DECISION NO.

2020-436
January 31, 2020

IN RE: ADMINISTRATIVE CASE ADM. CASE NO. 2017-014

-versus-
FOR: DISGRACEFUL AND IMMORAL
CONDUCT
___________________,
Respondent
x-------------------------------------------x

DECISION

FACTS OF THE CASE

For resolution is the administrative case against Respondent ___________, State Auditor IV, then Audit Team Leader
(ATL), Western Visayas Sanitarium (WVS), Team 10-Audit Group D-IV, Commission on Audit (COA) Regional Office No. VI, for
Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct for uttering undesirable, abusive, and offensive remarks, in violation of Section 4, Norms of
Conduct of Public Officials and Employees, Republic Act (RA) No. 6713.1

This case stemmed from several complaints2 filed by Dr. Annabelle P. de Guzman, Chief of Sanitarium II, WVS, alleging
the following serious infractions committed by respondent while assigned as the ATL of the WVS:

1) Made unreasonable demands of the WVS Management, such as:

a. An office furnished with office furniture and equipment;

b. An executive table and chair made of acacia;
c. New office supplies and computer;
d. Free daily snacks to be brought to her office; and
e. Renovation of the office.

2) Instructed/required 3 Dr. de Guzman and other responsible officers of the WVS to submit long-overdue reports
and documents for the year 2013, as follows:

a. Disbursement vouchers;
b. Official receipts issued and validated deposit slips with Report of Collections and Deposits;
c. Annual Accomplishment Report for calendar year (CY) 2012 (including Gender and Development);
d. Corrected Annual Procurement Plan;
e. Monthly Report for Accountability for Accountable Forms; and
f. Memorandum between the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation and the WVS in line with the execution of
Audit Group Work Plan/National Operation Plan for the Department of Health for CY 2012-2014 on Income
Accounts relative to Medicare Sharing.

3) Maliciously issued several Audit Observation Memoranda (AOMs)4 relative to several transactions;

4) Uttered undesirable and offensive remarks in the workplace, as follows:

a. Declaring that she was an expert in finding anomalous transactions;

b. She would slap the face of the person who responded to her letter for being a “mango” (dull and retarded) and
for not knowing what she was talking about; and
c. She would throw out the computer if found unserviceable.

Dr. de Guzman further alleged that respondent’s unprofessional conduct was related to her post-stroke dementia, saying
that respondent was not only physically unfit to continue in government service but also lacked the emotional stability to further
discharge her duties and responsibilities as a COA auditor.

In his Affidavit dated May 2, 2013, Mr. Elmer Herrera, Jr., Administrative Officer, WVS, alleged that:

Respondent always hurled libelous and defamatory remarks against him, such as: “gago,” “gaga,” “hangag,”
“mango” (dull/stupid/thickheaded); “Dira ta gid kamo igo-on o kasuhan” (With this, I can file a case against
you); “Amo ni ang maka-knock out sa inyo” (This will knock you out); “Ang mga gina disallow ko naga suicide,
nagakapatay o naga-buang” (Those whom I disallowed committed suicide, died or became insane); “Basi
 pahiwitan ko siya” (I might use a quack doctor against her); “Basi lampusan ko sya kung makita ko sya” (I
might stab her if I see her); “Gan-iton ko sya” (I will eat or bite her); “Kon indi ninyo ni pag-ubrahon subong,
kabigon ko nga personal attack sa akon” (If you will not work on this right now, I will consider it a personal
attack on my person); “Puede ta kamo ma pa priso” (I can put you in prison); “Amat-amat ta lang ka patyon” (I
will slowly kill you).

On the other hand, in her Counter-Affidavit dated July 9, 2013, respondent refuted the allegations against her and stated
that:

1) She did not make unreasonable demands for office furniture and equipment; and

2) The AOMs were based on material audit observations5 on the WVS’ accounts.

In its Administrative Complaint Evaluation Report dated September 8, 2015, the Internal Affairs Office, Office of the
Chairperson, this Commission, recommended the charge of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct under Section 46(B3) of the
Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service against respondent for committing serious infractions and uttering
undesirable and abusive remarks in the workplace.

