Epa Assigment Feb13 Case Digests
Epa Assigment Feb13 Case Digests
Compiled by MC Paloma 1
EPA ASSIGNMENT #1 – CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. ANICIA MARQUEZ | 2020
Officer of Baao, Camarines Sur, was appointed hearing of the application for preliminary injunction.
Officer?in-Charge of the Municipal Budget Office of Pili. Mancita filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
He was later replaced by Francisco Deocareza, the trial court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter. Her
former Budget Officer of Naga City, in the same motion was denied. Mancita then filed a special civil
capacity.[5] action for certiorari under Rule 65 before this Court
questioning the denial of her motion. Through Mr.
On 1 October 1991, petitioner Alexis D. San Luis, Justice Teodoro R. Padilla we granted the petition and
Cashier II of the Department of Environment and Natural held that the lower court had no jurisdiction over the case
Resources (DENR), was temporarily appointed since all decisions, orders and resolutions of the Civil
Municipal Budget Officer of Pili by Secretary Guillermo Service Commission were subject to review only by this
N. Carague of the Department of Budget and Court on certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Management. When control over the Local Government Court.[11]
Officers Services was returned to the local government
units by virtue of the Local Government Code of 1991 While the petition of Mancita was pending with us,
(R.A. 7160 as implemented by E.O. 503), San Luis was Nacario sent a query to public respondent Commission
reappointed to the same position on 22 June 1992, this asking about her status as a permanent employee of the
time in a permanent capacity, by petitioner Delfin N. Municipality of Pili after she had accepted the position of
Divinagracia, Mayor of Pili.[6] MPDC. In a letter dated 8 December 1992 public
respondent opined that the reinstatement of Mancita to
San Luis started in the career civil service in 1977 as a the position of MPDC was not a valid cause for Nacario's
casual clerk in the DENR, rising from the ranks until he termination, and since she was the former Municipal
was appointed Cashier II based in Legaspi City, the Budget Officer she had the right to return to that
position he was holding when appointed Municipal position.[12]
Budget Officer of Pili.[7]
On 15 March 1993 Mayor Divinagracia wrote to CSC
Meanwhile, Mancita appealed her termination to the Chairperson Patricia A. Sto. Tomas seeking a
Merit Systems and Protection Board (MSPB).[8] On 20 reconsideration of her opinion of 8 December 1992.
June 1989 the MSPB declared her separation from the Mayor Divinagracia explained the factual circumstances
service illegal, holding that the Office of the Municipal behind the ouster of Mancita and the resulting
Development Coordinator was abolished by the Local appointment of Nacario to the position of MPDC, arguing
Government Code of 1991 and not by the reorganization that San Luis was validly appointed by the Secretary of
of the Municipality of Pili as claimed by Mayor Prila. the Budget and confirmed by the CSC, hence, entitled to
According to the MSPB, Mancita was in fact qualified for security of tenure.[13]
the newly-created position of MPDC since the powers
and duties of the two positions were essentially the On 27 May 1993 public respondent issued CSC
same. The MSPB ordered Mayor Divinagracia to Resolution No. 93-1996 denying the request of Mayor
reinstate Mancita to the position of MPDC or to an Divinagracia for a reconsideration. Upholding Nacario's
equivalent position, and to pay her backwages from the right to security of tenure the CSC held that the
date of her separation.[9] The decision of MSPB was reinstatement of Mancita to the position of MPDC could
appealed by Mayor Divinagracia to the Civil Service not be a valid cause for the termination of Nacario.
Commission but the appeal was dismissed on 16 July Public respondent relied on Sec. 13, Rule VI, of the
1990 per CSC Resolution No. 90-657.[10] On 15 October Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292,
1990, Mayor Divinagracia informed private respondent, otherwise known as the Revised Administrative Code of
Nacario that she was being relieved of her position as 1978 in directing the restoration of Nacario to her former
MPDC effective 16 November 1990 in order to comply position. Sec. 13 mandates the return of an appointee, in
with the MSPB decision to reinstate Mancita as MPDC. a chain of promotions, to his former position once his
appointment is subsequently disapproved.
On 8 November 1990 private respondent Prescilla B.
Nacario filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief and Petitioners have come to us for relief praying that CSC
Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction with the Regional Resolution No. 93-1996 be nullified for having been
Trial Court of Pili, Br. 31, docketed as Civil Case No. P- issued with grave abuse of discretion. On 5 October
17819, against CSC Chairperson Patricia A. Sto. Tomas, 1993, upon motion of petitioners, this Court issued a
Mayor Delfin N. Divinagracia, Jr., Elium Banda, Regional status quo ante order enjoining the enforcement of the
Director of CSC in Region 5, and Filomena R. Mancita, questioned CSC order.[14] Petitioners contend that Sec.
praying for the annulment of CSC Resolution No. 90-657. 13, Rule VI, of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Presiding Judge Ceferino P. Barcinas of Br. 31 issued a Revised Administrative Code (E.O. 292) does not apply
temporary restraining order enjoining the implementation to the present case because the rule covers only
of the questioned CSC resolution and set the date for the appointments in a chain of promotions and not where a
Compiled by MC Paloma 2
EPA ASSIGNMENT #1 – CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. ANICIA MARQUEZ | 2020
public officer was merely transferred to another position automatically restores them to their former positions.
of the same rank, grade and level. However, the affected persons are entitled to the
payment of salaries for services actually rendered at a
Petitioners further contend that Nacario was deemed to rate fixed in their promotional appointments.
have vacated her position as Budget Officer when she
accepted her appointment as MPDC considering that Under the aforecited section, before a public official or
there were several appointments made to the Budget employee can be automatically restored to her former
Office in the past eight (8) years since her transfer.[15] position, there must first be a series of promotions;
According to petitioners, San Luis was also denied his second, all appointments are simultaneously submitted
right to be heard when public respondent ordered him to to the CSC for approval; and third, the CSC disapproves
vacate his position without affording him an opportunity the appointment of a person proposed to a higher
to contest the claim of Nacario thus violating his position.
constitutional right to due process.[16]
The essential requisites prescribed under Sec. 13 do not
Upon the other hand, private respondent claims that she avail in the case at bench. To start with, the movement
did not voluntarily apply for transfer from the Budget of Nacario from the Budget Office to the Office of MPDC
Office to the Office of MPDC but was constrained to cannot be considered a promotion for the term connotes
"accept" the new position because of Mayor Prila. She an increase in duties and responsibilities as well as a
was, in her own words, "a passive participant in the corresponding increase in salary.[19] Conformably
movement of personnel" in the municipal government of therewith, we find the movement of Nacario one of lateral
Pili having acted as a "subservient public official" in transfer.[20]
assuming the position of MPDC.
A careful examination of the qualifications, powers and
Nacario maintains that her "acceptance" of the position duties of a Budget Officer and an MPDC provided under
of MPDC which she admits is of the same rank, salary Secs. 475 and 476 of the Local Government Code of
grade and level was motivated by her respect for Mayor 1991 shows that the latter office is not burdened with
Prila who was then her superior. In fact, according to more duties and responsibilities than the former. It is
her, she applied for the position of Budget Officer with also interesting to note that there was, on the contrary, a
the Department of Budget and Management while she reduction in the basic salary of Nacario, from P30,505.20
was MPDC indicating that she did not abandon or per annum[21] as Budget Officer to P27,732.00 per
relinquish her former position as alleged by annum[22] as MPDC. Moreover, private respondent
petitioners.[17] admitted in her comment and in her memorandum that
the position of Budget Officer and MPDC were of the
For their part, public respondents Sto. Tomas and same rank, salary grade and level.[23] This was attested
Ereneta, Jr., insist on the application to the present case to by Vilma J. Martus, the Human Resource
of the automatic reversion rule provided under Sec. 13, Management Officer of Pili, who certified that per
Rule VI, of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Position Allocation List (PAL) of the municipality the
E.O. 292. They submit that the term "chain of Budget Officer and MPDC are of equal level.[24]
promotions" must not be interpreted in a literal, rigid and
narrow sense but must be construed liberally in favor of Aside from the lack of a series of promotions, the other
private respondent who merely accepted the position of two (2) requisites are not also present, i.e., the
MPDC to accommodate her superior unaware that her appointments of the parties concerned were not
new appointment thereto would be infirmed.[18] simultaneously submitted to the CSC for approval - the
appointment (permanent) of Nacario was approved by
We deny the petition. Petitioner Alexis D. San Luis the CSC on 13 June 1985 while the appointment
cannot hold on to the position of Municipal Budget (permanent) of San Luis was approved by the CSC on 9
Officer. On the other hand, respondent Prescilla B. February 1993 - and, the ouster of Nacario from the
Nacario who is protected by law in her security of tenure Office of MPDC was a result of the MSPB decision
should be reinstated thereto. directing the reinstatement of Mancita and not because
the CSC disapproved her appointment as MPDC.
