BANGCUYO, Mary Ann

BUENCAMINO, Conrado
Re: Violation of Reasonable Office and Regulations
x---------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION NO.

000827

Conrado Buencamino and Mary Ann Bangcuyo, Municipal Administrator and Acting Secretary to the Municipal
Administrator, respectively of the Municipality of Mati, Davao Oriental, were both issued by the Civil Service Commission
Regional Office No. XI, Davao City, separate formal charges for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations. The formal
charges read as follows:
Formal Charge for Buencamino:
"That from the months of July 1997 to February1998 it was found out that almost all entries in your bundy card as well as
those Mary Ann Bangcuyo, then Acting Secretary of the Municipal Administrator, Municipality of Mati, Davao Oriental,
herein marked as Annexes "A" to "P" reflected the same time of arrivals and departures; that your act of authorizing Mary
Ann Bangcuyo to do the punching of your card constitutes a violation of reasonable office rules and regulations punishable
under Sec. 22, par. 3 ( c), Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292."
Formal Charge for Bangcuyo:
"That from the months of July 1997 to February 1998 it was found out that almost all entries in your bundy card as well as
those of Conrado Buencamino, Municipal Administrator, Municipality of Mati, Davao Oriental, herein marked as Annexes "A"
to "P" reflected the same time of arrivals and departures; that your act of punching Mr. Buencamino's bundy and constitutes
a violation of reasonable office rules and regulations punishable under Sec. 22, par. 3 ( c), Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292."
Records of the case show that the instant case stemmed from an anonymous complaint dated October 21, 1997 which read
as follows:
"Usa ako sa mga yanong empleyado dinhi sa Munisipyo sa Mati nga adunay reklamo mahitungod niining wala ma-regulate
mga pagtime-in sa among bundy clock. Nasayod ko nga usa kini ka bug-at nga sayop ang pagtime-in sa bundy card nga dili
imoha. Ug gani aduna kini probisyon dinha sa Republic Act 6713 o Civil Service Code. Apan ginahimo kini sa daghang mga
empleyada dinhi sa among munisipyo. Usa na niini ang among Municipal Administrator nga si Mr. Conrado A. Buencamino
diin ginatime-in ang iyang bundy card sa iyang secretariy nga si Miss Mary Ann Bangcuyo. Mga ebidensya niini mao and
bundy cards ni Mr. Buencamino og Miss Bangcuyo nga pareho gayod ang Oras of Minute hagtod karong bulan sa
Octobre,1997. Asa na lang ang iyang pagka-Administrator diin siya unta mao ang Modelo sa mga empleyado sa among
PRO version

Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

pdfcrowd.com

munisipyo.
(I am one of the ordinary employees in the Municipality of Mati who has a complaint relative to the unregulated time-in in our
bundy clock. I know that it is a big mistake to time-in in the bundy card that is not mine. This is covered by the provision of
Republic Act 6713 or CIVIL SERVICE Code. This is being done by many of the employees in our municipality. One of them
is our Municipal Administrator, Conrado Buencamino whose bundy card is punched in by his Secretary Ms. Mary Ann
Bangcuyo. The evidence of this are the bundy cards of Buencamino and Miss Bangcuyo with similar time and minutes up to
the month of Octiber 1997. Where is his being an Administrator of this office wherein he should be the model employee of
this municipal office).
"Hina-ut pa unta nga inyo kining hatagan ug hinanaling aksyon aron masumpo kining usa ka dakong kahiwi-an.
(I hope that this would merit your immediate action to stop this big infraction).
During the fact-finding investigation conducted by CSCRO No. XI, it was shown that Buencamino and Bangcuyo had indeed
committed the offenses alleged in the anonymous complaint and that they had admitted the commission of the same in the
presence of Lucinda Lucia and Leonora Casampol, both Human Resource Management Officers of the said municipality.
Prior to the issuance of the formal charge, Buencamino and Bangcuyo jointly wrote Anacleto B. Buena, Jr., Director III,
CSCRO No. XI, in a letter dated May 19,1998, representing as follows:
"This is in response to your letter addressed to the undersigned dated April 22,1998 requesting for comments as regards to
the Letter of Anonymous source which was addressed to the honorable Mayor Benito G. Rabat.
"1. That the issue was discussed with Hon. Mayor Benito G. Rabat, who did not left (sic) a finger on the matter, as he knew
that the letter was a device - to get even with us due to various memorandums (sic) issued dated April 15, 1996, one dated
September 22, 1997, October 6, 1997, September 15,1997 and due to the disciplinary Acton dated October 21, 1997 (
Copies of which are attached for easy reference) as everybody are aware that all sent memorandums (sic) - as per
instruction of the Municipal Mayor usually emanates from the Municipal Administrator's Office prior to the Mayor's approval;
(THESE THEY ALWAYS RESENT)
"2. That we have thoroughly taken this up with Mrs. Lilia Clamor, former CSC Provincial Officer and was resolved, prior to her
transfer;
"Based on the above, the undersigned earnestly pray that such be ignored as it came from an anonymous source, and
therefore transgress Letter C, Section 46 (Discipline: General Provision) Chapter VI, Title I (Constitutional Commission) Book
V of Official Gazette Issue of September 28, 1997 which states "( 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" and Section II, rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive No. 292
PRO version

Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

pdfcrowd.com

and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws which states " Any person may file an administrative complaint with the Commission
or any of its proper office. Said complaint shall be in writing and under oath, otherwise, the same shall not be given due
course."
Records further show that on July 28, 1998, Benito G. Rabat , Municipal Mayor of Mati, Davao Oriental discussed the
foregoing anonymous complaint with Buencamino and Bangcuyo. In the said meeting, Buencamino admitted his guilt and
assumed full responsibility on the matter. On the other hand, Bungcayo manifested that she was only following the orders of
her superior. As a consequence of the admission of the respondents, Rabat merely admonished them and told them to stop
their illegal practice.
Upon their receipt of the aforementioned formal charges, Bangcuyo and Buencamino submitted their separate answer,
pertinent portions of which read as follows:
For Buencamino:
xxx
"Please be informed that the Honorable Mayor has acted on his complaint sometimes last July 28, 1998 (Minutes attached
for your easy reference and guidance). In that confrontation dialogue and investigation, the undersigned has accepted the
fault and admitted guilt to the offense-as he pretty well know that such act is wrong and violative to existing civil service laws
and regulations.
"That because of such acceptance of Guilt a Memorandum of ADMONITION was issued by the Honorable Benito G. Rabat.
The same was not resented by the undersigned - as I fully recognize such FAULT.
"That based on the above the undersigned does not anymore consider any Formal Hearing and rest the case within your
hands - further more pleads Guilty as Charged.
"That he gives his assurance that such Violative Act shall never be repeated.
For Bangcuyo:
"That this problem (sic) was already discussed with us by the Honorable Benito G. Rabat, Municipal Mayor, Mati, Davao
Oriental last July 28, 1998;
"That I have presented my side telling him that I was only obeying orders as directed to me by my immediate supervisor,
Conrado A. Buencamino, Jr.;
"That however, after such proceedings and hearing the word of the Mayor, I have accepted my fault and did promise that the
PRO version

Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

pdfcrowd.com

same act shall never be repeated;

