-year
bonus and benefits of the complainants were withheld. Thus, their
separate complaints commonly state that:

a. The respondents illegally withheld their salaries for

January, February and March 2015;
b. The respondents illegally withheld the monthly Salary
Differentials for the months of January to March 2016,
the Performance Based Bonus, 2015 Clothing Allowance
and the 2016 Mid-Year Bonus;
c. The respondents illegally withheld the April and May
2016 Salaries, the Salary Differentials and 2016 Mid-
Year Bonus.

26. It has to be noticed that prior to the various kinds of

manoeuvrings employed by the respondents just to wrestle the
position of Schools Division Superintendent from MONA
MACATANONG, the salaries and benefits of teaching and non-
teaching personnel of DepEd Marawi Division were released
through ATM. However, when the respondents took over, they
required teaching and non-teaching personnel to claim their
salaries before respondent SANSARONA so that she would be able
to coerce them into submit to her questionable
appointment/designation and authority. As a matter of fact,
starting in 2015 the teachers were even required to profess
loyalty to respondent SANSARONA and at the same renounce and
denounce MONA MACTANONG as the Schools Division
Superintendent. Failure to comply with the above requirement
would mean that the salaries would not be released.

27. Thus, it can be easily seen that the mode of release of

salaries by claiming it personally before respondent SANSARONA
is already highly questionable. As stated above, the purpose is to
coerce them into submit to her questionable
appointment/designation and authority just to ensure that the
teachers are forced to profess loyalty to respondent SANSARONA
and at the same renounce and denounce MONA MACTANONG as
the Schools Division Superintendent.

28. Herein complainants are principled men and women

who have been coerced by the respondents to profess respect
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 13 of 27
========================

and loyalty by imposition and not through merits just because of

the highest respect and admiration which we openly accorded to
SDS MONA A. MACATANONG prior to this battle between the
titans. Thus, the reign of terror and oppression has been
adopted by the named respondents to force us to bestow to them
the respect and admiration which should be earned and not
imposed and their way of doing it was to require us to fall in line
before respondent SANSARONA to claim our salaries but with the
condition that we profess loyalty to her and at the same renounce
and denounce MONA MACATANONG as the Schools Division
Superintendent. It has to be noted that the legal battle between
them especially during the period when our salaries and benefits
were withheld should not involve us because our loyalty is to our
profession and the government we serve and not personally to
any person.

29. Yet, the shallow excuse of the respondents alleging that

we refused to claim our salaries and bonus and other benefits is
belied by the various demand letters we attached to our
complaints which show that we persistently made a demand for
its release because the respondents intentionally withheld our
salaries, bonuses and benefits which, as already stated above, are
classified as follows:

a. The respondents illegally withheld their salaries for

January, February and March 2015;
b. The respondents illegally withheld the monthly Salary
Differentials for the months of January to March 2016,
the Performance Based Bonus, 2015 Clothing Allowance
and the 2016 Mid-Year Bonus;
c. The respondents illegally withheld the April and May
2016 Salaries, the Salary Differentials and 2016 Mid-
Year Bonus.

Submission of Daily Time Records

(C.S. Form No. 48) is NOT A
REQUIREMENT for the release of
salary differentials, performance
based bonus, clothing allowance,
2016 mid-year bonus and benefits

30. Another excuse of the respondents is that the primary

reason why our monthly salaries, salary differentials, performance
based bonus, clothing allowance, 2016 mid-year bonus and
benefits were withheld is due to our failure to submit our Daily
Time Records (C.S. Form No. 48).
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 14 of 27
========================

31. This is another superficial defense. It should be

observed that submission of Daily Time Records (C.S. Form No.
48) is NOT A REQUIREMENT for the release of salary differentials,
performance based bonus, clothing allowance, 2016 mid-year
bonus and benefits. Thus, the foregoing excuse offered by the
respondents is not only lame and baseless but an open twisting of
facts, abuse of power and authority, and utter disregard of laws,
rules and procedures. This is a clear manifestation of the
mentality of the respondents that they are the law and despotic
exercise of their position and authority.

32. As to the issue of the withheld salaries, other than

performance based bonus, clothing allowance, 2016 mid-year
bonus and benefits, the supposed foregoing requirement which
the respondents are requiring us to comply is illegal and contrary
to Civil Service Rules because we already submitted Form 48
Daily Time Records from January 10 to May 2016, and Form 7 (as
evidenced by documents attached to the Joint Reply Affidavit as
Annex ___ and series).

