THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 178454. March 28, 2011.]

FILIPINA SAMSON, petitioner, vs. JULIA A. RESTRIVERA,

respondent.

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J : p

Petitioner Filipina Samson appeals the Decision 1 dated October 31,

2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 83422 and its Resolution
2 dated June 8, 2007, denying her motion for reconsideration. The CA

affirmed the Ombudsman in finding petitioner guilty of violating Section 4 (b)

3 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. CTHDcS

The facts are as follows:

Petitioner is a government employee, being a department head of the
Population Commission with office at the Provincial Capitol, Trece Martirez
City, Cavite.
Sometime in March 2001, petitioner agreed to help her friend,
respondent Julia A. Restrivera, to have the latter's land located in Carmona,
Cavite, registered under the Torrens System. Petitioner said that the
expenses would reach P150,000 and accepted P50,000 from respondent to
cover the initial expenses for the titling of respondent's land. However,
petitioner failed to accomplish her task because it was found out that the
land is government property. When petitioner failed to return the P50,000,
respondent sued her for estafa. Respondent also filed an administrative
complaint for grave misconduct or conduct unbecoming a public officer
against petitioner before the Office of the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of violating Section 4 (b) of
R.A. No. 6713 and suspended her from office for six months without pay. The
Ombudsman ruled that petitioner failed to abide by the standard set in
Section 4 (b) of R.A. No. 6713 and deprived the government of the benefit of
committed service when she embarked on her private interest to help
respondent secure a certificate of title over the latter's land. 4
Upon motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman, in an Order5 dated
March 15, 2004, reduced the penalty to three months suspension without
pay. According to the Ombudsman, petitioner's acceptance of respondent's
payment created a perception that petitioner is a fixer. Her act fell short of
the standard of personal conduct required by Section 4 (b) of R.A. No. 6713
that public officials shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their
roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage. The Ombudsman held:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 . . . [petitioner] admitted . . . that she indeed received the
amount of P50,000.00 from the [respondent] and even contracted
Engr. Liberato Patromo, alleged Licensed Geodetic Engineer to do the
surveys.

While it may be true that [petitioner] did not actually deal with
the other government agencies for the processing of the titles of the
subject property, we believe, however, that her mere act in accepting
the money from the [respondent] with the assurance that she would
work for the issuance of the title is already enough to create a
perception that she is a fixer. Section 4(b) of [R.A.] No. 6713 mandates
that public officials and employees shall endeavor to discourage
wrong perception of their roles as dispenser or peddler of undue
patronage.

xxx xxx xxx

. . . [petitioner's] act to . . . restore the amount of [P50,000] was

to avoid possible sanctions.

. . . [d]uring the conciliation proceedings held on 19 October

2002 at the barangay level, it was agreed upon by both parties that
[petitioner] be given until 28 February 2003 within which to pay the
amount of P50,000.00 including interest. If it was true that [petitioner]
had available money to pay and had been persistent in returning the
amount of [P50,000.00] to the [respondent], she would have easily
given the same right at that moment (on 19 October 2002) in the
presence of the Barangay Officials. 6 . . . . (Stress in the original.)

The CA on appeal affirmed the Ombudsman's Order dated March 19,

2004. The CA ruled that contrary to petitioner's contentions, the
Ombudsman has jurisdiction even if the act complained of is a private
matter. The CA also ruled that petitioner violated the norms of conduct
required of her as a public officer when she demanded and received the
amount of P50,000 on the representation that she can secure a title to
respondent's property and for failing to return the amount. The CA stressed
that Section 4 (b) of R.A. No. 6713 requires petitioner to perform and
discharge her duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism,
intelligence and skill, and to endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of
her role as a dispenser and peddler of undue patronage. 7 cdasiajur

Hence, this petition which raises the following issues:

