H.

ANNEXES

ANNEX A-1: Show Cause Memorandum

ANNEX A-2a: Memorandum to Person Complained of to Submit Counter-Affidavit/Comment
(for ALL Offenses)
ANNEX A-2b: Memorandum to Person Complained of to Submit Counter-Affidavit/Comment
(for Offenses Subject to Settlement)
ANNEX A-3: Indorsement to Regional Office (RO)
ANNEX A-4: Letter Comply with the Requisites of a Valid Complaint
ANNEX B-1: Order Creating an Investigating Committee or Designating an Investigator
ANNEX B-2: Letter Informing the Parties on the Extension of the Period to Conduct PI
ANNEX B-3a: Subpoena Duces Tecum
ANNEX B-3b: Subpoena Ad Testificandum
ANNEX B-5: Order on Motion for Extension During PI
ANNEX B-6: Preliminary Investigation (PI) Report
ANNEX C-1: Indorsement Transmitting Resolution to Executive Director (ED)
ANNEX C-2a: Resolution
ANNEX C-2b: Resolution
ANNEX C-3a: Memorandum Confirming RO Resolution
ANNEX C-3b: Memorandum to the Secretary Recommending the Issuance of a
Formal/Notice of Charge
ANNEX D : Formal Charge/Notice of Charge
ANNEX E-1a: Preventive Suspension Order (LTs and their assistants)
ANNEX E-1b: Preventive Suspension Order (BLGF-Personnel)
ANNEX E-2a: Order of Reassignment in Lieu of PS (LTs and their assistants)
ANNEX E-2b: Order of Reassignment in Lieu of PS (BLGF-Personnel)
ANNEX E-3: Order Directing the Conduct of the Formal Investigation and Designation of a
Hearing Officer, Prosecutor and Secretary
ANNEX F-1: Notice of Hearing of Pre-Hearing Conference
ANNEX F-2a: Pre-hearing Order
ANNEX F-2b: Pre-hearing Order (Submission of Position Paper)
ANNEX F-3: Order on Motion for Extension During FI
ANNEX F-4: Letter Informing the Parties on the Extension of the Period to Conduct FI
ANNEX F-5: Formal Investigation Report (FIR)
ANNEX F-6a: Memorandum Submitting the FIR to SOF
ANNEX F-6b: Memorandum Submitting the FIR to ED
ANNEX F- 7: Letter Informing the Parties on the Extension of the Period for Rendition of
Decision: Letter Informing the Parties on the Extension of the Period for
Rendition of Decision
ANNEX G-1: Decision
ANNEX G-2a: Indorsement to Implement Decision
ANNEX G-2b: Memorandum for the Implementation of the Decision Including Payment of
Backwages
ANNEX G-3: Notice of Resolution/Decision with Proof of Service
ANNEX G-4: Compliance Report with Certifications for Submission to OMB
ANNEX H-1: Order to Appear for Settlement
ANNEX H-2: Order Terminating the Settlement Process
ANNEX H-3: Compromise Agreement with Attestation
ANNEX H-4: Resolution/Decision Based on Compromise Agreement (Provisional
Dismissal)
ANNEX H-5: Order for Reopening of Investigation
ANNEX H-6: Final Dismissal of a Complaint Based on a Compromise Agreement
ANNEX I-1a: Memorandum to Regional Office on the Dropping from the Rolls
ANNEX I-1b: Letter Informing the Personnel of the Dropping from the Rolls
ANNEX I-1c: Letter to CSC on the Dropping from the Rolls
ANNEX I-2: Resolution on Protests
ANNEX J: Motion for Extension of Time
ANNEX K: Letter Seeking Assistance of OSG
 Annex A-1
Show Cause Memorandum (initiated by the ED or RD)

MEMORANDUM

TO : (Name of Person Complained of)

(Position/Designation, LGU)

CC : (Name of RD/LCE)
(Region/Address)

FROM : (Name of ED)

Executive Director

SUBJECT : Show Cause Memorandum for (allegations/offense committed)

DATE :

Records of this Office shows that (brief statement of the facts including the existing
law, rules and regulations or policies violated).

In this connection, you are hereby directed to submit your explanation under oath
within five (5) days from receipt hereof why you should not be charged with the
aforementioned offense. Your failure to do so shall be construed by this Office as a waiver
thereof. Thus, this Office will be constrained to decide based on available records.

For strict compliance.

 ANNEX A-2a
Memorandum to Person Complained of
to Submit Counter-Affidavit/Comment (for ALL offenses)

MEMORANDUM

TO : (Name of Person Complained of)

(Position/Designation, LGU)

FROM : (Name of ED/Name of RD)

Executive Director/Regional Director

SUBJECT : Letter-Complaint dated _______of (Name of Complainant) for

(Offense)

DATE : _____
___________

This refers to the letter-complaint dated _________filed against you by (Name of

Complainant), (personal circumstance, of the Complainant), for (offense/allegation), alleging,
among others, to wit:

“xxx (quote verbatim the allegation in the complaint/letter)

xxx.”

In this connection, you are hereby directed to submit your explanation under oath together
with authenticated affidavits of your witness/es and other documentary evidence, if any
within five (5) days from receipt hereof why you should not be administratively charged. Your
failure to do so shall be construed by this Office as a waiver thereof. Thus, this Office will be
constrained to resolve the matter based on available records.

For strict compliance.

 ANNEX A-2b
Memorandum to Person Complained of to Submit
Counter-Affidavit/Comment (for Offenses Subject to Settlement)

MEMORANDUM

TO : (Name of Person Complained of)

(Position/Designation, LGU)

FROM : (Name of ED/Name of RD)

Executive Director/Regional Director

SUBJECT : Letter-Complaint dated _______of (Name of Complainant) for

(Offense)

DATE : ____
_________________________________________________________________________

This refers to the letter-complaint dated _________filed against you by (Name of

Complainant), (personal circumstance, if any of the Complainant), for (offense/allegation),
alleging, among others, to wit:

“xxx (quote verbatim the allegation in the complaint/letter)

xxx.”

After evaluation of the allegations above cited, the same could be the subject of settlement
pursuant to Section 60 (B), Rule 11 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service (2017 RACCS).

In this connection, you are hereby directed to submit your comment and indicate whether
you are willing to submit the case for settlement. Otherwise, you are hereby directed to
submit your explanation under oath together with authenticated affidavits of your witness/es
and other documentary evidence, if any within five (5) days from receipt hereof why you
should not be administratively charged. Your failure to do so shall be construed by this Office
as a waiver thereof. Thus, this Office will be constrained to resolve the matter based on
available records.

For strict compliance.

 ANNEX A-3
Indorsement to BLGF Regional Office

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

1st Indorsement
(Date)

Respectfully referred to the REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BLGF Region __, the herein
letter-complaint/complaint-affidavit dated __________ filed by (Name of Complainant)
against (Name, Position/Designation, LGU/BLGF Office of Person Complained of), for
alleged (State alleged offense/s committed), the complete details of which are stated in the
complaint.

In this connection, that Office is hereby directed to conduct a preliminary

investigation on the matter to determine the existence of a prima facie case and create an
investigating team, when deemed necessary.

In the conduct of investigation, the procedures prescribed under the 2017 Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS), pursuant to CSC Resolution No.
1701077 dated 3 July 2017, should be strictly followed.

Likewise, a Resolution with recommendation thereon should be prepared and

submitted to this level, within fifteen 15) days from the submission of the preliminary
investigation report together with the entire records of the case with table of contents
sytematically and chronologically arranged, paged, and securely bound to prevent lossBe
guided accordingly.

(NAME)
Executive Director
 ANNEX A-4
Letter toComply with
the Requisites of a Valid Complaint

Date

Mr./Ms (NAME OF COMPLAINANT)

(Address)

Re: Complaint Against (Name of Person Complained of),

(Position/Designation of Person Complained of)
of (LGU/BLGF Office)

Dear Mr./Ms (Last Name of Complainant):

This pertains to the letter-complaint/complaint-affidavit dated __________ which you filed

against (Name of Person Complained of), (position), (LGU/BLGF Office), for alleged (State
alleged offense/s committed).

Upon initial perusal of document/s you submitted, it appears that it does not comply with the
requisites of a valid complaint as provided under Section 11, Rule 3 of the 2017 Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS). A valid complaint shall be in
writing, subscribed and sworn to by the complainant, and shall contain the following:

a. Full name and address of the complainant;

b. Full name and address of the person complained of as well as his/her
position and office;
c. A narration of the relevant and material fact which shows the acts or
omissions allegedly committed;
d. Certified true copies of documentary evidence and affidavits of his/her
witnesses, if any; and
e. Certification or statement of non-forum shopping.

The absence of any of the aforementioned requirements may cause the dismissal of the
complaint without prejudice to its refiling upon compliance with the same.

In this regard, you are given five (5) days to substantially comply with the aforementioned
requisites, otherwise this Office shall dismiss said complaint with prejudice.

Very truly yours,

(NAME OF ED/RD)
Executive Director/Regional Director

Copy furnished:
 ANNEX B-1
Order Creating an Investigating Committee
or Designating an Investigator

Bureau/Regional Personnel Order No. _________

(Date)

In the exigency of the service and pursuant to Section 21, Rule 4 (Preliminary
Investigation) of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017
RACCS) and items 10.1.2/10.2.2 of the Department Special order 01.2018 of the
Department of Finance, the following Bureau personnel are hereby constituted as the
Investigating Team (Team) to conduct a Preliminary Investigation on the complaint of
(Name of Complainant, position/personal circumstance, if any) filed against (Name of
the Person Complained of, position/designation, LGU), for alleged (alleged
offense/s), to wit:

Name Position Designation

1.
2.
3.

Likewise, said Team shall have the authority to issue subpoena ad

testificandum and duces tecum and other powers necessary to carry out the
investigation. Furthermore, the report of investigation shall be submitted within five
(5) days upon termination of the investigation.

For strict compliance.

(Name of the ED/Name of the

RD)
Executive Director/Regional
Director
 ANNEX B-2
Letter Informing the Parties on the
Extension of the Period to Conduct PI

(DATE)

Mr. /Ms _______________

_______________________
(Complainant)

Mr. /Ms _______________

_______________________
(Person Complained of)

Subject: (affidavit/letter-complaint dated _____________ filed by (name of complainant)

against Mr./Ms. ___________, (Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer or Assistant Treasurer,
as the case maybe/Bureau personnel), for alleged (alleged offense/s committed

Dear Mr./Ms (Last Name of Complainant):

Relative to the above subject please be informed that due to (state the reason/s) the period
within which to conduct the preliminary investigation as provided under 2017 Rules of
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS) is hereby extended.

Very truly yours,

(Name of the ED/Name of the RD)

Executive Director/Regional Director
 ANNEX B-3
Order Informing the Parties for the
Conduct of Clarificatory Hearings for PI

RE: Complaint for _____________

Mr./Ms. _______________
(Complainant)

Mr./Ms. _______________
(Person Complained of)

x-----------------------------x

ORDER FOR CLARIFICATORY HEARING

Pursuant to Section 19, Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service (2017 RACCS), the above named parties are hereby directed to attend on (date) for
a clarificatory hearing on the above entitled complaint/case.

In the conduct of the clarificatory hearing, the parties shall be afforded the
opportunity to be present but without the right to examine or cross-examine the party/witness
being questioned. The parties may be allowed to raise clarificatory questions and elicit
answers from the opposing party/witness, which shall be coursed through the Special
Investigator who shall determine whether or not the proposed questions are necessary and
relevant. In such cases, the Special Investigator shall ask the question in such manner and
phrasing as he may deem appropriate.

Thereafter, the instant complaint/case shall be deemed submitted for

resolution/decision unless the conduct of further proceedings is considered still necessary by
the investigating/hearing officer.

SO ORDERED.

(Date), (BLGF Office Address).

(NAME)

Special Investigator
 ANNEX B-4a
Subpoena Duces Tecum

Bureau of Local Government Finance

Department of Finance, Region II,
_________ City, Province
Complainant,
ADM. CASE NO. BLGF-AC-__-____
– versus – FOR: GRAVE MISCONDUCT

ABCDEF,
Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer,
Municipality/City, Province,
Respondent.PROMULGATED: Date

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

TO : Mr./Ms ________________________
(Position, Office)
Province/City of _________________

Greetings:

In relation to the above mentioned complaint and pursuant to section 43, Rule 8 of the 2017
Rules of Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS), you are hereby mandated
to submit to this office, within ______(days) from receipt of this subpoena, original or
certified true copy of:

1. Description of the document;

2.
3.

You are strictly reminded to keep this subpoena confidential and not to disclose the name
and/its contents to any person.

Fail not under penalty of law.

Issued (date). (place).

__________________
Special Investigator

PROOF OF SERVICE

I have this day served upon Mr./Ms (NAME OF THE PERSON REQUIRED TO APPEAR
AND TESTIFY), (position/designation), (LGU/Address), the herein Subpoena Ad
Testificandum this ___ day of ____ 2020, at (place of issuance).
 ______________________________________
Signature over Printed Name of Serving Official

Received by:

_______________________
Signature over Printed Name
Date/Time_______________
 ANNEX B-4b
Subpoena Ad testificandum

Bureau of Local Government Finance

Department of Finance, Region II,
_________ City, Province
Complainant,
ADM. CASE NO. BLGF-AC-__-____
– versus – FOR: GRAVE MISCONDUCT

ABCDEF,
Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer,
Municipality/City, Province,
Respondent. PROMULGATED: Date

SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM

TO : (NAME OF THE PERSON REQUIRED TO APPEAR AND TESTIFY)

(Position)
(Address)

Greetings:

Pursuant to Section 43, Rule 8 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service (RACCS), you are hereby directed to appear and testify during the
CLARIFICATORY MEETING as part of the Formal Investigation of the above mentioned
complaint on (date) at (time) o’clock in the (morning/afternoon) at (exact venue).
Fail not under penalty of law.

(Name of SI)
Special Investigator

PROOF OF SERVICE

I have this day served upon Mr./Ms (NAME OF THE PERSON REQUIRED TO APPEAR
AND TESTIFY), (position/designation), (LGU/Address), the herein Subpoena Ad
Testificandum this ___ day of ____ 2020, at (place of issuance).

______________________________________
Signature over Printed Name of Serving Official

Received by:
_______________________
Signature over Printed Name
Date/Time_______________
 ANNEX B-5
Order on Motion for Extension During PI

RE:Complaint filed by (Name of Complainant), (personal circumstance, address/LGU)

against Mr./Ms (Name of Person Complained of), (position/designation), (LGU) for
(offense committed)

ORDER

Pursuant to Section 37, Rule 8 of the 2017 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service, and finding the oral/written request of ___________ (person complained
of) requesting extension to file answer/comment/supplemental pleadings to be meritorious,
the same is hereby granted.

________ is hereby directed to submit his answer/comment/pleading within a non-

extendable period of five (5) days from receipt hereof with caution that failure to comply with
this Order shall be construed as waiver thereof and the formal investigation shall proceed
based on the evidences on record.

SO ORDERED.

(Date), (BLGF Address).

(NAME)
Special Investigator

Copy furnished: (complainant)

 ANNEX B-6
Preliminary Investigation Report

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
th
8 Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

YYYYY,
Complainants,

FOR: SIMPLE DISCOURTESY IN THE

- versus -
COURSE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES
XXXXX
City Treasurer
Dapitan City
Respondent
x------------------ --x

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION REPORT

I.
PREFATORY STATEMENTS

The instant case stemmed from the Complaint-Affidavit of YYYY, resident of Dapitan
City and employee of the City Government of Dapitan as Local Treasury Operations Officer
III, under the Office of the City Treasurer, against XXXXX, the incumbent City Treasurer of
said City for Grave Misconduct, Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties, Oppression and
Grave Oral Defamation/Slander. As alleged, both complainants are under the supervision of
respondent XXXXX.

The complaint dated August 12, 2016, was initially filed in this Office, copy of which
was furnished to the Office of the City Mayor, Dapitan City, Regional Director, Civil Service
Commission, Regional Director, Bureau of Local Government Finance and Office of the
Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, Davao City. Upon receipt of the complaint, the same was
referred to XXXXX with a directive to submit Comment/Counter-Affidavit thereto.

Unknowingly, intervening event ensued, wherein the Office of the City Mayor took
cognizance of the case. As such, the city government thru the Personnel Investigation
Committee (PIC) conducted preliminary hearings and conferences and issued a resolution
finding prima facie evidence to file formal charge against respondent for Simple Misconduct.
However, during the preliminary mandatory conference of the formal investigation, the issue
on jurisdiction over the person of XXXXX was raised. Hence, XXXXX, being a City Treasurer
and upon instance of this Office, the complaint was referred to this Office for appropriate
action pursuant to Section 471 of the Local Government Code and existing laws and
jurisprudence.
 In another occurrence, this Office was furnished with a copy of Notice of Conference
issued by BBBBB, Acting Director, Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office-
Mindanaon of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, Davao City, directing the
parties to attend a scheduled conference before a certain WWWW of the Office of the
Ombudsman for Mindanao last February 24, 2017.

Anxious of the situation and entertaining the possibility that the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Mindanao might have taken cognizance of the case, this Office was
prompted to seek information as to its status in so far as the Office of the Ombudsman is
concerned and to serve as guidance in initiating appropriate further action over the
complaint.

In the letter-reply dated July 25, 2017, of VVVVV, Chief Administrative Officer,
Records Division, Case Records Evaluation Monitoring and Enforcement Bureau
(CREMEB), she informed that the complaint is already closed and terminated. Prior,
however, to the receipt of the said letter, a representative of the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon called the region thru phone informing that the conference was
intended to assist the parties to agree amicably and not to take cognizance of the case for a
full blown investigation. She then advised this Office to proceed with the investigation of the
case since both parties have not reached a settlement agreement.

