anonymous complaints

92
SC Nixes Government Employee's Plea of Privacy re Search of His Office Computer Posted: November 2, 2011; By Gleo Sp. Guerra The Supreme Court has recently held that the search by the government of an employee’s office computer in connection with an investigation into work-related misconduct does not violate the employee’s constitutional right to privacy. In a 33-page decision penned by Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., the Court denied the petition for review on certiorari of Briccio “Ricky” A. Pollo, former Supervising Personnel Specialist of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and Officer-in-Charge of its Public Assistance and Liaison Division (PALD) under the CSC’s Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya Na Program. Pollo’s petition assailed the Court of Appeals ruling which had dismissed his petition for certiorari to nullify the CSC proceedings wherein he was found guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of RA 6713 and accordingly dismissed. The Court found that the search conducted on Pollo’s computer was justified at its inception and scope using the test in the US case of O’Connor v. Ortega as the CSC pursued the search in its capacity as a government employer and the search was undertaken in connection with an investigation involving a work-related misconduct. The search was occasioned by an anonymous letter-complaint to then CSC Chairperson Karina Constantino-David accusing Pollo of lawyering for parties with pending cases with the CSC. Chairperson David immediately formed a team with background in information technology (IT), and issued a memo directing them to conduct an investigation and specifically “to back up all the files in the computers found in the Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Legal divisions.” It was found that most of the files in the 17 diskettes containing files copied from the computer assigned to and being used by Pollo, numbering about 40 to 42 documents, were draft pleadings or letters in connection with administrative cases in the CSC and other tribunals. The Court found tenable the CSC’s argument that the warrantless search of the above computers was justified since “these furnished 1

Upload: edwin-villegas

Post on 14-Apr-2015

123 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

readings

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Anonymous Complaints

SC Nixes Government Employee's Plea of Privacy re Search of His Office Computer

Posted: November 2, 2011; By Gleo Sp. Guerra

The Supreme Court has recently held that the search by the government of an employee’s office computer in connection with an investigation into work-related misconduct does not violate the employee’s constitutional right to privacy.

In a 33-page decision penned by Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., the Court denied the petition for review on certiorari of Briccio “Ricky” A. Pollo, former Supervising Personnel Specialist of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and Officer-in-Charge of its Public Assistance and Liaison Division (PALD) under the CSC’s Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya Na Program. Pollo’s petition assailed the Court of Appeals ruling which had dismissed his petition for certiorari to nullify the CSC proceedings wherein he was found guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of RA 6713 and accordingly dismissed.

The Court found that the search conducted on Pollo’s computer was justified at its inception and scope using the test in the US case of O’Connor v. Ortega as the CSC pursued the search in its capacity as a government employer and the search was undertaken in connection with an investigation involving a work-related misconduct.

The search was occasioned by an anonymous letter-complaint to then CSC Chairperson Karina Constantino-David accusing Pollo of lawyering for parties with pending cases with the CSC. Chairperson David immediately formed a team with background in information technology (IT), and issued a memo directing them to conduct an investigation and specifically “to back up all the files in the computers found in the Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Legal divisions.” It was found that most of the files in the 17 diskettes containing files copied from the computer assigned to and being used by Pollo, numbering about 40 to 42 documents, were draft pleadings or letters in connection with administrative cases in the CSC and other tribunals.

The Court found tenable the CSC’s argument that the warrantless search of the above computers was justified since “these furnished the easiest means for an employee to encode and store documents. Indeed, the computers would be a likely starting point in ferreting out incriminating evidence. Concomitantly, the ephemeral nature of computer files, that is, they could easily be destroyed at a click of a button, necessitated drastic and immediate action.”

Applying the analysis and principles in O’Connor and US v. Simons, the Court further held that Pollo failed to prove that he had an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy either in his office or government-issued computer which contained his personal files: “Petitioner did not allege that he had a separate enclosed office which he did not share with anyone, or that his office was always locked and not open to other employees or visitors. Neither did he allege that he used passwords or adopted any means to prevent other employees from accessing his computer files.” And even if Pollo had such expectation of privacy, the Court held such was negated by the CSC policy regulating the use of office computers in its Office Memorandum No. 10, S. 2002 that put its employees on notice that they have no expectation of privacy in anything they create, store, send, or receive on the office computers. “Petitioner’s claim of violation of his constitutional right to privacy must necessarily fail. His other argument invoking the privacy of communication and correspondence

1

Page 2: Anonymous Complaints

under Section 3(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution is also untenable considering the recognition accorded to certain legitimate intrusions into the privacy of employees in the government workplace,” stressed the Court.

The Court also upheld the CSC’s dismissal of Pollo based on evidence consisting of a substantial number of drafts of legal pleadings and documents stored in his office computer, as well as the sworn affidavits and testimonies of the witnesses presented during the formal investigation. It concurred with the CSC’s finding that Pollo’s explanation that those files retrieved from his computer hard drive actually belonged to his lawyer friends whom he allowed the use of his computer for drafting their pleadings in the cases they handle as implausible and doubtful.

As to Pollo’s contention that the CSC should have not entertained an anonymous complaint, the Court ruled that the administrative complaint in this case is deemed to have been initiated by the CSC itself when Chairperson David, after a spot inspection and search of the files stored in the hard drive of computers in the two divisions adverted to in the anonymous letter as part of the disciplining authority’s own fact-finding investigation and information-gathering found a prima facie case against Pollo and thus formally charged him. (GR No. 181881, Pollo v. David, October 18, 2011)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pio/news/2011/11/11021101.php

2

Page 3: Anonymous Complaints

a. Applicable felonies outlined in Book II, Title VII, of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended;

b. The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019, as amended);

c. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713, as amended);

d. The Forfeiture of Unexplained Wealth Act (Republic Act No. 1379, as amended);

e. The Civil Service Decree (Presidential Decree No. 807, as amended);

f. The Government Auditing Code (Presidential Decree No. 1445, as amended)

3

Page 4: Anonymous Complaints

MALACAÑANGManila

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES

Executive Order No. 12

April 16, 2001

CREATING THE PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION AND PROVIDING FOR ITS POWERS, DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Whereas, Article VII, Section 17 of the Constitution provides that the President shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus, and offices;

Whereas, in terms of personnel and funding, the Executive Department is the largest of the three branches of government;

Whereas, there is a need for commission under the Office of the President, to conduct the task of investigating and hearing administrative cases and complaints against personnel in the Executive Department;

Whereas, by virtue of the Executive Order No. 268 dated July 18, 2000, the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption was abolished and replaced with the National Anti-Corruption Commission;

Whereas, the National Anti-Corruption Commission was never activated;

Whereas, there is a need to create a new commission to assist the President in the campaign against graft and corruption, whose jurisdiction and authority are clearly defined;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and the laws, do hereby order:

Section 1. Creation. - The Presidential Anti-Graft Commission hereinafter to as the "Commission", is hereby created under the Office of the President, pursuant to Article VII, Section 17 of the Constitution.

Section 2. Composition. - The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and two (2) Commissioners to be appointed by the President. All the members of the Commission shall serve on a full-time basis and a majority shall be members of the Philippine Bar. The Chairman shall have the rank, emoluments and privileges of a Presidential Assistant II. The Commissioners, on the other hand, shall have the rank, emoluments, and privileges of a Presidential Assistant I. The Chairman shall preside over the meetings of the Commission and shall direct and supervise the implementation and execution of policies, standards, rules and regulations.

Section 3. Secretariat. - The Commission shall have a Secretariat which shall provide technical and administrative support to the Commission and which shall be headed by an Executive Director. The Executive Director, under the control and supervision of the chairman, shall execute and administer the policies and decision s of the Commission and manage the day-to-day operations thereof. The

4

Page 5: Anonymous Complaints

Executive Director shall be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the Chairman. The Chairman shall have the authority to appoint, promote, and discipline the personnel of the Secretariat.

The Commission, subject to pertinent laws, rules and regulations, may create, organize and set in operation such organizational units necessary for the performance of its powers, functions, and duties and for the enforcement of this Executive Order. Such units shall be staffed duly qualified personnel appointed by the Chairman and those detailed to the Commission by other government entities.

The Commission shall be exempt from the prohibition against hiring of new personnel prescribed in Administrative Order No. 100 dated December 1, 1999 with regard to its initial appointments provided that the organizational structure and staffing pattern of the Secretariat shall be prepared in coordination with the Department of Budget and Management and submitted to the President for approval.

Section 4. Jurisdiction, Powers and Functions. -

(a) The Commission, acting as a collegial body, shall, on its own or on complaint, have the power to investigate or hear administrative cases or complaints involving the possible violation of any of the following:

(1) Republic Act No. 3019 as amended, otherwise known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;"

(2) Republic Act No. 1379 on the unlawful acquisition of property by a public officer or employee;

(3) Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees;"

(4) Presidential Decree No. 46, making it punishable for public officials and employees to receive gifts on any occasion, including Christmas;

(5) Any provision under Title Seven, Book Two of the Revised Penal Code; and

(6) Rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority to implement any of the foregoing laws or issuances.

(b) The Commission , acting as a collegial body, shall have the authority to investigate or hear administrative cases or complaints against all presidential appointees in the government and any of its agencies or instrumentalities (including members of the governing board of any instrumentality, regulatory agency, chartered institution and directors or officers appointed or nominated by the President to government-owned or controlled corporations or corporations where the government has a minority interest or who otherwise represent the interests of the government), occupying the positions of assistant regional director, or an equivalent rank, and higher, otherwise classified as Salary Grade "26" and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758). In the same manner, the Commission shall have jurisdiction to investigate a non-presidential appointee who may have acted in conspiracy or may have been involved with a presidential appointee or ranking officer mentioned in this subsection. The Commission shall have

5

Page 6: Anonymous Complaints

no jurisdiction over members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police.

(c) Anonymous complaints against a presidential appointee shall not be given due course unless there appears on its face or the supporting documents attached to the anonymous complaint a probable cause to engender a belief that the allegations may be true.

(d) The Commission shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case or complaint speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, in all instances observing the due process.

(e) The investigation or hearing involving a presidential appointee with the position of Undersecretary or higher shall be conducted by the Commission sitting en bane. The investigation or hearing involving a presidential appointee occupying a lower position may be entrusted to a Commissioner or panel of hearing officers duly designated by the Chairman; Provided, however, that the report or recommendations of the Commissioner or panel of hearing officers who investigated or heard the administrative case or complaint shall be deliberated upon a reviewed by the Commission en bane before submitting its report and recommendations to the President.

Section 5. Powers Incidental to Investigation. - The Commission shall have the power to administer oaths and issue subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum. The Commission shall likewise have the power to call upon and secure the assistance of any office, committee, commission, bureau, agency, department or instrumentality in the Executive Branch, including government-owned or controlled corporations. During the pendency of its investigation or hearing, the Commission may recommend to the President the preventive suspension of the respondent for such periods as may be allowed by law.

Section 6. Enforcement of Subpoena. - Upon failure to comply with a subpoena issued by the Commission or by its authority without adequate cause, the Commission en bane, on motion or motu proprio, may recommend to the President, after formal charge and hearing, the suspension or dismissal from the service of the non-complying government personnel.

Section 7. Resignation/Retirement of Respondent. - The resignation or retirement of the public officer under investigation shall not divest the Commission of jurisdiction to continue the investigation or hearing and submit its recommendations to the President as to the imposition of accessory penalties or such other action to be taken.

Section 8. Submission of Report and Recommendations. - After completing its investigation or hearing, the Commission en bane shall submit its report and recommendations to the President. The report and recommendations shall state, among others, the factual findings and legal conclusions, as well as the penalty recommend to be imposed or such other action that may be taken.

Section 9. Referral to Other Government Units. - Whenever the Commission deems it warranted and necessary, it may refer for appropriate action any case to the Office of the Ombudsman, or any other office, committee, commission, bureau, agency, department, instrumentality or branch of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

6

Page 7: Anonymous Complaints

Section 10. Measures to Prevent and Minimize Graft and Corruption. - The Commission may conduct studies, on its own or in cooperation with other government agencies or non-governmental organizations, on new measures to prevent and minimize the opportunities for graft and corruption at all levels of bureaucracy.

Section 11. Consultants and Deputies. - The Chairman may engage the services of qualified consultants and/or deputies, from the public or private sector, subject to pertinent laws, rules and regulations.

Section 12. Reports. - At least thirty (30) days before the opening of each session of Congress, the Commission shall submit to the President:

(a) A list of respondents whom it has investigated, together with its recommendations, and other data or information it may deem necessary to be included;

(b) A list of respondents whom it is investigating, the status of the investigation, as well as other data or information it may deem necessary to be included; and

(c) Such other report or recommendation which is germane to any provision or purpose of this Executive Order or as may be required by the President.

Section 13. Disclosures. - The Commission shall not disclose or make public any record or information in connection with any investigation or hearing when such disclosure would deprive the respondent of his right to a fair and impartial adjudication. All disclosure of the Commission relating to an administrative case or complaint shall be balanced, fair, and accurate.

Section 14. Continued Performance of PCAGG. - Until the members of the Commission have been duly appointed, the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption (PCAGG) shall continue to perform its powers, duties and functions under Executive Orders Nos. 151 and 151-A, both series of 1994, with respect only to cases already pending before it.

Section 15. Transfer of PCAGC Officers and Personnel. - The officers and personnel of the PCAGC may be transferred and appointed to such positions in the Commission for which they are deemed qualified.

Section 16. Transfer of PCAGC Funds, etc. - The funds, records, equipment, furnitures and other properties of the PCAGC shall be transferred to the Commission.

Section 17. Rules and Regulations. - The Commission shall promulgate or adopt its rules and regulations for the for the effective implementation of this Executive Order.

Section 18. Funding. - The Commission shall have a budget of EIGHTEEN MILLION TWO HUNDRED SIXTY THREE THOUSAND PESOS (P18,263,000.00) drawn against the budget appropriated for the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Any additional funding requirement shall be determined in coordination with the Department of Budget and Management and shall be submitted to the Office of the President for approval.

Section 19. Repeal. - Executive Order Nos. 151 and 151-A, dated January 11, 1994 and January 24, 1994 respectively, which created the PCAGC, are hereby repealed. Executive Order No. 268, dated

7

Page 8: Anonymous Complaints

July 18, 2000, which created the National Anti-Corruption Commission, is also hereby repealed. All other issuances, orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 20. Effectivity. - This Executive Order shall take effect immediately upon approval.

Manila, April 16, 2001.

(Sgd.) GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

By the President:

(Sgd.) ALBERTO G. ROMULOExecutive Secretary

http://www.lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo2001/eo_12_2001.html

8

Page 9: Anonymous Complaints

EN BANC

[A.M. No. 07-11-13-SC, June 30, 2008]

RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT OF CONCERNED CITIZENS AGAINST SOLICITOR GENERAL AGNES VST. DEVANADERA, ATTY. ROLANDO FALLER, AND ATTY. SANTIAGO VARELA.

R E S O L U T I O N

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

The Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) received on September 5, 2007 an unverified letter-complaint[1] dated August 26, 2007 written by "Concerned Citizens" and addressed to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno.

In that August 26, 2007 letter-complaint, the "Concerned Citizens" informed that on August 6, 2007, they filed before the Court "through" the Office of the Chief Justice, a complaint for disbarment/disciplinary action against former Government Corporate Counsel (GCC), now Solicitor General Agnes Vst. Devanadera, along with the present GCC Alberto C. Agra and other lawyers of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), for "engaging directly or indirectly in partisan political activities" during the May 14, 2007 national and local elections, and for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act." To the August 26, 2007 letter-complaint was attached a copy of the complaint of the "Concerned Citizens" filed on August 6, 2007, with annexes.