Sec. 13 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of
E.O. 292 provides that - While the contemporaneous construction of Sec. 13 by
the CSC is entitled to great weight and respect, this Court
Sec. 13. All appointments involved in a chain of shall depart from such interpretation when it is clearly
promotions must be submitted simultaneously for erroneous[25] or when there is no ambiguity in the
approval by the Commission. The disapproval of the rule,[26] as is in the instant case, and yield to the letter
appointment of a person proposed to a higher position of the law taking its terms in their plain, ordinary and
invalidates the promotion of those in lower positions and popular meaning.[27]
Compiled by MC Paloma 3
EPA ASSIGNMENT #1 – CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. ANICIA MARQUEZ | 2020
continued to discharge her duties, this did not discourage
Let us now examine whether the lateral transfer of her from trying to regain her former position. Undaunted,
private respondent was validly made in accordance with she applied with the Office of the Budget Secretary for
Sec. 5, par. 3, Rule VII, Omnibus Rules Implementing the position of Budget Officer upon learning that it was
Book V of E.O. 292. If not, then private respondent is placed under the Department of Budget and
entitled to be protected in her security of tenure. Management. She was not however successful.
Sec. 5, par. 3, of Rule VII provides that - In Sta. Maria v. Lopez[31] we distinguished between a
transfer and a promotion and laid down the prerequisites
Transfer shall not be considered disciplinary when made of a valid transfer thus -
in the interest of public service, in which case, the
employee concerned shall be informed of the reasons A transfer is a `movement from one position to another
therefor. If the employee believes that there is no which is of equivalent rank, level and salary, without
justification for the transfer, he may appeal his case to break in service.' Promotion is the `advancement from
the commission. (underscoring supplied) one position to another with an increase in duties and
responsibilities as authorized by law, and is usually
According to Nacario she never applied or sought accompanied by an increase in salary' x x x A transfer
appointment by transfer to the position of MPDC since that results in promotion or demotion, advancement or
she even had no prior knowledge of her appointment.[28] reduction or a transfer that aims to `lure the employee
She assumed the new position only in order to comply away from his permanent position,' cannot be done
with the move of Mayor Prila to supposedly "reorganize" without the employees' consent. For that would
the municipal government of Pili. Nacario did not constitute removal from office. Indeed, no permanent
question her transfer because she revered the mayor transfer can take place unless the officer or employee is
and did not in any way intend to displease him. first removed from the position held, and then appointed
to another position (underscoring provided)
The submissive attitude displayed by private respondent
towards her transfer is understandable. Although The rule that unconsented transfers amount to removal
Nacario was not informed of the reasons therefor she did is not however without exception. As we further said in
not complain to the mayor or appeal her case to the CSC Sta. Maria, -
if in fact the same was not made in the interest of public
service. For it is not common among local officials, even Concededly there are transfers which do not amount to
those permanent appointees who are more secured and removal. Some such transfers can be effected without
protected in their tenurial right, to oppose or question the the need for charges being proffered, without trial or
incumbent local executive on his policies and decisions hearing, and even without the consent of the employee x
no matter how improper they may seem. x x x The clue to such transfers may be found in the
'nature of the appointment.' Where the appointment does
Even as early as 1968, in Nemenzo v. Sabillano,[29] we not indicate a specific station, an employee may be
held that - transferred or assigned provided the transfer affects no
substantial change in title, rank and salary x x x x Such
There are altogether too many cases of this nature, a rule does not proscribe a transfer carried out under a
wherein local elective officials, upon assumption of specific statute that empowers the head of an agency to
office, wield their new-found power indiscriminately by periodically reassign the employees and officers in order
replacing employees with their own proteges, regardless to improve the service of the agency x x x x Neither does
of the laws and regulations governing the civil service. illegality attach to the transfer or reassignment of an
Victory at the polls should not be taken as authority for officer pending the determination of an administrative
the commission of such illegal acts. charge against him; or to the transfer of an employee
from his assigned station to the main office, effected in
Private respondent was the Budget Officer of Pili for good faith and in the interest of the service pursuant to
almost eight (8) years from August 1980 until her transfer Sec. 32 of the Civil Service Act.
in July, 1988.[30] Nacario appeared to be satisfied with
her work and felt fulfilled as Budget Officer until Mayor Clearly then, the unconsented lateral transfer of Nacario
Prila appointed her MPDC to fill up the position, which from the Budget Office to the Office of MPDC was
was not even vacant at that time. It was only seven (7) arbitrary for it amounted to removal without cause,
days after Nacario's appointment when Mayor Prila hence, invalid as it is anathema to security of tenure.
informed Mancita that her services were being When Nacario was extended a permanent appointment
terminated. Simply put, Mayor Prila was so determined on 1 August 1980 and she assumed the position, she
in terminating Mancita that he conveniently pre-arranged acquired a legal, not merely an equitable, right to the
her replacement by Nacario. Although Nacario position. Such right to security of tenure is protected not
Compiled by MC Paloma 4
EPA ASSIGNMENT #1 – CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. ANICIA MARQUEZ | 2020
only by statute, but also by the Constitution[32] and security of public servants who serve the government
cannot be taken away from her either by removal, with sincerity and dedication. They should not be moved
transfer or by revocation of appointment, except for or removed from their established positions without any
cause, and after prior notice.[33] lawful cause and pushed at will like pawns on the
bureaucratic chessboard.
The guarantee of security of tenure is an important object
of the civil service system because it affords a faithful WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
employee permanence of employment, at least for the DISMISSED. CSC Resolution No. 93-1996 is
period prescribed by law, and frees the employee from AFFIRMED insofar as it orders the reinstatement of
the fear of political and personal prejudicial reprisal.[34] PRESCILLA B. NACARIO to the Office of Municipal
Budget Officer of Pili, Camarines Sur. Accordingly,
Consequently, it could not be said that Nacario vacated petitioner Mayor Delfin N. Divinagracia, or whoever is
her former position as Budget Officer or abdicated her now the incumbent Mayor of Pili or acting in his behalf,
right to hold the office when she accepted the position of is ORDERED to reinstate private respondent Prescilla B.
MPDC since, in contemplation of law, she could not be Nacario immediately to the position of Municipal Budget
deemed to have been separated from her former position Officer of Pili and petitioner Alexis D. San Luis to vacate
or to have terminated her official relations therewith the said office without prejudice to regaining his former
notwithstanding that she was actually discharging the position in the government if legally feasible and
functions and exercising the powers of MPDC. The warranted.
principle of estoppel, unlike in Manalo v. Gloria,[35]
cannot bar her from returning to her former position SO ORDERED.
because of the indubitable fact that private respondent
reluctantly and hesitantly accepted the second office. Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Romero, Melo, Puno,
The element of involuntariness tainted her lateral Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, and Francisco, JJ., concur.
transfer and invalidated her separation from her former Regalado, J., join J. Davide Jr. in his dissent.
position. Davide, Jr., J., please see dissenting opinion.
Quiason, J., on leave.
