CASE DIGEST: OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A.

RACHO

FACTS: DYHP Balita Action Team reported to Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas a concerned
citizen's complaint regarding the unexplained wealth of Racho, then Chief of the Special
Investigation Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, BPI Cebu and PCI Bank. The
Ombudsman conducted an investigation and found that Racho did not declare his bank deposits
in his SALN so the Ombudsman filed a Complaint for Falsification of Public Document and
Dishonesty against Racho. Subsequently, the Graft Prosecution Officer did not give weight to the
bank documents because they were mere photocopies so he dismissed the complaint for
dishonesty due to insufficiency of evidence. on review, Director Virginia Palanca decreed that
Racho's act of not declaring said bank deposits in his SALN constituted falsification and
dishonesty. She found Racho guilty of the administrative charges against him and imposed the
penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits and perpetual disqualification to
hold public office.

The case was brought up to the CA where Racho explained that he was not the sole owner of the
bank deposits. To support his position he presented the Joint Affidavit of his brothers and nephew
which stated that they intended to put up a business. Also, through a Special Power of Attorney,
they designated Racho as the trustee of their investments in the business venture they were
intending to put up and thaty they authorized him to deposit their money in the herein questioned
bank accounts. The CA ordered a reinvestigation. However, after its investigation, the Office of
the Ombudsman found no reason to deviate from its decision to declare Racho guilty. Racho
filed a petition for review with the CA.

The CA opined that in charges of dishonesty, intention is an important element in its commission.
In this case, it found that Rachonever denied the existence of the bank accounts and even
attempted to explain the situation. Thus, there was lack of intent to conceal information.

ISSUE: Did the CA err in holding that there was lack of intent on the part of respondent
Racho to conceal information?

HELD: The Supreme Court is of the view that Racho's non-disclosure of the bank deposits in his
SALN constitutes dishonesty.

By mandate of law, every public official or government employee is required to make a complete
disclosure of his assets, liabilities and net worth in order to suppress any questionable
accumulation of wealth because the latter usually results from non-disclosure of such matters.
Hence, a public official or employee who has acquired money or property manifestly
disproportionate to his salary or his other lawful income shall be prima facie presumed to have
illegally acquired it.

In this case, Racho not only failed to disclose his bank accounts containing substantial deposits
but he also failed to satisfactorily explain the accumulation of his wealth or even identify the
sources of such accumulated wealth. The documents that Rachopresented, like those purportedly
showing that his brothers and nephew were financially capable of sending or contributing large
amounts of money for their business, do not prove that they did contribute or remit money for
their supposed joint business venture.

he Joint Affidavits allegedly executed by Rachos siblings and nephew to corroborate his story
were later disowned and denied by his nephew, Henry, and brother, Vieto, as shown by their
Counter-Affidavits.

Thus, the SPA and Joint Affidavits which should explain the sources of Rachos wealth are
dubious and merit no consideration.

Also, the Supreme Court holds that the CA erred in finding him guilty of simple neglect of duty
only. As defined, simple neglect of duty is the failure to give proper attention to a task expected
1
from an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference. In this case, the
discrepancies in the statement of Rachos assets are not the results of mere carelessness. On the
contrary, there is substantial evidence pointing to a conclusion that Racho is guilty of dishonesty
because of his unmistakable intent to cover up the true source of his questioned bank deposits.

It should be emphasized, however, that mere misdeclaration of the SALN does not automatically
amount to dishonesty. Only when the accumulated wealth becomes manifestly disproportionate
to the employees income or other sources of income and the public officer/employee fails to
properly account or explain his other sources of income, does he become susceptible to
dishonesty because when a public officer takes an oath or office, he or she binds himself or
herself to faithfully perform the duties of the office and use reasonable skill and diligence, and to
act primarily for the benefit of the public. Thus, in the discharge of duties, a public officer is to
use that prudence, caution and attention which careful persons use in the management of their
affairs. GRANTED.

2
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 185685 January 31, 2011

Office of the Ombudsman, Petitioner,

vs.
Nieto A. Racho, Respondent.

DECISION

MENDOZA, J.:

This petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by the Office of
the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) assails the February 21, 2008 Decision2 and November 20, 2008
Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals-Cebu (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 00694 which reversed
and set aside the administrative aspect of the April 1, 2005 Joint Order4 of the Office of the
Ombudsman-Visayas.

The April 1, 2005 Joint Order of the Ombudsman found respondent Nieto A. Racho (Racho)
guilty of dishonesty and ordered him dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits
and perpetual disqualification from public office. The assailed CA Decision, however, found
Racho guilty of negligence only and reduced the penalty to suspension from office for six
months, without pay.

