Reply Affidavit Sep28 10

7/28/2019 Reply Affidavit Sep28 10

1/3

Republic of the Philippines]Marawi City ]

REPLY-AFFIDAVIT

I, ARMINA GUILING DIDA-AGUN, of legal age, married and a resident of 141AM Raya Madaya I, Marawi City, after having been sworn to an oath in accordance withlaw, do hereby depose and say:

1. That I am the complainant in NPS Docket No. XIV-06-INV-10A-00013 againstMACAPADO A. MUSLIM, SAID M. MAKIL, BULINGAN SAMPORNA HADJISIRAD and TANTUA A. MUSUR, all of legal ages and with office address atMSU Administrative Building, MSU Campus, Marawi City for violation of RA6713;

2. That I vehemently deny the allegation of respondent MACAPADO A.MUSLIMs Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Admit AdditionalEvidence for being completely false and untrue and are meremisrepresentations on the part of the respondent;

3. That respondent MACAPADO A. MUSLIM intentionally did not furnish me acopy of their reply communications by changing my official address toDagduban, Marawi City;

4. That respondent MACAPADO A. MUSLIM has direct personal knowledge onthe following communications which were duly received by his office and werediscussed verbally by him and the complainant but no action was made:

Date Subject Marked in theAffidavit

Complaint as

June 24, 2009 Inquiry on MSU LNCAT vacant AO IVdeliberation

Annex J

July 24, 2009 MSU LNCAT Refusal to receive my letter ofinquiry for holding my salary

Attached toAnnex L

Aug 28, 2009 Harassment and Grave Abuse of Authorityof OIC BULINGAN H. SIRAD

Annex K

Sep 30, 2009 Request for Authentication and Verificationof CSC Eligibilities and Other SchoolRecords of Tantua Musur, Baylo Cabili,Rasul Cadalay, Casana Serad and RaisaTaulo

Annex I

Oct 1, 2009 Request for Immediate Resolution of theCase: Armina G. Didaagun versus MSULNCAT Administration

Annex L

Dec 8, 2009 Follow-up Letter to the previouscommunications dated Sep 30, 2009 andOct 1, 2009

Annex M

5. That in our verbal conversation re: Authentication of CSC Eligibilities datedSeptember 30, 2009, respondent MACAPADO A. MUSLIM requested me notto continue the verification of eligibilities of the accused otherwise they will beremoved from the service;

Page 1 of 3 pages


2/3

6. That in the Motion to Admit Additional Evidence of the respondent, NASSERM. ANDAM, Director of the Presidential Management Staff said:

The case of Armina Guiling Dida-agun is an example. She had sent acommunication to the President which I failed to bring to the attention ofthe President. As far as I could remember, when the Office receivedthe

communication, the President was out for an official trip. So what I did,I indorsed it to the Office of the Director of the Legal Services Division ofthe University for review and recommendation;

Which one of my several communications addressed to the respondent wasallegedly received by NASSER M. ANDAM and was consequently indorsedby him to the Office of the Director for Legal Services Division? Please takenote of his word the communication, which means singular. If that is the case,he admitted that only one of my communications was done so by NASSER M.

ANDAM, otherwise, the president is always out for official trip every time Isent a communication, which is improbable.

Second, NASSER M. ANDAM in his affidavit said:

When the President arrived, Armina Guiling Dida-agun talked to him inthe Office of the President. In fact, it was not just once but severaltimes. And because of the supervening event, I found it unnecessary tocall the attention of the President regarding the letter because I hadreasonably believed, in good faith, that they had already discussed thematter;

It is therefore clear in the above affidavit of NASSER M. ANDAM, that therespondent MACAPADO A. MUSLIM is well aware of the complainantscommunications considering that they have discussed the communications ofthe complainant, not only once but several times. Therefore, the claim of therespondent that he is not informed of the complainants communication, whichhe failed to answer, is clearly unfounded and untrue.

7. That in the Motion for reconsideration of the respondent, he said:

Firstly, contrary to the finding of the Office of the City Prosecutor, thereis no evidence showing that respondent Dr. Macapado Muslim actuallyreceived the alleged letters of the complainant. As ruled by theHonorable Office, the letters were received by the Office of thePresident. Clearly then, respondent Dr. Muslim did not receive the saidletters. The vital issue now is: Is the receipt of the office tantamount tothe receipt of the recipient of the letter for purposes of the application ofthe penal provisions of R.A. 6713?

It is my humble position that the respondent MACAPADO A. MUSLIM hadactually received my communications due to the following facts:

a) Said communications showed that it was all duly received by the Officeof the President of the Mindanao State University, Marawi City;

b) Every time I was given the chance to discuss with the respondent, Ishowed to him first my communications duly received by his staff;

Page 2 of 3 pages


3/3

c) The respondent admitted in his signed affidavits that we have talkedverbally and discussed my grievances which is a clear proof of having apersonal knowledge of my communications but he failed to answer anyof those communications and most importantly, he never gave actionsto address my grievances such as appointing a persons whose

academic records and eligibilities are spurious, holding of my salariesfrom July 2009 to the present and harassing the complainant frompreventing her to sign the school logbook;

8. That the respondent said in item 7 of his counter-affidavit:

She accused me of not replying all his communications, which I did notpersonally received, as violation of R.A. 6713, otherwise known as Codeof Ethical Standards of Government Officials and Employees. In Truthshe blatantly hid the fact that we had several verbal communications that is more than a reply;

While it is true that we had several verbal communications with respondentMACAPADO A. MUSLIM but he never gave any concrete action to addressmy legitimate grievances. Could it be considered a reply to my writtencommunication when I told him that my salary was withheld by MSU-LNCAT

Administration but did not bother to intervene when he is the good presidentof the MSU System?

9. That I am executing this affidavit to attest to the veracity of the foregoing factsand to move for the dismissal of the Motion for Reconsideration filed by therespondent.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this ___ day ofSeptember 2010 at Marawi City, Philippines.

ARMINA GUILING DIDA-AGUNAffiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ______ day of September 2010 inMarawi City, Philippines, affiant exhibited her Community Tax Certificate Number

_______________________________ issued at ____________________________ on_____________________________.

Page 3 of 3 pages

Documents

Reply Affidavit Sep28 10