The "Concerned Citizens" further informed in the August 26, 2007 letter that they filed also on August 6, 2007 a complaint [2] before the Office of the Ombudsman against now Solicitor General Devanadera and Attys. Faller and Varela and that they were "filing [the following] complaints on the basis of the same facts and incidents [they] filed against the above three (3) lawyers in the Ombudsman" for:

x x x Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We are not lawyers, however, we believe that these three (3) government lawyers violated the Code of Professional Responsibility namely: Canon 1 (A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes) and Canon 6 (These canons shall apply to lawyers in government services in the discharge of their official tasks.) We also believe that as complainants who called the attention of the Supreme Court, the unethical acts of these three (3) lawyers are related to the discharge of their functions (Malversation under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code , Violation of Sec. 3(e), Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act , Dishonesty , grave Misconduct in office and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service) and can be proceeded independently by the Ombudsman and the disbarment/disciplinary proceedings can be undertaken by separately by the Supreme Court because the sole question for determination in disbarment/disciplinary proceedings is whether the said three (3) government lawyers, as members of the Philippine bar are fit to be allowed the privilege as such or not.

x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

9

Page 10: Anonymous Complaints

By Resolution of November 20, 2007,[3] the Court required Solicitor General Devanadera, GCC Agra and Attys. Faller and Varela to Comment on the August 26, 2007 letter-complaint within ten days from notice.

The Solicitor General et al. filed their separate comments,[4] praying for the outright dismissal of the complaint for being anonymous and contrary to the intent of Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court which provides:

Section 1. How instituted. – Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts. (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Solicitor General Devanadera states in her Comment[5] dated December 17, 2007 that, in any event, since she is holding a cabinet rank, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9417, she is not covered by the prohibition of Section 261 (i) of the Omnibus Election Code,[6] the law that prohibits partisan political activity. She cites "Santos v. Yatco, 106 Phil. 745," which held that, so she states, "the ban on prohibited campaigning stated in Section 261(i) of the Omnibus Election Code does not extend to those officers and employees outside of the civil service such as members of the Cabinet."[7]

Solicitor General Devanadera and Attys. Faller and Varela later filed a joint Motion for Clarification with Motion to Admit Supplemental Comment[8] manifesting that there might have been a misunderstanding on what this Court wanted them to comment on, hence, their filing of a Supplemental Comment.[9]

In their Supplemental Comment, Solicitor General Devenadera et al. inform that they had not received a copy of the above-mentioned August 6, 2007 letter-complaint for disbarment allegedly filed before this Court through the OCJ but that they came to learn about it only because a copy thereof was attached to the August 26, 2007 letter-complaint. They add, however, that there were no annexes attached to that copy of the August 6, 2007 letter-complaint, thus denying them due process as they are prevented from refuting each document-annex and the conclusions drawn therefrom.[10]

The Solicitor General et al. just the same moved for the dismissal of the August 26, 2007 letter-complaint for prematurity as the resolution of the complaint filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, if indeed there was, is material in determining whether they committed error in the performance of their duties.[11]

Section 1 of Rule 139-B (Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys) of the Rules of Court requires that the complaint against an attorney must be verified. In Fernandez v. Atty. Novero, Jr.,[12] however, this Court held that failure to verify the complaint constitutes a mere formal defect, and the Court may "order the correction of the unverified pleadings or act on it and waive strict compliance with the rules in order that the ends of justice may be served."

10

Page 11: Anonymous Complaints

Complainant "Concerned Citizens" provided no mailing address or contact information in their letter-complaint. And they did not proffer any justification for not coming out in the open other than the self-serving reason of "for self-preservation," which is contrary to their claim that they are "not afraid to rock the boat ... so that the proper government authorities will hear the plain and painful truths."

Anonymous v. Geverola[13] which the Solicitor General et al. cites is instructive:

An anonymous complaint is always received with great caution, originating as it does from an unknown author. However, a complaint of such sort does not always justify its outright dismissal for being baseless or unfounded for such comp[laint] may be easy of verification and may, without much difficulty, be substantiated and established by other competent evidence...[14] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

A reading of the August 26, 2007 letter-complaint, however, shows that the allegations are vague. And the attachments thereto are mere photocopies, not to mention the plaint of the Solicitor General et al. that they were not furnished copies of the annexes to the August 6, 2007 complaint. The Court is thus inclined to, as it does, dismiss the complaint.

The duty of the Court towards members of the bar is not only limited to the administration of discipline to those found culpable of misconduct but also to the protection of the reputation of those frivolously or maliciously charged.[15] The Court will not thus shirk from its responsibility to mete out proper disciplinary punishment to lawyers who are shown to have failed to live up to their sworn duties; but neither will it hesitate to extend its protective arm to those the accusation against whom is not indubitably proven.[16] For a lawyer's good name is, in the ultimate analysis, his most important possession.[17]

Indeed, the success of a lawyer in his profession depends almost entirely on his reputation. Anything which will harm his good name is to be deplored as a lawyer's reputation is "a plant of tender growth, and its bloom, once lost, is not easily restored." The eventual dismissal however of the administrative case, as in this case, should more than redeem and maintain petitioner's good name. [18]

A word more. Santos v. Yatco, which was cited by the Solicitor General, is actually entitled "Delos Santos, et al. v. Hon. Yatco, et al." Nowhere, however, in the Decision in said case, a 1959 case, did this Court dwell on Section 261 (i) of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881), which was actually enacted into law only on December 3, 1985. The Court thus takes this opportunity to again enjoin lawyers to be more circumspect in the citation of cases or authorities in support of their positions.

...But if inferior courts and members of the bar meticulously discharge their duty to check and recheck their citations of authorities culled not only from this Court's decisions but from other sources..., appellate courts will be precluded from acting on misinformation, as well as be saved precious time in finding out whether the citations are correct.[19] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

11

Page 12: Anonymous Complaints

WHEREFORE, the August 26, 2007 complaint against former Government Corporate Counsel, now Solicitor General Agnes Vst. Devanadera, and Attys. Rolando Faller and Santiago Varela[20] of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Reyes, Leonardo-De Castro, and Brion, JJ., concur.

[1] Rollo, pp. 3-4.

[2] Id. at 3.

[3] Id. at 62.

[4] The comments of Solicitor General Devanadera, GCC Agra and Atty. Faller are dated December 17, 2007 and were filed on even date (rollo, pp. 72-89). Atty. Varela's Comment is dated December 26, 2007 and was filed on even date (rollo, pp. 65-68).

[5] Rollo, pp. 72-77.

[6] Sec. 261. Prohibited acts. - The following shall be guilty of an election offense:

x x x x

(i) Intervention of public officers and employees. – Any officer or employee in the civil service, except those holding political offices; any officer, employee, or member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, or any police force, special forces, home defense forces, barangay self-defense units and all other para-military units that now exists or which may hereafter be organized who, directly or indirectly, intervenes, in any election campaign or engages in any partisan political activity, except to vote or to preserve public order, if he is a peace officer.

[7] Rollo, p. 75, underscoring in the original.

[8] Id. at 96-101.

[9] Id. at 102-109.

[10] Id. at 103-104.

[11] Id. at 107-108.

[12] 441 Phil. 506, 513 (2002).

[13] 344 Phil. 688 (1997).

[14] Id. at 696-697.

[15] Dela Cruz v. Diesmos, A.C. No. 6850, July 27, 2006, 496 SCRA 525, 534.

[16] Asturias v. Serrano, A.C. No. 6538, November 25, 2005, 476 SCRA 97, 107.

12

Page 13: Anonymous Complaints

[17] Ibañez v. Viña, A.C. No. 1648, September 26, 1981, 107 SCRA 607, 613.

[18] Saludo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121404, May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 14, 20.

[19] Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. Employees Association-NATU, et al. v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., et al., 147 Phil. 194, 229 (1971).

[20] Since the "Concerned Citizens'" information in their letter-complaint dated August 26, 2007 is that they are filing the complaint "on the basis of the same facts and incidents . . . against the above three lawyers in the Ombudsman – Solicitor General Devanadera and Attys. Faller and Varela - GCC Agra appears not to be among the three charged herein.

E-Library Doc. ID: 12162531021892589106

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12162531021892589106

13

Page 14: Anonymous Complaints

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaTHIRD DIVISION ANONYMOUS, Complainant, A. M. No. P-97-1254[A. M. OCA I.P.I. NO. 96-202-P]September 18, 1997 -versus- ADELA A. GEVEROLA, Clerk of Court IV, MTCC, Davao City, Respondent. D E C I S I O N MELO, J.:

The instant administrative case arose from an anonymous letter-complaint dated April 18, 1995 addressed to the Office of the Court Administrator charging Adela A. Geverola, Clerk of Court IV, MTCC, Davao City, of falsifying the daily time records of her two nephews who are under her direct supervision, of continuing to collect her salary despite being abroad on a vacation, of immorality for carrying on an affair with a married man, and for accepting "grease" money from "Japayukis" in exchange for facilitating marriages [pp. 1-2, Rollo].

Acting on said anonymous letter-complaint, the Office of the Court Administrator sent a letter dated August 2, 1996 to the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation [BID] requesting information regarding the departure from the country for the United States of America and the arrival in the Philippines of respondent within a ten- year period from 1985 to 1995 [p. 3, Rollo]. The BID responded thereto in a letter dated September 6, 1996 which reads as follows:

This refers to your letter dated 8 August 1996 requesting the travel records of ADELA ALFELOR GEVEROLA.

Please be advised that your request yielded the following information based on the available computerized database files of arrival from January 1993 to May 1996 and departure from January 1993 to April 1996:

Name : GEVEROLA, ADELA A.Date of Birth : 120837Date of Arrival : July 17, 1993Flight # : NW023Origin : SEL

14

Page 15: Anonymous Complaints

Passport No. : DCL225311Phil. Address : 19-2 Magallanes Dvo CtNationality : PHImmigration Status : RP

Name : GEVEROLA, ADELA A.Date of Birth : 120837Date of Departure : December 2, 1994Flight # : NW030Destination : SELPassport No. : DCL225311Phil. Address : 19-2 Magallanes St. Davao CtNationality : PHImmigration Status : RP [p. 4, Rollo].

In another communication dated September 24, 1996, the Office of the Court Administrator sought clarification concerning respondent's travel records [p. 5, Rollo] and in reply thereto, the BID declared:

This refers to your letter dated 24 September 1996 requesting for the clarification of travel records of ADELA ALFELOR GEVEROLA.

Please be advised that your request yielded the following information based on the available computerized database files:

Name : GEVEROLA, ADELA A.Date of Birth : 120837Date departed : June 05, 1993Flight # : NW002Destination : TYOPassport No. : DCL225311Phil. Address : 119-2 Magallanes Davao CityNationality : PHImmigration Status : RP

Abovementioned subject has no record of arrival from December 1994 to October 8, 1996 (4:50 PM). [p. 6, Rollo].

Based on the certifications of the BID and the records on file with the Leave and Records Sections of the Court, the Office of the Court Administrator then submitted a report dated October 18, 1996, the pertinent portions of which state:

This office wrote the Bureau of Immigration about records of any recent travel abroad of Ms. Adela A. Geverola, Clerk of Court IV, MTCC, Davao City.

15

Page 16: Anonymous Complaints

In letters to this Office dated September 6 and October 9, 1996, the Bureau of Immigration informed this Office that subject Geverola left for Tokyo, Japan aboard a Northwest Airlines plane on June 5, 1993, a Saturday and arrived aboard a Northwest Airlines plane from Seoul, South Korea on July 17, 1993, a Saturday.

Correlating this with the records for subject Geverola on file with the Leave Section and Records Section [201 file], the following appear:

1. Application for Leave dated June 1, 1993 for 18 days vacation leave starting June 7, 1993 until June 30, 1993 excluding Saturdays and Sundays;

2. Application for Leave dated July 1, 1993 for 7 days sick leave for July 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 1993; and 5 days forced leave for July 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, 1993.

3. The Application for Sick Leave was accompanied by a Medical Certificate dated July 1, 1993 signed by Doctor Natividad A. Amoroso of the Office of the City Health Office, Davao City.

OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION: The charges against MTCC, Davao City Clerk of Court Adela Alfelor Geverola had already earlier been referred to the Office of the Ombudsman, with docket number OMB-ADM-3-93-0911. The Ombudsman referred the same to the National Bureau of Investigation for fact-finding investigation.

xxx xxx xxx

The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint when "NBI Supervising Agent Atty. Fidencio Y. Bisnar recommended that the complaint be dismissed for want of evidence in view of the absence of witnesses who would be willing to substantiate the accusations against the respondent."

xxx xxx xxx

EVALUATION: Before the Leave Section of the Court approves applications for sick leave in excess of five [5] days, the applications must be accompanied by the required Medical Certificates.

When an employee states that he or she is sick, it is presumed that said employee is really suffering from a current ailment not gallivanting halfway around the world.

From the records of the Bureau of Immigration, it is very clear that Ms. Geverola left the country for Tokyo, Japan on June 5, 1993 and she arrived from Seoul, South Korea on July 17, 1993.

Obviously, Ms. Geverola was never in Davao City, nor any part of the country, last July 1, 1993 when she was allegedly diagnosed as having "Pityriasis Rosea & Massive Allergy" as she was abroad.

Simply put, Ms. Geverola falsified her application for sick leave, induced Dr. Amoroso of the Office of the City Health Officer of Davao City to issue a Medical Certificate to support her application for sick leave and, likewise, induced then Executive Judge Virginia Hofilena-Europa to approve the same.

Ms. Geverola and Judge Europa must be required to submit their respective comments on this very serious matter.

RECOMMENDATION: In view of all the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that:

16

Page 17: Anonymous Complaints

1. Ms. Adela A. Geverola, Clerk of Court IV, MTCC, Davao City, be required to explain why she filed an application dated July 1, 1993 for sick leave for July 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 1993, supported by a Medical Certificate dated July 1, 1993 when she was out of the country on said dates;

2. Judge Virginia Hofileña-Europa be required to explain why she signed the application for sick leave of Ms. Adela A. Geverola, Clerk of Court IV, MTCC, Davao City, for July 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 1993 when Ms. Geverola was out of the country on said dates;

3. Three [3] personnel of the Fiscal Audit Division in charge of Region XI be sent to the MTCC, Davao City to conduct a surprise financial audit, to include a cash audit, of said MTCC, with their report to be submitted within twenty [20] days from completion of their audit; and

4. The Property Division be ordered to purchase two [2] bundy clocks for installation at the Offices of the Clerk of Court for the Regional Trial Court of Municipal Trial Court in Cities, both in Davao City. [pp. 12-B to D, Rollo].

In a Resolution dated November 27, 1996, the Court required respondent to explain why she filed an application dated July 1, 1993 for sick leave for the period July 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 1993 supported by a medical certificate dated July 1, 1993 when she was out of the country on said dates. Executive Judge Virginia Hofileña was likewise ordered to explain why she signed the application for sick leave of respondent Geverola [p. 13, Rollo].

