Ombudsman finds BIR exec guilty of dishonesty

The Office of the Ombudsman finds a revenue officer of the Bureau of Internal Revenue guilty of dishonesty charge, filed against her two years ago by her nemesis in the same bureau, then BIR 16 regional director Mustapha Gandarosa.

In its eight-page decision, the Ombudsman Ma Merceditas Gutierrez ordered BIR District 98 Ester Sahidsahid Palala guilty of simple dishonesty for allegedly tampering her personal data sheet (PDS). For said decision, the Ombudsman ordered the top official currently based in the BIR Cagayan de Oro district 98, be suspended for one month and one day without pay.

Palala was also sternly warned that a repetition of the same offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.

The Ombudsman also ordered that the decision be entered into Palala’s personal record. Meanwhile, the subject BIR official cannot be contacted for the meantime for her side on the recent decision of the Ombudsman suspending her of one month for her dishonesty.

The decision of the Ombudsman stemmed from an affidavit-complaint filed by then BIR 16 regional director Mustapha Gandarosa last November 19, 2008.

The complainant alleged during the filing of formal complaint that on September 3, 1990, the respondent Palala was formally charged with Grave Misconduct by the Commissioner of the BIR and found her guilty of simple misconduct. A copy of the decision was received by Palala on January 6, 1992. However, on Palala’s personal data sheet (PDS) in the possession of the Human Resource Management Unit (HRMU) of Revenue Region No. 16 in Cagayan de Oro, respondent reflected that she has not been guilty or convicted of any crime or violation of any law, decree, ordinance or regulation by any court or tribunal.

Respondent stated in her PDS that “she declared under oath that her personal data sheet has been accomplished by her, and is true, correct and complete statement pursuant to the provisions of pertinent laws, rules and regulations of the country. The said PDS was submitted by respondent and received by the HRMU of Revenue Region No. 16 on May 30, 2008.

The complainant contended that the untruth statements made by respondent of her sworn PDS constituted grave offense of dishonesty under section 22 of Rule XIV, Book V of Executive Order No. 22.

Meanwhile, the Ombudsman in a resolution to a separate Criminal Case of Perjury filed against the same respondent found probable cause to prosecute Ester Palala of Perjury, based on the revised penal code.

The Ombudsman ordered that a case of Perjury be filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City.