REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE
MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES

3rd Floor, Ombudsman Bldg., Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City (1104), Philippines

ATTY. MISAEL RAYMUNDO C.

DINSAY (CES)E,
Complainant,
- versus -

OMB-P-A-13-0596
For: Grave Abuse of Authority;
Inefficiency and Incompetence
in the Official Duties;
Grave Misconduct

P/DIR. ALEXANDER LASAN ROLDAN,

Respondent.
x----------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
COMES NOW, respondent, through the undersigned counsel
and unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully submits this instant
Position Paper, and in support thereof, alleges: That
THE PARTIES
Complainant ATTY. MISAEL RAYMUNDO C. DINSAY is of
legal age, Filipino and with address at Block 10 Lot 15, LD-NHA
Village, Caloocan City, where this Honorable Office can serve him
copies of summons, orders and other processes.
Respondent P/DIR. ALEXANDER LASAN ROLDAN is of legal
age, Filipino and with address at MOQ 30E, PNP Camp Crame,
Quezon City where this Honorable Office can serve him copies of
summons, orders and other processes.
Respondent is currently the Acting Inspector General of the
Internal Affairs Service, Camp Crame, Quezon City, with the rank of
Police Director and Salary Grade 28.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A complaint was filed on ______________ by herein
complainant with the OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN alleging

Position Paper for the Respondent

Atty. Disay versus P/Dir. Roldan
Page 2 of 12

therein, among others, that herein respondent committed (1) Grave

Abuse of Authority; (2) Inefficiency and Incompetence in the
Performance of Official Duties; and (3) Grave Misconduct.
Herein respondent formally received the copy of the complaint
on ________________ and filed his Counter-Affidavit on
September 25, 2013.
Respondent was required to submit his Position Paper, hence
this Position Paper.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On March 6, 2013, complainant formally filed with the Internal
Affairs Service (Service for brevity) his Resignation Letter of even
date, therein signifying his intention to resign. For clarity, said letter
is cited in full as follows:
Please accept this letter as resignation of my
position as Attorney V and being designated as Chief of
the Prosecution Division, effective May 15, 2013.
My decision to resign was finalized after a long
and careful consideration of all factors. I regret leaving
this Office, however, I feel the change will be beneficial to
my long term career goals and objectives.
In this connection, please allow me to wind-up my
assignments in the Office to make certain that all reports
and records are accounted for before my last day of
work.
It has been a fruitful, learning experience to be
part of this Office for almost five years. I greatly
appreciate your support and encouragement.
Thank you.
Respectfully yours,
ATTY. MISAEL RAYMUNDO C. DINSAY
Cc: Chief, AFMD

Position Paper for the Respondent

Atty. Disay versus P/Dir. Roldan
Page 3 of 12

On the same day, went to the Office of the respondent regarding

his resignation letter. During said meeting, complainant verbally
expressed his intention to resign brought about his impending
appointment either as a judge or a prosecutor in the City of Caloocan.
Respondent accepted his resignation and in fact congratulated and
bid him well. The respondent also approved his request for his
resignation letter.
During the same meeting, complainant reiterated his request
that he be excused from actively prosecuting the Atimonan Case. The
meeting also discussed his earlier request through a Memorandum,
dated February 13, 2013, to be relieved as prosecutor in the
Paranaque Case. Hence, complainant agreed to be reassigned to
RIAS-4B to avoid disruption in the prosecution of the Atimonan and
Batangas Shooting incident and also to allow complainant to wind-up
during this period.
On March 7, 2013, Special Orders No. 2013-03-058 was issued
relieving complainant as Chief, Prosecution Division and reassigning
his as Deputy Regional Director of RIASIV-B. The relief and
reassignment of complainant took effect on March 8, 2013.
On March 11, 2013, a Letter, dated March 7, 2013, was
submitted to the Commission on Elections regarding the
reassignment of complainant, among others. The said letter cited the
reason for reassignment as follows:
To avoid unusual disruption in the prosecution of
several policemen involved in the fatal Atimonan (sic) and
Batangas Shooting Incidents beginning March 12, 2013 in
view of the impending resignation of Atty. Dinsay
effective May 15, 2013.
The Letter also reads that the transfer/designation is effective March
8, 2013, unless revoked by the Commission.
On March 12, 2013, complainant sent a Letter request for
reconsideration of his reassignment at RIAS-4B. The Letter reads in
part:
With all due respect, it is my humble view that the
decision on my relief from my present post to my
reassignment at RIAS 4B is considered untimely. Because
of the fact that I have unequivocably tendered my
resignation on March 6, 2013, to be effective May 15, 2013

