Rabe v Flores

1997 | Per Curiam

Case involvs Admin Complaint against respondent
Flores who is an Interpreter at RTC Davao for taking over
a market stall awarded to a different person.
The Court dismissed the complaint but it also
required her to explain:
1. Why despite assuming her duties as an
interpreter in May 1991, a certification shows
she worked for the Municipal Assessor as
Assesment Clerk I up until June 1991;
2. Why she did not report her business in
interest in a market stall in her SALN,
Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial
Connections and Identification of Relatives in
1991-1994;
3. Why she had not divested her interest from
said business within 60 days from assumption
of office; and
4. Why she indicated in her DTRs for August and
September that she worked on certain days
when her Contract of Lease for the market
stall clearly states she has to personally
conduct her business and be present at the
stall otherwise the same would be cancelled;
Respondent gave excuses for each question but
the OCA found her guilty of dishonesty and failure to
report her business interest and recommended the
penalty of dismissal.

Issue:
W/N respondent should be dismissed. Yes.

Ratio:
Respondent admitted she had collected her salary from
the Municipality of Panabo for May 16-31, 1991 when she
was already working at the RTC.
- She knew she was no longer entitled to the salary
but took it just the same;
- She returned the amount only after the Court
Resolution in 1996 or 5 years later;
- Her overriding need for money, aggravated by
alleged delay in processing of her initial salary
from the Court does not justify receipt of a salary
not due her;
- Court sympathizes with her plight of being the
breadwinner of her family but is not an
acceptable excuse for her misconduct;
- If poverty and pressing financial need could justify
stealing, the government would have been bankrupt
long ago; a public servant should never expect to
become wealthy in government.
- She should have returned the salary as soon as
she obtained it;

Although every office in the government service is a
public trust, no position exacts a greater demand for moral
righteousness and uprightness from an individual than in
the judiciary;
- . Personnel in the judiciary should conduct
themselves in such a manner as to be beyond
reproach and suspicion, and free from any
appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior,
not only in the discharge of their official duties but
also in their everyday life;
- Respondent's malfeasance is a clear contravention of
the constitutional dictum that the State shall
"maintain honesty and integrity in the public service
and take positive and effective measures against graft
and corruption;
- Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO No. 292
known as the "Administrative Code of 1987" and
other pertinent Civil Service Laws, the penalty for
dishonesty is dismissal, even for the first offense;

Court notes the contradiction between the two
certifications; although specifically asked to explain
the contradiction, respondent could only state that the
certification of the treasurer is inaccurate because she
assumed her position as Assessment Clerk on Jan 25,
1990, not on Feb 1, 1990
- SC: respondent failed to explain the gravamen of
inquiry, that she was still connected with the
Municipal Government of Panabo on June 3,
1991, notwithstanding her assumption of her post
in RTC as early as May 16, 1991;

Respondent guilty of failure to perform her legal obligation
to disclose her business interests
- OCA found she was receiving rental payments
from one Luay for the use of the market stall;
- This should have been reported in her SALN,
failure to do so exposes her to administrative
sanction;
- Section 8, RA 6713 provides that t is the
"obligation" of an employee to submit a sworn
statement, as the "public has a right to know" the
employee's assets, liabilities, net worth and financial
and business interests; violation is sufficient cause for
removal or dismissal;

Respondents claim that the contract of lease was never
implemented because it became subject of a civil case fails to
convince the court;
- As early as 1991, she was receiving the rentals;
she even admitted this;
- In a court memo dated 1995, non-disclosure of
business interest is punishable by imprisonment,
fine or both;

Respondent not administratively liable for divesting
herself of said interest
- The requirement for public officers, in general, to
divest themselves of business interests upon
assumption of a public office is prompted by the need
to avoid conflict of interests;
- If no showing of conflict of interest, divestment
unnecessary;
- A court, generally, is not engaged in the regulation of
a public market, nor does it concern itself the
activities thereof.

Respondent dismissed from service with forfeiture of all
retirement benefits with prejudice to re-employment in
the government.

Dela Cruz v COA
2001 | Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.
Petitioners assail the decision of COA which
denied their appeal from the Notice of Disallowance of an
NHA Resident Auditor of representation allowances and
per diems.
Petitioners (20 people) were members of the
Board of Directors of NHA from 1991 to 1996. In 1997,
COA issued a memorandum directing heads/auditors of
national government agencies and GOCCs which paid any
form of additional compensation to cabinet secretaries,
their deputies and assistants, or their representatives
which is in violation of the rule on multiple positions to:
a. Immediately cause the disallowance of such
additional compensation; and
b. Effect the refund of the same upon finality of the
SC case of Civil Liberties Union v Exec Sec;
The above decision declared EO 284 unconstitutional
insofar as it allows Cabinet members, their deputies and
assistants to hold other offices, in addition to their offices,
and to receive compensation therefor.
The Notice of Disallowance I this case disallowed the
payment of representation allowance and per diems of
Cabinet members who were the ex-officio members of the
NHA Board of Directors and/or their respective alternates
who actually received payments. Total disallowed is 276k
pesos.
Petitioners appealed the NoD to COA based on the ff
grounds:
1. Only the members of Cabinet and their deputies
or assistants are banned from multiple positions;
it does not cover appointive officials with
equivalent rank or lower than Assistant Authority;
2. NHA Directors are not Secretaries,
Undersecretaries or Assistant Secretaries and
they occupy positions lower thant Assistant
Secretary;
COA denied appeal saying:
1. Petitioners sitting in NHA Board not sitting in their
own right but as representatives of cabinet
members;
2. An agent can never be larger than the principal.