1. Does the Ombudsman have jurisdiction over a case involving
a private dealing by a government employee or where the
act complained of is not related to the performance of official
duty?
2. Did the CA commit grave abuse of discretion in finding
petitioner administratively liable despite the dismissal of the
estafa case?
3. Did the CA commit grave abuse of discretion in not imposing
a lower penalty in view of mitigating circumstances? 8
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Petitioner insists that where the act complained of is not related to the
performance of official duty, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction. Petitioner
also imputes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA for holding her
administratively liable. She points out that the estafa case was dismissed
upon a finding that she was not guilty of fraud or deceit, hence misconduct
cannot be attributed to her. And even assuming that she is guilty of
misconduct, she is entitled to the benefit of mitigating circumstances such
as the fact that this is the first charge against her in her long years of public
service. 9
Respondent counters that the issues raised in the instant petition are
the same issues that the CA correctly resolved. 10 She also alleges that
petitioner failed to observe the mandate that public office is a public trust
when she meddled in an affair that belongs to another agency and received
an amount for undelivered work. 11
We affirm the CA and Ombudsman that petitioner is administratively
liable. We hasten to add, however, that petitioner is guilty of conduct
unbecoming a public officer.
On the first issue, we agree with the CA that the Ombudsman has
jurisdiction over respondent's complaint against petitioner although the act
complained of involves a private deal between them. 12 Section 13 (1), 13
Article XI of the 1987 Constitution states that the Ombudsman can
investigate on its own or on complaint by any person any act or omission of
any public official or employee when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, or improper. Under Section 16 14 of R.A. No. 6770, otherwise
known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance
committed by any public officer or employee during his/her tenure. Section
1 9 15 of R.A. No. 6770 also states that the Ombudsman shall act on all
complaints relating, but not limited, to acts or omissions which are unfair or
irregular. Thus, even if the complaint concerns an act of the public official or
employee which is not service-connected, the case is within the jurisdiction
of the Ombudsman. The law does not qualify the nature of the illegal act or
omission of the public official or employee that the Ombudsman may
investigate. It does not require that the act or omission be related to or be
connected with or arise from the performance of official duty. Since the law
does not distinguish, neither should we. 16
On the second issue, it is wrong for petitioner to say that since the
estafa case against her was dismissed, she cannot be found administratively
liable. It is settled that administrative cases may proceed independently of
criminal proceedings, and may continue despite the dismissal of the criminal
charges. 17
For proper consideration instead is petitioner's liability under Sec. 4 (A)
(b) of R.A. No. 6713.
We quote the full text of Section 4 of R.A. No. 6713:
SEC. 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 — (A) Every public official and employee shall observe the following as
standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution
of official duties:
(a) Commitment to public interest. — Public officials
and employees shall always uphold the public interest over and
above personal interest. All government resources and powers
of their respective offices must be employed and used
efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically, particularly
to avoid wastage in public funds and revenues.
(b) Professionalism. — Public officials and
employees shall perform and discharge their duties with the
highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and
skill. They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and
dedication to duty. They shall endeavor to discourage
wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or
peddlers of undue patronage.
(c) Justness and sincerity. — Public officials and
employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They
must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate
against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged.
They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall
refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good
customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public
interest. They shall not dispense or extend undue favors on
account of their office to their relatives whether by
consanguinity or affinity except with respect to appointments of
such relatives to positions considered strictly confidential or as
members of their personal staff whose terms are coterminous
with theirs.
(d) Political neutrality. — Public officials and
employees shall provide service to everyone without unfair
discrimination and regardless of party affiliation or preference.
ICHcTD