33. As a matter of fact, there is strong indication that the

respondents are now using the same as afterthought
defense/excuse because the memo which the respondents
attached to their respective counter-affidavit were issued after
they learned of the cases that we filed. It has to be observed that
we filed our complaint on June ___ 2016 while the said memo
was issued in the months of August and September 2016.

34. That there is strong indication that the respondents are

now using the supposed requirement of submission of Form 48
Daily Time Records as a mere afterthought defense/excuse is
further bolstered by the fact that the respondents, as of late,
released the salaries of herein complainants even without the
supposed signature of authorized signatories (as what the
respondents call it) in the Form 48 Daily Time Records submitted
by herein complainants.

35. Truly, the respondents have contradicted their own

argument/lame excuse about the supposed submission of Form
48 Daily Time Records duly signed by authorized signatories
because if this is indeed a legal and serious pre-requisite, why did
they eventually release albeit very lately the salaries of herein
complainants?

36. The inescapable conclusion is that the respondents

have been coercing herein complainants into forcing us to bestow
to them the respect and admiration which should be earned and
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 15 of 27
========================

not imposed and their way of doing it was to require us to fall in

line before respondent SANSARONA to claim our salaries but with
the condition that we profess loyalty to her and at the same
renounce and denounce MONA MACATANONG as the Schools
Division Superintendent. To reiterate, the legal battle between
them especially during the period when our salaries and benefits
were withheld should not involve us because our loyalty is to our
profession and the government we serve and not personally to
any person.

Submission of Clearance is NOT

required to claim salaries,
performance based bonus, clothing
allowance, 2016 mid-year bonus
and benefits

37. The respondents offer additional pretext that our

salaries, performance based bonus, clothing allowance, 2016 mid-
year bonus and benefits have been withheld is due to our
defiance to the orders/directives of the respondents as the duly
constituted authorities and superiors for us to submit our
respective clearances.

38. There is NO factual and legal basis of the foregoing

flimsy defense offered by the respondents because submission of
Clearance is required for two instances, which do not fall to our
case: (a) it is required at the end of each School Year; (b) it is
required when the teacher applies for retirement.

39. Moreover, herein complainants had already cleared

themselves from money and accountability in the Marawi City
Division under SDS Macatanong last May 2016, as evidenced by
the documents attached to their Joint Reply-Affidavit as Annex
___ and series, and therefore the required clearance is an act
of oppression and coercion. Again, there is strong indication that
the respondents are now using the same as afterthought
defense/excuse because the memo which the respondents
attached to their respective counter-affidavit were issued after
they learned of the cases that we filed. It has to be observed that
we filed our complaint on June ___ 2016 while the said memo
was issued in the months of August and September 2016.

40. Just like in the issue of Form 48 Daily Time Records,

the alleged non-submission of clearance is a mere afterthought
defense/excuse because, as stated earlier, the respondents, as of
late, released the salaries of herein complainants even without
the supposed new clearance bearing the signature of
authorized signatories (as what the respondents call it).
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 16 of 27
========================

41. Indeed, the respondents have contradicted their own

argument/lame excuse about the supposed submission of new
clearance bearing the signature of authorized signatories
because if this is indeed a legal and serious pre-requisite, why did
they eventually release albeit very lately the salaries of herein
complainants?

The crimes and offenses were

already committed when the
respondents involuntarily released
our salaries and benefits last
September 2016

42. The respondents could NOT benefit and the crimes and
administrative infractions they committed are NOT erased just
because they eventually released the salaries of herein
complainants. This is based on the principle that when the acts
committed have violated existing laws, the crimes were already
committed and the corresponding administrative infractions have
sanctions.

43. Moreover, there is strong indication that the

respondents released the salaries of herein complainants after
they learned of the cases that we filed and they realized that they
ran out of legal and extralegal excuses for which reason they
released the salaries, albeit very lately and after the cases were
filed.

44. In fine, the respondents did not voluntarily release our

salaries but were pressed against the wall after running out of
legal and extralegal excuses. Pathetically, they want to use the
same as a defense although it is very clear that it is a mere
afterthought defense/excuse.

45. Even then, the respondents placed themselves into

further trouble because in order to release our salaries, they
further coerced us to submit our respective Affidavits stating
therein, among others, that we should avow not to recognize SDS
Mona Macatanong anymore as SDS of DepEd-ARMM Marawi City
and to explain our side on the matter. Thus, we were forced to
draft our respective Affidavits as required by the respondents
against our will, which were respectively attached to our Joint
Reply-Affidavit as Annex __ and series.

