G.R. No. 176127. January 30, 2009.*

RODOMIEL J. DOMINGO, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OFTHE OMBUDSMAN, KATHRYN JOY B. PAGUIO,ALLAN JAY M. ESGUERRA, and NEIL PATRICK H.CELIS, respondents.

Republic Act No. 6713; Code of Conduct and EthicalStandards; Rule V of the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 6713adopted by the Civil Service Commission mandates the grant ofincentives and rewards to officials and employees who demonstrateexemplary service and conduct based on their observance of thenorms of conduct laid down in Section 4.—The charge of violationof Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 deserves further comment. Theprovision commands that “public officials and employees shallperform and discharge their duties with the highest degree ofexcellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill.” Said provisionmerely enunciates “professionalism as an ideal norm of conduct tobe observed by public servants, in addition to commitment topublic interest, justness and sincerity, political neutrality,responsiveness to the public, nationalism and patriotism,commitment to democracy and simple living. Following thisperspective, Rule V of the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 6713adopted by the Civil Service Commission mandates the grant ofincentives and rewards to officials and employees whodemonstrate exemplary service and conduct based on theirobservance of the norms of conduct laid down in Section 4. Inother words, under the mandated incentives and rewards system,officials and employees who comply with the high standard set bylaw would be rewarded. Those who fail to do so cannot expect thesame favorable treatment. However, the Implementing Rules doesnot provide that they will have to be sanctioned for failure toobserve these norms of conduct. Indeed, Rule X of theImplementing Rules affirms as grounds for administrativedisciplinary action only acts “declared unlawful or prohibited bythe Code.” Rule X specifically mentions at least twenty­three (23)acts or omissions as grounds for administrative disciplinary

action. Failure to abide by the norms of conduct under Section4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 is not one of them.

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

477

VOL. 577, JANUARY 30, 2009 477

Domingo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Same; Due Process; The due process requirement mandatesthat every accused or respondent be apprised of the nature andcause of the charge against him, and the evidence in supportthereof be shown or made available to him so that he can meet thecharge with traversing or exculpatory evidence.—There isobviously a denial of due process in this case. The due processrequirement mandates that every accused or respondent beapprised of the nature and cause of the charge against him, andthe evidence in support thereof be shown or made available to himso that he can meet the charge with traversing or exculpatoryevidence. A cursory reading of the complaint­affidavit does notreveal that petitioner was charged with violation of Section 4(b) ofR.A. No. 6713. Likewise, in the OMB’s Evaluation Report, thecharges indicated were for malversation, falsification, dishonestyand grave misconduct.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision andresolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Calberito M. Caballero for petitioner. Public Attorney’s Office for private respondents.

TINGA, J.:

Assailed in this petition is the Decision1 dated 20September 2006 as well as the resolution2 dated 5 January2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA­G.R. SP No. 92597,affirming in toto the decision of the Office of theOmbudsman3 (OMB) in OMB­C­A­05­0007­A, findingRodomiel J. Domingo (petitioner) guilty of violation ofSection 4(b) of Republic Act (R.A.)

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 16­27; Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao,concurred in by Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Estela M.Perlas­Bernabe.

2 Id., at p. 53.3 CA Rollo, pp. 16­23; Presided by Lourdes S. Padre Juan, Graft

Investigation and Prosecution Officer II.

478

478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDDomingo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

No. 67134 and imposing upon him the penalty ofsuspension for a period of six (6) months.