(e) Responsiveness to the public. — Public officials

and employees shall extend prompt, courteous, and adequate
service to the public. Unless otherwise provided by law or when
required by the public interest, public officials and employees
shall provide information on their policies and procedures in
clear and understandable language, ensure openness of
information, public consultations and hearings whenever
appropriate, encourage suggestions, simplify and systematize
policy, rules and procedures, avoid red tape and develop an
understanding and appreciation of the socioeconomic
conditions prevailing in the country, especially in the depressed
rural and urban areas.
(f) Nationalism and patriotism. — Public officials and
employees shall at all times be loyal to the Republic and to the
Filipino people, promote the use of locally-produced goods,
resources and technology and encourage appreciation and
pride of country and people. They shall endeavor to maintain
and defend Philippine sovereignty against foreign intrusion.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 (g) Commitment to democracy. — Public officials and
employees shall commit themselves to the democratic way of
life and values, maintain the principle of public accountability,
and manifest by deed the supremacy of civilian authority over
the military. They shall at all times uphold the Constitution and
put loyalty to country above loyalty to persons or party.
(h) Simple living. — Public officials and employees and
their families shall lead modest lives appropriate to their
positions and income. They shall not indulge in extravagant or
ostentatious display of wealth in any form.
(B) The Civil Service Commission shall adopt positive
measures to promote (1) observance of these standards including the
dissemination of information programs and workshops authorizing
merit increases beyond regular progression steps, to a limited
number of employees recognized by their office colleagues to be
outstanding in their observance of ethical standards; and (2)
continuing research and experimentation on measures which provide
positive motivation to public officials and employees in raising the
general level of observance of these standards.
Both the Ombudsman and CA found the petitioner administratively
liable for violating Section 4 (A) (b) on professionalism. "Professionalism" is
defined as the conduct, aims, or qualities that characterize or mark a
profession. A professional refers to a person who engages in an activity with
great competence. Indeed, to call a person a professional is to describe him
as competent, efficient, experienced, proficient or polished. 18 In the context
of Section 4 (A) (b) of R.A. No. 6713, the observance of professionalism also
means upholding the integrity of public office by endeavoring "to discourage
wrong perception of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue
patronage." Thus, a public official or employee should avoid any appearance
of impropriety affecting the integrity of government services. However, it
should be noted that Section 4 (A) enumerates the standards of personal
conduct for public officers with reference to "execution of official duties."
In the case at bar, the Ombudsman concluded that petitioner failed to
carry out the standard of professionalism by devoting herself on her
personal interest to the detriment of her solemn public duty. The
Ombudsman said that petitioner's act deprived the government of her
committed service because the generation of a certificate of title was not
within her line of public service. In denying petitioner's motion for
reconsideration, the Ombudsman said that it would have been sufficient if
petitioner just referred the respondent to the persons/officials incharge of
the processing of the documents for the issuance of a certificate of title.
While it may be true that she did not actually deal with the other
government agencies for the processing of the titles of the subject property,
petitioner's act of accepting the money from respondent with the assurance
that she would work for the issuance of the title is already enough to create
a perception that she is a fixer.
On its part, the CA rejected petitioner's argument that an isolated act
is insufficient to create those "wrong perceptions" or the "impression of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 influence peddling." It held that the law enjoins public officers, at all times to
respect the rights of others and refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good
customs, public order, public policy, public safety and public interest. Thus,
it is not the plurality of the acts that is being punished but the commission of
the act itself.
Evidently, both the Ombudsman and CA interpreted Section 4 (A) of
R.A. No. 6713 as broad enough to apply even to private transactions that
have no connection to the duties of one's office. We hold, however, that
petitioner may not be penalized for violation of Section 4 (A) (b) of R.A. No.
6713. The reason though does not lie in the fact that the act complained of
is not at all related to petitioner's discharge of her duties as department
head of the Population Commission.
In addition to its directive under Section 4 (B), Congress authorized 19
the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to promulgate the rules and regulations
necessary to implement R.A. No. 6713. Accordingly, the CSC issued the
Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees (hereafter, Implementing Rules). Rule V of the
Implementing Rules provides for an Incentive and Rewards System for public
officials and employees who have demonstrated exemplary service and
conduct on the basis of their observance of the norms of conduct laid down
in Section 4 of R.A. No. 6713, to wit: DHIETc

RULE V. INCENTIVES AND REWARDS SYSTEM

SECTION 1. Incentives and rewards shall be granted officials

and employees who have demonstrated exemplary service and
conduct on the basis of their observance of the norms of conduct laid
down in Section 4 of the Code, namely:
(a) Commitment to public interest. — . . .
(b) Professionalism. — . . .
(c) Justness and sincerity. — . . .
(d) Political neutrality. — . . .
(e) Responsiveness to the public. — . . .
(f) Nationalism and patriotism. — . . .
(g) Commitment to democracy. — . . .
(h) Simple living. — . . .
On the other hand, Rule X of the Implementing Rules enumerates
grounds for administrative disciplinary action, as follows:
RULE X. GROUNDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
SECTION 1. In addition to the grounds for administrative
disciplinary action prescribed under existing laws, the acts and
omissions of any official or employee, whether or not he holds office or
employment in a casual, temporary, hold-over, permanent or regular
capacity, declared unlawful or prohibited by the Code, shall constitute
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 grounds for administrative disciplinary action, and without prejudice to
criminal and civil liabilities provided herein, such as:
(a) Directly or indirectly having financial and material
interest in any transaction requiring the approval of his office. .
...
(b) Owning, controlling, managing or accepting
employment as officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker,
agent, trustee, or nominee in any private enterprise regulated,
supervised or licensed by his office, unless expressly allowed by
law;
(c) Engaging in the private practice of his profession
unless authorized by the Constitution, law or regulation,
provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict
with his official functions;
(d) Recommending any person to any position in a
private enterprise which has a regular or pending official
transaction with his office, unless such recommendation or
referral is mandated by (1) law, or (2) international
agreements, commitment and obligation, or as part of the
functions of his office;

xxx xxx xxx

(e) Disclosing or misusing confidential or classified
information officially known to him by reason of his office and
not made available to the public, to further his private interests
or give undue advantage to anyone, or to prejudice the public
interest;
(f) Soliciting or accepting, directly or indirectly, any
gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of
monetary value which in the course of his official duties or in
connection with any operation being regulated by, or any
transaction which may be affected by the functions of, his
office. . . . .