In her Explanation dated January 3, 1997, respondent alleged:

That she received the Resolution of the Third Division of the Supreme Court, dated November 27, 1996, on December 26, 1996 at 4:00 P.M.;

That it can be seen from the caption in this case "Administrative Matter OCA I.P.I. No. 96-202-P [Anonymous vs. Adela A. Geverola, Clerk of Court IV, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Davao City]";

That the writer of the letter complaint is an anonymous person, hiding behind the cloak of anonymity, not revealing his or her true identity for reasons known only to him or to her;

That in obedience to the aforesaid Resolution of the Third Division, Supreme Court of the Philippines, and in compliance therewith, it is respectfully admitted that I filed my sick leave of absence for July 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, 1993, supported by a Medical Certificate, as I was then very, very sick, suffering form massive Allergy; my daily time record for July, 1993, was duly signed by then Executive Judge Virginia Hofilena-Europa; my Application for Leave, CSC Form No. 6, Revised 1984, was duly approved and signed by Atty. Adelaida Cabe-Baumann, Deputy Clerk of Court, Chief Administrative Officer, Office of the Administrative Services, Supreme Court of the Philippines;

That I had to go on leave as I was very sick, my life was in extreme danger due to massive Allergy. I had severe itchiness all over my body: my eyes were affected, my hair was pulling off, my face was swelling, I was very thin then, my height was affected, but due to competent medical attention, I got well and I reported for Duty On July 19, 1993, having in mind the exigency of the service;

17

Page 18: Anonymous Complaints

That it may be mentioned, in this connection, that since I assumed office as Clerk of Court IV of MTCC, Davao City, the collections [JDF, Fiduciary, Gen. Funds, and, etc.] have increased tremendously. The records will bear this out;

That I have been in the government service for 39 years, the last 22 years of which are with the Judiciary, up to the present;

That Administrative cases now and then are being leveled against me since 1993, which apparently are to harass, discredit, and besmirch my name and my reputation as a Court employee and as a private person, by anonymous person;

That I have always acted accordingly as a government employee and as a private person, living up to the demands of public service and as mandated by my oath of office;

That I am respectfully praying that the Honorable Justices of the Third Division, Supreme Court, Manila, find my explanation satisfactory, and that this Anonymous complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. [pp. 23-24, Rollo].

The Office of the Court Administrator, following up respondent's explanation to it [p. 22, Rollo], submitted a Memorandum dated May 13, 1997, finding respondent guilty of falsification of her daily time record for July 1-31, 1993, and of dishonesty for accepting her basic salary and personal economic relief allowance [PERA] for July 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 1993 in the amount of P2,308.19, and recommending that she be suspended from office for six months without pay and be ordered to return the P2,308.19 to the court [p. 30, Rollo].

Upon careful perusal of the records of the case, the Court fully subscribes to the finding of the Office of the Court Administrator that respondent is guilty of falsification of her application for sick leave dated July 1, 1993 and of her daily time record for the month of July, 1993, which are both official documents.

An anonymous complaint is always received with great caution, originating as it does from an unknown author. However, a complaint of such sort does not always justify its outright dismissal for being baseless or unfounded for such complaint may be easy of verification and may, without much difficulty, be substantiated and established by other competent evidence, as in the present case where the complaint was forthwith supported by competent evidence such as the Certifications of the Bureau of Immigration dated September 6 and October 9, 1996, the daily time record for the months of June and July 1993, the applications for vacation and sick leave, the medical certificate, and the records on file with the Leave and Records Section of the Court.

Respondent denied the charge by alleging that her application for sick leave for July 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 1993 was supported by a medical certificate issued by Doctor Natividad A. Amoroso of the Office of the City Health Officer, Davao City and approved by Atty. Adelaida Cabe-Baumann, Deputy Clerk of Court, Chief Administrative Officer, Office of Administrative Services of the Court; that her daily time record for the month of July 1993 was duly signed by Executive Judge Virginia Hofileña-Europa; that due to competent medical care, she got well and immediately reported back to work on July 19, 1993, having in mind the exigency of the service; and that the various administrative cases against her were intended to harass, discredit, and besmirch her name and reputation.

18

Page 19: Anonymous Complaints

The explanation is far too pat, unsatisfactory, and uncompelling. The certifications of the BID reveal that respondent left the country for Tokyo, Japan aboard a Northwest Airlines plane on June 5, 1993 and arrived in Manila from Seoul, South Korea on July 17, 1993. Indeed, respondent's records on file with the Leave and Records Sections of the Court, on the other hand, show that she filed two leave applications one dated June 1, 1993 for 18 days vacation commencing June 7, until June 30, 1993 and the other dated July 1, 1993 for 7 days sick leave for July 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 1993 and 5 days forced leave for July 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, 1993. Respondent, by applying for sick leave and by stating in her daily time record for the month of July 1993 that she was ill on July 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 1993 when in truth and in fact she was not but was abroad, is guilty of falsification. Respondent's absence from the country on July 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 1993 was clearly established by the Certifications of the BID. Thus, respondent could not have been examined and treated by Dr. Natividad A. Amoroso in the Philippines on July 1, 1993 for Pityriasis Renea and Massive Allergy, as stated in the medical certificate, and the statement by the doctor that respondent was ill on July 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 1993 cannot be given any weight.

Moreover, respondent's actuations do not only constitute falsification but likewise dishonesty and duplicity which deserve appropriate sanction from the Court. Her actuations were further aggravated when she still received the amount of P2,308.19 as overpayment of her basic salary and personal economic relief allowance [PERA] for July 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 1993, the dates when she was allegedly ill in the Philippines.

Public service requires utmost integrity and discipline. A public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity for no less than the Constitution mandates the principle that "a public office is a public trust and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency" [Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution]. As the administration of justice is a sacred task, the persons involved in it ought to live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity [Hernandez vs. Borja, 242 SCRA 162 (1995)]. Their conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be above suspicion. Thus, every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty [Basco vs. Gregorio, 245 SCRA 614 (1995)].

Respondent, as Branch Clerk of Court of a court of justice, must bear in mind that the office she holds and the duties as well as the responsibilities appurtenant thereto require from its holder competence, honesty, and integrity; that, in relation to the judge, she occupies a position of confidence which should not be betrayed; and that with the prestige of the office goes the corresponding responsibility to safeguard the integrity of the court and its proceedings, to earn respect therefor, to maintain the authenticity and correctness of court records, and to uphold the confidence of the public in the administration of justice [Rudas vs. Acedo, 247 SCRA 237 (1995) citing Section B, Manual for Clerks of Court, p. 3]. Respondent has failed to measure up to the standards exacted by her position. She has not been true to these lofty ideals so essential for the proper and effective administration of justice.

Anent the penalty imposable, considering that respondent has been in the government service for 39 years, the last 22 years of which have been in the judiciary, the Court finds the penalty of suspension for two [2] months without pay commensurate.

19

Page 20: Anonymous Complaints

ACCORDINGLY, for falsification and dishonesty, respondent Adela A. Geverola, Clerk of Court IV, MTCC, Davao City, is hereby SUSPENDED for two [2] months without pay effective immediately and ordered to return to the Court the amount of P2,308.19 as overpayment of her basic salary and personal economic relief allowance [PERA] for July 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 1993 within thirty [30] days from notice. She is further warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Romero, Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw1997147.htm

20

Page 21: Anonymous Complaints

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 151121, July 21, 2008]

RUBEN S. GALERO, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS), AND PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N

NACHURA, J.:

For review is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 57397 dated April 26, 2001 affirming the Resolution[2] of the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) in OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0565 finding petitioner Ruben S. Galero guilty of Dishonesty, Falsifying Official Documents and Causing Undue Injury to the Government and imposing the penalty of dismissal from service, forfeiture of all benefits and perpetual disqualification to hold public office. Likewise assailed is the CA's Resolution[3]

dated December 21, 2001 denying his motion for reconsideration.

The factual and procedural antecedents follow:

On January 17, 1997, Rogelio Caigoy (Mr. Caigoy), then the resident Ombudsman of the Philippine Ports Authority - Port Management Office (PPA-PMO), Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, received an anonymous letter from concerned citizens, reporting that Robert Geocadin (Mr. Geocadin), a security guard of United Field Sea Watchmen and Checkers Agency (UFSWCA), officially assigned at the National Power Corporation (Napocor) in Bacolod City, at the same time submitted a Daily Time Record (DTR) at PPA-PMO but did not report to the said office.[4] He received a second anonymous letter on December 16, 1997 stating that Mr. Geocadin was receiving double salary from Napocor and PPA-PMO, and implicating the petitioner, who was then the Acting Station Commander, Port Police Division, and Winfred Elizalde (Mr. Elizalde), the Port Manager, both of the PPA-PMO. The said letter specifically claimed that petitioner and Mr. Elizalde were each receiving shares in the security guards' salary.[5] In short, the letters charged that Mr. Geocadin was a ghost employee.

On the strength of the two anonymous letters, Mr. Caigoy recommended the filing of criminal and administrative charges against petitioner and Mr. Elizalde in their capacities as Acting Port Police Division Commander and Port Manager, respectively.[6] The administrative case was docketed as OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0565 and was assigned to Graft Investigation Officer I Helen Catacutan-Acas.

From the affidavits and counter-affidavits of the parties and witnesses, as well as their testimonies and the documentary evidence presented, it appears that Mr. Geocadin was officially assigned at the Napocor with the following areas of supervision:

1. Bacolod Sub-Station in Mansilingan;

2. Engineering Office in Bacolod City;

3. Tumonton Cable Station which is more or less twenty-two (22) km. away from Bacolod Station;

21

Page 22: Anonymous Complaints

4. Bulata Sipalay small stockyard which is more or less 20 km. away from Bacolod City.[7]

At Napocor, petitioner was required to report for duty from 8:00 in the morning until 4:00 in the afternoon, from April 16, 1996 until April 16, 1997. Covering almost the same period from April 16, 1996 until November 30, 1996, Mr. Geocadin, who was also appointed as the Station Commander of the security guards of PPA-PMO, filled up Civil Service Form No. 48 (DTR) allegedly for services rendered for PPA-PMO from 8:00 in the morning until 5:00 in the afternoon. The DTRs he submitted for seven (7) months were certified correct by petitioner being Mr. Geocadin's immediate superior.[8]

For his part, petitioner denied that Mr. Geocadin was a ghost security guard. He alleged that Mr. Geocadin was designated by UFSWCA as Detachment Commander who was tasked to supervise the security guards posted at PPA-PMO Bacolod City and Pulupandan and to inspect their security equipment. Apart from these, Mr. Geocadin was assigned to issue mission orders; prepare duty schedules; and act as paymaster and liaison officer. He, likewise, did clerical work and prepared memoranda on disciplinary actions taken against erring security guards.[9] To justify his lack of knowledge of Mr. Geocadin's fraudulent acts, petitioner explained that because PMO-Pulupandan was then in the process of reorganization, Mr. Geocadin was initially tasked to conduct security inspection of the posts in Bacolod City and random inspections in other stations.[10] In other words, petitioner was not expected to see Mr. Geocadin the whole day as he could be in another station. Mr. Elizalde, on the other hand, claimed that whenever he needed Mr. Geocadin, the latter was always available.

During the hearing of the case, Mr. Geocadin admitted that he was assigned both to Napocor and PPA-PMO with 16-hour duty everyday.[11]

On May 31, 1999, the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) issued a Resolution[12] against petitioner, the pertinent portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing, this Office finds Ruben Galero guilty of Dishonesty, for Falsifying Official Documents, and for causing undue injury to the government, thus metes upon him, the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE, FORFEITURE OF ALL BENEFITS, and PERPETUAL DISQUALIFICATION TO PUBLIC OFFICE in accordance with Memorandum Circular No. 30, Series of 1989 of the Civil Service Commission.[13]

SO RESOLVED.

The Office of the Ombudsman declared that Mr. Geocadin was officially assigned at Napocor and was not tied to only one post as he was then tasked to supervise four stations. Making use of this set-up to his advantage, Mr. Geocadin took undeclared undertime with Napocor which enabled him to accept his appointment with PPA-PMO. Though it may have been possible for Mr. Geocadin to accept dual positions, it is impossible for him to be at different work stations at the same time, as reflected in his DTRs both with Napocor and PPA-PMO. Considering that Mr. Geocadin repeatedly committed the fraudulent act for a continuous period of seven (7) months, the Office of the Ombudsman concluded that the petitioner, being his immediate superior who verified his DTRs, was aware of such irregularity.[14] Hence, the extreme penalty of dismissal as to the petitioner. Mr. Elizalde, on the other hand, was exonerated for lack of evidence to show conspiracy. Petitioner's

22

Page 23: Anonymous Complaints

motion for reconsideration was also denied on December 10, 1999.[15]

Petitioner likewise failed to obtain a favorable judgment from the CA when his petition for review was denied.[16] The appellate court declared that petitioner's verification of Mr. Geocadin's DTRs was sufficient to hold him guilty as charged. His verification, according to the court, enabled Mr. Geocadin to receive from the government such amounts not due him. The court did not give credence to the affidavits of some security guards that Mr. Geocadin was indeed their station commander. Neither did the appellate court consider the affidavit of retraction executed by one of the witnesses.[17] In conclusion, the court said that there was substantial evidence to establish petitioner's guilt.

Aggrieved, petitioner comes before this Court in this petition for review raising the following errors:

I.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF THE OMBUDSMAN WHICH FINDING IS GROUNDED ENTIRELY ON SPECULATION, SURMISES OR CONJECTURES.

II.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FAILS (SIC) TO NOTICE CERTAIN RELEVANT FACTS WHICH, IF PROPERLY CONSIDERED, WILL JUSTIFY A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.

III.

THE FINDINGS OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF PETITIONERS' DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE ARE CONTRADICTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD.[18]

Before we rule on these assigned errors, we note that petitioner belatedly questioned in his Reply[19] the scope of the Ombudsman's power and authority to dismiss government employees. If only to erase doubts as to the Ombudsman's power to impose the penalty of dismissal, we would like to stress the well-settled principle laid down in the two Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals[20] cases and in Estarija v. Ranada.[21]

The powers, functions and duties of the Ombudsman are set forth in Section 15(3) of Republic Act No. 6770 (R.A. 6770) otherwise known as the "Ombudsman Act of 1989" which substantially restates Section 13(3),[22] Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, thus:

SEC. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. - The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:

x x x x

(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public officer or employee at fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty required by law, and recommend his

23

Page 24: Anonymous Complaints

removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith; or enforce its disciplinary authority as provided in Section 21 of this Act; Provided, That the refusal by any officer without just cause to comply with an order of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure or prosecute an officer or employee who is at fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty required by law shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said officer.[23]

The restrictive interpretation of the word "recommend" had long been rejected by this Court for being inconsistent with the wisdom and spirit behind the creation of the Office of the Ombudsman.[24] Instead, to be faithful to the constitutional objective, the word has been construed to mean that the implementation of the Ombudsman's order of dismissal, suspension, etc., is mandatory but shall be coursed through the proper officer.[25]

We have already ruled that although the Constitution lays down the specific powers of the Ombudsman, it likewise allows the legislature to enact a law that would grant added powers to the Ombudsman. To be sure, the provisions of R.A. 6770, taken together, reveal the manifest intent of the lawmakers to bestow the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority. Specifically, it is given the authority to receive complaints, conduct investigations, hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure, summon witnesses and require the production of documents, place under preventive suspension public officers and employees pending an investigation, determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence, and necessarily, impose the said penalty.[26] Clearly, the Office of the Ombudsman was given teeth to render this constitutional body not merely functional but also effective.[27]

We now proceed to the meat of this petition on the validity of petitioner's dismissal from service.

The CA affirmed the Office of the Ombudsman's conclusion that petitioner was guilty of dishonesty for falsifying official documents and causing undue injury to the government. Both the CA and the Ombudsman anchored such finding on the alleged collusion between petitioner and Mr. Geocadin which enabled the latter to receive compensation from the government for services not actually rendered.

We would like to reiterate at this point the undisputed facts material to the determination of petitioner's guilt. First, per UFSWCA records, Mr. Geocadin was officially assigned at the Napocor, supervising the security guards of four stations. Second, though earlier branded as a ghost employee, Mr. Geocadin was established to be the Station Commander of all the security guards assigned at the PPA-PMO. Third, as Acting Station Commander, Port Police Division, petitioner was the immediate superior of Mr. Geocadin whose duty was to supervise the security guards and to certify to the truth of the entries they made in their DTRs. Fourth, Mr. Geocadin was an employee of UFSWCA which had a contract with the government for security services. Fifth, the payment of the security guards' salaries was based on the DTRs they prepared as certified by petitioner. Lastly, Mr. Geocadin's DTRs submitted to Napocor and PPA show that he was reporting for duty at the two offices at the same time, which is physically impossible.

