When Fr. Jose Ramon Villarin, SJ, took over as the Ateneo’s new president, one of the first—and controversial—changes he implemented was the replacement of the school’s security force.

The change has been met with surprise, and perhaps it was warranted: Leopard Security and Investigation Agency (LSIA) has been serving the campus for nine years, and until Villarin’s surprise announcement of the security change last July 19, no one—not even the student body’s own Sanggunian—had been aware of the impending turn-over.

As details of the decision started to come in, heated discussions on various aspects of the security change started to emerge. Some welcomed the change, saying that a fresh pair of eyes can improve Ateneo’s security situation. Others questioned the decision, particularly focusing on the track records of both LSIA and the incumbent security agency, Megaforce Integrated Security Agency (MISA).

MISA formally took over security duties last September 3. But as with its initial entry into the student body’s consciousness, MISA’s official installation as the Loyola School’s new security force did not come without controversy.

Just a few months after the change-over, a slew of theft incidents across campus threatened to put into question the new agency’s competence.

Last August, two student-owned cars were found broken into and the owners’ valuables stolen. Anti-theft alarms fitted into one of the cars apparently did not deter the robbers—nor did they alert the guards, who were allegedly not in the area at the time of the thefts.

Then, around four weeks later, another break-in occurred, this time with bigger casualties: six LCD monitors, one wi-fi router and one central processing unit went missing in one of the rooms of the Mathematics Department.

Facilities Management Office (FMO) Director Jose Arnulfo Batac says the guard on duty at the time—assigned to watch over the Science Education Complex—had to take care of one of the pumps in Escaler Hall. The theory was that the thieves took the opportunity to break into the department.

Although Batac thinks the motive was the salability of the items, he denied to speculate the possibility of an inside job, as investigations are still ongoing.

These theft incidents came at a rather bad time: MISA had just come in, and already, it found itself with something to prove.

“Going through a process”

LSIA filed an appeal after the formal announcement of the change. Villarin turned the request down last August 25 and clarified that the decision “does not in any way suggest that Leopard’s service was unsatisfactory these last nine years nor does it question its track record within and outside the Loyola campus.”

Batac explained that the bidding process that preceded the security change was standard operating procedure to ensure a high quality of service. Ideally, it should be held every three years, although none was held for the past nine years.

“The basis of the bidding is not because we are dissatisfied,” Batac says. “We’re not really replacing for the sake of replacing them. We’re going through a process.”

It may be recalled from earlier interviews, however, that Villarin, Batac and Vice President for Administration and Planning Edna Franco confirmed they are all new in their jobs. None of the three were sure why no bidding had taken place.

Imelda Nibungco, Director of the Human Resources Management Office and also a member of the committee, explains that no bidding processes were conducted in the past because the former Physical Plant Administrator, Leoncio Miralao, Jr., did not think it was needed.

“I do not recall any serious effort on the part of Mr. Miralao to conduct a bidding for security services,” she adds.

Miralao served as administrator from 1988 until last year, when former President Fr. Bienvenido Nebres, SJ appointed Batac to succeed Miralao in office.

Track records 

A search in the Court of Appeals database shows that both LSIA and MISA were involved in a number of cases from the years 2008 to 2011. Most of these cases had to do with illegal dismissal and underpayment or non-payment of wages and benefits, in which majority of the security guards who filed the cases won.

MISA has been filed with several cases of illegal dismissal and underpayment or nonpayment of wages. In two cases of MISA vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering MISA to reinstate both guards after being illegally dismissed. MISA was also directed to pay them full back wages from the time their compensations were withheld up to the time of their actual reinstatements.

In another case (CA-GR SP No. 108485), the Court of Appeals ruled against the NLRC’s decision when it had given the pay slip of two guards from MISA more evidentiary weight than the payrolls produced by the agency. The case was dismissed, and MISA won.

But LSIA, too, had its own share of cases, appealed for in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Similar to the first two cases above, in LSIA vs. NLRC (CA-G.R. SP No. 107123), the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the security guard, ordering LSIA to reinstate him with full back wages.

In another instance, this time with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 159808), the Highest Court reinstated the decision made by the Labor Arbiter, which ruled against the respondent because of evidence that showed his deliberate abandonment of his work and duties. Here, LSIA won.

These incidents show that both security agencies have their own share of labor cases and wage disputes filed with the courts. During LSIA’s term in Ateneo, there have also been incidents of theft, particularly the 2008 incident where three dormers were robbed of their laptops in the waiting shed of Cervini Hall.

“Professional” processes

In light of the track records of both companies, the process in which the bidding committee—tasked to select the new security agency to replace LSIA—begs for further elaboration.

Batac says that a bidding committee, formed last April, was tasked to review proposals from applying security agencies. MISA scored highest in both the technical aspect (constituting 75% of the total score) and the financial aspect.

The committee was also in charge of conducting background checks on all agencies before the decision. According to Batac feedback from the agencies’ previous clients were obtained, with the assumption that “if anything happened in those companies where they had business with it, [it] will be raised.”

When asked if no irregularity was found during the background checks, Batac says, “If there was, it will be a big issue against them [Megaforce]. [The bid committee] took into consideration the background of all agencies, not just Megaforce.”

Nibungco agrees with Batac: “As a member of the bidding committee, I am convinced that the process followed was thorough, professional, transparent, and aboveboard.”

Not direct correlations

But Batac thinks the change in security agency cannot be directly linked to the theft incidents. The timing may have been suspect, but it could have also been nothing more than a series of unfortunate events.

Batac says that he had also heard of several incidents while the previous security agency, LSIA, was still serving in campus. He declined to elaborate, saying that he is still new in his job and it would not be fair to relate it with LSIA.

Nibungco, however, recalls of an incident during LSIA’s stay in campus. “I know of several incidents which happened during Leopard’s watch but I am not sure I am at liberty to discuss them. However, you may recall the [2008] snatching incident involving laptops of dormers [in the waiting shed in front of Cervini Hall].”

Regardless of the background or the theft circumstances, Batac maintains that the security performance should be improved. In the case of the Math department robbery, FMO has decided to charge all losses to MISA. 
He says, however, that doing so is not a replacement or alternative to doing security procedures well.

The recent security issues on campus have revealed the challenge in keeping Ateneo safe. No security agency can be totally untarnished—human error will always creep in, sometimes in the form of losses and sometimes in lawsuits—but the fact remains: security is both a trust and an enterprise, and a good system of checks and balances will keep both facts intact.

Editor’s Note:The Math Department declined The GUIDON’s request for a statement on the theft incident last September 19. The publication has also contacted MISA for their statements, but the company has not yet released one as of press time.