ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION
The Series of A cts of R espondent Constitute Conduct Pr ejudicial to the Best I nterest of the Service as They Tarnish the I ntegrity and I mage of His Public Office.
Respondent showed clear bias in the performance of his functions during several barangay mediation proceedings involving the complainant. By getting involved in the fight and eventually slapping the face of complainant and causing her humiliation within the confines of respondent’s office, he overstepped the conventions of good behaviour which every public official light to project to preserve the integrity of public service. When confronted for what he did, respondent befriended the complainant causing the desistance of the administrative case against him, only to later on back-stab complainant in a case filed only to harass her person. Other distasteful conduct shown by respondent, which are not part of his functions as a barangay captain, constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The respondent’s actions, to our mind, constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, an administrative offense which need not be related to the respondent’s official functions. In Pia v. Gervacio citing Avenido v. CSC, GR No. 177666 April 30, 2008,, the Supreme Court explained that acts may constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as long as they tarnish the image and integrity of his/her public office . (Emphasis Supplied)
In Manhit v. Office of the Ombudsman (Fact Finding & Intelligence Bureau) 559 Phil 251 (2007), the Court had the occasion to define “gross” and “prejudicial” in connection with the offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, as follows: The word “gross” connotes “something out of measure; beyond allowance; not to be excused; flagrant; shameful” while “prejudicial” means “detrimental or derogatory to a party; naturally, probably or actually bringing about a wrong result.” [Emphasis Supplied]
In Mariano v. Roxas 434 Phil 742 (2002), the Court ruled that the offense committed by a CA employee in forging some receipts to avoid her private contractual obligations, was not misconduct but conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service because her acts had no direct relation to or connection with the performance o f her official duties
Notably, the Court has also considered the following acts or omissions, among others, as constituting conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service: misappropriation of public funds, abandonment of office, failure to report back to work without prior notice, failure to safekeep public records and property, making false entries in public documents and falsification of court orders. [ Espina v. Cerujano, et al, 573 Phil. 254, 263 (2008)]
Respondent Should Be Held Liable for Violation of Sec. 5 (a) & (d) of R.A. 6713, for F ailure to Act Immediately on the Public’s Transactions.
Section 5 (a) and (d) of RA 6713 reads: Section 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees. - In the performance of their duties, all public officials and employees are under obligation to: (a) Act promptly on letters and requests - All public officials and employees shall, within fifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof, respond to letters, telegrams or other means of communications sent by the public. The reply must contain the action taken on the request. xxx xxx xxx (d) Act immediately on the publics personal transactions. - All public officials and employees must attend to anyone who wants to avail himself of the services of their offices and must, at all times, act promptly and expeditious
There is no question that respondent is guilty of the above provisions of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Respondent ignored the “letter demand” of the Public Attor ney’s Office ( Annex A of complainant’s Rejoinder) and failed to respond or reply or advise of the action taken on such demand. The same clearly reminds respondent of his duties under the applicable Katarungang Pambarangay Law, but chose to ignore the same since he is adamant in refusing to assist the complainant for personal reasons. Respondent also without a doubt failed to act immediately on the public’s personal transactions. Complainant went to respondent’s office several times to avail of the services of the office, but she was ignored. No prompt or expeditious service can be talked of because there was none given at all.
Respondent Should be H eld Liable for Misconduct; There was Unlawful B ehavior in Performing the F unctions of His Office.
Misconduct is “a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.” [See Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, 508 Phil. 569, 579 (2005)] In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, cl ear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules, must be manifest and established by substantial evidence. Grave misconduct necessarily includes the lesser offense of simple misconduct. Thus, a person charged with grave misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct if the misconduct does not involve any of the elements to qualify the misconduct as grave.
We point out that to constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer . The
respondent in the present case, in several instances, performing the functions of his office, engaged in unlawful behavior. For instance, acting as the chairman of the Lupong Tagapamayapa, he should appear neutral and in fact be neutral to the parties during the hearing. He showed clear bias when he engaged complainant and slapped her face twice, humiliating her and wounding her honor.
In Manuel v. Judge Calimag, Jr. [367 Phil 162 (1999)], the Court explained that: x x x Misconduct in office has been authoritatively defined by Justice Tuazon in Lacson v. Lopez in these words: “Misconduct in office has a definite and well-understood legal meaning. By uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct such as affects his performance of his duties as an officer and not such only as affects his character as a private individual. In such cases, it has been said at all times, it is necessary to separate the character of the man from the character of the officer x x x It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance warranting removal from 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 x x x.” Respondent’s Liability Established by Substantial Evidence
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that a person is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant. In this case, there is more than reasonable ground to believe that the respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of. Every claim in the complaint is supported by documentary evidence (see original/certified true copies of Annexes A-F of complainant in her Rejoinder). On the other hand, respondent chose to respond via a one-page letter using only a general statement of denial. The supporting documents attached to the complaint were not denied nor attacked.
His statements are even uncorroborated.
There is therefore compliance with
substantial evidence as quantum of proof in this administrative case.
RELIEF IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that the instant VERIFIED POSITION PAPER be admitted and considered for the decision in the case pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman in Administrative Cases. FURTHER, it is respectfully prayed that after due notice, deliberation, evaluation and investigation by the Office, judgment be rendered declaring Respondent Brgy. Captain Felecito G. Trugillo GUILTY of the charges brought against him an d ordered DISMISSED from service.
Other relief and remedies justifiable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading this 17th of December 2015 at Cantilan, Surigao del Sur, Philippines.
MARILYN F. PARIDES
Complainant
Assisted by:
ATTY. JO EDWARD F. YECYEC Public Attorney I Assisting Counsel Roll No. 63079 Pursuant to RA 9046
Copy furnished: Hon. Felecito G. Trugillo Barangay Captain Tag-anito, Carrascal Surigao del Sur EXPLANATION
A copy of this position paper is being furnished to plaintiff not by personal service but by registered mail due to time constraint, lack of manpower, and the distance involved.