24

Page 25: Anonymous Complaints

Mr. Geocadin's assignment and actual service at the PPA-PMO Pulupandan was sufficiently established. This is shown by the communications he signed in his capacity as station commander. He was not, therefore, a ghost employee as initially claimed by the concerned citizens. This is bolstered by the Office of the Ombudsman's finding that the coverage of Mr. Geocadin's assignment with Napocor, where he was not tied to his post, enabled him to hold such two positions.[28] Clearly, the Office of the Ombudsman itself recognized that Mr. Geocadin rendered service at the PPA. Whether he rendered the 8-hour service as reflected in his DTR is another matter which will be discussed below.

It is well to note that Mr. Geocadin was not a government employee, having been employed only by UFSWCA, a private company supplying security services for both Napocor and PPA. He was, however, required to submit his DTR which the government used to verify the correctness of UFSWCA's billing with PPA-PMO. Like any other DTR, Mr. Geocadin's DTR was certified by him as reflecting his true attendance at the office, and verified by petitioner, the latter being his immediate supervisor. The submission of another DTR stating that Mr. Geocadin was rendering service at the Napocor at exactly the same time on the same dates makes his DTR with PPA false. As pointed out by the Office of the Ombudsman, the fact remains that it would be physically impossible for him to be simultaneously rendering services with Napocor and PPA-PMO as reflected in his DTRs.[29]

In finding petitioner guilty of dishonesty, falsification of document and causing injury to the government, the Office of the Ombudsman, as affirmed by the CA, ratiocinated, thus:

It is the finding of this office that respondent Geocadin cannot possibly do it alone without [the] knowledge and consent of his most immediate superior - Ruben Galero. It is unthinkable for this fact to be kept known by respondent Geocadin alone, because it has been repeatedly done by him for a period of about seven (7) months. Thus, respondent Ruben Galero cannot feign of having no knowledge on what Geocadin was doing during said period because the latter is under his direct and immediate supervision. Accordingly, a government official or officer is presumed to have knowledge of the commission of any irregularity or offense, when the irregularities or illegal acts have been repeatedly or regularly committed within his official area of jurisdiction.[30]

While not totally exonerating petitioner from the charges filed against him, a modification of the nature of petitioner's administrative liability as well as the penalty that was correspondingly imposed, is in order. The only basis of petitioner's liability for dishonesty, etc., was the presumed collusion between him and Mr. Geocadin. This stemmed from the unproven fact that Mr. Geocadin was a ghost employee and that petitioner was receiving part of his (Mr. Geocadin) salary. There was nothing in the record which establishes petitioner's collusion or conspiracy with Mr. Geocadin to defraud the government. For the purpose of sustaining the Ombudsman's findings, it would have been necessary that the alleged conspiracy or collusion be established by independent, competent and substantial evidence. Since the records are bereft of this evidence, what remains is only petitioner's verification of Mr. Geocadin's false DTR. With this as sole basis, petitioner can be held administratively liable only for simple neglect of duty --- not for dishonesty, for falsification of official document, or for causing undue injury to the government.

Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected from an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference.[31] Had petitioner performed the task

25

Page 26: Anonymous Complaints

required of him, that is, to monitor the employees' attendance, he would have discovered that indeed Mr. Geocadin was dividing his time between PPA and Napocor. Though not required to know every detail of his subordinates' whereabouts, petitioner should have implemented measures to make sure that the government was not defrauded. As he was required to sign Mr. Geocadin's DTR, petitioner should have verified the truthfulness of the entries therein. Indeed, petitioner neglected his duty which caused prejudice to the government in that Mr. Geocadin was paid twice for his services. These facts, taken together, are sufficient to make petitioner liable for simple neglect of duty, but insufficient to make him answer for charges of dishonesty and falsification of document.

This is not the first time that we hold an immediate superior administratively liable for neglect of duty for obvious lack of care in verifying his subordinate's DTR. In Re: Anonymous Complaint Against Ms. Rowena Marinduque, Assigned at PHILJA Dev't Center, Tagaytay City[32] and Amane v. Atty. Mendoza-Arce,[33] the Court found the Branch Clerk of Court, the Presiding Judge and the OIC Philja Director liable because of their acts of tolerating their subordinates' absences. In the said cases, which involved court employees, the Court concluded that there was a relaxation and too much leniency in the implementation of the rules on attendance which thus resulted in the unauthorized absences of employees not being reflected in their DTRs. The Court said:

We find the inclination of the respondent judge to leniency in the administrative supervision of his employees an undesirable trait. Oftentimes, such leniency provides the court employees the opportunity to commit minor transgressions of the laws and slight breaches of official duty ultimately leading to vicious delinquencies. The respondent judge should constantly keep a watchful eye on the conduct of his employees. He should realize that big start small. His constant scrutiny of the behavior of his employees would deter any abuse on the part of the latter in the exercise of their duties. Then, his subordinates would know that any misdemeanor will not remain unchecked.[34]

Applying the aforesaid pronouncement by analogy, petitioner in the instant case was indeed lenient in the implementation of the rules on attendance. Mr. Geocadin took advantage of this leniency by taking unauthorized undertime with PPA in order to attend to his duties with Napocor. Since such act remained unchecked for almost seven (7) months, Mr. Geocadin was not deterred from continuing his unlawful act, to the prejudice of the government and the taxpayers.

It must be remembered that public service requires integrity and discipline. For this reason, public servants must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and dedication to duty. By the very nature of their duties and responsibilities, government employees must faithfully adhere to, hold sacred and render inviolate the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust; that all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.[35]

As to the proper penalty imposable, simple neglect of duty is classified as a less grave offense punishable by suspension without pay for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months.[36] The circumstances surrounding the instant case, considering that it appears to be petitioner's first offense, warrant the imposition of suspension without pay for one (1) month and one (1) day.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 26, 2001 and its Resolution dated December 21, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 57397 are hereby MODIFIED. We find petitioner GUILTY of

26

Page 27: Anonymous Complaints

Simple Neglect of Duty instead of Dishonesty, Falsification of Official Documents, Causing Undue Injury to the Government, and is meted the penalty of suspension without pay for one (1) month and one (1) day, instead of dismissal from service, forfeiture of all benefits and perpetual disqualification from public office.

SO ORDERED.

Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

* In lieu of Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario per Special Order No. 508, dated June 25, 2008.

[1] Penned by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon, with Associate Justices Eubulo G. Verzola and Bienvenido L. Reyes, concurring; rollo, pp. 39-52.

[2] CA rollo, pp. 20-28.

[3] Rollo, p. 64.

[4] CA rollo, p. 32.

[5] Id. at 31.

[6] Id. at 35.

[7] Id. at 26.

[8] Id.

[9] Id. at 23.

[10] Id.

[11] Id. at 25.

[12] Id. at 20-28.

[13] Id. at 28.

[14] Id. at 26-27.

[15] Id. at 29-30.

[16] Rollo, pp. 39-52.

[17] Id. at 49-51.

[18] Id. at 12.

[19] Id. at 337-349.

[20] G.R. No. 167844, November 22, 2006, 507 SCRA 593; G.R. No. 160675, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 92.

27

Page 28: Anonymous Complaints

[21] G.R. No. 159314, June 26, 2006, 492 SCRA 652.

[22] Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:

x x x x

(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.

[23] Emphasis supplied.

[24] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, supra note 20, at 604, citing Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, 465 SCRA 437 (2005).

[25] Id.

[26] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, supra note 20, at 116.

[27] Estarija v. Ranada, supra note 21, at 674.

[28] CA rollo, p. 26.

[29] Id.

[30] Id. at 26-27.

[31] Re: Anonymous Complaint Against Ms. Rowena Marinduque, Assigned at PHILJA Dev't Center, Tagaytay City, A.M. No. 2004-35-SC, January 23, 2006, 479 SCRA 343, 349.

[32] Id.

[33] 376 Phil. 575 (1999).

[34] Concerned Litigants v. Araya, Jr., A.M. No. P-05-1960, January 26, 2007, 513 SCRA 9, 21; Judge Lacurom v. Magbanua, 443 Phil. 711, 720 (2003), citing Buenaventura v. Hon. Benedicto, 148 Phil 63, 71 (1971).

[35] Concerned Litigants v. Araya, Jr., supra, at 20.

[36] Re: Anonymous Complaint Against Ms. Rowena Marinduque, Assigned at PHILJA Dev't Center, Tagaytay City, supra note 31, at 349; Philippine Retirement Authority v. Rupa, 415 Phil. 713, 722 (2001); De la Victoria v. Mongaya, 404 Phil. 609, 618 (2001).

E-Library Doc. ID: 12173788441796716388

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12173788441796716388

28

Page 29: Anonymous Complaints

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 136082 May 12, 2000

FRANKLIN P. BAUTISTA, petitioner,vs.SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division), OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

This petition seeks to set aside the 13 March 1998 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan 1 denying petitioner's Motion to Quash Crim. Case No. 24276 and its 9 October 1998 Resolution denying reconsideration. The petition also prays for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order to restrain and enjoin public respondents from proceeding in any manner with Crim. Case No. 24276 during the pendency of the petition.

An anonymous, unverified and unsigned letter-complaint dated 20 November 1996 allegedly prepared by the Contractors Association of Davao del Sur and the Good Government Employees 2 of Davao del Sur initiated this case. It was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao charging petitioner Franklin P. Bautista, incumbent mayor of the Municipality of Malita, Davao del Sur, for violation of Sec. 3, par. (e), of RA 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 3 The letter-complaint alleged, among others, that petitioner caused the hiring of one hundred and ninety-two (192) casual employees in the municipal government for political considerations and that the payment of their honoraria and salaries was charged to the peace and order fund despite meager savings of the municipality. 4

Acting on the letter-complaint, Graft Investigation Officer II (GIO II) Corazon A. Arancon issued on 16 January 1997 an Order directing respondent Franklin P. Bautista, petitioner herein, to submit his counter-affidavit. 5 In his counter-affidavit of 26 February 1997 petitioner, answering the charges against him, claimed that the complaint, which was unsigned, was fictitious and fabricated as shown by the affidavits of Enrique Ponce De Leon, President of the Contractor's Association of Davao del Sur; 6 Rogelio E. Llanos, Governor for Davao del Sur; 7 Eduardo M. Masiwel Vice Mayor of Malita, Davao del Sur; 8 Engineer Antonio P. Cayoca, Department of Public Works and Highways, 2nd District, Davao del Sur; 9 Juanito A. Itorralba, Assistant Provincial Treasurer of Davao del Sur; 10 Juan L. de Guzman and Felipe D. Macalinao, 11 both teachers, therein attached, which disclaimed any knowledge of the institution of the complaint nor cause of its filing. He further argued that the hiring of the one hundred ninety-two (192) casuals and the payment of their honoraria and wages did not justify the filing of any charge against him.

29

Page 30: Anonymous Complaints

After due consideration, GIO II Arancon in his Resolution dated 27 May 1997 found a prima facie case for violation of Sec. 3, par. (e), of RA 3019, as amended, against petitioner and forwarded the resolution to the Ombudsman for approval.

On 3 October 1997 the Ombudsman approved the resolution. Thereafter, an Information for violation of Sec. 3, par. (e), of RA 3019, as amended, was filed against petitioner before the Sandiganbayan, docketed as Crim. Case No. 24276, 12 which read —

That sometime in 1995 or sometime prior thereto, in the Municipality of Malita, Davao del Sur, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a high ranking public officer, being the Mayor, Municipality of Malita, Davao del Sur, while in the performance of his official functions, taking advantage of his position and committing the offense in relation to his office, with manifest partiality, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally caused the hiring of some one hundred ninety-two (192) casual employees in flagrant disregard of Secs. 288 and 289 of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual (GAAM), the honoraria and salaries of whom were charged to the peace and order fund and to the project component and other services activity fund, respectively and which represented 72.5% of the total personnel services expenditures, thereby giving unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference to the said casuals, causing undue injury to the Municipality of Malita.

On 13 November 1997 petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information anchored on the ground that the acts charged therein did not constitute the offense indicated in Sec. 3, par. (e), of RA 3019, as amended, and that more than one (1) offense was charged in the Information. After the filing of the opposition, the Sandiganbayan denied on 13 March 1998 the Motion to Quash stating that all essential elements of the crime charged were sufficiently alleged in the Information which charged only one offense. On 13 April 1998 petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but on 9 October 1998 his motion was denied.

Petitioner assails in this petition the denial of his Motion to Quash despite failure of the Ombudsman to properly establish a cause of action. He asserts that there was no legal basis for the Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary investigation in Case No. CPL-MIN-96-180, much less file the Information in Crim. Case No. 24276, as the Ombudsman failed to direct the complainants to reduce their evidence into affidavits before requiring him to submit his counter-affidavit. Petitioner invokes Sec. 4, Rule II, of the Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsman which requires that for purposes of conducting a preliminary investigation the complainant must submit his affidavit and those of his witnesses before respondent can be required to submit his counter-affidavit and other supporting documents. 1 Conformably with such rule, the Ombudsman should have first required the Contractor's Association of Davao del Sur and the Good Government Employees of Davao del Sur to submit their respective affidavits before requiring him as respondent to submit his counter-affidavit, especially since the letter-complaint was unsigned and unverified; hence, there was no valid cause of action against petitioner.

Petitioner cites Olivas v. Office of the Ombudsman 14 where the Court declared that in preliminary investigation of cases it is incumbent upon the complainants to submit their evidence in affidavit form and it is only after such submission that respondent may be required to explain and submit his counter-affidavit, also under oath.

30

Page 31: Anonymous Complaints

This issue has long been laid to rest in Olivas where the Court explained that while reports and even raw information obtained from anonymous letters may justify the initiation of an investigation, this stage of the preliminary investigation can be held only after sufficient evidence, derived from submitted affidavits from the complainants and his witnesses, shall have been duly gathered and evaluated, and only thereafter can the respondent be required to submit his affidavits and other documents to explain, also under oath. 15 It is from such affidavits and counter-affidavits that the Ombudsman can determine whether there is a probable cause for bringing the case to court.

However, despite its wisdom, we must rule that the principle enunciated in Olivas has no bearing in the instant petition. What was assailed therein was the order of the Ombudsman compelling petitioner Olivas to file his counter-affidavit in answer to the charges against him, he having refused to do so since the order was not accompanied by a single affidavit from the complainants as mandated by law; while in the instant case, petitioner Bautista had already filed his counter-affidavit before the Ombudsman and only questioned the latter's failure to require the complainants to submit affidavits prior to the submission of his own counter-affidavit after the preliminary investigation had ended and an Information already filed before the Sandiganbayan. The issue therefore of requiring the complainants to submit their affidavits before respondent can be obliged to submit his counter-affidavit is moot and academic in light of Bautista's submission of his counter-affidavit despite absence of the complainants' affidavits.

Criminal Case No. 24276 before the Sandiganbayan stemmed from the letter allegedly sent by the Contractors' Association of Davao del Sur and the Good Government Employees of Davao del Sur addressed to the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao. It may be true that GIO II Arancon in his Order of 16 January 1997 directed herein petitioner to submit his counter-affidavit thereto without requiring the complainants to submit theirs which were significantly necessary because of the unverified, unsigned and anonymous nature of their letter. However, despite the Ombudsman's noncompliance with the affidavit requirement, petitioner filed his counter-affidavit on 26 February 1997 and answered the charges against him. Hence, having submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and having allowed the proceedings to go on until the preliminary investigation was terminated and the Information filed at the Sandiganbayan, petitioner is deemed to have waived whatever right he may otherwise have to assail the manner in which the preliminary investigation was conducted. Consequently, petitioner is likewise estopped from questioning the validity of the Information filed before the Sandiganbayan.

