You are on page 1of 34

Republic of the Philippines

Department of the Interior and Local Government


National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
POLANGUI MUNICIPAL POLICE STATION
Polangui, Albay

IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE MEMORANDUM


DATED SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 OF THE
FIELD TRAINING OFFICER ( SPO2 ARNEL
SARET SAZON)

FTP MOISES DE LAS LLAGAS BALMES,


Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

COMPLIANCE

Herein-above named and undersigned respondent, compliant with the above cited
Memorandum, to this Honorable Office/Field Training Officer, hereby most respectfully
submits his instant formal Explanation, viz.:

1) My absence during the Roll Call formation/ attendance (on September 15, 2015 at
about 9:30 PM) before Time for all Personnel to Sleep (TAPS), was due to
excusable tardiness, on account of the fact that for sometime immediately prior
thereto, I attended to urgently and exigently felt personal/family concerns with my
relative elsewhere in Basud, Polangui, Albay, that thereby entailed certain
constraints beyond my control for me to effect seasonable reporting for the TAPS;

2) My having tampered by defacement of the written note / record in the official log
book of the FTP (dated September 15, 2015) was admittedly suffered to be done by
me, in good faith and without malice, honestly believing that such tampering was
insignificant, in order to reflect the fact that I was around during the TAPs, albeit
belatedly in reporting to and attending the same;

3) Be that as it may, I hereby profusely apologize with utmost remorse for having
suffered to be done the subject acts of indiscretion and error in judgment, for which
I begged for kind consideration and for the proper disciplinary action to be
tampered with mercy and compassion, along with the assurance that henceforth,
similar lapses in the observance of proper decorum and protocol and strict
adherence to standing FTP Guide, Schedule, rules and regulations, shall be avoided,
consistent with the Philippine National Police (PNP) policies, laws, directions, and
disciplinary rules/ regulations.

Respectfully submitted.

Polanghui, Albay;
September 23, 2015.
FTP MOISES DE LAS LLAGAS BALMES
Respondent

cc.:
personal file
Republic of the Philippines
Province of Albay
MUNICIPALITY OF OAS

OFFICE OF THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN

April 04, 2014

HON. GREGORIO H. RICARTE


Municipal Mayor
Municipality of Oas

Greetings:

Pursuant to and in accordance with Sections 83 to 88 (inclusive) of Republic Act


(R.A.) 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), I beg leave to hereby formally
lodge/ institute before that Office my within duly verified ADMINISTRATIVE
COMPLAINT against Mr. LAWRENCE RAGOS, incumbent PERSONS WITH
DISABILITY AFFAIRS OFFICER (PDAO), for certain violations of the Civil
Service Law (Executive Order No. 292) and its Omnibus Implementing Rules and
/or Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
(Republic Act /R.A. No. 6713, as amended).

In our mutual directions at effecting, transparence and accountability in the


service of public officials and employees in the, your Honors preferential
treatment and receptive action hereon shall be deeply appreciated

Very respectfully yours,

Ms. CHOLITA RICAFORT - REDILLAS


Municipal Councilor (Kagawad)-elect
( Chairperson, Committee on Social Services)

Encl.: as above stated.

cc.: Personal/ official file

The Sangguniang Bayan of Oas, Albay


(c/o The Screcetary to the Sangguniang Bayan)

The Regional Director


Regional Office No. V
Civil Service Commission (CSC)
Rawis, Legazpi City

Republic of the Philippines


Province of Albay
MUNICIPALITY OF OAS

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR

CHOLITA RICAFORT REDILLAS,


(Municipal Councilor / Kagawad -elect /
member of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Oas, Albay),
Complainant,

-versus- ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. __________


For : Violation of Executive Order No. 292
and/or R.A. 6713, as amended
LAWRENCE RAGOS ( Persons
With Disability Affairs Officer/
PDAO of Oas, Albay),
Respondent.
x -----------------------x

( ADMINISTRATIVE )
COMPLAINT

Herein-above named and undersigned Complainant, to this Honorable Office,


most respectfully avers THAT:

Statement of the Parties

Herein-above named Complainant is of legal age, filipino, widow and


residing at Iraya Sur, Oas, Albay. She is an incumbent Municipal Councilor
(Kagawad) - elect and /or regular member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Oas,
Albay (hereafter, SB for brevity), holding office as such, the Municipal Hall /
Building, Oas, Albay;
Herein-above named Respondent, is of legal age, Filipino, single and residing
at Iraya Norte, Oas, Albay, whereat he is an incumbent Barangay Councilor
(Kagawad)-elect. He is the incumbent appointive Persons with Disability
Affairs Officer (PDAO) of the Local Government Unit (LGU) of Oas, Albay;

Statement of the Disciplinary Jurisdiction over the Case

Under the law, exclusive and original administrative disciplinary jurisdiction


over subordinate officials and employees of the local government unit (LGU) is
vested in the Local Chief Executive (LCE/ Mayor),

xxx who may impose the penalty of removal from the service, suspension for not
more than one (1) year without pay, fine in an amount not exceeding six (6) months
salary, or reprimand and otherwise discipline subordinate officials and employees
under his jurisdiction. xxx; (Section 87, RA 7160)

whereby,

In any local government unit, administrative investigation may be conducted by


a person or a committee duly authorized by the local chief executive. Said person
or committee shall conduct hearings on the cases brought against appointive local
officials and employees and submit their findings within fifteen (15) days from the
conclusion o f the hearings. The administrative cases herein mentioned shall be
decided within ninety (90) days from the time that the respondent is formally notified
of the charges. (Section 86, supra)

and accordingly,
Investigation and adjudication of administrative complainants against appointive
local officials and employees as well as their suspension and removal shall be in
accordance with the civil service laws and rules and other pertinent laws. The
results of such administrative investigations shall be reported to the Civil Service
Commission. (Section 84, supra)

Statement of the Charges

The instant administrative complaint charges the above named respondent


with the administrative offenses of: (a) Misconduct; (b) Dishonesty (c)
Discourtesy in the course of official duties; (d) Unfair discrimination in public
service due to affiliation and preference; and /or (e) Insubordination, as defined
and penalized under the Civil Service Law (Executive Order No. 292) and its
Implementing Rules; and /or failure to observe the norms and standards of
personal conduct, to wit: (a) Commitment to public interest; (b)
Professionalism; (c) Justness and Sincerity (d) Political Neutrality; and /or
(e) Responsiveness to the Public, as prescribed, defined and penalized under
the Code of Conduct and Ethical Stards for Public Officials and Employees (R.A.
6713, as amended);
Statement of the Cause of Action

Statement of the Legal Basis of the Case

Under the law, among its prescribed powers, duties and functions, the
Sangguniang Bayan (SB), as the legislative body of the municipality, shall enact
ordinances, approve resolutions, and appropriate funds for the general welfare of
the municipality and its inhabitants, and to ensure the efficient and effective
delivery of basic services and facilities, and accordingly, shall:

Provide for the care of paupers, the aged, the sick, persons of unsound mind, disabled
persons, abandoned minors, juvenile delinquents, drug dependents, abused children and
other needy and disadvantaged persons, particularly children and youth below eighteen
(18) years of age and subject to availability of funds, provide for the operation of centers
and facilities for said needy and disadvantaged persons ( Section 447, par. (a) (5) (xiv), R.A.
7160); highlights supplied for emphasis)

Accordingly too, aside from the organic composition of the SB by its regular
members-elect and the President of the local / municipal chapter of the Liga ng
Mga Barangay, the law prescribes that there in addition thereto, Sectoral
representatives from the (1) women (2) agricultural / industrial and other
marginalized sector of the local society such as urban poor, the elderly and/or
disabled / disadvantaged / needy persons, among others (Sec. 446, R.A. 7160)
who shall also be elected in the manner as may be provided for by law;

But since under the present dispensation, the SB of Oas, Albay has not
come with such sectoral representation as provided for by law, the concerns /
affairs, programs and projects for the women, children, elderly, disabled persons
and the like sector, have been lump vested in the local SB through its
Committee on Social Services chaired by your undersigned Complainant;

Accordingly moreover, consistent with the legislative fiat of the local SB to


enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general
welfare of the Municipality and its inhabitants, and to ensure the effective and
efficient delivery of basic services and facilities therefor, on top of the INHERENT
OVERSIGHT POWERS of the SB as a legislative body, the matter of the
execution and implementation, by the local chief executive of such enacted
ordinances, approved resolutions and appropriated funds for such services /
facilities, should be effected with due deference and coordination with the SB,
conformably to the principle of CHECKS AND BALANCES of the co-equal
branches of our government (local/ national) that animates and is institutionalized
in our republican form of government;

Accordingly furthermore, since the PERSONS WITH DISABILITY AFFAIRS


OFFICE (PDAO), as an implementing functionary under the Office of the Local
Chief Executive (LCE) is a legislative creation of the SB, or for that matter, its
incumbent, the herein respondent (PDAO), as such chief executive officer (as the
alter ego of the LCE with respect to PWDs affairs, programs, projects or
concerns), is the appointee thereto, the matter of the execution or
implementation of the projects or programs for the delivery of the PWDs services
and the appropriation of the funds for its (PDAOs) maintenance and operating
expenditures, as well as the salaries and wages of its officials and employees,
should as a matter of official protocol at least in the level of coordination,
consultation and review, be made with due deference to the SB or its oversight
powers, under principle of checks and balances;

Parenthetically, since the Committee on Social Services is the principal


functionary or vehicle through and by which the local SB effects its dealings for
the enhancement of its legislative powers to advance and promote effective
delivery of basic services and facilities for the PWDs and other disadvantage
sectors of the Municipality, its behooves the LCE or the PDAO for that matter, to
effect due deference to the said Committee or its sitting functionaries in matters
of its implementation of enacted ordinances, resolutions affecting PWD affairs or
concerns;

Suffice it to state finally, by having suffered to be done the offense/s herein


complained of, respondent has pathetically exhibited his disrespect and
indifference to the oversight powers/ authority of the SB or its functionary
(Committee on Social Services) that have thereby and by inescapable
implication, evinced an affront to the dignity of the SB or said Committee,
constituting as it does, a conduct unbecoming of a public official prejudicial to the
best interests of public service, for which disciplinary action and penalty should
be meted against him, as may be proper and warranted in the premises, if only
to uphold the principle that the rule of law upholds, the spirit that animates it, the
public service it provides and the concern it elicits.

page 4 of 4 pages;
Administrative Complaint
versus PDAO Lawrence Ragos.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

Prayer

WHEREFORE, with the foregoing, and after due proceedings taken, it is


prayed that the proper or corresponding disciplinary action / penalty be meted
against respondent, as may be warranted in the premises.

Such other just, lawful and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
Oas, Albay;
April 04, 2014.
CHOLITA RICAFORT-REDILLAS
Complainant

VERIFICATION
AND CERTIFICATION

I, CHOLITA RICAFORT-REDILLAS, under oath, declares that: I am the respondent in the


above case/proceedings who caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing pleading; I have
read the foregoing pleading and fully understood the material averments therein, the truth and
veracity of which I hereby affirm and confirm of my individual/personal knowledge, belief and
information as based on authentic public records. I hereby further certify that I have not filed,
commenced nor is there pending any other case, suit or proceeding involving the same issues
before other court, tribunal, agency or office and that should I learn that any such action, suit ort
proceeding be filed, commenced or pending before said court, tribunal agency or office, I hereby
undertake to report such fact to this Honorable Office within five (5) days from notice thereof.

WITNESS MY HANDS on the date and at the place above written.

CHOLITA RICAFORT-REDILLAS
Declarant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me by above Affiant/declarant at __________ on the


on the date first above written, having satisfactorily established to me her personal identity by
competent evidence to that effect (duly exhibited) that she is the same person who executed
and signed her foregoing pleading and that she acknowledged as her free act and voluntary
deed. I hereby further certify that I have personally examined the above affiant under oath and
that I am satisfied that she voluntarily executed and fully understood her foregoing pleading.

POLICE REGIONAL OFFICE 5


Camp General Simeon A Ola
Legazpi City

( OFFICE OF THE SUMMARY HEARING OFFICER )

PSINSP JESUS B. BEA,


Complainant,

-versus- Admin. Case No. PRO5-AC NO. 61-082913


For: Grave Misconduct
PSINSP FRANCISCO L. ALIDIO JR.,
Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

RESPONDENTS
POSITION PAPER
Undersigned respondent in the above entitled case, compliant with the processes of, and to this Honorable Office,
hereby submits his instant pleading and most respectfully manifests that:

The facts of the Case

The facts of the case (as sufficiently detailed in the pertinent pleadings, documents and records), are undisputed.
Considering that the relevant facts in this case have been delineated in sufficient detail in said pleadings, documents or
records, I deem it unnecessary to again burden this Honorable Office of a re-statement of the same facts herein, and
accordingly, such facts as contained in the records, are hereby adopted and incorporated hereto;

Respondents Counter-Statement of Facts


(of the case)

In order not to unnecessarily tax the indulgence of this Honorable office, your respondent begs leave to adopt , and
with such leave, hereby adopts en toto his counter-statement of the facts of the case, as stated in his Answer, which is
made integral part hereof;

The Charge/s

Your herein respondent is being summarily proceeded against in this case for Grave Misconduct, pursuant to
NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular Number 2007-001, for unduly releasing from the official / legal custody of the Oas
MPS the subject FA to the 2IB, 91ID, PA (based at Tula-Tula, Ligao City) through Sargeant Major (MSGT) Jesusito
Baldovino (on behalf of CPL Leo G. Grenetia to whom said FA was allegedly issued), upon presentation by SGT
Baldovino of Mission Order No. F11-011 dated April 20, 2013, thereby accordingly, effecting the suppression of such
piece of evidence (FA) with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, availability or admissibility as evidence in any
investigation or official proceedings in any criminal case (Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions), tantamount to
obstruction (of justice) investigation and prosecution of said case, which is an offense defined and penalized by law
(P.D. 1829 in relation to P.D. 1866, as amended);

Issue

Accordingly, the issue /s in this case basically boil down as to:

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT CAN BE HELD


ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE IN THE FACTUAL PREMISES,
AS CHARGED (with Grave Misconduct);

Submissions

A wrongful or criminal intent is not presumed and so is the commission of an offense.

Upon the undisputed facts of this case, and my herein-above counter-statement of facts, it is most respectfully
submitted that an administrative liability may not be justified to lie as against me, as charged (of grave misconduct).
Under the facts obtaining, but without pre-empting the prerogative the Honorable Disciplining Authority, the acts
complained of, may amount to that of simple negligence;

Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct, motivated by premeditated, obstinate or
intentional purpose. It usually refers to transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
dereliction of duty, willful in character and implies wrongful intent and not a mere error of judgment but it does not
necessarily imply corruption or criminal intention. The misconduct to be grave, must be of such a serious and
aggravated character, and not merely trivial.

On the other hand, for negligence to be gross, it must be characterized by want of even slight care, omitting to act in
a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to
consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.

In this regard, Section 1 (b) of P. D. 1829, insofar as pertinent and controlling, bears citing, viz:

x x x The penalty of prision correctional x x x , shall be imposed upon any person


who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension
of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing xxx
the following acts:
xxx xxx xxx

(b) Altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document or


or object with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability or
admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in criminal
cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases.
(highlights supplied for emphasis)

I apologetically ADMIT having negligently, imprudently, improvidently or without / in excess of my authority, effected
the release / discharge from the OAS MPS official / legal custody of the subject FA to the claimant officers of the PA.