Thus, this Office proceeded with the conduct of preliminary/fact-finding investigation

over the complaint to determine the existence of a prima facie case. Thereafter, a Report of
Investigation was furnished to the Bureau recommending for the filing of formal charge
against XXXXX for Simple Discourtesy in the Performance of Official Duties.
Correspondingly, this Office was directed by the Bureau in its 2 nd Indorsement dated 22
February 2018 to file the appropriate formal charge.

Respondent XXXXX in a letter dated April 10, 2018 then filed his answer adopting his
previously submitted Sinumpaang Salaysay and Sinumpaang Salaysay of his witness, Mrs.
NNNN. Further, XXXXX elected not to have a formal investigation and opted not to have a
counsel. As such, this Office proceeded with the ex parte evaluation of the case based on
the documents on record.

II
STATEMENT OF FACTS

That on August 12, 2016 at around 8:45 in the morning at the Office of the City
Treasurer, complainants, together with two other employees were invited by ZZZZ to take
some snacks and eat for a while before proceeding to their respective designations in the
market. The invitation of ZZZZ is a way of commending the good performance in the license
and stall section personnel and that she will go on leave of absence. XXXXX, the head of the
unit was also present at that time because everyone is free to join the short get together,
since it is also a supposed surprise celebration of one of their officemates.

That while the complainants were busy preparing foods, they were talking and
laughing which according to them is natural and done in a cordial manner being aware that
they are in a public office.

That when they are about to take the food, suddenly, their head, XXXXX, in an
extremely loud voice shout at the complainants saying “Okinnayo! Nagtatagari kayo!
Kasla kayo lang nga baboy! Okinnayo! Ar-aramiden yo nga kasla beerhouse!
Okinnayo! Nu kayat yo, agdidinnanugan tayo!!!” (Putang Ina! Ang iingay niyo! Para
kayong mga baboy! Putang Ina niyo! Ginagawa niyong parang beerhouse! Putang Ina niyo!
Kung gusto niyo, magsusuntukan tayo!!!)

III
COMPLAINANTS ALLEGATIONS

The words (XXXXX) were clearly directed to the complainants because he was
looking at them while shouting the alleged defamatory/slanderous words. XXXXX even took
an eye to eye contact with QRSTU while angrily shouting at them;

Complainants were shocked by such undesirable and animal like behavior that
XXXXX had shown;

XXXXX’s utterances were heard by everyone in the office and he was clearly
prompted not by sense of moral duty but by personal ill-will, spite, and/or malice with the
object of discrediting and ridiculing the complainants as individuals before the bar of public
opinion and contempt;

That after such incident, complainants observed that their head, XXXXX on his way
in going out of the office was even proudly telling the people outside about what he just said;

Complainant was so devastated and distressed that very moment, that they can no
longer enjoy the meals they are supposed to take;

The ill-effects of the malicious utterances made by XXXXX against the complainants
are shown by negative responses around them, expressing belief in his baseless allegations
as shameful, heinous, and unequivocally barbaric-all to the damage and prejudice of the
complainants;

That by reason of the incident, complainants suffered sleepless nights, wounded

feelings, moral and social embarrassment which XXXXX should compensate by way of
damages;

That XXXXX should be charged criminally for violation of Article 353 in relation to
Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines or for GRAVE ORAL
DEFAMATION/SLANDER in the proper forum;

That XXXXX be also administratively charged for GRAVE MISCONDUCT,

DISCOURTESY IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES, and OPPRESSION.

No documentary evidences submitted by the Complainants.

IV
PERSON COMPLAINED OF DEFENSES

XXXXX in his “Respectful Submission” dated October 3, 2016, in compliance with the
Order of this Office, manifested that his “Sinumpaaang-Kontra Salaysay” previously
submitted to the Personnel Investigation Committee be likewise adopted by this Office as his
Comment/Counter-Affidavit, wherein he raised the following defenses (Quoted in Filipino):

“x x x

3. Aking mariing itinatanggi and mga paratang sa akin ni YYYYY sa kanyang

Complaint-Affidavit dahil walang katotohanan, pawang mga kathang isip lamang at
walang basehan ang mga ito;

4. Ang katotohanan ay ang mga sumusunod:

a. Noong ika-12 ng August taong 2016 dakong ika-walo at Apatnapu’t lima

(8:45) ng umaga at oras pa ng regular na pag-oopisina. Dahil oras ito ng
trabaho noong oras na iyon tinatapos ko and isang Communication Letter
at inihahabol ko itong tapusin sa kadahilanang deadline na ito noong
araw na iyon;

b. Dahil oras pa ng trabaho noon ay nagulat ako ng biglang maglabas ng

pagkain and grupo ng mga nagrereklamo na sina YYYYY at QRSTU at
dalawa pa nilang kasamahan. At kahit hindi pa oras ng meryenda ay
kumain sila sa loob ng opisina at maingay pa sila habang kumakain;

c. Napilitan akong punahin ang kanilang ginagawa dahil sa mali ito sa lahat
ng anggulo at oras pa mandin ito ng trabaho at higit sa lahat ay
nagdudulot ng ingay na nakakaperwisyo sa ibang mga empleyado ng
treasurer’s office na abalang-abala sa kanilang mga trabaho dahil sila ay
nagtatawanan na parang wala silang kasamang tao sa opisina ng ingat-
yaman;

d. Pinagsabihan ko sila sa maayos na paraan upang itigil ang kanilang

pagkain at pag-iingay ng wala sa tamang oras bilang nakakataas sa
kanila at para na din hindi na ako lalo pang mairita ako ay kusa na lang
lumabas ng opisina upang ibaling ang aking atensyon sa ibang bagay;

5. Kung babasahing mabuti and Complaint-Affidavit na ginawa ng mga

nagrereklamo ay madaling mapapansin ang pag-amin ng mga
nagrereklamo na naganap ang insidenteng kanilang inerereklamo ng 8:45
ng umaga, sa oras pa ng trabaho. Ang pinipunto ko lang naman dito ay
ang pagkakaroon ng salo-salo hindi naman talaga lubusang
pinagbabawal subalit dapat ito ay nasa tamang oras at lugar. Dapat ay
isina-alang-alang din ng mga nagrereklamo na sila ay public servant at
ang kanilang sinusweldo ay galing sa buwis na binabayad ng mga tao.
Kaya sila ay dapat nagtatrabaho sa oras ng trabaho at hindi sila dapat
kumakain o nagiingay sa oras ng regular na trabaho;

6. Hindi din totoo na ang ginawa nilang salo-salo noong ika-12 ng Agosto
2016 na isang “surprise celebration” para sa kaarawan ni Luningning
Pobre dahil ang kanyang kaarawan ay August 13, 2016 pa;

7. Sinasabi din nila sa kanilang Complaint-Affidavit na ako ay nanggagalaiti

sa galit, may mapangahas na itsura at sila ay aking sinigawan ay pawang
mga gawa-gawa, kathang isip lamang at pagmamalabis ng mga totoong
nagyari ng mga nagrereklamo dahil mahinahon kong pinuna ang kanilang
ginagawa noong mga oras na iyon. Pinuna ko ang kanilang mga gawain
na hindi karapat dapat dahil ito ay nakakaabala sa akin at sa aking mga
katrabaho. Ang aking pagpuna ay hindi nadirekta lamang sa mga
nagrereklamo at ito ay para sa pangkalahatan wala man lang akong
binanggit na pangalan noong pinuna ko ang kanilang maling ginawa;

8. Wala ding katotohanan na narinig ng mga ibang empleyado sa aming

opisina ang ginawa kong pagpuna sa kanilang ginawa dahil mahinahon ko
lang itong sinabi sa kanila. Mapapatunayan ito ng Sinumpaang Salaysay
 ni Ginang Elenita Cabrito na aking ka-opisina na nandoon din noong
nangyari ang sinasabi nilang insidente. Bagkus, ang nagrereklamong si
YYYYY pa nga ang nagsalita ng masasamang bagay tungkol sa akin
noong ako ay palabas ng aming opisina para magpalipas ng aking
pagkairita sa kanilang ginagawa at narinig mismo ito ni Ginang Elenita
Cabrito. Aking ilalakip dito sa aking Sinumpaang Kontra-Salaysay at
mamarkahan ang kopya ng Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Elenita Cabrito
bilang Annex-“1”;

9. Ginawa ko lang ang nararapat, ang punahin ang mga bagay na hindi
maganda sa paningin ng ibang tao lalo na at nasa sekto ng pampublikong
serbisyo ang aming trabaho. Kung hindi ko sila pupunahin, makikita ito ng
mga mamamayan ng Lungsod ng Santiago na may transaksyon sa aming
opisina noong mga oras na iyon. Alam naman natin lahat na ang mga
opisina sa City Hall ay naka salamin lang at kitang kita ng taongbayan ang
mga ginagawa ng mga empleyado sa loob. Isa pa, karapatan ko din silang
punahin bilang City Treasurer for Operations ng Opisina ng Panglungsod
na Ingat-Yaman;

10. Wala din akong nakikitang Grave Misconduct at Discourtesy in the

Course of Official Duties sa aking ginawang pagpuna sa kanilang pag-
iingay at pagkain sa loob ng opisina sa oras ng trabaho dahil isa ito sa
aking tungkulin dahil noon pa man ay may direkta na ang Human
Resource Department ng Lungsod ng Santiago na ipinagbabawal ang
pagkain sa loob ng opisina tuwing oras ng trabaho. Higit sa lahat,
walang oppression sa aking mga ginawa dahil ginawa ko lang ang aking
trabaho na punahin ang hindi tamang ginagawa ng mga nagrereklamo;

11. Bilang isang empleyado ng Gobyerno alam ko ang mga bagay na hindi
ginagawa na makakamali sa aking trabaho. Ako ay magtatalumput-
tatlong (33) taon na sa serbisyo publiko at wala akong inagrabyadong
tao sa tagal ko sa serbisyo. Ito and unang reklamo na aking sasagutin
patungkol sa aking trabaho. Wala akong sinaktang damdamin, kung
meron man wala akong intensiyon na makasakit ng kapwa ko;

12. Kung nakapagmura man ako ng Putang-ina gaya ng sinasabi nila sa

kanilang Complaint-Affidavit, hindi din naman ito papasok ng Grave Oral
Defamation/Slander dahil matagal na panahon na nadesisyunan ng Korte
Suprema noong taong 1969 sa kasong Reyes vs. People. G.R. Nos.
21528 and L-21529, March 28, 1969 na kung saan sinasabi dito na ang
“putang-ina mo” ay napaka komon na salita na hindi ginagamit sa paraan
ng paninira ng puri kundi isa lamang itong expresyon ng galit at
pagkayamot. Sa katunayan, ito ay masamang salita na pang diin lamang
sa expresyon ng kalapastanganan. Ang Aktuwal na desisyon ng Korte
Suprema ay ganito ang sinasabi”, “We ruled that the expression
putang ina mo is a common enough utterance in the dialect that is
often employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger or
displeasure. In fact, more often, it is just an expletive that
punctuates ones expression of profanity”.

13. Kaya kung mararapatin ng Opisina ng Personnel Investigation Committee

ay dapat dismissin na sana ang kanilang reklamong “Grave Misconduct,
Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties, Oppression and Gravel Oral
Defamation/Slander” dahil wala itong basehan, mapa batas man o
desisyon ng Korte Suprema. Ginawa ko lang aking trabaho ng matapat at
 naayon sa aking mga tungkulin bilang Assistant City Treasurer for
Operations na pigilan o punahin ang kanilang maling ginagawa sa oras
ng trabaho.

x x x”

Respondent submitted as documentary evidence the “Sinumpaang

Kontra-Salaysay” of Mrs. Elenita Cabrito.

V.
ISSUE

A perusal of the records of the case would reveal that the issue to be resolved are
the alleged acts and utterances made by XXXXX, the herein person complained of.

Thus, stated otherwise: Whether or not the herein person complained of

committed the administrative offense Simple Discourtesy in the Course of Official
Duties?

VI.
FINDINGS

At the outset, it must be clarified that this Office could not take cognizance of the
criminal and civil liability of the person complained of, the same being vested and under the
jurisdiction of regular courts.

With regards, however, to the administrative offense of “Discourtesy in the Course of

Official Duties”, while it is true that XXXXX is the City Treasurer for Operations and
exercising, to a certain extent, administrative supervision over the complainants, such is not
a license to make unwanted utterances over them, the Supreme Court in the case
of Domingo v. Quimson (G.R. No. L-34081 August 19, 1982), held, that:

“x x x Holding an esteemed position is never a license to act

capriciously with impunity. The fact that there was a squabble between
petitioner and complainant, both high-ranking local public officials, that a
verbal brawl ostensibly took place, speaks very poorly of their self-control and
public relations. For this, they both deserve to be censured and directed to
conduct themselves in a more composed manner and keep their pose as
befits ranking officials who officially deal with the public x x x”.

In another case, the high court ruled that:

“x x x As a public officer, respondent is bound, in the performance of

her official duties, to observe courtesy, civility, and self-restraint in her
dealings with the public. Above all, the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees directs all public officials to
extend prompt, courteous, and adequate service to the public, and at all times
to respect the rights of others and refrain from doing acts contrary to law,
good morals, good customs, public order, public policy, public safety, and
public interest.
 To be worthy of respect, one must act respectably, remembering
always that courtesy begets courtesy. (Punzalan-Santos v. Arquiza, 244
SCRA 527 (1995).

This Office agree with the Respondent that the expression “Putang-Ina mo” was not
held to be libelous where the Court said that: This is a common enough expression in the
dialect that is often employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger or
displeasure.
However, and in light of the fact that there was a perceived provocation coming from
complainants, respondent’s acts and utterances constitutes simple discourtesy, following the
afore cited case of Reyes vs. People.

VII.
RECOMMENDATION

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that a DECISION be issued finding

respondent XXXXX guilty of the offense of Simple Discourtesy in the Course of Official
Duties and the penalty of REPRIMAND be imposed being his first offense.

January 28, 2019.

NAME
Hearing Officer

ANNEX C-1
Indorsement Transmitting Resolution to ED

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
Regional Office No. _
Address
Telefax Nos. _______, E-mail: ____________

___ Indorsement
(Date)
 Respectfully forwarded to (NAME OF ED), Executive Director, Bureau of Local
Government Finance, 8th Floor, EDPC Building, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Complex,
Roxas Boulevard, Manila, for review and confirmation, is the herein Resolution of the
Complaint against (Name of the Person Complained of) for (offense) with the complete
records of the case _________________

(NAME OF RD)
Regional Director

ANNEX C-2a
Resolution
XXX
Municipal Treasurer
San Manuel, Pangasinan
Person Complained of.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - x

Re: Letter Reguest to Launch lnvestigation on Unprofessional Behavior of

XXX

RESOLUTION

For resolution is a Letter-Complaint addressed to the BLGF Executive Director, copy

furnished this office filed by Ms. YYY, a resident of San Manuel, Pangasinan against XXX,
then Municipal Treasurer thereat for unprofessional behaviour.
 Upon initial evaluation of the said Complaint furnished personally to this Office by the
Complainant, it was noted that the same is not subscribed and sworn to, neither does it
contain a Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, an essential requisite of a valid complaint, as
required under Section 11, Rule 3 of CSC Resolution No. 1701077, promulgated on 03 July
2017, otherwise known as the "2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service",
quoted hereunder, as follows:

“xxx

Section ll. Requisites of a Valid Complaint - No complaint against an

official or employee shall be given due course unless the same is in writing,
subscribed and sworn to by the complainant. ln cases initiated by the proper
disciplining authority or an authorized representative, a show cause order is
sufficient.

The complaint shall be written in a clear, simple and concise language

and in a systematic manner as to apprise the person complained of, of the
nature and cause of the accusation and to enable the person complained of to
intelligently prepare a defense or answer/comment. Should there be more than
one person complained of, the complainant is required to submit additional
copies corresponding to the number of persons complained of:

The complaint shall contain the following:

a. full name and address of the complainant;

b. full name and address of the person/s complained of as well as
his/her position/s and office;
c. a narration of the relevant and material facts which shows the acts or
omissions allegedly committed;
d. certified true copies of documentary evidence and affidavits of his/her
witnesses, if any; and
e. certification or statement of non-forum shopping.

The absence of any of the aforementioned requirements may cause the dismissal of
the complaint without prejudice to its refiling upon compliance with the same.

Xxx

In the case of Erneliza Z. Mamaril, Petitioner versus Civil Service Commission and
Department of Transportation and Communications, (GR No.164929) promulgated April 10,
2006, the Court ruled that:

“xxx

On the other hand, the rule against forum shopping is rooted in the
principle that a party-litigant shall not be allowed to pursue simultaneous
remedies in different fora, as this practice is detrimental to orderly judicial
procedure. The lack of certification against forum shopping, unlike that of
verification, is generally not curable by the submission thereof after the filing of
the petition. The submission of a certificate against forum shopping is thus
deemed obligatory, albeit not jurisdictional.

Xxx”
 With the objective, however, to serve the end of justice, this Office, instead of
dismissing (without prejudice) the complaint outright, has requested the complainant
under a letter dated March 17, 2017, to submit the required certification of Non-Forum
Shopping as basis of the office in taking final action to her complaint. However, inspite
of the long period that elapsed, the required certification or any document for that
matter was not submitted; neither the complainant communicated to the office or made
personal appearance. As such, this office has no recourse but to dismiss the
complaint.

lN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant complaint filed against XXX,

Municipal Treasurer, San Manuel, Pangasinan is hereby recommended to be
dismissed with finality.

SO ORDERED.

June 3, 2019. San Fernando City, La Union.