Petitioner likewise avers that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying his Motion to Quash the Information as there were at least two (2) offenses charged — the giving of unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference to the casual employees in question, and causing undue injury to the Municipality of Malita. Petitioner invokes Santiago v. Garchitorena 16 where it was held that there were two (2) ways of violating Sec. 3, par. (e), of RA 3019, namely, (a) by causing undue injury to any party, including the Government, and (b) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference, and as such, he argues that each constitutes two (2) distinct offenses that should be charged in separate informations.

Indeed, Sec. 3, par. (e), RA 3019, as amended, provides as one of its elements that the public officer should have acted by causing any undue injury to any party, including the government, or by giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his

31

Page 32: Anonymous Complaints

functions. 17 The use of the disjunctive term "or" connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Sec. 3, par. (e), or as aptly held in Santiago, as two (2) different modes of committing the offense. This does not however indicate that each mode constitutes a distinct offense, but rather, that an accused may be charged under either mode or under both.

In Santiago petitioner therein assailed the failure of respondent to include the phrase "causing of undue injury to any party, including the Government" in the amended informations filed against her. Refuting the claim, the Court cited the minute resolution in Uy v. Sandiganbayan 18 and clarified that the "act of giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference" is not an indispensable element of the offense of "causing any undue injury to any party," although there maybe instances where both elements concur. Thus, in Pareño v. Sandiganbayan 19 the information charged the public officers with "willfully and unlawfully causing undue injury to the Government and giving unwarranted benefits to Tanduay Distillery, Inc." by failing to verify and act on the validity and/or veracity of the claim for tax credit filed by the corporation before the BIR.

In Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan 20 petitioner Pilapil was only charged with having "willfully caused undue injury to the Municipality of Tigaon, Camarines Sur, when he failed to deliver the ambulance received by him on behalf of the municipality in a Deed of Donation executed by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office in its favor, to the prejudice and damage of the municipal government."

Likewise, in Diaz v. Sandiganbayan 21 the PCGG Commissioners as public officers were charged only with having given Enrique Razon, Jr., a stockholder or officer of the sequestered corporation Metro Port, unwarranted benefits and/or advantage by the approval of his loan application for P5,000,000.00 belonging to the same sequestered corporation.

By analogy, Gallego v. Sandiganbayan 22 finds application in the instant case. There, petitioners claimed that the Information charged the accused with three (3) distinct offenses, to wit: (a) the giving of "unwarranted" benefits through manifest partiality; (b) the giving of "unwarranted" benefits through evident bad faith; and, (c) the giving of "unwarranted" benefits through gross inexcusable negligence while in the discharge of their official and/or administrative functions; and thus moved for the quashal of the Information. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash and held that the phrases "manifest partiality," "evident bad faith" and "gross inexcusable negligence" merely described the different modes by which the offense penalized in Sec. 3, par. (e), of RA 3019, as amended, could be committed, and the use of all these phrases in the same Information did not mean that the indictment charged three (3) distinct offenses.

In the instant case, the Information against petitioner read in part —

. . . unlawfully and criminally caused the hiring of some one hundred ninety-two (192) casual employees in flagrant disregard of Secs. 288 and 289 of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual (GAAM), the honoraria and salaries of whom were charged to the peace and order fund and to the project component and other services activity fund, respectively, and which represented 72.5%, of the total personnel services expenditures, thereby giving unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference to the said casuals, causing undue injury to the Municipality of Malita.

The use of the phrase "causing undue injury" therein can either be interpreted as another mode of violating the statute, in addition to the giving of unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference to

32

Page 33: Anonymous Complaints

the casuals, or as a consequence of the act of giving unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference. Specifically, for hiring some one hundred and ninety-two (192) casuals and the charging of their honoraria and salaries to the peace and order fund, petitioner gave them unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference and caused undue injury to the Municipality of Malita; or thereby caused undue injury to the Municipality of Malita. In either case, the Information will not suffer any defect, as it is clear that petitioner is charged with violation of Sec. 3, par. (e), of RA 3019, as amended, with either mode of commission obtaining or with both manners of violation concurring.

Finally, petitioner finds exception in the term "private party" as used in Sec. 3, par. (e), of RA 3019, as amended, and argues that the casuals alleged to have been appointed by him and thus recipients of unwarranted benefits could not qualify as private parties since they are in actuality public officers within the contemplation of Sec. 2, par. (b), of RA 3019, as amended. Citing Philnabank Employees Association v. Auditor General, 2 petitioner points out that "the employees of a government corporation, regardless of the latter's functions, are government employees and, therefore, they are not "private party or entity;" and as such, one of the elements constituting the offense under Sec. 3, par. (e), of RA 3019, as amended, is missing thus warranting the dismissal of the Information.

The term "private party" or "private person" may be used to refer to persons other than those holding public office. 24 However, petitioner is charged with causing the hiring of some one hundred ninety-two (192) casual employees, and the consequent awarding of their honoraria and salaries taken from the peace and order fund of the municipality. The reckoning period is before the casual employees' incumbency when they were still private individuals, and hence, their current positions do not affect the sufficiency of the Information.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Resolution of the Sandiganbayan of 13 March 1998 denying petitioner Franklin P. Bautista's Motion to Quash in Crim. Case No. 24276 and its Resolution of 9 October 1998 denying reconsideration are AFFIRMED. Consequently, public respondents Sandiganbayan (Third Division) and the Office of the Ombudsman are directed to proceed with the hearing and trial of Crim. Case No. 24276 against petitioner until terminated.

SO ORDERED.

Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.

De Leon, Jr., J., is on leave.

Footnotes

1 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan, Third Division, with Justice Cipriano A. Del Rosario as Chairman and Justice German G. Lee, Jr. and Justice Teresita Leonardo De Castro as Members.2 The Good Government Employees were listed in the letter as follows: Provincial Treasurer's Office Field Personnel, Provincial Accountant's Office (Field Personnel), Provincial Auditor's Field Personnel, DPWH Second Engineering District of Davao del Sur, Malita Treasurer/Accounting Personnel, and the Sangguniang Bayan of Malita.3 Rollo, p. 25.4 The unsigned letter accused petitioner Franklin P. Bautista of the following offenses: (a) per audit report prepared by Auditor Rodolfo de Vera, signed and approved by Provincial Auditor Mariano Kintanar, the honorarium paid to 192 casual employees which amounted to P5,438,735.80 could have been avoided had the

33

Page 34: Anonymous Complaints

agency properly planned, regulated and controlled its personnel requirement; and, (b) illegal disbursements and fictitious and overpriced payment of supplies and secondhand spare parts.5 Docketed as Case No. CPL-MIN-96-180 in the Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao, and Case No. OMB-3-96-2900 in the Office of Ombudsman, Manila.6 Rollo, p. 33.7 Id., p. 34.8 Id., p. 35.9 Id., p. 36.10 Id.. p. 37.11 Id., p. 38.12 GIO II Corazon A. Arancon prepared and signed the Information against petitioner Bautista as early as 26 May 1997 or even before the issuance of the resolution.13 Sec. 4. Procedure — The preliminary investigation of cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and Regional Trial Courts shall be conducted in the manner prescribed in Sec. 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, subject to the following provisions: (a) if the complaint is not under oath or is based only on official reports, the investigating officer shall require the complainant or supporting witnesses to execute affidavits to substantiate the complaints; (b) After such affidavits have been secured. The investigating officer shall issue an order, attaching thereto a copy of the affidavits and other supporting documents, direct the respondent to submit, within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, his counter-affidavits and controverting evidence with proof of service thereof on the complainant. The complainant may file reply affidavits within ten (10) days after service of the counter-affidavits.14 G.R. No. 102420, 20 December 1994, 239 SCRA 283.15 Ibid.16 G.R. No. 109266, 2 December 1993.17 The elements of Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 are as follows: (a) the offender is a public officer; (b) the act was done in the discharge of the public officer’s official, administrative or judicial functions; (c) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and, (d) the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.18 G.R. No. 100334, 5 December 1991.19 G.R. Nos. 107119-20 and 108037-38, 17 April 1996, 256 SCRA 242.20 G.R. No. 101978, 7 April 1993, 221 SCRA 349.21 G.R. Nos. 101202 and 102554, 8 March 1993, 219 SCRA 675.22 G.R. No. 57841, 30 July 1982, 115 SCRA 793.23 G.R. No. 30137, 25 June 1973, 51 SCRA 315.24 Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1196.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_136082_2000.html

34

Page 35: Anonymous Complaints

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 93 - 2004

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 93 - IMPOSING THE ACCESSORY PENALTIES OF CANCELLATION OF ELIGIBILITY, FORFEITURE OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS AND DISQUALIFICATION FOR REEMPLOYMENT IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE ON RICARDO B. MACALA, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF

CORRECTIONS

This refers to the administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct and Nepotism filed by Department Justice against Ricardo B. Macala, former Director of the Bureau of Corrections.

Records show that on April 2, 2003, the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) received from Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Simeon Datumanong a letter-request to investigate respondent Macala on the basis of the fact-finding report submitted by Senior State Prosecutor Teresita Reyes-Domingo recommending the filing of Grave Misconduct and Nepotism charges against respondent for alleged irregularities exposed in a series of newspaper articles and in two (2) anonymous complaints dated January 6 and 21, 2003, respectively, initiated by “concerned” employees of the Bureau of Corrections (BUCOR) Employees Association.

Convinced that sufficient basis exists to conduct an investigation, the PAGC issued an order on May 9, 2003, directing respondent to file a counter-affidavit/verified answer and the parties to attend the preliminary conference scheduled on May 19, 2003. Earlier, respondent had been placed under preventive suspension pursuant to Presidential Administrative Order No. 72, Series of 2003.

In his Counter-Affidavit and Position Paper, respondent stressed, anent the first charge, that the two (2) unsworn and anonymous letter-complaints are downright frivolous and that no substantial evidence has been presented to prove beyond cavil that he is guilty of extortion. He further averred that the amount of P1.5 Million was spent on the rehabilitation of the National Bilibid Prison (NBP) hospital because major, not minor, works were done thereon. To belie the imputation that he received kickbacks out of said rehabilitation, respondent presented a certification by the NBP General Service Chief to the effect that said allegations are untrue.

Respondent further vehemently denied that his son, Arnel Macala, has been using the BUCOR official car in bringing shabu and liquor in the NBP maximum security compound, claiming that he had issued several memoranda to ensure that all vehicles and visitors entering the NBP premises are carefully checked and the inmates have no access whatsoever to prohibited articles. Likewise denied by respondent were the allegations that he allowed his son-in-law, Raymond Luz, to operate a videoke machine inside the NBP premises, financed the campaign sorties of former DOJ Secretary Hernando Perez, had acquired a 10-door apartment, and that said Raymond Luz had constructed a mansion. Refuting the charge that he received gifts from inmate Lyson Ivan Acedillo, respondent presented the latter’s affidavit disclaiming the same.

On the Nepotism charge, respondent maintained that the appointment of Generoso Bautista who is a “fourth degree relative” is not violative of the law nor were the details of Noel Mendoza and Abner Macala, who are members of the Philippine National Police, nepotic being in pursuance of the letter-order of Police Senior Superintendent Chito De Los Santos. In the same breath, respondent maintained that the detail of Noel Mendoza, Abner Macala and Raymond Luz did not violate the rule

35

Page 36: Anonymous Complaints

of nepotism (Sec. 59[2] of E.O. No. 292 and Sec. 49 of PD No. 807), since they are holding primarily confidential positions.

Upon the other hand, the DOJ, in its Position Paper, postulated that respondent is guilty of the charges, more particularly of Grave Misconduct, as evidenced by BPI Bank Account No. 0883-016327 under the name of respondent in whose favor suppliers of foodstuff to the BUCOR deposit substantial sums of money in exchange for presidential treatment given by respondent, as corroborated by Mr. Kabungsuan Makilala, Executive Secretary of BUCOR Bidding Committee in his affidavit of April 3, 2003, who further declared that the bidding process was manipulated and influenced by respondent.

The DOJ further averred that respondent never denied that he authorized minor repairs at the NPB hospital at the staggering cost of P1.5 million, as alleged in the letter-complaints, nor belie the anomaly regarding the NBP waterproofing works at the maximum security compound, which leaves much to be desired, since “the place still gets soaked by something like a garden sprinkler.”

Concerning the shabu and liquor proliferation issue, the DOJ maintained that respondent’s son uses the BUCOR official vehicle to clandestinely smuggle said prohibited items inside the NBP compound.

Anent the complaint for Nepotism, the DOJ alleged that respondent employed his relatives both by affinity and consanguinity within the prohibited degree when he was still the BUCOR Director.

After due evaluation the PACG issued a resolution on October 7, 2003 finding respondent guilty of Nepotism but absolving him from the charge of Grave Misconduct. The findings and recommendation of the PAGC are quoted hereunder:

“The sole issue now posed before the Commission is whether or not respondent Macala may be held liable for all the charges raised against him based on the evidence on record.

“We must qualify.

“On grave misconduct. In a plethora of cases, the Supreme Court declared that:

‘Misconduct in Office has a definite and well-understood legal meaning. By uniform legal definition it must affect the performance of his duties as an officer and not such only as a private individual. In such case, it has been said at all times, it is necessary to separate the character of the man from the character of the officer. It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance warranting removal from office of an office of an officer must have direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office.’

“In the present case, the DOJ failed to adduce substantial evidence, which is the quantum of proof required in administrative cases, to show that the respondent committed maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and a failure to discharge the duties of his office. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is axiomatic that he who alleges must prove the same; Otherwise, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties must remain.

36

Page 37: Anonymous Complaints

“An assiduous perusal of the bank deposit slips that were adduced in evidence will readily real that there is no showing that the subject bank deposit being linked to the respondent had been utilized by him in the collection of extortion money from BUCOR suppliers, nor is it clear that the same is for the respondent’s account since the respondent’s name does not appear thereon. In fact one of the supplier, a certain Lyson Ivan Acedillo, had executed an affidavit to deny the truthfulness of this allegation.

“Relative to the waterproofing works at the NBP, no proof was proferred to establish that the costs thereof are excessive. In the absence of sufficient evidence, again the presumption of regularity must be respected.

“Similarly, the imputations that the respondent allowed shabu and liquor to be smuggled into the NBP compound are not substantiated by substantial evidence on record. The DOJ failed to present, at the least, an affidavit of a witness, who has personal knowledge of these particular anomalies to support its charge.

“On nepotism. Section 59 (10, Subtitle A. Title 1, Book V of the Administrative Code describes nepotism, to with:

‘Nepotism-(1) All appointments in the national, provincial, city and municipal governments or in any branch or instrumentality thereof, including government owned and controlled corporations, made in favor of a relative (within the third degree) of the appointing or recommending authority, or of the chief of the bureau or office, or of the persons exercising immediate supervision over him, are hereby prohibited.

‘As used in this Section, the word ‘relative’ and members of the family referred to are those related within the third degree either consanguinity or of affinity.’

“The Commission notes that the relationship of the respondent Macala to Mr. Raymond Luz was never denied by the former. In his position paper, the respondent did not refute the allegation that he is a first degree relative by affinity (son-in-law) of Raymond Luz. He even continued saying that:

‘The position of Mr. Raymond Luz is also considered primarily confidential, in spite of the fact that his designation XXX is that of a Utility Worker.

‘‘This is for the reason that in the determination of which position is primarily confidential of (sic) not, it is the nature of the work and not the designation which is controlling.’

“While it is true that the respondent had no hand in the appointment nor in the recommendation of his son-in-law, he was, however, the chief of the bureau (BUCOR) where his son-in-law was assigned to work; hence, within the prohibition of the law.

“The defense that the position of Mr. Luz, as Utility Worker, is confidential position must likewise fail. In Civil Service Commission vs. Salas, the Supreme Court clarified the term ‘primarily confidential position’, by stating:

‘Every appointment implies confidence, but much more than ordinary confidence is reposed in the occupant of a position that is primarily confidential. The latter phrase denotes not only confidence in

37

Page 38: Anonymous Complaints

the aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the office but primarily close intimacy which ensures freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of betrayals of personal trust or confidential of state. x x x’

“It must be noted that the respondent contradicts himself by saying that the person, who is merely detailed in his office, is now occupying a confidential position, or a position that requires trust and confidence. Peremptorily, since the relationship between the public respondent and Mr. Luz is one that is prohibited by the law, the former is liable for violating the rule against nepotism.