But my having suffered to be done said acts complained of, was made entirely in good faith, in my honest intention to
perform my duty as a police officer, due to misapprehension or mistake of facts, under the antecedent facts and
circumstances that:
a) I was led to believe in good faith that subject FA was government organically issued FA to the PA through the
said unit;

b) I believedalbeit mistakenly later on--- that the Mission Order presented was validly issued to PFC
Bandales in pursuance of his duty mandate and operational capability as a PA enlisted man, and that its
presentation to me by his superior officer (MSgt. Baldovino) on behalf of their unit (2IB, 9ID, PA) was
sufficiently in order as a warrant for me effect the discharge to them from our legal custody of said FA;

c) In giving credence to the representations made by the PA superiors of PFC Bandales consistent with their
request for release to them of the subject FA, I dispensed with the proper circumspection and undertaking
thorough investigation in the premises to validate their representations and claims, in my honest intention to
perform my duty as a PNP officer and as my personal gesture (as a PNP officer and gentleman) of deferring
to, and honoring the goodwill and service which their PA unit and its uniformed officers / men extend to the
PNP organization, as a multiplier and allied peacekeeping force particularly considering that their units area
of responsibility (AOR) embraces the AOR of the Oas MPS; and that

d) I mistakenly believed too, that the release of the subject FA was in order with the eventual amicable
settlement of their dispute by the private complainant (Brodinel Copana) and PFC Bandales consequent of
the incident responded to by the dispatched elements of the Oas MPS which involved subject FA as an
instrument of the offense complained of;

Be that as it may, despite and prior to the release of the subject FA, the same (subject FA), and its release to and
acknowledgement by the said PA officers were properly documented, that are on official file or archives of the Oas MPS,
which can be readily reckoned with in the event that an investigation or official proceedings be taken against PFC
Bandales for possible filing or prosecution of the proper offense (Illegal possession of FA and Ammos) against him arising
out of the said incident subject matter of this case.

Be that as it may, too, under my foregoing submitted counter-statement of facts and circumstances, it will be readily
disclosed that in so improvidently and imprudently releasing the subject FA, I did not willfully nor knowingly suppress
said FA with premeditatedly and obstinately wrongful, much less, criminal intention to impair its availability or
admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings for possible filing of the offense of illegal
possession of firearms/ ammunitions against PFC Bandales.

Admittedly, I effected or suffered to be done the release of subject FA, believing entirely in good faith that such was
in order, even as it turned out to be otherwise, due to misapprehension or mistake of facts and inadvertence, or for
that matter, due to error of judgment.

But certainly there was NEVER any deliberate wrongful motive or criminal intent nor malice on my part in having so
released haphazardly said FA that is tantamount to knowingly, willfully and maliciously and feloniously, obstruct, impede,
frustrate or undermine the investigation or prosecution for the proper offense of PFC Bandales, or of that matter, the
administration of justice, as to violate existing laws;

page 4 of 4 pages;
Respondents Position Paper;
Admin. Case No. PRO5-AC No. 61-082913;
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

Admittedly, too, in my having so improvidently and imprudently released said FA, I lacked circumspection and failed
to exercise care in having so released the subject FA, but my such acts were inadvertently rather than intentionally
suffered to be done under the above cited antecedent facts and circumstances. Let alone under these circumstances, a
finding of simple negligence against me would be merited.

Along this vein, it would definitely preclude any insistence that I be exonerated in this case, if the premises do not so
warrant. All I that I implore by and in this pleading is that my case be objectively considered in the light of the antecedent
facts and circumstances attending towards a just and equitable resolution of the case and the imposition of my eventual
liability commensurate to the level and import of my lamented infractions;

Prayer

WHEREFORE, with the foregoing it is most respectfully prayed that after due proceedings taken, this case be
objectively and liberally resolved in my favor.

Respectfully submitted.

October 04, 2013.


Ligao City for Legazpi City.

PSINP FRANCISCO L ALIDIO JR


Respondent

Proof and Explanation of Filing and Service of Pleading

Pertinent copy of this pleading is duly served/furnished the complainant (Albay PPO through the Administrative
Officer) by personal delivery per annotation of receipt hereof
PINSP FRANCISCO L ALIDIO JR

The Receiving / Docket Clerk


SHO, PRO5, Camp Gen Simeon A Ola
Legazpi City

Greetings:

Please submit the instant responsive pleading for consideration and appropriate dispositive action of that Honorable
Office, immediately upon receipt hereof, ex-parte.

PSINP FRANCISCO L ALIDIO JR

ANSWER

Your herein-above named and undersigned respondent, compliant with the Summons dtd September 09, 2013
in the above case (receipt of which, on September 10, 2013, is hereby confessed, per records), to this Honorable Office
most respectfully states that:

2. Accordingly, I ADMIT the acts or incident complained of against me or


for that matter, that I (as then Deputy Chief of Police of the Oas Municipal Police Station / OMPS) acted negligently,
imprudently and without authority in releasing and discharging from legal custody of the OMPS of the Firearm (FA) in
question to the legal custody of the 2IB, 9ID, PA (based at Tula-Tula, Ligao City) through Sargeant Major (MSGT) Jesusito
Baldovino (on behalf of CPL Leo G. Grenetia to whom said FA was allegedly issued), upon presentation by said MSGT
Baldovino of Mission Order No. F11-11 dated April 20, 2012;
3. Accordingly too, with all due apologies as well submission to this disciplinary authority, I realize too well just lately,
in the light of the instant administrative case against me, that my said acts or incident complained of may constitute,
nonfeasance, misfeasance or even malfeasance in office, tantamount to Grave Misconduct (as charged);

4. Be that as it may, I beg leave to submit that the acts complained of were suffered to be done by me, entirely out of
good faith and with my honest intention to perform my duty as such police officer, even as the same were committed by
me due to misapprehension and /or mistake of facts, under the following antecedent facts and circumstances:

a) Due to honest oversight and lack of circumspection, I was misled early on into improvidently releasing the
FA in question, believing (albeit mistakenly as it turn out eventually) that said Mission Order was validly
issued to PFC Robert Bandales and that its presentation to me by his superior Officer (MSGT Baldovino) on
behalf of their Unit (2IB,9ID, PA) was sufficiently in order for me to effect the discharge to them from our
legal custody of the FA;

b) Accordingly, early on, and with all due honesty, in so imprudently or improvidently effecting the release /
discharge of the subject FA to said PA officers, it did not (then and there) occur to my mind and official
disposition to decisively determine that there was valid legal and factual basis to hold on, and hence, deny
release / discharge of subject FA to the claimant officers of the said PA unit, and even more that there was
factual / legal basis to constitute said FA as the corpus delicti for apprehension and prosecution of PFC
Bandales for Illegal possession of Firearms or other proper offenses in court at my own behest / instance or
that of the OMPS for that matter;

c) Likewise, early on it was my honest (yet admittedly now mistaken) belief that said FA was confiscated from
PFC Bandales principally, as the instrument of the offense complained of against the latter by private
complainant (Brodinel Copana) consequent of the incident responded to by the dispatched elements of the
OMPS. Consequently, with the eventual amicable settlement arrived at by said private complainant and
respondent (PFC Bandales), it then and there, occurred to my mind and disposition that the release to the
PA officers of said FA was in order upon presentation of said Mission Order;

d) Hence, even as I now submit to the validity of the position in this regard taken by the Pre-Charge Evaluator
in this case, I beg to manifest that by then or early on, it did not occur to my mind or official disposition that
such amicable settlement between the said original disputants is not a sufficient basis for the release of
said firearm;

e) On top of the foregoing circumstances, I was prompted to hastily and improvidently release said FA from
our (Police) custody upon my honest intention to perform my duty - nothing more nor less. With all due
honesty and candidness, aside from MSGT Baldovino, certain high ranking officers of the said PA Unit
(2IB) themselves personally (albeit orally) undertook representations and intercession for me to effect the
release of said FA which accordingly was an organic FA of their unit and that it was issued to the concerned
PA enlisted men under the Mission Order that was in order in pursuance of their overall duty mandate and
operations;

f) Prevailed by my honest belief in their said manifestations, I dispensed with the undertaking of proper and
further investigation in the premises, as my personal gesture (as PNP officer and gentleman) of honoring
the goodwill in reciprocating, enhancing and upholding the service that the said PA unit and its uniformed
officers / men provides to the PNP organization as a multiplier and allied peacekeeping force, particularly
considering that their unit area of responsibility (AOR) embraces the AOR of the Oas MPS;

5. Suffice it to state that under the foregoing antecedent facts and circumstances, in imprudently and improvidently
releasing said FA in good faith by misapprehension or mistake of fact, I did not have any intention nor motive to, and
much less, knowingly, willfully or maliciously suppress such piece of evidence with intent to impair its verity,
authenticity, availability or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in any criminal case (like
illegal possession of FA and ammunitions) against said suspect, tantamount to obstruction of investigation and
prosecution of said case as defined and penalized under the law (P.D. 1829 in relation to the Revised Penal Code).
Indeed, it is submitted that if warranted, the prosecution for said case against said suspect is still possible upon the
available records of the case;

6. Be that as it may too, under the objective factual premises obtaining I do not nurture expectation nor speculative
persuasion that I be fully exonerated from this case, if the premises do not so warrant, mindful as I do of the established
rule and pronouncement that:

It is no defense to a ministerial officer, upon whom, the law has imposed the positive
duty of performance, that he was mistaken as to the nature or extent of his obligation
or that he acted entirely in good faith and with honest intention to do his duty. (Uy Piaco
vs. Osmea, 9Phil. 29)

7. Nonetheless, by this pleading, I beg to aspire to the higher heights of magnanimity and compassion that in so
resolving this case adversely against me, the penalty to be imposed or meted should be tampered with leniency and
liberality and equity, along with my assurance that given such prayed for equitable terms, suffering to be done or
commission in the future of similar lapses in the performance of my ministerial duties as a police officer (consistent with
the law and rules), shall henceforth be avoided or obviated;

8. Indeed, I beg for at least a mitigation of my eventual liability in this case, in


the light of the jurisprudential guidance that:

One should, however, not expect to much of an ordinary policeman. He is not


presumed to exercise the subtle reasoning of a judicial officer. Often he has no
opportunity to make proper investigation x x x. To err is human. Even the most
conscientious officer must at times be misled. If therefore, under trying circumstances
and in the zealous offer to obey the orders of his superior officer and enforce the law,
a peace officer makes a mistake in good faith, he should be exculpated. Otherwise,
the court would put a premium on crime and will terrorize peace officers through a
fear of themselves violating the. (U.S. vs. Santos 36, Phil. 853; highlights supplied)

9. Beyond the foregoing, I beg to submit my case at least on equitable premises. In contrast to the tranquil majesty of
the complaining party, I am now engaged in a perturbed struggle against possible set backs not only to my police service
career but also to my property and lifeand that of my family. As the sole breadwinner of my family, my plain
housekeeper wife and two (2) minor school aged children are fully dependent upon my sole and principal source of
income as a police officer. Having myself rose from the lowly police rank to what I am now, the records will bear witness to
my creditable worth of my police service having been a recipient of well meaning service citations, commendations or
awards.

page 4 of 4 pages;
Answer of respondent
Admin Case No. PRO5-AC NO. 61-082913
x-----------------------------x

WHEREFORE, the instant pleading is most respectfully submitted.

1. Considering that the case was filed last June 20, 2012 or during the previous term, will the stated provision
apply in this case?

2. The reglementary period (90) days within which the Committee must decide on the case was not followed
since the decision was presented only last June 10, 2013. Is the decision of the committee valid ?

3. What will happen if the new members of the Committee refuse to adopt the decision rendered by the
previous set ?

4. Is there a need for the complainant to re-file the complaint so that it will be investigated by the new members
of the Committee ?

Significantly, Article 130 (b) of the said Implementing Rules and Regulations in relation to Section 66 of the Local
Government Code (R.A. No. 7160), insofar as materially relevant and pertinently controlling herein, bear considering, viz.:

Art. 130. Investigation and Decision.--- a) The investigation of the case shall be terminated
within ninety (90) days from the start thereof. Unreasonable failure to complete the investigation
after same period of ninety (90) days by the person or persons assigned to investigate shall be
a ground for disciplinary action.

(b) Within thirty (30) days after the end of the investigation, the Office of the President or
the Sanggunian concerned shall render written decision stating clearly and distinctly the facts
and reason for such decision. Copies of decision shall be immediately furnished the respon-
dent and all interested parties. In case of failure of the sanggunian concerned to render a
decision on the resolution recommended on the investigation within thirty (30) days after the
end of the investigation, the recommended resolution shall be considered the decision.

xxx xxx xxx

In his Reply (dated August 05, 2013, copy hereto appended and made integral part hereof by reference), the
Provincial Director (DILG-APPO), noted that the Committee on Good Government Decision on the case x x x bore
only two signatures out of the five signatories: that of Hon. Domingo R,. Escoto Jr., as Chairman and Hon. Rederick N.
Riva as Vice-Chairman and thereby giving the impression that such is not yet perfected, in as far as it did not obtain the
approval of at least the majority of the Committee members.

Be that as it may, consistent with the advise of the said DILG authority, and in order to effect expedient resolution and
disposition on the subject case, this Committee opted to revisit the records of the case and thereby dispensed with the
re-filing by the private complainant of her complaint with this Committee or for that matter, further investigation or other
proper proceedings on the case, in order to expeditiously come up with the recommended resolution on the investigation
for eventual and proper dispositive action by the Sanggunian en banc, even while without sacrificing thereby the
substantive and procedural due process requirements of administrative proceedings.
In thus revisiting the records of the case, this committee collegially, and its members individually, acted its own or their
respective consideration of the (complainant/s) cause/s of action or claims against the (respondents) defenses or
counter-claims, the evidence on records as adduced by the parties, the issue/s and /or law and facts of the controversy/
dispute between the principal parties, and not simply accepted the findings or disposition made by the predecessor-
committee or its members In their said Decision.

Accordingly, we find convincing factual and legal basis to declare that the evidence adduced by the complainant is
sadly lacking in evidentiary weight, credence and probative value to sustain her causes of action and reliefs sought in her
complaint against the respondent. Suffice it to state however that, to the mind of this Committee or its members
(individually), respondent is advised that henceforth, he should exercise utmost circumspection in his official dealings in
order to obviate incidence or repetition of similar complaints lodged against him.

Accordingly too, after due proceedings taken, on nominal voting agreed upon, the majority of the members of this
Committee with a total vote of three (Committee Members, Hon. Cholita R. Redillas and Hon. Anacleto Casimiro
concurring with this Ponente / Chairman, as against the two dissenting vote of Vice-Chairman, Hon. Domingo R.
Eescoto and committee member, Hon. Ferdinand Ibasco), voted to recommend for the DISMISSAL of the case for lack
or insufficiency of evidence.

Wherefore, with the foregoing, and on just, lawful and equitable premises, it is recommended that the subject case be
ordered DISMISSED for LACK OR INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE;

Let a copy of this Resolution be forwarded / furnished the SANGGUNIANG BAYAN of Oas, Albay for its EN BANC
decision / proper disposition on the case.

SO RESOLVED.