(NAME)
Regional Director
 Annex C-2b
Sample Resolution

Re: Complaint filed by YYY, against XXX, City Treasurer, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan for
Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and/or Gross Neglect of Duty

RESOLUTION

For Resolution is a Complaint-Affidavit filed by herein Complainant, YYYY against

XXX, City Treasurer of Tuguegarao, Cagayan for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and/or
Gross Neglect of Duty. (Annex “1”).

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Upon receipt of the aforementioned complaint, this Office immediately conducted

preliminary investigation of the case guided by the provisions of Section 15 of the Revised
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) which involves fact-finding
investigation and an ex-parte examination of records and documents submitted by the
complainant and the person complained of. After termination thereof, a Report of
Investigation was forwarded to the Bureau for further review and/or confirmation in
compliance with Department Special Order No. 6-92, dated August 21, 1992 of the
Department of Finance (The Code of Approving and Signing Authorities). Under 1st
Indorsement dated January 18, 2016, this Office was directed by the Bureau to prepare a
Resolution finally resolving the complaint, hence, this Resolution.

FACTS OF THE CASE

On June 28, 2010, the Local Finance Committee of the City Government of
Tuguegarao composing of JKL, City Planning and Development Coordinator, MNO, City
Budget Officer and XXX, City Treasurer, the person herein complained of, issued to the then
City Mayor PQR, a Certification stating that the share of the City from the tobacco excise tax
collected by the national government amounting to Eighty Two Million Pesos
(P82,000,000.00) “is free from any obligation and available for appropriation.”

COMPLAINANT’S ARGUMENTS
1. JKL, MNO and XXX knew or conclusively presumed to know that the shares of
tobacco farmers from the tobacco excise tax collected by the national government,
and held in trust by the City Government of Tuguegarao for the benefit of the
Tuguegarao tobacco farmers, has been obligated and reserved by law pursuant to
the provision of R.A. No. 8240 to be exclusively utilized in pursuit of the following
 objectives:

1. Cooperative projects that will enhance better quality of agricultural products and
increase income and productivity of farmers;
2. Livelihood projects particularly the development of alternative farming system to enhance
farmer’s income;
3. Agro-industrial projects that will enable tobacco farmers to be involved in the management
and subsequent ownership of the projects such as post-harvest and secondary processing
like cigarette manufacturing and by-product utilization.

2. On the same date, then Mayor PQR, through a letter, requested the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Tuguegarao City to approve Supplemental Budget No. 4 and to appropriate
the share of tobacco farmers in the tobacco excise tax held in trust by the City Government
of Tuguegarao amounting to P82,000,000.00 for the implementation of farm to market road
bridge (Laon-Daan) project in the amount of P45,000,000.00 and farm to market concreting
of roads project in the amount of P37,000,000.00. In said letter, Mayor PQR stated that the
amount of P82,000,000.00, was certified by the Local Finance Committee to be free from
any obligation and available for appropriation;

3. JKL, MNO and XXX made material misrepresentations by issuing a false certification
that the amount of P82,000,000.00 is free from any obligation and available for
appropriation, when in fact and in law, the fund was merely held in trust by the City
Government of Tuguegarao in behalf of the tobacco farmers, to be used exclusively
for the objectives mandated by R.A. No. 8240;

4. The Construction of a bridge and farm to market roads are not among the projects
for which the fund could be used under the provisions of R.A. No. 8240;

5. The issuance of the certification containing false entries, verily constitute the
offenses of Dishonesty and/or Grave Misconduct;

6. JKL, MNO and XXX made it appear, to justify the use of the funds, in the certified
“statement of receipts and expenditures” that there appears an expense for the year
2010 amounting to P84,590,698.55 share of farmers on Tobacco Excise Tax
provided under R.A. No. 7171;

7. JKL, MNO and XXX knew or conclusively presumed to know that the provisions of
RA 7171 do not apply to tobacco producers in the Cagayan Valley region because
said provisions on law apply only to provinces producing Virginia leaf tobaccos like
Ilocos Region but not on Cagayan Valley or in Tuguegarao City because Virginia leaf
tobaccos are not planted in Tuguegarao City;

8. The said act of XXX constitutes an act of Dishonesty and/or Grave misconduct, if not
Gross Neglect of Duty.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE COMPLAINANT

1. Certification of the Local Finance Committee dated June 28, 2010, that the amount
of P97,000,000.00 is free from any obligation and available for appropriation (Exhibit
“A”);
2. Letter dated June 28, 2010, of then City Mayor PQR to the Members of the City Council,
 thru The Presiding Officer, requesting approval of Supplemental Budget No. 4, amounting to
P97,000,000.00. Included in the requested amount is the tobacco excise tax amounting to
P82,000,000.00 (Exhibit “B”);
3. Summary of Statement of Receipts and Expenditures (Exhibit “C”);
4. Memorandum dated March 7, 2014 of ABC, Director IV, DPWH, Bureau of Design, Manila,
addressed to the Regional Director, DPWH, Region 02, with the subject, Plan for Laon
Cable-stayed Bridge along Laon-Daan Bridge, Tuguegarao City. (Exhibit “D”)

Complainant then prayed that XXX should be dismissed from the government service
for dishonesty and/or Grave Misconduct, if not Gross Neglect of Duty.
Complainant further prayed that an Order of Preventive suspension be issued
pendente lite against XXX stating that the grounds for the issuance thereof is present in the
instant case.
Under an Order issued by this Office on June 8, 2015, XXX was directed to submit his
Comment/Counter Affidavit together with documentary evidences, if any.
PERSON COMPLAINED OF EXPLANATIONS/DEFENSES
On June 25, 2015, XXX submitted his Counter-Affidavit with the following arguments and
defenses (Annex “2):
1. I vehemently deny the allegations contained in the Complaint-Affidavit of Engr. YYY
for being baseless and unfounded, while the truth of the matter are hereunder stated
as follows:

a. I do not deny the issuance of the Certification dated June 28, 2010. It must be
emphasized however, the signatory to the same Certification are MNO, in his
capacity as City Budget Officer, JKL, in her capacity as the City Planning and
Development Coordinator, and the undersigned, in his capacity as the City
Treasurer; as such, it was issued by the Committee;
b. It must be stressed further that immediately after the issuance of the above-mentioned
Certification, I sent a letter dated June 28, 2010, to the then City Mayor PQR transmitting the
same Certification. In the same Certification, particularly on the second paragraph thereof, I
clearly stated, thus:
“Please be advice(d) that the local government unit share in Tobacco Excise Tax shall
be utilized pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 8242”.

c. It is stated in its strongest term that there is nothing malicious in the issuance of the
same Certification:

i. A careful perusal of the Certification would reveal that the amount/s indicated therein
is free from any obligation and available for appropriation. Simply put, the
certification merely stated that the amounts indicated therein were not yet
appropriated for any specific project pursuant to a validly issued legislative piece;
ii. Needless to state, the phrases and terms used in the same Certification is the usual term
used in budgeting and accounting parlance and should not be erroneously interpreted in a
manner being interpreted and understood by the herein complainant;
iii. Without being repetitive, the transmittal letter I sent to the then City Mayor PQR clearly
stated that the same funds, the Tobacco Excise Tax, shall be utilized pursuant to the
provisions of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 8240.”

2. Particularly, I vehemently deny Paragraph No. 3 of the Complaint-Affidavit

considering that the same is a baseless conclusion of fact. It must be stressed that
the subject fund is not the share of tobacco farmers but the share of the local
government unit of the revenues collected and shall be integrated in the total
resource budget of the local government unit pursuant to Joint Circular No.
2009-1, dated November 3, 2009 and Local Budget Memorandum No. 63, dated
June 23, 2010;

3. Also, Paragraph No. 9 of the Complaint-Affidavit is vehemently denied considering

that the statement therein is misleading. The amount indicated in the same
paragraph is not an expense but should be considered as the actual receipt of funds;

4. The actual and subsequent use of the subject amount/s was even deliberated during
the session of the Fifth City Council of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan on September 21,
2010, wherein Appropriation Ordinance No. 05-2010 was validly passed by the
Sangguniang Panglunsod of the City of Tuguegarao, which appropriation ordinance
was duly reviewed and approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province
of Cagayan in its Resolution No. 159-2010 dated November 26, 2010;

5. It is thus crystal clear that I did not have any participation to the subsequent and
actual utilization of the subject funds considering that its actual use was by virtue of
the legislative pieces mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph;

6. Without arguing on the wisdom of Appropriation Ordinance No. 05-2010 issued by

the Sangguniang Panglunsod of the City of Tuguegarao, which appropriation
ordinance was duly approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the province of
Cagayan in its Resolution No. 159-2010 dated November 26, 2010, this must be in
consonance with the Budget Operations Manual for Local Government Units, more
particularly on the computation, distribution and the use of Tobacco Excise Tax. In
the same manual, it explicitly enumerated and mentioned of the supposed use of the
fund.

With the above arguments presented by Mr. XXX and citation of existing
jurisprudence, he then prayed for the outright dismissal of the Complaint-Affidavit filed
against him by Engr. YYY. Likewise, Mr. XXX opposed the issuance of an Order of
Preventive Suspension against him for lack of legal basis.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE PERSON

COMPLAINED OF

a. Letter dated June 28, 2010 sent to the then City Mayor PQR transmitting the subject
Certification (Exhibit “E”);

b. Joint Circular No. 2009-1 dated November 3, 2009 (Exhibit “F”);

c. Local Budget Memorandum No. 63, dated June 23, 2010 (Exhibit “G”);

d. Minutes of the Session of the Fifth City Council of the Tuguegarao City, Cagayan on
September 21, 2010 (Exhibit “H”);
 e. Appropriation Ordinance No. 05-2010 passed by the Sangguniang Panglunsod of the
City of Tuguegarao (Exhibit “I”);

f. Resolution No. 159-2010 dated November 26, 2010 enacted by Sangguniang

Panlalawigan of the Province of Cagayan (Exhibit “J”);

Complainant YYY filed his Reply-Affidavit dated July 07, 2015, averring in substance
that indeed the herein person complained of committed the offense as charged and further,
committed the crime of technical malversation of funds and violated the basic and applicable
provisions of the Local Government Code.

Person complained of, likewise, tendered his Rejoinder-Affidavit averring that he did
not commit the offenses as charged. Further, herein respondent also averred that he cannot
be held liable for technical malversation because of the fact that the disbursement of the
subject amount was effected by virtue of Appropriation Ordinance No. 05-2010 duly enacted
and approved by the Sangguniang Panglunsod of the City of Tuguegarao and passed
favorable review by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Cagayan in its
Resolution No. 159-2010 dated November 26, 2010.

Further rebutting the averments of the herein Person Complained of, Complainant
filed his Sur Rejoinder-Affidavit, alleging in substance that the herein respondent committed
the offense charged by omission.

With the submission of the required sworn statements and sufficient documentary
evidences by both parties, and the issues having been joined, this office is now tasked to
determine the existence of a prima facie case against the person complained of.

ISSUE

A perusal of the records of the case would reveal that the sole issue to be resolved is
the legality of the issuance of the Certification issued by the Local Finance Committee,
wherein the herein person complained of, is a member in his capacity as the City Treasurer
of Tuguegarao City, stating that the amount of P97,000,000.00, which includes the tobacco
excise tax is free from any obligation and available for appropriation.

Thus, stated otherwise: Whether or not the herein person complained of

committed the administrative offenses of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and/or
Gross Neglect of Duty when he issued the assailed Certification.

THE EVALUATION OF THE FACTS

AND EVIDENCES

At the outset, it must be stressed that the Local Finance Committee is a collegial
body; hence, the issuance of the assailed Certification is likewise a collegial action.

A painstaking scrutiny of the records of the case would lead us to a finding and
recommendation that the above-stated issue should be resolved in the negative.

Under R.A. No. 8240, there were three (3) specific utilization of the collection from
tobacco excise tax; hence, the amount is indeed free from any obligation and available for
appropriation in so far as the three (3) purposes are concerned. It is incumbent upon the
members of the City Council as to which purpose of the amount should be specifically
appropriated. A scrutiny of the Minutes of the Regular Session of the Sangguninang
Panlungsod of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan held on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at the
Sangguniang Panlungsod Session hall, reveals that the enactment and passage of the
assailed Excise Tax has been carefully deliberated and studied as to its legality; part of the
Minutes is quoted hereunder as follows:

“x x x After rendering report, Hon. ABC proceeded to explain the inclusion of the
amount of P45 million allotted for the construction of farm-to-market bridge connecting Laon
and the concreting of the farm-to-market roads amounting to P37 million which were
appropriated out of the City’s share in the Excise Tax pursuant to RA 8240.

Hon. DEF, after being recognized by the Chair asked if the passage of the Eighty
Two (P82,000,000.00) Supplemental Budget coming from the tobacco excise tax has
been studied and is based in the guidelines, for which Hon. ABC affirmed that the
abovementioned Supplemental Budget is covered under the guidelines of the latest Budget
Operations Manual for LGUs’, 2008 edition specifically the Tobacco Excise Tax for which
infrastructure projects such as farm-to-market roads are explicitly identified. She further cited
that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan also used their share to facilitate infrastructure projects
to some municipalities in the province, thus giving more affirmation on the purpose of the
City to use the budget to facilitate Phase Two if the Laon-Daan Bridge. x x x”

Nonetheless, noteworthy is the accompanying Letter dated June 28, 2010 sent by
the herein Respondent to then City Mayor PQR transmitting the assailed Certification. In the
same Certification, particularly on the second paragraph thereof, it clearly stated that:

“Please be advice[d] that the local government unit share in Tobacco Excise
Tax shall be utilized pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 of Republic Act No.
8240.” – (underscoring supplied)

From the very face of the same transmittal letter, herein respondent emphatically
pronounced that the share of the local government in the Tobacco Excise Tax shall be
utilized pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 8240. Such transmittal
letter is a clear showing of the good faith of the herein respondent, while the same is a
manifestation that respondent himself is fully aware of the purpose of the same local
government share. Along this line, worth mentioning is the explicit pronouncement of the
Supreme Court when it emphatically held that:

“x x x . The maxim is actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea- a crime is not
committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent.”
(Luis A. Tabuena versus Honorable Sandiganbayan, and The People Of The Philippines,
G.R. No. 103501-03)

From this fact alone, it is very clear that the basic element of the administrative charges
hurled against XXX is wanting in this case. For emphasis, there is no showing that he had
that intent to gain, to obtain pecuniary advantage or enrich himself materially while
discharging his official duties although not necessarily utilizing his office. As matters of fact,
the available evidences on hand are wanting of any indication that respondent had that
intention to gain.
Dishonesty is defined as “intentionally making a false statement in any material fact,
or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud.” It is also understood
to imply a “disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of
integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and
straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.”
Thus, dishonesty, like bad faith, is not simply bad judgment or negligence.
Dishonesty is a question of intention. In ascertaining the intention of a person
accused of dishonesty, consideration must be taken not only on the facts or
circumstances which gave rise to the act committed, but also the state of mind at the
time the offense is committed, the time he might have had at his disposal for the
purpose of meditating on the consequences of his act, and the degree of reasoning
he could have had at that moment. (Wooden v. CSC, G.R. 152884, September 30, 2005;
Millena v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 127797, January 31, 2000, 324 SCRA 126).
In Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution 06-0538, issued on April 4, 2006,
dishonesty is defined as the concealment or distortion of truth, which shows lack of
integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive or betray and intent to violate the
truth.
Thus, said the Supreme Court in a long line of cases, held that:
“x x x Evidently, the common element which makes an act of a public official or
employee fall within the abovementioned provisions is his intent to gain, to obtain
pecuniary advantage or enrich himself materially while discharging his official duties
although not necessarily utilizing his office. x x x (Marcos V. Prieto v. Godofredo R.
Cariaga, Adm. Matter No. P-94-1061. March 13, 1995)

To reiterate, for grave misconduct to exist, there must be reliable evidence

showing that the acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to
violate the law, or were a persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. (Dina C.
Castillo versus Antonio M. Escutin, et al., G.R. No. 171056, May 13, 2009)

In another case, the Supreme Court is more emphatic when it held that:

In grave misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or
flagrant disregard of established rule must be manifest (Bacsin vs. Wahiman, G.R. No.
146053, April 20, 2008 citing Baylon v. Fact-finding Intelligence Bureau, G.R. No. 150870,
December 11, 2002, 394 SCRA 21, 34-35).

Being the City Treasurer, it is very clear that the herein respondent merely disbursed
the alleged fund pursuant to the legislative piece issued by the City Council of Tuguegarao
City, Cagayan. His actions were done pursuant to an ordinance duly enacted, approved and
passed favorable review by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cagayan.

In a recent Supreme Court Ruling, it held that:

“x x x It is basic that laws and local ordinances are “presumed to be valid
unless and until the courts declare the contrary in clear and unequivocal terms x x x”.
(EN BANC, G.R. No. 199752, February 17, 2015, Lucena D. Demaala, Petitioner, Vs.
Commission on Audit, Represented by its Chairperson Ma. Gracia Pulido Tan, Respondent)

Thus, the City Treasurer must be deemed to have conducted himself in good faith
and with regularity when he acted pursuant to Appropriation Ordinance No. 05-2010 of the
City Council of Tuguegarao City.

Clearly, Complainant failed to discharge his burden of proving the elements of the
administrative charges hurled against the herein respondent. Said the Supreme Court:

“In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by

substantial evidence, the allegations in his complaint.” ( Pascual vs. Dumlao 361 SCRA
478, Sinnott vs. Barte, 372 SCRA 282)

The herein complainant failed to adduce the required quantum of evidence against
the herein respondent. Thus, this office has no recourse but to abide by the standing rules
and hereby orders the dismissal of the above-captioned case against XXX, the person
complained of.
 WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Complaint-Affidavit is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of prima facie case.