“As earlier said, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilty in administrative case is only substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The pieces of evidence against the herein respondent are more than adequate to support a conclusion that, with regard to nepotism, he is liable as charged.

“The Uniform Rules on Administrative Case in the Civil Service, Section 52, Rule IV on Penalties provides that the imposable penalty on Nepotism shall be Dismissal from public office. The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the disqualification for reemployment in the government service. However, considering the fact that the respondent Macala was replaced as BUCOR Director by General Santiago, only the accessory penalties can be imposed on him and not the principal penalty.

“WHEREFORE, the Commission finds the respondent Ricardo B. Macala liable for violation of the law on nepotism. Considering the removal of the respondent as Bureau of Corrections Director, the Commission recommends to her Excellency, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, that the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and disqualification for reemployment in the government service be imposed.

“SO RESOLVED.”

After careful review, this Office concurs in toto with the findings and recommendation of the PAGC, the same being in full accord with the evidence presented and fairly reflective of the facts proven.

WHEREFORE, and as recommended by the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission, the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and disqualification for reemployment in the government service are hereby IMPOSED on Mr. Ricardo B. Macala, former Director of the Bureau of Corrections.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, Philippines, 15 Jan 2004

By authority of the President:

(Sgd.) MANUEL B. GAITE

Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs

http://www.chanrobles.com/administrativeorders/administrativeorderno93-2004.html

38

Page 39: Anonymous Complaints

Public officers; statement of assets and liabilities. Even an asset that was acquired through chattel mortgage must be declared and included in the Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SSAL). The law requires that the SSAL be accomplished truthfully and in detail without distinction as to how the property was acquired. Respondent, therefore, cannot escape liability by arguing that the ownership of the vehicle has not yet passed to him on the basis that it was acquired only on installment basis. The requirement to file the SSAL not later than the first 15 days of April at the close of every calendar year must not be treated as a simple and trivial routine, but as an obligation that is part and parcel of every civil servant’s duty to the people. It serves as the basis of the government and the people in monitoring the income and lifestyle of officials and employees in the government in compliance with the Constitutional policy to eradicate corruption, promote transparency in government, and ensure that all government employees and officials lead just and modest lives. It is for this reason that the SSAL must be sworn to and is made accessible to the public, subject to reasonable administrative regulations. Hon. Waldo Q. Flores, et al. vs. Atty. Antonio F. Montemayor. G.R. No. 170146, August 25, 2010.

http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/august-2010-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-political-law/

39

Page 40: Anonymous Complaints

Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees”, approved Dn February 20, 1989, and which took effect on March 25, 1989, conformably to Section 17 thereof, the following Rules are hereby adopted in order to carry out the provisions of the said Code:

Rule I

Coverage

Section 1. These Rules shall cover all officials and employees in the government, elective and appointive, permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non-career service, including military and police personnel, whether or not they receive compensation, regardless of amount.

Rule II

Interpretation

Section 1. These Rules shall be interpreted in the light of the Declaration of Policy found in Section 2 of the Code:“It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in public service. Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest.”

Rule III

Reforms on Public Administrative Systems

Section 1. Every department, office and agency shall, as soon as practicable and in no case later than ninety (90) days from the effectivity of these rules, start conducting value development programs for its officials and employees in order to strengthen their commitment to public service and help promote the primacy of public interest over personal interest in the performance of their duties. Such programs and other parallel efforts on value development shall include, among other things, the following subjects:

(a) Ethical and moral values; (b) Rights, duties and responsibilities of public servants(c) Nationalism and patriotism;(d) Justice and human rights;(e) Democracy in a free and just society; (f) Philippine history. Culture and tradition; and (g) Socio-economic conditions prevailing in the country, especially in the depressed areas, and the need for a code of Conduct and Ethical Standards.

Continuing refresher courses and seminars and/or workshops to promote a high standard of ethics in public service shall be conducted.

40

Page 41: Anonymous Complaints

Section 2. Professional, scientific, technical trainings and education programs shall enhance to the highest degree, professionalism, excellence, intelligence and skills in the performance and discharge of duties and responsibilities of officials and employees. These programs shall be conducted in all offices of the government and may include subjects that are enumerated in the preceding section.

Section 3. It is the responsibility of every head of department, office and agency to ensure that officials and employees attend the value development program and participate in parallel value development efforts.

Section 4. Every department, office and agency shall conduct continuing studies and analyses of their work systems and procedures to improve delivery of public services. Towards this end, such studies and analyses shall: (1) identify systems and procedures that lead or contribute to negative bureaucratic behavior; (2) simplify rules and procedures to avoid red tape; and (3) devise or adopt systems and procedures that promote official and employee morale and satisfaction.

Each department, office or agency shall develop a service guide or its functional equivalent which shall be regularly updated and made available to the transacting public. A workflow chart showing procedures or flow of documents shall likewise be posted in conspicuous places in the department, office or agency for the information and guidance of all concerned.

Upon request, the Department of Budget and Management shall assists departments, offices and agencies in the evaluation and adoption of work systems and procedures that will institutionalize a management climate conducive to public accountability.

Section 5. Every department, office and agency shall consult the public they serve for the purpose of gathering feedback and suggestions on the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of services. They shall establish mechanisms to ensure the conduct of public consultations and hearings.

Section 6. Every department, office and agency shall continuously conduct research and experimentation on measures and adopt innovative programs which will provide motivation to officials and employees in raising the level of observance of public service ethical standards.

Section 7. every department, office and agency shall, appoint or designate a resident Ombudsman, who shall act immediately on all request for public assistance referred to him by the Ombudsman and his Deputies. He shall be held accountable for the disposition of all requests for assistance.

Section 8. Government officials shall make themselves available to their staff for consultations and dialogues.

Rule IV

Transparency of Transactions and Access to Information

Section 1. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.

41

Page 42: Anonymous Complaints

Section 2. it is the responsibility of heads of departments, offices and agencies to establish measures and standards that will ensure transparency of and openness in public transactions in their respective offices, such as biddings, purchases, other internal transactions, including contracts, status of projects, and all other matters involving public interest.

They shall establish information systems that will inform the public of the following:

(a) policies, rules, and procedures; (b) work programs, projects, and performance targets; (c) performance reports; and (d) all other documents as may hereafter be classified as public information. Such information shall be utilized solely for the purpose of informing the public of such policies, programs and accomplishment, and not to build the public image of any official or employee or to advance his own personal interest.

Section 3. Every department, office or agency shall provide official information, records or documents to any requesting public, except if:

(a) such information, record or document must be kept secret in the interest of national defense or security or the conduct of foreign affairs.

(b) such disclosure would put the life and safety of an individual in imminent danger;

(c) the information, record or document sought falls within the concepts of established privilege or recognized exceptions as may be provided by law or settled policy or jurisprudence;

(d) such information, record or document compromises drafts or decisions, orders, rulings, policy, decisions, memoranda, etc;

(e) it would disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(f) it would disclose investigatory records complied for law enforcement purposes, or information which if written would be contained in such records or information would (I) interfere with enforcement proceedings, (ii) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (iii) disclose the identity of a confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source, or (iv) unjustifiably disclose investigative techniques and procedures; or

(g) it would disclose information the premature disclosure of which would (I) in the case of a department, office or agency which agency regulates currencies, securities, commodities, of financial institutions, be likely to lead to significant financial speculation in currencies, securities, or commodities or significantly endanger the stability of any financial institution, or (ii) in the case of

42

Page 43: Anonymous Complaints

any department, office or agency be likely or significantly to frustrate implementation of a proposed official action, except that subparagraph (f) (ii) shall not apply in any instance where the department, office or agency has already disclosed to the public the content or nature of its proposed action, or where the department, office or agency is required by law to make such disclosure on its own initiative prior to taking final official action on such proposal.

Section 4. Every head of department, office and agency shall establish information systems and networks that will effect the widest possible dissemination of information regarding the provisions of the Code, and the policies and programs relative thereto.

Rule V

Incentive and Rewards System

Section 1. Incentives and rewards shall be granted officials and employees who have demonstrated exemplary service and conduct on the basis of their observance of the norms of conduct laid down in Section 4 of the Code namely:

(a) Commitment to public interest - Officials and employees shall always uphold the public interest over personal interest. All government resources and powers and powers of their respective departments, offices and agencies must be employed and used efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in public funds and revenues.

(b) Professionalism - Officials and employees shall perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill. They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication to duty. They shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage.

(c) Justness and sincerity - Officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest. They shall not dispense or extend undue favors on account of their office to their relatives, whether by consanguinity or affinity, except with respect to appointments of such relatives to positions considered strictly confidential or as members of their personal staff whose terms are coterminous with theirs.

(d) Political neutrality - Officials and employees shall provide service to everyone without unfair discrimination regardless of party affiliation or preference.

(e) Responsiveness to the public - Officials and employees shall extend prompt, courteous, and adequate service to the public. Unless otherwise provided by law or when required by the public interest, officials and employees shall provide information on their policies and procedures in clear and understandable language, ensure openness of information, public consultations and hearings whenever appropriate, encourage suggestions, simplify and systematize policy, rules and procedures, avoid red tape and develop an understanding and appreciation of the socio-economic conditions prevailing in the country, especially in the depressed rural and urban areas.

43

Page 44: Anonymous Complaints

(f) Nationalism and patriotism - Officials and employees shall at all times be loyal to the Republic and to the Filipino people, promote the use of locally produced goods, resources and technology and encourage appreciation and pride of country and people. They shall endeavor to maintain and defend Philippine sovereignty against foreign intrusion.

(g) Commitment to democracy - Officials and employees shall commit themselves to the democratic way of life and values, maintain the principle of public accountability and manifest by deeds the supremacy of civilian authority over the military. They shall at all times uphold the Constitution and put loyalty to country above loyalty to persons or party.

(h) Simple living - Officials and employees and their families shall lead modest lives appropriate to their positions and income. They shall not indulge in extravagant or ostentatious display of wealth in any form.

Section 2. The following criteria shall be considered in the conferment of awards:

(a) Years of service; (b) Quality and consistency of performance; (c) Obscurity of the position; (d) Level of salary; (e) Unique and exemplary quality of achievement; (f) Risk or temptation inherent in the work; and(g) Any similar circumstances or considerations in favor of the particular awardee.

Section 3. Incentives and rewards to government officials and employees of the year may take the form of any of the following, as may be determined by the Committee on Awards established under the Code:

(a) Bonuses; or(b) Citations; or(c) Directorships in government-owned or controlled corporations; or (d) Local and foreign scholarship grants; or (e) Paid vacations; and(f ) Automatic promotion to the next higher position suitable to his qualifications and with commensurate salary; provided, that if there is no next higher position or it is not vacant, said position shall be included in the next budget of the office; except when the creation of a new position will result in distortion in the organizational structure of the department, office or agency. Where there is no next higher position immediately available, a salary increase equivalent to the next higher position shall be given and incorporated in the base pay. When a new position is created, that which is vacated shall be deemed abolished.

The grants of awards shall be governed by the merit and fitness principle.

Section 4. (a) The system shall be administered by a Committee on Awards for Outstanding Public

44

Page 45: Anonymous Complaints

Officials and Employees composed of:

(1) Ombudsman Co-Chairman (2) Chairman CSC Co-Chairman(3) Chairman COA Member (4) Two (2) Government Members Employees to be Appointed By the President

(b) For this purpose, the Committee shall perform the following functions and responsibilities:

(1) Conduct a periodic, continuing review of performance of officials and employees in all department, offices and agencies;

(2) Establish a system of annual incentives and rewards to the end that due recognition is given to officials and employees of outstanding merit on the basis of standards set forth in Section 2, Rule V hereof;

(3) Determine the form of rewards to be granted;

(4) Formulate and adopt its own rules to govern the conduct of its activities, which shall include guidelines for evaluating nominees, the mechanism for recognizing the awardees in public ceremonies and the creation of sub-committees;

In the evaluation of nominees, the Committee may be assisted by technical experts selected from the government and the private sectors.

Section 5.The Civil Service Commission shall provide secretariat services to the Committee.

Section 6. Nothing herein provided shall inhibit any department, office or agency from instituting its own rewards program in addition to those provided by, but not inconsistent with these Rules.

Section 7. The budget to cover all expenses in the implementation of this Rule shall be incorporated in the appropriation of the Civil Service Commission.

Rule VI

Duties of Public Officials and Employees

Section 1. As a general rule, when a request or petition, whether written or verbal, can be disposed of promptly and expeditiously the official and employee in charge to whom the same is presented shall do so immediately, without discrimination, and in no case beyond fifteen (15) working days from receipt of the request or petition.

Section 2. In departments, offices or agencies that are usually swamped with persons calling for a particular type of service, the head of the department, office or agency shall devise a mechanism so as to avoid long queues, such as by giving each person a ticket number duly countersigned which shall specify the time and the date when the person, whose name and address shall be indicated,

45

Page 46: Anonymous Complaints

can be served without delay. Said person shall have the right to prompt service upon presentation of said ticket number.

Section 3. In case of written requests, petitions or motions, sent by means of letters, telegrams, or the like, the official or employee in charge shall act on the same within fifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof, provided that:

(b) If the communication is within the jurisdiction of the office or agency, the official and employee must:

(1) Write a note or letter of acknowledgement where the matter is merely routinary or the action desired may be acted upon in the ordinary course of business of the department, office or agency, specifying the date when the matter will be disposed of and the name of the official or employee in charge thereof.

(2) Where the matter is non-routinary or the issues involved are not simple or ordinary, write a note or letter of acknowledgement, informing the interested party, petitioner or correspondent of the action to be taken or when such requests, petitions or motions can be acted upon. Where there is a need to submit additional information, requirements, or documents, the note or letter of acknowledgement shall so state, specifying a reasonable period of time within which they should be submitted, and the name of the particular official or employee in charge thereof. When all the documents or requirements have been submitted to the satisfaction of the department or office or agency concerned, the particular official or employee in charge shall inform the interested party, petitioner, or correspondent of the action to be taken and when such action or disposition can be expected, barring unforeseen circumstances.

(c) If communication is outside its jurisdiction, the official or employee must:

(1) Refer the letter, petition, telegram, or verbal request to the proper department, office or agency.

(2) Acknowledge the communication by means of a note or letter, informing the interested party, petitioner, correspondent of the action taken and attaching a copy of the letter of the letter of referral to the proper department, office or agency.

The department, office or agency to which the letter, petition, telegram or verbal request was referred for appropriate action must take action in accordance with subsection (a), pars. 1 and 2 hereof.

The period of fifteen (15) working days herein provided shall be counted from the date of receipt of the written or verbal communication by the department, office or agency concerned.

Section 4. All official papers and documents must be processed and completed within a reasonable time from the preparation thereof. Reasonable time shall be determined in accordance with the following rules:

46

Page 47: Anonymous Complaints

(b) When the law or the applicable rule issued in accordance therewith prescribes a period within which a decision is to be rendered or an action taken, the same shall be followed;

(c) When the law or the applicable rule issued in accordance therewith does not prescribe a period, the head of department, office or agency shall issue rules and regulations prescribing, among other things, what is reasonable time, taking into account the following factors:

(1) Nature, simplicity or complexity of the subject matter of the official papers of documents processed by said department, office or agency.

(2) Completeness or inadequacy of requirements or of data and information necessary for decision or action;

(3) Lack of resources caused by circumstances beyond the control of the department, office or agency or official or employee concerned;

(4) Legal constraints such as restraining orders and injunctions issued by proper judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative authorities; and

(5) Fault, failure or negligence of the party concerned which renders decision or action not possible or premature; and

(6) Fortuitous events or force majeure.

