Customs Examiner Suspended for Loafing

Corruption is not just about stealing people’s money, but also stealing people’s precious time. This seems to be the message of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) as it penalized Elenita Astorga Abaño of suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day for loafing.

In its eight-page decision issued on October 27, 2015 and received by the Department of Finance (DOF) on November 6, 2015, the Ombudsman found substantial evidence to hold Abaño, a Customs Examiner V of the Bureau of Customs (BOC), guilty of loafing from duty during regular office hours, saying: “Her admission that she was in the PIAD for the production of the 2013 BOC Annual Report and the irreconcilable entries in her DTR and AAAHR for November and December 2013 are substantial proof that she is guilty of Loafing considering the frequency of her unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours on November 19 and 22, and December 13 and 16, 2013.”

In arriving at its decision, the Anti-Graft Body considered the entries in respondent’s Daily Time Record (DTR) at the Customs Policy Research Office (CPRO) of the DOF, and validated the same by cross-referencing it with the turnstiles of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) All Access Attempts History Report (AAAHR). Based on the said cross-referencing, the Ombudsman determined that: “(a) on November 19, 2013, respondent apparently rendered 8-hour work although she was out of the office for more than five (5) hours; (b) on November 22, 2013, she was out of her office for more than four (4) hours; (c) on December 13, 2013, she was out of her office for less than three (3) hours; and on December 16, 2013, she was out of her office for more than six (6) hours.”

The Ombudsman refused to give credence to respondent’s assertion that she was on official business during those dates. It found questionable the attestation of the employees of the Public Information and Assistance Division (PIAD) on respondent’s whereabouts as the latter exercises ascendancy over them. It would have been different, stressed the Ombudsman, if the person who attested to her whereabouts is her immediate supervisor.

Furthermore, the Ombudsman noted the fact that Abaño was aware that she could not perform her task without leaving the CPRO office; thus she should have secured an OB pass whenever there is a need for her to conduct research outside the CPRO. “The OB pass is necessary to provide a presumption that an employee has rendered the required number of works outside the work place,” emphasized the Ombudsman.

However, the Ombudsman dismissed the charge of Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service for insufficient evidence.

The decision of the Ombudsman emanates from the complaint of the Special Panel of Investigators filed on October 23, 2014 for Loafing, Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Relative to the said decision, the Ombudsman ordered the BOC Commissioner to immediately execute the same, even pending appeal or motion for reconsideration, pursuant to Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 2006, issued by the Office of the Ombudsman, and Section 15 (3) of the Ombudsman Act of 1989.

Source: www.dof.gov.ph