(NAME)
Regional Director/Executive Director

ANNEX C-3a
Memorandum Confirming RO Resolution
MEMORANDUM

TO : (Name of the RD)

Regional Director, BLGF Region_____

FROM : (Name of the ED)

Executive Director

SUBJECT : Resolution of the Complaint Against (Name of the person complained

of, position, LGU)

DATE :

Enclosed is the Resolution promulgated on (date) by that Office, recommending the

dismissal of the complaint dated _______, filed against (Name of the person complained of,
position, LGU), for (name of the offense).

The pertinent portions of said Resolution are quoted as follows:

“xxx…quote the pertinent resolution and the recommendation

xxx”

Foregoing considered, and in view of the absence of a prima facie case. The
recommendation/s as contained in the abovementioned Resolution, pursuant to Department
Special Order No. 001-20181, dated 9 November 2018, is hereby CONFIRMED.

Accordingly, copies of said Resolution together with the herein Memorandum should be
served upon all parties concerned and the proof of service thereof should be furnished this
Bureau for record purposes.

1
Updated Code of Approving and Signing Authorities (CASA) of the Bureau of Local Government Finance
(BLGF)
For compliance.

ANNEX C-3b
Memorandum to the Secretary
Recommending Issuance of a Formal Charge/Notice of Charge

MEMORANDUM

FOR : SOF

THRU : USEC
Revenue Operations Group

BOPIR

FROM :
Executive Director

SUBJECT : Recommendation to File a Formal Charge/Notice of Charge

Against (Name of the Person Complained of, Position/Designation,
LGU)

DATE : 28 February 2019

This is to respectfully submit the herein draft Formal Charge against (Name of the Person
Complained of, Position/Designation, LGU), for (offense).

(brief narration of facts)

(quote Resolution and Recommendation)

“WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, …….

SO ORDERED.”

Foregoing considered, and it appearing that a prima facie case exists against Mr./Ms (Last
Name of Person Complained of), the above signed conforms to the recommendation to file
a formal charge/notice of charge. In this connection, the herein draft formal charge is hereby
submitted pursuant to Department Special Order No. 001-20182 dated 9 November 2018.

For the Secretary’s approval.

ANNEX D
Formal Charge/Notice of Charge

Administrative Case No.

BLGF___ – Year – No.

(LAST NAME, FIRST NAME MI.)

(Position)
(LGU/Municipality/City/Province)

FORMAL CHARGE /NOTICE

FORMAL CHARGE
OF CHARGE
MSSR/MADAME:

This Department has found after a fact-finding investigation that a prima facie case
exists against you for (statement of the allegations/s).

xxx (enumeration of offenses, if any)

WHEREFORE, you are hereby directed to answer in writing and under oath within
ten (10) days from receipt hereof. Failure to file an Answer within the given period shall be
considered as waiver thereof and the case shall be decided based on available records.

In your Answer, you should state whether you elect to have a formal investigation or
submission of Position Paper/Memoranda.

This Office will not entertain requests for clarification, bills of particulars, motions to
dismiss, motions to quash, motions for reconsideration and motion for extension of time to
answer. The same shall be noted without action and attached to the records of the case.

You are hereby advised that you are entitled to the assistance of a counsel.

(NAME OF SOF)
Secretary

2
Updated Code of Approving and Signing Authorities (CASA) of the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF)
 ANNEX E-1a
Preventive Suspension Order
(Local Treasurers and their assistants)

(Name of LT or their assistant)

Case No. AC No. CO/RO__-2020-00_
Respondent.
For: ____________________________
x-------------------------------------------------------
x

PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION ORDER

Pursuant to Section 29, Rule 7 of the 2017 RACCS, and in view of the Formal
Charge/Notice of Charge issued against you on (date) for (offense), you are hereby ordered
preventively suspended for a period of sixty (60) days without pay from receipt hereof.

In this connection, you are hereby instructed to turn over your office accountabilities
to the incoming OIC/Acting-Provincial/City/Municipal/ Treasurer, together with all the cash,
properties and equipment, books of accounts, including cash books and accountable forms,
subject to Commission on Audit (COA) rules and regulations.

SO ORDERED.

Date.

SOF
 ANNEX E-1b
Preventive Suspension Order
(BLGF Personnel)
Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

Mr./Ms ____________________________
(Name of BLGF Personnel)
___________________________________ For:
Person Complained of _____________________________

x-------------------------------------------------------x

PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION ORDER

Pursuant to Section 29, Rule 7 of the 2017 RACCS, and in view of the Formal
Charge/Notice of Charge issued against you on (date) for (offense), you are hereby ordered
preventively suspended for a period of ninety (90) days without pay from receipt hereof.

In this connection, you are hereby instructed to turn over your accountabilities to your
immediate supervisor.

SO ORDERED.

Date.

(Sgd.)
Executive Director
 ANNEX E-2a
Order of Reassignment in Lieu of Preventive Suspension
(Local Treasurers and their assistants)

(Name of LT or their assistant)

Case No. AC No. CO/RO__-2020-00__
Person Complained of.
For: ____________________________
x-------------------------------------------------------
x

ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT
IN LIEU OF PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION

Pursuant to Section 30, Rule 7 of the 2017 RACCS and finding merit to your request,
you are hereby reassigned in (state the office of reassignment) for a period of (days).

In this connection, you are hereby instructed to turn over your office accountabilities
to the incoming OIC/Acting-Provincial/City/Municipal/ Treasurer, together with all the cash,
properties and equipment, books of accounts, including cash books and accountable form,
subject to Commission on Audit (COA) rules and regulations.

SO ORDERED.

(Date).(BLGF Office Address).

SOF

Annex E-2b
Order of Reassignment in Lieu
of Preventive Suspension-BLGF Personnel
 Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

(Name of BLGF Personnel)

For: ____________________________
Person Complained of

x-----------------------x

ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT
IN LIEU OF PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION

Pursuant to Section 30, Rule 7 of the 2017 RACCS and in view of your request and
after finding the same to be meritorious, you are hereby directed to report at (state the
agency/office) for a period of _____ days.
SO ORDERED.

(Date).(BLGF Office Address).

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
 ANNEX E-3
Order Directing the Conduct of Formal Investigation
and Designation of a Hearing Officer, Prosecutor
and Secretary – Local Treasurers and their assistants

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

Bureau Order No.____. _______

(DATE)

TO: REGIONAL DIRECTOR

FROM: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

SUBJECT: CONDUCT OF FORMAL INVESTIGATION RE: Administrative Case Filed

Against Mr./Ms. ____________, Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer of
__________ For ______, and DESIGNATION OF A HEARING OFFICER,
PROSECUTOR AND SECRETARY

Pursuant to Section 34, Rule 8 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil
Service (2017 RACCS) and Item 10.1.7/10.2.8 of Department Special Order No. 001-2018
or the Updated Code of Approving and Signing Authorities, you are hereby directed to
conduct a Formal Investigation on the administrative case filed against Mr./Ms
_____________, Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer of __________ for ___________. In
the conduct of the investigation, the procedures prescribed under the above rules and other
applicable policies should be properly observed.

For this purpose, the following Central and/or Regional personnel are hereby
designated as:

Name Designation
AAA
Acting Chief, Legal Division, BLGF Central Office (CO) Hearing Officer
BBB
Special Investigator III, BLGF Region I Prosecutor
CCC
Administrative Officer I, BLGF Region I Secretary

The above-named personnel shall perform the functions and responsibilities of their
respective designated positions.

A report with a recommendation thereon should be prepared and submitted to this

level together with the entire records of the case within fifteen (15) days after the conclusion
of the formal investigation unless said period is extended in meritorious cases. The
complete records of the case shall be attached to the report of investigation which shall be
treated with confidentiality.

This Order shall take effect immediately and all concerned shall be guided
accordingly.

ANNEX F-
1
Notice of Hearing of Pre-Hearing Conference
 Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

DOF,
Complainant,

FOR: SIMPLE DISCOURTESY IN THE

versus - COURSE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES

XXXXX
City Treasurer
Dapitan City
Respondent
x------------------ --x

x-----------------------------x

NOTICE
OF PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE

Please be informed that the above entitled case is set for a pre-hearing conference
on _________ at ______________.

During the pre-hearing conference, the following matters and/or issues are to be
discussed and clarified, to wit:

1. Stipulation of facts;
2. Simplification of issues;
3. Identification and marking of evidence of the parties;
4. Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
5. Limiting the number of witnesses, and their names;
6. Dates of subsequent hearings, which preferably, shall be held within a maximum
period of seven (7) calendar days;
7. Submission of the position papers or memoranda by the respective parties; and
8. Such other matters as may aid in the prompt and just resolution of the case.

The failure of any party to attend the pre-hearing conference may cause the
submission of the case for decision based on available records upon appropriate motion of
the present party.

SO ORDERED.

(Date). (BLGF Address).

HEARING OFFICER
 ANNEX F-2a
Pre Hearing Order

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
B UREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

DOF,
Complainant,

FOR: SIMPLE DISCOURTESY IN THE

versus - COURSE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES

XXXXX
City Treasurer
Dapitan City
Respondent
x------------------ --x

x-----------------------------x

PRE HEARING ORDER

In the pre-hearing conference conducted on (date) at (venue), the parties and their
respective counsels were present.
Given the nature of the charge the possibility of amicable settlement is therefore
unavailing.
The following are the respective admissions as to facts and foregoing stipulations
were agreed upon, hence:

1.
2. (Enumerate all the facts/stipulations agreed upon by the parties)
3.
With the preceding stipulations, the issue/s left to be tried/resolved for the
complainant on the one hand is/are as follows:
1. Whether or not….

On the other hand, the respondent would like the following issue/s to be resolved,
thus:
1. Whether or not….

Proceeding, the parties also marked their respective exhibits and the corresponding
objections are likewise noted hence:
EXHIBIT/S FOR THE COMPLAINANT
(Indicate the type of exhibit as marked and state the objection, if any)

EXHIBIT/S FOR THE RESPONDENT

 (Indicate the type of exhibit as marked and state the objection, if any)

For his part the complainant intends to present at least 2(two) witnesses, with
express reservation to present an additional corroborative witness, namely:

1. RICHARD BERUS;
2. DAVID CORONA, and
3. JOSELITO MARIA CHAN.

On the part of the respondent, the following witnesses will be presented:

1. The respondent himself (name);

2. The respondent’s officemate, Pakee Alamera;
3. Mr. Mandy Rigma, the Accountant.
DATE/S OF HEARING

With the agreement of the parties, the venue for the hearing will be at the (state exact
address of the venue) and the following dates are hereby set as the dates of trial, hence:

1. (date) at (time);
2. (date) at (time);
3. (date) at (time).

The preceding agreement/ stipulations in this pre-hearing conference shall be binding

for the parties herein and they are also directed to abide by it.
If they so desire, the parties may file their respective pre-hearing briefs, copy furnished the
adverse party, before the date of the hearing.

SO ORDERED.

This ______ day of ____________ 2020, at ____________ Philippines.

HEARING OFFICER

ANNEX F-2b
 Pre Hearing Order (Submission of Position Paper)

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

Bureau of Local Government Finance

Department of Finance, Region II,
_________ City, Province
Complainant,
ADM. CASE NO. BLGF-AC-__-____
– versus – FOR: GRAVE MISCONDUCT

ABCDEF,
Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer,
Municipality/City, Province,
Respondent. PROMULGATED: Date

x-----------------------------x

PRE HEARING ORDER

In the pre-hearing conference conducted on (date) at (venue), the parties and their
respective counsels were present.
Given the nature of the charge the possibility of amicable settlement is therefore
unavailing.
The following are the respective admissions as to facts and foregoing stipulations
were agreed upon, hence:

1.
2. (Enumerate all the facts/stipulations agreed upon by the parties)
3.
With the preceding stipulations, the issue/s left to be tried/resolved for the
complainant on the one hand is/are as follows:
2. Whether or not….

On the other hand, the respondent would like the following issue/s to be resolved,
thus:
2. Whether or not….

Proceeding, the parties also marked their respective exhibits hence:

EXHIBIT/S FOR THE COMPLAINANT
(Indicate the type of exhibit as marked)

EXHIBIT/S FOR THE RESPONDENT

(Indicate the type of exhibit as marked)
 With the exhibits duly marked, and in view of the manifestation of counsel for
complainant/person complained of, noting no objections as to the evidence presented and
marked by the parties, and given that the issue in this matter can be threshed out sans the
conduct of clarificatory hearing, the parties herein agreed to submit their respective position
papers on the issues for resolution.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, order is hereby issued directing

the complainant and respondent to submit their respective position papers on the issue/s as
stipulated within a period of ten (10) days as agreed, from receipt of this order.

SO ORDERED. This ___ day of ______, 2020. (Place of issuance/signing).

HEARING OFFICER

ANNEX F-
 3
Order on Motion for Extension During FI

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

Bureau of Local Government Finance

Department of Finance, Region II,
_________ City, Province
Complainant,
ADM. CASE NO. BLGF-AC-__-____
– versus – FOR: GRAVE MISCONDUCT

ABCDEF,
Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer,
Municipality/City, Province,
Respondent. PROMULGATED: Date

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

ORDER OF POSTPONEMENT

Pursuant to Section 37, Rule 8 of the 2017 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service, and finding the oral/written request for postponement to be meritorious,
the same is hereby granted.

Hearing is hereby set on _______________, (date), ________(time), at ___________(venue).

*Insert par 3, sec 37 of 2017 RACCS

SO ORDERED.

(Date). (BLGF Address).

(NAME)
HEARING OFFICER
 ANNEX F-4
Letter Informing the Parties on the
Extension of the Period to Conduct PI/FI

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
th
8 Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

(DATE)

Bureau of Local Government Finance

Department of Finance, Region II,
_________ City, Province
Complainant,
ADM. CASE NO. BLGF-AC-__-____
– versus – FOR: GRAVE MISCONDUCT

ABCDEF,
Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer,
Municipality/City, Province,
Respondent. PROMULGATED: Date

Dear Mr. /Ms. (Last Name of Complainant):

This refers to the complaint/case dated _____________ filed by (name of complainant)

against Mr./Ms. ___________, (Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer or Assistant Treasurer,
as the case maybe/Bureau personnel), for alleged (nature of the offense).

Please be informed that due to (state the reason/s) the period within which to conduct the
preliminary/formal investigation as provided under 2017 Rules of Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service (2017 RACCS) is hereby extended.
For the information and guidance of all concerned.

Very truly yours,

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/REGIONAL DIRECTOR

 ANNEX F-6
Formal Investigation Report
Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

DOF,
Complainant,

FOR: SIMPLE DISCOURTESY IN THE

versus -COURSE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES

XXXXX
City Treasurer
Dapitan City
Respondent
x------------------ --x

FORMAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

I.
PREFATORY STATEMENTS

The instant case stemmed from the Complaint-Affidavit of YYYY, resident of Dapitan
City and employee of the City Government of Dapitan as Local Treasury Operations Officer
III, under the Office of the City Treasurer, against XXXXX, the incumbent City Treasurer of
said City for Grave Misconduct, Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties, Oppression and
Grave Oral Defamation/Slander. As alleged, both complainants are under the supervision of
respondent XXXXX.

The complaint dated August 12, 2016, was initially filed in this Office, copy of which
was furnished to the Office of the City Mayor, Dapitan City, Regional Director, Civil Service
Commission, Regional Director, Bureau of Local Government Finance and Office of the
Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, Davao City. Upon receipt of the complaint, the same was
referred to XXXXX with a directive to submit Comment/Counter-Affidavit thereto.

Unknowingly, intervening event ensued, wherein the Office of the City Mayor took
cognizance of the case. As such, the city government thru the Personnel Investigation
Committee (PIC) conducted preliminary hearings and conferences and issued a resolution
finding prima facie evidence to file formal charge against respondent for Simple Misconduct.
However, during the preliminary mandatory conference of the formal investigation, the issue
on jurisdiction over the person of XXXXX was raised. Hence, XXXXX, being a City Treasurer
and upon instance of this Office, the complaint was referred to this Office for appropriate
action pursuant to Section 471 of the Local Government Code and existing laws and
jurisprudence.

In another occurrence, this Office was furnished with a copy of Notice of Conference
issued by BBBBB, Acting Director, Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office-
Mindanaon of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, Davao City, directing the
parties to attend a scheduled conference before a certain WWWW of the Office of the
Ombudsman for Mindanao last February 24, 2017.

Anxious of the situation and entertaining the possibility that the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Mindanao might have taken cognizance of the case, this Office was
prompted to seek information as to its status in so far as the Office of the Ombudsman is
concerned and to serve as guidance in initiating appropriate further action over the
complaint.

In the letter-reply dated July 25, 2017, of VVVVV, Chief Administrative Officer,
Records Division, Case Records Evaluation Monitoring and Enforcement Bureau
(CREMEB), she informed that the complaint is already closed and terminated. Prior,
however, to the receipt of the said letter, a representative of the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon called the region thru phone informing that the conference was
intended to assist the parties to agree amicably and not to take cognizance of the case for a
full blown investigation. She then advised this Office to proceed with the investigation of the
case since both parties have not reached a settlement agreement.

Thus, this Office proceeded with the conduct of preliminary/fact-finding investigation

over the complaint to determine the existence of a prima facie case. Thereafter, a Report of
Investigation was furnished to the Bureau recommending for the filing of formal charge
against XXXXX for Simple Discourtesy in the Performance of Official Duties.
Correspondingly, this Office was directed by the Bureau in its 2 nd Indorsement dated 22
February 2018 to file the appropriate formal charge.

Respondent XXXXX in a letter dated April 10, 2018 then filed his answer adopting his
previously submitted Sinumpaang Salaysay and Sinumpaang Salaysay of his witness, Mrs.
NNNN. Further, XXXXX elected not to have a formal investigation and opted not to have a
counsel. As such, this Office proceeded with the ex parte evaluation of the case based on
the documents on record.