From the records, it appears that DYHP Balita Action Team (DYHP), in a letter dated November
9, 2001, reported to Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, Primo Miro, a concerned citizen’s
complaint regarding the alleged unexplained wealth of Racho, then Chief of the Special
Investigation Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), Cebu City.5 To support the
allegation, the complainant attached copies of bank certifications, all issued in June of 1999, by
Metrobank Cebu (Tabunok Branch),6 BPI Cebu (Mango Branch),7 and PCI Bank (Magallanes
Branch).8 In total, Racho appeared to have an aggregate bank deposit of ₱5,798,801.39.

Acting on the letter, the Ombudsman launched a fact-finding investigation and directed the BIR
to submit Racho’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) from 1995 to 1999.
BIR complied with the order and gave copies of Racho’s SALN. Soon, the Ombudsman found
that Racho did not declare the bank deposits in his SALN, as mentioned in the DYHP’s letter.
Accordingly, the Ombudsman filed a Complaint for Falsification of Public Document under
Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (OMB-V-C-02-0240-E) and Dishonesty (OMB-V-A-02-
0214-E) against Racho.

The Ombudsman, in its August 21, 2002 Memorandum, adopted the Final Evaluation Report9 of
Administrative Officer Elpidio Montecillo as the sworn complaint. Thereafter, Racho submitted
his counter-affidavit attacking the procedural infirmities of the complaint against him.10 At the
scheduled clarificatory hearing, Racho invoked his right to remain silent. On January 02, 2003,
Graft Prosecution Officer (GPO) Pio Dargantes did not give weight to the bank documents
because they were mere photocopies. As a result, he dismissed the complaint for dishonesty
(OMB-V-A-02-214-E) due to insufficiency of evidence.11

On review, Director Virginia Palanca, through a memorandum dated May 30, 2003,12 decreed
that Racho’s act of not declaring said bank deposits in his SALN, which were disproportionate to
his and his wife’s salaries, constituted falsification and dishonesty. She found Racho guilty of the
administrative charges against him and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with
forfeiture of all benefits and perpetual disqualification to hold public office.
3
Racho moved for reconsideration13 but his motion was denied in an Order dated July 15, 2003.14

Racho appealed the said order of dismissal to the CA. On January 26, 2004, the CA reversed the
Ombudsman’s ruling and ordered the reinvestigation of the case.15

In compliance with the CA’s decision, the Ombudsman reinvestigated the case. In his
Comment,16 Racho denied sole ownership of the bank deposits. In support of his position, he
presented the Joint Affidavit17 of his brothers and nephew, particularly Vieto, Dean and Henry
Racho, allegedly executed on December 18, 2004. In the joint sworn statement, it was alleged
that he and his siblings planned to put up a business and eventually established "Angelsons
Lending and Investors, Inc.," a corporation registered18 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) on April 30, 1999. To prove their agreement, Racho presented a Special
Power of Attorney,19 dated January 28, 1993, wherein his brothers and nephew designated him as
the trustee of their investments in the business venture they were intending to put up and
authorized him to deposit their money into his questioned bank accounts to defray business-
related expenses. Racho averred that his wife also set up a small business named "Nal Pay
Phone Services" registered under the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) on April 30,
1999.20

On January 10, 2005, in its Reinvestigation Report, the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas found
no reason to deviate from its previous findings against Racho.21 Thus, the Reinvestigation Report
disposed:

With all the foregoing, undersigned finds no basis to change, modify nor reverse her previous
findings that there is probable cause for the crime of FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENT, defined and penalized under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, against
respondent Nieto A. Racho for making untruthful statements in a narration of facts in his SALN.
As there are additional facts established during the reinvestigation, re: failure of Mr. Racho to
reflect his business connections, then the Information filed against him should be amended to
include the same. Let this Amended Information be returned to the court for further proceedings.

SO RESOLVED.22

Racho filed a motion for reconsideration23 but the Ombudsman denied it in its April 1, 2005 Joint
Order.24

Racho elevated the case to the CA by way of a petition for review25 under Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court assailing the administrative aspect of the April 1, 2005 Joint Order of the Ombudsman-
Visayas.

