"This, after 11 years of service."
One would think that more than a decade of service to a beloved institution would merit adulation, or at the very least, respect.
But instead of gratitude and compensation, lawyer Ramon Maronilla, former president of the City of Malabon University (CMU) and a Malabonian himself, is now claiming he was given the runaround by the people he expected to protect his rights.
Last February, two months after his early retirement, Maronilla says he wrote a letter to Malabon City Human Resources Chief Maria Caridad Soco to follow up on the payment of his final-month salary and accumulated leave credits.
However, to his surprise, Maronilla says that in her response, Soco stated he is not entitled to any leave credits because the CMU Board of Regents never issued any resolution recognizing the latter’s entitlement to leave privileges.
It took Soco seven months to reply to Maronilla’s letter.
The City Legal Department then wrote a separate letter saying Maronilla is not entitled to accumulated leave credits because his appointment as CMU president was not endorsed by the City Government of Malabon to the CSC for the latter’s confirmation.
Maronilla served as CMU president from 2008-2019 until his early retirement in early December. His appointment was issued by the Local Chief Executive of Malabon, and the same was duly ratified by the CMU BoR.
In addition, the CMU Charter maintains that the CMU president is entitled to the emoluments equivalent to that of a member of the Sangguniang Panglungsod—this includes accumulated leave credits.
How can the HR fail to endorse CMU’s appointment to CSC for confirmation? Maronilla was CMU President from 2008-2019. That’s 11 years of service.
Maronilla claims it would not be surprising if the appointment papers of many other city employees have not been endorsed by Soco to the CSC.
Lastly, Maronilla is only asking for just compensation and benefits. Nothing more, nothing less.
Would it be difficult for those in power to grow a heart for an esteemed member of the Bar who has served them for more than a decade?
Whose fault is it? But whoever’s fault is it, it is the height of incompetence and negligence resulting to grave injustice for Maronilla. Maybe the city Government of Malabon, or maybe even the Office of the Ombudsman should look into this matter.
**
I recently came across an article written by a friend, Allan Encarnacion, in sister publication, People’s Journal.
In his article, Allan enumerates the numerous complaints lodged against the management of S&R Membership Shopping particularly its branches in Commonwealth Avenue and in Pampanga.
Foremost among them is the supposed policy of the S&R Management barring senior citizens and PWDs of bringing in companions inside the store, including those using aids such as crutches, wheelchairs, walking canes, etc. And the only way the seniors and the PWDs can bring in companions to assist them in their shopping, is for them to avail of membership themselves. The annual membership fee for a principal member is P700 and P400 for every extension member.
In fairness to the S&R management, before the pandemic they used to allow any member to bring in companions up to how many they want. It was only when the government ordered the implementation of the community quarantine that they decided to limit the numbers of people getting inside their stores.
However, the store management should also take into consideration these seniors and PWDs need assistance to go on shopping, thus the necessity for them to bring in their household help or drivers. If the real objective is to limit the numbers of people inside the store at any given time, then why allow this household help or drivers entry once they avail of the store membership?
So, is it really a matter of limiting the numbers of people inside the store or simply forcing these seniors and PWDs to shell out additional bucks for their companions?
I myself have witnessed this kind of situation. And that particular incident even involved a frontliner, a senior doctor who was with his wife then. Expectedly, the guard turned down his request to bring in his wife inside; the guard insisted it was store policy. The guard and the store supervisor who was called, won’t even accept the argument of the doctor of why he and his wife would maintain separate membership cards when they share the same household.
I also share the same unfortunate experience that time when the guard also refused my wife entry when it was obvious that time that I was suffering from a shoulder injury. The guard insisted I get a PWD card even if my injury was not a permanent one (But of course I can get one as I had already undergone a heart procedure a couple of years back).
Not only did the guard refuse my entry, he even pointed her to a toilet located at another building when she could no longer endure the call of nature as she was waiting for me outside.
Of course, the S&R management denied this was a store policy. According to Allan, one Joanne Delos Reyes from S&R called him up denying it indeed was a store policy.
That’s good to hear. But unfortunately, it seems the people manning their stores, the guards and the supervisors are not aware of this. I visited the store right after Allan had his column published, and I saw that they were still implementing that “non-existing store policy.”
Maybe if they are really serious in saying it is not an official store policy, the best they could do is post their guidelines at the entrance of every S&R branch – that seniors and PWDs’ companions are allowed one companion each without any need of availing themselves of the store membership.
I tried contacting the store management online to get their side but as of this time, they have yet to give their comment.