II
STATEMENT OF FACTS

That on August 12, 2016 at around 8:45 in the morning at the Office of the City
Treasurer, complainants, together with two other employees were invited by ZZZZ to take
some snacks and eat for a while before proceeding to their respective designations in the
market. The invitation of ZZZZ is a way of commending the good performance in the license
and stall section personnel and that she will go on leave of absence. XXXXX, the head of the
unit was also present at that time because everyone is free to join the short get together,
since it is also a supposed surprise celebration of one of their officemates.
 That while the complainants were busy preparing foods, they were talking and
laughing which according to them is natural and done in a cordial manner being aware that
they are in a public office.

That when they are about to take the food, suddenly, their head, XXXXX, in an
extremely loud voice shout at the complainants saying “Okinnayo! Nagtatagari kayo!
Kasla kayo lang nga baboy! Okinnayo! Ar-aramiden yo nga kasla beerhouse!
Okinnayo! Nu kayat yo, agdidinnanugan tayo!!!” (Putang Ina! Ang iingay niyo! Para
kayong mga baboy! Putang Ina niyo! Ginagawa niyong parang beerhouse! Putang Ina niyo!
Kung gusto niyo, magsusuntukan tayo!!!)

III
COMPLAINANTS ALLEGATIONS

The words (XXXXX) were clearly directed to the complainants because he was
looking at them while shouting the alleged defamatory/slanderous words. XXXXX even took
an eye to eye contact with QRSTU while angrily shouting at them;

Complainants were shocked by such undesirable and animal like behavior that
XXXXX had shown;

XXXXX’s utterances were heard by everyone in the office and he was clearly
prompted not by sense of moral duty but by personal ill-will, spite, and/or malice with the
object of discrediting and ridiculing the complainants as individuals before the bar of public
opinion and contempt;

That after such incident, complainants observed that their head, XXXXX on his way
in going out of the office was even proudly telling the people outside about what he just said;

Complainant was so devastated and distressed that very moment, that they can no
longer enjoy the meals they are supposed to take;

The ill-effects of the malicious utterances made by XXXXX against the complainants
are shown by negative responses around them, expressing belief in his baseless allegations
as shameful, heinous, and unequivocally barbaric-all to the damage and prejudice of the
complainants;

That by reason of the incident, complainants suffered sleepless nights, wounded

feelings, moral and social embarrassment which XXXXX should compensate by way of
damages;

That XXXXX should be charged criminally for violation of Article 353 in relation to
Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines or for GRAVE ORAL
DEFAMATION/SLANDER in the proper forum;

That XXXXX be also administratively charged for GRAVE MISCONDUCT,

DISCOURTESY IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES, and OPPRESSION.

No documentary evidences submitted by the Complainants.

IV
PERSON COMPLAINED OF DEFENSES

XXXXX in his “Respectful Submission” dated October 3, 2016, in compliance with the
Order of this Office, manifested that his “Sinumpaaang-Kontra Salaysay” previously
submitted to the Personnel Investigation Committee be likewise adopted by this Office as his
Comment/Counter-Affidavit, wherein he raised the following defenses (Quoted in Filipino):

“x x x

3. Aking mariing itinatanggi and mga paratang sa akin ni YYYYY sa kanyang

Complaint-Affidavit dahil walang katotohanan, pawang mga kathang isip lamang at
walang basehan ang mga ito;

4. Ang katotohanan ay ang mga sumusunod:

a. Noong ika-12 ng August taong 2016 dakong ika-walo at Apatnapu’t lima

(8:45) ng umaga at oras pa ng regular na pag-oopisina. Dahil oras ito ng
trabaho noong oras na iyon tinatapos ko and isang Communication Letter
at inihahabol ko itong tapusin sa kadahilanang deadline na ito noong
araw na iyon;

b. Dahil oras pa ng trabaho noon ay nagulat ako ng biglang maglabas ng

pagkain and grupo ng mga nagrereklamo na sina YYYYY at QRSTU at
dalawa pa nilang kasamahan. At kahit hindi pa oras ng meryenda ay
kumain sila sa loob ng opisina at maingay pa sila habang kumakain;

c. Napilitan akong punahin ang kanilang ginagawa dahil sa mali ito sa lahat
ng anggulo at oras pa mandin ito ng trabaho at higit sa lahat ay
nagdudulot ng ingay na nakakaperwisyo sa ibang mga empleyado ng
treasurer’s office na abalang-abala sa kanilang mga trabaho dahil sila ay
nagtatawanan na parang wala silang kasamang tao sa opisina ng ingat-
yaman;

d. Pinagsabihan ko sila sa maayos na paraan upang itigil ang kanilang

pagkain at pag-iingay ng wala sa tamang oras bilang nakakataas sa
kanila at para na din hindi na ako lalo pang mairita ako ay kusa na lang
lumabas ng opisina upang ibaling ang aking atensyon sa ibang bagay;

5. Kung babasahing mabuti and Complaint-Affidavit na ginawa ng mga

nagrereklamo ay madaling mapapansin ang pag-amin ng mga
nagrereklamo na naganap ang insidenteng kanilang inerereklamo ng 8:45
ng umaga, sa oras pa ng trabaho. Ang pinipunto ko lang naman dito ay
ang pagkakaroon ng salo-salo hindi naman talaga lubusang
pinagbabawal subalit dapat ito ay nasa tamang oras at lugar. Dapat ay
isina-alang-alang din ng mga nagrereklamo na sila ay public servant at
ang kanilang sinusweldo ay galing sa buwis na binabayad ng mga tao.
Kaya sila ay dapat nagtatrabaho sa oras ng trabaho at hindi sila dapat
kumakain o nagiingay sa oras ng regular na trabaho;

6. Hindi din totoo na ang ginawa nilang salo-salo noong ika-12 ng Agosto
2016 na isang “surprise celebration” para sa kaarawan ni Luningning
Pobre dahil ang kanyang kaarawan ay August 13, 2016 pa;

7. Sinasabi din nila sa kanilang Complaint-Affidavit na ako ay nanggagalaiti

sa galit, may mapangahas na itsura at sila ay aking sinigawan ay pawang
mga gawa-gawa, kathang isip lamang at pagmamalabis ng mga totoong
nagyari ng mga nagrereklamo dahil mahinahon kong pinuna ang kanilang
ginagawa noong mga oras na iyon. Pinuna ko ang kanilang mga gawain
 na hindi karapat dapat dahil ito ay nakakaabala sa akin at sa aking mga
katrabaho. Ang aking pagpuna ay hindi nadirekta lamang sa mga
nagrereklamo at ito ay para sa pangkalahatan wala man lang akong
binanggit na pangalan noong pinuna ko ang kanilang maling ginawa;

8. Wala ding katotohanan na narinig ng mga ibang empleyado sa aming

opisina ang ginawa kong pagpuna sa kanilang ginawa dahil mahinahon ko
lang itong sinabi sa kanila. Mapapatunayan ito ng Sinumpaang Salaysay
ni Ginang Elenita Cabrito na aking ka-opisina na nandoon din noong
nangyari ang sinasabi nilang insidente. Bagkus, ang nagrereklamong si
YYYYY pa nga ang nagsalita ng masasamang bagay tungkol sa akin
noong ako ay palabas ng aming opisina para magpalipas ng aking
pagkairita sa kanilang ginagawa at narinig mismo ito ni Ginang Elenita
Cabrito. Aking ilalakip dito sa aking Sinumpaang Kontra-Salaysay at
mamarkahan ang kopya ng Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Elenita Cabrito
bilang Annex-“1”;

9. Ginawa ko lang ang nararapat, ang punahin ang mga bagay na hindi
maganda sa paningin ng ibang tao lalo na at nasa sekto ng pampublikong
serbisyo ang aming trabaho. Kung hindi ko sila pupunahin, makikita ito ng
mga mamamayan ng Lungsod ng Santiago na may transaksyon sa aming
opisina noong mga oras na iyon. Alam naman natin lahat na ang mga
opisina sa City Hall ay naka salamin lang at kitang kita ng taongbayan ang
mga ginagawa ng mga empleyado sa loob. Isa pa, karapatan ko din silang
punahin bilang City Treasurer for Operations ng Opisina ng Panglungsod
na Ingat-Yaman;

10. Wala din akong nakikitang Grave Misconduct at Discourtesy in the

Course of Official Duties sa aking ginawang pagpuna sa kanilang pag-
iingay at pagkain sa loob ng opisina sa oras ng trabaho dahil isa ito sa
aking tungkulin dahil noon pa man ay may direkta na ang Human
Resource Department ng Lungsod ng Santiago na ipinagbabawal ang
pagkain sa loob ng opisina tuwing oras ng trabaho. Higit sa lahat,
walang oppression sa aking mga ginawa dahil ginawa ko lang ang aking
trabaho na punahin ang hindi tamang ginagawa ng mga nagrereklamo;

11. Bilang isang empleyado ng Gobyerno alam ko ang mga bagay na hindi
ginagawa na makakamali sa aking trabaho. Ako ay magtatalumput-
tatlong (33) taon na sa serbisyo publiko at wala akong inagrabyadong
tao sa tagal ko sa serbisyo. Ito and unang reklamo na aking sasagutin
patungkol sa aking trabaho. Wala akong sinaktang damdamin, kung
meron man wala akong intensiyon na makasakit ng kapwa ko;

12. Kung nakapagmura man ako ng Putang-ina gaya ng sinasabi nila sa

kanilang Complaint-Affidavit, hindi din naman ito papasok ng Grave Oral
Defamation/Slander dahil matagal na panahon na nadesisyunan ng Korte
Suprema noong taong 1969 sa kasong Reyes vs. People. G.R. Nos.
21528 and L-21529, March 28, 1969 na kung saan sinasabi dito na ang
“putang-ina mo” ay napaka komon na salita na hindi ginagamit sa paraan
ng paninira ng puri kundi isa lamang itong expresyon ng galit at
pagkayamot. Sa katunayan, ito ay masamang salita na pang diin lamang
sa expresyon ng kalapastanganan. Ang Aktuwal na desisyon ng Korte
Suprema ay ganito ang sinasabi”, “We ruled that the expression
putang ina mo is a common enough utterance in the dialect that is
often employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger or
 displeasure. In fact, more often, it is just an expletive that
punctuates ones expression of profanity”.

13. Kaya kung mararapatin ng Opisina ng Personnel Investigation Committee

ay dapat dismissin na sana ang kanilang reklamong “Grave Misconduct,
Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties, Oppression and Gravel Oral
Defamation/Slander” dahil wala itong basehan, mapa batas man o
desisyon ng Korte Suprema. Ginawa ko lang aking trabaho ng matapat at
naayon sa aking mga tungkulin bilang Assistant City Treasurer for
Operations na pigilan o punahin ang kanilang maling ginagawa sa oras
ng trabaho.

x x x”

Respondent submitted as documentary evidence the “Sinumpaang

Kontra-Salaysay” of Mrs. Elenita Cabrito.

V.
ISSUE

A perusal of the records of the case would reveal that the issue to be resolved are
the alleged acts and utterances made by XXXXX, the herein person complained of.

Thus, stated otherwise: Whether or not the herein person complained of

committed the administrative offense Simple Discourtesy in the Course of Official
Duties?

VI.
FINDINGS

At the outset, it must be clarified that this Office could not take cognizance of the
criminal and civil liability of the person complained of, the same being vested and under the
jurisdiction of regular courts.

With regards, however, to the administrative offense of “Discourtesy in the Course of

Official Duties”, while it is true that XXXXX is the City Treasurer for Operations and
exercising, to a certain extent, administrative supervision over the complainants, such is not
a license to make unwanted utterances over them, the Supreme Court in the case
of Domingo v. Quimson (G.R. No. L-34081 August 19, 1982), held, that:

“x x x Holding an esteemed position is never a license to act

capriciously with impunity. The fact that there was a squabble between
petitioner and complainant, both high-ranking local public officials, that a
verbal brawl ostensibly took place, speaks very poorly of their self-control and
public relations. For this, they both deserve to be censured and directed to
conduct themselves in a more composed manner and keep their pose as
befits ranking officials who officially deal with the public x x x”.

In another case, the high court ruled that:

 “x x x As a public officer, respondent is bound, in the performance of
her official duties, to observe courtesy, civility, and self-restraint in her
dealings with the public. Above all, the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees directs all public officials to
extend prompt, courteous, and adequate service to the public, and at all times
to respect the rights of others and refrain from doing acts contrary to law,
good morals, good customs, public order, public policy, public safety, and
public interest.

To be worthy of respect, one must act respectably, remembering

always that courtesy begets courtesy. (Punzalan-Santos v. Arquiza, 244
SCRA 527 (1995).

This Office agree with the Respondent that the expression “Putang-Ina mo” was not
held to be libelous where the Court said that: This is a common enough expression in the
dialect that is often employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger or
displeasure.
However, and in light of the fact that there was a perceived provocation coming from
complainants, respondent’s acts and utterances constitutes simple discourtesy, following the
afore cited case of Reyes vs. People.

VII.
RECOMMENDATION

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that a DECISION be issued finding

respondent XXXXX guilty of the offense of Simple Discourtesy in the Course of Official
Duties and the penalty of REPRIMAND be imposed being his first offense.

January 28, 2019.

NAME
Hearing Officer
 ANNEX F-7a
Memorandum Submitting the FIR to BOPIR/SOF

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

MEMORANDUM

FOR : SOF

THRU : USEC (Name)

Revenue Operations Group

BOPIR

FROM : (Name)
Executive Director

SUBJECT : Formal Investigation Report

DATE :

This is to respectfully submit the herein Formal Investigation Report in the case of (cite case
title).

Likewise attached are the complete records of the case with table of contents systematically
and chronologically arranged, paged, and securely bound to prevent loss

For the Secretary’s consideration.

 ANNEX F-
7b
Memorandum Submitting the FIR to ED

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

MEMORANDUM

FOR : (Name)
Executive Director

FROM: : (Name)
Hearing Officer

SUBJECT : FORMAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

DATE :

Submitted herewith is the Formal Investigation Report in the case of (cite case title).

Likewise attached are the complete records of the case with table of contents systematically
and chronologically arranged, paged, and securely bound to prevent loss

For your consideration.

 ANNEX F-8
Letter Informing the Parties on the
Extension of the Period for Rendition of Decision

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
th
8 Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

(DATE)

DOF,
Complainant,

FOR: SIMPLE DISCOURTESY IN THE

versus - COURSE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES

XXXXX
City Treasurer
Dapitan City
Respondent
x------------------ --x

SOF

Respondent

Relative to the above entitled case, please be informed that due to (state the reason/s) the
period within which to render a decision as provided under our rules is hereby extended.
After which a decision shall be rendered and copies thereof shall be sent/transmitted
accordingly.

For your information and guidance.

Very truly yours,

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
 Annex G-1
Decision

Bureau of Local Government Finance

Department of Finance, Region II,
_________ City, Province
Complainant,
ADM. CASE NO. BLGF-AC-__-____
– versus – FOR:
GRAVE MISCONDUCT

ABCDEF,
Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer,
Municipality/City, Province,
Respondent. PROMULGATED: Date
x- --------------------x

DECISION

This refers to the Formal Charge dated July 13, 2009, for Grave Misconduct, filed by
Regional Director XYZ, BLGF Region X, ___________ City against Ms ABCDEF,
Provincial/City /Municipal Treasurer of Municipality/City, Province, which reads as follows:

“This Office has found that a prima facie case exists against you for
the Offense of Grave Misconduct, defined and penalized under Resolution
No. 99-1936, dated August 31, 1999 of the Civil Service Commission,
otherwise known as the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service, committed by travelling abroad as certified by the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation (BID), copy attached, without securing the
proper authority from the Secretary of Finance, as required under Executive
Order No. 6, dated March 12, 1986, of the Office of the President as
implemented by a Memorandum of the Secretary of Finance on September 6,
1996.”

The facts of the case are as follows:

The travel information of Respondent as furnished by Mr. FGHI, Alien Control Officer,
Bureau of Immigration, Region II, disclosed that Respondent traveled to Hongkong for four
times on June 8, 1995, February 16, September 22, and September 30, 1996. This
information was verified by BID-Manila.

On August 8, 2006, then BLGF Regional Director XYZ directed Respondent to submit her
written explanation anent her alleged travel abroad without securing the necessary authority
to travel from the proper authorities as required under applicable rules and regulations.

Instead of submitting an explanation, Respondent thru 1st Indorsement dated August 14,
2006 sent a letter requesting certified true copies of the alleged travel documents. Moreover,
thru 3rd Indorsement dated June 06, 2007, Respondent put in issue the authenticity of the
records sent to her as the same are mere photocopies.
On March 21, 2007, this Bureau directed the BLGF Region II Office to furnish Respondent
certified true copies of the alleged travel records to enable the latter to properly and
intelligently prepare an answer. Further, it directed said Office to submit an Evaluation
Report on the explanation of the Respondent.

On the basis of the Evaluation Report of the BLGF Region II Office dated July 4, 2007, vis-à-
vis the existence of a record/certification of foreign travels from the BID-Region II,
Respondent on July 13, 2009 was formally charged with Grave Misconduct.

In her Answer dated July 20, 2009, Respondent, among others, raised the following
defenses:

“Second, she did not use government fund for her expenditures and
that she secured an approved leave of absence and most of her travels fall
on Saturdays. Thus, there was no damage and prejudice on the part of the
government;

“Third, she was innocent or not aware of any law or regulation

prohibiting travel abroad without the approval of the Secretary of Finance,”

Respondent was charged of the administrative offense of Grave Misconduct for violating the
provision of Executive Order No. 06, dated March 12, 1986, of the Office of the President, as
reiterated and supplemented under Memorandum dated October 20, 1999 (Guidelines on
Foreign Travels) and Memorandum on “Ten (10) Working Day Lead Time Requirement in
Submitting Travel Proposals,” both from the Office of the President.

