Previous Story
DPS chief motion to dismiss illegal OT suit could affect others who also received OT
The Office of the Attorney General says the recent motion filed by Department of Public Safety Commissioner Robert Guerrero to dismiss the illegal overtime lawsuit filed against him would affect others believed to have also received illegal overtime for work done during Super Typhoon Yutu.
According to Attorney General Edward Manibusan, Guerrero’s recently filed motion could change the course of the complaint and he intends to file a response soon.
“We received the motion and will file our response in due time. The outcome of this case may determine the course of those Cabinet members who are similarly situated,” he said.
Guerrero
Guerrero, through his lawyer, Matthew T. Gregory, filed a motion to dismiss the OAG’s lawsuit against him last Monday, saying the claims alleged are outside the statute of limitations. Because of this, Gregory said their motion to dismiss should be granted without leave to amend.
Gregory argued that the Commonwealth Code has a two-year statute of limitations in place for actions against the “director of Public Safety” for “any act or omission in connection with the performance of official duties.” In this case, Gregory said, the defendant is the commissioner of Public Safety, which is an identical position to the director of Public Safety.
The lawyer added that aside from his position, that statute also applied here because Guerrero received these payments for acts directly related to his official duties.
“The statute of limitations merely requires that the act be in ‘connection’ to official duties. As such the statute of limitations applies to all the claims in this lawsuit,” he said.
In addition, Gregory said the OAG did not plead facts to show an exception to the statute of limitations. “The exceptions to the statute of limitations deals with the disabilities of the minor or the insane, partial payment on accounts, an extension due to absence of time of a party from the Commonwealth, and an extension in cases involving fraudulent concealment. No such facts have been alleged in the complaint. The acts alleged clearly took place more than two years prior to the filing of complaint,” he said.