August 19, 2013.


Oas, Albay.
HON. LEOPOLDO ZARAGOSA
(OIC-Liga ng mga Barangay)
Committee Chairman
(Ponente)

Concurring: Dissenting:

Hon. CHOLITA R. REDILLAS Hon. DOMINGO R. ESCOTO


Member Vice-Chairman

Hon. ANACLETO CASIMIRO Hon. FERDINAND IBASCO


Member Member

Attested true and correct:

_______________________
Committee Secretar

Re: Abatement of Public Nuisance


(Piggery of Alicia Rayco at Iraya Sur, Oas, Albay)

Date: April 10, 2013


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

As borne by the records, and after due proceedings taken, compliant with the legal requirements therefor, the
unabated existence and continued operation of a piggery establishment (and / or pigsty) at (Barangay) Iraya Sur, this
Municipality or thereabouts, believed and ascertained to be owned, operated, suffered to be done by or belonging to a
certain (Ms.) Alicia Rayco (hereafter, Respondent), have been officially declared a PUBLIC NUISANCE (per se/ per
accidens), in accordance and consistent with the Sanitation Code of the Philippines and allied laws, rules or regulations,
pertinent and controlling local ordinances and administrative enactments, among others.

Indeed, despite series of standing, final and executory Sanitary Orders by, and authoritative enabling determinative
pronouncements and recommendations of the local (Municipal) Health Office, to the effect that abatement without judicial
proceedings of such public nuisance is in order, on top of the final and formal demand of this Office for said respondent
(Alicia Rayco) to abate the nuisance under its Communication dated August 31, 2011( copy made integral part hereof by
reference), subject public nuisance have remained unabated due to the intransigence, and stubborn disposition
unjustifiably displayed and effected by the said respondent owner / operator (Ms. Alicia Rayco and/or any other person
acting on her behalf, and under her supervision or control), to effect compliance with said orders/ demands by voluntarily
abating said nuisance;
page 2 of pages;
Memorandum Order No. ___; Series 2013.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

WHEREFORE, pursuant to law and ordinance, and under and by virtue of the powers and authorities vested in me
by law (Section 444, R.A. 7160 / Local Government Code), the EXTRAJUDICIAL ABATEMENT of subject PUBLIC
NUISANCE is hereby ordered to be effected, and accordingly:

1. The Municipal Health Officer / Office, is hereby principally directed to effect immediately or with dispatch, the
abatement of subject public nuisance by:

a) Initially demanding from respondent or any other person, party or entity acting on her behalf or under her
supervision and control or claiming rights under her, to effect compliance with the standing Sanitary Orders
issued by that Office within ten (10) days from service of notice to that effect to the respondent or her
representative;

b) Otherwise, or if the demand is rejected, yet without committing a breach of peace or doing unnecessary
injury to persons, by removing or removing, causing to be removed or destroyed the thing or the
structure/s (piggery/ pigsty) which constitutes the nuisance; and

c) To coordinate with and enlist the assistance of the Municipal Engineer and/or his Office and the Office of
the Chief of Police and/or the Oas Municipal Police Station) in order to ensure efficient, effective, orderly
and peaceful abatement of subject nuisance; and

d) To submit a report or return to this Office of the action taken hereon by that Office;

2. The Municipal Engineer and/or his Office is hereby directed to coordinate


with and provide manpower, technical and /or material assistance to the Municipal Health Officer/ Office in the process of
abating subject nuisance in order to ensure efficient and effective abatement of subject nuisance; and

3. The Chief of Police and/or his Deputies of the Oas Municipal Police Station is hereby directed to coordinate with
and provide technical, manpower and material assistance to the Municipal Health Office/ Officer in order to obviate breach
or peace and prevent unnecessary injury to persons in the process of abating the subject nuisance and thereby ensure
peace and order in the premises;

Satisfactory compliance herewith by all concerned is hereby enjoined, under pain of being proceeded against
administratively as may be warranted.

Be guided accordingly in the premises.

GREGORIO H. RICARTE
Municipal Mayor

cc.:
official file

The Honorable Sangguniang Bayan


This Municipality

Attn.: The Chairperson


Committee on Health /Sanitation

The Barangay Captain/ Punong Barangay


Iraya Sur, Oas, Albay

encls.:
as stated above

RESPONDENTS COUNTER-STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Arrayed against the foregoing counter-stated antecedent facts and circumstances of the incident matter subject of the
instant CASE, it would clearly appear, as it is most respectfully submitted that whatever liability that may be leveled
against me under the premises obtaining, would at best be purely CIVIL, rather than criminal nor administrative in nature;

Be that as it may, for one, it may be noted that the letter-complaint is not verified or subscribed under oath by Anna
Marie Armillo. The rules have it that in order for an administrative complaint to validly initiate an administrative action, the
same must be verified or subscribed under oath. On this score alone, we beg to raise issue as to the validity of the letter-
complaint as an administrative complaint in this case. Moreover, the letter-writer / private complainant (Anna Marie
Armillo) claims to be the sister of Nardita Bautista who appears to be the real party in interest or for that matter, the proper
party-complainant in this case. Yet there is no showing even that Nardita is legally incapacitated to initiate this action on
her own behalf, nor is said Anna Marie Armillo, equipped with proper representative capacity or credential to initiate the
complainant on behalf of the former;
Upon the other hand, as earlier stated, on account or consequential of the said vehicular accident, NO case
( criminal or civil) has ever been filed against me as perceived owner of the TC in question. Consequently, the complaint
/ case in question is submitted to be prematurely filed, if not its venue improperly laid before this Honorable Commission;

Accordingly, administrative actions against a public officer, or for that matter, a police officer as in my instant case,
may be classified under two categories, namely: (a) those related to the discharge of the official functions/ duties of the
officer concerned (neglect, corruption or other forms of malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance in Office) and (2)
those not related to said functions. Under the second category, when the criminal or civil cause of action against the
public officer is not linked with the performance of his official duties, conviction in the criminal action by final judgment or
adjudication on the merits with finality in the civil action is required as condition precedent to an administrative action
against such public officer (Palma vs. Fortich, G.R. No. 59679, 29 January 1987);

There is authority also to the effect that the existence of a valid criminal cause of action and/ or the filing or pendency
of a criminal case against a police officer, may furnish a ground for a prosecution of an administrative action for
misconduct against him before the competent administrative forum or disciplinary authority. But misconduct in office
is such that affects his duties as an officer and not only as affects his character as an individual. Accordingly, in such
cases, it is necessary to separate the character of the man from the character of the officer. Hence, there being no
showing that the complained of acts against me amounts to a criminal offense nor linked to the performance of my official
duties as a police officer, this case should be outright dismissed for lack of basis (Palma vs. Fortich, supra);

Indeed, as a general rule, public officers (or police officers for that matter), acting in good faith and within the scope
of their authority are not liable in private actions. Perforce, a police officer cannot be held liable in private actions which
are not linked to the performance of his official duties---as in the case at bar. And rightly so because,

The liability of a public officer to an individual or to the public is based on or co-


extensive with his duty to the individual or to the public. Where the duty of the public
officer is one owing solely to the public and not to the individual, he incurs no liability
to that individual by his action or non-action. (Mechem, Public Office and Officers, Secs
597-598)

Accordingly, too, to hold a public officer liable in private actions by an individual, it must be shown that (a) the action
or non-action of the officer was committed consequent of the performance of his official duties as such officer; (b) that
such individual suffered damage as a result of the acts of the officer and that (c) the wrong was committed to him. These
circumstances are absent in this case thus furnishing the perception that the complainant/s is/ are barking at the wrong
tree (with due pardon for the pun);

In this case, granting for the sake of argument that I was the registered or real owner of the TC in question; such fact,
let alone, does not furnish the injured party an administrative cause of action against me before the competent police
disciplinary authorities on account of said vehicular accident that ensued. On top of the fact that my direct or indirect
complicity or participation in the consequential injury sustained by Nardita Bautista has not been established and that no
case whatsoever had been filed by said victim or her assigns against me or other proper parties whomsoever may be held
liable in the premises with the proper forum, it has not been indubitably established by clear and convincing evidence that
the claimed cause of action is linked to the performance of my duties as a police officer.

Be that as it may too, it may be stressed that if ever I was earlier disposed of to agree with the offended party to
extend to her the amount of Php 18,000.00 (the Php 17,000.00 component I did satisfactorily delivered to her through her
assigns), I did so voluntarily, as a Christian and on civil and humanitarian grounds as my town mates, on top of my desire
to buy the peace (so to speak) for myself, regardless of my perceived complicity or liability in whatever case, suit,
proceeding they may file or charge against me under any cause of action (civil, criminal or otherwise) that they would
come up against me;

The foregoing factual and legal premises would readily disclose that the subject complaint against me states NO or
INSUFFICIENT CAUSE OF ACTION against me and hence, I beg and pray that the same should outright be ordered
dismissed---- at least without prejudice, for no

Republic of the Philippines


Province of Albay
MUNICIPALITY OF POLANGUI
RURAL HEALTH UNIT / FAMILY PLANNING CENTER
Polangui, Alb

August 05, 2013

The Philippine Health Insurance


Corporation (PHILHEALTH)
(LEGAL OFFICE)
Regional Office No. V
ANST Bldg. III, Alternate Road,
Legazpi City

Attn.: Mr. ORLANDO D. IIGO JR.


Regional Vice President

RE: Double Filing of Claims for patient


JESSY MAE LASUNDIN COPRADA
(Reference Number: PRO V - 13 - 106
Rural Health Unit (RHU) -Polangui)

Greetings:
Compliant with the Order (July 18, 2013) of that Office anent the herein-above subject
matter, hereby most respectfully submitted herewith are the separate Affidavits
(contents duly noted) of Mesdames ROSARIO SAMAR-TINO and KRISTINE MAE SAN
JUAN-ESTRELLA (both personnel of this Office / RHU), whereby it is manifested that
the subject DOUBLE FILING OF CLAIMS for patient JESSY MAE LASUNDIN
COPRADA (with confinement period October 30-November 01, 2012 filed subsequently on
December 11, 2012 and January 09, 2013, respectively ), was without malicious or fraudulent
or motive / intent but was principally due to misapprehension of facts, honest mistake
or inadvertence committed by said RHU personnel, under the antecedent facts and
circumstances stated in their said Affidavits (pertinent copies retained for our official
file) which are hereto appended and made integral parts hereof by reference;

Be that as it may, enclosed herewith are the requisite certified true copies of the
maternity/ hospital records of patient Jessy Mae Lasundin Coprada and other
supporting documents (Admission Logbook entry/ies) related thereto, as requested,
contents duly noted;

Your preferential treatment and receptive action hereon shall be deeply appreciated.
Respectfully submitted.

Very truly yours,

DR. ARNEL T. BORJA, MD


Resident Physician
Office/r in-Charge
Polangui (Albay) RHU/MHO/RHUFPC

cc.: Office file

Encls:
as above stated

The perceived double filing of claims for said patient with confinement
period January 20-21, 2012 could have been occasioned by the antecedent
fact and circumstance that the (a) MCP for deliveries (Code: 080.9 Z37) in
the amount of Php 8,000.00 and the (b) NCP for New Born Screening
(Code: Z 38.0) in the amount of Php 1,550.00 were separately
transmitted but subsequently both submitted on February 24, 2013 (per
records).

The perceived double filing of claims for said patient with confinement
period January 20-21, 2012 could have been occasioned by the antecedent
fact and circumstance that the (a) MCP for deliveries (Code: 080.9 Z37) in
the amount of Php 8,000.00 and the (b) NCP for New Born Screening
(Code: Z 38.0) in the amount of Php 1,550.00 were separately
transmitted but subsequently both submitted on February 24, 2013 (per
records).

Accordingly, suffice it to state in this regard that the incidence of subject double filing / same day
confinement of claims , was purely accidental or unintentional in that it was without fraudulent
intent nor motive to misrepresent, much less, for that matter, fraudulently effect duplicitous or
multiple claims prejudicial to all concerned, were it not for the circumstances obtaining in the
premises, tantamount to mistake, inadvertence, misapprehension of facts, excusable negligence
and/or lapses in circumspection that may have been committed by the informant or competent
personnel of the (Polangui) RHUFPC/MHO who acted on the questioned records or that may
have attended the preparation, recording, processing or submission of the subject claims records;

Be that as it may, we sincerely apologize for the fiasco. Accordingly too, leave is hereby most
respectfully begged for the matter subject and in question, to be disposed of liberally as may be
proper and warranted in the premises, along with the assurance that the commission of similar
lapses in circumspection in dealing with such or similar claims or records, shall henceforth be
avoided. Indeed, in order to obviate the recurrence of similar lapses or incident, our office have
undertaken proper review and re-alignment of our internal flow of action on papers / records,
duty assignments, including but not limited to installation of proper and upgrading of offices
records documentation, processing, validation and outflow control management system;

submitted herewith is the Joint Affidavit of even date of Ms. Emerlina SJ. Labilles (Rural
Health Midwife II) and Rosario Samar-Tino (Casual Employee / PhilHealth in-charge Clerk) both
of the Rural Health Unit and Family Planning Center (RHUFPC), under the Municipal Health
Office (MHO) / Rural Health Unit (RHU) of Polangui, Albay bearing on the antecedent fact and
circumstances surrounding the subject incident (double filing/ same day confinement of claims),
copy of which retained on official file of our Office (RHUFPC/MHO) and whose manifestations
therein are self-explanatory, contents duly noted.
In the appreciation of such evidence against me in this case, I beg for caution
since, as in criminal prosecutions, the instant case is nonetheless prayed to be considered with circumspect, in the light of
the jurisprudential postulates that:

The conviction of a crime cannot be founded upon a mere conjecture,


however strong it may be. (People vs. Eslire, 26 O.G. 3067).

A conviction cannot be founded upon conjectures, however shrewd,


nor upon probabilities, however strong . (State vs, Macarthy, 36 Mon. 226,
92 Pac. 521)

In the process of ascertaining the truth, respecting a fact, conjectures


and suspicious should be ruled out because they have no place in our
judicial system .(Chiong vs. Diong, 15 SCRA 275);

Conspiracy as a concept in substantive and procedural law in this jurisdiction, cannot be presumed. For conspiracy
to lie against a suspected co-conspirator to the commission of an offense (be it criminal or otherwise) , it must
be convincingly and satisfactorily proven or established as the basic offense itself to which it is attached, although the
requisite quantum of evidence may vary as to the nature of the offense or proceedings involved;

While admittedly, there is conspiracy when the accused acted with a view to the attainment of the same object that
is unlawful, and when their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and cooperative (People vs.
Manlolo, 169 SCRA 394), and that it (conspiracy) need not be established by direct evidence but it may be proven
through a series of acts done in pursuance of a common unlawful purpose (People vs. Alvarez, 169 SCRA 730), I most
respectfully submit that the charged conspiracy against me I this case may not lie, simply for the reason that the series of
acts undertaken or suffered to be done by me, albeit independently, but may be concerted and cooperative with the acts
done by my co-respondents, yet the same were suffered to be done by me for the attainment of the object ---- which is to
build up, effect the indictment and prosecution of proper cases against PO1 Santayana--- which object, let alone, is
certainly NOT UNLAWUL.