After a careful perusal of the entire records of the case, this Bureau finds no substantial
evidence to hold Respondent liable for the offense charged there being no sufficient
evidence to support the same. Indeed, Respondent admitted to have violated the said Order
and Circulars by not securing through this Bureau an approved authority to travel. Such act,
however, does not constitute Grave Misconduct.

In the cases of “In Re: Impeachment of Horilleno (March 20, 1922) and Landito vs. CSC,
223 SCRA 546,” the Supreme Court ruled:

“Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule

of action, more particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public
officer. It implies a wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment. “

“Grave vs. Simple – Grave Misconduct as distinguished from Simple

Misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or
flagrant disregard of established rule must be manifest.”

True, the failure of the respondent to secure an approved travel authority is a transgression
of a rule of action. However, the same cannot be characterized as unlawful behavior or
gross negligence by a public officer nor does it imply a clear wrongful intent to violate the
laws. Neither was there flagrant disregard of the rule because Respondent complied with
other requirements, i.e. application for leave, except for the authorization from this Bureau.

However, Respondent cannot be completely exonerated by the simple expediency of

claiming ignorance of the law or that said travels fell on Saturdays and that no pecuniary
damage was caused to the municipality. The fact is, she violated a definite rule of action.
Also, Respondent’s violation of the rule is aggravated by the fact that the same was
committed not just once but four times. The legal maxim “Ignorantia legis non excusat” still
prevails. Ignorance or innocence of the said requirement could not excuse the Respondent
from any liability for to allow ignorance of the law as an excuse, chaos will reign in an
otherwise orderly administration of things.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Respondent ABCDEF, Municipal Treasurer of

________, _____________, is hereby found not guilty of the offense charged. She is,
however, found guilty of the offense of Simple Misconduct which pursuant to Section 52(B)
(2), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service is punishable
as follows:

1st Offense – Suspension 1 mo. 1 day to 6 mos.

2nd Offense – Dismissal

Accordingly, Respondent is hereby meted the penalty of one (1) month and one (1) day
suspension from the service without pay. In lieu however of suspension, the same is
converted into FINE equivalent to her one (1) month and one (1) day salary conformably with
Section 19, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292.

In this regard, the Regional Director, BLGF, Region II, is hereby ordered to ensure and
monitor Respondent’s payment of the herein penalty of FINE, and to submit a report thereon
to this Bureau. Respondent ABCDEF is further sternly warned that a repetition of the same
or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this decision be furnished all parties concerned and this Bureau advised
accordingly.

SO ORDERED.

By authority of the Secretary of Finance:

(NAME)
Executive Director
 Annex G-2a
Indorsement to Implement Decision

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

___ Indorsement
(Date)

Respectfully transmitted to the Regional Director, for implementation is the certified

true copy of the Resolution promulgated on (Date), in Case No.__________ for (offense
committed), ordering the (penalty imposed) of Mr./Ms (Name of Local Treasurer) as
(position) of (LGU). The dispositive portion of the said Resolution provides:

"WHEREFORE, x x x

(quote the dispositive portion)

SO ORDERED. x x x"

Accordingly, that Office is hereby directed to implement the said Resolution by

(suspending/dismissing) Mr./Ms__________ from the service and thereafter submit directly a
compliance report to (Office which rendered the Resolution), copy furnished this Bureau,
within three (3) days from receipt hereof.

Further, that Office is likewise directed to closely coordinate with the local chief
executive of (LGU of the treasurer concerned), for the designation of an Acting/Officer-in-
ChargeProvincial/City/Municipal Treasurer of (LGU), and supervise the turnover of the
accountabilities between the incoming and outgoing treasurers thereof, pursuant to
Department Personnel Order (DPO) No. 335-03 dated October 1, 2003, as amended by
DPO No. 562-2016 dated 10 November 2016, and DPO No. 469.2018 dated 24 May 2018
issued by the Secretary of Finance.

Strict compliance is enjoined.

(NAME OF ED)
Executive Director

Annex G-2b
Memorandum for the Implementation of the Decision
 Including Payment of Backwages

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

MEMORANDUM

TO : (NAME)
Regional Director, BLGF Region ___

FROM : (NAME)
Executive Director

SUBJECT : Entry of Judgment issued on (Date) by the

Court of Appeals, Manila, in CA-G.R. S.P. No. ____________

DATE :

This has reference to your letter dated ________, transmitting for appropriate action, the
letter dated ________ of Mr./Ms (Name of Treasurer), (Position), (LGU), requesting for
his/her reinstatement considering that the CA Decision dated ________ as modified by the
(date) CA Resolution has become final and executory. The aforesaid CA Decision found
Mr./Ms (Last Name of Treasurer) liable for (offense) with penalty of one (1) month and one
(1) day suspension instead of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the
service as held under the (date) Decision in (case number). On the other hand, the CA
Resolution dated ____________ reinstated Mr./Ms (Last Name of Treasurer) to his/her
former position as Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer, (LGU), without loss of seniority of
rights, with full back wages from the time the Suspension one (1) month and one (1) day
have lapsed.

Accordingly, barring any other legal impediment, that Office is hereby directed to reinstate
Mr./Ms (Last Name of Treasurer) to his/her regular position as Provincial/City/Municipal
Treasurer, (LGU). Moreover, accomplish and submit the Compliance Report thereto to the
Secretary, Department of Finance, and this Bureau, within three (3) days from receipt
hereof.

Strict compliance is enjoined.

 Annex G-3
Notice of Resolution/Decision with Proof of Service

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

Date:

FOR: (offense charged)

Mr./Ms (NAME OF TREASURER) 

Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer, LGU 

NOTICE OF RESOLUTION
Dear
Complaint on the (offense charged) against Mr./Ms (Name of Treasurer), (Position)

Mr./Ms_____________: 

Please take notice that a RESOLUTION of even date, copy enclosed, was rendered by the
Bureau of Local Government Finance in the above-entitled case, the original of which is on
file with this Office. 

Please acknowledge receipt hereof.

Thank you. 
 

Very truly yours, 

 
 
 
(NAME)
Executive Director
_________________________________________________________________________
___PROOF OF SERVICE

I have this day served upon Mr./Ms (Name of Parties), (Position), (Address), the herein
Resolution/Decision in the above cited case this ___ day of ____ 20__, at (place of service).

______________________________________

Signature over Printed Name of Serving Official

Received by:

_______________________
Signature over Printed Name
Date/Time_______________
 Annex G-4
Compliance Report with
Certifications for Submission with the OMB

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
Regional Office No. _
Address
Telefax Nos. _______, E-mail: ____________

COMPLIANCE REPORT

(Date)

RE: (case title), dated _______, and approved on _____________

FOR: (state the offense)

In compliance with the directive of the Executive Director, Bureau of Local

Government Finance, Manila, the following is the status of implementation of penalty
imposed against respondent:
Status of
Name of Penalty Implementation Date Penalty Reason for
Respondent Imposed Fully Not was Non-
Implement Implement Implemented Implementati
ed ed on

I hereby certify that I read the foregoing report and the contents therein are true and
correct on my own personal knowledge and authentic documents.

(NAME OF ED/RD)
Executive Director/Regional Director

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
DOF Bldg., BSP Complex, Roxas Blvd., 1000 Manila
 CERTIFICATION

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This to certify that on __________ this Office received a copy of the Decision dated
________rendered by the Office of the Ombudsman in (case number) entitled (“case
title,”) the dispositive portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, (quote the dispositive portion of the Decision verbatim)

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

On _____________________, a copy of the Decision was served upon respondent

(NAME OF RESPONDENT). Respondent commenced service of her penalty of (state the
penalty in the imposed) on ___________.

______________________
(DATE SERVED)
____________________________________

Name, Position/Designation and Signature

ED/RD
Executive Director/Regional Director

Annex H-1
Order to Appear for Settlement

RE: Complaint filed by (Name of Complainant), (personal circumstance, address/LGU)

against Mr./Ms (Name of Person Complained of), (position/designation), (LGU) for
(offense committed)
TO : COMPLAINANT
(Position)
(Address)

PERSON COMPLAINED OF
(position)
(address)

ORDER TO APPEAR FOR SETTLEMENT

Pursuant to Section 59, Rule 11 of the 2017 RACCS and in view of the willingness of the
person complained of to submit the complaint for settlement, the parties are hereby directed
to attend a settlement proceeding on (date) at (time). Venue will be at the
__________________.

SO ORDERED.

(Date). (Place of Issuance).

Special Investigator

Annex H-2
Order Terminating the Settlement Process

ABC
Assistant Municipal Treasurer
Allacapan, Cebu
Person Complained of.
x------------------ --x

Re: Complaint-Affidavit filed by DEF for alleged

Non-Payment of Just Debt

ORDER TERMINATING SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS

Pursuant to Section 60 (h), Rule 11 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service (2017 RACCS), the settlement proceedings in the abovementioned complaint is
hereby terminated for failure of the parties to reach a settlement agreement during the
proceedings conducted for the purpose, held on (date) at the Bureau of Local Government
Finance, Regional Office No. ___, ___________ City.

For this purpose, the investigation of the complaint shall continue pursuant to the
applicable provisions of the 2017 RACCS.

SO ORDERED.

(Date). (BLGF Address).

(NAME)
Special Investigator

Annex H-3
Compromise Agreement with Attestation

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT OF PARTIES

This Agreement is entered into this ____ of _____ 20__, in the ____________, Philippines,
by and between:

____________________, of legal age, Filipino, and residing at

__________________________, hereafter referred to as the COMPLAINANT.
;
 AND

____________________, of legal age, Filipino and residing at

__________________________, hereafter referred to as the PERSON COMPLAINED OF.

WITNESSETH, THAT:

WHEREAS, the complaint stemmed from the alleged non-payment of debt by the PERSON
COMPLAINED OF from the COMPLAINANT, which the PERSON COMPLAINED OF
acknowledged the existence of such indebtedness;

WHEREAS, in the comment the Person Complained of expressed the willingness to submit
the complaint for settlement;

WHEREAS, in an order dated ____, the parties were ordered to appear in a settlement
proceeding;

WHEREAS, after such dialogue and discussions, the parties mutually realized and deemed
it best and convenient to settle the case amicably;

WHEREAS, the parties agree to the following terms of settlement:

1.x x x;
2. (enumerate agreement/s);
3. x x x.

WHEREAS, this agreement was entered into by the parties voluntarily and without mistake,
fraud, violence, intimidation, undue influence or falsity of documents;

WHEREAS, the terms agreed upon are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order, or public policy;

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
herein established, the parties hereto agree as follows:

(copy the enumeration of agreements)

That in case of non-compliance by the Person Complained of with the compromise

agreement, the case may be reopened for investigation until its final determination.

Date:

____________________
Person Complained of
____________________
Complainant

ATTESTED BY:

_______________________
Special Investigator
 Annex H-4
Resolution/Decision Based on Compromise
Agreement (Provisional Dismissal)

(NAME OF PERSON COMPLAINED OF)

(Position/Designation)
(Municipality/City/Province)
Person Complained of,

Re: Non-Payment of Just Debt Promulgated: Date

x -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION BASED ON A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

For resolution is a Complaint filed in this Office on (date), by (Name of Complainant),

of legal age, single and a resident of (address), against (Name of the Person Complained of)
of same municipality for (Non-Payment of Just Debt).

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The complaint stemmed from the alleged non-payment of debt by the PERSON
COMPLAINED OF from the COMPLAINANT, which the PERSON COMPLAINED OF
acknowledged the existence of such indebtedness.

In the comment dated ______, the Person Complained of expressed the willingness to
submit the complaint for settlement. In an order dated ____, the parties were ordered to
appear in a settlement proceeding;

After such dialogue and discussions, the parties mutually realized and deemed it best and
convenient to settle the case amicably. As a result, the following agreements were made:

1.x x x;
2. (enumerate agreement/s);
3. x x x.

ISSUE

Whether or not the compromise agreement is valid.

FINDINGS
1. A perusal of the allegations in the complaint reveals that the issue is purely personal in
nature and no apparent injury to government can be had pursuant to Section 60 (B), Rule 11
of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS).

2. The terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties are as follows:

a.
b.
c.

3. The undersigned finds that the terms and conditions in the agreement in order and are
not contrary to law, rules, morals and public policy.Articles 2028 and 2032 of the New Civil
Code of the Philippines.

WHEREFORE, premises considered and pursuant to Rule 11, Sections 59 and 60, of
the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS), allowing
settlement and/or compromise of the offense charge, the same is hereby approved:

Further, the complaint is hereby provisionally DISMISSED subject to the compliance/

performance of the person complained of of his/her obligations in the compromise
agreement.

SO ORDERED.

(Date). (BLGF Address).

(NAME)
Regional Director/Executive
Director
 Annex H-5
Order for the Reopening of Investigation

Re: Complaint-Affidavit filed by DEF against ABC for alleged

Non-Payment of Just Debt

ORDER
(Reopening of Investigation)

In view of Section 60(i), Rule 11, of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service (2017 RACCS) and the non-compliance by Mr./Ms ABC of the terms and
agreements of the Compromise Agreement executed between the parties dated _____ and
provisionally dismissed under a Resolution dated ___________, the case is hereby
reopened for investigation until its final determination.

SO ORDERED.

(Date). (BLGF Address).

(NAME)
Special Investigator
 Annex H-6
Resolution: Final Dismissal of a Complaint
Based on a Compromise Agreement

Re: Complaint-Affidavit filed by DEF against ABC for alleged

Non-Payment of Just Debt

RESOLUTION
(Final Dismissal of Complaint Based on Compromise Agreement)

For final Resolution is the Complaint filed in this Office by Mr./Ms DEF against Mr./Ms
ABC for alleged Non-Payment of Just Debt.

Finding the allegations to be purely personal on the part of the private complainant
and the person complained of, and there is no injury on the part of the government, both
parties, upon instance of this Office, agreed for a settlement agreement of the complaint
pursuant to Rule 11 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
(RACCS). During the settlement proceedings called for the purpose on (date), both parties
agreed to settle the complaint amicably, and executed a Settlement Agreement dated
________, duly attested by (Name of SI). Thereafter, a Resolution dated _______ ordering
the provisional dismissal of the complaint pending compliance by both parties of the terms
and agreements as contained in the said Settlement Agreement.

In a letter dated _______ of (name of complainant), he/she informed this Office that
the total indebtedness of (insert amount) (Php______) has been fully settled in compliance
with the terms and agreements as contained in the settlement agreement previously
executed between the parties.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint filed by Mr./Ms DEF against

Mr./Ms ABC for Non-Payment of Just Debt is hereby dismissed with finality.

SO ORDERED.

(Date). (BLGF Address).

(NAME OF ED)
Executive Director
 Annex I-1a
Memorandum to RO for the Implementation of the
Resolution on Dropping from the Rolls

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

MEMORANDUM

FOR : (NAME)
Regional Director, BLGF Region

FROM : (NAME)
Executive Director

SUBJECT : Dropping from the Rolls of _______________________

DATE :

This pertains to the letter-request dated ________________, of ________________,

_________________, and the letter-concurrence dated _______________ of that Office,
recommending that __________________, ____________, ____________, be dropped
from the rolls due to her continuous absence from work since ____________, without an
approved leave of absence, as shown from the Certification dated _____________ by
____________, an act which is gross violation of the rules and regulations for the Civil
Service Commission.

Foregoing considered, and in accordance with Item 11.4.3 of the Department Special Order
(DSO) No. 001.2018, dated 09 November 2018, and after finding that there was indeed
gross violation of CSC rules and regulations committed by __________, it is informed that
she has been dropped from the rolls pursuant to Section 107 (a)(1), Rule 20 of the 2017
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS) effective
__________________.

Accordingly, that Office is hereby instructed to serve a copy of the Bureau’s notice of
dropping from the rolls, copy enclosed, to __________________ or to her nearest of kin.
Further, that Office is directed to coordinate with ____(LCE)______.

Report of action taken thereon within three (3) days from receipt hereof is requested.
 Annex I-1b
Letter to the Concerned Treasurer/
BLGF Personnel on the Dropping from the Rolls

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
th
8 Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

Mr./Ms ________________
(Position)______________
(Office)________________

NOTICE OF SEPARATION

Dear Mr./Ms _______________:

This has reference to your continuous absence from work as ____________, __________,
since _____________, without an approved leave of absence, as shown from the
Certification issued on _______________ by the _________________ an act which is a
gross violation of the rules and regulations of the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

Section 107 (a)(1), Rule 20 of the Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
(RACCS) provides, to wit: (dependent upon the grounds)

“Section 107. Grounds and Procedure for Dropping from the Rolls. Officers
and employees who are absent without approved leave, have unsatisfactory
or poor performance or have shown to be physically and mentally unfit to
perform their duties may be dropped from the rolls within thirty (30) days from
the time a ground therefor arises subject to the following procedures:

a. Absence without Approved Leave

1. An officer and employee who is continuously absent without official

leave (AWOL) for at least thirty (30) may be dropped from the rolls
without prior notice which shall take effect immediately. xxx”

Foregoing considered, and in accordance with Item 11.4.3 of the Department Special
Order (DSO) No. 001.2018, dated 09 November 2018, and considering your gross
violation of CSC rules and regulations committed, you are hereby DROPPED FROM
THE ROLLS pursuant to Section 107 (a)(1), Rule 20 of the 2017 RACCS effective
_________________.

