l\epublic of tbe

i>upreme lourt
;ffianila
SECOND DIVISION
MICHAELINA RAMOS
BALAS BAS,
Petitioner,
- versus -
PA TRICIA B. MONA YAO,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 190524
Present:
CARPIO, Chairperson,
DEL CASTILLO,
PEREZ,
PERLAS-BERNABE, and
*
LEONEN, JJ.
Promulgated:
FEB 1 7 2014
x--------------------------------------------------
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
While the law and justice abhor all forms of abuse committed by public
officers and employees whose sworn duty is to discharge their duties with utmost
responsibility, integrity, competence, accountability, and loyalty, the Court must
protect them against unsubstantiated charges that tend to adversely affect, rather
than encourage, the effective performance of their duties and functions.
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari
1
are the November 28,
2008 Decision
2
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 102407 and its
November 27, 2009 Resolution
3
denying reconsideration thereof
Factual Antecedents
flO
In a May 19, 2003 letter-complaint
4
filed with the Department of
Per Special Order No. 1636 dated February 17, 2014.
4
Rollo, pp. 10-22.
CA rollo, pp. 71-81; penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in by Associate
Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Sixto C. Marella, Jr.
Id. at 101-102.
Rollo, pp. 38-39.
Decision G.R. No. 190524


2
Welfare and Development (DSWD), petitioner Atty. Michaelina Ramos Balasbas
accused respondent Patricia B. Monayao then employed by the DSWD of
misrepresentation, fraud, dishonesty and refusal to implement an October 6, 1998
Order
5
issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
in a land dispute docketed with the DENR as H.A. NRD, 11-15-004 (E-11-16-
004) filed sometime in 1987 by petitioners brother against respondents father.
It appears that in said case, respondent appeared in lieu of her father, who she
claimed passed away. Petitioner claimed further that despite judgment rendered in
the said dispute awarding one-half of the disputed land to her brother, and
respondents subsequent notarized waiver of her rights to her half, the latter
illegally sold the portion, over which she had waived her rights, to her children via
a 1992 deed of sale purportedly executed by her father, which was simulated
considering that as early as 1987, respondents father was already deceased.

In a June 24, 2003 letter-reply,
6
the DSWD informed petitioner that
respondent was no longer an employee thereof, but was devolved in 1992 to the
local government of the municipality of Alfonso Lista in Ifugao Province.
Petitioner was thus advised to address her complaint to the Office of the Mayor of
Alfonso Lista.

Petitioner thus filed with the Mayor of Alfonso Lista a July 30, 2003 sworn
letter-complaint
7
against respondent. In a September 18, 2003 reply
8
to petitioner,
however, Alfonso Lista Mayor Glenn D. Prudenciano refused to take action on the
complaint, citing an August 19, 2003 opinion
9
of Victor P. Sibal, Director II of the
Cordillera Administrative Region office of the Civil Service Commission (CSC-
CAR), which stated that petitioners complaint against respondent may not be
acted upon as the acts complained of were not in relation to the latters duties and
responsibilities as Municipal Population Officer.

Petitioner wrote an October 16, 2003 letter
10
to the CSC, appealing the
August 19, 2003 opinion of the CSC-CAR. She claimed that the actions of
respondent violated the civil service laws and amounted to grave misconduct and
immorality, thus:

The question is this is it only acts related to the duties and
responsibilities of a government officer that can be the subject of an
administrative case? Stated otherwise, would you have as a member of the Civil
Service a person who has engaged in misrepresentation, fraud, dishonesty and
has contemptuously refused to implement an Order of the DENR dated 6
October 1998?
5
Id., unpaginated.
6
Id. at 40.
7
Id. at 41-42.
8
Id., unpaginated.
9
Id., unpaginated.
10
Id. at 55-57.

Decision G.R. No. 190524


3
I believe that nowhere in the Civil Service Law is there such a
qualification. The acts complained of also amount to grave misconduct and
immorality unless one only thinks of immoral as only referring to sex.