For another thing, the appointment of San Luis as Budget
Officer carried with it a condition. At the back of his
appointment is inscribed the notation Sa kondisyon nasa GENERAL VS ROCO; GR NO. 143366; 29 JAN 2001
ayos ang pagkakatiwalag sa tungkulin ng dating
nanunungkulan, which when translated means FACTS:
"Provided that the separation of the former incumbent is Respondent Ramon S. Roco was appointed by then
in order." Considering that the separation of Nacario who President Fidel V. Ramos on 26 Aug 1996 as Regional
was the former incumbent was not in order, San Luis Director of the Land Transportation Office in Region V, a
should relinquish his position in favor of private position equivalent to CES rank Level V. He was re-
respondent Nacario. This is, of course, without prejudice appointed to the same position by then President Joseph
to San Luis' right to be reinstated to his former position Estrada. From his appointment in 1996, respondent was
as Cashier II of the DENR, he being also a permanent not a CES eligible and was only conferred CES eligibility
appointee equally guaranteed security of tenure. by the Career Executive Board on 13 Aug 1999. On 07
Sep 1999, petitioner Luis Mario General, who was not a
A final word. Petitioners cannot claim that they have CES eligible, was appointed by then President Estrada
been denied due process of law by public respondent. as Regional Director of LTO-V. Pursuant thereto, DOTC
The records reveal that petitioners had the opportunity to Undersecretary Herminio B. Coloma, Jr., as officer-in-
question the adverse opinion rendered by CSC charge of the department, issued a memorandum
Chairperson Sto. Tomas in a letter dated 15 March directing petitioner General to assume the said office
1993.[36] The correspondence which was in the nature immediately and for respondent Roco to report to the
of a motion for reconsideration constitutes sufficient Office of the Secretary for
opportunity for petitioners who felt aggrieved to inform
the CSC of their side of the controversy. What is sought ISSUE(S):
to be safeguarded in the application of due process is not Whether or not a CES eligibility is sufficient to acquire
the lack of previous notice but the denial of opportunity security of tenure.
to be heard.[37]
HELD:
Before we write finis to this ponencia, we remind those NO. Two requisites must concur in order for an employee
public officials who flaunt their authority - and those in the career executive service may attain security of
similarly inclined - to faithfully abide by the Constitution
and observe honestly and in good faith the tenurial
Compiled by MC Paloma 5
EPA ASSIGNMENT #1 – CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. ANICIA MARQUEZ | 2020
tenure: CES eligibility and appointment ot the 3. Is a public officer, who has been granted an absolute
appropriate CES rank. pardon by the Chief Executive, entitled to reinstatement
to her former position without need of a new
MONSANTO VS. FACTORAN appointment?
4. May petitioner be exempt from the payment of the civil
Facts: indemnity imposed upon her by the sentence?
Compiled by MC Paloma 6
EPA ASSIGNMENT #1 – CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. ANICIA MARQUEZ | 2020
4. No. Civil liability arising from crime is governed by the
Revised Penal Code. It subsists notwithstanding service RATIO:
of sentence, or for any reason the sentence is not served (1) Taking into consideration that this petition is filed by
by pardon, amnesty or commutation of sentence. a non-lawyer, who claims that poverty denies him the
Petitioner's civil liability may only be extinguished by the services of a lawyer, We also set aside the requirement
same causes recognized in the Civil Code, namely: of exhaustion of administrative remedies and resolved to
payment, loss of the thing due, remission of the debt, go direct to the merits of the petition.
merger of the rights of creditor and debtor, compensation
and novation. (Monsanto vs. Factoran, G.R. No. 78239 (2)In Monsanto vs. Factoran, Jr., this Court held that the
February 9, 1989) absolute disqualification from office or ineligibility from
public office forms part of the punishment prescribed
NOTE: Conviction by final judgment is now necessary under the penal code and that pardon frees the individual
before parole or pardon could be extended. (Section 19, from all the penalties and legal disabilities and restores
Article VII of the Constitution, People vs. Casido; People him to all his civil rights. Although such pardon restores
vs. Salle) his eligibility to a public office it does not entitle him to
automatic reinstatement. He should apply for
SABELLO V DECS reappointment to said office.As there are no
GR NO. 87687 DECEMBER 26, 1989 circumstances that would warrant the diminution in his
rank, justice and equity dictate that he bereturned to his
Section 19: Except in cases of impeachment, or as former position of Elementary School Principal I and not
otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President to that of a mere classroom teacher. However, the Court
may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and cannot grant his prayer for backwages from September
remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final 1, 1971 to November 23, 1982 since in Monsanto this
judgment. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty Court said he is not entitled to automatic reinstatement.
with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of
the Congress. REPUBLIC vs. CA | G.R. 90482 PONENTE: DAVIDE
Compiled by MC Paloma 7
EPA ASSIGNMENT #1 – CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. ANICIA MARQUEZ | 2020
• Before PHILSUCOM and NASUTRA could under EO 18, it is not vested with
answer, a compromise agreement was the legal capacity to sue.
submitted and was approved by the lower • EO 18 – abolished PHILSUCOM
court but its juridical personality was to
• Three orders were issued o First order – continue for three years for the
dismissed separate petitions for relief from purpose of prosecuting and
judgment filed by different sugar associations defending suits. CA committed
(National Federation of Sugar Cane Planters, no reversible error
Sugar Central Inc, Independent Private respondents says:
Sugar Planters) o Second order – • Almost same with Sol Gen
granted a second motion to resolve a • RPB – GOCC engaged in the
pending motion for issuance of a writ of banking business.
execution and allowed the issuance of an o Petitioners have no legal personality to
alias writ of execution initiate petition because SRA is not a party
o Third order – required officers of in the case before the TC (since it was
the RPB to appear before the court filed against PHILSUCOM and
to explain why they should not be NASUTRA). o It cannot be presumed that
cited in contempt for defying the SRA had substituted PHILSUCOM and
alias writ of execution NASUTRA in the case as both continue to
• CA denied the petition for the nullification of the legally exist for the purpose of prosecuting
orders because o RPB accepted the and defending suits in liquidation of its
appointment as Trustee whose obligation is to affairs
pay received benefits by way of trustee’s
fees and cannot question the right of private SC says: CA correctly ruled that SRA may not lawfully
respondents to attorney’s fees bring an action on behalf of the Republic of the
o SRA may not lawfully bring action on Philippines and that the OGCC does not have the
behalf of the Republic because EO authority to represent the petitioner in this case.
18 says that PHILSUCOM remains a o EO abolished PHILSUCOM and created
judicial entity for 3 years for the SRA but PHILSUCOM was allowed to
purpose of prosecuting and continue as a juridical entity for 3 years for
defending suits against it. the purpose of prosecuting and defending
o Petition should have been filed suits by or against it…under the
through the OSG and not through supervision of the SRA
the OGCC; SRA cannot lawfully o Sec 3, EO 18 does not specifically include
represent the Government because the power to represent the Republic nor
it may only perform powers and the power to sue and be sued.
functions as may be authorized by o Sec 4, EO 18 – specific functions does not
the laws which created them include the power to represent the
• SC required respondents to comment and Republic
issued TRO directing respondent Judge to o CHARTER DOES NOT GRANT THE
desist and refrain from further proceeding in SRA THE POWER TO REPRESENT
the civil case REPUBLIC IN SUITS FILED BY OR
• SC was informed that the Judge was ordering AGAINST IT.
the implementation of an alias writ of execution SC says SRA is an administrative agency o
Administrative agency – only such powers as are
Issue/Held: expressly granted to it by law and those that are
• Did the CA err in holding that neither OGCC necessarily implied in the exercise; government body
nor SRA can represent the Government in an charged with administering and implementing particular
action before it? NO legislation
o Power to represent the Republic –
withheld from SRA so it cannot institute
Ratio: the instant petition.
Sol Gen says: OGCC also cannot represent SRA or Republic o OGCC
• SRA has no legal personality to is the principal law office of all GOCCs including
file the instant petition under the subsidiaries; the president may not allow it to act as
name of the Republic because lawyer for a specified GOCC or subsidiary.