(NAME)
Executive Director
 Annex I-1c
Letter to CSC of the Dropping from the Rolls

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

CHAIRPERSON (NAME)
Civil Service Commission
Batasan Hills, Quezon City 1126

Subject: Dropping from the Rolls of ___________________,

_______________________, __________________

Dear Chairperson _______________:

This has reference to the letter-request dated ________________, of ________________,

_________________, requesting that __________, ___________, same municipality, be
dropped from he rolls due to his/her continuous absence from work since ____________,
without an approved leave of absence, as shown from the Certification dated
_____________ by ____________, an act which is gross violation of the rules and
regulations for the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

Foregoing considered, and in accordance with Item 11.4.3 of the Department Special Order
(DSO) No. 001.2018, dated 09 November 2018, and after finding that there was indeed
gross violation of CSC rules and regulations committed by __________, it is informed that
she has been dropped from the rolls pursuant to Section 107 (a)(1), Rule 20 of the 2017
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS) effective
__________________.

Thank you

Very truly yours,

(NAME OF ED)
Executive Director

Sample Comment to CSC on Dropping from the Rolls

 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Constitution Hills, Quezon City

(NAME OF THE RESPONDENT)

Re: Dropping from the Rolls
(Appeal)
(Case #)
x--------------------x

COMMENT
(to Appeal Memorandum)

The undersigned respectfully submits the herein Comment to the Appeal

Memorandum filed by (Name of Counsel), on behalf of his/her client, Appellant (Name of
Respondent), (Position/Designation), Municipality of _________, (Province), praying that
herein Appellant be (statement of the prayer).

Specifically, Appellant alleges that:

1. The grounds relied upon by this Bureau in dropping Appellant from the rolls
finds no factual and legal basis; and

2. The dropping from the rolls of Appellant from the payroll is without due
process and constitutes constructive dismissal.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

It is a well settled rule that public office is a public trust. Public officers and
employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead
modest lives.3 Let it not be forgotten that this rule has been laid down by no less than our
Constitution to serve as a guide and standard to our civil servants.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The pertinent facts of the case are as follows:

1. 5 March 20154 – Mayor XYZ recommended to then OIC Regional Director

FGHIJ, BLGF Region X, that Appellant be dropped from the rolls due to her
continuous absence from work from 14 April 2014;

2. 7 December 20155 – Mayor XYZ made a follow-up relative to his

recommendation to drop Appellant from the rolls;

3
Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
4
Annex A
5
Annex B
 3. 11 January 20166 – Then OIC Regional Director FGHIJ, BLGF Region X,
submitted a Report dated 29 December 20157, relative to the continuous
absences of Appellant and recommended her dropping from the rolls;

4. 22 July 20168 – OIC Regional Director FGHIJ forwarded to the BLGF Central
Office the Certifications from the Office of the Municipal Treasurer 9 and Office of
the Municipal Assessor10, all of Municipality of BBBB, certifying that Appellant has
not reported to work since 14 April 2014;

5. 1 March 201711 – Subsequently, then OIC Regional Director KLMNO, BLGF

Region X, through an Indorsement, forwarded to the BLGF Central Office the
abovementioned Indorsement dated 22 July 2016 and the letter dated 11 January
2016 of Director KLMNO, relative to the recommendation of Mayor XYZ to drop
Appellant from the rolls;

6. 10 October 201712 – In view of the abovementioned recommendation of Mayor

XYZ and the Regional Directors of BLGF Region X, and the Certification of the
Office of the Human Resources Management of BBBB13 Appellant was ordered
dropped from the rolls by this Bureau;

7. 1 December 201714 – Appellant filed her Petition for Restoration to Full Duty
Status or Reinstatement in the Rolls alleging the issue of constructive dismissal
in the herein Appeal Memorandum; and

8. 18 February 201915 – This Bureau resolved to deny the Petition of Appellant for
want of jurisdiction and lack of merit.

Hence, this Appeal.

DISCUSSIONS/ARGUMENTS

I. Dropping from the Rolls Without Factual and Legal Basis

Appellant alleged that the grounds relied upon by this Bureau in dropping her from
the rolls due to Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) finds no factual and legal basis
because there was no proof that she voluntarily refused to work or abandoned her post citing
Commission on Appointments vs. Paler16 and Palmera vs. CSC17.

This Bureau maintains that the Order dropping Appellant from the rolls was with
factual basis and supported by documentary evidence. As clearly mentioned in the Order of
dropping and the Resolution to the Petition for Restoration to Full Duty Status or
6
Annex C
7
Annex D
8
Annex E
9
Annex F
10
Annex G
11
Annex H
12
Annex I
13
Annex J
14
Annex K
15
Annex L
16
G.R. No. 172623, March 3, 2010
17
G.R. No. 110168, August 04, 1994
Reinstatement in the Rolls of Appellant, she was dropped from the rolls upon the
recommendation of the local chief executive of the Municipality of BBBB, CCCC , and the
Regional Directors of BLGF Region X, who were in a position to determine the factual
circumstances of the situation, and certified by the Office of the Human Resources
Management of the said municipality, who, under the CSC rules, is duty-bound to monitor
employee attendance, and the Municipal Treasurer and Assessor thereat, under whom
Appellant was assigned/detailed.

Moreover, said Order dropping Appellant from the rolls was with legal basis. As
stated in the said Order, Appellant was dropped from the rolls pursuant to Section 93 (a) of
the CSC Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), to wit:

“xxx… An officer or employee who is continuously absent without

official leave (AWOL) for a least thirty (30) working days shall be
separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior
notice. xxx.”

Further, Appellant averred that to constitute AWOL, the absence must be

unjustified, and abandonment must be proved. However, the abovementioned CSC rules
merely provides that officers or employees without approved leave may be dropped from the
rolls which shall take effect immediately. In the case of Appellant, NO approved leave of
absence (LOA) was presented that would controvert the fact of AWOL.

Likewise, Appellant asserted that she was declared AWOL without proof of refusal or
abandonment of work. For emphasis, nowhere in the Order of dropping did this Bureau claim
that Appellant was dropped from the rolls because of refusal to work or abandonment;
hence, it has obligation to adduce proof to said effect. It is, thus, incumbent upon the
Appellant to adduce evidence to support her allegation of non-refusal and abandonment of
work.18

Furthermore, the cases cited by the Appellant are not applicable to the instant case.
Paler v. CSC is not on all fours with the Appellant’s case considering that Paler was able to
prove that he filed LOAs, only that it was unacted and disapproved. On the other hand, other
than mere assertion of rejected or refused applications, Appellant was not able to adduce
evidence that indeed she filed LOAs, whether the same were unacted or disapproved.
Neither is Palmera vs. CSC applicable, as the case pertains to alleged abandonment due to
acceptance of temporary assignment and not due to dropping from the rolls.

II. Dropping from the Payrolls of Appellant is Without Due Process

and Constitutes Constructive Dismissal

The issue of dropping from the payrolls of the Appellant is within the responsibility
of the Office of the Human Resource Management, and the Offices of the Municipal
Treasurer and Assessor of BBBB, CCCC, under whom the Appellant was assigned/detailed.
Hence, Appellant should have timely contested her alleged dropping from the payrolls
without due process before said officers. Appellant cannot now question the same after
several years from being dropped from the payrolls.

Moreover, as stated in the facts of the case, the allegation of constructive dismissal
was discussed in this Bureau’s Resolution on the Petition for Restoration to Full Duty Status
or Reinstatement in the Rolls filed by the Appellant. We quote:

18
Marcelo v. Bungubung, G.R. No. 175201, April 23, 2008
 “xxx…Constructive Dismissal

xxx… In her Petition, the arguments presented by Marcial are factual in

nature which she failed to sufficiently substantiate with evidence. She
averred that she was the subject of demeaning actuations and constant
abuse, and was prevented from reporting to office which amount to her
constructive dismissal.

Constructive dismissal is defined as a cessation of work because continued

employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely. Similarly, there
is constructive dismissal when an employer's act of clear discrimination,
insensibility or disdain becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee
so as to foreclose any choice unbearable on the part of the employee so as
to foreclose any choice on his part except to resign from such employment.
The standard for constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the
employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his employment
under the circumstances.

In the present case, ABCDE was continuously absent from work without
official leave since 14 April 2014, as shown from the Certification issued on
26 May 2017 by the Office of the Human Resources Management of the
Municipality. These facts and evidence do not establish a case that ABCDE
was unreasonably dismissed from employment. Aside from mere assertion,
she failed to adduce corroborative and competent evidence to
substantiate her conclusion that she was constructively dismissed.
Thence, in the absence of any showing of an overt or positive act
proving her constructive dismissal, ABCDE’s claim cannot be sustained
as the same would be self-serving and of no probative value. xxx.”
(emphasis supplied)

Consequently, constructive dismissal not being proved, a discussion on the issue of

reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and with full back wages and other monetary
benefits due the Appellant is no longer necessary.

PRAYER

Premises considered, the undersigned respectfully prays that the Honorable

Commission DENY the herein Appeal and declare the dropping from the rolls of Appellant
________ in order.

Manila City, Philippines, (Date of signing).

Executive Director
Bureau of Local Government Finance

EXPLANATION
 (Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13, New Rules of Civil Procedure)

The foregoing Comment is being served by registered mail, personal service not
being practicable due to lack or courier service.

Executive Director
Bureau of Local Government Finance

Cc: NAME OF COUNSEL

Office Address
 Annex I-2
Resolution on Protests

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

Name of the Protestee

Position
Office

Re: Protest on the Promotional Appointment

to the Position of _____________, ____________
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

This RESOLVES the letter-protest dated ___________, filed by _____________,

(position), (office), against the promotional appointment of ____________________, as
_______________. The appointment was issued on _________ and _(protestee)_______
assumed the functions of the position on ____________.

In support of the protest, ________ alleges the following:

1. ___________________________________

2. ___________________________________

Considering the attendant facts and applicable CSC rules, the herein protest is not
impressed with merit.

Requisites of a valid protest

Section 8919, Rule 18 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
(RACCS) provides the two requisites of a valid protest, to wit:

1. only a qualified next-in-rank official or employee may file a protest; and

2. the protest must be filed against an appointment made in favor of

another who does not possess the minimum qualification requirements.

(Discussions)

19
Section 89. Protest; Who May File. Only a qualified next-in-rank official or employee may file a protest against an
appointment made in favor of another who does not possess the minimum qualification requirements.
 WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the herein protest is
____________________

Copies of this Resolution shall be furnished the (office of the protestee and
protestant), for reference and appropriate action.

(date of signing), Bureau of Local Government Finance, Manila, Philippines.

(NAME OF ED)
Executive Director

Copy furnished:

LCE/RD
Office
email

Protestant
Office
email

Protestee
Office
email

SOF
Department of Finance, Manila
via (email)

ANNEX J
Motion for Extension of Time

(Name of the Person Charged)

Re:
(Appeal)
x-----------------------x

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE COMMENT

 Undersigned, in his/her capacity as the Executive Director of the Bureau of Local
Government Finance (BLGF), unto this Honorable Office, respectfully requests that it be
given an extension of time to file Comment.

On (date of receipt), this Bureau, through its Records Division, received a copy of
the Order dated 05 April 2019 from that Honorable Office, directing the filing of Comment
within five (5) days from receipt thereof, or until (date/deadline).

For lack material time due to pressures of equally pressing engagements, and in
order that the undersigned may be able to present an intelligent answer on the allegations in
the appeal, it is most respectfully requested that he be given an extension of (number of
days for extension) days, or until (last day of extension date), to submit the required
Comment.

This request is not intended to delay the efficient administration of justice and is
executed in the interest of the service.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, undersigned set his hand this (date of

signing/preparation of the pleading) at Manila, Philippines.

(NAME)
Executive Director
Bureau of Local Government
Finance

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13, New Rules of Civil Procedure)

The foregoing Motion is being served by registered mail, personal service

not being practicable due to lack of courier service.

(NAME)
Executive Director

ANNEX K
Letter Seeking Assistance of OSG
Date

Solicitor General
Office of the Solicitor General
134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village
Makati City

RE: Case Title

Dear Solicitor General (LAST NAME OF SG):

This is in reference to our letter dated _________, respectfully requesting legal

representation from your Office in relation to the above-cited case.

In this connection, we are transmitting the following pertinent documents for your reference,
to wit:

1. Notice of Resolution in (Case Number) dated __________ rendered by the Court

of Appeals (Special ___ Division);

2. Manifestation with Urgent Reiterative Motion for Issuance of Writ of

Preliminary Injunction in (Case Number) dated _________ filed by Counsel for
Petitioners; and

3. Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration with Compliance and Motion to Drop

Public Respondents in (Case Number) dated ___________ filed by Counsel for
Petitioners.

Thank you for your kind attention and continued support.

Very truly yours,

(NAME)
Executive Director
XXX
Municipal Treasurer
Malilipot, Albay
Person Complained of.
x------------------ --x

Re: Negligence in the Handling of Government Funds, Resulting in the Loss of PhP
1,625,000.00, through Robbery/Hold-Up

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION REPORT

I. PRELIMINARIES

This is a motu proprio fact finding/preliminary investigation against XXX, Municipal Treasurer
of Malilipot, Albay, for possible negligence as initially represented by the Commission on
Audit (COA) in the handling of government funds that resulted in the loss through robbery of
government funds amounting to P1,625,000.00, one unit Bersa Pistol Caliber .380 valued at
P22,000.00, and one unit Caliber .45 pistol valued at P20,000. Likewise, this is in
compliance with the directive of the Executive Director of the Bureau of Local Government
Finance (BLGF) under a Memorandum dated 02 April 2018, directing this Office to conduct
preliminary investigation on the said possible negligence of Treasurer XXX and file the
corresponding formal charge should a prima facie case exists. On the other hand, a
RESOLUTION thereon should be prepared in the absence of a prima facie case. Further,
this resolution aims to address the request of Treasurer XXX to reassume her regular duties
and functions as the duly appointed Municipal Treasurer of said municipality.

II. FACTS OF THE CASE/BACKGROUNDER

The facts of the case based on records, disclosed that sometime in October 28,
2003, Treasurer XXX while returning back to Malilipot, Albay and in possession of public
money withdrawn from Land Bank of the Philippines, City of Legazpi branch, was a victim of
a robbery/hold up committed along the remote and isolated area of Barangay San Jose,
Malilipot, Albay, resulting in the loss of the aforementioned government funds and
properties.

On November 27, 2003, Ms. XXX requested for relief from accountability thru COA
Regional Office No. 02. The then Municipal Mayor favorably recommended the request citing
that she was not negligent in performing her duties as demanded by the circumstances,
before, during and after the incident. On the other hand, the Audit Team Leader
recommended that the said request be granted as it was shown that she was not negligent
in the care and custody of the funds and property under her accountabilities. Likewise, the
Regional Cluster Director, Sub-cluster II, Local Government Sector (LGS), and the Legal and
Adjudication Sector (LAS) concurred to the recommendation and further stated that police
reports disclosing the arrest of the principal culprit show that the subject funds and property
were indeed lost due to the robbery incident.

However, in a Decision promulgated by the Adjudication and Settlement Board on

January 3, 2011, said request was denied for lack of merit. Treasurer XXX then seasonably
filed a Petition for Review to the Decision. In a Decision issued by COA dated November 27,
2015, the same was likewise denied and affirmed its previous decision (with Dissenting
Opinion). On April 29, 2016, Treasurer XXX thru registered mail seasonably filed a Motion
for Reconsideration to the Decision reiterating, among others, that she exercised due
diligence in the handling of government funds.

Pending result of the investigation then being conducted by the Philippine National
Police to the incident, Treasurer XXX was temporarily relieved as Municipal Treasurer upon
recommendation of the Municipal Mayor and designated as OIC Municipal Accountant,
consequently, as OIC Municipal Civil Registrar since CY 2004, until the incumbent Municipal
Mayor requested that her designation as OIC Municipal Registrar be revoked.

In view of such request, this Office ordered Treasurer XXX to report to the Office of the
Municipal Treasurer, but not performing her duties and functions as such, pending resolution
of her motion for reconsideration.

III. ACTIONS TAKEN

Pursuant to the directive of the Bureau under the aforementioned memorandum, this
Office issued an Order directing XXX to submit Comment/Counter-Affidavit under oath
together with documentary evidences, if any, why she should not be charged
administratively for Neglect of Duty as a result of the loss of government funds amounting to
PhP1,625,000.00, through robbery hold-up.

In compliance thereto, XXX submitted her sworn affidavit dated 31 January 2019,
asserting that she is not negligent in performing her duties as demanded by the
circumstances before, during and after the incident. Likewise, XXX adopted her arguments
and defenses in her Motion for Reconsideration dated 23 April 2016. This Office opted not to
belabor discussing in detail the defenses offered by XXX in her Affidavit and Motion for
Reconsideration being mooted and overtaken by circumstances as discussed below.

Finally, in a letter dated March 18, 2020 of Treasurer XXX, received by this Office on
May 27, 2020, she requested anew to reassume her regular duties and functions as the duly
appointed Municipal Treasurer of said municipality, asserting absence of legal impediment
thereto, citing as basis a copy of an en banc Resolution dated January 14, 2020 of the
Commission on Audit, granting her Motion for Reconsideration to be relieved from
accountability of government funds, the dispositive portion reads, as follows:

“xxx WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration of Ms.