Issue: W/N the representation allowances and per diems
should be allowed. No.

Ratio:
Under Section 7 of PD 757 (Law creating NHA) Cabinet
members are to sit as NHA Board members. While
petitioners are not among those officers, however, they
are alternates of the said officers whose acts shall be
considered the acts of their principals.
- Section 13, VII of 1987 Constitution cited;
- CLU v Exec Sec: SC ruled that the prohibition
against holding dual or multiple offices under
Section 13 must not be construed as applying to
posts occupied by the Executive officials therein
without additional compensation in an ex-officio
capacity as provided by law and required by the
primary functions of said officials office;
- Reason: these posts do not comprise any other
office within the contemplation of the
constitutional prohibition;
- Ex officio means from office; by virtue of office;
o It refers to an authority derived from
official character merely, not expressly
conferred upon the individual character,
but rather annexed to the official
position;
o The ex-officio position being actually and
in legal contemplation part of the
principal office, it follows that the official
concerned has no right to receive
additional compensation for his services
in the said position; the reason is that
these services are already paid for and
covered by the compensation attached to
his principal office;

At case:
- Since the Executive Department Secretaries,
as ex-oficio members of the NHA Board, are
prohibited from receiving extra (additional)
compensation, whether it be in the form of a per
diem or an honorarium or an allowance, or some
other such euphemism," it follows that petitioners
who sit as their alternates cannot likewise be
entitled to receive such compensation;
- A contrary rule would give petitioners a better
right than their principals.

Dismissed.





























Abeto v Garcesa
1995 | Davide, Jr., J.
A complaint was filed against respondent for
allegedly misrepresenting himself as a full-fledged lawyer
and having acted as one of the authorized representatives
of the complainant and his co-complainants in labour
cases despite him being a court employee(stenographer).
Respondent admitted he assisted complainant in
labour cases but denied he misrepresented himself as a
lawyer. He explained he frankly informed petitioner that
he is only a court employee and he was only helping one
Ronquillo (BP of Workders Amalgamated Union of the PH
(WAUP) whose assistance was sought by petitioner and
others. Respondent further alleges that the case arose out
of ill-feeling and is design to maligh his name and
reputation as a court employee. He manifests that if his
motives in helping poor and downtrodden
workers/employees of BISCOM Central would not be in
consonance with Memo Circ 17 (1986) issued by the Exec
Dept and is prohitibed by Admin Circ 5 issued by the
Supreme Court, he will readily submit to the discretion of
the SC.

Issue:
W/N complaint be dismissed. Yes but Respondent is
reprimanded.

Court agreed with recommendation of Deputy Court
Admin Elapano that respondent be reprimanded.
- Section 12 Rule XVIII of RCSR cited and SC
memo circ 5;
- Under the section 12, government employees
prohibited from engaging in any private business,
vocation of profession without permission from
the Court; a proviso was emphasized which
provided that the prohibition is absolute in the
case of officers and employees whose duties and
responsibilities require that their entire time be at
the disposal of the Government;
- Admin Circ 5 was also cited which provides that
the entire time of Judiciary officials and
employees must be devoted to government
service to insure efficient and speedy
administration of justice; the nature of their work
requires them to serve with the highest degree of
efficiency and responsibility in order to maintain
public confidence in the Judiciary;



W/N respondent should be held liable for
unauthorized practice of law. No.
- There is no convincing evidence respondent
represented himself as a lawyer; his appearance
merely was in his capacity as one of the
representatives of the complainants, not as a
lawyer;
- NLRC rules provided at that time that a non-
lawyer may appear before NLRC or any Labor
Arbiter if he represents himself or as a party to
the case, represents an organization or its
members or is a duly accredited member of a free
legal aid staff of the DOLE or other accredited
legal aid of office by the DoJ and IBP;

W/N respondent should be held liable under Memo
Circular 17 declaring that the authority to grant
permission to any official or employee to engage in
outside activities shall be granted by the
department or agency in accordance with Section
12, Rule XVIII of Revised Civil Service Rules. No.
- Memo Circ 17 not applicable to officials or
employees of the courts;
- Admin Circ 5 (1988) provided that it is not
applicable to officials or employees of the courts
considering the express prohibition in the Rules of
Court and the nature of their work which requires
them to serve with the highest degree of
efficiency and responsibility, in order to maintain
public confidence in the Judiciary;
- Prohibition is directed against moonlighting

For malfeasance in violation of Section 12, Rule
XVIII of RCSR and rulings of Court, respondent is
reprimanded.