xxx xxx xxx

(g) Obtaining or using any statement filed under the
Code for any purpose contrary to morals or public policy or any
commercial purpose other than by news and communications
media for dissemination to the general public;
(h) Unfair discrimination in rendering public service
due to party affiliation or preference;
(i) Disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines and to
the Filipino people;
(j) Failure to act promptly on letters and request
within fifteen (15) days from receipt, except as otherwise
provided in these Rules;
(k) Failure to process documents and complete action
on documents and papers within a reasonable time from
preparation thereof, except as otherwise provided in these
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Rules; CSIcTa

(l) Failure to attend to anyone who wants to avail

himself of the services of the office, or to act promptly and
expeditiously on public personal transactions;
(m) Failure to file sworn statements of assets,
liabilities and net worth, and disclosure of business interests
and financial connections; and
(n) Failure to resign from his position in the private
business enterprise within thirty (30) days from assumption of
public office when conflict of interest arises, and/or failure to
divest himself of his shareholdings or interests in private
business enterprise within sixty (60) days from such
assumption of public office when conflict of interest arises:
Provided, however, that for those who are already in the service
and a conflict of interest arises, the official or employee must
either resign or divest himself of said interests within the
periods herein-above provided, reckoned from the date when
the conflict of interest had arisen.
In Domingo v. Office of the Ombudsman, 20 this Court had the occasion
to rule that failure to abide by the norms of conduct under Section 4 (A) (b)
of R.A. No. 6713, in relation to its implementing rules, is not a ground for
disciplinary action, to wit:
The charge of violation of Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 deserves
further comment. The provision commands that "public officials and
employees shall perform and discharge their duties with the highest
degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill." Said
provision merely enunciates "professionalism as an ideal norm of
conduct to be observed by public servants, in addition to commitment
to public interest, justness and sincerity, political neutrality,
responsiveness to the public, nationalism and patriotism, commitment
to democracy and simple living. Following this perspective, Rule V of
the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 6713 adopted by the Civil Service
Commission mandates the grant of incentives and rewards to officials
and employees who demonstrate exemplary service and conduct
based on their observance of the norms of conduct laid down in Section
4. In other words, under the mandated incentives and rewards system,
officials and employees who comply with the high standard set by law
would be rewarded. Those who fail to do so cannot expect the same
favorable treatment. However, the Implementing Rules does not
provide that they will have to be sanctioned for failure to
observe these norms of conduct. Indeed, Rule X of the
Implementing Rules affirms as grounds for administrative
disciplinary action only acts "declared unlawful or prohibited
by the Code." Rule X specifically mentions at least twenty
three (23) acts or omissions as grounds for administrative
disciplinary action. Failure to abide by the norms of conduct
under Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 is not one of them.
(Emphasis supplied.)

Consequently, the Court dismissed the charge of violation of Section 4

(A) (b) of R.A. No. 6713 in that case.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 We find no compelling reason to depart from our pronouncement in
Domingo. Thus, we reverse the CA and Ombudsman that petitioner is
administratively liable under Section 4 (A) (b) of R.A. No. 6713. In so ruling,
we do no less and no more than apply the law and its implementing rules
issued by the CSC under the authority given to it by Congress. Needless to
stress, said rules partake the nature of a statute and are binding as if written
in the law itself. They have the force and effect of law and enjoy the
presumption of constitutionality and legality until they are set aside with
finality in an appropriate case by a competent court. 21
But is petitioner nonetheless guilty of grave misconduct, which is a
ground for disciplinary action under R.A. No. 6713?
We also rule in the negative.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public
officer. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements
of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established
rules, which must be proved by substantial evidence. Otherwise, the
misconduct is only simple. 22 Conversely, one cannot be found guilty of
misconduct in the absence of substantial evidence. In one case, we affirmed
a finding of grave misconduct because there was substantial evidence of
voluntary disregard of established rules in the procurement of supplies as
well as of manifest intent to disregard said rules. 23 We have also ruled that
complicity in the transgression of a regulation of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue constitutes simple misconduct only as there was failure to establish
flagrancy in respondent's act for her to be held liable of gross misconduct. 24
On the other hand, we have likewise dismissed a complaint for knowingly
rendering an unjust order, gross ignorance of the law, and grave misconduct,
since the complainant did not even indicate the particular acts of the judge
which were allegedly violative of the Code of Judicial Conduct. 25
In this case, respondent failed to prove (1) petitioner's violation of an
established and definite rule of action or unlawful behavior or gross
negligence, and (2) any of the aggravating elements of corruption, willful
intent to violate a law or to disregard established rules on the part of
petitioner. In fact, respondent could merely point to petitioner's alleged
failure to observe the mandate that public office is a public trust when
petitioner allegedly meddled in an affair that belongs to another agency and
received an amount for undelivered work. HEaCcD