46. However, our foregoing Affidavits were rejected by the

respondents. They required us to execute against our will another
Affidavit (attached to our Joint Reply-Affidavit as Annex ___
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 17 of 27
========================

and series) where paragraph 4 thereof was dictated by the

respondents which contain is worded as follows:

4. That I have rendered public service ... despite

none signing of my Form 48 by proper authority.

47. The foregoing paragraph which the respondents forced

us to indicate in the afore-said Affidavit that we respectively
executed was calculated and intended to be used by the
respondents in their defense for the earlier criminal and
administrative cases we field against them. True enough, the
respondents already attached the same to their respective
Counter-Affidavits which they submitted before the Office of the
Ombudsman.

48. We are left with no choice except to file another

criminal and administrative complaints against the respondents
due to their coercive acts in requiring us against our will to
execute the two mentioned affidavits as a pre-condition to the
release our mentioned salaries. A copy of the new complaint was
attached to our Joint Reply-Affidavit as Annex ___, using the
foregoing as a ground, aside from withholding again our salaries
for AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2016.

49. To date, the respondents likewise illegally withheld our

salaries for OCTOBER 2017 up to present or for another FIVE (5)
MONTHS again and they likewise withheld our 13 th MONTH PAY
and YEAR-END BONUS.

50. Clearly, the there is a pattern of continuous and

sustained coercion, oppression and tyrannical acts committed by
the respondents against us, as exemplified by the foregoing facts
and circumstances above-mentioned.

The supposed recommendation for

us to be declared in AWOL is
another clear manifestation of that
the respondents are using a pattern
of continuous and sustained
coercion, oppression and tyrannical
acts committed by the respondents
against us

51. The respondents even have the temerity to state as a

defense that herein complainants were recommended to be
declared AWOL because of our refusal to see in person
respondent SANSARONA for purpose of falling in line before her to
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 18 of 27
========================

claim our salaries but with the condition that we profess loyalty to
her and at the same renounce and denounce MONA
MACATANONG as the Schools Division Superintendent. To
reiterate, the legal battle between them especially during the
period when our salaries and benefits were withheld should not
involve us because our loyalty is to our profession and the
government we serve and not personally to any person.

52. As a matter of fact, the supposed recommendation for

us to be declared in AWOL is another clear manifestation of that
the respondents are using a pattern of continuous and sustained
coercion, oppression and tyrannical acts committed by the
respondents against us.

53. It should be noted that the AWOL is part of the effort of

the respondents in illegally removing us from our respective items
which is intended to shame and demote us.

54. Yet again, while we do not necessarily invoke the

legality of the position being held by SDS MACATANONG at the
time we filed the instant cases, it should be NOTED that
appointment of the respondents and those they appointed were
recently struck down by the Civil Service Commission Proper as
NULL AND VOID in its Resolution issued on ______ 2016, which
copy was attached to our Joint Reply-Affidavit as Annex ___.

55. The release of salaries, bonuses and benefits of herein

complainants involve the performance of the respective acts of
each of the respondents. As a matter of fact, they insist that we
should comply with what they required, albeit illegal
requirements, in order for these to be released.

56. It is very clear that the respondents acted in one way or

another to ensure that our salaries, bonuses and benefits would
be withheld.

It is not required that all of the

respondents should be accountable
officers for the release of the
salaries of herein complainants
because they are charged based on
conspiracy theory

57. As stated in our Complaint-Affidavit, the complaints are

based on conspiracy theory wherein the act of one is the act of
all. Thus, it does not necessarily require that all of the
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 19 of 27
========================

respondents are accountable officers for the release of the

salaries of herein complainants.

58. It is worthy to reiterate what we stated in our

Complaint-Affdiavit that it is not hard to see the unity of purpose
and concerted action of all the named respondents in ensuring
the consummation of their conspiratorial acts against us. As
annotated by Prosecutor Mario Campanilla in Book One of the
Revised Penal Code, citing the case of Aguilos, G.R. No.
1211828, June 27, 2003, the overt act in pursuance or
furtherance of conspiracy may consist of active participation in
the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consists of
moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the
time of the commission of the crime, or by exerting a moral
ascendance over the other co-conspirators by moving them to
execute or implement the criminal plan.