Section 5. Except as otherwise provided by law or regulation, and as far as practicable, any written action or decision must contain not more than three (3) initials or signatures. In the absence of the duly authorized signatory, the official next-in-rank or officer-in-charge or the person duly authorized shall sign for and in his behalf. The head of department, office or agency shall prescribe, through and appropriate office order, the rules on the proper authority to sign in the absence of the regular signatory, as follows:

(1) If there is only one official next in rank, he shall automatically be the signatory;

(2) If there are two ore more officials next in rank, the appropriate office order shall prescribe the order of priority among the officials next in rank within the same organizational unit; or

(3) If there is no official next in rank present and available, the head of department, office or agency shall designate an officer-in-charge from among those next lower in rank in the same organizational unit.

Section 6. All public documents must be made accessible to, and readily available for inspection by, the public during working hours, except those provided in Section 3. Rule IV.

Section 7. All heads or other responsible officers of departments, offices or agencies of the government and of government-owned or controlled corporations shall, within forty five (45)

47

Page 48: Anonymous Complaints

working days from the end of the year, render a full and complete report of performance and accomplishments, as prescribed by existing laws and regulations.

Another report of compliance with the provisions of the Code and these Rules shall be prepared and submitted to the Civil Service Commission. The Commission may require officials to provide additional information or furnish documents, if necessary.

Section 8. Officials and employees and their families shall lead modest and simple lives appropriate to their positions and income. They shall not indulge in extravagant or ostentatious display of wealth in any form.

Basically, modest and simple living means maintaining a standard of living within the public official and employee’s visible means of income as correctly disclosed in his income tax returns, annual statement of assets, liabilities and net worth and other documents relating to financial and business interests and connections. Public funds and proper for official use and purpose shall be utilized with the diligence of a good father of a family.

Rule VII

Public Disclosure

Section 1. Every official and employee, except those who serve in an official honorary capacity, without service credit or pay, temporary laborers and casual or temporary or contractual workers, shall file under oath their statement of assets, liabilities and net worth and a disclosure of business interests and financial connections including those of their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households, in the prescribed form, Annex A.

(b) Contents of Statement

(1) The Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth shall contain information on the following:

(a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value, and current fair market value;

(b) personal property and acquisition costs;

(c) all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds, and the like; and

(d) all financial liabilities and long-term.

(2) The Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections shall contain information on any existing interests in, or any existing connections with, any business enterprises or entities, whether as proprietor, investor, promoter, partner, shareholder, officer, managing director, executive, creditor, lawyer, legal consultant, accountant, auditor, and the like, the names and addresses of the business enterprises or entities, the dates when such interests or connections were established, and such other details as will show the nature of the interests or connections.

48

Page 49: Anonymous Complaints

(c) When to File

The above documents under the Code must be filed:

(1) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office, statements of which must be reckoned as of his first day of service;

(2) on or before April 30 of every year thereafter, statements of which must be reckoned as of the end of the preceding year; or

(3) within thirty (30) days after separation from the service, statements of which must be reckoned as of his last day of office.

(d) Where to File

The Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth and the Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections shall be filed by the:

(1) President, Vice-President and Constitution al Officials, with the National Office of the Ombudsman;

(2) Senators and Congressmen, with the Secretaries of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively; Justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court; Judges, with the Court Administrator; and national executive officials such as Members of the Cabinet, Undersecretaries and Assistant Secretaries, including the foreign service and heads of government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters and their subsidiaries and state colleges and universities, with the Office of the President.

(3) Regional and local officials and employees, both appointive and elective, including other officials and employees of government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries and state colleges and universities, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions;

(4) Officers of the Armed Forces from the rank of Colonel or Naval Captain, with the Office of the President, and those below said ranks, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions; and

(5) All other officials and employees defined in Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, with the Civil Service Commission.

A copy of said statements shall also be filed with their respective departments, offices or agencies.

(d) All Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth, as of December 31, 1988, now on file with their respective agencies shall constitute sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Code and they shall be required to accomplish and file the new form as prescribed in these Rules on or before April 30, 1990, and every year thereafter.

49

Page 50: Anonymous Complaints

(e) Every official and employee shall also execute, within thirty (30) days from the date of their assumption of office, the necessary authority in favor of the Ombudsman to obtain, from all the appropriate government agencies, including the Bureau of Internal Revenue, such documents as may show their assets, liabilities, net worth, and also their business interests, and financial connections in previous years, including, if possible, the year when they first assumed any office in the government.

(f)Married couples who are both public officials and employees may file the required statements jointly or separately.

Section 2. Every official or employee shall identify and disclose under oath to the best of his knowledge and information, his relatives in the government, up to the fourth civil degree of relationship, either of consanguinity or affinity, including bilas, inso and balae, in the prescribed form, Annex A, which shall be filed; (a) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office, the information contained therein must be reckoned as of his first day of office; (b) on or before April 30 of every year thereafter, the information contained therein must be reckoned as of the end of the preceding year; or (c) within thirty (30) days after separation from the service, the information contained therein must be reckoned as of his last day of office.

Section 3. (a) Any and all statements filed in accordance with the preceding sections shall be made available for public inspection at reasonable hours;

(b) Such statements shall be made available for public inspection at reasonable hours;

(c) Any duly authorized person requesting a copy of a statement shall be required to pay a reasonable fee as may be determined and prescribed by the Civil Service Commission to cover the cost of reproduction and mailing of such statement, as well as the cost of certification.

(d) Any statement filed under the Code shall be available to the public, subject to the foregoing limitations, for a period of ten (10) years after receipt of the statement. The statement may be destroyed after such period unless needed in an ongoing investigation.

Rule VIII

Review and Compliance Procedures

Section 1. The following shall have the authority to establish compliance procedures for the review of statements to determine whether said statements have been properly accomplished:

(a) In the case of Congress, the designated committees of both Houses of Congress subject to approval by the affirmative vote of the majority of the particular House concerned;

(b) In the case ef the Executive Department, the heads of departments, offices and agencies insofar as their respective departments, offices and agencies are concerned subject to approval of the Secretary of Justice.

50

Page 51: Anonymous Complaints

(c) In the case of the Judicial Department, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; and

(d) In the case of the Constitution al Commissions and other Constitutional Offices, the respective Chairman and members thereof; in the case of the Office of the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman.

The above officials shall likewise have the authority to render any opinion interpreting the provisions on the review and compliance procedures in the filing of statements of assets, liabilities, net worth and disclosure information.

In the event said authorities determine that a statement is not properly filed, they shall inform the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action.

The individual to whom an opinion is rendered, and any other individual involved in a similar factual situation, and who, after issuance of the opinion acts in good faith in accordance with it shall not be subject to any sanction provided in the Code.

Rule IX

Conflict of Interest and Divestment

Section 1. (a) An official or employee shall avoid conflict of interest at all times.

(b) Conflict of interest occurs:

(1) When the official or employee is:

(a) a substantial stockholder; or(b) a member of the Board of Directors; or (c)an officer of the corporation; or(d) an owner or has substantial interest in a business; or (e) a partner in a partnership; and

(2) The interest of such corporation or business, or his rights or duties therein, are opposed to or affected by the faithful performance of official duty.

(c) A substantial stockholder is any person who owns, directly or indirectly, shares of stock sufficient to elect a director of a corporation. This term shall also apply to the parties to a voting trust.

(d) A voting trust means an agreement in writing between one or more stockholders of a stock corporation for the purpose of conferring upon a trustee or trustees the right to vote and other rights pertaining to the shares for certain periods and subject to such other conditions provided for in the Corporation Law.

Section 2. (a) When a conflict of interest arises, the official or employee involved shall resign from his position in any private business enterprise within thirty (30) days from his assumption of office

51

Page 52: Anonymous Complaints

and/or divest himself of his share-holdings or interests within sixty (60) days from such assumption. For those who are already in the service, and conflict of interest arises, the officer or employee must resign from his position in the private business enterprise and/or divest himself of his shareholdings or interests within the periods herein-above provided, reckoned from the date when the conflict of interest had arisen. The same rule shall apply where the public official or employee is a partner in a partnership.

(b) If the conditions in Section 1 (b) concur, divestment shall be mandatory for any official or employee even if he has resigned from his position in any private business enterprise.

(c) Divestment shall be to a person or persons other than his spouse and relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.

(d) The requirements for divestment shall not apply to those specifically authorized by law and those who serve the government in an honorary capacity nor to laborers and casual or temporary workers.

Rule X

Grounds for administrative disciplinary action

Section 1. In addition to the grounds for administrative disciplinary action prescribed under existing laws, the acts and omissions of any official or employee, whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual, temporary, hold-over, permanent or regular capacity, declared unlawful or prohibited by the Code, shall constitute grounds for administrative disciplinary action, and without prejudice to criminal and civil liabilities provided herein, such as:

(a) Directly or indirectly having financial and material interest in any transaction requiring the approval of his office. Financial and material interest is defined as a pecuniary or proprietary interest by which a person will gain or lose something;

(b) Owning, controlling, managing or accepting employment as officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee, or nominee in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by his office, unless expressly allowed by law;

(c)Engaging in the private practice of his profession unless authorized by the Constitution, law or regulation, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his official functions;

(d) Recommending any person to any position in a private enterprise which has a regular or pending official transaction with his office, unless such recommendation or referral is mandated by (1) law, or (2) international agreements, commitment and obligation, or as part of the functions of his office;

These acts shall continue to be prohibited for a period of one (1) year after resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except in the case of paragraph (c) above, but the professional concerned cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with, within one year after such resignation, retirement, or separation provided that any violation hereof shall be a ground for administrative disciplinary action upon re-entry to the government

52

Page 53: Anonymous Complaints

service.

(e) Disclosing or misusing confidential or classified information officially known to him by reason of his office and not made available to the public, to further his private interests or give undue advantage to anyone, or to prejudice the public interest;

(f) Soliciting or accepting, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value which in the course of his official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of, his office. The propriety or impropriety of the foregoing shall be determined by its value, kinship or relationship between giver and receiver and the motivation. A thing of monetary value is one which is evidently or manifestly excessive by its very nature.

Gift refers to a thing or a right disposed of gratuitously, or any act of liberality, in favor of another who accepts it, and shall include a simulated sale or an ostensibly onerous disposition thereof.

Loan covers both simple loan and commodatum as well as guarantees, financing arrangement or accommodations intended to ensure its approval. Commodatum refers to a contract whereby one of the parties delivers to another something not consumable so that the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it.

This prohibition shall not include:

(1) Unsolicited gift of nominal or insignificant value not given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor from a public official or employee or given after the transaction is completed, or service is rendered. As to what is a gift of nominal value will depend on the circumstances of each case taking into account the salary of the official or employee, the frequency or infrequency of the giving, the expectation of benefits, and other similar factors.

(2) A gift from a member of his family or relative as defined in the Code on the occasion of a family celebration, and without any expectation of pecuniary gain or benefit.

(3) Nominal donations from persons with no regular, pending, or expected transactions with the department, office or agency with which the official or employee is connected, and without any expectation of pecuniary gain or benefit.

(4) Donations coming from private organizations whether local or foreign, which are considered and and accepted as humanitarian and altruistic in purpose and mission.

(5) Donations coming from government to government entities.

As to gift or grants from foreign governments, the Congress consents to:

(i) The acceptance and retention by public official or employee of a gift of nominal value tendered and received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy;

53

Page 54: Anonymous Complaints

(ii) The acceptance and retention by public official or employee of gift in the nature of a scholarship or fellowship grant or medical treatment; or

(iii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of travel grant or expenses for travel taking place entirely outside the Philippines (such as allowances, transportation, food and lodging) of more than nominal value if such acceptance is appropriate or consistent with the interests of the Philippines, and permitted by the head of office, branch, or agency to which he belongs.

Nothing in the Code shall be construed to restrict or prohibit any educational, scientific or cultural exchange programs subject to national security requirements.

(g) Obtaining or using any statement filed under the Code for any purpose contrary to morals or public policy or any commercial purpose other than by news and communications media for dissemination to the general public;

(h) Unfair discrimination in rendering public service due to party affiliation or preference;

(i) Disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines and to the Filipino people;

(j) Failure to act promptly on letters and request within fifteen (15) days from receipt, except as otherwise provided in these Rules;

(k) Failure to process documents and complete action on documents and papers within a reasonable time from preparation thereof, except as otherwise provided in these Rules;

(l) Failure to attend to anyone who wants to avail himself of the services of the office, or to act promptly and expeditiously on public personal transactions;

(m) Failure to file sworn statements of assets, liabilities and net worth and disclosure of business interests and financial connections; and

(n) Failure to resign from his position in the private business enterprise within thirty (30) days from assumption of public office when conflict of interest arises, and/or failure to divest himself of his shareholdings or interests in private business enterprise within sixty (60) days from such assumption of public office when conflict of interest arises, the official or employee must either resign or divest himself of said interests within the periods herein-above provided, reckoned from the date when the conflict of interest had arisen.

Rule XI

Penalties

Section 1. Any official or employee regardless of whether or not he holds office or employment in casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing any violation of the Code shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six months (6) salary or suspension not

54

Page 55: Anonymous Complaints

exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. If the violation is punishable by a heavier penalty under another law, he shall be prosecuted under the latter statute. Violations of Section 7, 8, or 9 of the Code shall be punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) or both, and in the discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public office.

Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of an official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.

Private individuals who participate in conspiracy as co-principals, accomplices or accessories, with officials or employees, in violation of the Code, shall be subject to the same penal liabilities as the officials or employees and shall be tried jointly with them.

The official or employee concerned may bring an action against any person who obtains or uses a report for any purpose prohibited by Section 8 (d) of the Code. The Court in which such action is brought may assess against such person a penalty in any amount not to exceed twenty five thousand pesos (P25, 000.00). If another sanction hereunder or under any other law is heavier, the latter shall apply.

Section 2. Administrative proceedings for violation of these Rules shall be in accordance with Civil Service Law and Rules.

Rule XII

Free Voluntary Service

Section 1. (a) Free voluntary service refers to services rendered by persons who are in government without pay or compensation.

(b) The requirements of free voluntary service are as follows:

(1) Issuance of an appropriate document;

(2)Fitness and suitably for the duties and responsibilities of the particular position; and

(3) Compliance with rule on nepotism

(c) The following are the functions or services that volunteers can perform:

(1) Advisory

(2) Consultancy or counseling

(3) Recommendatory;

55

Page 56: Anonymous Complaints

(4) Professional Services;

(5) Staff work such as planning or research; or

(6) Humanitarian.

(d) Those who render free voluntary service to the government are covered by the following:

(1) Laws on rewards and incentives;

(2) Norms of conduct and ethical standards;

(3) Duties and obligations of public officers and employees;

(4) Prohibitions and sanctions enumerated in these Rules; and

(5) Civil and criminal liability.

(e) Those who render free voluntary service are, however, liabilities and net worth and financial disclosures, the requirement on divestment and the appropriate eligibility requirement, for their designations, and shall not enjoy security of tenure.

Unless otherwise provided in the terms of their designations, volunteers are prohibited from: (1) Exercising supervisory functions over personnel; (2) Exercising functions of position involving national security; (3) Having access to confidential or classified information unless authorized by proper authorities; (4) Occupying regular plantilla positions; (5) Having such services credited as government service and availing themselves of retirement benefits; (6) Using facilities and resources of the office for partisan political purposes; and(7) Receiving any pecuniary benefits such as honoraria, allowances and other perquisites of office.

Rule XIII

Amendment

Section 1. The Civil Service Commission may amend or modify these Rules as may be necessary.