The antecedent facts follow.A complaint­affidavit was filed before the Office of the

Ombudsman by Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) officialsKathryn Joy Paguio, Allan Jay Esguerra and Neil PatrickCelis (respondents) against petitioner as BarangayChairman and Barangay Treasurer Fe T. Lao (Lao), both ofBarangay 686, Zone 75, District V, Manila, formalversation, falsification of public document, dishonestyand grave misconduct.5

Respondents alleged that petitioner and Laomisappropriated the cash advance taken by respondentsfrom the SK funds amounting to P16,784.00 in the year2002. They added that petitioner gave a false statement inhis Justification supporting the 2003 Barangay Budget andExpenditures by declaring that his barangay had noincumbent SK officials at that time contrary to the factthat respondents are duly elected and incumbent SKofficials of the barangay.6

In support of their claims, respondents presented asevidence: (1) the Audit Observation Memorandum dated 9February 2004 issued by the Office of the City Auditor ofManila;7

_______________

4 Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees.—(A)Every public official and employee shall observe the following asstandards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of officialduties:

x x x(b) Professionalism.—Public officials and employees shall perform and

discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence,professionalism, intelligence and skill. They shall enter public service withutmost devotion and dedication to duty. They shall endeavor to discouragewrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undueadvantage.

x x x5 Ombudsman Records, pp. 1­3.6 Id., at p. 6.7 Id., at pp. 4­5.

479

VOL. 577, JANUARY 30, 2009 479Domingo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

(2) the photocopy of the certified true copy of the allegedlyfalsified Justification;8 (3) the certificate of canvass ofvoters and proclamation of the winning candidates for SKChairman and Council members during the SK election on15 July 2002;9 and (4) the affidavit of Esguerra, DaniloBaldivia and Paolo Tagabe attesting to the fact that theirservices were hired by respondent Paguio to paint thebarangay sidewalk.10

Petitioner denied the allegations in his counter­affidavitand asserted that all financial transactions of thebarangay, particularly the expenditures, were supported bypertinent documents and properly liquidated. He explainedthat the check covering the sum of P16,784.00, the object ofthe alleged misappropriation, had been properly liquidatedwith the submission of pertinent documents as of 26 June2003.11

In his reply­affidavit, petitioner questioned theauthenticity of the Justification in that his signaturetherein was forged.12

The OMB rendered judgment finding petitioner guilty ofviolation of Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713, the dispositiveportion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, finding respondent Barangay ChairmanRodomiel J. Domingo of Barangay 686, Zone 75, District V,Manila, GUILTY of violation of Section 4(b) of R.A. [No.] 6713, heshould be meted the penalty of suspension from office for a periodof six (6) months pursuant to Section 11 of the same Act.

Let the charge for Dishonesty based on the allegedmisappropriation of public funds against both respondents beDISMISSED without prejudice to its [refilling] upon finding ofirregularities by

_______________

8  Id., at p. 6.9  Id., at p. 7.10 Id., at pp. 8­11.11 Id., at pp. 25­26.12 Id., at p. 44.

480

480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDDomingo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

the Office of the City Auditor of Manila in the barangaytransactions after the completion of the audit.”13

The charge of misappropriation was dismissed for beingpremature since the audit of the subject barangaytransaction had not been concluded by the Office of theCity Auditor. The OMB also dismissed the charge offalsification of public document on the ground thatquestions pertaining to the authenticity of a signature in adocument necessitate judicial determination.14

Respondents did not appeal from the dismissal of thesecharges.

However, petitioner was held administratively liable forthe irregular submission of a falsified instrument to theManila Barangay Bureau (MBB) in connection with hisbarangay’s 2003 budget.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which theOMB denied on 11 October 2005.15 The OMB reiteratedthat petitioner was not made administratively liable forfalsification of the contested document but for thesubmission of the same. It explained that being the ChiefExecutive Officer of the barangay, petitioner assumes fullresponsibility on the propriety of all documents submittedin support of the proposed budget and thereafter made partof the records of the proper agency. Moreover, petitionerdid not contest the certification appearing thereon as to theexistence of the assailed document in the records of thebarangay bureau.16

After denial of his motion for reconsideration, petitionerfiled a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. Theappellate court denied the petition and affirmed the OMB’sdecision in toto.