In her Answer dated August 7, 2017, respondent averred that she did not humiliate or utter libelous and provocative
remarks against complainant. Further, she raised the following defenses in support of her claim:

1) Respondent’s actions cannot be deemed to have been willful or flagrant, citing the case of Arciga vs.
Maniwang,6 where the Supreme Court (SC) defined immoral conduct as willful, flagrant, or shameless, or
which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable community;

2) She was diagnosed and treated for mood symptoms, anxiety, and irritability since July 2011, as evidenced by
several medical prescriptions and a Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Daisy Daquilanea;

3) She was merely expressing her sentiments on the kind of facilities that the WVS had provided her;

4) The complaints were made in the course of audit being conducted by her team, and after discrepancies and
lapses in the transactions were discovered; and

5) The administrative complaint was made in an attempt to dissuade her from the investigation, and to keep any
anomaly from being exposed.

Respondent elected to have a formal investigation of the charges against her. The preliminary hearing conference was
conducted on January 15, 2018, in which she manifested her willingness to submit a Position Paper in lieu of a formal hearing, to
which the prosecution offered no objection.

In her Position Paper dated February 28, 2018, respondent maintains that she should be absolved from any liability for the
following reasons:

1) Dr. de Guzman’s accusations of abusive/offensive remarks should be considered hearsay, as she was not
present when the alleged utterances were made;

2) Respondent cannot recall any instance of having uttered undesirable and abusive remarks as stated in the
letter-charge. She reasons that she has been under medical treatment and her reactions to certain situations
may not be considered as willful or deliberate or even consciously made;

3) She has no intention to willfully inflict any harm on any person. Her untoward behavior is just an expression
of exasperation over the unserviceable equipment and furniture that the WVS provided to her team; and

4) The complaint was concocted and prepared to prevent her from investigating the WVS’ irregular transactions
and to keep any anomaly from being exposed.

In a Position Paper dated March 19, 2018, the COA Prosecutor avers that respondent’s utterance of foul words in the
workplace and during office hours amounts to Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct. It is emphasized that complainant’s declarations
were not due to a pre-existing grudge or ill-will towards respondent. Further, it is argued that respondent’s assertion that the
complaint was made in an attempt to dissuade her from investigating the alleged lapses and anomalies discovered during audit
deserves no credit, as there is no proof to support such contention.

ISSUE

The issue to be resolved is whether or not respondent is guilty of the administrative offense of Disgraceful and Immoral
Conduct.
DISCUSSION

The degree of morality required of every employee or official in the public service is high. To constitute immorality, the
circumstances of each particular case must be holistically considered and evaluated in the light of prevailing norms of conduct
and the applicable law.7

The administrative offense of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct is defined as an act which violates the basic norm of
decency, morality, and decorum and is abhorred and condemned by society, and conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless
and which shows a moral indifference to the opinions of the good and respectable members of the community.8

In the case of Shirley C. Diomampo vs. Felipe C. Laribo, Jr. ,9 the SC emphasized that Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct, is
not only limited to illicit sexual intercourse or other sexual matters, but may also include indecency and shameless conduct such
as uttering foul and malicious words. The SC affirmed the Office of the Court Administrator’s evaluation that:

The utterance of foul words that degrade morality should not be countenanced. It amounts to disgraceful and
immoral conduct defined by the Civil Service Commission as “an act which violates the basic norm of decency,
morality and decorum [and is] abhorred and condemned by the society. It refers to conduct which is willful,
flagrant or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinions of the good and respectable
members of the community.” In Court Employees of the MCTC, Ramon Magsaysay, Zamboanga del Sur vs. Sy,
the Court stated that “immorality is not based alone on illicit sexual intercourse. It is not confined to sexual
matters, but includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity and
dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable
members of the community, and as an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare.” (Emphasis
and underscoring in the original)

Respondent’s actions may be deemed to violate codes of conduct. For instance, the commission of serious infractions and
utterance of undesirable and abusive remarks in the workplace run counter to the standards set under Section 4 of RA No. 6713, to
wit:

Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. –

A. Every public official and employee shall observe the following as standards of personal conduct in the discharge and
execution of official duties:

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.