XXX, Municipal Treasurer, Municipal Government of Malilipot, Albay, of Commission on
Audit (COA) Decision No. 2015-365 dated November 27, 2015, which affirmed (COA)
Adjudication and Settlement Board Decision No. 2011-003 dated January 3, 2011 denying
the request for relief from accountability for the loss, through robbery of government funds
amounting to P1,625,000.00, one unit Bersa Pistol Caliber .380 valued at P22,000.00, and
one unit Caliber .45 pistol valued at P20,000.00, is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, Ms.
XXX is relieved from liability for the loss of government funds amounting to P1,625,000.00,
one unit Bersa Pistol Caliber .380 with Serial No. 548856 valued at P22,000.00. Likewise,
Mr. Felipe G. Guzman, Security Escort, is also relieved from liability for the loss of one unit
Caliber .45 pistol with Serial No. 194051 issued by the Intelligence Service of the Armed
forces of the Philippines and valued at P20,000.00. xxx”

The Resolution further states, that:

“xxx “Thus, it is with more reason that Movant XXX should be relieved from liability
because she clearly exercises greater diligence. Likewise, the fact of the robbery was also
duly established to the end that one of the assailants was identified, arrested, and charged
with the crime of robbery”.
 IV. RECOMMENDATION

In view of the prevailing circumstances, this Office respectfully recommends not to

pursue the filing of administrative complaint against Treasurer XXX there being no sufficient
prima facie case established, neither proof of negligence on her part having exercised
greater diligence in the handling of government funds based on the attending circumstances,
as well as defenses and arguments recounted in her Affidavit dated 31 January 2019, and
Motion for Reconsideration dated 23 April 2016, adopted and forms part of this resolution.
Her lack of negligence was further confirmed and strengthened by the Resolution of the
Commission on Audit granting her Motion for Reconsideration to be relieved from
accountability for the loss, through robbery of government funds and properties.
Consequently, her request to reassume her regular duties and functions as the duly
appointed regular Municipal Treasurer of Malilipot, Albay is likewise, recommended
favorable consideration.

June 10, 2020.

(NAME)
Special Investigator
 Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004
Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  central@blgf.gov.ph  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

DOF,
Complainant,

FOR: SIMPLE DISCOURTESY IN THE

- versus - COURSE
OF OFFICIAL DUTIES

XXXXX
City Treasurer
Dapitan City
Respondent
x------------------ --x

FORMAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

I.
PREFATORY STATEMENTS

The instant case stemmed from the Complaint-Affidavit of YYYY, resident of Dapitan
City and employee of the City Government of Dapitan as Local Treasury Operations Officer
III, under the Office of the City Treasurer, against XXXXX, the incumbent City Treasurer of
said City for Grave Misconduct, Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties, Oppression and
Grave Oral Defamation/Slander. As alleged, both complainants are under the supervision of
respondent XXXXX.

The complaint dated August 12, 2016, was initially filed in this Office, copy of which
was furnished to the Office of the City Mayor, Dapitan City, Regional Director, Civil Service
Commission, Regional Director, Bureau of Local Government Finance and Office of the
Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, Davao City. Upon receipt of the complaint, the same was
referred to XXXXX with a directive to submit Comment/Counter-Affidavit thereto.

Unknowingly, intervening event ensued, wherein the Office of the City Mayor took
cognizance of the case. As such, the city government thru the Personnel Investigation
Committee (PIC) conducted preliminary hearings and conferences and issued a resolution
finding prima facie evidence to file formal charge against respondent for Simple Misconduct.
However, during the preliminary mandatory conference of the formal investigation, the issue
on jurisdiction over the person of XXXXX was raised. Hence, XXXXX, being a City Treasurer
and upon instance of this Office, the complaint was referred to this Office for appropriate
action pursuant to Section 471 of the Local Government Code and existing laws and
jurisprudence.

In another occurrence, this Office was furnished with a copy of Notice of Conference
issued by BBBBB, Acting Director, Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office-
Mindanaon of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, Davao City, directing the
parties to attend a scheduled conference before a certain WWWW of the Office of the
Ombudsman for Mindanao last February 24, 2017.

Anxious of the situation and entertaining the possibility that the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Mindanao might have taken cognizance of the case, this Office was
prompted to seek information as to its status in so far as the Office of the Ombudsman is
concerned and to serve as guidance in initiating appropriate further action over the
complaint.

In the letter-reply dated July 25, 2017, of VVVVV, Chief Administrative Officer,
Records Division, Case Records Evaluation Monitoring and Enforcement Bureau
(CREMEB), she informed that the complaint is already closed and terminated. Prior,
however, to the receipt of the said letter, a representative of the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon called the region thru phone informing that the conference was
intended to assist the parties to agree amicably and not to take cognizance of the case for a
full blown investigation. She then advised this Office to proceed with the investigation of the
case since both parties have not reached a settlement agreement.

Thus, this Office proceeded with the conduct of preliminary/fact-finding investigation

over the complaint to determine the existence of a prima facie case. Thereafter, a Report of
Investigation was furnished to the Bureau recommending for the filing of formal charge
against XXXXX for Simple Discourtesy in the Performance of Official Duties.
Correspondingly, this Office was directed by the Bureau in its 2 nd Indorsement dated 22
February 2018 to file the appropriate formal charge.

Respondent XXXXX in a letter dated April 10, 2018 then filed his answer adopting his
previously submitted Sinumpaang Salaysay and Sinumpaang Salaysay of his witness, Mrs.
NNNN. Further, XXXXX elected not to have a formal investigation and opted not to have a
counsel. As such, this Office proceeded with the ex parte evaluation of the case based on
the documents on record.

II
STATEMENT OF FACTS

That on August 12, 2016 at around 8:45 in the morning at the Office of the City
Treasurer, complainants, together with two other employees were invited by ZZZZ to take
some snacks and eat for a while before proceeding to their respective designations in the
market. The invitation of ZZZZ is a way of commending the good performance in the license
and stall section personnel and that she will go on leave of absence. XXXXX, the head of the
unit was also present at that time because everyone is free to join the short get together,
since it is also a supposed surprise celebration of one of their officemates.

That while the complainants were busy preparing foods, they were talking and
laughing which according to them is natural and done in a cordial manner being aware that
they are in a public office.

That when they are about to take the food, suddenly, their head, XXXXX, in an
extremely loud voice shout at the complainants saying “Okinnayo! Nagtatagari kayo!
Kasla kayo lang nga baboy! Okinnayo! Ar-aramiden yo nga kasla beerhouse!
Okinnayo! Nu kayat yo, agdidinnanugan tayo!!!” (Putang Ina! Ang iingay niyo! Para
kayong mga baboy! Putang Ina niyo! Ginagawa niyong parang beerhouse! Putang Ina niyo!
Kung gusto niyo, magsusuntukan tayo!!!)
 III
COMPLAINANTS ALLEGATIONS

The words (XXXXX) were clearly directed to the complainants because he was
looking at them while shouting the alleged defamatory/slanderous words. XXXXX even took
an eye to eye contact with QRSTU while angrily shouting at them;

Complainants were shocked by such undesirable and animal like behavior that
XXXXX had shown;

XXXXX’s utterances were heard by everyone in the office and he was clearly
prompted not by sense of moral duty but by personal ill-will, spite, and/or malice with the
object of discrediting and ridiculing the complainants as individuals before the bar of public
opinion and contempt;

That after such incident, complainants observed that their head, XXXXX on his way
in going out of the office was even proudly telling the people outside about what he just said;

Complainant was so devastated and distressed that very moment, that they can no
longer enjoy the meals they are supposed to take;

The ill-effects of the malicious utterances made by XXXXX against the complainants
are shown by negative responses around them, expressing belief in his baseless allegations
as shameful, heinous, and unequivocally barbaric-all to the damage and prejudice of the
complainants;

That by reason of the incident, complainants suffered sleepless nights, wounded

feelings, moral and social embarrassment which XXXXX should compensate by way of
damages;

That XXXXX should be charged criminally for violation of Article 353 in relation to
Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines or for GRAVE ORAL
DEFAMATION/SLANDER in the proper forum;

That XXXXX be also administratively charged for GRAVE MISCONDUCT,

DISCOURTESY IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES, and OPPRESSION.

No documentary evidences submitted by the Complainants.

IV
PERSON COMPLAINED OF DEFENSES

XXXXX in his “Respectful Submission” dated October 3, 2016, in compliance with the
Order of this Office, manifested that his “Sinumpaaang-Kontra Salaysay” previously
submitted to the Personnel Investigation Committee be likewise adopted by this Office as his
Comment/Counter-Affidavit, wherein he raised the following defenses (Quoted in Filipino):

“x x x

3. Aking mariing itinatanggi and mga paratang sa akin ni YYYYY sa kanyang

Complaint-Affidavit dahil walang katotohanan, pawang mga kathang isip lamang at
walang basehan ang mga ito;

4. Ang katotohanan ay ang mga sumusunod:

e. Noong ika-12 ng August taong 2016 dakong ika-walo at Apatnapu’t lima
(8:45) ng umaga at oras pa ng regular na pag-oopisina. Dahil oras ito ng
trabaho noong oras na iyon tinatapos ko and isang Communication Letter
at inihahabol ko itong tapusin sa kadahilanang deadline na ito noong
araw na iyon;

f. Dahil oras pa ng trabaho noon ay nagulat ako ng biglang maglabas ng

pagkain and grupo ng mga nagrereklamo na sina YYYYY at QRSTU at
dalawa pa nilang kasamahan. At kahit hindi pa oras ng meryenda ay
kumain sila sa loob ng opisina at maingay pa sila habang kumakain;

g. Napilitan akong punahin ang kanilang ginagawa dahil sa mali ito sa lahat
ng anggulo at oras pa mandin ito ng trabaho at higit sa lahat ay
nagdudulot ng ingay na nakakaperwisyo sa ibang mga empleyado ng
treasurer’s office na abalang-abala sa kanilang mga trabaho dahil sila ay
nagtatawanan na parang wala silang kasamang tao sa opisina ng ingat-
yaman;

h. Pinagsabihan ko sila sa maayos na paraan upang itigil ang kanilang

pagkain at pag-iingay ng wala sa tamang oras bilang nakakataas sa
kanila at para na din hindi na ako lalo pang mairita ako ay kusa na lang
lumabas ng opisina upang ibaling ang aking atensyon sa ibang bagay;

5. Kung babasahing mabuti and Complaint-Affidavit na ginawa ng mga

nagrereklamo ay madaling mapapansin ang pag-amin ng mga
nagrereklamo na naganap ang insidenteng kanilang inerereklamo ng 8:45
ng umaga, sa oras pa ng trabaho. Ang pinipunto ko lang naman dito ay
ang pagkakaroon ng salo-salo hindi naman talaga lubusang
pinagbabawal subalit dapat ito ay nasa tamang oras at lugar. Dapat ay
isina-alang-alang din ng mga nagrereklamo na sila ay public servant at
ang kanilang sinusweldo ay galing sa buwis na binabayad ng mga tao.
Kaya sila ay dapat nagtatrabaho sa oras ng trabaho at hindi sila dapat
kumakain o nagiingay sa oras ng regular na trabaho;

6. Hindi din totoo na ang ginawa nilang salo-salo noong ika-12 ng Agosto
2016 na isang “surprise celebration” para sa kaarawan ni Luningning
Pobre dahil ang kanyang kaarawan ay August 13, 2016 pa;

7. Sinasabi din nila sa kanilang Complaint-Affidavit na ako ay nanggagalaiti

sa galit, may mapangahas na itsura at sila ay aking sinigawan ay pawang
mga gawa-gawa, kathang isip lamang at pagmamalabis ng mga totoong
nagyari ng mga nagrereklamo dahil mahinahon kong pinuna ang kanilang
ginagawa noong mga oras na iyon. Pinuna ko ang kanilang mga gawain
na hindi karapat dapat dahil ito ay nakakaabala sa akin at sa aking mga
katrabaho. Ang aking pagpuna ay hindi nadirekta lamang sa mga
nagrereklamo at ito ay para sa pangkalahatan wala man lang akong
binanggit na pangalan noong pinuna ko ang kanilang maling ginawa;

8. Wala ding katotohanan na narinig ng mga ibang empleyado sa aming

opisina ang ginawa kong pagpuna sa kanilang ginawa dahil mahinahon ko
lang itong sinabi sa kanila. Mapapatunayan ito ng Sinumpaang Salaysay
ni Ginang Elenita Cabrito na aking ka-opisina na nandoon din noong
nangyari ang sinasabi nilang insidente. Bagkus, ang nagrereklamong si
YYYYY pa nga ang nagsalita ng masasamang bagay tungkol sa akin
noong ako ay palabas ng aming opisina para magpalipas ng aking
 pagkairita sa kanilang ginagawa at narinig mismo ito ni Ginang Elenita
Cabrito. Aking ilalakip dito sa aking Sinumpaang Kontra-Salaysay at
mamarkahan ang kopya ng Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Elenita Cabrito
bilang Annex-“1”;

9. Ginawa ko lang ang nararapat, ang punahin ang mga bagay na hindi
maganda sa paningin ng ibang tao lalo na at nasa sekto ng pampublikong
serbisyo ang aming trabaho. Kung hindi ko sila pupunahin, makikita ito ng
mga mamamayan ng Lungsod ng Santiago na may transaksyon sa aming
opisina noong mga oras na iyon. Alam naman natin lahat na ang mga
opisina sa City Hall ay naka salamin lang at kitang kita ng taongbayan ang
mga ginagawa ng mga empleyado sa loob. Isa pa, karapatan ko din silang
punahin bilang City Treasurer for Operations ng Opisina ng Panglungsod
na Ingat-Yaman;

10. Wala din akong nakikitang Grave Misconduct at Discourtesy in the

Course of Official Duties sa aking ginawang pagpuna sa kanilang pag-
iingay at pagkain sa loob ng opisina sa oras ng trabaho dahil isa ito sa
aking tungkulin dahil noon pa man ay may direkta na ang Human
Resource Department ng Lungsod ng Santiago na ipinagbabawal ang
pagkain sa loob ng opisina tuwing oras ng trabaho. Higit sa lahat,
walang oppression sa aking mga ginawa dahil ginawa ko lang ang aking
trabaho na punahin ang hindi tamang ginagawa ng mga nagrereklamo;

11. Bilang isang empleyado ng Gobyerno alam ko ang mga bagay na hindi
ginagawa na makakamali sa aking trabaho. Ako ay magtatalumput-
tatlong (33) taon na sa serbisyo publiko at wala akong inagrabyadong
tao sa tagal ko sa serbisyo. Ito and unang reklamo na aking sasagutin
patungkol sa aking trabaho. Wala akong sinaktang damdamin, kung
meron man wala akong intensiyon na makasakit ng kapwa ko;

12. Kung nakapagmura man ako ng Putang-ina gaya ng sinasabi nila sa

kanilang Complaint-Affidavit, hindi din naman ito papasok ng Grave Oral
Defamation/Slander dahil matagal na panahon na nadesisyunan ng Korte
Suprema noong taong 1969 sa kasong Reyes vs. People. G.R. Nos.
21528 and L-21529, March 28, 1969 na kung saan sinasabi dito na ang
“putang-ina mo” ay napaka komon na salita na hindi ginagamit sa paraan
ng paninira ng puri kundi isa lamang itong expresyon ng galit at
pagkayamot. Sa katunayan, ito ay masamang salita na pang diin lamang
sa expresyon ng kalapastanganan. Ang Aktuwal na desisyon ng Korte
Suprema ay ganito ang sinasabi”, “We ruled that the expression
putang ina mo is a common enough utterance in the dialect that is
often employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger or
displeasure. In fact, more often, it is just an expletive that
punctuates ones expression of profanity”.

13. Kaya kung mararapatin ng Opisina ng Personnel Investigation Committee

ay dapat dismissin na sana ang kanilang reklamong “Grave Misconduct,
Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties, Oppression and Gravel Oral
Defamation/Slander” dahil wala itong basehan, mapa batas man o
desisyon ng Korte Suprema. Ginawa ko lang aking trabaho ng matapat at
naayon sa aking mga tungkulin bilang Assistant City Treasurer for
Operations na pigilan o punahin ang kanilang maling ginagawa sa oras
ng trabaho.
 x x x”

Respondent submitted as documentary evidence the “Sinumpaang

Kontra-Salaysay” of Mrs. Elenita Cabrito.

V.
ISSUE

A perusal of the records of the case would reveal that the issue to be resolved are
the alleged acts and utterances made by XXXXX, the herein person complained of.

Thus, stated otherwise: Whether or not the herein person complained of

committed the administrative offense Simple Discourtesy in the Course of Official
Duties?

VI.
FINDINGS

At the outset, it must be clarified that this Office could not take cognizance of the
criminal and civil liability of the person complained of, the same being vested and under the
jurisdiction of regular courts.

With regards, however, to the administrative offense of “Discourtesy in the Course of

Official Duties”, while it is true that XXXXX is the City Treasurer for Operations and
exercising, to a certain extent, administrative supervision over the complainants, such is not
a license to make unwanted utterances over them, the Supreme Court in the case
of Domingo v. Quimson (G.R. No. L-34081 August 19, 1982), held, that:

“x x x Holding an esteemed position is never a license to act

capriciously with impunity. The fact that there was a squabble between
petitioner and complainant, both high-ranking local public officials, that a
verbal brawl ostensibly took place, speaks very poorly of their self-control and
public relations. For this, they both deserve to be censured and directed to
conduct themselves in a more composed manner and keep their pose as
befits ranking officials who officially deal with the public x x x”.

In another case, the high court ruled that:

“x x x As a public officer, respondent is bound, in the performance of

her official duties, to observe courtesy, civility, and self-restraint in her
dealings with the public. Above all, the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees directs all public officials to
extend prompt, courteous, and adequate service to the public, and at all times
to respect the rights of others and refrain from doing acts contrary to law,
good morals, good customs, public order, public policy, public safety, and
public interest.

To be worthy of respect, one must act respectably, remembering

always that courtesy begets courtesy. (Punzalan-Santos v. Arquiza, 244
SCRA 527 (1995).
 This Office agree with the Respondent that the expression “Putang-Ina mo” was not
held to be libelous where the Court said that: This is a common enough expression in the
dialect that is often employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger or
displeasure.
However, and in light of the fact that there was a perceived provocation coming from
complainants, respondent’s acts and utterances constitutes simple discourtesy, following the
afore cited case of Reyes vs. People.

VII.
RECOMMENDATION

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that a DECISION be issued finding

respondent XXXXX guilty of the offense of Simple Discourtesy in the Course of Official
Duties and the penalty of REPRIMAND be imposed being his first offense.

January 28, 2019.

NAME
Hearing Officer