59. In Antonio vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No., L-57937,

October 21, 1988, the Supreme Court held that there is
conspiracy where several accused by their acts aimed at the
same object, one performing one part and another performing
another part so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of
the same object, and their acts, though apparently independent
are in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of
personal association, concerted action and concurrence of
sentiments.

The illegal closure of schools is part

of the coercive and reign of terror
and oppression committed by the
respondents

60. As to the illegal closure of the schools, the attached

documents show that the powers that be appointed/designated
officers in key positions of DepEd Marawi City Division based on
affiliations and willingness to cooperate in whatever illegal and
immoral goals of the powers that be. We, the undersigned,
together with nameless teachers, principals, supervisors and
alumni have been trying their best to offer resistance to what
they see as illegal, extra-legal and immoral actions of the powers
that be and their willing collaborators.

61. As a result, at least four schools, where some of these

staunch defenders of the reforms introduced by former SDS
MACATANONG, have been illegally closed by the
appointees/designees in key DepEd Marawi City Division. These
culprits knowingly and purposely sacrificed the powerless and
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 20 of 27
========================

voiceless students of these schools just to achieve their immoral

and illegal purposes to get back against the defenders of the
reforms introduced by former SDS MACATANONG.

62. Due to this, about FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY (580) poor

students were forced to stop schooling because they could no
longer afford to travel in the alternative schools vice their closed
schools. On the other hand, those students who were left with no
choice but to transfer have to walk to and from the school where
they have transferred with an average distance of TWO
KILOMETERS WALK (for going to and from).

63. While the MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND affected

students could do nothing to protest their plights, one could feel
their hardships, traumatic experiences, wounded feelings,
sleepless nights, serious anxieties and other forms of physical and
mental sufferings and tortures, and other forms of abuses. In
short, these children are victims of child abuse committed by the
powers that be and their appointees/designees in key positions at
DepEd Marawi City Division.

64. These children and their parents, and so with the

teachers, principals and supervisors who are staunch defenders of
the reforms introduced by former SDS MACATANONG, are crying
for justice. However, just as powerless and voiceless as the too
many abused children of Marawi City, herein complainants are
trying to protect these reforms and prevent the abuses as the
abused children are pinning their hope.

65. The truth about the closure of the four schools is a

classic example of how ruthless and heartless the respondents
are to the extent of sacrificing the powerless and voiceless
students of these schools just to achieve their achieve their
immoral and illegal purposes to get back against the defenders of
the reforms introduced by former SDS MACATANONG. The facts
about these schools is shown in the hereto attached Tables with
short explanation which is marked in the Joint Reply-Affidavit as
Annex ___.

66. Respondents should be indicted for the crimes

mentioned and should not be allowed to go scot-free for utterly
lacking moral fitness and for protection of public service based on
the time-honored principle that a public office is a public trust.
Said respondents, who are supposed to be role models and ought
to possess the highest degree of moral fitness required of their
lofty positions, are morally depraved as demonstrated by their
willingness and eagerness to commit the crimes of violation of
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 21 of 27
========================

Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 and GRAVE COERCIONS under the Revised
Penal Code just to achieve their common objectives and purpose
of forcing us to bestow loyalty, respect and admiration that are
reserved only to those who deserve it.

67. Aside from being criminally liable, the named

respondents are likewise administratively liable for grave abuse of
authority, oppression and grave misconduct which are penalized
by dismissal from service with perpetual disqualifications and
forfeiture of benefits.

68. In fine, the respondents should be dismissed from

service for utterly lacking moral fitness and for protection of
public service based on the time-honored principle that a public
office is a public trust. Said respondents, who are supposed to be
role models and ought to possess the highest degree of moral
fitness required of their lofty positions, are morally depraved as
demonstrated by their willingness and eagerness to commit the
crimes of violation of Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 and GRAVE
COERCIONS under the Revised Penal Code just to achieve their
common objectives and purpose of forcing us to bestow loyalty,
respect and admiration that are reserved only to those who
deserve it.

69. The defense of mere denial offered by the respondents

is so weak, which no less than the Highest Tribunal has
consistently rejected in decided cases. Thus, in innumerable
cases such as PEOPLE VS. ABOLIDOR, 423 SCRA 260, the
Honorable Supreme Court again proclaimed that positive
identification where categorical and consistent and not attended
by any showing of ill motive on the part of eyewitnesses so on the
matters prevail over alibi and denial, and in PEOPLE VS. DULAY,
423 SCRA 652, wherein the said tribunal stated once more that
denial, being negative and self-serving, deserves no weight in law
when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.