However, while respondent violated the norms of conduct set forth under the above-mentioned law, the same may not be a
ground for disciplinary action against her, as held in the case of Filipina Samson vs. Julia A. Restrivera:10

In Domingo vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 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 on of
them. (Emphasis added and in the original);

Respondent persistently asserts11 that her actions cannot be deemed to have been willful or flagrant, since the remarks were
uttered without deliberate and willful intent to inflict harm or injury to another. She emphasizes that her utterances were made in
the heat of argument or discussion with the WVS’ officers that was triggered by her medical condition.
 This Commission finds respondent’s contention tenable. In Zaida R. Inocente vs. St. Vincent Foundation for Children and
Aging, Inc.,12 the SC held that the totality of the attendant circumstances must be considered in determining whether an
employee’s conduct is immoral, viz.:

[Conduct] described as immoral or disgraceful refer to those acts that plainly contradict accepted standards of
right and wrong behavior; they are prohibited because they are detrimental to the conditions on which depend
the existence and progress of human society.

Notwithstanding this characterization, the term "immorality" still often escapes precise definition; the
determination of whether it exists or has taken place depends on the attendant circumstances, prevailing norms
of conduct, and applicable laws.

In other words, it is the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct per se[,] viewed in relation with
the conduct generally accepted by society as respectable or moral, which determines whether the conduct is
disgraceful or immoral. The determination of whether a particular conduct is immoral involves: (1) a
consideration of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct; and (2) an assessment of these
circumstances in the light of the prevailing norms of conduct, i.e., what the society generally considers moral
and respectable, and of the applicable laws.

In this case, respondent’s remarks cannot be considered as disgraceful and immoral conduct. The “slapping of the face”
and the uttering of “gago,” “throwing out the unserviceable computer,” and other remarks were expressions of her exasperation
and frustration over the uncomfortable workplace and the uncooperative behavior of WVS personnel. Moreover, her medical
condition also affected her work performance in the conduct of audit of the WVS’ transactions.

Be that as it may, it bears stressing that as an auditor and a representative of this Commission, respondent is expected to act
with civility in dealing with clients. Paragraph V(7) of COA Resolution No. 86-50 13 dated October 1, 1986, provides:

High-strung and belligerent behavior has no place in the government service. Thus, the government auditor
shall act with self-restraint and civility at all times, even when confronted with rudeness and insolence, so as to
command the respect and emulation of the public.

He shall act with civility in his relationship with his co-employees and shall cooperate with them in the
performance of their duties. His conduct in dealing with his co-employees and with the public should be marked
by respect for and in consideration of the feeling of others, always bearing in mind that courtesy and tactfulness
are the most eloquent manifestations of a decent social behavior.

Respondent is thus expected to be always courteous and tactful in dealing with agency people. It is imperative that at all
times, whether or not there is provocation, auditors shall act with strict propriety and proper decorum. Improper behavior,
particularly during office hours, has no place in the realm of professionalism and is a manifestation of disrespect to the
Commission. Respondent ought to be reminded that the image of the Commission depends on the conduct, official or otherwise, of
the personnel working therein. Thus, it is imperative that COA employees maintain self-restraint, civility, and courtesy.14

Therefore, this Commission finds respondent guilty of Simple Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties for uttering
undesirable and abusive remarks in the workplace during office hours.

Under Item F(1), Section 50, Rule 10 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, 15 the penalty for
Simple Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties for the first offense is reprimand, viz.:

F. The following light offenses are punishable by reprimand for the first offense; suspension of one (1) to
thirty (30) days for the second offense; and dismissal from the service for the third offense:

1. Simple Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties;

xxx.

Considering that reprimand is the minimum penalty for light offenses, existing mitigating circumstances will no longer be
appreciated in the imposition of penalty.

RULING

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Commission finds Respondent ______________ GUILTY of Simple
Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties and hereby metes out to her the penalty of REPRIMAND.

Let a copy of this decision form part of respondent’s 201 File in this Commission.

The Regional Director, Commission on Audit Regional Office No. VI, Local Government Sector, and the Directors, Human
Resource Management Office, and Accounting Office, shall implement this decision.
 (SGD.) MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO
Chairperson

(SGD.) JOSE A. FABIA (SGD.) ROLAND C. PONDOC

Commissioner Commissioner

Attested by:

(SGD.) NILDA B. PLARAS

Director IV
Commission Secretariat

Copy furnished:

Ms. ______________
Commission on Audit Regional Office No. VI
Pavia, Iloilo

The Regional Director

Commission on Audit Regional Office No. VI
Pavia, Iloilo

The Directors
Human Resource Management Office
Administration Sector
Accounting Office
Planning, Finance and Management Sector
Information Technology Office
Systems and Technical Services Sector

The Chief
201 File
Human Resource Management Office
Administration Sector

The Assistant Commissioners

Local Government Sector
Planning, Finance and Management Sector
Administration Sector
Legal Services Sector

All of this Commission

1 Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
2 Dr. Annabelle P. de Guzman filed three complaints as follows:
a) Affidavit-Complaint dated April 12, 2013;
b) Amended Affidavit-Complaint dated May 7, 2013; and
c) Supplemental-Complaint dated July 3, 2013.
3 Respondent’s letter dated March 4, 2013.
4 1. Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) No. 2013-04-01 reiterated the request to submit the duly approved 2013 Revised/Corrected Annual Procurement Plan, which
was previously asked to be submitted in respondent’s letters dated March 4 and 12, 2013 to Dr. de Guzman;
2. AOM No. 2013-04-02 requested a monthly reconciliation statement relative to the Revised Financial Statement as of December 31, 2012, which showed that
Accounts Payable had a balance of P796,306.01 only, which is less by P1,396,236.24 than the amount of P2,192,542.25 due and reflected in the Statement of Account
of the Western Visayas Medical Center (WVMC). Respondent further requested the submission of the 2013 Annual Drug Procurement Plan of the Western Visayas
Sanitarium;
3. AOM No. 2013-04-03 reiterated the request for submission of an Accomplishment Report with breakdown of expenses incurred relative to the late releases of sub-
allotment advised for calendar years (CY) 2011 and 2012, that was previously requested to be submitted in respondent’s letter dated March 12, 2013 to Dr. de
Guzman; and
4. AOM No. 2013-05 dated April 5, 2013, included a reminder about the submission of the late releases of sub-allotments advised for CY 2011 valid until December 31,
2012, that were due on March 19, 2013.
5 a. The unrecorded Cost of Goods Sold from WVMC-consigned Drugs and Medicines that was booked up on the 3 rd revision of their financial statements as due
to WVMC, amounting to P2,192,542.25; thus overstatement of Government Equity and understatement of Liabilities accounts was timely corrected (Annex “AA”);
b. The construction of buildings amounting to P3,998,691.17 that started without the necessary Building Permit and approval for realignment from Repair and
Maintenance to Capital Outlay (Annex “AB”), thereby making the reliability of financial transactions pertaining thereto unreliable;
 Maintenance to Capital Outlay (Annex “AB”), thereby making the reliability of financial transactions pertaining thereto unreliable;
c. The incurrence of overdraft due to payment of Hazard Pay that was not included in the Personal Services of 2012 Agency Budget Matrix and charged to income of the
Sanitarium, amounting to P1,175,151.25 (Annex “AC”), in violation of pertinent provision in the General Appropriations Act 2012, resulting in the questionable
integrity of financial records;
d. The unexplained misclassification of Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC)’s share of Hospital Income to Professional Fees amounting to P264,108.82, and
the unrecorded hospital income remitted by PHIC in the amount of P468,876.95 (Memorandum No. 2013-007 dated April 12, 2013, Annex “AD”) for fiscal year 2012,
which resulted in the decrease in assets and unreliability of accounting records;
e. The appointment of a religious pastor, Mr. Elmer Herrera, to the position of a Budget Officer without the necessary training to hold such position and respondent’s
request for validation of his eligibility, resulting in low morale in the organization, inefficiency, and unreliability of delayed Financial Reports for CY 2012; and
others.
6 Administrative Matter No. 1608, August 14, 1981.
7 Evelyn Chua-Qua vs. Hon. Jacobo C. Clave, G.R. No. 49549, August 30, 1990.
8 Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 15, series of 2010.
9 A.M. No. SB-12-18-P, June 13, 2012.
10 G.R. No. 178454, March 28, 2011, citing the case of Domingo vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 176127, January 30, 2009.
11 As stated in respondent’s Counter-Affidavit, Answer, and Position Paper.
12 G.R. No. 202621, June 22, 2016.
13 Ordaining and Instituting a Code of Ethics for Government Auditors (amended by Commission on Audit [COA] Resolution No. 2018-010 dated February 1, 2018).
14 Administrative Case No. 2009-023, COA Decision No. 2013-061, April 12, 2013.
15 Formerly Item F(1), Section 46, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.