Indeed, while admittedly PO1 Santayana is my fellow PNCO at the PMPS, on top of the fact that we are town mates,
but that does not justify the conclusion, speculation nor conjecture that I am or was part of the conspiracy complained of,
simply because an assumed intimacy has no legal bearing inasmuch as conspiracy transcends companionship
(People vs. Manuel, G.R. No. 93926-28, July 28, 1994).

Suffice it to ventilate and I beg to quote that:

One should, however, not expect too much of an ordinary policeman. He is not
presumed to exercise the subtle reasoning of a judicial officer. Often he has no
opportunity to make proper investigation but must act in haste in his own belief to
discharge his official duties. To err is human. Even the most conscientious officer must
at times be misled. If therefore, under trying circumstances, and in the zealous offer to
obey the orders of his superior officer and to enforce the law, a peace officer makes a
mistake in good faith, he should be exculpated. Otherwise, the court would put a
premium on crime and will terrorize peace officers through a fear of themselves
violating the law (U.S. vs. Santos, 36 Phil. 853);

I will just narrate other pertinent details of the matters stated herein which are of my personal knowledge, belief and
information as based on / supported by authentic records, or adduce other pertinent evidence in support thereof, if
required and warranted.

Prayer

Your undersigned respondent, a lowly PNCO, stands charged of a serious administrative offense of
DISHONESTY.

It is cruel and ironic to say the least, that the perceived misdeeds of PO1 Santayana is now causing unsolicited
misery, agony and anxiety to me and my family. In contrast to the tranquil majesty of PO1 Santayana and /or the
complaining / prosecuting parties, I am now engaged in a perturbed struggle against unwarranted disturbance of my
public service career and personal status as a law abiding citizen and doting family man, and even more, to the
consequential setbacks to my property, liberty and even life.

It would definitely preclude any insistence that I aspire for complete absolution and exoneration in this case, if the
premises do not so warrant . But in the light of the factual and legal premises obtaining and presented in this case, I beg
and pray that I be allowed at least to aspire and gain access to the higher heights and wider horizons of fair play, legality
and equity; to seek refuge in the comforting guarantee of truth, justice and the rule of law;
27. Under these circumstances, it is no wonder why only Emily came to be the sole witness against me in this case,
exclusive of other persons or parties whomsoever who may have witnessed the incident complained of in this case.
Accordingly, the testimonies of Emily (by way of her submitted testimonial affidavit and police blotter report), are BIASED
and self-serving, by all points of reckoning with its probative value. Abundant legal authorities have it that a witness is said
to be biased when his relation to the cause or to the parties is such that he has an incentive to exaggerate or
give false color to his statements, or to suppress or prevent the truth or to state what is false. Bias is the that
which excites the disposition to see and report matters they wished for rather than as they are. (II Moore on
Facts, Sec. 1091, p. 1225; emphasis supplied)

28. In this regard, the authoritative pronouncement of the High Court in Gabriel vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.
128474, Oct. 06, 2004) is persuasively enlightening when it rules that:

xxx Although biased witnesses may be honest, they cannot ---as long as
human nature remains unchanged--- overcome the tendency to distort,
magnify or even minimize, as their interest persuades, the incidents which
they relate. (emphasis supplied)

31. Accordingly, the basic rule is that a mere allegation is not evidence,
and is not equivalent to proof (Navarro vs. Cerezo, A.M. No. P-05-1962, February 17, 2005). Perforce, it is the
complaining party or the prosecution who makes the positive assertion that I was indeed intoxicated when the incident
complained of happened. He who asserts, not he who denies must prove (Angeles vs. Figueroa, A.C. No. 5050,
September 20, 2005).

32. The burden of proving that allegation therefore, rests upon the
complainant, who however, failed to establish substantiate, validate and establish that allegation by straightforward,
convincing, conclusive and credible evidence. As the long line of undisturbed jurisprudence have it

. . . a mere charge or allegation of wrongdoing does not suffice.


Accusation is not synonymous with guilt. There must always be sufficient
evidence to support the charge. This brings to the fore the application
of the age-old but familiar rule that that he who alleges must prove his
his allegations... (R)espondent is not under obligation to prove his
negative averment, much less, to disprove what has not been proved by
complainant. Thus, we have consistently held that if the complainant
upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action, fails to
show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his
claim, the respondent/defendant is under no obligation to prove his
exception or defense. (Boyboy vs. Yabut Jr., A.C. No. 5225, April 29, 2003;
emphasis supplied)

38. Motive alone is not sufficient to establish criminal intent, much less commission of an offense. Even ill motive
to harm, much less to kill the Honorable Mayor cannot be ascribed to me or for any intent to pursue such purpose or use
any particular means to effect such result, since any attempt at it are foreclosed by the following circumstances:

39. I could not also be charged with conspiracy nor proposal to commit a crime for the reason that I have not
proposed the commission of an offense that is not against the external or security of the state as defined and penalized
under existing laws, on top of the fact that as a supposed proponent, I am not determined to commit the proposed felony,
there was no decided or concrete proposal and I have never proposed the execution of the felony that was proposed if
any or at all;

40. Under the CSC law and rules, an aggravating circumstance should be properly invoked or pleaded by the proper
party for the same to be appreciated accordingly in the imposable penalty against whomsoever it may lie. No such
aggravating circumstance is properly invoked or pleaded in the complaint;

44. Even with the alleged presence then and there of the Honorable Mayor of Angadanan, Isabela would be of no
moment. Firstly, I did not know her and much less, was I minded by her presence then and there. Jurisprudential
authorities have it that lack of knowledge on the part of the offender that a public authority is present indicates lack of
intention to insult public authority. In fact, the same authorities have it that where the offense is committed in the
presence of an agent of an person in authority or a mere public employee, who is not a public authority as contemplated
by law, such aggravating circumstance cannot be appreciated against the offender;

45. Upon the other hand, generally, misconduct is the doing either through
ignorance, inattention or malice, or that which the officer had no legal right to do at all, as where he acts without any
authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores or abuses his power. Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper or
unlawful conduct, motivated by premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. It usually refers to transgression of some
definite rule of action , where no discretion is left except what necessity may demand; it does not necessarily imply
corruption or criminal intention but implies wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment.

46. Against the foregoing factual backdrop, the complained of acts against me may not even approximate to that of a
simple misconduct. Indeed, misconduct in office is such as affects his duties as an officer and not only as affects his
character as a private individual . Misconduct in office goes to the very essence and value of a person both as a
gentleman/lady and a public officer. (Palma vs. Fortich, G.R. 59679, 29 Jan. 1987).

47. Accordingly, where, as in this case, the act complained of is also criminal in nature but not involving moral
turpitude nor arising out of or connected with the performance of official duties of the respondent, before such act may be
proceeded against criminally, the respondent must be proceeded against criminally before the filing /prosecution of the
administrative case, otherwise, the latter maybe subject to dismissal for lack of basis (Palma vs. Fortich, supra)

Prayer:
By this pleading, and upon my instant manifestation that I NO longer elect a formal investigation of this case, I
nurture no speculative persuasion on the final outcome of this case. Yet without pre-empting the prerogatives of this
Honorable Commission on the matter of judicious disposition of the case, all that I implore in and by this pleading is the
objective appraisal and judicious consideration of the factual and legal premises obtaining in this case, towards just and
equitable resolution of the same.
Accordingly, with respect to the adversarial claims and allegations of the complainant on the case, all that I implores
herein, is the judicious consideration of my defensive position in the light of the of the factual and legal premises
presented in my instant responsive pleading and counter-evidence submitted herein;

Accordingly too, I beg for the outright dismissal of this case, upon the foregoing factual and legal premises presented,
on top of the pronouncements that:

Accusation, is not according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt.


It is incumbent upon the prosecution to demonstrate that culpability lies. The
proof xxx must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must
not be permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must be satisfied that
on the defendant could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged.
(People vs. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59, 64).

And rightly so, because,

Infinitely more important than conventional adherence to the general rules


of procedure is respect for the citizens right to be free not only from arbitrary
arrest, but also from unwarranted and vexatious prosecution.The integrity
of the democratic institution is corrupted if a person is carelessly included in
the trial xxx when on the very face of the records, no evidence linking to the
alleged offense exists.

No less than clear and unequivocal evidence beyond reasonable doubt,


will do for the purpose. Neither will it suffice to subjecting a man to prosecu-
tion since for such purpose, a prima facie case must be established on the
basis of facts, bearing in mind always that no one should be the victim of
of hasty, false, groundless and malicious prosecution.( Bagatua vs. Revilla,
100 Phil. 192; emphasis supplied);

ny insistence that your appellant aspire for complete absolution and exoneration, if the premises do not so warrant, but in
the light of the factual and legal premises obtaining in this case, your appellant begs to aspire to gain access to the
horizons of fair play and equity; to seek refuge in the comforting guarantees and protection of the rule of law and truth

The right which every man has to his character, the value of that character
to himself and his family and the evil consequences that would result to society
if charges of guilt were lightly entertained or readily established in the
courts of justice --- these are the real considerations which have led to the
adoption of the rule that all imputations of crime or offenses be strictly proved.
The rule then is recognized alike by all tribunals whether civil or criminal or
otherwise and is equally effective in all proceedings whether the question of
guilt is directly or indirectly raised. (I Jones on Evidence citing Taylor, EV., 10th Edition;
emphasis supplied)

26. Be that as it may, certain authoritative yet pertinent pronouncements


are enlightening in this regard, and bears citing, viz:,

The liability of a public officer to an individual or the public is co-extensive with


his duty to the individual or the public. The duty of a public officer may be one owing
primarily to the public collectively or one not only owing to the public but also to a
particular individual. Where the duty of the public officer is one owing to the public
and not to the individual, he incurs no liability to that individual. To make him liable,
the duty of required of him by law must be one owing to the individual who is injured
by his action or non-action. (Mechem, Public Office & Officers, Secs. 597-598, as cited Ibid.,p 239)

27. Accordingly, for a public officer to be held liable in torts or private actions, on account of his action or non-action,
the person injured must show that (1) he has suffered damage as a result of the acts or omissions of the public officer and
that (2) he must prove that a wrong was committed to him by the officer. Otherwise, the case is damnum absque injuria
;
Misconduct in office is such as affects his duties as an officer and not only as
affects his character as a private individual. In such cases, it is necessary to separate the character of the man
from the character of the officer. ( Palma vs. Fortich , supra);

x x x Accusation is not , according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt.


It is incumbent on the prosecution to demonstrate that culpability lies. The proof x x x
must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway
judgment. The conscience must be satisfied that on the defendant could be laid the
responsibility for the offense charged. (People vs. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59).

and rightly so, because,

Infinitely more important than conventional adherence to the general rules of procedure
is respect for the citizens right to be free not only from arbitrary arrest, but also from
unwarranted and vexatious prosecution. The integrity of the democratic institution is
corrupted , if a person is carelessly included in the trial, x x x when on the very face of
the records, no evidence linking to the alleged conspiracy exists .
No less than clear and unequivocal evidence beyond reasonable doubt will do for the
purpose. Neither will they suffice to subjecting a man to prosecution since for such
purpose, a prima facie case must be established on the basis of facts, bearing in mind
always that no one should be the victim of hasty, false, groundless, and malicious
prosecution. (Bagatua vs. Revilla, 100, Phil. 192 ; highlights supplied for emphasis.)

and rightly so, because,

The right which everyman has to his character. The value of that character to himself
and his family, and the evil consequences which would result to society if charges of
guilt were lightly entertained, or readily established in courts of justice-- these are
the real considerations which have led to the rule that all imputations of an offense must
be strictly proved. The rule, then, is recognized alike by all tribunals, whether civil,
criminal or otherwise, and is equally effective in all proceedings, whether the
question of guilt be directly or incidentally raised. ( People vs. Pacana , 47 Phil. 48;
highlights supplied for emphasis)
Be that as it may, it is even cruel and ironic to say the least, that the groundless imputations and charges of complaint
against your respondent, is now causing unsolicited misery, torment, anxiety and social embarrassment, among other
damages to your respondent and her family. In contrast to the tranquil majesty of complainant, your respondent is now
engaged in a perturbed and distracting struggle against unwarranted disturbance and possible setbacks to her public
service career as an educator and as a modest family woman, to the very least.

Your respondent, by this pleading, poses no objection to, nor nurtures speculative persuasion on the eventual and final
disposition of this case. But with respect to complainants claims and adversarial allegations, all your respondent implores
herein is the judicious consideration of her defensive position that in so resolving this case, the fact and circumstances
that drew the complainant in the present action, be judicially considered in the light of the premises herein presented.

It would definitely preclude any insistence that that your respondent aspire for complete absolution and exoneration, if
the premises do not so warrant; but in the light of the factual and legal premises herein presented, your respondent begs
to pray that she be allowed to gain access to the horizons of fair play and equity; to seek refuge in the comforting
guarantee of truth and protection of the rule of law, and rightly so, because:

The right which every man has to his character, the value of that character to
himself and his family, and the evil consequences that would result to society if
charges of guilt were lightly entertained or readily established in courts of justice
or other tribunals---these are the real consideration which have led to the adoption of
the rule that all imputations or crime or offenses must be strictly proved. The rule then
is recognized alike by all tribunals whether civil or criminal or otherwise and is equally
effective in all proceedings whether the question of guilt is directly or indirectly raised.
(I Jones on Evidence, citing Taylor EV., 10th Ed.; Highlights supplied for emphasis)

The issues in this case are thus reduced into whose version or claim is within the realm of easy and spontaneous
belief and that which is sustainable in the factual, legal and equitable premises obtaining; that of the complainant or that of
your respondent ?

In fine, the position in defense of your respondent in this case, speaks for itself quite eloquently.

With the foregoing, and after due proceedings taken, it is most respectfully prayed that the complaint or case be
outright ordered dismissed for want of factual and legal merit.

Respectfully submitted.

Ligao City;
June 18, 2012.
CRISTINA B. RELLEVE
Respondent
DISCUSSION/S

In general, all officers of the government from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the fundamental law
(Constitution), its enabling laws or statutes or implementing rules of the latter, and are bound to obey it. The duties of a
public officer include all those which fairly lie within its scope and all those which, although incidental and collateral, are
germane to or serve to promote or benefit the accomplishment of the principal purposes (Lo Cham vs. Ocampo, 77 Phil.
635).