Compiled by MC Paloma 8
EPA ASSIGNMENT #1 – CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. ANICIA MARQUEZ | 2020
o Since SRA is neither a GOCC or a HELD:
subsidiary, OGCC does not have the YES. It has been held that a reassignment that is
authority to represent it indefinite and results in a reduction in rank, status and
salary is in effect a constructive removal from the service.
PADOLINA VS. FERNANDEZ – DEMOTION
TORRES V. DE LEON
Facts G.R. NO. 199440, JANUARY 18, 2016
• Fernandez was PAGASA’s Finance and
Management Division Chief who was Q: When Torres was the Chapter Administrator of the
reassigned to Taguig, pursuant to SO 129; Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC), General Santos
• Fernandez protested this as being tantamount
City Chapter, the PNRC Internal Auditing Office
to constructive dismissal. Padolina refused to
set SO 129 aside, and was upheld by the CSC; conducted an audit of the funds and accounts of the
• DOST Special Order returned certain PNRC, General Santos City Chapter. Based on the audit
employees to their original assignments, but report submitted to respondent De Leon, Torres incurred
excluded others, including Fernandez; a "technical shortage" in the amount of P4,306,574.23.
• An investigation found Fernandez guilty of De Leon in a Memorandum, formally charged petitioner
insubordination, and was ordered to accept the with Grave Misconduct for violating PNRC Financial
reassignment; Policies on Oversubscription, Remittances and
• The CA on appeal declared SO 129 void for
Disbursement of Funds. After the completion of the
violating security of tenure. The SC affirms,
hence this MR. investigation of the case against petitioner, respondent
issued a Memorandum imposing upon petitioner the
Issues penalties of one month suspension and transfer to the
• W/N the reassignment is valid. National Headquarters.
Compiled by MC Paloma 9
EPA ASSIGNMENT #1 – CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. ANICIA MARQUEZ | 2020
since it is regulated by international humanitarian law Thereafter, the petitioner issued Memorandum dated
and is treated as an auxiliary of the State. September 8, 2003 to formally charge the respondent
Here, the CSC has jurisdiction over the PNRC because with grave misconduct, and to preventively suspend him
the issue at hand is the enforcement of labor laws and for 60 days effective upon receipt.
penal statutes as applied to officials and employees of
the government as provided under the Administrative The respondent sought the dismissal of the charge on
Code of 1987. The CSC has appellate jurisdiction on the ground of its being baseless; and requested the
administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition conduct of a formal investigation by an impartial body.
of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty (30) days, The respondent also instituted in the CA a special civil
or fine in an amount exceeding thirty (30) days salary. action for certiorari to challenge the legality of the
Hence, the Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction Memorandum dated September 8, 2003.
over the case.
On April 29, 2004, the CA promulgated its assailed
WINSTON F. GARCIA VS. MARIO I. MOLINA decision annulling the petitioner's Memorandum dated
G.R. NO. 165223. JANUARY 11, 2016 September 8, 2003.
Compiled by MC Paloma 10
EPA ASSIGNMENT #1 – CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. ANICIA MARQUEZ | 2020
of duty is authorized by the Civil Service Law, and cannot
Misconduct in office, by uniform legal definition, is such be considered unjustified even if the charges are
misconduct that affects his performance of his duties as ultimately dismissed so as to justify the payment of
an officer and not such only as affects his character as a salaries to the employee concerned. Considering that
private individual. To warrant removal from office, it must the respondent's preventive suspension had legal basis,
have direct relation to and be connected with the he was not entitled to backwages.
performance of official duties amounting either to
maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and 2. Anent the petitioner's insistence that the respondent
failure to discharge the duties of the office. Moreover, it did not exhaust his administrative remedies, Section 21
is “a transgression of some established and definite rule of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross Service provides the option either of filing a motion for
negligence by a public officer.” It becomes grave if it reconsideration against the preventive suspension order
“involves any of the additional elements of corruption, by the disciplining authority, or of elevating the
willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established preventive suspension order by appeal to the Civil
rules, which must be established by substantial Service Commission within 15 days from the receipt
evidence.” thereof.
The record contains nothing to show that the We find and hold that the respondent was not strictly
respondent's act constituted misconduct. The passing of bound by the rule on exhaustion of administrative
the letter to Caretero did not equate to any remedies. His failure to file the motion for reconsideration
"transgression" or "unlawful behavior," for it was an did not justify the immediate dismissal of the petition for
innocuous act that did not breach any standard, norm or certiorari, for we have recognized certain exceptional
rule pertinent to his office. Neither could it be regarded circumstances that excused his non-filing of the motion
as "circulation" of the letter inasmuch as the letter was for reconsideration. Among the exceptional
handed only to a single individual who just happened to circumstances are the following, namely: when the issue
be curious about the paper the respondent was then involved is purely a legal question.
holding in his hands. The handing of the letter occurred
in ostensibly innocent circumstances on board the Considering that the matter brought to the CA - whether
elevator in which other employees or passengers were the act complained against justified the filing of the formal
on board. If the motive of the respondent was to pass the charge for grave misconduct and the imposition of
letter in order to publicize its contents, he should have preventive suspension pending investigation — was a
made more copies of the letter. But that was not so, purely legal question due to the factual antecedents of
considering that Caretero categorically affirmed in his the case not being in dispute. Hence, the respondent had
affidavit about asking the respondent what he had no need to exhaust the available administrative remedy
wanted to do with the letter, to wit: Do you want me to of filing the motion for reconsideration.
photocopy the document Sir?, but the respondent had
simply replied: HINDI NA SA IYO NA LANG YAN. It is WHEREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the
plain, then, that intent to cause the widespread petition for review on certiorari
dissemination of the letter in order to libel the petitioner
could not be justifiably inferred.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs.
CRISOSTOMO M. PLOPINIO, Respondent.
To be sure, the respondent's act could not be classified
as pertaining to or having a direct connection to the
performance of his official duties as a litigation lawyer of FACTS:
the GSIS. The connection was essential to a finding of
misconduct, for without the connection the conduct Respondent Crisostomo M. Plopinio served as a
would not be sanctioned as an administrative offense. COMELEC Election Officer III of Sipocot, Camarines
Sur, prior to his separation from the service. A certain
The fact that the charge against the respondent was Alberto G. Adan (Adan) filed a letter-complaint against
subsequently declared to lack factual and legal bases did respondent alleging that because of respondent’s
not, ipso facto, render the preventive suspension without frequent absences, respondent failed to act on Adan’s
legal basis. The formal charge against the respondent petition for disqualification of a barangay candidate
was for grave misconduct, an administrative offense that named Jessie V. Sanchez.
justifies the imposition of the preventive suspension of
the respondent. Gloria has clarified that the preventive Acting Director IV Adolfo A. Ibafiez (Dir. Ibanez),
suspension of civil service employees charged with Personnel Department, COMELEC, conducted an
dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct, or neglect investigation into Adan’s lettercomplaint against
Compiled by MC Paloma 11
EPA ASSIGNMENT #1 – CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. ANICIA MARQUEZ | 2020
respondent and submitted a Memorandum dated August ISSUE:
20, 2003 to Commissioner Florentino A. Tuason, Jr.
(Com. Tuason), COMELEC, who, in turn, forwarded the Was the respondent deprived of due process?
same to the COMELEC en banc for appropriate action.
RULING:
In its Resolution No. 03-0278 dated September 11, 2003,
the COMELEC en bane adopted in toto Atty. Ibañez’s No. There is no question that a public officer or employee
findings and recommendation to drop respondent from who is AWOL may be separated from service or dropped
the rolls of Comelec employees effective January 1, from the rolls of employees without prior notice.