70. It is a firmly established jurisprudence that when there

is no evidence that the principal witness for the prosecution is
moved by improper motives, such witness is entitled to full faith
and credit (PEOPLE VS. RAMOS, 427 SCRA 207).

71. At any rate, the defenses raised respondents are purely

evidentiary in nature. They are proper only for appreciation during
the trial on the merits, pursuant to ANDRES VS. JUSTICE
SECRETARY CUEVAS, 499 Phil. 36 (2005), where the Honorable
Supreme Court explained the import of defenses which are
evidentiary in nature, as the "presence or absence of the
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 22 of 27
========================

elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of

defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the
merits."

72. The defense of the respondents that they acted within

their authority is clearly unavailing because their defences are
evidentiary in nature. In a similar case of ALFREDO SY for
himself and as Attorney-in-Fact of GONZALO SY, VERONICA
SY, ROSARIO SY, MANUEL SY and JOSE SEE VS. HON.
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, LEON MARIA MAGSAYSAY, G.R. No.
166315, December 14, 2006, where the respondents invoked the
defense that they acted under authority of law, the Supreme
Court declared that:

Indeed, while respondents claim to have acted under

authority of law in compelling petitioners to vacate the
subject property and effecting the demolition, the
documentary evidence show otherwise. From the records, it
is clear that a prima facie case for grave coercion exists and
that there is sufficient ground to sustain a finding of probable
cause which needs only to rest on evidence showing that,
more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it
was committed by the accused. 17 Nevertheless, respondents
may disprove petitioners' charges but such matters may only
be determined in a full-blown trial on the merits where the
presence or absence of the elements of the crime may be
thoroughly passed upon.18

73. The only issue to be determined in the instant case is

whether or not there is probable cause to indict the respondents
for the crimes of violation of Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 and
GRAVE COERCIONS under the Revised Penal Code and
probable cause is defined in OSCAR R. AMPIL VS. THE HON.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, POLICARPIO L. ESPENESIN,
Registrar, Register of Deeds, Pasig City, ET. AL, G.R. No.
192685, July 31, 2013, in this wise:

We likewise stress that the determination of probable

cause does not require certainty of guilt for a crime. As
the term itself implies, probable cause is concerned
merely with probability and not absolute or even moral
certainty;34 it is merely based on opinion and
reasonable belief.35 It is sufficient that based on the
preliminary investigation conducted, it is believed that
the act or omission complained of constitutes the
offense charged.
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 23 of 27
========================

Well-settled in jurisprudence, as in Raro v.

Sandiganbayan, that:
36

x x x Probable cause has been defined as the existence

of such facts and circumstances as would excite the
belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within
the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person
charged was guilty of the crime for which he was
prosecuted.37

Probable cause is a reasonable ground for presuming

that a matter is or may be well-founded on such state
of facts in the prosecutor's mind as would lead a person
of ordinary caution and prudence to believe or
entertain an honest or strong suspicion that it is so. 38

A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on

evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has
been committed and there is enough reason to believe
that it was committed by the accused. It need not be
based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither
on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. 39

74. As held in SILVERINA E. CONSIGNA VS. PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, citing
Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan, 484 Phil. 350, 360 (2004), citing
Jacinto v. Sandiganbayan, 387 Phil. 872, 881 (2000), the following
are the essential elements of violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019:

1. The accused must be a public officer discharging

administrative, judicial or official functions;

2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad

faith or inexcusable negligence; and

3. That his action caused any undue injury to any party,

including the government, or giving any private party
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his functions.
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 24 of 27
========================

75. The elements are present because the respondents

singled out herein complainants in withholding their salaries,
bonuses and benefits. Moreover, the withholding is clearly illegal,
with manifest partiality and evident bad faith as shown the facts
and circumstances above-mentioned. Furthermore, these clearly
caused undue injury to herein complainants and our respective
families and dependents.