Administration as a function of government, is understood to mean the actual running of the government by the
executive authorities through the enforcement of laws and the implementation of polices. It includes internal
administration which covers those rules defining the relations of public functionaries inter se and embraces whole range
of law of public officers. Thus, provisions regarding the qualifications, selection, powers, rights, duties and liabilities of
public officers are considered part of administrative law. Internal administration consists, among others, of rules laid
down in a particular agency or office, like those prescribing work assignments or job descriptions, uniforms, procedures
for submission of reports and the like, all of which are imposed by the superior in said office upon his
subordinates. (Cruz, Carlo L., Philippine Administrative Law, 1998 Ed., page 7; highlights supplied for emphasis)

Indeed, under controlling law and rules, outside of citizens complaints, the summary disciplinary authority of
chiefs of police or equivalent supervisors may involve the summary imposition of the administrative punishment of
admonition or reprimand; restriction to specified limits; withholding of privileges; forfeiture of salary or suspension or any
of the combination of the foregoing, on dealing with minor offenses involving internal discipline found to have been
committed by any regular member of their respective commands. (Sec. 52 (b) (1), PNP Reorganization Act of 1998 /R.A.
8551, as amended)
22. The duties of public officers may be purely discretionary or ministerial or both. A purely ministerial act or duty, in
contradistinction to a discretionary act, is one which an officer may perform in a given state of facts, in a prescribed
manner, in obedience to the mandates of legal authority, without regard to the exercise of his own judgment, upon the
propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer, and gives him the right to decide
how and when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only
when the discharge of the same requires the exercise neither of official discretion nor judgment (Lamb vs. Phipps, 22
Phil. 456);

(Official Letter Head

IN THE MATTER OF THE QUESTIONED


EXISTENCE AND OPERATION OF
TAMBAYAN (a business establishment
operating as a drinking place at Purok
Everlasting, Ubaliw, Polangui, Albay).
x ---------------------------x

CEASE, DESIST AND CLOSURE ORDER

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 389, paragraphs (a) (b), sub-paragraphs (1), (3), (9), (11) and (14) of Republic
Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) and in accordance with (Section 2 among others of ) Amendatory
Ordinance No. 1, s. 1993 (amending certain provisions of Municipal Ordinance No. 5, s. 1960), in relation to Articles 694,
695, 699 and 707 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386 as amended) and consistent with
existing, effective and binding Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to this effect, specifically upon the grounds that it
(TAMBAYAN):

(a) has become a PUBLIC and/or PRIVATE NUISANCE;


(b) is operating with the corresponding/requisite valid Municipal (Mayors)
and/or Barangay Permit; and/or
(c) is within the prohibited zone or perimeter radius of such business
establishment/operation;

the subject establishment ( TAMBAYAN), is hereby ORDERED CLOSED, and accordingly, its concerned proprietor/s-
manager/s, or any other person whomsoever, acting for or its behalf or under the control of its
owners/managers/operators (or assigns), are hereby ordered to CEASE and DESIST from operating subject
establishment or suffering to be done acts in pursuance thereof, under pain of criminal, civil, administrative liabilities under
controlling laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as may be proper and warranted in the premises.

All concerned are hereby guided accordingly.

This Order takes effect immediately upon issuance from date hereof.

Ubaliw, Polangui, Albay;


April 30, 2012.
JOSE A. ZAMORA
Barangay Captain
Noted:
Hon. JOSEPH T. SARIBA
Barangay Kagawad
(Chair, SB Committee on Trade
& Industry, Amusement etc.)

CC.:
The Municipal Mayor
Municipality of Polangui, Albay

Official File

COUNTER-STATEMENT OF SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

On the First Specification of Charge:

The law in point in this regard is Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Presidential Decree
No.1602which prohibits or regulates gambling. What is punishable under the law is directly or indirectly taking part in an
illegal or unauthorized activities, games or schemes, in whatever form or manner (such as jueteng or cockfighting or
card games like pusoy), wherein wagers consisting of money or representative of value are at stake or made.

Gambling is a malum prohibitum in the sense that it is illegal because the law prohibits it, as contradistinguished to
malum per se, whereby an act is illegal whether or not its is prohibited by human positive law. Accordingly, instruments
such as playing cards become prohibited instruments or materials when used as such in gambling, i.e. in activities,
games or schemes that are declared as illegal or unauthorized by law where bets in money or anything of value are
wagered, made or at stake. Consequently, when the activity, scheme or game is performed by individuals where no bets
in money or anything of value is made, wagered or at stake, such instruments or materials such as card games are not
per se or by its nature, prohibited materials or instrument, and its possession or use does not by itself becomes unlawful,
just as mere possession playing cards, or fighting cocks e does not become unlawful or for that matter its use in card
game or cockfighting where no money or valuables are betted, wagered, at state or made.

Accordingly, it would be extremely stretching the intendment of the law or of its import and tenor to consider playing
cards as contrabands (like prohibited or regulated drugs), that its mere possession or for that matter entry in jails or
cells, are absolutely prohibited or considered unlawful. Indeed, there are laws that exempt certain card games, for home
entertainment or parlor games. (Letter of Instruction No. 816).

Even the cited Memoranda (dated June 04,1993 and September 07,2004 Re: Illegal Gambling in Jails), of the Chief,
BJMP, contemplates ILLEGAL GAMBLING (where money or other things of value are made, wagered, betted or at state).
By parity of reasoning, mere possession or entry of playing cards or the like, by BJMP personnel while on duty inside the
jail premises, does not by itself constitute a criminal act, and much less any act whereby the concerned individual can be
administratively proceeded against or be held liable.

Moreover, Motive is an internal act while intent is external. Only external acts are punishable. There is no crime where
there is no law that punishes it. (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege) An act to be punishable under the law, must be
committed, performed or incurred with deliberate intent. The existence of intent is shown by the overt acts of a person.
Although criminal intent is presumed from the commission of an unlawful, act, but no such presumption attaches where
there is no law that punishes the act. (People vs. Renegado, No.L-27032, May 31, 1974, 57SCRA 275)

Accordingly, mere possession of playing cards or playing with it, without money or valuable bets, is not unlawful or
declare so by law as there is no law that punishes it. P.D.1602 nor the above cited BJMP Memorandum Circulars do not
declare such acts as unlawful or prohibited, much less, punish such acts. Accordingly, too, mere possession of, or
games with the use of playing cards by your respondent with certain inmates as complained of, is not itself unlawful or
prohibited.

Moreover, the overt acts of your respondent in effecting games with certain inmates on the date and time of the
incident complained of, was suffered to be done by him merely as RUSE, which is to effect intelligence gathering and
verification from the concerned inmates themselves, to divulge with immunity to your respondent certain irregularities or
offenses committed by his subordinate in the Labo District Jail, without such whistle blowers being subjected to
possible harassment or reprisal from the concerned BJMP jail personnel. No other means or scheme was contrived by
your respondent in order to elicit such information or disclosures against his subordinates from the inmates, without the
latter being suspected to be the whistle blowers. Such a scenario was deemed by your respondent as the most effective
way or means under the circumstances, by which to effect his information gathering intentions for the good of the jail
management and operation and enforcement of the BJMP policies, rules and guidelines. The act may be improper, but it
was intended to subserve a sublime purpose for the good of the BJMP. Indeed, he was just acting in the fulfillment of duty
or in the lawful exercise of his office or right ,that is even a justifying or absolutory circumstance under the law;

Having suffered to be done said act, your respondent, was without deliberate intent nor motive to infract the rules,
disdain the standing BJMP guidelines and polices and much less, violate the law. Your respondent have never been
engaged in any form of gambling, although he is familiar with card games as he engages in it for entertainment or simply
while passing off spare time with friends, but certainly without any money or valuable bets. Since he assumed office at the
Labo District Jail, he has consistently banned any form of gambling inside the jail premises.

Generally, the duties of the public officer may be discretionary or ministerial in nature. The discharge of the
permissive or discretionary duties of public officers shall be dependent on a sound discretion to be exercised for the good
of the service and benefit of the public, whether so expressed in the statute giving the authority or not ( Sec. 5, Revised
Administrative Code). Ministerial duty is one where its discharge by the officer concerned is imperative and requires
neither judgment nor discretion on his part. Accordingly, a ministerial act, as contradistinguished from a discretionary act,
is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate
of legal authority, without regard to the exercise of his own judgment, upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done
(Lamb vs. Philips, 22 Phil. 456.)

The duty or liability of a public officer may be one owing primarily to the public collectively, or one not only owing to
the public but also to a private individual. Accordingly, public officers discharging ministerial duties, yet acting in good
faith and substantially within the scope and parameters as well as standards of their authority, are not liable in
administrative actions. And truly so, because there is the disputable PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES in favor of public officers.

This presumption rests upon exceedingly firm foundations in that (1) innocence and not wrongdoing, is to be
presumed; (2) that an official oath will not be violated and (3) that a republican form of government cannot long survive
unless a limit is placed upon controversies and certain trust and confidence reposed in each governmental department or
agent by every such other department or agent ( Jones on Evidence; People vs. Janssen,54 Phil. 176).

Accordingly, too, in cases where the law requires a ministerial officer to perform a certain duty. His liability will
either be for nonfeasance, malfeasance or misfeasance. Nonfeasance is the omission of an act which a person
ought to do; misfeasance is the improper doing of an act which a person might lawfully do; and malfeasance is the doing
of an act which a person ought not to do at all. The rule as above stated therefore includes:

Nonfeasance in office or the neglect or refusal, without sufficient excuse to perform an act which it was the officers
legal obligation to perform;

Misfeasance in office or negligence which is the failure to use, in the performance of a duty owing to the individual,
that degree of care, skill and diligence, which the circumstances reasonably demand; and/or

Malfeasance in office or the doing, either through ignorance, inattention or malice, of that which the officer had no
legal right to do at all, as where he acts without authority whatever, or ignores, exceeds or abuses his powers
or authority . (Mechem, Public Office and Officers)

Under the premises, your respondent cannot be held liable either for malfeasance, misfeasance and much less
nonfeasance in office.

Your respondents creditable worth of records in the service of the BJMP will bear him out having at least, been the
recipient of certain awards of recognition or commendations such as : Best Municipal Jail Warden for year 2010 and Best
Municipal Jail (of his assignment) for year 2011 and Best Junior Officer of the Year (2011).

And on the Second Specification of Charge:


As borne by the records (copies of the Memoranda attached), your respondent have issued policy guidelines for
the ABJMP personnel of Labo District Jail not only to streamline and ensure efficiency and effectiveness in the overall
management and operation of the jail, but also to curb the nefarious practices and irregularities committed by the private
complainants-jail detrimental to the jail operation and the service as well.

In particular, to prevent improper and unauthorized utilization by Jail Personnel of jail aides out of the inmates, I have
issued Memorandum (dated 08 September 2011) directing the BJMP officers (including this warden) in the jail to bring
and wash their own eating utensils (copy attached). Our jail have also employed the services of a non-inmate to attend
the kitchen chores of the jail.

It is at the height of sheer hypocrisy for complainants to claim that I have been utilizing inmates as jail aides to
perform routine housekeeping chores in the District Jail even beyond allowable hours or time, since they (complainants)
and their cohorts had been suffering to be done in irregularities in the jail such as drinking liquor, reporting while
intoxicated, gambling and utilizing jail aides to serve their personal whims and caprices such as massaging whenever they
are inebriated. These irregularities are borne by the records and had been the subject of the investigation by the higher
BJMP authorities. It is in this sense that complainants are throwing back their kettle at me, even while they are the
culprits. He who comes to court must come with clean hands.

By this pleading, I pose no objection nor nurture persuasive speculation on the eventual and final outcome and
disposition of this case. But with respect to the complainants baseless claims and adversarial allegations, all your
undersigned respondent implores herein is the judicious consideration of his defensive position that in so resolving the
case, the fact and circumstances that drew the complaining party or parties in the present action, be judiciously
considered in the light of the factual and legal premises herein presented.

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the instant case be adjudged or that it liberally disposed in my favor,
along with such other just and lawful and equitable reliefs.

Polangui, Albay for Legazpi City;


February 17, 2012.

J/SINSP ROLLY M. OLLET


Responden
10. Well established is the legal authority to the effect that:

As a general rule, public officers of the government, in the performance of their


public functions, are not liable either for misfeasance or positive wrong, or for the
nonfeasance, negligence or omission of duty of their official subordinates. This
immunity rests upon public policy, the necessity of the public service and the perplexities
and embarrassments of a contrary doctrine. It would be difficult to find competent men to
fill important positions in the government if they know that they would be answerable for
all the torts or wrongs committed by their subordinates. These subordinate officials are
directly liable for their own defaults. If they are not made so because the law makes
their superiors liable for whatever errors or mistakes they make in the performance of
their duties, then these subordinates would not give the same care and diligence to their
work as the law would require them to. ( Mechem, Public Office & Officers, Section 789, as cited by
Ruperto G. Martin, Administrative Law, Law of Public Officers and Election Law, Revised edition, pp. 244-245);
Highlights supplied for emphasis)

11. The above cited general rule admits of exception where the superior officer may be held liable for the acts or
omissions of their subordinates, some of which, as may be relevant in this case are: (a) where the superior officer so
carelessly or negligently oversees, conducts or carries the business of his office as to furnish opportunity for default; or (b)
a fortiori, when he has directed, authorized or cooperated in the wrong; or (c) when the law makes him so liable. (Lung
Chen Kee & Co., vs. Aldanese et. al,. 45 Phil., 784). Certainly, your respondent most respectfully submits that the
foregoing exceptions to the general rule cannot be made to apply to his case under the premises obtaining on record;

Respondent PO3 Fe Ramos denied that she failed to submit her SALN for 2009.
She alleged that she complied with the Memorandum directing all Albay PPO personnel
to submit their respective SALN. However, she failed to take notice that it was only on
March 2011 that she was able to submit the same after the lapse of one (1) year from
March 2010;
x x x

x x x
In a long line of jurisprudence such negligence are characterized by the want of
even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not
inadvertently, but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to conse-
quences in so far as other person may be affected. It is the omission of that care
which even inattentive thus, in the cases involving public officials, there is gross
negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.(underscorings supplied)

Government employees are required to submit their Sworn Statement of Assets,


Liabilities and Net Worth and the Disclosure of business Interests and Financial
Connections purposely to have transparency and honesty guided by the principle
that public office is a public trust and as public servants must at all times be
accountable to the people.

-1-

The Administrative complaint states no cause of action since I did not


knowingly, willfully, unintentionally or maliciously commit the offense
complained of and charged against me that would amount to palpable
defiance of the law;
-2-

The facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute the offense


charged on top of the fact that it contains averments which, if true,
would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and/or

-3-

For being integrally interrelated with each other, the foregoing grounds are hereby jointly treated and discussed.

Section 8 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713,
as amended) mandates all public officials and employees (except those serve in an honorary capacity, laborers and
casual or temporary workers) who are (a) newly appointed (within 30 days from assumption of office), (b) in the active
service (on or before April 30, of every year thereafter) and (c) separated from the service (within 30 days from
separation/termination), to file their respective Sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) and
effect disclosure therein of his/her business interests and financial connections and those of their spouses and
unmarried children under eighteen (18) years old living in their household;

Accordingly, the legal requirement entails two-fold acts by the concerned public official and employee, to wit: (1) Filing
of and (2) Disclosure in SALN. Accordingly too, such requisite filing of, and disclosures in SALN should be effected with
compliant seasonableness (timeliness), completeness, truthfulness or accuracy and properly in the prescribed form;
otherwise stated, the SALN and the disclosures therein, should be filed seasonably (within the period or time provided for
under Section 8 (A) of RA 6713), truthfully or accurately, completely and properly.

RA 6713 is a special law that is both penal in nature, insofar it penalizes violations thereof by a fine or imprisonments
as prescribed therein; and administrative in nature insofar as it entails administrative liabilities of either suspension or
removal/dismissal from the service against erring/defaulting public officials/employees;

The law punishes acts or omissions. With respect to SALNs, RA 6713 punishes willful and malicious failure to
seasonably, truthfully, accurately and properly file/submit SALN, as well as intentional non-disclosure in said SALN
business or financial interests or connections.