2003 and the salaries paid to him until June 30, 2003 be
charged against his leave credits. However, the same Rule VI, Section 63 of the Omnibus Rules on
shall be without prejudice to the filing of formal charge for
Leave in the Civil Service provides:
violating reasonable office rules and regulations in view
of his deliberate failure to submit his daily time records
Sec. 63. Effect of absences without approved
for the months of January to April 2002 and from January
leave. – An official or employee who is
until present of the current year.
continuously absent without approved leave for
at least thirty (30) working days shall be
Com. Tuason then issued a Memorandum7 dated considered on absence without official leave
October 7, 2003, directing respondent to immediately (AWOL) and shall be separated from the service
cease and desist from performing his official duties, or dropped from the rolls without prior notice.
based, among other grounds, on his unauthorized However, when it is clear under the obtaining
absences; and appointing an Acting Election Officer to circumstances that the official or employee
serve the Municipality of Sipocot, Camarines Sur, in concerned, has established a scheme to
order not to jeopardize the voters’ registration process at circumvent the rule by incurring substantial
said Municipality. absences though less than thirty working (30)
days 3x in a semester, such that a pattern is
Meanwhile, Dir. Ibanez also issued a Memorandum already apparent, dropping from the rolls without
dated October 7, 20038 for the COMELEC en bane, notice may likewise be justified.
withdrawing his earlier recommendation to drop
respondent from the rolls of employees. If the number of unauthorized absences incurred is less
than thirty (30) working days, a written Return-to-Work
Because of the foregoing superseding events, it appears Order shall be served to him at his last known address
that [respondent] was reporting, as he did report to office on records. Failure on his part to report for work within
on certain days per his daily time records submitted to the period stated in the Order shall be a valid ground to
the OPES. One key issue however is that many DTR drop him from the rolls. (Emphasis supplied.)
entries were being questioned by [respondent’s]
supervisor for being invalid or unauthorized considering Rule 19, Sections 93 and 96 of the Revised Rules
his reported absences. on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
(RRACCS) similarly state:
Consequently, because of the inability to fully establish a
successive thirty-day absence without approved leave Rule 19 DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS
(AWOL) on the part of [respondent], the undersigned
withdraws his former recommendation to drop from the
rolls. Sec. 93. Grounds and Procedure for Dropping
from the Rolls. – Officers and employees who are
either habitually absent or have unsatisfactory or
Through his Memorandum9 dated October 16, 2003 for poor performance or have shown to be physically
the COMELEC en bane, respondent sought and mentally unfit to perform their duties may be
reconsideration of COMELEC Resolution No. 03-0278, dropped from the rolls subject to the following
as well as Com. Tuason’s Memorandum dated October procedures:
7, 2003. Respondent lamented that the COMELEC en
bane was misled by Dir. Ibañez’s initial recommendation
to drop him from the rolls of employees, which lacked Absence Without Approved Leave
factual and legal bases; and that he was not afforded due An officer or employee who is continuously absent
process as he was never confronted with any formal without official leave (AWOL) for at least thirty (30)
charge regarding his alleged absenteeism prior to working days shall be separated from the service
COMELEC Resolution No. 03- 0278. or dropped from the rolls without prior notice.
He/She shall, however, be informed of his/her
Compiled by MC Paloma 12
EPA ASSIGNMENT #1 – CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. ANICIA MARQUEZ | 2020
separation not later than five (5) days from its OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY
effectivity which shall be sent to the address on AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES
his/her 201 files or to his/her last known address; (MOLEO), Petitioners vs PS/SUPT. RAINIER A.
ESPINA, Respondent
If the number of unauthorized absences incurred
is less than thirty (30) working days, a written [NO CASE DIGEST, DIGEST AVAILABLE IS ONLY
Return- to-Work order shall be served on the FOR RESOLUTION ON MR]
official or employee at his/her last known address
on record. Failure on his/her part to report to work DECISION
within the period stated in the order shall be a
valid ground to drop him/her from the rolls; PER CURIAM:
If it is clear under the obtaining circumstances that the Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1
official or employee concerned, has established a assailing the Decision2 dated February 27, 2014 and the
scheme to circumvent the rule by incurring substantial Resolution3 dated July 15, 2014 of the Court of Appeals
absences though less than thirty (30) working days, in CA-G.R. SP No. 131114, which modified the Joint
three (3) times in a semester, such that a pattern is Resolution4 dated December 19, 2012 and the Joint
already apparent, dropping from the rolls without notice Order5 dated July 8, 2013 of petitioner the Office of the
may likewise be justified. Ombudsman (Ombudsman) in the administrative aspect
of the case, docketed as OMB-P-A-12-0532-G,6 and,
Section 96. Dropping from the Rolls; Non- thereby, found respondent PS/Supt. Rainier A. Espina
Disciplinary in Nature. – This mode of (Espina) administratively liable for Simple Misconduct.
separation from the service for
unauthorized absences or unsatisfactory The Facts
or poor performance or physical or mental
incapacity is non-disciplinary in nature
On July 11 and 17, 2012, petitioner the Fact-Finding
and shall not result in the forfeiture of any
benefit on the part of the official or Investigation Bureau (FFIB) of the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement
employee or in disqualification from
Offices (MOLEO) filed before the Ombudsman an
reemployment in the government.
(Emphases supplied.) affidavit-complaint7 and a supplemental complaint,8
respectively, charging Espina and several other PNP
officers and private individuals for: (a) violation of
Based on current rules, a public officer or employee may Republic Act No. (RA) 7080,9 RA 3019,10 RA 918411
be dropped from the rolls for AWOL without prior notice, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), and
under any of the following circumstances: Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of
Public Documents under Article 217 in relation to Article
(1) the public officer or employee was continuously 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (b) Grave
absent without approved leave for at least 30 working Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty; arising from alleged
days; or (2) the public officer or employee had anomalies that attended the Philippine National Police's
established a scheme to circumvent the rule by incurring (PNP) procurement of 40 tires, and repair,
substantial absences, though less than 30 working days, refurbishment, repowering, and maintenance services of
three times in a semester, such that a pattern was readily a total of 28 units of V-150 Light Armored Vehicles
apparent. (LAVs), and the related transportation and delivery
expenses of 18 units of LAV s between August and
Dropping from the rolls is not disciplinary in nature. It December 2007.12 It averred that the PNP did not
shall not result in the forfeiture of any benefit of the public comply with the bidding procedure prescribed under RA
official or employee concerned nor in said public official 9184 and its IRR, in that: (a) copies of the bid documents
or employee’s disqualification from reemployment in the were not furnished to possible bidders; (b) no pre-
government. Thus, the concerned public official or procurement and pre-bid conferences were held; (c) the
employee need not be notified or be heard. invitation to bid was not published in a newspaper of
general circulation; (d) the procuring agency did not
require the submission of eligibility requirements as well
G.R. No. 213500 as the technical and financial documents from the
bidders; and (e) no post qualification was conducted.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and THE FACT- Further, it claimed that there were "ghost deliveries," i.e.,
FINDING INVESTIGATION BUREAU (FFIB), OFFICE the tires were never delivered to the PNP and no repair
and refurbishment works were actually performed on the
Compiled by MC Paloma 13
EPA ASSIGNMENT #1 – CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. ANICIA MARQUEZ | 2020
LAVs.13 The alleged anomalous transactions are as incredulous that the repair and refurbishment works on
follows: the LAV s were completed in only seven (7) days, i.e.,
from December 20, 2007 to December 27, 2007,
Transactions Amount considering the magnitude of the work involved, which
1. Procurement of 40 tires for 10 LAVs ₱2,940,000.00 included the delivery of the LAVs for repair, the
2. Repowering and refurbishing of 10 LAVs inspection and acceptance of materials to be used, the
142,000,000.00 actual conduct of repair and refurbishment works, and
3. Repair and maintenance of 18 LAVs the delivery, inspection, and acceptance of the repaired
255,600,000.00 and refurbished LAVs.25 The Ombudsman even noted
4. Transportation and delivery expenses14 the admission of one of the experts engaged in the repair
9,200,000.00 of the LAVs that the repair and refurbishment works
thereon were still on-going as late as February 2008 until
Total ₱409, 740,000.0015
2010 and, hence, could not have been completed in
December 2007.26
Espina, as the Acting Chief of the Management Division
of the PNP Directorate for Comptrollership at the time the
On reconsideration, the Ombudsman, through a Joint
procurements were made,16 was impleaded in the
Order27 dated July 8 2013, dropped the charges against
aforesaid complaints for noting/signing the Inspection
Espina and several other PNP Officers, for violation of
Report Forms (IRFs),17 which confirmed the PNP's
Section 65 (b) (4) of RA 9184, but sustained the other
receipt of the tires and other supplies, and the
findings, including their dismissal from service in view of
performance of repair and refurbishment works on the
their administrative liability. In denying Espina's motion
LAVs. According to the FFIB-MOLEO, by affixing his
for reconsideration in the administrative case, the
signature on the IRFs, Espina supposedly facilitated the
Ombudsman pointed out that while it was not Espina's
fraudulent disbursement of funds amounting to
duty to make his own inspections of the alleged
₱409,740,000.00 when no goods were actually delivered
deliveries and work as the same devolved upon the
and no services were actually rendered.18
property inspectors, "it was incumbent upon [Espina] to
affix his signature only after checking the completeness
In defense, Espina denied any participation in the and propriety of the documents."28 Such disregard of
bidding and/or procurement process and maintained that duty paved the way for the consummation of four (4)
he belonged to the Management Division which is highly illegal and irregular transactions, i.e., the
responsible for the inspection of deliveries made to the disbursement of government funds despite apparent
PNP after the bidding and procurement process.19 He non-delivery of the items and non-performance of works
also pointed out that pursuant to the Standing Operating procured.29
Procedure (SOP) No. XXA20 dated November 17, 1993,
his only duty, as the said division's Acting Chief, was to
Aggrieved, Espina filed a petition for review30 before the
note the reports. According to him, it was not his
CA, imp leading both the Ombudsman and the FFIB-
responsibility to personally inspect and confirm deliveries
MOLEO (collectively, petitioners), docketed as CA-G.R.