True, public officers and employees must be guided by the principle

enshrined in the Constitution that public office is a public trust. However,
respondent's allegation that petitioner meddled in an affair that belongs to
another agency is a serious but unproven accusation. Respondent did not
even say what acts of interference were done by petitioner. Neither did
respondent say in which government agency petitioner committed
interference. And causing the survey of respondent's land can hardly be
considered as meddling in the affairs of another government agency by
petitioner who is connected with the Population Commission. It does not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 show that petitioner made an illegal deal or any deal with any government
agency. Even the Ombudsman has recognized this fact. The survey shows
only that petitioner contracted a surveyor. Respondent said nothing on the
propriety or legality of what petitioner did. The survey shows that petitioner
also started to work on her task under their agreement. Thus, respondent's
allegation that petitioner received an amount for undelivered work is not
entirely correct. Rather, petitioner failed to fully accomplish her task in view
of the legal obstacle that the land is government property.
However, the foregoing does not mean that petitioner is absolved of
any administrative liability.
But first, we need to modify the CA finding that petitioner demanded
the amount of P50,000 from respondent because respondent did not even
say that petitioner demanded money from her. 26 We find in the allegations
and counter-allegations that respondent came to petitioner's house in Biñan,
Laguna, and asked petitioner if she can help respondent secure a title to her
land which she intends to sell. Petitioner agreed to help. When respondent
asked about the cost, petitioner said P150,000 and accepted P50,000 from
respondent to cover the initial expenses. 27
We agree with the common finding of the Ombudsman and the CA that,
in the aftermath of the aborted transaction, petitioner still failed to return the
amount she accepted. As aptly stated by the Ombudsman, if petitioner was
persistent in returning the amount of P50,000 until the preliminary
investigation of the estafa case on September 18, 2003, 28 there would have
been no need for the parties' agreement that petitioner be given until
February 28, 2003 to pay said amount including interest. Indeed, petitioner's
belated attempt to return the amount was intended to avoid possible
sanctions and impelled solely by the filing of the estafa case against her.
For reneging on her promise to return aforesaid amount, petitioner is
guilty of conduct unbecoming a public officer. In Joson v. Macapagal, we
have also ruled that the respondents therein were guilty of conduct
unbecoming of government employees when they reneged on their promise
to have pertinent documents notarized and submitted to the Government
Service Insurance System after the complainant's rights over the subject
property were transferred to the sister of one of the respondents. 29
Recently, in Assistant Special Prosecutor III Rohermia J. Jamsani-Rodriguez v.
Justices Gregory S. Ong, et al. , we said that unbecoming conduct means
improper performance and applies to a broader range of transgressions of
rules not only of social behavior but of ethical practice or logical procedure
or prescribed method. 30
This Court has too often declared that any act that falls short of the
exacting standards for public office shall not be countenanced. 31 The
Constitution categorically declares as follows:
SECTION 1. Public office is a public trust. — Public officers
and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve
them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act
with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. 32
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Petitioner should have complied with her promise to return the amount
to respondent after failing to accomplish the task she had willingly accepted.
However, she waited until respondent sued her for estafa, thus reinforcing
the latter's suspicion that petitioner misappropriated her money. Although
the element of deceit was not proven in the criminal case respondent filed
against the petitioner, it is clear that by her actuations, petitioner violated
basic social and ethical norms in her private dealings. Even if unrelated to
her duties as a public officer, petitioner's transgression could erode the
public's trust in government employees, moreso because she holds a high
position in the service.
As to the penalty, we reprimanded the respondents in Joson and
imposed a fine in Jamsani-Rodriguez. Under the circumstances of this case, a
fine of P15,000 in lieu of the three months suspension is proper. In imposing
said fine, we have considered as a mitigating circumstance petitioner's 37
years of public service and the fact that this is the first charge against her. 33
Section 53 34 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service provides that mitigating circumstances such as length of service
shall be considered. And since petitioner has earlier agreed to return the
amount of P50,000 including interest, we find it proper to order her to
comply with said agreement. Eventually, the parties may even find time to
rekindle their friendship. EAHDac

WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the Decision dated October 31, 2006 of

the Court of Appeals and its Resolution dated June 8, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No.
83422, as well as the Decision dated January 6, 2004 and Order dated March
15, 2004 of the Ombudsman in OMB-L-A-03-0552-F, and ENTER a new
judgment as follows:
We find petitioner GUILTY of conduct unbecoming a public officer and
impose upon her a FINE of P15,000.00 to be paid at the Office of the
Ombudsman within five (5) days from finality of this Decision.
We also ORDER petitioner to return to respondent the amount of
P50,000.00 with interest thereon at 12% per annum from March 2001 until
the said amount shall have been fully paid.
With costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio Morales, Brion, Bersamin and Sereno, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1.Rollo , pp. 126-142. Penned by Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes (now a retired
Member of this Court) with the concurrence of Associate Justices Juan Q.
Enriquez and Vicente S.E. Veloso.

2.Id. at 145-146.
3.SEC. 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. — (A) Every public
official and employee shall observe the following as standards of personal
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties:

xxx xxx xxx

(b) Professionalism. — Public officials and employees shall perform and
discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism,
intelligence and skill. They shall enter public service with utmost devotion
and dedication to duty. They shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions
of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage.
4.Rollo , pp. 37-38.

5.Id. at 40-45.

6.Id. at 42-43.
7.Id. at 141.

8.Id. at 12.
9.Id. at 13-16.

10.Id. at 73.

11.Id. at 74.
12.See Santos v. Rasalan, G.R. No. 155749, February 8, 2007, 515 SCRA 97, 102.

13.Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers,
functions, and duties:
(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission
of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.

xxx xxx xxx

14.SEC. 16. Applicability. — The provisions of this Act shall apply to all kinds of
malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance that have been committed by
any officer or employee as mentioned in Section 13 hereof, during his tenure
of office.

15.SEC. 19. Administrative Complaints. — The Ombudsman shall act on all

complaints relating, but not limited to acts or omissions which:

xxx xxx xxx

(2) Are . . . unfair . . .;

xxx xxx xxx

(6) Are otherwise irregular . . . .

16.See Santos v. Rasalan, supra note 12 at 102, citing Vasquez v. Hobilla-Alinio,
G.R. Nos. 118813-14, April 8, 1997, 271 SCRA 67, 74.

17.Bejarasco, Jr. v. Buenconsejo, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1417, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA
212, 221.
18.Reyes v. Rural Bank of San Miguel (Bulacan), Inc., G.R. No. 154499, February
27, 2004, 424 SCRA 135, 144, citing Webster's Third New International
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Dictionary.
19.SEC. 12. Promulgation of Rules and Regulations, Administration and
Enforcement of this Act. — The Civil Service Commission shall have the
primary responsibility for the administration and enforcement of this Act. . . .
.
The Civil Service Commission is hereby authorized to promulgate rules and
regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, . . . .

20.G.R. No. 176127, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 476, 484.
21.See Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima , G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008,
562 SCRA 251, 288-289, citing Eslao v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No.
108310, September 1, 1994, 236 SCRA 161, 175, Sierra Madre Trust v. Sec.
of Agr. and Natural Resources, Nos. L-32370 & 32767, April 20, 1983, 121
SCRA 384 and People v. Maceren , No. L-32166, October 18, 1977, 79 SCRA
450.
22.See Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, G.R. No. 154521, September 30,
2005, 471 SCRA 589, 603.

23.Roque v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 179245, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 660, 675.
24.Bureau of Internal Revenue v. Organo, G.R. No. 149549, February 26, 2004, 424
SCRA 9, 17.

25.Diomampo v. Alpajora, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1880, October 19, 2004, 440 SCRA 534,
539-540.
26.Rollo , pp. 20-21, 73-76.

27.Id. at 27-28.

28Id. at 23.
29.A.M. No. P-02-1591, June 21, 2002, 383 SCRA 403, 406-407.

30.A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J, August 24, 2010, p. 22.

31.Pablejan v. Calleja, A.M. No. P-06-2102, January 24, 2006, 479 SCRA 562, 569.

32.Sec. 1 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.

33.Rollo , p. 44.
34.Sec. 53. . . . Mitigating . . . Circumstances. —

xxx xxx xxx

j. Length of service in the government

xxx xxx xxx

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com