Accordingly, with respect to the required filing of, and disclosures in SALNs under RA 6713, the determination of
what constitute as acts or omissions punished under such law, is NOT ABSOLUTE. Mere non-filing of SALN does not per
se constitute a violation of the law. What constitute violation of the law is the intentional, willful and malicious failure to file
the requisite SALN. Hence, substantial compliance by the concerned public official/employee with such requisite filing of
SALN may exonerate such official/employee from the penal/administrative effects or liability under such law. Accordingly,
too, unintentional non-disclosure of certain required data in SALN either due to mistake, oversight, inadvertence, accident,
misapprehension of facts or other justifiable/absolutory causes, that may be subject to corrective or remedial actions,
may not constitute violation of the law and rules, per se.

In this regard, RA 6713 provides for the review and compliance procedure with respect to the filing of SALN,
such that:

(a) The designated committee of both Houses of the Congress shall establish
procedures for the review of statements to determine whether said statements have
been submitted on time, are complete and are in proper form. In the event a determi-
nation is made that a statement is not so filed, the appropriate committee shall inform
the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action;

x x x

(c) The heads of other offices shall perform the duties stated in subsections
(a) and (b) hereof insofar as their respective offices are concerned, subject to the
approval of the Secretary of Justice, in the case of the Executive Department and the
Chief Justice in the case of the Judicial Department. ( Section 10 (a) (c), R.A. 6713,as amended;
highlights supplied for emphasis)

It is not difficult then to conclude that mere omission or failure to file the SALN or make the proper disclosures
therein, does not by itself, ipso facto constitute a violation of R.A. 6713, for the erring official/employee to be immediately
held liable to criminal and administrative penalties prescribed thereunder. This is so because the law itself, under and by
virtue of its provisions (as above quoted) provides for a review and compliance procedure mechanism for the
determination whether the SALN was submitted on time, is complete and in proper form , to the end that the
concerned reporting individual shall be properly informed or notified and be guided accordingly in taking the necessary
corrective or remedial action and/or other proper proceedings, as may be warranted in the premises.

Hence, under the above cited provisions, the concerned heads of offices or agencies are the competent authorities
who are tasked by law to undertake such review and compliance procedures insofar as their respective offices are
concerned and who are the competent authorities to determine whether or not the concerned reporting official/employee
have effected substantial compliance with the requirements of the law.

In our case as police officers, the Director General (DG) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) is such competent
reviewing authority. In particular, as in the case of your respondent, it is the Provincial Director (PD) of the Albay Police
Provincial Office (PPO) who is such competent reviewing and compliance authority in so far as the submission of the
SALNs of the police officers under his helm or command, is concerned.

In my present case, I admittedly failed to file my SALN for CY 2009 in due time (on or before April 30, 2009), even
while it was belatedly filed subsequently. But, as borne by the records, with dispatch compliance with the Memorandum
(dtd March 23, 2011) of the PD, APPO (RE: Conduct of Investigation and Pre-Charge Evaluation for Failure to Submit
Sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) for Calendar Year 2009), I submitted my corresponding and
requisite SALN for CY 2009 (albeit belatedly) together with my justification for its belated filing with its supporting
documents/records under my compliant Affidavit (dtd March 29, 2011), through the Memorandum (dtd March 29, 2011)
of the (then) Officer-in-Charge (PINSP Francisco L Alidio) of the Oas MPS that was addressed to the PD, duly submitted
to and received by the PIDMS, APPO (per records) that may now be forming part of the records of the case;

Such being the case, there was in effect, SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE effected by me with the required submission
of my SALN for CY 2009, notwithstanding its belated filing in year 2011, conformably to the review and compliance
procedure prescribed under the provisions of the law as above cited.

Be that as it may, there is another point that begs belaboring in this case. Ostensibly, on the very face of the complaint
sheet and records, what is being charged against me is the administrative Offense of Grave Misconduct , upon my
alleged failure to seasonably file my SALN for CY 2009. If that were, as it is the case, it is respectfully submitted that the
material allegations or averments in the complaint do not constitute the offense of Grave Misconduct as charged.

And truly so, because the controlling and pertinent law in this case (R.A. 6713, as amended) pertains to acts or
omissions as defined and penalized therein. With respect to the submission of SALN, what said law penalizes is the
failure to submit on time, complete and in the proper form , such SALN.

Accordingly, the proper charge should be the equivalent of Grave Misconduct in the same class of administrative
offenses that penalizes omissions, which to our mind may be Gross Neglect or Dereliction of Duty , Neglect of duty
or nonfeasance in office in general terms is the omission of an act which a person ought to do or the neglect or refusal
,without sufficient excuse, to perform an act which it was the officers legal obligation or duty to perform.

In relation to the filing of SALN under R.A. 6713, Gross Neglect or Dereliction of Duty is tantamount to conscious,
willful, malicious or intentional failure or refusal to file SALN and make proper, accurate, complete and truthful disclosures
therein, amounting to defiance of the law. Such neglect or dereliction of duty may be classified as grave, less grave or
simple depending on the gravity or nature of the act or omission and its effects on the service.

Accordingly, the acts complained of against me is not tantamount to misconduct in office, much less, Grave
Misconduct, as charged. Indeed, under the foregoing discussions, my alleged failure to file my SALN on time, may
constitute merely as neglect or dereliction of duty.

But be that as it may, under R.A. 6713, as amended, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) shall have the primary
responsibility for the administration and enforcement of this Act. x x x. The Civil Service Commission is hereby authorized
to promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act x x x (Section 12).

Under the Civil Service law and its Omnibus Rules (CSC-OR) Implementing Executive Order No. 292 and related
Rules Implementing R.A. 6713, administrative offenses with its corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less
grave and light, depending on the gravity of its nature and effects of said acts on the government service (Section 22,
par. 1, CSC-OR). Accordingly, the non-filing of SALN , is classified as a LESS GRAVE administrative OFFENSE that
is penalized with suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the First Offense and Dismissal for
the Second Offense (Section 22, par. 5(i) Ibid.,).

But be that as it may, as arrayed against the foregoing back drop, it is most respectfully submitted that the mere
belated filing of my SALN (for CY 2009) would certainly not amount to Grave Misconduct nor for that matter, Gross
Neglect of Duty. Certainly too, it would not amount to even to Simple Misconduct nor of Simple Neglect of Duty in the light
of the provision of the very law itself (Section 10, R.A. 6713) that provides for review and compliance procedures with
respect to the required submission of SALN. Indeed, having been made to undergo the said review and compliance
mechanism on account of his noted non seasonable filing of her SLN for CY 200998, your respondent had effected
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE with the law by her subsequent filing in due form and manner her said SALN for 2009 in
question (as borne by the records);

In the same vein, the application of the law requiring the submission of SALN should be taken in the entirety of its
context, import and tenor, considering the surrounding circumstances of time, person and place. By parity of the benefit of
the doubt, my submitted justification for failing to seasonably file my SALN for CY 2009, should be liberally considered in
my favor in that regard.

Be that as it may, by parity of reasoning too, the act of your respondent in belatedly filing her SALN, even as it is in
substantial compliance with the law, could at best, boil down to simple irregularity or disobedience, suffered to be done
without deliberate intent or motive to disregard or violate the law/rules, and much less, that would amount to a defiance of
the law and rules nor wanton disregard of authority.

Indeed, the acts complained of against me could be akin to simple infractions of the rules, classified as light
offenses that are penalized by light penalty (Reprimand for the first offense), such as the simple neglect of duty of a
PNP member who shall absent oneself from office without having filed the necessary application for leave x x x or fail
to salute officials x x x or the national colors during the playing of the national anthem , as specified under NAPOLCOM
Memorandum Circular No. 2007-001.

Perforce, the mere act of belated filing of SALN, let alone, is not a wrongful or unlawful act per se; it is even not
considered as a violation of the law, since the law or rules provides for remedial or corrective action for non filing of SALN
upon due notice to the concerned reporting individual official/employee and after due proceedings taken by the head of
office of the concerned official/employee. In fact, as in my case, where my failure to seasonably file my SALN may be
justified by the circumstances adduced, and then attending or by parity of benefit of doubt for such lapses in attention and
judgment, my belated filing of my SALN, is itself an act which is not so grave a wrong as to give it a color of utter defiance
of the law or rules nor wanton disregard of authority.

As borne by the records, the questioned belated filing of my SALN for CY 2009 is the first instance of my having
possibly violated the legal requirement. Be that as it may, under these trying circumstances, and granting for the sake of
argument (yet without conceding) that indeed, I am guilty of improper conduct then and there, the punitive effects of my
administrative liability in this regard should be viewed in the light of the attending circumstances towards mitigating such
effects or at best exonerating me therefrom. Certainly, even under such circumstances, your respondent was diligent in
the performance of her duties as such reporting public employee. But not every mistake or distraction of hers, if any, that
was occasioned by the requirements of urgencies and exigencies of the service is misconduct in law, criminally and much
less, administratively;

Parenthetically, mistake done in good faith is to be liberally considered in your respondents case, for as
jurisprudence have it, and begged to be paraphrased , to wit:

Prayer

As a lowly police, aspiring to carve for herself her wholesome future and
career in the police service, as a person and productive citizen, for herself, her family and as a conscientious public
servant that she is and would like her to be, mindful of her duties as such and responsible citizen for nation building as
well, your undersigned respondent stands charged of a serious administrative offense or of one no matter how slight as it
may turn out to be, occasioned by said incident matter subject hereof, in this case. All that she prays in and by this
pleading, is the objective appraisal and judicious consideration of the factual and legal premises obtaining in this case,
towards a legal, just and equitable resolution of the same.

our respondents however, by these posture, do not expect nor nurture speculative persuasion that they should be totally
absolved from or be exonerated for their impropriety or irregularity in leaving the school premises unexcused. Notably,
your respondents returned or reported back to RTS 5 on March 17, 2010 (per records). Significantly too, is the fact that
your respondents were absent from the formation when headcount was conducted and their absence was unexcused.
Under these premises, all your respondents implore herein is that the antecedent circumstances surrounding their having
left the school premises unexcused should be considered properly in that light, towards effecting disciplinary action for
their such misfeasance or nonfeasance and meting them with the least penalty that would correspond to those of less
grave or less serious class of administrative offenses, that their herein complained of infraction, amounts to--- at least on
just and equitable grounds;

Discussion/s

On the First Specification of Charge:

Granting that on the date and time of the incident complained of, your respondents did leave the premises of the
training school without proper or prior authority from the competent training officials, that fact alone would not suffice to
hold them liable under the above cited Rule (X, Section 4A (1.5).

Be that as it may, it may be mentioned that the PNTI Academic Resolution Nr 2010-0518 affirming the penalty
imposed by the RTS 5 Academic Board, bearing on the questioned termination from training of your respondents,
remains pending on appeal with the Philippine Public Safety College (PPSC), per records;

On the Second Specification of Charge:

The crux of this second specified charge is the inference alone made from the fact that your respondents were
jailed, criminally charged for two felonies and from the fact that they were terminated from training .

The fact that your respondents was incarcerated was occasioned initially, by the verbal complaint lodged by a
certain private complainant Carlo T. Llasos, for which they were eventually and formally charged with Estafa and
Malicious Mischief (NPS Docket No. V-02-INV-10C-00066) before the Legazpi City Prosecutors Office.

In fact, said criminal cases were both ordered DISMISSED, let alone on the MERITS by the said Office in its
Resolution dated May 20, 2010, upon its findings for insufficiency of evidence and wanting the essential elements
of the crime charged , the existence of the Affidavit of Desistance submitted by the said Private Complainant,
notwithstanding. By reason of the said dismissal of the criminal actions on the merits and consistent with the
constitutionally and statutorily enshrined PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE of your respondents as accused therein, they
are for all intents and purposes, innocent of the felonies charged against them.

Accordingly, on account of the dismissal on the merits of the criminal cases, the acts or omission from which the
administrative liability therefor of your respondents might arise, did not exist. Accordingly too, the inference made by the
Pre-Charge Evaluator or recommending authority, that was derived from the fact that said cases were filed, or for that
matter, that your respondents were jailed on account or on occasion thereof, is logically devoid of factual nor legal
basis. Perforce, the pretense and claim by the recommending or complaining authority to the effect that the
circumstances in support of the charges can be substantially proven by the available evidence attached in the case
records , would even result in absurdity, since the very same records, to be relied upon foreclose such substantial
proof ;

And speaking of substantial proof , the inferential or circumstantial evidence relied upon by the
recommending authority in support of, with respect to this Second Specification of Charge, cannot even approximate to
the requirement of substantial evidence to support a finding of guilt as charged, in administrative proceedings. Indeed,
in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence.
(Office of the Court Administrator vs. Sumilang, 271 SCRA316). Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. (Equitable Banking Corporation vs. NLRC, 273
SCRA 252).

Nevertheless, the rule of law mandates that due process must be observed even in administrative proceedings
since the requirements of fair play are not only applicable to judicial proceedings. Accordingly, certain cardinal rights or
principles must be observed in administrative proceedings, such as those enunciated in the leading jurisprudence (Ang
Tibay vs. CIR 59 Phil. 635), to wit: (a) The right to hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to
present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof; (b) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented; (c)
There must be evidence to support its finding, conclusion or decision; (d) The evidence must be substantial; (e) The
decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the records and disclosed to
the parties affected; (f) The deciding authority must act on its own independent consideration of the law and
facts; and (g) The deciding authority should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the
parties to the proceedings can know the various issues involved , and the reasons for the decisions rendered;

Inference begets inference, which in turn begets inference in per perpetuity without arriving at the ascertainment of
truth ABSENT such substantial, conclusive and convincing proof or admissible evidence in law. Accordingly, since the
instant charge is purely anchored upon said inferential or circumstantial evidence, there is no substantial proof or
evidence to support the charge that your respondents could have been guilty of conduct unbecoming of a police
officer or gentlemen considering that such circumstantial or inferential proof or evidence cannot even approximate to
the requirement of substantial evidence to support a finding of guilt in administrative, as in criminal cases or proceedings,
under our existing jurisprudential pronouncements that;

In the instant case, we respectfully submit that the Pre-Charge Evaluation Report of the AC/RIDMD, which forms
the basis of the Charge Sheet is wanting in strict fealty and compliance with the afore-cited cardinal rights or principles in
administrative proceedings as jurisprudentially laid down. For one, with respect to this Second Specification of Charge,
the evidentiary basis of the charge is principally anchored upon the mere allegations and evidence submitted by
the private complainant in support of the criminal cases filed by him against us before the City Prosecution
Office. But such evidence, let alone , was found by said Office as INSUFFICIENT as to sustain the essential elements of
the felonies complained of and charged--- the Affidavit of Desistance of the private complainant, NOTWITHSTANDING;

Significantly moreover, the records do not bear any initiatory administrative complaint filed by the private
complainant (Carlo T. Llasos) against your respondent with respect to this second specification of charge. This fact alone
discloses that the complaint in this regard suffers not only from procedural, but even more, jurisdictional infirmity.
Under our controlling laws and, rules and jurisprudence, in the absence of such administrative complaint filed, initiated or
caused to be filed/initiated by said private complainant, with respect to the second specification of charge in the
complaint, this Honorable Disciplinary Authority in the first place, have not even acquired administrative disciplinary
jurisdiction over this case, its issue/ subject matter or the person of your respondents;

More so, this second specification of charge of the complaint is invalidated not only upon jurisdictional grounds, but
likewise by the motu propio filing of the complaint upon such charge by the recommending authority, even upon the
proposition that such motu propio filed complaint would suffice to proceed administratively against respondents. In this
regard, your respondents (and others who might be minded by the case and similarly situated with them), by this pleading
most respectfully pray that their case be judiciously considered since:

When an officer or court, permits itself, to enter the sea of suspicion, it permits itself to enter upon
the sea which has no shore and the embarkation is without a rudder or compass to control or
ascertain its bearing ( Dy Keng vs. Collector of Customs, 40 Phil. 118);

Upon the other hand, the inference from the fact that your respondents were terminated from training , is
submitted to be likewise devoid of factual and legal basis, even while such fact of termination of your respondents from
(PSJLC) training with the RTS 5, is admitted by them. Notably however, the Resolution (Nr 2010-0518 of the PNTI
Academic Board) affirming the penalty imposed by RTS 5 Academic Board terminating from training your respondents,
have been appealed (by way of Petition for Review) by your respondents, to the Philippine PPSC, which is still pending
therewith (per records). Such being the case, the final outcome of the matter in issue (termination from training of your
respondents) in said appealed resolution cannot be the subject of inference nor speculation. Parenthetically, an action or
proceeding that has yet to be final and executory, cannot form as the basis of an administrative proceedings, such as in
this case, without militating against the constitutional and statutory rights of your respondents to procedural and
substantive due process;

With the foregoing, the resolution of the case in favor your respondents under the Second Specification of
Charge speaks for itself quite eloquently, as against the evidence submitted by the complaining party therefor, which is
devoid of factual nor legal basis. Accordingly, under such premises, your respondents should outright be exonerated from
such specification of charge in the complaint.

