Having served government without a blot of administrative wrongdoing in his 26-year career in the Commission on Audit saved a male employee from losing his retirement pay and dismissal despite being found guilty of sexual harassment.
In a decision released recently by the Commission on Audit Commission Proper (COA-CP), the veteran administrative aide was found guilty of touching the buttocks of a co-worker during a billiards tournament sponsored by COA in 2019.
Under the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS), COA Chairman Michael Aguinaldo and Commissioner Roland Pondoc may impose the penalty of dismissal but the two officials decided to suspend the respondent for one month without pay, instead.
The two-man panel also gave the errant office worker a “stern warning that repetition of a similar or analogous infraction” will be dealt with severely.
The name of the respondent was redacted in the COA-CP case that was initiated by a woman administrative assistant of the audit agency.
The complainant said her male co-worker made “sexual advances towards her by touching her buttocks after a pool tournament conducted on March 5, 2019 at the M2 Billiards, Videoke and Restaurant as part of the celebration of COA’s 120th anniversary.
She said the incident “gave her discomfort and caused her humiliation”, adding that the respondent did not even show any remorse for what he did.
The respondent, who was serving his 26th year in the state audit agency, pointed out that he meant no malice when he unintentionally grabbed the lady employee’s behind.
After conducting an investigation, the COA Internal Affairs Office (IAfO) recommended the filing of an administrative offense of sexual harassment against the respondent but dismissed the charge of Conduct Unbecoming of a Public Official and Employee against him, explaining that the alleged offense was “not done in relation to the discharge and execution of his official duties.'
Faced with a CCTV footage as evidence of his alleged wrongdoing and pleading that he could not afford a lawyer, the male employee waived his right to a formal hearing and offered his apology to the aggrieved co-employee.
The COA-CP noted that during its investigation of the complaint by the Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI) headed by Asst. Commissioner Elizabeth S. Zosa, it was found out that the respondent had indeed apologized to the complainant immediately after the incident “but the latter did not accept his apology.”
Under the RACCS, the offending party can be dismissed from the service if found guilty as charged.
However, Aguinaldo and Pondoc did not impose the said penalty as they noted that decisions made by the Supreme Court in several administrative cases granted leniency to the offender due to factors such as “length of service, acknowledgement of his or her infractions and feeling remorse, family circumstances, advanced age and other humanitarian and equitable considerations.”
The COA CP noted that the respondent showed remorse and apologized to the complainant right after committing the infraction and that the offense was committed in a public place in the presence of their co-employees.
The two-man panel also noted that the offending employee is nearing retirement, having serviced 26 years in COA and had never been charged administratively.
Citing these factors, Aguinaldo and Pondoc gave the respondent “some leniency by tempering the imposition of the imposable penalty” of dismissal.