and go beyond the contents of the IRFs submitted by his
SP No. 131114.
subordinates, absent any irregularity reported by the
property inspectors who are tasked to check and
examine deliveries.21 The CA Ruling
The Ombudsman Ruling In a Decision31 dated February 27, 2014, the CA ruled
in favor of Espina and held that his act of affixing his
signature on the IRFs could not be considered as Grave
In a Joint Resolution22 dated December 19, 2012, the
Misconduct because he did not: (a) unlawfully use his
Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Espina and
official position for the purpose of benefiting himself;32
several other PNP officers for violation of Section 3 (e) of
and (b) exhibit corrupt or depraved motives, clear intent
RA 3019, Section 65 (b) (4) of RA 9184, and for
to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established
Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification under
rules. It observed that Espina had no participation in the
Article 217 in relation to Article 171 of the RPC. The
bidding and procurement process as he belonged to the
Ombudsman also found them guilty of Grave Misconduct
PNP's Management Division whose function is to inspect
and Serious Dishonesty and, accordingly, recommended
and note the deliveries to the PNP after the required
their dismissal from government service.23
bidding and procurement process had taken place. As
such, no liability could attach to him absent a nexus
Specifically, the Ombudsman held that Espina executed between his functions as Acting Chief of the
indispensable acts which led to the completion of the Management Division and the alleged anomalous
illegal transactions.24 The Ombudsman likewise found it procurement process.33
Compiled by MC Paloma 14
EPA ASSIGNMENT #1 – CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. ANICIA MARQUEZ | 2020
administrative offense chargeable against Espina and
The CA found Espina guilty, instead, of Simple the appropriate penalty therefor.
Misconduct, a less grave offense punishable with
suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) In the case at bar, Espina was charged with grave
months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second misconduct and serious dishonesty before the
offense. It rejected Espina's defense of reliance in good Ombudsman which found him guilty as charged, and
faith on the acts of his subordinates, holding that he had imposed on him the supreme penalty of dismissal from
the obligation to supervise them and ensure that the IRFs government service with all its accessory penalties, while
and Work Orders they prepared, as well as every the CA adjudged him guilty only of simple misconduct
procurement-related document released by his division, and punished him with a three-month suspension.
were regular, lawful, valid, and accurate, considering the
significance of the transaction related to the Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper or
disbursement of public funds over which great unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate
responsibility attached.34 or intentional purpose.40 It is intentional wrongdoing or
deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of
However, the CA absolved Espina from the charge of behavior and to constitute an administrative offense, the
Serious Dishonesty, considering that he did not misconduct should relate to or be connected with the
personally prepare the IRFs but merely affixed his performance of the official functions and duties of a
signatures thereon. At best, he imprudently failed to public officer.41 It is a transgression of some established
check and counter-check the contents of the IRFs and and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful
the Work Orders he signed, which, however, does not behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.42
equate to Serious Dishonesty.35
There are two (2) types of misconduct, namely: grave
There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, misconduct and simple misconduct. In grave
the CA imposed on Espina a three-month suspension misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct,
reckoned from the time he was actually dismissed from the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law,
service.36 or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be
manifest.43 Without any of these elements, the
Dissatisfied, petitioners moved for reconsideration37 transgression of an established rule is properly
which was, however, denied by the CA in a Resolution38 characterized as simple misconduct only.44
dated July 15, 2014; hence, the present petition.
On the other hand, dishonesty, which is defined as the
The Issue Before the Court "disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud;
untrustworthiness, lack of integrity,"45 is classified in
The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not three (3) gradations, namely: serious, less serious, and
Espina should be held administratively liable for the simple.46 Serious dishonesty comprises dishonest acts:
charges imputed against him. (a) causing serious damage and grave prejudice to the
government; (b) directly involving property, accountable
The Court's Ruling forms or money for which respondent is directly
accountable and the respondent shows an intent to
commit material gain, graft and corruption; (c) exhibiting
The petition is partly meritorious.
moral depravity on the part of the respondent; (d)
involving a Civil Service examination, irregularity or fake
At the outset, the Court emphasizes that as a general Civil Service eligibility such as, but not limited to,
rule, factual findings of the Ombudsman are conclusive impersonation, cheating and use of crib sheets; (e)
when supported by substantial evidence and are committed several times or in various occasions; (j)
accorded due respect and weight, especially when committed with grave abuse of authority; (g) committed
affirmed by the CA.39 In this case, except as to the legal with fraud and/or falsification of official documents
conclusion on what administrative offense was relating to respondent's employment; and (h) other
committed by Espina, the Ombudsman and the CA both analogous circumstances.47 A dishonest act without the
found that Espina signed the IRFs even if there were attendance of any of these circumstances can only be
actually no tires delivered to the PNP and no repair and characterized as simple dishonesty.48 In between the
refurbishment works performed on the LA Vs. aforesaid two forms of dishonesty is less serious
Accordingly, these findings of fact are conclusive and dishonesty which obtains when: (a) the dishonest act
binding and shall no longer be delved into, and this Court caused damage and prejudice to the government which
shall confine itself to the determination of the proper is not so serious as to qualify as serious dishonesty; (b)
the respondent did not take advantage of his/her position
Compiled by MC Paloma 15
EPA ASSIGNMENT #1 – CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. ANICIA MARQUEZ | 2020
in committing the dishonest act; and (c) other analogous Inspection Section (ICIS); (b) the Accountability and
circumstances.49 Assistance Section; (c) the Management Improvement
Section; and (d) the Claims and Examination Section
Both grave misconduct and serious dishonesty, of which (CES).57 Espina himself admitted that the property
Espina was charged, are classified as grave offenses for inspectors who were tasked to personally inspect
which the penalty of dismissal is meted even for first time deliveries to the PNP belong to the ICIS which was under
offenders.50 his management and stewardship.58 In Lihaylihay v.