Rule XIV

Effectivity

Section 1. These Rules shall take effect thirty (30) days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation.

http://www.bir.gov.ph/acl.htm

56

Page 57: Anonymous Complaints

MALACAÑAN PALACEMANILA

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 13

ABOLISHING THE PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION AND TRANSFERRING ITS INVESTIGATIVE, ADJUDICATORY AND RECOMMENDATORY FUNCTIONS TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

WHEREAS, this administration has a continuing mandate and advocacy to fight and eradicate corruption in the different departments, bureaus, offices and other government and instrumentalities;

WHEREAS, the government adopted a policy of streamlining the government bureaucracy to promote economy and efficiency in government;

WHEREAS, Section VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that the President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices;

WHEREAS, Section 31 Chapter 10, Title, Book III, Book III Executive Order 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) provides for the continuing authority to the President to recognize the administrative structure of the Office of the President;

WHEREAS, Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1416 (Granting Continuing Authority to the President of the Philippines to Reorganize the National Government), as amended by PD 1772, provides that the President of the Philippines shall have continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the National Government and may, at his discretion, create, abolish, group, consolidate, merge or integrate entities, agencies, instrumentalities and units of the National Government, as well as expand, amend, change or otherwise modify their powers, functions and authorities;

WHEREAS, Section 78 of the General Provisions of Republic Act No. 9970 (General Appropriations Act of 2010) authorizes the President of the Philippines to direct changes in the organizational units or key positions in any department or agency;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby order:

SECTION 1. Declaration of Policy. It is the policy of the government to fight and eradicate graft and corruption in the different departments, bureaus, offices and other government agencies and instrumentalities.

The government adopted a policy of streamlining the government bureaucracy to promote economy and efficiency in the government.

SECTION 2. Abolition of Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC). To enable the Office of the President (OP) to directly investigate graft and corrupt cases of the Presidential appointees in the Executive Department including heads of government-owned and controlled corporations, the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) is hereby abolished and their vital functions, particularly the investigative, adjudicatory and recommendatory functions and other and functions

57

Page 58: Anonymous Complaints

inherent or incidental thereto, transferred to the office of the Deputy Secretary for Legal Affairs (ODESLA), OP in accordance with the provisions of this Executive Order.

SECTION 3. Reconstructuring of the Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs, OP. In addition to the Legal and Legislative Divisions of the ODESLA, the Investigative and Adjudicatory Division shall be created.

The newly created Investigative and Adjudicatory Division shall perform the powers, functions and duties mentioned in Section 2 hereof, of PAGC,

The Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (DESLA) will be the recommending authority to the President, thru the Executive Secretary, for approval, adoption or modification of the report and recommendations of the Investigative and Adjudicatory Division of ODESLA.

SECTION 4. Personnel Who May Be Affected by the Abolition of PAGC. The personnel who may be affected by the abolition of the PAGC shall be allowed to avail of the benefits provided under existing laws if applicable. The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) is hereby ordered to release the necessary funds for the benefits of the employees.

SECTION 5. Winding Up of the Operation and Disposition of the Functions, Positions, Personnel, Assets and Liabilities of PAGC. The winding up of the operations of PAGC including the final disposition or transfer of their functions, positions, personnel, assets assets and liabilities as may be necessary, shall be in accordance with the applicable provision(s) of the Rules and Regulations Implementing EO 72 (Rationalizing the Agencies Under or Attached to the Office of the President) dated MArch 15, 2002. The winding up shall be completed not later than 31 December 2010.

The Office of the Executive Secretary, with the assistance of the Department of Budget and Management, shall ensure the smooth and efficient implementation of the dispositive actions and winding-up of the activities of PAGC.

SECTION 6. Repealing Clause. All executive orders, rules, regulations and other issuances or parts thereof, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order, are hereby revoked or modified accordingly.

SECTION 7. Effectivity. This Executive Order shall effect immediately after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 15th day of November in the year of Our Lord, Two Thousand and Ten.

(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO III

By the President:

(Sgd.) PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.            Executive Secretary

http://www.lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo2010/eo_13_2010.html

58

Page 59: Anonymous Complaints

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 12

CREATING THE PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION AND PROVIDING FOR ITS POWERS, DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Whereas, Article VII, Section 17 of the Constitution provides that the President shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus, and offices;

Whereas, in terms of personnel and funding, the Executive Department is the largest of the three branches of government;

Whereas, there is a need for commission under the Office of the President, to conduct the task of investigating and hearing administrative cases and complaints against personnel in the Executive Department;

Whereas, by virtue of the Executive Order No. 268 dated July 18, 2000, the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption was abolished and replaced with the National Anti-Corruption Commission;

Whereas, the National Anti-Corruption Commission was never activated;

Whereas, there is a need to create a new commission to assist the President in the campaign against graft and corruption, whose jurisdiction and authority are clearly defined;

Now, therefore, I, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and the laws, do hereby order:

Section 1. Creation - The Presidential Anti-Graft Commission hereinafter to as the "Commission", is hereby created under the Office of the President, pursuant to Article VII, Section 17 of the Constitution.

Sec. 2. Composition - The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and two (2) Commissioners to be appointed by the President. All the members of the Commission shall serve on a full-time basis and a majority shall be members of the Philippine Bar. The Chairman shall have the rank, emoluments and privileges of a Presidential Assistant II. The Commissioners, on the other hand, shall have the rank, emoluments, and privileges of a Presidential Assistant I. The Chairman shall preside over the meetings of the Commission and shall direct and supervise the implementation and execution of policies, standards, rules and regulations.

Sec. 3. Secretariat. - The Commission shall have a Secretariat which shall provide technical and administrative support to the Commission and which shall be headed by an Executive Director. The Executive Director, under the control and supervision of the chairman, shall execute and administer the policies and decision s of the Commission and manage the day-to-day operations thereof. The Executive Director shall be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the Chairman.

59

Page 60: Anonymous Complaints

The Chairman shall have the authority to appoint, promote, and discipline the personnel of the Secretariat.

The Commission, subject to pertinent laws, rules and regulations, may create, organize and set in operation such organizational units necessary for the performance of its powers, functions, and duties and for the enforcement of this Executive Order. Such units shall be staffed duly qualified personnel appointed by the Chairman and those detailed to the Commission by other government entities.

The Commission shall be exempt from the prohibition against hiring of new personnel prescribed in Administrative Order No. 100 dated December 1, 1999 with regard to its initial appointments provided that the organizational structure and staffing pattern of the Secretariat shall be prepared in coordination with the Department of Budget and Management and submitted to the President for approval.

Sec. 4. Jurisdiction, Powers and Functions. -

(a) The Commission, acting as a collegial body, shall, on its own or on complaint, have the power to investigate or hear administrative cases or complaints involving the possible violation of any of the following:

(1) Republic Act No. 3019 as amended, otherwise known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;"

(2) Republic Act No. 1379 on the unlawful acquisition of property by a public officer or employee;

(3) Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees;"

(4) Presidential Decree No. 46, making it punishable for public officials and employees to receive gifts on any occasion, including Christmas;

(5) Any provision under Title Seven, Book Two of the Revised Penal Code; and

(6) Rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority to implement any of the foregoing laws or issuances.

(b) The Commission , acting as a collegial body, shall have the authority to investigate or hear administrative cases or complaints against all presidential appointees in the government and any of its agencies or instrumentalities (including members of the governing board of any instrumentality, regulatory agency, chartered institution and directors or officers appointed or nominated by the President to government-owned or controlled corporations or corporations where the government has a minority interest or who otherwise represent the interests of the government), occupying the positions of assistant regional director, or an equivalent rank, and higher, otherwise classified as Salary Grade "26" and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758). In the same manner, the Commission shall have jurisdiction to investigate a non-presidential appointee who may have acted in conspiracy or may have been involved with a presidential appointee or ranking officer mentioned in this subsection. The Commission shall have

60

Page 61: Anonymous Complaints

no jurisdiction over members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police.

(c) Anonymous complaints against a presidential appointee shall not be given due course unless there appears on its face or the supporting documents attached to the anonymous complaint a probable cause to engender a belief that the allegations may be true.

(d) The Commission shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case or complaint speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, in all instances observing the due process.

(e) The investigation or hearing involving a presidential appointee with the position of Undersecretary or higher shall be conducted by the Commission sitting en bane. The investigation or hearing involving a presidential appointee occupying a lower position may be entrusted to a Commissioner or panel of hearing officers duly designated by the Chairman; Provided, however, that the report or recommendations of the Commissioner or panel of hearing officers who investigated or heard the administrative case or complaint shall be deliberated upon a reviewed by the Commission en bane before submitting its report and recommendations to the President.

Sec. 5. Powers Incidental to Investigation. - The Commission shall have the power to administer oaths and issue subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum. The Commission shall likewise have the power to call upon and secure the assistance of any office, committee, commission, bureau, agency, department or instrumentality in the Executive Branch, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

During the pendency of its investigation or hearing, the Commission may recommend to the President the preventive suspension of the respondent for such periods as may be allowed by law.

Sec. 6. Enforcement of Subpoena. - Upon failure to comply with a subpoena issued by the Commission or by its authority without adequate cause, the Commission en bane, on motion or motu proprio, may recommend to the President, after formal charge and hearing, the suspension or dismissal from the service of the non-complying government personnel.

Sec. 7. Resignation/Retirement of Respondent. - The resignation or retirement of the public officer under investigation shall not divest the Commission of jurisdiction to continue the investigation or hearing and submit its recommendations to the President as to the imposition of accessory penalties or such other action to be taken.

Sec. 8. Submission of Report and Recommendations. - After completing its investigation or hearing, the Commission en bane shall submit its report and recommendations to the President. The report and recommendations shall state, among others, the factual findings and legal conclusions, as well as the penalty recommend to be imposed or such other action that may be taken.

Sec. 9. Referral to Other Government Units. - Whenever the Commission deems it warranted and necessary, it may refer for appropriate action any case to the Office of the Ombudsman, or any other office, committee, commission, bureau, agency, department, instrumentality or branch of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

61

Page 62: Anonymous Complaints

Sec. 10. Measures to Prevent and Minimize Graft and Corruption. - The Commission may conduct studies, on its own or in cooperation with other government agencies or non-governmental organizations, on new measures to prevent and minimize the opportunities for graft and corruption at all levels of bureaucracy.

Sec. 11. Consultants and Deputies. - The Chairman may engage the services of qualified consultants and/or deputies, from the public or private sector, subject to pertinent laws, rules and regulations.

Sec. 12. Reports. - At least thirty (30) days before the opening of each session of Congress, the Commission shall submit to the President:

(a) A list of respondents whom it has investigated, together with its recommendations, and other data or information it may deem necessary to be included;

(b) A list of respondents whom it is investigating, the status of the investigation, as well as other data or information it may deem necessary to be included; and

(c) Such other report or recommendation which is germane to any provision or purpose of this Executive Order or as may be required by the President.

Sec. 13. Disclosures. - The Commission shall not disclose or make public any record or information in connection with any investigation or hearing when such disclosure would deprive the respondent of his right to a fair and impartial adjudication. All disclosure of the Commission relating to an administrative case or complaint shall be balanced, fair, and accurate.

Sec. 14. Continued Performance of PCAGG. - Until the members of the Commission have been duly appointed, the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption (PCAGG) shall continue to perform its powers, duties and functions under Executive Orders Nos. 151 and 151-A, both series of 1994, with respect only to cases already pending before it.

Sec. 15. Transfer of PCAGC Officers and Personnel. - The officers and personnel of the PCAGC may be transferred and appointed to such positions in the Commission for which they are deemed qualified.

Sec. 16. Transfer of PCAGC Funds, etc. - The funds, records, equipment, furnitures and other properties of the PCAGC shall be transferred to the Commission.

Sec. 17. Rules and Regulations. - The Commission shall promulgate or adopt its rules and regulations for the for the effective implementation of this Executive Order.

Sec. 18. Funding. - The Commission shall have a budget of EIGHTEEN MILLION TWO HUNDRED SIXTY THREE THOUSAND PESOS (P18,263,000.00) drawn against the budget appropriated for the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Any additional funding requirement shall be determined in coordination with the Department of Budget and Management and shall be submitted to the Office of the President for approval.

Sec. 19. Repeal. - Executive Order Nos. 151 and 151-A, dated January 11, 1994 and January 24, 1994 respectively, which created the PCAGC, are hereby repealed. Executive Order No. 268, dated July 18,

62

Page 63: Anonymous Complaints

2000, which created the National Anti-Corruption Commission, is also hereby repealed. All other issuances, orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Sec. 20. Effectivity. - This Executive Order shall take effect immediately upon approval.

Manila, April 16, 2001.

http://www.chanrobles.com/arroyoexecutiveorderno12.htm

63

Page 64: Anonymous Complaints

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 327

AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 12 DATED 16 APRIL 2001 ENTITLED "CREATING THE PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION AND PROVIDING FOR ITS POWERS, DUTIES, AND

FUNCTIONS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES"

WHEREAS, to address the need for a new body to assist the President in the campaign against graft and corruption in the Executive Department, the President issued Executive Order No. 12 dated 16 April 2001 creating the Presidential Anti-Graft commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission;"

WHEREAS, Section 2 of the said Executive Order provides, among others, that "all the members of the Commission shall serve on a full-time basis and a majority shall be members of the Philippine Bar;"

WHEREAS, in order for the Commission to espouse a more holistic approach in dealing with the problem of graft and corruption in the Government, there is a need to appoint therein reputable individuals who represent other related fields or disciplines;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the power vested in me the Constitution and the laws, do hereby order:

Section 1. Section 2 of Executive Order No. 12 dated 16 April 2001 is hereby amended to read as follows:

"Sec, 2. Composition.- The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and two (2) Commissioners to be appointed by the President. All the members of the Commission shall serve on a full-time basis and at least one of whom shall be a member of the Philippine Bar. The Chairman shall have the rank, emoluments and privileges of a Presidential Assistant II. The Commissioners, on the other hand, shall have the rank, emoluments, and privileges of a Presidential Assistant I. The Chairman shall preside over the meetings of the Commission and shall direct and supervise the implementation and execution of policies rules and regulations."

Sec. 2. Repealing Clause. - All other executive issuances or portions thereof inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Sec. 3. Effectivity. - This Executive Order shall take effect immediately upon approval.

Done in the City of Manila, this 9th day of July, in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four.

GLORIA MACAPAGAL - ARROYO

By the President:

ALBERTO G. ROMULOExecutive Secretary

64

Page 65: Anonymous Complaints

http://www.chanrobles.com/executiveorderno327arroyojuly92004.htmlEXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 531-A

AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 531, SERIES OF 2006, TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION

WHEREAS, relative to the heightened campaign of the government against graft and corruption, there is a need to further strengthen the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission with regard to recommendations based on the findings of its investigations;NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and existing laws, do hereby order the following amendments to Executive Order No. 531, series of 2006;

Sec. 1. Section2, paragraph C shall hereinafter read as follows:

"The Commission shall, on complaint or mutu propio, have the authority to investigate all cases falling within its jurisdiction upon sufficient cause. All recommendations of the Commission shall be in the form of resolutions rendered en banc addressed to the President, and shall state, among others, the factual findings, legal conclusions and appropriate administrative penalties applicable.

The Executive Secretary may review and overrule the findings of the Commission. The Commission may move for reconsideration in accordance with established rules regarding quasi-judicial bodies."

Sec. 2. Section 11 shall hereinafter read as follows:

"Repealing and Applicability Clause – All orders, rules and regulations and issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

This Executive Order shall apply to all decisions of the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission pending before the Office of the President or the Executive Secretary."

Sec. 3. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately after its publication.

Done in the City of Manila, this 23rd day of August, in the year of Our Lord, Two Thousand and Six.

GLORIA MACAPAGAL – ARROYOPresident

By the President:

EDUARDO R. ERMITAExecutive Secretary

http://www.chanrobles.com/executiveorderno531-Aarroyaugust2352006.html

65

Page 66: Anonymous Complaints

66