"That such wrong doing has been corrected the very moment we were informed of such Anonymous letter complaint, from
the "Yanong Empleyado";
"That the undersigned pleads Guilty to the offense.
"That the undersigned waives her right of a FORMAL HEARING and therefore rest the case into your hands.
"That I appeal for a decision settled with human consideration and true sense of magnanimity - as this is my first offense and
that I give assurance of its non repetition..
Thereafter, in a letter dated September 2, 1998, Benito G. Rabat, Mayor, Municipality of Mati, Davao Oriental, wrote Elmer
R. Bartolata, Director IV, CSCRO No. XI, stating as follows:
"This refers to your letter dated August 11, 1998 addressed to Mr. Condraro A. Buencamino Jr. Municipal Administrator and
Miss Mary Ann Bangcuyo, Stenographer II of this Municipallity informing them of a Formal Charge filed by your office for
Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations.
"Please be informed that we have already resolved this issues at our level. Recognizing it to be a minor and an internal
problem, the undersigned assumed and took such Jurisdiction to investigate and act on the anonymous complain - in
pursuance to letter X, Section 444, Article One, Chapter 3, Title II, Book III of the Local Government Code.
"After a dialogue/conference and investigation with those concerned conducted in my Office sometimes last July 28, 1998 the undersigned has warned them not to repeat the same practice - which is violative to the Civil Service Policies, Rules and
Regulation. As such both were admonished and warned not to repeat the same violative Act.
"The undersign would highly appreciate if both can be spared and free of the Formal Charge considering that we have settled
and resolved this at our level."
In two (2) uniformly worded Orders both dated October 1,1998 and addressed to Buencamino and Bangcuyo, Director
Bartolata ruled as follows:
xxx
"Mayor Benito Rabat, on the other hand, sent a letter dated September 2, 1998 informing this Office that he had assumed
jurisdiction to investigate and act on the anonymous complaint considering it to be a minor problem and that they had
already resolved the issue at their level resulting to the admonition of the Respondents by the Honorable Mayor, himself, on
August 3, 1998. He further requested that the formal charge directed against the Respondent be dropped inasmuch as it had
PRO version

Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

pdfcrowd.com

already been resolved at their level.

"We must take note that the aforementioned letter of Mayor Rabat, it is very clear that the disciplining authority (Local Chief
Executive) did not issue a formal charge to the respondent Mayor Rabat immediately issued a memorandum of admonition
but never issued a formal charge. Hence, the requirements of an administrative due process have not been complied with
and the subject memorandum of admonition is of no legal effect.
xxx
By virtue of the foregoing Order, the formal investigation of the instant case proceeded. The investigation of the cases against
the respondents were consolidated considering that the cases filed against them emanated from the same operative facts.
The hearing was scheduled on November 5, 1998. Despite due notice, only respondent Buencamino appeared, but without
any counsel. However, since the respondents had manifested that they are waiving their right to a formal investigation, the
prosecution proceeded ex parte
The following, among other things, were presented as evidence for the prosecution:
1. Exhibit "B" Affidavit of Lilia Clamor, CSCRO NO. XI Field Officer, relative to her fact - finding investigation;
2. Exhibits "B-3" to "B-10" Punch/Bundy Cards of Respondents on the months reported in the complaint,
3. Exhibit "D" Minutes of the Dialogue Conference and Investigation Conducted by Mayor Rabat on July 28, 1998 on the said
anonymous complaint,
4. Exhibit "E" Memorandum dated August 3, 1998 issued by Mayor Rabat for the admonition of both respondents.
For his part, Buencamino questioned the investigation invoking the principle of double jeopardy and the fact that they were
already admonished by their local chief executive as they had admitted their guilt on the offense charged.
Section 22 of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Executive No. 292, enumerated the different kinds of
administrative offenses and their corresponding penalties. Item ( c) under Light Offenses pertains to the offense of Violation
of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations and specifies the proper penalties, which are as follows:
"1st Offense - Reprimand
"2nd Offense - Suspension for one (1) to thirty (30) days
"3rd Offense - Dismissal"
PRO version

Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

pdfcrowd.com

Although the words 'admonition' and 'reprimand' can be interchangeably used, the Supreme Court, however, in the case of
Tobias vs. Veloso and Lujan, had the occasion to distinguish the same as follows:
" A warning in ordinary parlance, has been defined as 'an act or fact of putting one on his guard against an impending
danger, evil consequences or penalties,' while an admonition, 'refers to a gentle or friendly reproof, mild rebuke, warning or
reminder, counselling, on a fault, error or oversight, an expression of authoritative advice or 'warning'. They are not considered
as penalties. A reprimand, on the other hand, is of a more severe nature, and has been defined as a public and formal
censure or severe reproof, administered to a person in fault by his superior officer or a body to which he belongs .It is more
than just a warning or an admonition.
"A reprimand is an administrative penalty although it may be a slight from of penalty. . . It is in the scale of graduated
penalties that may be imposed in administrative cases. . .It is a penalty that may be imposed for a light offense"
Clearly, an admonition is a mere gentle or friendly reproof given by an authority but does not carry with it the force and effect
of a penalty, while a reprimand is a disciplinary penalty / punishment imposed in administrative cases for violation of any of
the offenses categorized as light.
Thus, considering that the CSCRO No. XI took cognizance of the instant case upon the filing of the anonymous complaint
and subsequently, the formal charges were duly served upon the respondents, there is no obligation on the part of the former
to adopt the act of Mayor Rabat of only issuing a Memorandum of Admonition to the respondents since the proper penalty to
be imposed on first offenders of the aforementioned offense is Reprimand. Although this commission is fully aware of the
admission by the respondents of their guilt, such act, nonetheless, could not exonerate them from any liability whatsoever.
The fact remains that they violated an office regulation sanctioned by existing civil service rules and regulations.
The allegation of Buencamino that he will be placed under double jeopardy if the investigation of his case would prosper is
without merit.
At the outset, it must be underscored that the principle of double jeopardy can only be invoked in criminal cases and not in
administrative cases. What is applicable in the latter is the principle of res judicata.
The term res judicata is equivalent to, or is otherwise known as estoppel by judgment. In its broad concept, the rule means
that when a court of competent jurisdiction has determined, on its merits, a litigated cause, the judgment entered until
reversed, is, forever and under all circumstances, final and conclusive as between the parties to the suit and their previes, in
respect to every fact which might properly be considered in reaching a judicial determination of the controversy, and in all
respect to all points of law there adjudged as those points relate directly to the cause of action in litigation and affect the
fund (sic) or other subject matter then before the court.
Simply put, the following are the requisites for a judgment to be res judicata:
PRO version

Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

pdfcrowd.com

"1. The judgment must be final (executory) and not merely interlocutory;
"2. The judgment must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties and nature of
the suit;
"3. The judgment must be on the merits, or at least have the effect of an adjudication on the merits; and
"4. There must be between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter, or causes of action, or, in
certain cases, of reliefs prayed for. It is not necessary that there be absolute identity, it being sufficient that there is
substantial identity of parties.
Applying the foregoing requisites to the instant case, it is apparent that the doctrine of res judicata is still inapplicable to
herein respondents considering that they were not formally charged nor prosecuted by Mayor Rabat of the offense
complained of in the anonymous complaint. It must be borne in mind that Mayor Rabat did not issue a categorical
declaration that they are exonerated from the offenses alleged in the complaint. Thus, there was no adjudication on the
merits. He merely issued a gentle warning - admonition - for them to cease from continuing their irregular act. Hence, no res
judicata or bar by a prior judgment can attach from the act of admonishing them.
WHEREFORE, Conrado Buencamino and Mary Ann Bangcuyo are hereby found guilty of the offense of Violation of
Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations and are meted the penalty of Reprimand.
Quezon City, MAR 28, 2000
(SGD.)JOSE F. ERESTAIN, JR.
Commissioner

(SGD.)CORAZON G. DE LEON
Chairman

Attested by:
(SGD.) ARIEL RONQUILLO
Director III
PRO version

Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

pdfcrowd.com

PRO version

Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

pdfcrowd.com