_______________

13 CA Rollo, p. 22.14 Id., at pp. 20­21.15 Id., at pp. 25­30.16 Id., at pp. 35­36.

481

VOL. 577, JANUARY 30, 2009 481Domingo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Aggrieved, petitioner filed the instant petition seekingthe reversal of the Court of Appeals’ decision on twogrounds: first, that he cannot be held administrativelyliable for any act beyond his control and knowledge underR.A. No. 6713; and second, that the imposition of thepenalty of six (6)­month suspension is excessive.

Petitioner argues that the act for which he was indictedis clearly beyond his knowledge and control. He stressesthat he could not have possibly falsified his own signature.Moreover, he insists that if he indeed was responsible forthe insertion of the Justification, he could have put hisgenuine signature instead of falsifying it. He alsomaintains that he has no access or control over thesubmission of documents relative to the release of funds forspecific projects, as the responsibility rests either with theBarangay Secretary or Treasurer.17 Finally, petitionerchallenges his suspension from office as excessive in view ofthe fact that no undue injury or damage is done to thecause of public service, or to respondents themselves.18

The OMB maintains that its findings are supported bysubstantial evidence. The submission of a Justificationwhich contains a false declaration runs afoul of the conducta public servant must exhibit at all times, i.e., highestsense of honesty and integrity. With respect to the penaltyimposed, the graft office defends its propriety stressingthat it is in accordance with R.A. No. 6713.19

Respondents merely echo the stance of the OMB withthe argument that by submitting the falsified Justification

in connection with the 2003 barangay budget, petitionerfailed the mark of professionalism required of a BarangayChairman.20

_______________

17 Rollo, p. 9.18 Id., at p. 12.19 Id., at p. 79.20 Id., at p. 89.

482

482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDDomingo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Petitioner’s fundamental point is that one can not beindicted for the submission of a document which he himselfhas repudiated. The Court of Appeals shared the OMB’sview that petitioner had failed to controvert the existenceof the Justification and its entry into the records of theMBB as certified by the Chief of its Barangay AssistanceUnit.

While generally this Court may not review the factualfindings of the Ombudsman, especially when affirmed bythe Court of Appeals,21 we take exception in this case asthe findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.22

At the outset, petitioner had questioned the existence ofthe Justification, claiming that his purported signaturethereon was forged. The OMB rightfully deferred ruling onthe authenticity of the signature on the Justification on theground that said finding necessitates a judicialdetermination. However, the OMB held petitioner liable forthe submission of the Justification to the MBB. Itexplained that the failure of petitioner to contest thecertification appearing on the Justification as to itsexistence in the records of the barangay bureau should leadto the conclusion that the document came from petitioner,he being the chief executive officer of the barangay. Thisconclusion is clearly non sequitur. It is also illogical. TheOMB cannot defer ruling on the issue of falsification and inthe same breadth not only assume the same document asfalsified but on that assumption proceed to hold petitionerliable.

On the merits, the Court is also unconvinced that thereis substantial evidence establishing petitioner’s culpability.

_______________

21 Gatmaitan v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 149226, 26 June 2006, 492 SCRA591; Bedruz v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 161077, 10 March 2006,484 SCRA 452.

22 Heirs of Dicman v. Cariño, G.R. No. 146459, 8 June 2006, 492 SCRA591; PCL Manufacturing Industries Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R.No. 147970, 31 March 2006, 486 SCRA 214; Allied Banking Corporation v.Quezon City Government, G.R. No. 154126, 11 October 2005, 472 SCRA303.

483

VOL. 577, JANUARY 30, 2009 483Domingo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Petitioner had a hand in the preparation and submission ofthe documents in support of the budget, such as the 2003barangay budget,23 budget proposal,24 barangaydevelopment plan for 2003,25 and statement of income andexpenditures for 2003.26 In all these documents, theexistence of the SK was recognized and correspondingallocations were made for it. With these attestations onpetitioner’s part, there is absolutely no rhyme or reason forhim to issue the questioned Justification and attest to thenon­existence of these SK officials, more so in light ofrespondents’ assertion that he did so in connection with theprocess for the approval of this barangay’s 2003 budget.