76. As to the administrative complaint for grave abuse of

authority, is worthy to be emphasized that this act is
committed when the act is attended by cruelty, severity, or
excessive use of authority. Thus, in MA. CHEDNA ROMERO
VS. PACIFICO B. VILLAROSA, JR., Sheriff IV, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 17, Palompon, Leyte, A.M. No. P-
11-2913, April 12, 2011, (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-
2810-P), our Supreme Court declared that:

With regard to grave abuse of authority, such has

been defined as a misdemeanor committed by a public
officer, who under color of his office, wrongfully inflicts
upon any person any bodily harm, imprisonment or
other injury; it is an act of cruelty, severity, or
excessive use of authority.(citing Rafael v. Sualog, A.M.
No. P-07-2330, June 12, 2008, 554 SCRA 278, 287; citing
Aranda, Jr. v. Alvarez, A.M. No. P-04-1889, November 23,
2007, 538 SCRA 162, and Stilgrove v. Sabas, A.M. No. P-06-
2257, November 29, 2006, 508 SCRA 383, 400).

77. As to the administrative complaint for greave

misconduct, the acts committed by the respondents fall under
what the Supreme Court declared in SONIA V. SEVILLE VS.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Regional Office VI, Iloilo City, G.R.
No. 177657, November 20, 2012, thus:

In grave misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear

intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an
established rule must be evident.4 Misconduct, in the
administrative sense, is a transgression of some established
and definite rule of action. On the other hand, dishonesty is
intentionally making a false statement in any material fact or
the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud. 5 Both are
considered grave offenses for which the penalty of dismissal
is meted even for first time offenders.

PRAYER
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 25 of 27
========================

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

before this Honorable Office of the Ombudsman TO INDICT the
respondents for the crimes of violation of Sec 3 (e) of R.A. 3019
and GRAVE COERCIONS under the Revised Penal Code and TO
DISMISS them from the government service with all the
necessary and accessory penalties imposed therein.

Marawi City, February ____ 2017.

ALMAIRAH MACATANONG-BATO SARIPA MACATANONG

Complainant Complainant
I.D. ________________________ I.D. __________________

MOHAMMAD R. MACATANONG POTRE-SARAH

MACATANONG
Complainant Complainant
I. D. __________________ I.D. _____________________

RASAMALA M. MANGONDAYA SITTIE JALILLAH

ABDUL JALIL
Complainant Complainant
I.D. ____________________ I.D. _____________________

ASLIAH MACATANONG HADJI ALI BATUA DISOMA

Complainant Complainant
I.D. ____________________ I.D. ___________________

GAFFUR AMPUAN NASSIB M. MACABATO

Complainant Complainant
I.D. ____________________ I.D. No. 093-095-0048

Republic of the Philippines)

_________________________)

VERIFICATION

We, the undersigned complainants, all of legal age, Filipinos,

after having sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose
and state, that:
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 26 of 27
========================

1. We are the complainants in the above-entitled criminal

and administrative cases.

2. We have caused the preparation of the foregoing Joint and

Consolidated Position Paper. .

3. The allegations therein are true and correct base on our

own personal knowledge and base on authentic documents.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE hereby set our hands this

February ___ 2017 here at Marawi City, Philippines.

ALMAIRAH MACATANONG-BATO SARIPA MACATANONG

Complainant Complainant
I.D. ________________________ I.D. __________________

MOHAMMAD R. MACATANONG POTRE-SARAH

MACATANONG
Complainant Complainant
I. D. __________________ I.D. _____________________

RASAMALA M. MANGONDAYA SITTIE JALILLAH

ABDUL JALIL
Complainant Complainant
I.D. ____________________ I.D. _____________________

ASLIAH MACATANONG HADJI ALI BATUA DISOMA

Complainant Complainant
I.D. ____________________ I.D. ___________________

GAFFUR AMPUAN NASSIB M. MACABATO

Complainant Complainant
I.D. ____________________ I.D. No. 093-095-0048
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this February
___ 2017 hereat _______________________________. I hereby certify
that I have personally examined the affiants and that I am fully
satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their joint
sworn statement.

ADMINISTERING OFFICER
Position Paper (Almairah Macatanong, Et Al)
Page 27 of 27
========================

COPY FURNISHED:

DR. JOHN A. MAGNO

Department of Education-ARMM
ORG Compound, Cotabato City

PHARIDA L. SANSARONA
DepEd Satellite Division Office
Marawi City

ANNA ZENAIDA A. UNTE

DepEd Angoyao I and Angoyao East District
Marawi City

ENGR. BAJURY TWANSI

DepEd Satellite Division Office
Marawi City

MRS. ROSALINDA HASAN

DepEd Satellite Division Office
Marawi City

OMAIMAH DALUMA,
District In-Charge, Northeast District 2
Marawi City

NORAIDA S. CASAN
Angoyao 1 and Angoyao East District
Marawi City