People,59 the Court pointed out that the nature of the
Here, the CA correctly observed that while Espina may public officers' responsibilities and their role in the
have failed to personally confirm the delivery of the procurement process are compelling factors that should
procured items, the same does not constitute dishonesty have led them to examine with greater detail the
of any form inasmuch as he did not personally prepare documents which they are made to approve.
the IRFs but merely affixed his signature thereon after
his subordinates supplied the details therein. Here, while SOP No. XX4 dated November 17, 1993
which Espina cited does not expressly require the Head
Neither can Espina's acts be considered misconduct, of the Management Division to physically re-inspect, re-
grave or simple. The records are bereft of any proof that check, and verify the deliveries to the PNP as reported
Espina was motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or by the property inspectors under him, his duty was not
deliberate intent of violating the law, or disregarding any simply to "note" or take cognizance of the existence of
established rule, or that he wrongfully used his position the IRFs, but to reasonably ensure that they were
to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, prepared in accordance with law, keeping in mind the
contrary to duty and the rights of others. basic requirement that the goods allegedly delivered to
and services allegedly performed for the government
However, after a circumspect review of the records, the have actually been delivered and performed. As aptly
pointed out by the Ombudsman in its Joint Order dated
Court finds Espina administratively liable, instead, for
Gross Neglect of Duty, warranting his dismissal from July 8, 2013, "it was incumbent upon [Espina] to affix his
government service.51 At the outset, it should be pointed signature only after checking the completeness and
out that the designation of the offense or offenses with propriety of the documents."60 However, while Espina
which a person is charged in an administrative case is claims that all the necessary supporting documents such
not controlling, and one may be found guilty of another as photographs and delivery receipts were attached to
offense where the substance of the allegations and the IRFs at the time they were routed to him for his
signature,61 the Court is hard-pressed to find proof
evidence presented sufficiently proves one's guilt,52 as
in this case. Notably, the FFIB-MOLEO's supplemental substantiating such claim to justify his passive attitude
complaint accused Espina with failure to exercise due towards them. In this jurisdiction, it is axiomatic that he
who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it.62 Without
diligence in signing the IRFs, which is sufficient to hold
him liable for Gross Neglect of Duty.53 evidence showing otherwise, the Court is constrained to
conclude that the IRFs submitted to Espina for his
signature were without supporting documents and could
Gross neglect of duty is defined as "[n]egligence not, perforce, be taken at face value and relied upon. As
characterized by want of even slight care, or by acting or this Court ruled in Jaca v. People,63 a superior cannot
omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, rely in good faith on the act of a subordinate where the
not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a documents that would support the subordinate' s action
conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as were not even in his (the superior's) possession for
other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that examination.
care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail
to give to their own property."54 In contrast, simple
neglect of duty is the failure of an employee or official to Moreover, the timing of the alleged repair and
give proper attention to a task expected of him or her, refurbishment works was suspect. The short seven (7)-
signifying a "disregard of a duty resulting from day period in December, 2007 during which the repair
carelessness or indifference."55 and refurbishment works were made on the LAV s should
have prompted Espina to doubt the veracity of the IRFs.
As correctly observed by the Ombudsman, it is
As aptly observed by the CA, Espina had the obligation
improbable that the repair and refurbishment works on
to supervise his subordinates and see to it that they have
the LAVs were carried out from December 20 to 27,
performed their respective functions in accordance with
2007, given the magnitude of the work involved and the
law.56 To recall, Espina was the Acting Chief and Head fact that such period included the delivery of the LAV s
of the PNP's Management Division and, as such, had for repair, the inspection and approval of the materials to
supervisory powers over the departments or sections be used for the repairs, the actual repair and
which comprise it, namely: (a) the Internal Control and
Compiled by MC Paloma 16
EPA ASSIGNMENT #1 – CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. ANICIA MARQUEZ | 2020
refurbishment, and the delivery of the LA Vs to the PNP to go beyond the recommendations of their
after the repair.64 subordinates,73 which is not the case here.
The foregoing should not have escaped Espina's Given the amounts involved and the timing of the alleged
attention had he faithfully discharged the obligations deliveries, the circumstances reasonably impose on
attendant to his office.1âwphi1 Indeed, the Court has Espina a higher degree of care and vigilance in the
pronounced that a public officer's high position imposes discharge of his duties. Thus, he should have been
upon him greater responsibility and obliges him to be prompted to make further inquiry as to the truth of his
more circumspect in his actions and in the discharge of subordinates' reports. Had he made the proper inquiries,
his official duties.65 This particularly applies to the he would have discovered the non-delivery of the
instant controversy, especially where Espina's signature procured items and the non-performance of the procured
was one of the final steps needed for the release of services, and prevented the unlawful disbursement.
payment for the procured items.66 In fact, the However, he did not do this at all. Instead, he blindly
disbursement vouchers prepared by the Logistics relied on the report and recommendation of his
Support Service (LSS) subordinates and affixed his signature on the IRFs.
Plainly, Espina acted negligently, unmindful of the high
Finance Service were routed back to the CES of the position he occupied and the responsibilities it carried,
Management Division under Espina's supervision for and without regard to his accountability for the hundreds
final examination of all claims.67 With all these of millions in taxpayers' money involved.
considerations, Espina was expected to employ
diligence in ensuring that all claims were supported by Verily, this Court has repeatedly emphasized the time-
complete pertinent documents. As succinctly put by the honored rule that a "[p ]ublic office is a public trust [and]
CA, Espina's duty as Acting Chief was not merely [p]ublic officers and employees must at all times be
ministerial and perfunctory as it related to the accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
disbursement of funds over which a great responsibility responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with
attached.68 patriotism and justice and lead modest lives."74 This
high constitutional standard of conduct is not intended to
More so, considering the sheer magnitude of the amount be mere rhetoric and taken lightly as those in the public
in taxpayers' money involved, i.e., ₱409,740,000.00, service are enjoined to fully comply with this standard or
Espina should have exercised utmost care before run the risk of facing administrative sanctions ranging
signing the IRFs. It is of no moment that the from reprimand to the extreme penalty of dismissal from
disbursement of the ₱409,740,000.00 was spread over the service.75 Erring public officials may also be held
several transactions and not through a single payment or personally liable for disbursements made in violation of
that only the IRFs relating to the delivery of supplies were law or regulation, as stated in Section 52,76 Chapter 9,
allegedly presented;69 the fact remains that taxpayers' Subtitle B, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of
money was spent without the corresponding goods and 1987.77 Thus, public officers, as recipients of public
services having been delivered to the government. trust, are under obligation to perform the duties of their
Indeed, no rule is more settled than that a public office is offices honestly, faithfully, and to the best of their
a public trust and public officers and employees must, at ability.78 Unfortunately, Espina failed miserably in this
all times, be accountable to the people.70 respect.
Espina cannot trivialize his role in the disbursement of WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The
funds and bank on the lack of confidential written reports Decision dated February 27, 2014 and the Resolution
from his subordinates which would have prompted him dated July 15, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
to make further inquiry. As aptly pointed out by SP No. 131114 are hereby SET ASIDE. A new one is
petitioners, Espina was the last person to affix his ENTERED finding respondent Rainier A. Espina GUILTY
signature and, as such, had the power, if not the duty, to of GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY. Accordingly, he is
unearth and expose anomalous or irregular DISMISSED from government service with all the
transactions.71 Espina cannot blindly adhere to the accessory penalties.
findings and opinions of his subordinates, lest he be
reduced to a mere clerk who has no authority over his SO ORDERED.
subordinates and the sections he oversees.
BUENAFLOR v. RAMIREZ, JR. HON. CESAR D.
The Court is not unaware of the ruling in Arias v. BUENAFLOR v. JOSE R. RAMIREZ, Jr.
Sandiganbayan72 (Arias) that heads of offices may rely G.R. No. 201607
on their subordinates. For the Arias doctrine to apply, February 15, 2017
however, there must be no reason for the head of offices
Compiled by MC Paloma 17
EPA ASSIGNMENT #1 – CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. ANICIA MARQUEZ | 2020
case can be decided under the general laws, such as
FACTS: when the case is for the recovery of private debts, or for
the recovery of damages due to slanderous remarks of
Chairman Eufemio Domingo of the Presidential Anti- the employer, or for malicious prosecution of the
Graft Commission (PAGC) appointed respondent Jose employees.