On February 21, 2008, the CA rendered the challenged decision. Citing Pleyto v. Philippine
National Police (PNP)-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG),26 the CA opined
that in charges of dishonesty "intention is an important element in its commission."27 The CA
ruled that Racho "never denied the existence of the bank accounts. Instead, he undertook to
explain that those were not wholly owned by him and endeavored to secure and submit
documentary evidence to buttress explanation. Judging from his conduct, there is want of intent
to conceal information. Intent, as held in the Pleyto case, is essential to constitute dishonesty and
without the intent to commit a wrong, the public officer is not dishonest, albeit he is adjudged to
be negligent."28

Accordingly, the decretal portion of the CA decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review on the administrative aspect of Ombudsman
Visayas JOINT ORDER dated April 1, 2005 is hereby GRANTED. The said JOINT ORDER, in
so far as it affirmed the petitioner’s guilt for dishonesty and imposed the penalty of dismissal
with forfeiture of all benefits and perpetual disqualification to hold office is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is adjudged GUILTY of NEGLIGENCE in accomplishing his
4
Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) and is ORDERED to be SUSPENDED
FROM OFFICE WITHOUT PAY FOR A PERIOD OF SIX (6) MONTHS.29

The Ombudsman moved for reconsideration,30 but the CA stood by its decision and denied said
motion in its November 20, 2008 Resolution.31

Hence, this petition.

In its Memorandum,32 the Office of the Ombudsman submits the following:

ISSUES

I.

THE ACTIVE PARTICIPATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN IN

THE INSTANT CASE IS SANCTIONED BY THE MANDATE OF THE OFFICE
AS AN "ACTIVIST WATCHMAN."

II

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS’ RELIANCE ON A FICTITIOUS

DOCUMENT WHOSE AUTHENTICITY HAS BEEN PUT TO QUESTION IN A
SEPARATE CRIMINAL CASE PRESENTS AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL
RULE THAT AN APPEAL BY CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45 SHOULD RAISE
ONLY QUESTIONS OF LAW CONSIDERING THAT –

THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOUND THE SPECIAL POWER OF

ATTORNEY AND THE JOINT AFFIDAVIT OFFERED AS EVIDENCE BY
RESPONDENT TO BE SPURIOUS, HOWEVER, THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS WITHOUT RULING ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SAME
DOCUMENTS, RELIED ON THE SAME TO FIND RESPONDENT GUILTY
ONLY OF NEGLIGENCE;

AND

THE COURT OF APPEALS’ FINDING OF LACK OF INTENT ON THE PART

OF RESPONDENT RACHO TO CONCEAL INFORMATION IS NOT BASED ON
THE EVIDENCE

III

THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN HAS REPEATEDLY RAISED THE

SPURIOUS CHARACTER OF THE JOINT AFFIDAVIT AND SPECIAL POWER
OF ATTORNEY BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS. THE COUNTER-
AFFIDAVITS COUNTERING ITS AUTHENTICITY WAS SUBMITTED FOR
THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND NOT BEFORE
THIS HONORABLE COURT.

IV

THE DECISIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND ORDERS OF THE OFFICE OF THE

OMBUDSMAN ARE IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY EVEN PENDING APPEAL
UNDER SECTION 7, RULE III OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AS AMENDED; CONSEQUENTLY THE
WRIT OF INJUNCTION EARLIER ISSUED SHOULD BE LIFTED.33

5
The Ombudsman argues that the CA failed to see the discrepancies on Racho’s Special Power of
Attorney itself "such as a statement that the date of registration of the Nal Pay Phone Services
was ‘last April 30, 1999,’ when the Special Power of Attorney had been allegedly executed on 28
January 1993."34 The Ombudsman insists that these inconsistencies should have alerted the CA to
delve more deeply into the case and check if Racho’s explanation through the supposed dubious
documents should be given weight at all.35

THE COURT’S RULING

The Court finds merit in the petition.

As a general rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari
because the Court is not a trier of facts.36 When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of
fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court,
unless the case falls under any of the following recognized exceptions:

(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and
conjectures;

(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;

(3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;

(4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;

(5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;

(6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case
and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;

(7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;

(8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on
which they are based;

(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply
briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and

(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.37 [Emphasis
supplied]http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/172690.htm - _ftn

Undeniably, the findings of fact of the Ombudsman are different from those of the CA. Thus, the
Court finds it necessary to take a second look at the factual matters surrounding the present case.

From the records, it is undisputed that Racho admitted the bank accounts, but explained that the
deposits reflected therein were not entirely his. Racho proffered that some of the money came
from his brothers and nephew as part of their contribution to the business that they had planned
to put up. He presented a Special Power of Attorney (SPA), dated January 28, 1993, and Joint
Affidavit of his siblings that echoed his explanation.