On the other hand granting arguendo that there is such a limited
interpretation, how can having mistresses (which currently the government is
relentlessly pursuing to rid of) fall within the ambit of a government officials
duties and responsibilities?
11


In an October 6, 2004 letter-opinion,
12
the CSCs Office for Legal Affairs
(CSC-OLA) denied petitioners appeal and affirmed the August 19, 2003 opinion
of the CSC-CAR. The CSC-OLA held that the CSC had no jurisdiction over
petitioners complaint as it stemmed from a private transaction between the
protagonists; petitioners remedy was instead to seek execution of the DENRs
Decision in H.A. NRD, 11-15-004 (E-11-16-004).

Petitioner, in a November 11, 2004 letter,
13
sought a reconsideration of the
above October 6, 2004 opinion. Petitioner argued that under Section 4 of the
Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,
14
the
jurisdiction of the CSC over public officers or employees is not limited to their
acts or omissions that are work-related; disciplinary action may be taken for their
acts of dishonesty, immorality, oppression, notorious undesirability, conviction of
a crime involving moral turpitude, habitual drunkenness, or gambling. Petitioner
adds that even the lending of money at usurious rates, conducting illicit relations,
and willful failure to pay just debts are grounds for disciplinary action.
15

Petitioner concluded that respondents misrepresentation, fraud, dishonesty and
refusal to implement the DENRs October 6, 1998 Order relative to the 1987
DENR land dispute constitute acts unbecoming a public official and fall within the
jurisdiction of the CSC. Petitioner thus prayed that the CSC reconsider its October
6, 2004 letter; declare respondent guilty of misrepresentation, fraud, dishonesty
and refusal to implement the DENRs October 6, 1998 Order; and impose upon
her disciplinary action and penalties in accordance with civil service laws and
regulations.

On January 14, 2008, the CSC issued Resolution No. 080059,
16
which
11
Id. at 56.
12
See Resolution No. 080059, id. at 59-63 at 59-60.
13
Id. at 51-53.
14
Section 4. Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission shall hear and
decide administrative cases instituted by, or brought before it, directly or on appeal, including contested
appointments, and shall review decisions and actions of its offices and of the agencies attached to it.
Except as otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, the Civil Service Commission shall have
the final authority to pass upon the removal, separation and suspension of all officers and employees in the
civil service and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline and efficiency of such officers and
employees.
15
Citing RTC Makati Movement Against Graft and Corruption v. Atty. Dumlao, 317 Phil. 128 (1995);
Maguad v. De Guzman, 365 Phil. 12 (1999); and Flores v. Tatad, 185 Phil. 475 (1980).
16
Rollo, pp. 59-63; penned by CSC Chairperson Karina Constantino-David and concurred in by
Commissioner Mary Ann Z. Fernandez-Mendoza.

Decision G.R. No. 190524


4
decreed as follows:

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the instant appeal is
hereby DISMISSED for want of merit. Accordingly, the opinion of the Office
for Legal Affairs dated October 6, 2004 is AFFIRMED.

In dismissing petitioners appeal, the CSC held firm to the view that
Monayaos purported misrepresentation, fraud, dishonesty and refusal to
implement the DENR Order in H.A. NRD, 11-15-004 (E-11-16-004) had no
bearing on her official duties as a local government employee, and that petitioners
relief was to move for the execution of the unsatisfied DENR judgment and thus
compel respondent to honor her notarized waiver of her rights to one-half portion
of the land in dispute, or proceed to court for judicial intervention. It held, thus:

After due consideration, the Commission is inclined to dismiss the
present appeal.

It is unavailing for the private complainant to insist that there are
disciplinary grounds that are not work-related such that her complaint, rooted as
it was on a private transaction, should not have been perfunctorily dismissed.
True it is that some of the recognized grounds for administrative disciplinary
actions against government officials and employees contemplate of private
deeds. Two such examples are disgraceful and immoral conduct, and non-
payment of just debt. However, it may be noted that these personal actions give
rise to administrative culpability because they indubitably reflect on the moral
fitness and integrity of the respondent public official or employee. This means
that the commission of any of the said acts betrays the moral unfitness of the
respondent public officer, which would make them amenable to disciplinary
sanctions.

In the herein case, the complaint is based on Monayaos supposed
misrepresentation, fraud, dishonesty and refusal to implement an order of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) relating to a land
dispute. Yet, such actuation of Monayao relates to her private dealings with the
private complainant, and has no bearing at all on the performance of her official
duties as a local government employee. Instead of filing an administrative
complaint, it would have been more appropriate for the private complainant to
seek relief through the proper remedial action, which is, as noted in the impugned
opinion, to move for execution of the unsatisfied DENR order or to proceed to
court for possible judicial enforcement.