The sole evidence relied upon by the OMB in holdingpetitioner liable is the undated Justification. Thehandwritten entry “Copy Budget 2004”27 as certified by theChief of the MBB appears to be a clerical error because theJustification was ostensibly made in connection with the2003 budget. The OMB stated that “the fact of whether ornot the same (Justification) was intended for 2003 or 2004budget is immaterial as the irregularity of its entry in therecords of the barangay bureau was the issue.” However,its entry into the barangay records was in itselfquestionable. In both cases, the submission of theJustification cannot be logically pinpointed to petitioner. Ifthe Justification was intended for 2003, there would have

been a gross inconsistency between the Justification andthe documents relating to the 2003 budget submitted bypetitioner. Likewise, if the Justification was intended for2004, respondents should have presented the 2004 budgetsince the burden is on them to prove the charges againstpetitioner. But respondents failed to do so.

_______________

23 Id., at pp. 33­34.24 Id., at pp. 35­40.25 Id., at pp. 41­43.26 Id., at pp. 45­46.27 Id., at p. 21.

484

484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDDomingo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

The Justification, if indeed it was officially submitted,was denominated as such and so submitted to justify thenon­inclusion of the SK in the barangay budget. But the2003 budget contained an appropriation item for the SK.Thus, if at all, the Justification is a stray and aberrantdocument which could not have emanated from petitioner.

The charge of violation of Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713deserves further comment. The provision commands that“public officials and employees shall perform and dischargetheir duties with the highest degree of excellence,professionalism, intelligence and skill.” Said provisionmerely enunciates “professionalism as an ideal norm ofconduct to be observed by public servants, in addition tocommitment to public interest, justness and sincerity,political neutrality, responsiveness to the public,nationalism and patriotism, commitment to democracy andsimple living. Following this perspective, Rule V of theImplementing Rules of R.A. No. 6713 adopted by the CivilService Commission mandates the grant of incentives andrewards to officials and employees who demonstrateexemplary service and conduct based on their observance ofthe norms of conduct laid down in Section 4. In otherwords, under the mandated incentives and rewards system,officials and employees who comply with the high standard

set by law would be rewarded. Those who fail to do socannot expect the same favorable treatment. However, theImplementing Rules does not provide that they will have tobe sanctioned for failure to observe these norms of conduct.Indeed, Rule X of the Implementing Rules affirms asgrounds for administrative disciplinary action only acts“declared unlawful or prohibited by the Code.” Rule Xspecifically mentions at least twenty­three (23) acts oromissions as grounds for administrative disciplinaryaction. Failure to abide by the norms of conduct underSection 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 is not one of them.Furthermore, there is obviously a denial of due process inthis case. The due process requirement mandates thatevery accused or respondent be apprised of the nature andcause of the charge against him, and the evidence insupport thereof

485

VOL. 577, JANUARY 30, 2009 485Domingo vs. Office of the Ombudsman

be shown or made available to him so that he can meet thecharge with traversing or exculpatory evidence.28 A cursoryreading of the complaint­affidavit does not reveal thatpetitioner was charged with violation of Section 4(b) of R.A.No. 6713. Likewise, in the OMB’s Evaluation Report, thecharges indicated were for malversation, falsification,dishonesty and grave misconduct.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decisionof the Court of Appeals dated 20 September 2006 affirmingthe 1 August 2005 Decision of the Office of the Ombudsmanis REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The charge of violation ofSection 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 against petitioner is orderedDISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Quisumbing (Chairperson), Corona,** Carpio­Moralesand Brion, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment reversed and set aside.

Note.—All public officials and employees shall, withinfifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof, respond toletters, telegrams or other means of communications sent

by the public. (Jacinto vs. Castro, 526 SCRA 272 [2007])——o0o——

_______________

28 Buscaino v. Commission on Audit, 369 Phil. 886, 902; 310 SCRA635, 647­648 (1999).

** Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco,Jr. per Special Order No. 558.

© Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.