In the appreciation of the said documents, the Ombudsman and the CA took opposing views. The
Ombudsman did not give weight to the SPA due to some questionable entries therein. The CA,
on the other hand, recognized the fact that Racho never denied the existence of the bank accounts
and accepted his explanation. Accordingly, the CA decreed that although Racho was remiss in

6
fully declaring the said bank deposits in his SALN, the intent to make a false statement, as would
constitute dishonesty, was clearly absent.

The pivotal issue in this case, however, is whether or not Racho’s non-disclosure of the bank
deposits in his SALN constitutes dishonesty.

The Court views it in the affirmative.

Section 7 and Section 8 of Republic Act (R.A.) 301938 explain the nature and importance of
accomplishing a true, detailed and sworn SALN, thus:

Sec. 7. Statement of Assets and Liabilities. — Every public officer, within thirty days after
assuming office, and thereafter, on or before the fifteenth day of April following the close of
every calendar year, as well as upon the expiration of his term of office, or upon his resignation
or separation from office, shall prepare and file with the office of corresponding Department
Head, or in the case of a Head Department or chief of an independent office, with the Office of
the President, a true, detailed and sworn statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the
amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next
preceding calendar year: Provided, That public officers assuming office less than two months
before the end of the calendar year, may file their first statement on or before the fifteenth day of
April following the close of said calendar year.

Sec. 8. Prima Facie Evidence of and Dismissal Due to Unexplained Wealth. — If in accordance
with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered One Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-Nine, a
public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in
the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to
his salary and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be ground for dismissal or removal.
Properties in the name of the spouse and dependents of such public official may be taken into
consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown.
Bank deposits in the name of or manifestly excessive expenditures incurred by the public
official, his spouse or any of their dependents including but not limited to activities in any club
or association or any ostentatious display of wealth including frequent travel abroad of a non-
official character by any public official when such activities entail expenses evidently out of
proportion to legitimate income, shall likewise be taken into consideration in the enforcement of
this Section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. The circumstances
hereinabove mentioned shall constitute valid ground for the administrative suspension of the
public official concerned for an indefinite period until the investigation of the unexplained
wealth is completed.

In the case of Carabeo v. Court of Appeals,39 citing Ombudsman v. Valeroso,40 the Court restated
the rationale for the SALN and the evils that it seeks to thwart, to wit:

Section 8 above, speaks of unlawful acquisition of wealth, the evil sought to be suppressed and
avoided, and Section 7, which mandates full disclosure of wealth in the SALN, is a means of
preventing said evil and is aimed particularly at curtailing and minimizing, the opportunities for
official corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service. "Unexplained"
matter normally results from "non-disclosure" or concealment of vital facts. SALN, which all
public officials and employees are mandated to file, are the means to achieve the policy of
accountability of all public officers and employees in the government. By the SALN, the public
are able to monitor movement in the fortune of a public official; it is a valid check and balance
mechanism to verify undisclosed properties and wealth.

Complimentary to the above-mentioned provisions, Section 2 of R.A. 137941 states that

"whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of
property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee
and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property
shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired."
7
By mandate of law, every public official or government employee is required to make a complete
disclosure of his assets, liabilities and net worth in order to suppress any questionable
accumulation of wealth because the latter usually results from non-disclosure of such matters.
Hence, a public official or employee who has acquired money or property manifestly
disproportionate to his salary or his other lawful income shall be prima facie presumed to have
illegally acquired it.

It should be understood that what the law seeks to curtail is "acquisition of unexplained wealth."
Where the source of the undisclosed wealth can be properly accounted, then it is "explained
wealth" which the law does not penalize.

In this case, Racho not only failed to disclose his bank accounts containing substantial deposits
but he also failed to satisfactorily explain the accumulation of his wealth or even identify the
sources of such accumulated wealth. The documents that Racho presented, like those purportedly
showing that his brothers and nephew were financially capable of sending or contributing large
amounts of money for their business,42 do not prove that they did contribute or remit money for
their supposed joint business venture.1âwphi1 Equally, the Special Power of Attorney43 that was
supposedly issued by Vieto, Dido and Henry Racho in favor of Racho on January 28, 1993 to
show their business plans, contained a glaringly inconsistent statement that belies the
authenticity of the document, to wit:

1. To be the Trustee Attorney-in-fact of our investment in ANGELSONS LENDING AND

INVESTORS, INC. of whom we are the Stockholders/Investors as well as the NAL PAY
PHONE SERVICES, which was registered by the DTI last April 30, 1999 in the name of
NIETO RACHO’s wife of whom we are likewise investors. [emphasis supplied]

Definitely, a document that was allegedly executed in 1993 could not contain a statement
referring to a future date "registered by the DTI last April 30, 1999." This certainly renders the
intrinsic and extrinsic value of the SPA questionable.