The Director
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION
Department of Justice
Manila
Re: Application for Recognition as
Filipino Citizens of Minor Children
Greetings:

Compliant with the prescribed documentary requirements, anent the above subject application therewith, I hereby most
respectfully attest to, confirm and affirm the truth and veracity of the following facts, of my personal knowledge, belief and
information as based on authentic records, to wit:

Hereto appended and made integral parts hereof by reference are the Birth Certificates of my above named
children and our Marriage Certificate (Annexes A, B and C , respectively);
Respectfully submitted.
Very truly yours,

ARACELI RONCESVALLES REBUA - ASANZA


(Mother of Applicants)

cc.:
personal file

encls.:
as above stated

Republic of the Philippines )


Province of Albay )
Municipality of POLANGUI) s.s.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AFFIDAVIT OF FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP
(Re: Application/ Petition for Recognition of Minor Children as Filipino Citizens)

I, ARACELI RONCESVALLES REBUA- ASANZA, of legal age, Filipino, lawfully married to Lyndon Reburiano
Asanza, and presently residing at (Barangay) Ilaor Norte, Oas, Albay, Philippines, under oath, declares that :

1. I am the biological/legitimate mother (per their respective live birth records) of the subject two (2) children-
applicants (herein-below named) whom I begot within lawful wedlock exclusively with my afore-named lawfully wedded
(per our marital records) husband, LYNDON REBURIANO ASANZA, who remains under our joint parental care, custody
and support, even while presently residing with me in the Philippines, and whose personal circumstances of birth are as
follows:

Name Gender Date of Birth Place of Birth

Don Rebua Asanza Male March 10, 2003 Naval Hospital, San Diego, California, USA
Allysa Rebua Asanza Female December 09, 2004 -do-

2. Per records, my above named minor children are both the applicants/petitioners for recognition as Filipino
( Philippine) Citizens before and now pending with the Philippines Bureau of Immigration ( Manila);

3. Per authentic records, at the time of birth of my above named children-applicants, or for that matter, as of the
date of the filing of their subject application /petition ( for recognition as filipino citizens), I was (and continuously until this
date) a Natural Born Philippine (Filipino) Citizen, unlike their said father (my husband), who (per records), was ( and
until now) an American ( U.S.A.) Citizen at the time of their birth/filing of said application/petition;

4. I have hereby freely executed this affidavit, to attest to the truth and veracity of the above stated facts, which
are of my personal knowledge, belief and information as based on authentic records, as a compliant documentary/ formal
requirement relative to the above stated application/petition of my subject ( afore-named) children, and for whatever
pertinent probative value this may have or legal purposes this may serve in the premises.

IN TRUTH WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand at Polangui, Albay, Philippines this December 30, 2010.

ARACELI RONCESVALLES REBUA-ASANZA


Affiant

13. Accordingly, I seek reliefs in the comforting guarantee of the truth of the antecedent facts as above stated,
as well in law, which provides thus :

The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual
love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support . ( Art.
68, EO 209/ Family Code of the Philippines)

Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance
of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty
and good faith . ( Art.19, Civil Code)

Every person who contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes


damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same . ( Art. 20,
Ibid.)
Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner
that is contrary to moral good customs or public policy shall compensate
the latter for the damage . ( Art. 21,Ibid.)

14. Suffice it to state that, despite of our having been separated in fact by bed and board, under the circumstances
as above stated, but since the time respondent and I contracted our marriage, continuously until this date, we had not
been legally separated, and much less, our said marriage judicially declared a nullity nor annulled;

15. Suffice it to state moreover, that if indeed and granting that it were true, that respondent had of late subsequently
got married to his present concubine (as claimed by him), then such subsequent marriage of his, for all intents and
purposes, is a bigamous marriage and consequently ,null and void ab initio; the same marriage cannot produce any
binding effect in favor of respondent or his common law wife, and much less any adverse effect and consequences
against my marriage with him, which remains subsisting and effective;

16. Furthermore, the absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains regime of my property relations with
respondent, as husband and wife, have not been dissolved under any of the grounds provided for by law, nor did our
separation in fact, adversely affected our such absolute community property regime and relations, absent the attendance
of the sanctioned exceptional circumstances therefor.

17. Accordingly, as the offending spouse, under the law and equity, respondent should be meted out and be made
to suffer the full extent and consequences of the law, at least in so far as the eventual disposition by all concerned of his
retirement benefits, for his willful and negligent acts contrary as they are to law, morals and public policy;

18. My personal career, family and homely life have been virtually rendered at an unsolicited mess and disarray on
account of the wayward behavior, attitude, ways , disgraceful and immoral conduct and oppressive acts perpetrated by
respondent; as a gentleman, husband, family man , he does not deserve, or even approximate to the callings of a
gentleman and a military officer or civil servant. I believe that my son and I, deserve no less, under the law and the
rudiments of fairplay and equity; by this suit ,we hereby seek reliefs in law , justice and equity, nothing more no less.

19. I reserve the right to adduce other pertinent details and evidence in the proper forum in support of this
complaint, if required and warranted in the premises.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand at Polangui, Albay this 11th day of March 2010.

Outside of the foregoing considerations, the main objective of and animating


spirit behind the katarungang pambarangay laws, are : the perpetuation and official recognition of the time
honored tradition of amicably settling disputes among family and barangay members at the barangay level
without judicial recourse would promote the speedy administration of justice and implement the constitutional mandate to
preserve and develop Filipino culture and strengthen the family as a basic social institution ; to help relieve the courts
of docket congestion, enhance the quality of dispensed by the courts; and promote the speedy disposition of justice(P.D.
1508, R.A.
7160);

Indeed, by compelling the disputants to settle their differences through


the intervention of the barangay leader and other respected members
of the barangay, the animosity generated by protracted court litigations
between members of the same political unit , a disruptive factor towards
unity and cooperation , is avoided. It must be borne in mind that the
conciliation process in the barangay level is likewise designed to
discourage indiscriminate filing of cases in court in order to decongest
its clogged dockets and , in the process, enhance the quality of justice
dispensed by it
x x x

There can be no question that when the law conferred upon the Lupon
the authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same
city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes x x x
its obvious intendment was to grant the Lupon as broad and comprehensive
an authority as possible as would bring about the optimum realization
of the afore-said objectives; ( Morata vs. Go, 125 SCRA 449; highlights supplied
for emphasis)

And this objectives would only be easily thwarted and half-met if the
punong barangays or lupons authority is exercised constrictively with strict technicalities of the law; Indeed the
lawmakers could not have intended and contemplated such half-measure and self-defeating legislation. ( Moraga Vs.
Go , Ibid)

In fact , it is believed ( and rightly so), that consistent with the animating
spirit and principles behind our katarungang pambarangay laws and rules, the punong barangay as chief mediator/
arbiter in the barangay level should be given wide latitude or elbow room in the matter of the implementation of the
barangay justice system. Consistent with this spirit, the katarungang pambarangay law and rules is mandated to be
liberally construed in order to promote their object of assisting disputants to obtain just, speedy and inexpensive amicable
settlement of their disputes at the barangay level ;

Even while he is guilty of forum shopping and multiplicity of suits, and that
there was no failure yet of mediation/ conciliation in the official level of your respondent, complainant in the case, had
pounded on too much technicalities by insisting that his case be referred to the pangkat or Lupon, and that it be decided
outright based only on his self-serving evidence presented and thus, not wanting to give a chance to this level and the
respondents to exhaust all administrative remedies and exploit all possible avenues at the mediation/ conciliation level.
Judgment based on the merits presupposes that there is an equivocal determination of the rights and obligations of the
parties with respect to the cause of action and the subject matter of the case. ( Sta. Lucia Realty and Development Inc.,
vs. Cabrigas, G.R. No. 134895, June 19, 2001);

Time and again, even the Supreme court has relaxed the stringent application
of procedural rules, in order to promote and achieve the overriding interest of substantial justice. In the case of Baylon
vs. Fact Finding Intelligence Bureau ( 394 SCRA 21) citing Tao vs. Court of Appeals ( 344 SCRA 202), the Honorable
Supreme Court had succinctly ruled that :

In the interest of substantial justice, procedural rules of the most mandatory in


character in terms of compliance must be relaxed. In other words, if strict adherence
to the letter of the law would result in absurdity, or manifest injustice or where the
merits of a partys cause is apparent and outweigh consideration of non-compliance
with certain formal requirements, procedural rules should definitely be liberally
construed. A party litigant is to be given the fullest opportunity to establish the
merits or the complaint or defense, rather than for him to lose life, liberty , honor
or property on mere technicalities;

We have held that lapses in literal observation of a procedural rule, will be


overlooked when they do not involve public policy, when they arose from an honest
mistake or unforeseen accident, when they have not prejudiced the adverse party,
nor deprived the court of its authority;

21. Your respondent therefore, respectfully submits that the above jurisprudential pronouncements of the
Supreme Court, squarely applies to this case of your respondent;

Moreover, under and akin to our doctrine of exhaustion of


administrative remedies, where the law, as in this case, provides for the remedies against the action of an
administrative board, body, or officer, relief to courts against such action can be sought only after exhausting all the
remedies provided for. This doctrine rests upon the presumption that the administrative body, board or officer, if given the
chance to correct its mistake, error , may amend its decision or action on a given matter and decide it properly . ( Asuelo
vs. Arnaldo, et. al., G.R. No. L-15144, may 26,m 1960). In the premises, the filing by complainant of the instant
administrative suit before this Honorable August Body, is believed to have been prematurely prosecuted under this
doctrine;

23. Be that as it may too, conflicts or disputes under the Katarungang Pambarangay System are resolved
either through ( 1) mediation / conciliation and / or (2) by Arbitration. Under the katarungang pambarangay laws,
mediation and conciliation are interchangeable. Mediation or conciliation is the process by which disputants are
persuaded by the Punong barangay or Pangkat to amicably settle their disputes. Arbitration under the law on the other
hand, is the process for adjudication of the disputes by which the parties agree to be bound, by the decision of the
Punong barangay or the Pangkat to whom the parties have previously named as their arbitrator.

24. Under our katarungang pambarangay laws and barangay justice system, the constitution of a pangkat or
lupon, and referral thereto of a barangay case, is predicated upon the failure of the mediation efforts by the lupon
chairman or punong barangay of the particular barangay case. ( Section 410, R.A. 7160)

25. In the case under consideration earlier lodged by the herein complainant ( as complainant therein) before this
official level, there was no failure yet of mediation effort proceedings under the antecedent facts and circumstances
expounded above when he ( complainant) had been prodding your respondent to constitute the pangkat and refer thereto
his said case for adjudication. Accordingly, the insisted action by the complainant for the creation of, and referral to the
pangkat or lupon of his said barangay case, was then devoid of factual, and even legal basis;

And this leads us into another point in issue. The administrative, civil or
criminal liability of a public officer, like the Punong Barangay , may be Non-feasance which is the neglect or refusal ,
without sufficient cause , to perform an act which it was the officers legal obligation to the individual to perform ;
Misfeasance or negligence, which is the failure to use , in the performance of duty owing to the individual , that degree
of care, skill and diligence, which the circumstances of the case reasonably demand and Malfeasance, which is the
doing , either through ignorance, intention or malice , of that which the officer had no legal right to do at all, as where he
acts without any authority whatever , or exceeds, ignores or abuses his powers. ( Mechem , Public Office and Officers,
Section 665.) Indeed,

Under the law, the Punong Barangay as Chairman of the Lupon


Tagapamayapa exercises judicial function , a unique power not available to other executive heads of other LGUs.
Accordingly, a judicial officer is not liable to a private action for judicial action within his jurisdiction. For as
long as the judicial officer had jurisdiction to hear and decide any case, he has the right to determine the same
and all questions involved therein, correctly or erroneously or no matter his judgment is misguided. And as long
as he has acted in good faith, he cannot be held civilly nor administratively liable for causes of action arising
from his erroneous action. ( Alzua vs. Johnson, 21 Phil. 203)
WHEREFORE, with the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Sangguniang Bayan that the subject administrative complaint / case be outright ordered dismissed, for being
bereft of factual nor legal merit.

Such other just lawful and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Polangui, Albay;
August 26, 2009.

MA. BELEN MATZA-SABLAON


Respondent

That, she has not filed or commenced nor is their pending any other suit, case, action or proceeding involving the
same parties or issues in this case before any other court, tribunal, agency or office and that should she learn that any
such action , case or proceeding be filed or pending before said court, tribunal agency or office, she hereby undertakes to
report such fact to this Honorable Office within five (5) days from notice thereof.

Copy furnished :
( By registered mail)

Mr. Elias B. Samson


Basud, Polangui, Albay
( Private Complainant)

4. Accordingly, by the earlier referral of the citizens complaints / cases to the


PLEB of Polangui, Albay, which inarguably have acquired its original and exclusive jurisdiction over the cases, the filing of
the instant case before this Honorable disciplinary authority (RIAS V), is totally barred and foreclosed by the rule that :

A complaint or charge filed against a PNP member shall be heard


and decided exclusively by the disciplining authority who has acquired
original jurisdiction over the case notwithstanding the existence of
concurrent jurisdiction as regards the offense : Provided , That offenses
which carry higher penalties referred to a disciplining authority shall be
referred to the appropriate authority which has jurisdiction over the
offense. [ Section 52 ( c), R.A.8551, supra).

These cases, do not fall within the ambit of the above cited excepting proviso of the rule as above quoted.