R. Ramirez, Jr. as Executive Assistant III and
concurrently designated him as Assistant Accountant.
On September 28, 2001, Chairman Domingo CELSO OLIVIER T. DATOR, Petitioner, -versus- HON.
resigned,and petitioner Cesar D. Buenaflor succeeded CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY
him. The petitioner terminated Ramirez as of the same AS THE OMBUDSMAN, AND HON. GERARD A.
date as Chairman Eugenio's resignation on the ground MOSQUERA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DEPUTY
that his tenure had expired by virtue of the position of OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, AND THE DEPARTMENT
Executive Assistant being personal and confidential, OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
and, hence, co-terminous with that of the appointing Respondents.
authority. G.R. No. 237742, FIRST DIVISION, October 8, 2018,
TIJAM, J.
Believing that his appointment had been contractual in CSC Resolution No. 020790 clearly states the prohibition
nature, Ramirez sued in the RTC to declare his dismissal of hiring those covered under the rules on
null and void. The RTC rendered judgment declaring nepotism through a contract of service and job order.
Buenaflor guilty of unlawful termination because he had Nepotism is defined as an appointment issued in
not discharged his burden of proving that Ramirez's favor of a relative within the third civil degree of
employment was coterminous with that of Chairman consanguinity or affinity of any of the following: (1)
Domingo, and ruling in favor of Ramirez.
appointing authority; (2) recommending authority; (3)
chief of the bureau or office; and (4) person
Buenaflor seasonably filed his motion for reconsideration exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.
and later on was denied. Buenaflor assailed the order of Macandile, being the sister of Dator, is clearly
the RTC by petition for certiorari in the CA, alleging that
within the scope of the prohibition from being hired under
the RTC thereby gravely abused its discretion amounting
a contract of services and job order.
to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Buenaflor moved for
reconsideration, but the CA denied his motion for
reconsideration. FACTS:
The case stemmed from a complaint2 filed on May 2,
2016 by complainant Moises B. Villasenor
ISSUES:
against the incumbent Mayor of Lucban, Quezon,
petitioner Celso Olivier T. Dator, and Maria Lyncelle
1. Court of Appeals, in arriving its decision and
D. Macandile, also of Lucban, Quezon for grave
resolution, decided the case in accordance with law and
misconduct, grave abuse of authority and nepotism.
existing jurisprudence?
It was alleged that in his immediately preceding term,
Dator hired his sister, Macandile, as Chief
2. Court of Appeals committed grave abused of
Administrative Officer through a Job Order and
discretion in not declaring that the RTC has no
designated her as Municipal Administrator. There
jurisdiction to hear and decide the instant civil service
related case, which is under the sole jurisdiction of the was no appointment paper that was submitted to the
CSC? Sangguniang Bayan for the required
confirmation pursuant to Sec. 443(d) of the Local
Government Code. It was also alleged that
RULING:
Macandile lacked the qualifications of a Municipal
Administrator and her Job Order stated that "the
1. The jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of a
above-named hereby attests that he/she is not related
particular action is determined by the plaintiffs
within the third degree (fourth degree in case of
allegations in the complaint and the principal relief he
seeks in the light of the law that apportions the LGUs) of consanguinity or affinity to the 1) hiring
jurisdiction of courts. authority and/or 2) representatives of the hiring
agency",when in truth and in fact, she is the sister of
Dator.
2. It is clarified that the CSC has jurisdiction over a case
involving a civil servant if it can be regarded as
equivalent to a labor dispute resoluble under the Labor In the Joint Counter-Affidavit of Dator and Macandile,
Code; conversely, the regular court has jurisdiction if the they denied the charges and stated that
Compiled by MC Paloma 18
EPA ASSIGNMENT #1 – CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. ANICIA MARQUEZ | 2020
Macandile was merely granted an authority to perform was due to an honest oversight in the footnote of the
the duties and functions of an administrator OMB decision, and clarified that the penalty
in the exigency and best interest of public service. They imposed on Dator is six months suspension without pay.
stated that Macandile's credentials showed ISSUE:
her competence as she worked as a Head Nurse in Whether the OMB was correct in ruling that Dator is liable
Ginebra San Miguel, Inc. from 1994 to 2005. They for simple misconduct. (YES)
further alleged that the position of Municipal RULING:
Administrator did not exist in the municipality's The OMB was correct in ruling that Dator's act of issuing
plantilla of personnel, hence, there was no appointment the Special Order No.2, Series of 2014 and
paper submitted to the Sangguniang Bayan for Job Order that hired his sister, Macandile, as Chief
confirmation. They also countered that the position of Administrative Officer, was irregular.
Municipal Administrator is primarily As correctly noted by the OMB, the position of a
confidential, non-career and coterminous with the Municipal Administrator is unique, because, while it
appointing authority and that the Job Order was is coterminous with the appointing authority and highly
executed for payroll purposes only. They submitted confidential in character, it is required that
copies of the Job Order forms issued during the the appointee must meet the qualifications enumerated
administration of the complainant, where a Dr. Palermo under Sec. 480 of the LGC. The position does
C. Salvacion was designated as Chief not fall within the confidential/personal staff
Administrative Officer from 2007 to 2010. contemplated under Section 1(e) Rule X of Revised
Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel
On March 20, 2017, the Ombudsman rendered a Actions which dispenses with the eligibility
Decision dismissing the charges against Macandile, and experience requirements.
but finding Dator administratively liable for Simple
Misconduct. The OMB noted that since the Furthermore, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) came
position of Municipal Administrator was not in the out with CSC Resolution No. 020790 (Policy
plantilla, Dator should have requested the Guidelines for Contract of Services) as it has been made
Sangguniang Bayan to create the said position through aware that the practice of hiring personnel
an ordinance. The OMB ruled that in the under contracts of service and job orders entered into
issuance of the Job Order and S.O. No. 2, Series of between government agencies and individuals
2014, Dator exhibited reprehensible conduct. It also has been used to circumvent Civil Service rules and
found Dator's act of affixing his signature in the Job regulations particularly its mandate on merit and
Order, which contained an attestation that fitness in public service.
Macandile is not related within the fourth degree of
consanguinity to the hiring authority, despite knowledge The situation in this case is precisely what is being
of its falsity, is a clear transgression of the norms and prevented by the said resolution where the
standards expected of him as a appointing authority effectively creates a short-cut or
government official. circumvents the law as regards the
determination of fitness or eligibility to a position, by
A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Dator. A merely hiring one who would otherwise have
Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration to go through the rigorous process mandated by the law,
dated November 6, 2017 was likewise filed by his new through a contract of service or job order.
counsel, in collaboration with the counsel of CSC Resolution No. 020790 clearly states the prohibition
record. Dator also filed a Motion for Clarification, seeking of hiring those covered under the rules on
clarification as to the correct penalty nepotism through a contract of service and job order.
imposed – whether it is 6 months suspension or 1 month Nepotism is defined as an appointment issued
and one 1 day suspension. Consequently, in favor of a relative within the third civil degree of
Dator filed before the CA a Petition for Injunction with consanguinity or affinity of any of the following:
Prayer for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction (1) appointing authority; (2) recommending authority; (3)
and/or Temporary Restraining Order, praying for chief of the bureau or office; and (4)
respondents to desist and refrain from person exercising immediate supervision over the
implementing the OMB's Decision. appointee. Macandile, being the sister of Dator, is clearly
within the scope of the prohibition from being hired under
The CA denied the petition outright. Subsequently, the a contract of services and job
OMB denied Dator's Motion for order.
Reconsideration. It also clarified that the seeming conflict
in the proper penalty imposable on Dator Given the foregoing, Dator was thus properly held liable
for simple misconduct.
Compiled by MC Paloma 19