More important, the Joint Affidavits allegedly executed by Racho’s siblings and nephew to
corroborate his story were later disowned and denied by his nephew, Henry, and brother, Vieto, as
shown by their Counter-Affidavits.44 Henry averred that he was out of the country at the time of
the alleged execution of the Joint Affidavit on December 18, 2004 and he arrived in Manila only
on September 16, 2005. Vieto, on the other hand, denied having signed the Joint Affidavit. He
disclosed that as a left-handed person, he pushes the pen instead of pulling it. He concluded that
the signature on the Joint Affidavit was made by a right-handed person.45 He likewise included a
copy of his passport containing his real signature for comparison.46

Thus, the SPA and Joint Affidavits which should explain the sources of Racho’s wealth are
dubious and merit no consideration.

Although Racho presented the SEC Certificate of Registration of Angelsons,47 the business that
he supposedly put up with his relatives, he showed no other document to confirm that the
business is actually existing and operating. He likewise tried to show that his wife built a
business of her own but he did not bother to explain how the business grew and merely presented
a Certificate of Registration of Business Name from the DTI.48 These documents, however, do
not prove that Racho had enough other sources of income to justify the said bank deposits.
Ultimately, only ₱1,167,186.3349 representing his wife’s retirement benefits, was properly
accounted for. Even this money, however, was reduced by his loan payable of ₱1,000,000.00 as
reflected in his 2000 SALN.50

Dishonesty begins when an individual intentionally makes a false statement in any material fact,
or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in order to secure his examination,
registration, appointment or promotion.51 It is understood to imply the disposition to lie, cheat,
deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in
principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.52 It
8
is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon one’s ability to perform his duties with the
integrity and uprightness demanded of a public officer or employee.53 Section 52 (A)(1), Rule IV
of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service treats dishonesty as a
grave offense the penalty of which is dismissal from the service at the first infraction.54

Indeed, an honest public servant will have no difficulty in gathering, collating and presenting
evidence that will prove his credibility, but a dishonest one will only provide shallow excuses in
his explanations.

For these reasons, the Court is of the view that Pleyto v. Philippine National Police (PNP)-
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG)55 which the CA cited as basis to exculpate
Racho of dishonesty, is not applicable in this case. In the Pleyto case, the Court recognized
Pleyto’s candid admission of his failure to properly and completely fill out his SALN, his
vigorous effort to clarify the entries and provide the necessary information and supporting
documents to show how he and his wife acquired their properties.56 The Court found substantial
evidence that Pleyto and his wife had lawful sources of income other than Pleyto’s salary as a
government official which allowed them to purchase several real properties in their names and
travel abroad.57

Unfortunately for Racho, his situation is different. The Court, thus, holds that the CA erred in
finding him guilty of simple neglect of duty only.1âwphi1 As defined, simple neglect of duty is
the failure to give proper attention to a task expected from an employee resulting from either
carelessness or indifference.58 In this case, the discrepancies in the statement of Racho’s assets
are not the results of mere carelessness. On the contrary, there is substantial evidence pointing to
a conclusion that Racho is guilty of dishonesty because of his unmistakable intent to cover up the
true source of his questioned bank deposits.

It should be emphasized, however, that mere misdeclaration of the SALN does not automatically
amount to dishonesty. Only when the accumulated wealth becomes manifestly disproportionate
to the employee’s income or other sources of income and the public officer/employee fails to
properly account or explain his other sources of income, does he become susceptible to
dishonesty because when a public officer takes an oath or office, he or she binds himself or
herself to faithfully perform the duties of the office and use reasonable skill and diligence, and to
act primarily for the benefit of the public. Thus, in the discharge of duties, a public officer is to
use that prudence, caution and attention which careful persons use in the management of their
affairs.59

The Court has consistently reminded our public servants that public service demands utmost
integrity and discipline. A public servant must display at all times the highest sense of honesty
and integrity, for no less than the Constitution mandates the principle that a public office is a
public trust; and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people
and serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.60

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The February 21, 2008 Decision and November 20,
2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals-Cebu are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
administrative aspect of the April 1, 2005 Joint Order of the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas is
hereby REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.