5. Indeed, by the filing or pendency of these cases before this Office, despite its earlier
referral to, and acquisition by the PLEB of Polangui, Albay of its original and exclusive jurisdiction over the cases, it is
most respectfully submitted that suffering to be done or undertaken further proceedings on the merits in these cases,
before this Honorable Office, would consequently offend the rule against Forum Shopping of Multiple Filing of
Complaints , as expressly contemplated under Section 52 (d) of the PNP Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998 ( R.A .
8551, as amended), and allied laws or NAPOLCOM Circulars on the matter , which pertinently reads and bears citing,
viz. :

When an administrative complaint is filed with the police disciplinary authority,


such as the Peoples Law Enforcement Board (PLEB), no other case involving the
same cause of action shall be filed with any other disciplinary authority.

6. Be that as it may, on record in these cases, is the Communication dated March 26,
2010 of the Chairman of the PLEB of Polangui, Albay, remanding back to this Honorable Office presumably the records
of the above cases, for reasons or purposes not expressly nor impliedly salient or indubitable from the face or ordinary
tenor or import of said return Communication. Significantly, an ordinary perusal this communication in question of the
PLEB of Polangui, Albay, discloses no mention of whatever disposition or action taken by said disciplinary authority on
the cases at bar;

7. As aptly found by this Honorable Office, as well as by the Albay PIAS, these cases,
are inarguably cognizable by the duly constituted and existing PLEB of Polangui, Albay, within its exclusive and original
jurisdiction, under the controlling law and rules ;

8. Under our controlling laws and jurisprudence, Jurisdiction is the authority to hear
and decide a case. Original jurisdiction is the power to take cognizance of a case instituted for adjudication by the
concerned authority for the first time under conditions provided by law; exclusive jurisdiction, is the power to adjudicate
a case or proceeding to the exclusion of all other authorities at that stage;

9. The authority to decide a case and not the decision rendered therein, is what makes
up jurisdiction. Where there is jurisdiction, the decision of all questions arising in the case is but an exercise of jurisdiction
( De La Cruz vs. Moir, 36 Phil. 213). Consequently a court, tribunal or authority may have jurisdiction over the case but at
the same time act in excess of jurisdiction.

10. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and, unlike jurisdiction over
the parties, cannot be conferred on the court or other authority, by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties ; it cannot
be acquired through, waived, enlarged or diminished by any act or omission of the parties nor by the court or authority;
neither can it be conferred or lost, by the acquiescence of the court or authority vested with it. ( Calimlim et. al. vs.
Ramirez, et. al.,L-34363, Nov. 19, 1982). Once conferred upon, and acquired by the court or authority, upon the filing
thereto or referral to it, of the proper case, jurisdiction attaches to that court or authority, until final adjudication on the
merits of the case;

11. In the instant cases, the action of the PLEB of Polangui, Albay in in returning the records of the cases to
this Honorable Office--- let alone without any expressly stated justifiable antecedent factual or legal grounds therefore---
borders on, or amounts to abdication of its vested jurisdiction or authority to take cognizance and decide said cases duly
referred to its within its exclusive and original jurisdiction; even more unfortunate to lament, such act or omission of the
concerned PLEB may be offensive not only to our Constitutional principles of rule of law, but also to our controlling laws
and rules, hinging on possible liabilities under our administrative and penal laws, for unwarranted and unsanctioned
abandonment of office, position or authority;

WHEREFORE, with the foregoing factual and legal premises, it is most respectfully prayed that the instant cases
before this Office, be ordered dismissed, without prejudice, to remanding the same for further proceedings on the merits
before the PLEB of Polangui, Albay.

Such other just, lawful and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Polangui, Albay for Legazpi City;


June 07, 2010.
PO2 ERNESTO R SANDRINO JR.
Respondent-Movant

PHILIPPINES NATIONAL POLICE,


Complainant,

-versus - Administrative Case Nr. 01-10-03


For : Grave Misconduct ( Extortion)

SPO2 JESUS P COTELO and PO3


JOEL L CLARET, HPG-8,
Respondents.
x -----------------------x

INVESTIGATION REPORT
This is a Summary Proceeding originally lodged before the Office of the Legal Service (OLS), Headquarters,
Highway Patrol Group ( HPG), Camp Crame, Quezon City.

In the Letter Orders Nr 38 ( dated February 09, 2009 ) of the HPGA, the undersigned Summary Hearing Officer
(SHO), was duly designated as such SHO to hear and decide the above captioned administrative case, pursuant to (a)
NAPOLCOM memorandum Circular 2007-001, (b) Memo from Director HPG, (c) LOI 21/08 (PATNUBAY II) and ( d) HPG
LO Nrs 75, 76,among other references-authorities.

Statement of the Antecedent Facts of the Case

As culled from the initiatory and counter pleadings of the parties, as well as of the records, and stripped of
peripheral matters and details, the antecedent facts of the case may be re-stated as follows :

Respondents, SP02 Jesus P Cotelo ( hereafter, Cotelo) and PO3 Joel L Claret (hereafter Claret ), then , both
of RTMO9, TMG and now , both of HPG-8, were charged with Extortion, in the original (Letter) Affidavit- Complaint filed by
Mr. Gil Tenefrancia Ledesma (Gil) of Poblacion, Sindangan, Zamboanga Del Norte, on behalf of his daughter, Gilyn
Ledesma ( Gilyn). Accordingly, on June21, 2001, the utility vehicle owned by Gilyn with registry Plate No. GHJ-529 was
capriciously apprehended and subsequently impounded by respondents sans lawful cause , but for flimsy reasons in that
accordingly, there was an unauthorized change of color and body of the vehicle different from what were reflected in the
registration records of the vehicle. Respondents accordingly extorted from the private complainants the sum of nine
hundred pesos ( Php 900.00), which they demanded and received , without issuing official receipt therefor, in
consideration of the release of the vehicle, thereby, respondents, appropriated to their personal gain and benefit said
extorted sum of money.

In their responsive counter-pleadings, respondents countervailed that the apprehension was legal and above
board, done purely in the strict performance of their law enforcement duties, as such ( TMG) HPG PNCOs while on active
tour of duty. They contended that when apprehended, Gilyn was driving the vehicle without using the requisite seat belt.
But upon verification of the registration records of the vehicle, it was found out that , the actual body and color of the
vehicle was inconsistent with that reflected in the registration records. Since under existing and controlling laws , as well
as LTO Rules, such violation justifies impounding of the subject vehicle, the corresponding impoundment receipt was
issued to Gilyn.

Immediately thereafter, a certain Mr. Escoreal , representing himself to be from the Office of the Municipal Mayor
of Sidangan, interceded for the Ledesmas for the release or discharge from impoundment of the subject vehicle upon
payment of Php 200.00 in satisfaction of the requisite MV clearance fee. The said amount was handed by Mr. Escoreal
to respondent Cotelo for the latter to effect payment with the Land Bank. Accordingly, respondent moved for the dismissal
of extortion charges against him and his co-respondent Claret, for want of factual and legal basis.

In the meantime, the said incidents of apprehension and consequent impoundment of subject vehicle, triggered
the filing of series of charges and counter-charges , administrative, civil and even criminal ,by and between the parties,
for or against each other, before the courts, other tribunals and other administrative fora, such as the Office of the
Ombudsman. The criminal charges for extortion filed by the Ledesmas against respondents before the Office the
Ombudsman [OMB-MIL-CRIM-01-0587(8)] was eventually recommended for dismissal for lack of probable cause, in its
resolution dated November 14, 2001, which had long become final and executory.

Meanwhile, as borne by the records, under and by virtue of the designation of this official level as Summary
Hearing Officer for the above case, respondents were duly summoned and directed anew to submit their respective
responsive pleadings to the complaint. Per records too, respondents and the private complainants were likewise duly
subpoenaed , directing them ( and their intended witnesses, if any ) to appear at the hearing of the above case before the
Office of the undersignd hearing officer on April 16, 2009 at 10.00 o clock in the morning.

Despite due service of said processes, only respondent Cotelo submitted his Answer dated March 02, 2009, whereby
he laid emphasis on the alleged earlier Manifestation submitted on record, by private complainant Gil Ledesma . But
despite due notice, respondent Cotelo and Claret and private complainants, failed to appear before this Office at the
scheduled hearing on April 16, 2009.

Prior to this designation of the undersigned as Summary Hearing Officer for the above case, forming part of the
records of this case, is a two ( 2) paged formal Manifestation dated September 19, 2008 of private complainant Gil
Ledesma, which is made integral part hereof by reference. Salient to the said manifestation of the latter, are his
admissions to the effect that :

x x x as regards respondent SPO3 Jesus P. Cotelo, we had already


amicably settled our differences. In Civil Case No. S-705 for damages,
Injunction Etc., filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11,
Sindangan, Zamboanga Del Norte, we have come to an amicable
settlement setting our respective claim and counterclaim. We also
agreed to drop all cases filed in other courts or tribunal including this
administrative case;

That while in the process of finalizing the said settlement, respondent


Joel L. Claret also agreed to amicably settle our case. We have come to
an agreement with respondent Claret that the latter will reimburse my
expenses in connection of the filing of these cases. x x x (paragraphs 2
& 3; highlights supplied for emphasis )

The Resolution of the Case

From the foregoing, and based on the pleadings , and the evidence on record, thus far adduced by the parties, this
Office resolves in favor of the respondents.

For one, we join with and adopts the findings of fact of the Honorable Office of the Ombudsman ( Deputy
Ombudsman for the Military ) in the above cited OMB-MIL-CRIM-01-0587 ( 8), which involves identity of parties and
incident, causes of action and facts, when it found and resolved for the respondents therein (who are the same
respondents herein), and which we beg to quote en toto ,to wit :
Appreciating the allegations and contentions of the parties , with
the records on hand, we find the acts of respondents, particularly, the
impounding of the motor vehicle, to be regular and merely a lawful
performance of their duties. Also, we find no sufficient evidence to be
convinced that they demanded the amount of Nine Hundred Pesos
( P900.00) in exchange for the release of the subject vehicle. What is
rather apparent is that, the release of the vehicle was made after the
payment of appropriate amount of Two Hundred Pesos ( P200.000
which was properly receipted, contrary to the allegation that there
was no receipt issued. In sum, we find no evidence to hold respondents
probably liable for Extortion.

Upon the other hand, it appears indubitable from the records of this case, as cited above, that the parties in this
case, have amicably settled their dispute out of the confines of the administrative disciplinary authorities. Indeed, private
complainant ( Gil ) , who ostensibly represents her daughter and principal private complainant ( Gilyn) in this
administrative case ( as well as in other criminal / civil cases thus far filed by, for or against them ( involving the same
incident and respondents in this case ), have formally admitted having unqualifiedly achieved an amicable settlement of
this and other cases against respondent Cotelo, even while qualifiedly, had accordingly and amicably settled their dispute
in principle with respondent Claret.

Be that as it may, consistent with law, public policy, moral and good customs, a compromise agreement is a valid
contract between the parties. ( Barreras vs. Garcia, 169 SCRA 401). Settlement of disputes by way of compromise
whereby the parties ,by making reciprocal concessions avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced, is an
accepted, nay desirable and encouraged practice in courts of law and administrative tribunals. ( Santiago IV vs. De
Guzman, 177 SCRA 344).
Indeed, where , as in this case,

x x x the compromise is instituted and carried through in good


faith, the fact that there was a mistake as to the law or as to the
facts, except in certain cases where the mistake is mutual and
correctible as such in equity, cannot afford the basis for setting a
compromise aside or defending against a suit brought thereon .
( Delta Motors Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 299).

Accordingly, by parity of implication and application , the rule that:

Finding that the compromise was entered into by the parties


freely, voluntarily and with full understanding of the consequences
hereof, is conclusive and binding on the court . ( Nillo vs. Court of
Appeals, 174 SCRA 418),

is applicable in this case.

Recommendation

WHEREFORE, premises considered , it is hereby recommended that the instant case as against respondent JESUS
COTELO, be ordered DISMISSED with prejudice; the instant case as against respondent JOEL L CLARET be ordered
DISMISSED without prejudice, for want of probable cause and / or devoid or lack of sufficient evidence.

SO RESOLVED.

Legazpi City, for Quezon City, Philippines;


July 12, 2009.

PSUPT ANTONIO L MANUBA


Summary Hearing Officer

cc.:

PCSUPT ORLANDO M MABUTAS


Summary Dismissal Authority

The Chief
Highway Patrol Group (HPG)

The Chief
Office of the Legal Service, HPG

Camp Crame, Quezon City

Mr. Gil Ledesma/ Gilyn Ledesma


Poblacion , Sidangan, Zamboanga del Norte

SPO2 Jesus P Cotelo


PO3 Joel L Claret
(Both of HPG- 8 Tacl

6. The basic requirements of substantive and procedural due process are biased
in favor of a person charged with the commission of an offense. Public officers and civil servants, like PNP members, are
favored by the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties and faithful compliance with their oath
of office;

7. Indeed, before suspected or charged offenders are deprived of their right to


life, liberty and property, they should be afforded, their basic constitutional rights to procedural due process, at least, of
their right to presumption of innocence and to confront the witnesses against them; In cases of anonymous complaint,
like in the instant case, these basic constitutional rights of your respondent, is blatantly violated;

11. Even the Civil Service Laws and Rules, generally frowns upon giving due
course to anonymous complaints, when it provides that :

Any person may file an administrative complaint with the Commission,


or any of its proper office. Said complaint shall be in writing and under
oath , otherwise , the same shall not be given due course.

No action shall be taken on an anonymous complaint, unless there is


obvious truth or merit to the allegations set forth in the complaint.
(Sections 2 and 3, Executive Order No.292, highlights supplied, for
emphasis

11. This motion is made in good faith, and not intended to delay the proceedings in this case, disregard the
lawful orders and processes of this Honorable Office or of the Rules , and much less , evince an affront to the dignity of
this Honorable Office, were it not for the above cited circumstances;
12. Be that as it may too, even the Supreme Court, time and again has relaxed the stringent application of the
procedural rules in order to promote and achieve the overriding interest of substantial justice, when it has succinctly
pronounced that :

In the interest of substantial justice, procedural rules of the most mandatory in


character may be relaxed. In other words, if strict adherence to the letter of the
law, would result in absurdity and manifest injustice, or where the merit of a
Partys cause is apparent and outweighs consideration of non-compliance with
certain formal requirements, procedural rules should definitely be liberally
construed. A party litigant is to be given fullest opportunity to establish the
merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to, lose life, liberty,
honor or property on mere technicalities . ( Baylon vs. Fact Finding
Intelligence Bureau ( 394 SCRA 21) citing Tao vs. Court of Appeals , 344
SCRA 203 );

Indeed,
In appropriate cases, the courts may liberally construe procedural rules in order
to meet and advance the cause of substantial justice. We have held that lapses in
the literal observation of a procedural rule will be overlooked when they do not
not involve public policy , when they arose from an honest mistake or unforeseen
accident, when they have not prejudiced the adverse party, nor deprived the court
of its authority. ( Molina vs. Court of Appeals , 39 5SCRA 96) ( highlights supplied
for emphasis );

13. Accordingly, your respondents/ movants , most respectfully submit that the above quoted
pronouncements of the High Tribunal squarely applies to their instant case or motion , considering that your respondents
believe that they have meritorious defense as thoroughly expounded in his motion;

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Office , that the instant motion be give due and
receptive due course, granting them leave to adopt and submit and with such leave , for the above cited and hereto
appended responsive pleadings be admitted into the records of this case, on their behalf, as in substantial compliance
with the Rules and the Orders and processes of this Honorable Office .

Polangui, Albay for Ligao City.


September 28, 2009 .

You might also like