ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 116, March 19, 1968

EXONERATING MRS. CARMEN S. HERRERA ACOSTA, DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF WOMEN AND MINORS

This is an administrative case filed by Mrs. Gliceria M. Strebel and 17 others of the Bureau of women and Minors against Mrs. Carmen S. Herrera Acosta, Director of the said bureau, for misconduct in office consisting of 17 counts, to wit.

1. There were no substantial accomplishments during her incumbency. Plans submitted by her personnel were never implemented.

2. She did not establish definite lines of authority but assigned work at random and refused to “delegate authority inherent in their positions.”

3. she assigned one work to several persons and passed adverse comments on such work to others in the same office.

4. She forbade bureau personnel to answer queries by phone, insisting on written queries, although for the good of the service, her subordinates ignored her. Whenever she was out of the office, she claimed she was in Congress.

5. She is secretive and suspicious and resents references of matters directed to the Department in her absence.

6. Despite her claim that the Bureau was undermanned, she did not work for the inclusion in the budget of 4 items already approved by WAPCO claiming that she prefers bigger items.

7. In assigning officers-in-charge, she rotated Bureau personnel without regard to the ranking system, allegedly for the purpose of training them for higher positions.

8. In a report on office supplies, she instructed her personnel to consider supplies in her cabinet as consumed, when in fact they were not.

9. There is no system in record-keeping hence the loss and misplacement of papers.

10. She is always out of the office but filed only a leave of absence for 1 1/2 days.

11. Her daughter issues orders to office personnel and requests them to report activities in the office to her.

12. She expects loyalty and cooperation from subordinates who cannot find in her the qualities that would command loyalty and cooperation.

13. She does provide representatives of the Bureau with the proper authority to enable them to be effective.

14. In dealing with Nora Ellis, the ILO adviser, she showed neither respect nor courtesy on the grounds that she should not have been appointed because she was not a degree holder.

15. Despite the suggestion of the Secretary to send out for field work only personnel with a salary of P500 or above, she sent out “mere” clerks.

16. She does not share with other members of the office such knowledge of operations as would enable them to answer Department querries in her absence.

17. She orders the security guard to open office drawers after office hours and comments on the contents thereof in the morning.

A formal investigation of the charges was ordered and conducted wherein both complainants and the respondent were given every opportunity to support their respective sides. In his report, the investigator from the office of the government Corporate Counsel recommended that the respondent be reprimanded and given a warning with respect to count 8 and exonerated as to the other charges, which were not sufficiently proven.

The 8th count concerning the respondent’s instructions to her personnel that supplies in her cabinet should be reported and consumed when in fact they were not was admitted by the respondent. For this improper advice, even assuming that it was done to enable the Bureau to acquire a stockpile of additional supplies, the investigator believes that the respondent should be reprimanded and warned.

A review of the record supports the investigator’s findings, although it is believed that the reprimand on count 8 is too severe under the circumstances.

The apparent frivolousness of many of the charges tends to detract from the lofty motivations that should inspire a complaint for the promotion of the interest of the public service. Thus, while it is true that a head of an office owes it to himself and the government to act in such a manner as to command the respect and loyalty of subordinates, subordinates should respect and obey those who have been placed in positions of authority to enable them to properly and effectively direct the mutual endeavor to accomplish the objectives of the office. The approaches to these objectives must of necessity be decided upon by the head of the office, for it is he who, in the final analysis, must assume responsibility for any failure therein. Any other way would disrupt established procedure and result in confusion and disintegration to the prejudice of the service.

In view of the foregoing, respondent is hereby exonerated. She is, however, advised to be more careful to avoid misunderstandings that tend to engender disrespect. Complainants are also advised to extend maximum cooperation to the respondent for the good of the service.

Done in the City of Manila, this 19th day of March, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and sixty-eight.

(Sgd.) FERDINAND E. MARCOS

President of the Philippines

By the President:

(Sgd.) RAFAEL M. SALAS

Executive Secretary