In CSC Resolution No. 96-5593, dated September 4, 1996, the
Commission pertinently ruled in this wise:

x x x True, the respondents are government employees,
but there is no showing that the non-remittance of said amount
was committed while in the performance of their official duties x
x x Thus, said failure or omissions on the part of the respondents
were done in their personal or private capacity arising out of
private transactions. It is therefore clear that the acts complained
Decision G.R. No. 190524


5
of do not constitute an administrative offense or offenses within
the jurisdiction of the Commission. At any rate, the dispute
between the herein complainants and the officers of said
association, subject of this complaint, should be better resolved
before a competent court.

More importantly, the Commission observes that the complaint is fatally
defective. It contains mere conclusion of law, not concrete allegations of facts.
17


Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In a Petition for Review
18
filed with the CA, petitioner questioned CSC
Resolution No. 080059 and prayed that the CSC be ordered to assume jurisdiction
over her complaint against respondent.

On November 28, 2008, the CA issued the assailed Decision which
contained the following decretal portion:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is
DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.
19


The CA held that none of the circumstances mentioned in Section 46,
20

17
Id. at 62.
18
Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 102407.
19
CA rollo, p. 80.
20
SECTION 46. Discipline: General Provisions. (a) No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be
suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law and after due process.
(b) The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action:
(1) Dishonesty;
(2) Oppression;
(3) Neglect of duty;
(4) Misconduct;
(5) Disgraceful and immoral conduct;
(6) Being notoriously undesirable;
(7) Discourtesy in the course of official duties;
(8) Inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties;
(9) Receiving for personal use of a fee, gift or other valuable thing in the course of official duties
or in connection therewith when such fee, gift, or other valuable thing is given by any person in the
hope or expectation of receiving a favor or better treatment than that accorded other persons, or
committing acts punishable under the anti-graft laws;
(10) Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(11) Improper or unauthorized solicitation of contributions fromsubordinate employees and by
teachers or school officials fromschool children;
(12) Violation of existing Civil Service Law and rules or reasonable office regulations;
(13) Falsification of official document;
(14) Frequent unauthorized absences or tardiness in reporting for duty, loafing or frequent
unauthorized absences fromduty during regular office hours;
(15) Habitual drunkenness;
(16) Gambling prohibited by law;
(17) Refusal to performofficial duty or render overtime service;
(18) Disgraceful, immoral or dishonest conduct prior to entering the service;

Decision G.R. No. 190524


6
Chapter 7, Book V, of Executive Order No. 292 (EO 292), or the Administrative
Code of 1987, is present in petitioners case, and that her main complaint against
respondent pertains to the latters refusal to abide by the DENR judgment relative
to the one-half portion of the property in dispute, which is not connected with or
related to her position or performance of her functions as a public official. The
appellate court added that while it is true that disciplinary action may be imposed
for acts or omissions not connected with a public officer or employees official
functions or responsibilities, such as dishonesty or immorality, the act complained
of even if true does not reflect on the moral fitness and integrity of the
respondent which may affect her right to continue in office. Finally, the CA
acknowledged that petitioners accusations against respondent were
unsubstantiated. On this point, however, the appellate court did not elaborate.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
21
but the CA denied the same
via its November 27, 2009 Resolution. Hence, petitioner instituted the present
Petition.

Issue

Petitioner contends that the CA committed the following error:

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED WHEN
IT SUSTAINED THE DECISION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
IN FINDING THAT THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT,
ARISING OUT OF HER PRIVATE TRANSACTIONS, DO NOT
CONSTITUTE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES WHICH THE SAID
(19) Physical or mental incapacity or disability due to immoral or vicious habits;
(20) Borrowing money by superior officers fromsubordinates or lending by subordinates to
superior officers;
(21) Lending money at usurious rates of interest;
(22) Willful failure to pay just debts or willful failure to pay taxes due to the government;
(23) Contracting loans of money or other property frompersons with whomthe office of the
employee concerned has business relations;
(24) Pursuit of private business, vocation or profession without the permission required by Civil
Service rules and regulations;
(25) Insubordination;
(26) Engaging directly or indirectly in partisan political activities by one holding a non-political
office;
(27) Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service;
(28) Lobbying for personal interest or gain in legislative halls or offices without authority;
(29) Promoting the sale of tickets in behalf of private enterprises that are not intended for charitable
or public welfare purposes and even in the latter cases if there is no prior authority;
(30) Nepotismas defined in Section 60 of this Title.
(c) Except when initiated by the disciplining authority, no complaint against a civil service official or
employee shall be given due course unless the same is in writing and subscribed and sworn to by the
complainant.
(d) In meting out punishment, the same penalties shall be imposed for similar offenses and only one
penalty shall be imposed in each case. The disciplining authority may impose the penalty of removal from
the service, demotion in rank, suspension for not more than one year without pay, fine in an amount not
exceeding six months salary, or reprimand.
21
CA rollo, pp. 85-92.


Decision G.R. No. 190524


7
COMMISSION COULD TAKE COGNIZANCE OF AND DO NOT
REFLECT ON HER MORAL FITNESS AND INTEGRITY AS A PUBLIC
SERVANT.
22


Petitioners Arguments

Praying that the assailed CA dispositions be set aside and that the CSC be
directed to take cognizance of her complaint against respondent, petitioner
maintains in her Petition and Reply
23
that while respondents dishonest acts and
misrepresentations were committed in relation to a land dispute arising from her
private dealings, they cast serious doubt as to her fitness to continue in the public
service. Specifically, petitioner insists that while respondent claims that her father
died in 1987, the latter was able to transfer in 1992 the land in dispute to
respondents children, which thus renders respondent guilty of dishonesty and
misrepresentation. Moreover, respondents defiance of the DENR decision by
orchestrating the 1992 simulated sale demonstrates her disregard for rules and
orders of duly constituted government authority, which is anathema to her position
as a public servant.

Petitioner adds that dishonesty is a serious offense, indeed so grave that it is
punishable by dismissal for the first offense under Section 23, Rule XIV of the
Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292. And, contrary to the pronouncements of
the CSC and CA, dishonesty which justifies dismissal from the service need not be
committed in the course of the performance of duty by the public officer or
employee.
24


Petitioner further asserts that, contrary to the pronouncements of the CA,
her charges against respondent are fully substantiated and covered by sufficient
attachments. She cites her July 30, 2003 sworn letter-complaint filed with the
office of the Mayor of Alfonso Lista, which she claims was complete with
enclosures and attachments, evidencing the allegations
25
against respondent.

Finally, petitioner points out that public office is a public trust; a person
aspiring for public office must observe honesty, candor, and faithful compliance
with the law.
26
Dishonesty remains the same whether it is committed in relation
to the public officials duties or in the course of his private dealings: it reflects on
his character and exposes the moral decay which virtually destroys his honor,
virtue and integrity.
27

22
Rollo, p. 15.
23
Id. at 82-88.
24
Citing Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, 414 Phil. 590, 600 (2001).
25
Rollo, p. 17.
26
Citing Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document: Benjamin R. Katly,
A.M. No. 2003-9-SC, March 25, 2004, 426 SCRA 236, 242.
27
Citing Civil Service Commission v. Cayobit, 457 Phil. 452, 460 (2003).

Decision G.R. No. 190524


8
Respondents Arguments

In seeking the denial of the instant Petition, respondent in her Comment
28

tersely counters with a reiteration and citation of the CSC and CA
pronouncements that her complained actuations relate to her private dealings and
have no bearing on her official duties and functions; that petitioners remedy is to
move for the execution of the unsatisfied DENR decision or proceed to court for
judicial enforcement; that the alleged acts do not reflect on her moral fitness and
integrity, nor do they affect her right to continue in office; and finally, that
petitioners accusations remain unsubstantiated.

Our Ruling

The Court denies the Petition.

Dishonesty is defined as the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter
of fact relevant to ones office or connected with the performance of his duty. It
implies a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of
integrity; lack of honesty, probity, or integrity in principle; and lack of fairness
and straightforwardness.