Position Paper for the Respondent

Atty. Disay versus P/Dir. Roldan
Page 4 of 12

(please see attached letter received by your Office). While

it is clear thereon that I will be winding-up my official
assignments as well as preparing myself to go back to
private law practice to fulfill my long term career goals.
On even date, respondent met again with complainant to
discuss complainants request to be reassigned at the RIAS-NCR
instead of RIAS 4B. During their meeting, it was explained to
complainant that he cannot be reassigned to the RIAS-NCR for the
simple reason that the available post there is that of a Legal Officer, a
position two grades lower than complainants appointment, which
explanation was taken gladly by the complainant.
On April 19, 2013, complainant wrote a Memorandum
addressed to the Chief, Administrative and Finance Management
Division (AFMD), with subject Withdrawal of Application for
Resignation.
On May 27, 2013, complainant wrote a Letter to the Civil
Service Commission (CSC) seeking intervention and administrative
opinion on his reassignment, which the complainant assailed as
constructive dismissal and a violation of the COMELEC Ban on the
Transfer/Detail of Personnel.
On June 2013, the CSC wrote the Service anent the Letter of
complainant re: assignment, with request that for comment within
three (3) days from receipt.
On June 18, 2013, in compliance with the request of the CSC,
the Service sent its comment to the Letter of complainant.
Thereafter, the CSC wrote the respondent another Letter,
apparently favoring the position taken by the Service.
On June 28, 2013, the Service formally sent a Letter to the
complainant formally reiterating therein the approval of his
resignation which took effect on May 15, 2013.
On July 17, 2013, complainant wrote the Directorate for
Personnel and Records Management (DPRM) about his complaint
with this Honorable Office, where he questioned the issuance of
Special Orders No. 2013-06-128 and also the Letter, dated June 28,
2013.

Position Paper for the Respondent

Atty. Disay versus P/Dir. Roldan
Page 5 of 12

In compliance with said Memorandum of the DPRM, the

Service sent a reply Memorandum therein stating brief statement of
pertinent facts.
ISSUES
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT IS GUILTY AS CHARGED IN
THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE?
DISCUSSIONS/ARGUMENTS
The respondent adopts in toto his counter-affidavit and all the
exhibits attached therein which was previously submitted and/or filed
to this Honorable Office on September 25, 2013.
Respondent vehemently denies the allegations of the
complainant insofar as it mentions specific matters relevant to a
hearing in a pending case before the Legal Affairs Division (LAD) IAS,
the proceedings of which the respondent has not witnessed. The latter
recall however, having discussed this matter with the complainant
and aptly reminded him to bring his concern before the Board that is
hearing the Paraaque Shooting Incident Case and not directly to the
respondent. Considering that the case was being heard by the Board,
it is not proper for the respondent to meddle with the hearings of the
case. To be sure, the matter of the Paraaque Shooting Incident Case
was discussed again between respondent and complainant during
their meeting on March 6, 2013.
The complainant stated that he submitted his resignation on
March 7, 2013 but the truth is that he submitted his resignation on
March 6, 2013, and on that very day, respondent and complainant
discussed the latters resignation and reassignment.
After the said meeting, respondent met with the other officers
of the Internal Affairs Service (IAS) to discuss other matters
pertaining to the Office. Respondent strongly denies that however the
attempt of complainant to insinuate that there was some sort of illmotive being directed to him.
The respondent also sent a message to complainant through his
cellular phone, the same being in consonant with their earlier
meeting regarding his reassignment pending the effectivity of his
resignation on May 15, 2013.

Position Paper for the Respondent

Atty. Disay versus P/Dir. Roldan
Page 6 of 12

The respondent denies that he did nothing on complainants

request for reconsideration (which actually did not mention about his
request for reassignment to RIAS-NCR). The truth is that, this matter
was personally discussed with him as in fact it was during this
personal conversation that respondent and complainant discussed
also about his request for transfer to RIAS-NCR. At the end of said
meeting, respondent and complainant agreed that considering that
the available post there is for Legal Officer IV (SG 23). They also
agreed that considering that the task pertaining to Deputy Regional
Director of RIAS 4B is not that demanding in terms of time and
effort, such a situation will be favorable in the effort to wind-up
affairs pending the effectivity of his resignation on May 15, 2013.
The respondent would like to request the attention of the this
Honorable Office of the Ombudsman to complainants averment that
being the nominal complainant in Atimonan Shooting Incident Case
bars him from being the prosecutor of the case. This claim of the
complainant is without basis there being no law nor rule that the
prosecutor who signed the charge sheet cannot be the prosecutor at
the same time. The contrary however is very much true that as a
prosecutor, chief at that of the Prosecution Division, complainant
should be leading the prosecution of the cases especially those caught
national interest such as the cases of Paraaque and Atimonan
Shooting Incidents. If at all, this position of the complainant merely
highlighted his stint as Chief Prosecutor of the Prosecution Division
of IAS, as that of being a prosecutor who barely attended any of the
hearings in cases pending before LAD-IAS.
Respondent would like to reiterate that it was complainant who
requested that he be relieved from actively prosecuting cases of
national interests. Hence, in order not to disrupt the prosecution of
these cases as well as other cases handled by the Prosecution
Division, his reassignment was discussed and deliberated upon.
Anent his hypothetical question on how can he be expected to
wind-up his affairs if he was reassigned to other post or place, to
reiterate, this was deliberated upon as in fact he was allowed a light
duty if only to allow him to wind-up his affairs.
The respondent strongly denies the complainants allegations
that there was no express acceptance of his resignation. Firstly, as
early as March 6, 2013, his resignation was personally accepted.
Second, his resignation on March 6, 2013 to be effective May 15, 2013
was also accepted as shown by the IAS Letter to COMELEC,
informing the latter of the personnel movement in the IAS the reason
for which states to avoid unusual disruption in the prosecution of

Position Paper for the Respondent

Atty. Disay versus P/Dir. Roldan
Page 7 of 12

several policemen involved in the fatal Atimonan (sic) and Batangas

Shooting. Incidents beginning March 12, 2013 in view of the
impending resignation of Atty. Dinsay effective May 15,
2013. Finally, the IAS Letter dated June 28, 2013, formally
reiterated the acceptance by IAS of the resignation of complainant
made on March 6, 2013 to take effect on May 15, 2013.
Verily, there is no required form on how acceptance of
resignation is to be made. What is essential is that there must be
acceptance one way or the other. In the case of the complainant, his
resignation was accepted and approved, on the very day he handed
his resignation to the respondent. This acceptance and approval was
further noted in the Letter of the Service to the COMELEC informing
the latter of the reassignment of the complainant. Finally, this was
formally reiterated in the Letter dated June 28, 2013.
Complainant insinuates that the Civil Service Commission
(CSC) committed some wrongdoing in directing the respondent to
answer or comment on complainants letter to the CSC, dated May 27,
2013, should, in the interest of fairness and justice, be allowed to be
responded to by CSC Field Office Camp Crame Director Velda
Cornelio. Hence, it is prayed that copy of the Complaint be furnished
said CSC Officer if only to comment on material allegations
pertaining to her or that her office.
Contrary to the claim of the complainant, he did not merely
seek opinion but clearly asked the CSC to intervene on his behalf. His
letter is clear on this.
Anent the Letter dated June 28, 2013, it should be stressed that
the same was sent to formally reiterate the acceptance of
resignation of complainant as early as March 6, 2013, the day when
he submitted his resignation letter and the same day we discussed
about it.
Anent the issue of grave abuse of authority, inefficiency and
incompetence in the performance of official duties and grave
misconduct, the respondent has these to say.

In the case of Ma. Chedna Romero versus Pacifico B. Villarosa,

Jr., the Honorable Supreme Court hed that, with regard to grave
abuse of authority, such has been defined as a misdemeanor
committed by a public officer, who under color of his office,
wrongfully inflicts upon any person any bodily harm, imprisonment

Position Paper for the Respondent

Atty. Disay versus P/Dir. Roldan
Page 8 of 12

or other injury; it is an act of cruelty, severity, or excessive use of

authority.

Further, in Zacarias v. National Police Commission, the Court

discussed the meaning of conduct unbecoming, in this wise, as cited
in the case of Deputy Director General Roberto Lastimoso, et al.
versus P/Senior Inspector Jose J. Asayo:

Webster defines unbecoming conduct as

improper performance. Such term applies to a broader
range of transgressions of rules not only of social behavior
but of ethical practice or logical procedure or prescribed
method. Obviously, the charges of neglect of duty,
inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of
official duties fall within the scope of conduct unbecoming
a police officer. X x x

It is not the duty of the respondent, neither is it his character to

be oppressive and inflict harassment on anyone especially the
complainant, who has been a colleague in the Service.
In the case of Monico K. Imperial, Jr. versus Government
Service Insurance System, G.R. No. 191224 states that:
While misconduct generally means wrongful,
improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a
premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose, it does
not necessarily imply corruption, the element which
qualifies misconduct as grave misconduct. Thus, unless
there is substantial evidence of corruption, the
transgression of an established rule is properly
characterized as simple misconduct only.
Indeed, simple misconduct is distinct and separate
from grave misconduct. In grave misconduct, as
distinguished from simple misconduct, the
elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the
law or flagrant disregard of established rule,
must be manifest. A public officer shall be liable

Position Paper for the Respondent

Atty. Disay versus P/Dir. Roldan
Page 9 of 12

for grave misconduct only when the elements of

corruption, clear intent to violate the law or
flagrant disregard of established rule are
manifest. These qualifying elements must also be
established by substantial evidence, separate
from the showing of the misconduct itself. Here, as
already explained earlier, the administrative agencies
considered the act constituting the misconduct, that is,
the non-observance of GSIS PPG No. 153-99, as the very
same proof of the qualifying element of flagrant
disregard of an established rule. (emphasis and
underscoring ours)
Based on the above cited jurisprudence, the elements of grave
misconduct is absent in this case. Respondent actuations did not in
any way violate the law and/or did not disregard established rules,
but in consonance with his duty.
It is worthy to note that complainants reassignment was
brought by the fact that he already resigned from the Service, and that
in the meantime prior to its effective date on May 15, 2013, it was
deliberated and agreed that he be reassigned to RIAS 4B and, to be
clear, there is no disagreement on the reassignment except only the
fact that complainant wanted to be reassigned to RIAS-NCR instead
of RIAS 4B.
The fundamental rule in administrative proceedings is that the
complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the
allegations in his complaint. In Montemayor v. Bundalian, the
Honorable Supreme Court has held that:
First, the burden is on the complainant to prove by
substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint.
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of
evidence. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,
even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably
opine otherwise. Second, in reviewing administrative
decisions of the executive branch of the government, the
findings of facts made therein are to be respected so long
as they are supported by substantial evidence. Hence, it is
not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting
evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or
otherwise substitute its judgment for that of the
administrative agency with respect to the sufficiency of
evidence. Third, administrative decisions in matters

Position Paper for the Respondent

Atty. Disay versus P/Dir. Roldan
Page 10 of 12

within the executive jurisdiction can only be set aside on

proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law. X
x x (emphasis ours)
It is crystal clear that his complaint on reassignment is but an
after-thought if only to gain leverage in his desire to return to the
Service despite his previous resignation. If indeed complainant really
wanted to question his reassignment, he could have availed the
proper remedy provided under the CSC Revised Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACS). However, since
obviously the prescribed time within which to raise the same has
already lapsed, he now comes before this Honorable Office in the
guise of being a victim of harassment, harassment and grave abuse of
discretion.
On the issue that the complainant was constructively dismissed,
respondent vehemently denies the same. This is a clear case of
resignation, which is one of the legally recognized modes of severance
or termination from service.
Complainants reference to Supreme Court Decisions is
misplaced. The cited cases refer to labor cases originating from the
NLRC. The jurisprudence on government employment has different
milieu than that obtaining in private employment cases. Hence,
principles in these fields of law cannot be mingled.
Government position, regardless of rank and grade, is a public
office which cannot be treated as the private ownership of the holder
thereof. Not being within the realm of private ownership, its holder
cannot wield it according to his whims. Simply stated, the holder of a
public office cannot vacate and by an afterthought and change of
mind regain it at anytime he might be minded to.
Complainant resigned on March6, 2013 albeit his effective date
of resignation on May 15, 2013. On the very same date, his resignation
was personally accepted. This was reiterated in the IAS Letter to
COMELEC, and at the risk of being grammatically repetitive, his
resignation was again: reiterated on the letter of June 28, 2013.
Anent the issue of serious irregularity, respondent has these to
say, in complainants tirade of irrelevant accusations and allegations;
he belittles the appointment of the respondent as merely Acting
Inspector General, hence, without the power to make reassignment.
In so doing, complainant completely forgets the fact that his
appointment as Attorney V and designation as Chief of the

Position Paper for the Respondent

Atty. Disay versus P/Dir. Roldan
Page 11 of 12

Prosecution Division was made by the previous head of the Service,

Police Director Ifor I. Magbanua, who himself was appointed as
Acting Inspector General.
If only to set things straight, the issues raised by complainant
are administrative matters on personnel movement best laid before
the Civil Service Commission. The accusations of harassment,
harassment and grave abuse of discretion were concocted by
complainant if only to get away with his failure to avail remedies
before the Civil Service Commission.
Finally, respondent has clearly established his defense and
explained fully the facts and circumstances supported by
jurisprudence against the allegations of the complainant.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed of this Honorable Office that the above position paper be
ADMITTED and the above-entitled case be DISMISSED.
Respondent further prays for such other reliefs and remedies
proper under the premises.
Mandaluyong City for Quezon City, December 9, 2013.
ROLDAN AND ROLDAN LAW OFFICES
Counsel for the respondent
Suite 719, Cityland Shaw Tower Shaw Blvd.
cor. St. Francis St., Mandaluyong City
By:
JOHN P. ROLDAN
PTR NO. 1617415/01-03-13/Mand. City
IBP NO. 914283/01-03-13/RSM
IBP ROLL NO. 40537/04-11-96
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0012115/01-30-13
Telephone No. (02) 687-4521
Fax No. (02) 687-4584
Copy Furnished:

Position Paper for the Respondent

Atty. Disay versus P/Dir. Roldan
Page 12 of 12

ATTY. MISAEL RAYMUNDO C. DINSAY

Block 10 Lot 15, LD-NHA Village
Caloocan City

EXPLANATION
Due to time constraint and lack of personnel, complainant was
furnished a copy of the foregoing Position Paper through registered
mail.

ATTY. JOHN P. ROLDAN