On the other hand, misconduct is a transgression of some established or
definite rule of action, is a forbidden act, is a dereliction of duty, is willful in
character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. More
particularly, it is an unlawful behavior by the public officer. x x x
29


Without a doubt, respondents supposed dishonest acts and
misrepresentations committed in relation to a land dispute arising from her private
dealings cast doubt on her fitness to discharge her responsibilities as a public
official. If it is true that respondent caused the execution of a forged or falsified
deed of sale in 1992 in order to transfer the disputed portion of the property to her
children, then she committed a dishonest act even as she is enjoined to adhere at
all times to law, morality, and decency in her private and professional life.
[D]ishonesty, in order to warrant dismissal, need not be committed in the course
of the performance of duty by the public officer, for it inevitably reflects on the
fitness of the officer or employee to continue in office and the discipline and
morale of the service.
30


Indeed, at the very least, the acts complained of constitute conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service, an administrative offense which need
not be related to respondents official functions.

28
Rollo, pp. 76-78.
29
Japson v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 189479, April 12, 2011, 648 SCRA 532, 543-544.
30
Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, supra note 24 at 600-601.

Decision G.R. No. 190524


9
x x x As long as the questioned conduct tarnished the image and integrity of his/
her public office, the corresponding penalty may be meted on the erring public
officer or employee. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713) enunciates, inter alia, the
State policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in
the public service. Section 4(c) of the Code commands that [public officials and
employees] 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. x x x
31


However, petitioners accusations do not appear to hold water. From an
examination of all her letters, pleadings, and other submissions from her letter-
complaint with the DSWD, to her sworn letter-complaint with the office of the
Alfonso Lista Mayor, to her appeal letter to the CSC, to her letter-Motion for
Reconsideration with the CSC, and finally her CA Petition for Review it is
evident that she offered nothing more than bare imputations against the
respondent. Though she claims that respondent falsified a 1992 deed of sale
whereby the disputed portion was transferred to her children, the deed of sale was
never shown; a copy thereof was never attached to petitioners complaints and
other papers or pleadings. And if it is true that respondents children were able to
secure title to the disputed portion in their name through such falsified deed of
sale, then petitioner could have simply attached a copy of the new title issued in
their name. But she did not.

Petitioner is a lawyer; she should know that as the complainant in the
administrative case, upon her lies the burden of proof to establish her cause of
action against the respondent. All that is required is substantial evidence, yet she
could produce none; the allegations in her complaint are not duly supported by
necessary documents that would demonstrate the justness of her claims. While
technicalities may be dispensed with in administrative proceedings, this does not
mean that the rules on proving allegations are entirely dispensed with. Bare
allegations are not enough; these must be supported by substantial evidence at the
very least.
32


Thus, in the eyes of the law, respondent committed as yet no visible wrong.
The CSC and the CA may not be faulted for deciding the way they did. From her
numerous complaints alone, it can be seen that she had no cause of action against
the respondent, for her accusations were not supported by the required
documentary evidence that should have been readily available to her, given that it
consists of public documents which may be inspected and reproduced by
permission from the government offices having custody thereof.

The Court therefore sees no reason to disturb the findings of the CSC and
31
Largo v. Court of Appeals, 563 Phil. 293, 305 (2007).
32
Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 360 Phil. 881, 888-889 (1998).

Decision 10 G.R. No. 190524
the CA. Their findings of fact bind the Court unless there is a showing of grave
abuse of discretion, or that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the
evidence on record. Moreover, their conclusion - to the effect that what remains
to be done is to cause the execution of the DENR Order in H.A. NRD, 11-15-004
(E-11-16-004) - is correct, and this may be achieved in the same administrative
case or by filing a proper case in court.
While the law and justice abhor all forms of abuse committed by public
officers and employees whose sworn duty is to discharge their duties with utmost
responsibility, integrity, competence, accountability, and loyalty, the Court must
protect them against unsubstantiated charges that tend to adversely affect, rather
than encourage, the effective performance of their duties and functions. While -
x x x We do not deny the citizen's right to denounce recreant public officials if
their incompetence or lack of integrity or qualification may adversely affect the
public service, but We certainly frown upon the practice of some misguided
citizens to subvert the noble ends for which administrative discipline is designed
which is to purge the public service of undesirable officials.
33

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed November 28,
2008 Decision and the November 27, 2009 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 102407 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
, , ~ ~ .
~ O C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
33
Maspilv. Romero, 158 Phil. 227, 228 (1974).
Decision 11 G.R. No. 190524
A1tP1, uJ)}
ESTELA MJPERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice