Classification of powers and duties.

From their nature Ministerial. — Official duty is ministerial when it is absolute, certain, and imperative involving merely execution of a
specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.

Discretionary. — Discretionary or judicial duties are such as necessarily require the exercise of reason in the
adaptation of means to an end, and discretion in determining how or whether the act shall be done or the course
pursued.

From the standpoint of the
obligation of the officer to
perform his powers and
duties
Mandatory. — Powers conferred on public officers are generally construed as mandatory although the language may
be permissive, where they are for the benefit of the public or individuals.
Permissive. — Statutory provisions define the time and mode in which public officers will discharge their duties, and
those which are obviously designed merely to secure order, uniformity, system, and dispatch in public business, are
generally deemed directory.

From the standpoint of the Power of control. — It implies the power of an officer to manage, direct or govern, including the power to alter or
relationship of the officer to modify or set aside what a subordinate had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute his judgment for
his subordinates that of the latter.

Power of supervision. — Supervisory power is the power of mere oversight over an inferior body. It does not include
any restraining authority over such body. He merely sees to it that the rules are followed, but he himself does not lay
down such rules, nor does he have the discretion to modify or replace them.

Ministerial and discretionary powers distinguished.

1. Nature of act. — Determined by the facts of the particular case.
2. Exercise of discretion. — Whether the act complained of involves policy making or judgment.

Meaning of discretion.
Discretion - act or the liberty to decide according to the principles of justice and one's ideas of what is right and proper under the circumstances, without willfulness or
favor.

Exercise of discretion limited.

 The exercise of the officer's discretion is still limited, by legal construction, to the evident purposes of the act, and to what is known as a sound and legal
discretion, excluding all arbitrary, capricious, inquisitorial and oppressive proceedings.

Remedy to compel exercise of duty.

 Purely ministerial - the courts will require specific action.
 Purely discretionary - the courts, by mandamus, will require action only.

Delegation of discretionary powers.

 Unless the power to substitute another in his place has been given to him, a public officer cannot delegate his duties to another.

Delegation of ministerial powers.

It can be delegated, except:
 Expressly prohibited.
 Expressly requires the act to be performed by the officer in person.
Time to perform official acts.
1. Where no time stated in statute. — Must be performed within a reasonable time.
2. Where time stated in statute. — The time period expressed is to be construed as directory and not mandatory, unless the nature of the act to be
performed or the language used in the statute evidences an intention to limit the power of the officer.
Ratification of unauthorized acts.
His acts may be ratified, except:
a. When an act which was absolutely void at the time it was done.
b. Not merely voidable.

State is not estopped by the unauthorized or illegal acts of its agents.

Where superior officers have authority to ratify the acts of their inferiors, they are restricted to the ratification of acts and contracts which they themselves are
empowered to make.

Judicial review of official acts.

1. Where act involves exercise of discretionary power. — He is the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts.
2. Where act involves performance of purely ministerial duty. — Any person who will sustain personal injury by such refusal may have a mandamus to
compel its performance.
3. Where act reviewed done without jurisdiction. —The courts are not bound by an officer’s interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act.

Norms of conduct of public officials and employees.

1. Public office is a public trust.
2. Standards of personal conduct.
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.
3. Duties of the Civil Service Commission.
a. Promote observance of these standards; and
b. Continue to research and experiment on measures which provide positive motivation to public officials and employees.

System of incentives and rewards.

1. Criteria.
a. Years of service;
b. Quality and consistency of performance;
c. Obscurity of the position;
d. Level of salary;
e. Unique and exemplary quality of achievement;
f. Risk or temptation inherent in the work; and
g. Any similar circumstances or consideration in favor of the particular awardee.
2. Form of incentives and rewards.
a. Bonuses; or
b. Citations; or
c. Directorship in government-owned or –controlled corporations; or
d. Local and foreign scholarship grants; or
e. Paid vacations; and
f. Automatic promotion to the next higher position suitable to his qualifications and with commensurate salary.
3. Committee on Awards. — Composed of the following:
a. The Ombudsman
b. Chairman of the Civil Service Commission as Co-Chairmen
c. Chairman of the Commission on Audit
d. Two (2) government employees to be appointed by the President as members.

Purpose:
a. Conduct a periodic, continuing review of performance of officials and employees in all departments, offices, and agencies;
b. Establish a system of annual incentives and rewards to the end that due recognition is given to officials and employees of outstanding merit;
c. Determine the form of rewards to be granted;
d. Formulate and adopt its own rules to govern the conduct of its activities.
4. Secretariat. — Provide secretariat services to the Committee.

Duties of public officers as trustees for the public.

1. In General Duties
a. Duty to obey the law.
b. Duty to accept and continue in office.
c. Duty to accept burden of office.
d. Duty as to diligence and care.
e. Duties in choice and supervision of subordinates.
2. Ethical duties.
a. Duty as to outside activities. rights
b. Duty where personal interest is involved.
c. Duty to act with civility.

Duty to make financial disclosure.

  To maintain public confidence in government and in public officials and employees,
 To avoid conflicts of interest from arising, to deter corruption,
 To provide the citizens with information concerning a public officer's financial affairs.

Specific duties of public officials and employees.

1. Act promptly on letters and requests.
2. Submit annual performance reports.
3. Process documents and papers expeditiously.
4. Act immediately on the public's personal transactions.
5. Make documents accessible to the public.

Actions on requests and petitions.

1. General rule - shall do so immediately, without discrimination, and in no case beyond fifteen (15) working days from receipt of the request or petition.
2. In case of written requests - shall act on the same within fifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof.
3. The department, office, or agency must take action within a period of fifteen (15) working days.

Processing of papers and documents.

Within a reasonable time from the preparation thereof, in accordance with the following rules:
1. As prescribed by the law;
2. If law is silent, head of department, office, or agency to determine reasonable time, taking into account the:
a. Nature, simplicity or complexity of the subject matter;
b. Completeness or inadequacy of requirements;
c. Lack of resources caused by circumstances beyond the control of the department, office, or agency or official or employee concerned;
d. Legal constraints;
e. Fault, failure or negligence of the party concerned which renders decision or action not possible or premature; and
f. Fortuitous events or force majeure.

Signing of any written action or decision.

 Must contain no more than three (3) initials or signatures.

Public disclosure of statements of assets and liabilities.

1. Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure.
a. Contents.
 real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current fair market value;
 personal property and acquisition cost;
 all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds, and the like;
 financial liabilities, both current and long-term;
 all business interests and financial connections,
b. When to file.
 within thirty (30) days after assumption of office, statements of which must be reckoned as of his first day of service;
 on or before April 30, of every year thereafter, statements of which must be reckoned as of the end of the preceding year;
 within thirty (30) days after separation from the service, statements of which must be reckoned as of his last day in office.
c. Where to file.
 President, Vice-President, and Constitutional Officials, with the National Office of the Ombudsman;
 Senators and Congressmen, with the Secretaries of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively; Justices, with the Clerk of the
Supreme Court; Judges, with the Court of Administrator; and all national executive officials, such as members of the Cabinet, Undersecretaries,
and Assistant Secretaries, including the foreign service and heads of government- owned or -controlled corporations with original charters and
their subsidiaries and state colleges and universities, with the Office of the President;
 Regional and local officials and employees, both appointive and elective, including other officials and employees of government-owned or -
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions;
 Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, with the Office of the President, and those below said ranks, with the
Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions; and
 All other public officials and employees, defined in Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, with the Civil Service Commission.
d. Authority in favor of Ombudsman. — Execute, within thirty (30) days from the date of their assumption of office, the necessary authority in favor of
the Ombudsman to obtain from all appropriate government agencies such documents as may show their assets, liabilities, net worth.
2. Identification and disclosure of relatives. — Such relatives shall include those up to the fourth civil degree of relationships, either of consanguinity or
affinity.
3. Accessibility of documents.
a. At reasonable hours.
b. Made available for copying after ten (10) working days from the time they are filed.
c. Available to the public for a period of ten (10) years after receipt of the statement.
4. Prohibited acts.
a. any purpose contrary to morals or public policy; or
b. any commercial purpose other than by news and communications media for dissemination to the general public.
 5. Authority/ responsibility of certain officials - Authority to determine whether said statements have been properly accomplished:
a. In the case of Congress, the designated committees of both Houses of Congress subject to approval by the affirmative vote of the majority of the
particular House concerned;
b. In the case of the Executive Department, the heads of departments, offices, and agencies insofar as their respective departments, offices and
agencies are concerned subject to approval of the Secretary of Justice;
c. In the case of the Judicial Department, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; and
d. In case of the Constitutional Commissions and other Constitutional Offices, the respective Chairman and members thereof; in the case of the Office
of the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman.
6. Review and compliance procedures.
7. Basis in monitoring income and lifestyle of government officials and employees. — Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SSAL).

Transparency of transactions and access to information.

1. Ensure transparency of public transactions.
2. Provide official information, except if:
a. must be kept secret in the interest of national defense or security or the conduct of foreign affairs;
b. would put the life and safety of an individual in imminent danger;
c. falls within the concepts of established privilege or recognized exceptions as may be provided by law;
d. information, record, or document comprises drafts of decisions, orders, rulings, policy-decisions, memoranda, etc.;
e. would disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
f. would disclose investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes that will cause partial adjudication; or
g. premature disclosure that will endanger the stability of financial institution.
3. Establish information systems. — for the purpose of informing the public of such policies, programs, and accomplishments, and not to build the public
image of any official or employee or advance his own personal interest.

Reforms on public administrative systems.

1. Conduct value development programs.
2. Conduct professional, etc. programs.
3. Conduct studies and analyses of work systems.
4. Develop and make available a service guide.
5. Consult the public for feedbacks and suggestions.
6. Conduct research and experimentation.
7. Designate a resident Ombudsman.
8. Consult and dialogue with staff.

CHAPTER V: RIGHTS AND PRIVILEDGES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

A. IN GENERAL
Rights incident to public office

Rights as a citizen

a. Protection from publication commenting on his fitness and the like

b. Engaging in certain political and business activities

B. RIGHT TO COMPENSATION
Power of Congress to fix compensation

a. Power primarily but not exclusively legislative in character

b. Power may be delegated subject to statutory limitations

Compensation, not an element of public office

Forms of compensation defined and distinguished

A. Compensation

means pay for doing all that may be required whether it is in the form of a fixed salary or wages, per diems, fees, commissions, or perquisites of whatever character.

it is distinguished from honorarium, as honorarium is given not as a matter of obligation but in appreciation for services rendered; a voluntary donation in
consideration of services which admit of no compensation in money.

B. Salary

is the personal compensation to be paid to the public officer for his services, it is generally a fixed annual or periodical payment depending on the time and not the
amount of service.
 It is distinguished from wages, as wages is given to officers of lesser rank and paid per day or week.

C. Per diem

is merely one forms of compensation granted to public officers which is fixed, not as ordinarily by the year or by the month but by the day.

is a daily allowance given for each day an officer or employee of government is away from her home base. It is intended to cover the cost of lodging and
subsistence of officers and employees when the latter are on duty outside of their permanent station.

Could rightfully be considered a compensation or remuneration attached to an office.

not deemed to be a salary within the Constitutional provision that no change in the compensation of officers shall affect the salary of any officer during his existing
term.

D. Emoluments

refers to the profits arising from the office, and that which is received as compensation for services or which is annexed to the office as salary, fees or perquisites.

Includes fees and compensation as the incumbent of the office is, by law, entitled to receive.

Allowances are included in the term “emoluments” (i.e., representation and transportation, housing, etc.)

Basis of right to compensation

1. Creation of law
2. Services rendered
3. Compensation fixed by law
4. Legal title to office
5. Amount of compensation
6. Ex oficio position

Recovery of compensation

1. From the government

a. De jure officer cannot recover that which has been paid to a de facto officer unless the government continues to pay even after having received notice of an
adjudication in favor of the de jure.

b. In cases where there is no de jure officer, a de facto officer is legally entitled to the emoluments of the office if he is:

1. In good faith
2. Has possession of the office
3. Has discharge of the duties of said office

2. From the de facto officer

a. After the notice of adjudication in favor of the de jure officer, the de facto officer is not entitled to keep what has been paid for services rendered.
b. Also, where the tenure of the de facto was wrongful, the salary received by such may be recovered.

3. From the intruder or usurper

o An intruder or usurper has no right to the salary or emoluments of the office. He becomes liable to the de jure officer in an action for money he had received.

Salary not subject to garnishment

Garnishment
is a kind of attachment for reaching credits belonging to the judgment debtor owing to him from a stranger to litigation.

o The salary of a public officer may not be subject of garnishment, attachment, or order of execution, nor be seized before being paid to him, and appropriated for the
payment of his debts for the following reasons:

1. While the money is still in the hands of the disbursing officer, it belongs to the Government;

2. Public policy forbids such practice since it would be fatal to the public service;
3. The garnishment or attachment of an officer’s salary is tantamount to a suit against the State in its own court, which is
prohibited except with its consent.

Agreements affecting compensation

a. Compensation is given not only for remuneration of services but also to enable the incumbent to give due attention to his official duties and to perform them
better.

o Any agreement respecting such compensation is invalid as against public policy if it tends to pervert such compensation to purpose other than that for what it was
intended. This rule specifically refers to unperformed services and the salaries attached thereto and to those already performed which the officer can validly disburse
as he may see fit.

b. The following agreements are invalid:

1. Agreement to accept, or acceptance of less or other than legal compensation

2. Sale, assignment, or barter of said compensation
3. Dividing compensation with others if it amounts to an anticipatory agreement

Prohibition against diminution of salary

a. Congress has absolute power to fix or alter the compensation of public officers, except as provided by the Constitution.

b. The Constitution prohibits Congress from reducing the salary of the following constitutional officers during their term or tenure in order to secure their
independence:

1. President and Vice-President

2. Chief Justice, Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and judges of lower courts
3. Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions
4. Ombudsman and his Deputies

Prohibition against receiving additional, double, or indirect compensation

“No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, nor accept
without the consent of the Congress, any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign government.

Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional, double, or indirect compensation.” (Constitution, Article IX-B, Section 8)

The prohibition does not apply in the following cases:

1. The law, in certain instances, specifically authorizes payment where it appears just and necessary
2. Additional compensation is received not from government or any of its entities
3. In case of double appointments where there are 2 distinct offices, the public officer may draw the salary attached to the 2nd position only when law specifically
authorizes him.
Free voluntary service to the government

Free voluntary service

refers to services rendered by persons who are in government without pay or compensation.

1. Requirements for free voluntary service

a. Issuance of an appointment document

b. Fitness and suitability for the duties and responsibilities of the particular position
c. Compliance with the rule on nepotism

2. Functions or services that volunteers can perform:

a. Advisory
b. Consultancy or counseling
c. Recommendatory
d. Professional services
e. Staff work such as planning or research
f. Humanitarian

3. Applicable laws and rules

o The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act no. 6713) and the Implementing Rules on:
a. Rewards and incentives
b. Norms of conduct and ethical standards
c. Duties and obligations of public officers and employees
d. Prohibitions and sanctions
enumerated in the Implementing Rules
e. Civil and criminal liability

4. Exemptions

o Those who render free voluntary service are exempted from the following:

a. Filing of statements of assets and liabilities and net worth, and financial disclosures
b. Requirement of divestment
c. Eligibility requirements
d. Security of tenure

5. Prohibitions

o Unless otherwise provided in the terms of their designations, volunteers are prohibited from:

a. Exercising supervisory functions over personnel

b. Exercising functions of positions involving national security
c. Having access to confidential or classified information unless authorized by proper authorities
d. Occupying regular plantilla positions
e. Having such services credited as government service and availing themselves of retirement benefits
f. Using facilities and resources of the office for partisan political purposes
g. Receiving any pecuniary benefit such as honoraria, allowances, and other perquisites of office.

C. OTHER RIGHTS
1. Rights under the Constitution

a. Right to self-organization
b. The right to protection of temporary employees
c. Freedom of members of Congress from arrest and from being questioned
d. The right not to be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law

2. Participation in prohibited activity or mass action

“Prohibited concerted activity or mass action”

refers to any collective activity undertaken by government employees either by themselves or through their employees’ organizations, with the intent of effecting
work stoppage or service disruption in order to realize their demands or force concessions, economic or otherwise, from their respective agencies or the government.

3. Rights under the Civil Service Decree and the new Administrative Code

a. The right to preference in promotion

b. The right to present complaints and grievances
c. The right not to be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law and after due process
d. Right to organize

NEXT-IN-RANK RULE

4. Personnel actions

refers to any action denoting movement or progress of personnel in the civil service which must be in accordance with the rules or standards promulgated by the
Civil Service .

o Personnel actions include the following:

1. Appointment through certification

2. Promotion
It is the advancement from one position to another with an increase in duties and responsibilities as authorized by law and usually accompanied by an increase in
pay.

3. Transfer
 It is the movement from one position to another of equivalent rank, level, or salary without break in service involving issuance of appointment.

4. Reinstatement

It means restoration to a state or condition from which one has been removed or separated.

5. Reemployment

6. Detail

It is the movement of an employee from one department or agency to another without the issuance of appointment and shall be allowed only for a limited period in
case of employees occupying professional, technical, and scientific positions.

7. Reassignment

8. Demotion

It is the movement from one position to another involving the issuance of an appointment with diminution in duties, responsibilities, status, grade or rank which may
or may not involve reduction in salary.

5. Rights under the Revised Government Service Insurance Act

o Covered employees are entitled to the following benefits:

1. Retirement benefits
2. Separation benefits
3. Unemployment or involuntary separation benefits
4. Disability benefits
5. Survivorship benefits
6. Funeral benefits
7. Life insurance benefits

6. Pension

are regular allowances paid to an individual or group of individuals by the government in consideration of services rendered, or in recognition of merit, civil or military

Pension and gratuity distinguished

o Gratuity is a donation and act of pure liberality on the part of the State.

7. Retirement

as a withdrawal from office public station, business, occupation, or public duty.

8. Right to reimbursement and indemnity

9. Right to reinstatement and back salary

o Reinstatement

Is the restoration to a state or condition from which one had been removed or separated.
o Back Salary

Is a form of relief that restores the income that was lost by reason of unlawful dismissal.

10. Rights to property, devices and inventions

11. Right to recover reward for performance of duty

*SCOPE OF POWER AND AUTHORITY

ARTICLE XI

ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

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.

Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by
law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-
President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other
constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the
public in the manner provided by law.

Section 18. Public officers and employees owe the State and this Constitution allegiance at all times and any public
officer or employee who seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of another country during
his tenure shall be dealt with by law

*NORMS OF CONDUCT
*SPECIFIC DUTIES

*Liabilities in general

Republic Act No. 6713 February 20, 1989

AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, TO
UPHOLD THE TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING INCENTIVES AND
REWARDS FOR EXEMPLARY SERVICE, ENUMERATING PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES
FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees."

Section 2. Declaration of Policies. - It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in public service.
Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and shall discharge their duties with
utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold
public interest over personal interest.

Section 3. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the term:

(a) "Government" includes the National Government, the local governments, and all other instrumentalities, agencies or
branches of the Republic of the Philippines including government-owned or controlled corporations, and their
subsidiaries.lawphi1.net
(b) "Public Officials" includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the
career or non-career service, including military and police personnel, whether or not they receive compensation,
regardless of amount.

(c) "Gift" refers to a thing or a right to dispose of gratuitously, or any act or liberality, in favor of another who accepts it,
and shall include a simulated sale or an ostensibly onerous disposition thereof. It shall not include an unsolicited gift of
nominal or insignificant value not given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor from a public official or employee.

(d) "Receiving any gift" includes the act of accepting directly or indirectly, a gift from a person other than a member of
his family or relative as defined in this Act, even on the occasion of a family celebration or national festivity like
Christmas, if the value of the gift is neither nominal nor insignificant, or the gift is given in anticipation of, or in exchange
for, a favor.

(e) "Loan" covers both simple loan and commodatum as well as guarantees, financing arrangements or accommodations
intended to ensure its approval.

(f) "Substantial stockholder" means any person who owns, directly or indirectly, shares of stock sufficient to elect a
director of a corporation. This term shall also apply to the parties to a voting trust.

(g) "Family of public officials or employees" means their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of
age.

(h) "Person" includes natural and juridical persons unless the context indicates otherwise.

(i) "Conflict of interest" arises when a public official or employee is a member of a board, an officer, or a substantial
stockholder of a private corporation or owner or has a substantial interest in a business, and the interest of such
corporation or business, or his rights or duties therein, may be opposed to or affected by the faithful performance of
official duty.

(j) "Divestment" is the transfer of title or disposal of interest in property by voluntarily, completely and actually
depriving or dispossessing oneself of his right or title to it in favor of a person or persons other than his spouse and
relatives as defined in this Act.

(k) "Relatives" refers to any and all persons related to a public official or employee within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity, including bilas, inso and balae.

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:

(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.

(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 of 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 socio-economic
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.

(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 deeds 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.

Section 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees. - In the performance of their duties, all public officials and employees
are under obligation to:lawphi1.net
(a) Act promptly on letters and requests. - All public officials and employees shall, within fifteen (15) working days from
receipt thereof, respond to letters, telegrams or other means of communications sent by the public. The reply must
contain the action taken on the request.

(b) Submit annual performance reports. - All heads or other responsible officers of offices and agencies of the
government and of government-owned or controlled corporations shall, within forty-five (45) working days from the end
of the year, render a performance report of the agency or office or corporation concerned. Such report shall be open
and available to the public within regular office hours.

(c) Process documents and papers expeditiously. - All official papers and documents must be processed and completed
within a reasonable time from the preparation thereof and must contain, as far as practicable, not more than three (3)
signatories therein. In the absence of duly authorized signatories, the official next-in-rank or officer in charge shall sign
for and in their behalf.

(d) Act immediately on the public's personal transactions. - All public officials and employees must attend to anyone
who wants to avail himself of the services of their offices and must, at all times, act promptly and expeditiously.

(e) Make documents accessible to the public. - All public documents must be made accessible to, and readily available
for inspection by, the public within reasonable working hours.

Section 6. System of Incentives and Rewards. - A system of annual incentives and rewards is hereby established in order
to motivate and inspire public servants to uphold the highest standards of ethics. For this purpose, a Committee on
Awards to Outstanding Public Officials and Employees is hereby created composed of the following: the Ombudsman
and Chairman of the Civil Service Commission as Co-Chairmen, and the Chairman of the Commission on Audit, and two
government employees to be appointed by the President, as members.

It shall be the task of this Committee to conduct a periodic, continuing review of the performance of public officials and
employees, in all the branches and agencies of Government and establish a system of annual incentives and rewards to
the end that due recognition is given to public officials and employees of outstanding merit on the basis of the standards
set forth in this Act.

The conferment of awards shall take into account, among other things, the following: the years of service and the
quality and consistency of performance, the obscurity of the position, the level of salary, the unique and exemplary
quality of a certain achievement, and the risks or temptations inherent in the work. Incentives and rewards to
government officials and employees of the year to be announced in public ceremonies honoring them may take the
form of bonuses, citations, directorships in government-owned or controlled corporations, local and foreign scholarship
grants, paid vacations and the like. They shall likewise be automatically promoted to the next higher position with the
commensurate salary suitable to their qualifications. In case there is no next higher position or it is not vacant, said
position shall be included in the budget of the office in the next General Appropriations Act. The Committee on Awards
shall adopt its own rules to govern the conduct of its activities.

Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now
prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any
public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(a) Financial and material interest. - Public officials and employees shall not, directly or indirectly, have any financial or
material interest in any transaction requiring the approval of their office.

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public officials and employees during their incumbency
shall not:

(1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or
nominee in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their office unless expressly allowed by law;

(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such
practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions; or

(3) Recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise which has a regular or pending official transaction
with their office.

These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after resignation, retirement, or separation from
public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professional concerned cannot practice his
profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with, in which case the one-year prohibition
shall likewise apply.

(c) Disclosure and/or misuse of confidential information. - Public officials and employees shall not use or divulge,
confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the
public, either:

(1) To further their private interests, or give undue advantage to anyone; or

(2) To prejudice the public interest.

(d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. - Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any
gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of their official
duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the
functions of their office.

As to gifts or grants from foreign governments, the Congress consents to:

(i) The acceptance and retention by a public official or employee of a gift of nominal value tendered and received as a
souvenir or mark of courtesy;

(ii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of a gift in the nature of a scholarship or fellowship grant or medical
treatment; or

(iii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of travel grants or expenses for travel taking place entirely outside
the Philippine (such as allowances, transportation, food, and lodging) of more than nominal value if such acceptance is
appropriate or consistent with the interests of the Philippines, and permitted by the head of office, branch or agency to
which he belongs.

The Ombudsman shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of this subsection,
including pertinent reporting and disclosure requirements.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to restrict or prohibit any educational, scientific or cultural exchange programs
subject to national security requirements.

Section 8. Statements and Disclosure. - Public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit
declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and
business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in
their households.

(A) Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure. - All public officials and employees, except those who
serve in an honorary capacity, laborers and casual or temporary workers, shall file under oath their Statement of Assets,
Liabilities and Net Worth and a Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections and those of their spouses and
unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.

The two documents shall contain information on the following:

(a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current fair market value;

(b) personal property and acquisition cost;

(c) all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds, and the like;

(d) liabilities, and;

(e) all business interests and financial connections.

The documents must be filed:

(a) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office;

(b) on or before April 30, of every year thereafter; and

(c) within thirty (30) days after separation from the service.

All public officials and employees required under this section to file the aforestated documents shall also execute, within
thirty (30) days from the date of their assumption of office, the necessary authority in favor of the Ombudsman to
obtain from all appropriate government agencies, including the Bureau of Internal Revenue, such documents as may
show their assets, liabilities, net worth, and also their business interests and financial connections in previous years,
including, if possible, the year when they first assumed any office in the Government.
Husband and wife who are both public officials or employees may file the required statements jointly or separately.

The Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections
shall be filed by:

(1) Constitutional and national elective officials, with the national office of the Ombudsman;

(2) Senators and Congressmen, with the Secretaries of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively;
Justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court; Judges, with the Court Administrator; and all national executive
officials with the Office of the President.

(3) Regional and local officials and employees, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions;

(4) Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, with the Office of the President, and those
below said ranks, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions; and

(5) All other public officials and employees, defined in Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, with the Civil Service
Commission.

(B) Identification and disclosure of relatives. - It shall be the duty of every public official or employee to identify and
disclose, to the best of his knowledge and information, his relatives in the Government in the form, manner and
frequency prescribed by the Civil Service Commission.

(C) Accessibility of documents. - (1) Any and all statements filed under this Act, shall be made available for inspection at
reasonable hours.

(2) Such statements shall be made available for copying or reproduction after ten (10) working days from the time they
are filed as required by law.

(3) Any person requesting a copy of a statement shall be required to pay a reasonable fee to cover the cost of
reproduction and mailing of such statement, as well as the cost of certification.

(4) Any statement filed under this Act shall be available to the public for a period of ten (10) years after receipt of the
statement. After such period, the statement may be destroyed unless needed in an ongoing investigation.

(D) Prohibited acts. - It shall be unlawful for any person to obtain or use any statement filed under this Act for:

(a) any purpose contrary to morals or public policy; or

(b) any commercial purpose other than by news and communications media for dissemination to the general public.
Section 9. Divestment. - A public official or employee shall avoid conflicts of interest at all times. When a conflict of
interest arises, he shall resign from his position in any private business enterprise within thirty (30) days from his
assumption of office and/or divest himself of his shareholdings or interest within sixty (60) days from such assumption.

The same rule shall apply where the public official or employee is a partner in a partnership.

The requirement of divestment shall not apply to those who serve the Government in an honorary capacity nor to
laborers and casual or temporary workers.

Section 10. Review and Compliance Procedure. - (a) The designated Committees of both Houses of the Congress shall
establish procedures for the review of statements to determine whether said statements which have been submitted on
time, are complete, and are in proper form. In the event a determination is made that a statement is not so filed, the
appropriate Committee shall so inform the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action.

(b) In order to carry out their responsibilities under this Act, the designated Committees of both Houses of Congress
shall have the power within their respective jurisdictions, to render any opinion interpreting this Act, in writing, to
persons covered by this Act, subject in each instance to the approval by affirmative vote of the majority of the particular
House concerned.

The individual to whom an opinion is rendered, and any other individual involved in a similar factual situation, and who,
after issuance of the opinion acts in good faith in accordance with it shall not be subject to any sanction provided in this
Act.

(c) The heads of other offices shall perform the duties stated in subsections (a) and (b) hereof insofar as their respective
offices are concerned, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, in the case of the Executive Department and
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in the case of the Judicial Department.

Section 11. Penalties. - (a) Any public official or employee, regardless of whether or not he holds office or employment in
a casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing any violation of this Act shall be punished
with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months' salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal
depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. If the violation
is punishable by a heavier penalty under another law, he shall be prosecuted under the latter statute. Violations of
Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding
five thousand pesos (P5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction, disqualification to
hold public office.

(b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal
of a public official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.

(c) Private individuals who participate in conspiracy as co-principals, accomplices or accessories, with public officials or
employees, in violation of this Act, shall be subject to the same penal liabilities as the public officials or employees and
shall be tried jointly with them.
(d) The official or employee concerned may bring an action against any person who obtains or uses a report for any
purpose prohibited by Section 8 (D) of this Act. The Court in which such action is brought may assess against such person
a penalty in any amount not to exceed twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000). If another sanction hereunder or under
any other law is heavier, the latter shall apply.

Section 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. It shall transmit all
cases for prosecution arising from violations of this Act to the proper authorities for appropriate action: Provided,
however, That it may institute such administrative actions and disciplinary measures as may be warranted in accordance
with law. Nothing in this provision shall be construed as a deprivation of the right of each House of Congress to discipline
its Members for disorderly behavior.

The Civil Service Commission is hereby authorized to promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry out the
provisions of this Act, including guidelines for individuals who render free voluntary service to the Government. The
Ombudsman shall likewise take steps to protect citizens who denounce acts or omissions of public officials and
employees which are in violation of this Act.

Section 13. Provisions for More Stringent Standards. - Nothing in this Act shall be construed to derogate from any law, or
any regulation prescribed by any body or agency, which provides for more stringent standards for its official and
employees.

Section 14. Appropriations. - The sum necessary for the effective implementation of this Act shall be taken from the
appropriations of the Civil Service Commission. Thereafter, such sum as may be needed for its continued
implementation shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act.

Section 15. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act or the application of such provision to any person or
circumstance is declared invalid, the remainder of the Act or the application of such provision to other persons or
circumstances shall not be affected by such declaration.

Section 16. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees and orders or parts thereof inconsistent herewith, are deemed repealed
or modified accordingly, unless the same provide for a heavier penalty.

Section 17. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect after thirty (30) days following the completion of its publication in the
Official Gazette or in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.

Approved, February 20, 1989.

*SECURITY OF TENURE

Republic Act No. 6656 June 10, 1988

AN ACT TO PROTECT THE SECURITY OF TENURE OF CIVIL SERVICE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 1. It is hereby declared the policy of the State to protect the security of tenure of civil service officers and
employees in the reorganization of the various agencies of the National Government and of local governments, state
colleges and universities expressly authorized by law, including government-owned or controlled corporations with
original charters, without sacrificing the need to promote morale, efficiency in the civil service pursuant to Article IX, B,
Section 3 of the Constitution.

Section 2. No officer or employee in the career service shall be removed except for a valid cause and after due notice
and hearing. A valid cause for removal exists when, pursuant to a bona fide reorganization, a position has been
abolished or rendered redundant or there is a need to merge, divide, or consolidate positions in order to meet the
exigencies of the service, or other lawful causes allowed by the Civil Service Law. The existence of any or some of the
following circumstances may be considered as evidence of bad faith in the removals made as a result of reorganization,
giving rise to a claim for reinstatement or reappointment by an aggrieved party:

(a) Where there is a significant increase in the number of positions in the new staffing pattern of the department or
agency concerned;

(b) Where an office is abolished and other performing substantially the same functions is created;

(c) Where incumbents are replaced by those less qualified in terms of status of appointment, performance and merit;

(d) Where there is a reclassification of offices in the department or agency concerned and the reclassified offices
perform substantially the same function as the original offices;

(e) Where the removal violates the order of separation provided in Section 3 hereof.

Section 3. In the separation of personnel pursuant to reorganization, the following order of removal shall be followed:

(a) Casual employees with less than five (5) years of government service;

(b) Casual employees with five (5) years or more of government service;

(c) Employees holding temporary appointments; and

(d) Employees holding permanent appointments: provided, that those in the same category as enumerated above, who
are least qualified in terms of performance and merit shall be laid first, length of service notwithstanding.

Section 4. Officers and employees holding permanent appointments shall be given preference for appointment to the
new positions in the approved staffing pattern comparable to their former position or in case there are not enough
comparable positions, to positions next lower in rank.

No new employees shall be taken in until all permanent officers and employees have been appointed, including
temporary and casual employees who possess the necessary qualification requirements, among which is the appropriate
civil service eligibility, for permanent appointment to positions in the approved staffing pattern, in case there are still
positions to be filled, unless such positions are policy-determining, primarily confidential or highly technical in nature.

Section 5. Officers and employees holding permanent appointments shall be given preference for appointment in other
agencies if they meet the qualification requirements of the positions therein.
Section 6. In order that the best qualified and most deserving persons shall be appointed in any reorganization, there
shall be created a Placement Committee in each appointments shall be given preference for appointment in the
judicious selection and placement of personnel. The Committee shall consist of two (2) members appointed by the head
of the department or agency, a representative of the appointing authority, and two (2) members duly elected by the
employees holding positions in the first and second levels of the career service: provided, that if there is a registered
employee association with a majority of the employees as members, that employee association shall also have a
representative in the Committee: provided, further that immediately upon approval of the staffing pattern of the
department or agency concerned, such staffing pattern shall be made known to all officers and employees of the agency
who shall be invited to apply for any of the positions authorized therein. Said application shall be considered by the
Committee in the placement and selection of personnel.

Section 7. A list of the personnel appointed to the authorized positions in the approved staffing pattern shall be made
known to all the officers and employees of the department or agency. Any of such officers and employees aggrieved by
the appointments made may file an appeal with the appointing authority who shall make a decision within thirty (30)
days from the filling thereof.

Section 8. An officer or employee who is still not satisfied with the decision of the appointing authority may further
appeal within ten (10) days from the receipt thereof to the Civil Services Commission which shall render a decision
thereon within thirty (30) days and whose decision shall be final and executory.

Section 9. All officers and employees who are found by the Civil Service Commission to have been separated in violation
of the provisions of this Act, shall be ordered reinstated or reappointed as the case may be without loss of seniority and
shall be entitled to full pay for the period of separation. Unless also separated for cause, all officers and employees, who
have been separated pursuant to reorganization shall, if entitled thereto, be paid the appropriate separation pay and
retirement and other benefits under existing laws within ninety (90) days from the date of the effectivity of their
separation or from the date of the receipt of the resolution of their appeals as the case may be: provided, that
application for clearance has been filed and no action thereon has been made by the corresponding department or
agency. Those who are not entitled to said benefits shall be paid a separation gratuity in the amount equivalent to one
(1) month salary for every year of service. Such separation pay and retirement benefits shall have priority of payment
out of the savings of the department or agency concerned.

Section 10. All heads of department, commissions, bureaus, agencies or offices who after the effectivity of this Act
willfully violate any provision thereof, including failure to abide by the rules promulgated by the Civil Service
Commission or to implement a Civil Service Commission reinstatement order, shall upon conviction be punished by a
fine not, exceeding ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or by imprisonment of not less than three (3) nor more than five (5)
years or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the Court, and suffer permanent disqualification to hold
public office.

Section 11. The executive branch of the government shall implement reorganization schemes within a specified period
of time authorized by law.

In the case of the 1987 reorganization of the executive branch, all departments and agencies which are authorized by
executive orders promulgated by the President to reorganize shall have ninety (90) days from the approval of this Act
within which to implement their respective reorganization plans in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Section 12. The Civil Service Commission shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to implement the
provisions of this Act.

CC

Article 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without
just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without
prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.

Article 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates
or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the
latter for damages:

(1) Freedom of religion;

(2) Freedom of speech;

(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;

(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;

(5) Freedom of suffrage;

(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;

(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use;

(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;

(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;

(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;

(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;

(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law;

(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the Government for redress of grievances;

(14) The right to be a free from involuntary servitude in any form;

(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;

(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf;

(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from
being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when the person confessing
becomes a State witness;

(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in
accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and

(19) Freedom of access to the courts.

In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal
offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for
other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and
may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.

The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.

The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of
the Penal Code or other penal statute.

Article 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in
case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality
shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal
proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.

ADMIN CODE
Section 38. Liability of Superior Officers. - (1) A public officer shall not be civilly liable for acts done in the performance of
his official duties, unless there is a clear showing of bad faith, malice or gross negligence. (2) Any public officer who,
without just cause, neglects to perform a duty within a period fixed by law or regulation, or within a reasonable period if
none is fixed, shall be liable for damages to the private party concerned without prejudice to such other liability as may
be prescribed by law. (3) A head of a department or a superior officer shall not be civilly liable for the wrongful acts,
omissions of duty, negligence, or misfeasance of his subordinates, unless he has actually authorized by written order the
specific act or misconduct complained of. Section 39. Liability of Subordinate Officers. -No subordinate officer or
employee shall be civilly liable for acts done by him in good faith in the performance of his duties. However, he shall be
liable for willful or negligent acts done by him which are contrary to law, morals, public policy and good customs even if
he acted under orders or instructions of his superiors.

Title Seven
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
Chapter One
PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS
Art. 203. Who are public officers. — For the purpose of applying the provisions of this and the preceding titles of this
book, any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall
take part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, of shall perform in said
Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class,
shall be deemed to be a public officer.
Chapter Two
MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE
Section One. — Dereliction of duty

Art. 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. — Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust judgment in any case
submitted to him for decision, shall be punished by prision mayor and perpetual absolute disqualification.
Art. 205. Judgment rendered through negligence. — Any judge who, by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance
shall render a manifestly unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision shall be punished by arresto mayor
and temporary special disqualification.

Art. 206. Unjust interlocutory order. — Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust interlocutory order or decree
shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and suspension; but if he shall have acted by reason of
inexcusable negligence or ignorance and the interlocutory order or decree be manifestly unjust, the penalty shall be
suspension.

Art. 207. Malicious delay in the administration of justice. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period
shall be imposed upon any judge guilty of malicious delay in the administration of justice.

Art. 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period
and suspension shall be imposed upon any public officer, or officer of the law, who, in dereliction of the duties of his
office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law, or shall tolerate
the commission of offenses.

Art. 209. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor. — Revelation of secrets. — In addition to the proper administrative
action, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both,
shall be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or solicitor ( procurador judicial) who, by any malicious breach of
professional duty or of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall prejudice his client, or reveal any of the secrets of the
latter learned by him in his professional capacity.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon an attorney-at-law or solicitor

(procurador judicial) who, having undertaken the defense of a client or having received confidential information from
said client in a case, shall undertake the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his first
client.
Section Two. — Bribery

Art. 210. Direct bribery. — Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with
the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer,
personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum
periods and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of the gift in addition to
the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed.
If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, and
the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the same penalty provided in the preceding paragraph; and if said act shall
not have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional, in its medium period and a fine
of not less than twice the value of such gift.

If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing something
which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine
[of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of such gift.

In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the penalty of special
temporary disqualification. chan robles virtual law library

The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall be made applicable to assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and
claim commissioners, experts or any other persons performing public duties. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872,
June 10, 1985).

Art. 211. Indirect bribery. — The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and public
censure shall be imposed upon any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office. (As
amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10, 1985).

Art. 212. Corruption of public officials. — The same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted, except those of
disqualification and suspension, shall be imposed upon any person who shall have made the offers or promises or given
the gifts or presents as described in the preceding articles.
Chapter Three
FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL EXACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS
Art. 213. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses. — The penalty of prision correccional in its medium
period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 10,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed
upon any public officer who:
1. In his official capacity, in dealing with any person with regard to furnishing supplies, the making of contracts, or the
adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public property or funds, shall enter into an agreement with any
interested party or speculator or make use of any other scheme, to defraud the Government;
2. Being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts, shall be guilty or any of the following
acts or omissions:

(a) Demanding, directly, or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those authorized by law.
(b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected by him officially.

(c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise things or objects of a nature different
from that provided by law.
When the culprit is an officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs, the provisions of
the Administrative Code shall be applied.
Art. 214. Other frauds. — In addition to the penalties prescribed in the provisions of Chapter Six, Title Ten, Book Two, of
this Code, the penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special disqualification
shall be imposed upon any public officer who, taking advantage of his official position, shall commit any of the frauds or
deceits enumerated in said provisions.

Art. 215. Prohibited transactions. — The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period or a fine ranging from 200
to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any appointive public officer who, during his incumbency, shall directly
or indirectly become interested in any transaction of exchange or speculation within the territory subject to his
jurisdiction.

Art. 216. Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to
prision correccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon a
public officer who directly or indirectly, shall become interested in any contract or business in which it is his official duty
to intervene.

This provisions is applicable to experts, arbitrators and private accountants who, in like manner, shall take part in any
contract or transaction connected with the estate or property in appraisal, distribution or adjudication of which they
shall have acted, and to the guardians and executors with respect to the property belonging to their wards or estate.
Chapter Four
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY

Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of malversation. — Any public officer who, by reason of
the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall take or
misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public
funds, or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds
or property, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved in the
misappropriation or malversation does not exceed two hundred pesos.
2. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount involved is more than two hundred
pesos but does not exceed six thousand pesos.

3. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period, if the amount
involved is more than six thousand pesos but is less than twelve thousand pesos.

4. The penalty of reclusion temporal, in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved is more than twelve
thousand pesos but is less than twenty-two thousand pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.

In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine
equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled.
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon
demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to
personal use. (As amended by RA 1060).

Art. 218. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts. — Any public officer, whether in the service or separated
therefrom by resignation or any other cause, who is required by law or regulation to render account to the Insular
Auditor, or to a provincial auditor and who fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be
rendered, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum period, or by a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos,
or both.

Art. 219. Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts before leaving the country. — Any public officer who
unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the Philippine Islands without securing a certificate from the Insular Auditor
showing that his accounts have been finally settled, shall be punished by arresto mayor, or a fine ranging from 200 to
1,000 pesos or both.

Art. 220. Illegal use of public funds or property. — Any public officer who shall apply any public fund or property under
his administration to any public use other than for which such fund or property were appropriated by law or ordinance
shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from one-half to the total of the
sum misapplied, if by reason of such misapplication, any damages or embarrassment shall have resulted to the public
service. In either case, the offender shall also suffer the penalty of temporary special disqualification.

If no damage or embarrassment to the public service has resulted, the penalty shall be a fine from 5 to 50 per cent of
the sum misapplied.

Art. 221. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property. — Any public officer under obligation to make payment
from Government funds in his possession, who shall fail to make such payment, shall be punished by arresto mayor and
a fine from 5 to 25 per cent of the sum which he failed to pay.

This provision shall apply to any public officer who, being ordered by competent authority to deliver any property in his
custody or under his administration, shall refuse to make such delivery.

The fine shall be graduated in such case by the value of the thing, provided that it shall not less than 50 pesos.

Art. 222. Officers included in the preceding provisions. — The provisions of this chapter shall apply to private individuals
who in any capacity whatever, have charge of any insular, provincial or municipal funds, revenues, or property and to
any administrator or depository of funds or property attached, seized or deposited by public authority, even if such
property belongs to a private individual.
Chapter Five
INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Section One. — Infidelity in the custody of prisoners

Art. 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion. — Any public officer who shall consent to the escape of a prisoner in
his custody or charge, shall be punished:
1. By prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and temporary special disqualification in its maximum
period to perpetual special disqualification, if the fugitive shall have been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty.
2. By prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special disqualification, in case the fugitive shall not have
been finally convicted but only held as a detention prisoner for any crime or violation of law or municipal ordinance.

Art. 224. Evasion through negligence. — If the evasion of the prisoner shall have taken place through the negligence of
the officer charged with the conveyance or custody of the escaping prisoner, said officer shall suffer the penalties of
arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special
disqualification.
Art. 225. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a person not a public officer. — Any private person to whom the
conveyance or custody or a prisoner or person under arrest shall have been confided, who shall commit any of the
offenses mentioned in the two preceding articles, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed for
the public officer.
Section Two. — Infidelity in the custody of document

Art. 226. Removal, concealment or destruction of documents. — Any public officer who shall remove, destroy or conceal
documents or papers officially entrusted to him, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever serious damage shall have been caused
thereby to a third party or to the public interest.
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos,
whenever the damage to a third party or to the public interest shall not have been serious.

In either case, the additional penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual
disqualification shall be imposed.
Art. 227. Officer breaking seal. — Any public officer charged with the custody of papers or property sealed by proper
authority, who shall break the seals or permit them to be broken, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.

Art. 228. Opening of closed documents. — Any public officer not included in the provisions of the next preceding article
who, without proper authority, shall open or shall permit to be opened any closed papers, documents or objects
entrusted to his custody, shall suffer the penalties or arresto mayor, temporary special disqualification and a fine of not
exceeding 2,000 pesos.
Section Three. — Revelation of secrets

Art. 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer. — Any public officer who shall reveal any secret known to him by reason of
his official capacity, or shall wrongfully deliver papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which should
not be published, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, perpetual special
disqualification and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos if the revelation of such secrets or the delivery of such papers shall
have caused serious damage to the public interest; otherwise, the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum
period, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 50 pesos shall be imposed.
Art. 230. Public officer revealing secrets of private individual. — Any public officer to whom the secrets of any private
individual shall become known by reason of his office who shall reveal such secrets, shall suffer the penalties of arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos. chan robles virtual law library
Chapter Six
OTHER OFFENSES OR IRREGULARITIES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS

Art. 231. Open disobedience. — Any judicial or executive officer who shall openly refuse to execute the judgment,
decision or order of any superior authority made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the latter and issued with all the
legal formalities, shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum
period, temporary special disqualification in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
Art. 232. Disobedience to order of superior officers, when said order was suspended by inferior officer. — Any public
officer who, having for any reason suspended the execution of the orders of his superiors, shall disobey such superiors
after the latter have disapproved the suspension, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods and perpetual special disqualification.

Art. 233. Refusal of assistance. — The penalties of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its
minimum period, perpetual special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, shall be imposed upon a public
officer who, upon demand from competent authority, shall fail to lend his cooperation towards the administration of
justice or other public service, if such failure shall result in serious damage to the public interest, or to a third party;
otherwise, arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed.

Art. 234. Refusal to discharge elective office. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, or
both, shall be imposed upon any person who, having been elected by popular election to a public office, shall refuse
without legal motive to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office.

Art. 235. Maltreatment of prisoners. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its
minimum period, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage caused, shall be imposed upon any public
officer or employee who shall overdo himself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his
charge, by the imposition of punishment not authorized by the regulations, or by inflicting such punishment in a cruel
and humiliating manner.

If the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort a confession, or to obtain some information from the prisoner, the
offender shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification and a fine
not exceeding 500 pesos, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage caused.
Section Two. — Anticipation, prolongation
and abandonment of the duties and powers of public office.

Art. 236. Anticipation of duties of a public office. — Any person who shall assume the performance of the duties and
powers of any public officer or employment without first being sworn in or having given the bond required by law, shall
be suspended from such office or employment until he shall have complied with the respective formalities and shall be
fined from 200 to 500 pesos.
Art. 237. Prolonging performance of duties and powers. — Any public officer shall continue to exercise the duties and
powers of his office, employment or commission, beyond the period provided by law, regulation or special provisions
applicable to the case, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period, special temporary
disqualification in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.

Art. 238. Abandonment of office or position. — Any public officer who, before the acceptance of his resignation, shall
abandon his office to the detriment of the public service shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.
If such office shall have been abandoned in order to evade the discharge of the duties of preventing, prosecuting or
punishing any of the crime falling within Title One, and Chapter One of Title Three of Book Two of this Code, the
offender shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, and by arresto mayor if the
purpose of such abandonment is to evade the duty of preventing, prosecuting or punishing any other crime.
Section Three. — Usurpation of powers and unlawful appointments

Art. 239. Usurpation of legislative powers. — The penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary
special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, shall be imposed upon any public officer who shall
encroach upon the powers of the legislative branch of the Government, either by making general rules or regulations
beyond the scope of his authority, or by attempting to repeal a law or suspending the execution thereof.
Art. 240. Usurpation of executive functions. — Any judge who shall assume any power pertaining to the executive
authorities, or shall obstruct the latter in the lawful exercise of their powers, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in
its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period.

Art. 241. Usurpation of judicial functions. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in
its minimum period and shall be imposed upon any officer of the executive branch of the Government who shall assume
judicial powers or shall obstruct the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within its jurisdiction.

Art. 242. Disobeying request for disqualification. — Any public officer who, before the question of jurisdiction is decided,
shall continue any proceeding after having been lawfully required to refrain from so doing, shall be punished by arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.

Art. 243. Orders or requests by executive officers to any judicial authority. — Any executive officer who shall address any
order or suggestion to any judicial authority with respect to any case or business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the courts of justice shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.

Art. 244. Unlawful appointments. — Any public officer who shall knowingly nominate or appoint to any public office any
person lacking the legal qualifications therefor, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000
pesos.
Section Four. — Abuses against Chastity

Art. 245. Abuses against chastity; Penalties. — The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods
and temporary special disqualification shall be imposed:
1. Upon any public officer who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to a woman interested in matters
pending before such officer for decision, or with respect to which he is required to submit a report to or consult with a
superior officer;
2. Any warden or other public officer directly charged with the care and custody of prisoners or persons under arrest
who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent advances to a woman under his custody.

If the person solicited be the wife, daughter, sister of relative within the same degree by affinity of any person in the
custody of such warden or officer, the penalties shall be prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and
temporary special disqualification.
REPUBLIC ACT No. 3019

ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

Section 1. Statement of policy. It is the policy of the Philippine Government, in line with the principle that a public office
is a public trust, to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt
practices or which may lead thereto.

Section 2. Definition of terms. As used in this Act, that term

(a) "Government" includes the national government, the local governments, the government-owned and government-
controlled corporations, and all other instrumentalities or agencies of the Republic of the Philippines and their branches.

(b) "Public officer" includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the
classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government as defined in
the preceding subparagraph.

(c) "Receiving any gift" includes the act of accepting directly or indirectly a gift from a person other than a member of
the public officer's immediate family, in behalf of himself or of any member of his family or relative within the fourth
civil degree, either by consanguinity or affinity, even on the occasion of a family celebration or national festivity like
Christmas, if the value of the gift is under the circumstances manifestly excessive.

(d) "Person" includes natural and juridical persons, unless the context indicates otherwise.

Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by
existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and
regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or
allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.

(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any
other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other part, wherein the
public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.

(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for
another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure
or obtain, any Government permit or license, in consideration for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to
Section thirteen of this Act.

(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending official
business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its termination.
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of
offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time
on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the
matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue
advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party.

(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to
the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.

(h) Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection
with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any
law from having any interest.

(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or act
requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such
approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or
group.

Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly
unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they belong.

(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not
legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not
so qualified or entitled.

(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official
position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date.

The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or benefit referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c); or offering or
giving to the public officer the employment mentioned in subparagraph (d); or urging the divulging or untimely release
of the confidential information referred to in subparagraph (k) of this section shall, together with the offending public
officer, be punished under Section nine of this Act and shall be permanently or temporarily disqualified in the discretion
of the Court, from transacting business in any form with the Government.

Section 4. Prohibition on private individuals. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person having family or close personal
relation with any public official to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family or close personal relation by
directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary advantage from any other person
having some business, transaction, application, request or contract with the government, in which such public official
has to intervene. Family relation shall include the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree.
The word "close personal relation" shall include close personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and
professional employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures free access to such public officer.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce or cause any public official to commit any of the offenses
defined in Section 3 hereof.

Section 5. Prohibition on certain relatives. It shall be unlawful for the spouse or for any relative, by consanguinity or
affinity, within the third civil degree, of the President of the Philippines, the Vice-President of the Philippines, the
President of the Senate, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to intervene, directly or indirectly, in any
business, transaction, contract or application with the Government: Provided, That this section shall not apply to any
person who, prior to the assumption of office of any of the above officials to whom he is related, has been already
dealing with the Government along the same line of business, nor to any transaction, contract or application already
existing or pending at the time of such assumption of public office, nor to any application filed by him the approval of
which is not discretionary on the part of the official or officials concerned but depends upon compliance with requisites
provided by law, or rules or regulations issued pursuant to law, nor to any act lawfully performed in an official capacity
or in the exercise of a profession.

Section 6. Prohibition on Members of Congress. It shall be unlawful hereafter for any Member of the Congress during
the term for which he has been elected, to acquire or receive any personal pecuniary interest in any specific business
enterprise which will be directly and particularly favored or benefited by any law or resolution authored by him
previously approved or adopted by the Congress during the same term.

The provision of this section shall apply to any other public officer who recommended the initiation in Congress of the
enactment or adoption of any law or resolution, and acquires or receives any such interest during his incumbency.

It shall likewise be unlawful for such member of Congress or other public officer, who, having such interest prior to the
approval of such law or resolution authored or recommended by him, continues for thirty days after such approval to
retain such interest.

Section 7. Statement of assets and liabilities. Every public officer, within thirty days after the approval of this Act or after
assuming office, and within the month of January of every other year thereafter, as well as upon the expiration of his
term of office, or upon his resignation or separation from office, shall prepare and file with the office of the
corresponding Department Head, or in the case of a Head of Department or chief of an independent office, with the
Office of the President, or in the case of members of the Congress and the officials and employees thereof, with the
Office of the Secretary of the corresponding House, a true detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities,
including a statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and family expenses and
the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year: Provided, That public officers assuming office less
than two months before the end of the calendar year, may file their statements in the following months of January.

Section 8. Dismissal due to unexplained wealth. If in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered One
thousand three hundred seventy-nine, a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether
in his name or in the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his
salary and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal. Properties in the name of the
spouse and unmarried children of such public official may be taken into consideration, when their acquisition through
legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in the enforcement of
this section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary.

Section 9. Penalties for violations. (a) Any public officer or private person committing any of the unlawful acts or
omissions enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than one
year nor more than ten years, perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the
Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other
lawful income.

Any complaining party at whose complaint the criminal prosecution was initiated shall, in case of conviction of the
accused, be entitled to recover in the criminal action with priority over the forfeiture in favor of the Government, the
amount of money or the thing he may have given to the accused, or the value of such thing.

(b) Any public officer violation any of the provisions of Section 7 of this Act shall be punished by a fine of not less than
one hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both such
fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the Court.

The violation of said section proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or
dismissal of a public officer, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.

Section 10. Competent court. Until otherwise provided by law, all prosecutions under this Act shall be within the original
jurisdiction of the proper Court of First Instance.

Section 11. Prescription of offenses. All offenses punishable under this Act shall prescribe in ten years.

Section 12. Termination of office. No public officer shall be allowed to resign or retire pending an investigation, criminal
or administrative, or pending a prosecution against him, for any offense under this Act or under the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code on bribery.

Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid
information under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, shall be
suspended from office. Should he be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under
any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to
receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him.

Section 14. Exception. Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or insignificant value offered or given as a mere ordinary
token of gratitude or friendship according to local customs or usage, shall be excepted from the provisions of this Act.

Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to prejudice or prohibit the practice of any profession, lawful trade or occupation
by any private person or by any public officer who under the law may legitimately practice his profession, trade or
occupation, during his incumbency, except where the practice of such profession, trade or occupation involves
conspiracy with any other person or public official to commit any of the violations penalized in this Act.
Section 15. Separability clause. If any provision of this Act or the application of such provision to any person or
circumstances is declared invalid, the remainder of the Act or the application of such provision to other persons or
circumstances shall not be affected by such declaration.

Section 16. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect on its approval, but for the purpose of determining unexplained wealth,
all property acquired by a public officer since he assumed office shall be taken into consideration.

Approved: August 17, 1960

REPUBLIC ACT No. 1379

AN ACT DECLARING FORFEITURE IN FAVOR OF THE STATE ANY PROPERTY FOUND TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY
ACQUIRED BY ANY PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AND PROVIDING FOR THE PROCEEDINGS THEREFOR.

Section 1. Definitions. (a) For the purposes of this Act, a "public officer or employee" means any person holding any
public office or employment by virtue of an appointment, election or contract, and any person holding any office or
employment, by appointment or contract, in any State owned or controlled corporation or enterprise.

(b) "Other legitimately acquired property" means any real or personal property, money or securities which the
respondent has at any time acquired by inheritance and the income thereof, or by gift inter vivos before his becoming a
public officer or employee, or any property (or income thereof) already pertaining to him when he qualified for public
office or employment, or the fruits and income of the exclusive property of the respondent's spouse. It shall not include:

1. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent, but its ownership is concealed by its being recorded in the name of,
or held by, the respondent's spouse, ascendants, descendants, relatives, or any other person.

2. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent, but transferred by him to another person or persons on or after the
effectivity of this Act.

3. Property donated to the respondent during his incumbency, unless he can prove to the satisfaction of the court that
the donation is lawful.

Section 2. Filing of petition. Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of
property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful
income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been
unlawfully acquired. The Solicitor General, upon complaint by any taxpayer to the city or provincial fiscal who shall
conduct a previous inquiry similar to preliminary investigations in criminal cases and shall certify to the Solicitor General
that there is reasonable ground to believe that there has been committed a violation of this Act and the respondent is
probably guilty thereof, shall file, in the name and on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, in the Court of First
Instance of the city or province where said public officer or employee resides or holds office, a petition for a writ
commanding said officer or employee to show cause why the property aforesaid, or any part thereof, should not be
declared property of the State: Provided, That no such petition shall be filed within one year before any general election
or within three months before any special election.
The resignation, dismissal or separation of the officer or employee from his office or employment in the Government or
in the Government-owned or controlled corporation shall not be a bar to the filing of the petition: Provided, however,
That the right to file such petition shall prescribe after four years from the date of the resignation, dismissal or
separation or expiration of the term of the office or employee concerned, except as to those who have ceased to hold
office within ten years prior to the approval of this Act, in which case the proceedings shall prescribe after four years
from the approval hereof.

Section 3. The petition. The petition shall contain the following information:

(a) The name and address of the respondent.

(b) The public officer or employment he holds and such other public offices or employment which he has previously
held.

(c) The approximate amount of property he has acquired during his incumbency in his past and present offices and
employments.

(d) A description of said property, or such thereof as has been identified by the Solicitor General.

(e) The total amount of his government salary and other proper earnings and incomes from legitimately acquired
property, and

(f) Such other information as may enable the court to determine whether or not the respondent has unlawfully acquired
property during his incumbency.

Section 4. Period for the answer. The respondent shall have a period of fifteen days within which to present his answer.

Section 5. Hearing. The Court shall set a date for a hearing, which may be open to the public, and during which the
respondent shall be given ample opportunity to explain, to the satisfaction of the court, how he has acquired the
property in question.

Section 6. Judgment. If the respondent is unable to show to the satisfaction of the court that he has lawfully acquired
the property in question, then the court shall declare such property, forfeited in favor of the State, and by virtue of such
judgment the property aforesaid shall become property of the State: Provided, That no judgment shall be rendered
within six months before any general election or within three months before any special election. The Court may, in
addition, refer this case to the corresponding Executive Department for administrative or criminal action, or both.

Section 7. Appeal. The parties may appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance as provided in the Rules of
Court for appeals in civil cases.

Section 8. Protection against self-incrimination. Neither the respondent nor any other person shall be excused from
attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, correspondence, memoranda and other records on the
ground that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to incriminate him or
subject him to prosecution; but no individual shall be prosecuted criminally for or on account of any transaction, matter
or thing concerning which he is compelled, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or
produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, except that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from
prosecution and conviction for perjury or false testimony committed in so testifying or from administrative proceedings.

Section 9. Immunity. The Solicitor General may grant immunity from criminal prosecution to any person who testifies to
the unlawful manner in which the respondent has acquired any of the property in question in cases where such
testimony is necessary to prove violations of this Act.

Section 10. Effect of record of title. The fact that any real property has been recorded in the Registry of Property or
office of the Register of Deeds in the name of the respondent or of any person mentioned in paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subsection (b) of section one hereof shall not prevent the rendering of the judgment referred to in section six of this Act.

Section 11. Laws on prescription. The laws concerning acquisitive prescription and limitation of actions cannot be
invoked by, nor shall they benefit the respondent, in respect of any property unlawfully acquired by him.

Section 12. Penalties. Any public officer or employee who shall, after the effective date of this Act, transfer or convey
any unlawfully acquired property shall be repressed with imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine not
exceeding ten thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine. The same repression shall be imposed upon any
person who shall knowingly accept such transfer or conveyance.

Section 13. Separability of provisions. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of such provision to other persons or
circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Section 14. Effective date. This Act shall take effect on its approval, and shall apply not only to property thereafter
unlawfully acquired but also to property unlawfully acquired before the effective date of this Act.

Approved: June 18, 1955

82. Torres vs Ribo 81 Phil 44

FACTS:
The protestant, Bernardo Torres, and the defendants, Mamerto S. Ribo and Alejandro Balderian, were opposing
candidates for provincial governor of Leyte in the general elections held on November 11, 1947. As Mamerto S. Ribo, who
was provincial governor, and two members of the provincial board were candidates, they are disqualified to form parts of
the provincial board of canvassers of which they were to be members under section 158 of the Revised Election Code.
Consequently, and in pursuance of Section 159, the Commission on Elections, in a telegram to the provincial treasurer
dated November 20 and received on November 21 in Tacloban, Leyte, appointed the division superintendent of schools,
the district engineer and the district health officer to replace the disqualified members, with advice that they might assume
office upon receipt of their appointments. It so happened that the division superintendent of schools and the district
engineer were on that date on the west coast of the province and did not return to Tacloban until the 24th. In the
meantime, on November 22, F. Martinez, provincial treasurer, as chairman, Gregorio Abogado, provincial fiscal, Vicente
Tizon, assistant civil engineer in the district engineer's office, Evaristo Pascual, chief clerk in the office of the division
superintendent of schools, and W. Enage, acting district health officer, canvassed the votes for provincial governor and
other officers and proclaimed "Mamerto S. Ribo as Governor-elect." Vicente Tizon and Evaristo Pascual sat as members
"representing the district engineer and the division superintendent of schools respectively.
On November 24, 1947, the provincial board of canvassers again met, the meeting this time being attended by the
provincial treasurer, the provincial fiscal, the district health officer, the division superintendent of schools, the district
engineer and the provincial auditor. In that meeting the board made a new canvass of the votes and proclaimed Mamerto
S. Ribo elected to the office of provincial governor.
ISSUE:
1. WON assistant civil engineer Vicente Tizon and chief clerk Evaristo Pascual lawful members of the provincial board of
canvassers?
2. WON Tizon and Pascual can be considered as de facto officers?
HELD:
1. NO. It does not appear, and there is no pretense on the part of the protestee, that the division superintendent of
schools and the district engineer delegated their authority to Pascual and Tizon. Upon whose instance or suggestion
these two presumed to act in representation of their chiefs is nor shown.
Section 158 of the Revised Election Code designates the officers who are to comprise the provincial board of canvassers,
and section 159 enumerates the officers to be appointed substitute members by the Commission on Elections in case of
the absence or incapacity of any of the members named in the next preceding section. They are the division
superintendent of schools, the district health officer, the register of deeds, the clerk of the Court of First
Instance, and the justice of the peace of the provincial capital.
This express enumeration excludes other officers. Expresio unius est exclusio alterius. Not even the Commission on
Elections may lawfully appoint any of the person or officer outside of those mentioned. Much less may any one other than
this officers act as the member of the provincial board of canvasser by delegation by a substitute members, by the
indication of other members of the board, or of his own volition. The appointment of a substitute member is personal and
restricted and his powers must be performed directly and in person by the appointee. To hold otherwise would be to
authorize the appointment, say, by the provincial treasurer, the provincial auditor, or the provincial fiscal of another person
to act in his stead and thus take away from the hands of the Commission on Elections the authority to appoint under
section 159.
An officer to whom a discretion is entrusted can not delegate it to another. The powers of the board of canvassers are not
purely ministerial, as the court below erroneously holds. The board excercise quasi judicial functions, such as the function
and duty to determined whether the papers transmitted to them are genuine election returns signed by the proper officers.
Thus, where what purports to be two or more returns from the same municipality are received, the canvassing board must
necessarily determine from the face of the papers which one shall be regarded as the true and genuine return. (20 C. J.,
201-202.).

2. NO. An officer de facto is one who has the reputation of being the officer he assumes to be, and yet is not a good
officer in point of law. He must have 1) acted as an officer for such a length of time, 2) under color of title and 3)
under such circumstances of reputation or acquiescence by the public and public authorities, as to afford a
presumption of appointment or election, and induce people, without injury, and relying on the supposition that he is the
officer he assumes to be, to submit to or invoke his action. (46 C. J., 1053.)

Tizon and Pascual did not possess any of these conditions. They acted without any appointment, commission or any color
of title to the office. There was no acquiescence, public or private, in their discharge of the position. In fact the very person
most greatly affected by their assumption of the office, Bernardo Torres, was not notified and was not unaware of it.

CASE DIGEST: FILIPINA SAMSON v. JULIA A. RESTRIVERA. (G.R. No. 178454; March 28, 2011)

FACTS: Petitioner, a government officer from the Population Commission, agreed to help her friend, respondent Julia A.
Restrivera, to have the latters 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 respondents land.However, petitioner failed to accomplish her task because it was found out that the land is
government property.When petitioner failed to return theP50,000, respondent sued her forestafa.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.It was reduced to three months suspension without pay.According to the Ombudsman, petitioners
acceptance of respondents 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 CA affirmed, and added that contrary to
petitioners contentions, the Ombudsman has jurisdiction even if the act complained of is a private matter.

ISSUES: Has the Ombudsman jurisdiction even if the act was private? Has the proper offense been identified?

HELD: Section 13(1), 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. Under Section 16of 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 19 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.

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 ones office. However, that petitioner may not be penalized for
violation of Section 4 (A)(b) of R.A. No. 6713. In Domingo v. Office of the Ombudsman, this Court had ruled 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. Nevertheless, for reneging on her promise to return aforesaid amount, petitioner is guilty
of conduct unbecoming a public officer. In Assistant Special Prosecutor III Rohermia J. Jamsani-Rodriguez v. Justices
Gregory S. Ong, et al., 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.

Respondent is found GUILTY of conduct unbecoming a public officer, and is FINED P15,000.00 to be paid at the Office of
the Ombudsman.

BAYBAY WATER DISTRICT, ET AL. v. COA, G.R. No. 147248-49, January 23, 2002 (Water districts are GOCCs subject to
the jurisdiction of the COA; As a rule, per diem is the compensation of members of board of directors of water district)
 “In Davao City Water District v. CSC, that water districts are government-owned and controlled corporations subject to the
jurisdiction of the COA.”
 “It is obvious that the Salary Standardization Law does not apply to petitioners because directors of water districts are in fact
limited to policy-making and are prohibited from the management of the districts. P.D. No. 198, Section 18 described the
functions of members of board of directors of water districts as follows: xxx.”
 “Under Section 13 of this Decree (P.D. 198), per diem is precisely intended to be the compensation of members of board of
directors of water districts. Indeed, words and phrases in a statute must be given their natural, ordinary and commonly-
accepted meaning, due regard being given to the context in which the words and phrases are used. By specifying the
compensation which a director is entitled to receive and by limiting the amount he/she is allowed to receive in a month, and,
in the same paragraph, providing “No director shall receive other compensation” than the amount provided for per diems, the
law quite clearly indicates that directors of water districts are authorized to receive only the per diem authorized by law and
no other compensation or allowance in whatever form.”
 “Unlike P.D. No. 198, Section 13, the Charter of NAPOCOR expressly granted members of its board of directors the right to
receive allowance in addition to their per diems, subject only to the approval of the Secretary of Energy.
 “The erroneous application and enforcement of the law by public officers does not estop the Government from making a
subsequent correction of such errors. xxx. Practice without more, no matter how long continued, cannot give rise to any
vested right if it is contrary to law.”
 “It is well-settled that findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the COA, are generally accorded respect and even
finality by this Court, if supported by substantial evidence, in recognition of their expertise on the specific matters under their
jurisdiction.”
 GSIS v. CSC
G.R. No. 98395 & 102449 June 19, 1995 Kapunan Enad
petitioners GSIS
respondents CSC and (1) Dr. Manuel Baradero, (2) Matilde Belo
summary Respondents paid on a per diem basis. CSC ruled that such periods should be considered
creditable for computing their length of service for retirement purposes. GSIS and SC: not
creditable, per Sec. 1(c), RA 1573. Held: Reconsidered. The “per diem” paid to them was
actual compensation for their service; nature of remuneration, not label, is controlling.
facts of the case (resolution)

Belo – Vice-Gov of Capiz from 5 Jan 1972 – 1 Feb 1988.

+ From 31 Dec 1979 to 1 Feb 1988: held the position in a holdover capacity broken
down into 2 periods1—

(1) 31 Dec 1976 to 31 Dec 1979, where she was paid on a per diem basis reckoned
on the attendance in Board Meetings;

(2) 1 Jan 1980 to 1 Feb 1988, paid a fixed salary.

+ During holdover: served on a full time basis and was on call 24 hrs. a day.

+ CSC Resolution: services rendered for the 1st holdover period was creditable for
purposes of retirement.

Baradero – Sangguniang Bayan member of the Municipality of La Castellana,

Negros Occidental between 1 Jan 1976 – 10 Oct 1978, paid on a per diem basis.

+ Former army member and served as a medical officer of the Philippine Medicare
Commission.

+ Rendered full services to the government.

+ CSC Resolution: (Based on Belo) recognized the period served as SB mem as

creditable for retirement purposes instead of allowing him his petition for extension of
service in order to complete the 15-yr period of service required for the purpose of
qualifying for retirement benefits.

GSIS: per diems are not compensation within the meaning of Sec. 1(c), RA 15732.

SC Decision: Certiorari granted. Government service rendered on a per diem basis is

not creditable in computing the length of service for retirement purposes.

issue

WoN the GSIS is the proper government agency to determine what service is creditable for retirement
purposes. YES. But issue raised and discussed only in dissent.

WoN regular service in government on a per diem basis, without any other form of
compensation or emolument, is compensation within the contemplation of the term
‘service with compensation’ under the Government Service Insurance Act of 1987. YES.

ratio

+ Even if what they received were denominated as “per diem”, the amounts received
were actually in the nature of a compensation or pay.

1 Nalabuan din ako, sabi sa case 1979 onwards yung hold over tapos yung pagbreakdown ng periods from
1976. Ewan ko haha.
2 (c) Salary, pay or compensation shall be construed as to exclude all bonuses, per diems, allowances and

overtime pay, or salary, pay or compensation given to the base pay of the position or rank as fixed by law or
regulations.
 + Test: Nature of the remuneration, not the label.

+ (Belo) The “per diem” she received was actually paid for in the performance of her
duties as VG of Capiz in a hold over capacity not as the per diem referred to in Sec. 1(c).

+ Legislative intent: Make a clear distinction between salary, pay or compensation

vs. other incidental allowances, including per diems.

+ GR: An allowance for expenses incident to the discharge of an office is not a salary
of office.

Thus, if remuneration received by a public official in the performance of his duties

does not constitute a mere “allowance for expenses” but appears to be his actually
base pay, then no amount of categorizing the salary as “per diem” would take the
allowances from the term service with compensation for the purpose of computing the
number of years of service in government.

+ “Per diem” as used in the GSI Act: a daily allowance given for each day an officer
or employee of government is away from his home base.

- A reimbursement for extra expenses incurred by the public official in the

performance of his duties.
- Intended to cover the cost of lodging and subsistence of officers and
employees when they are on duty outside of their permanent station.
- BUT, in general, it could also be considered as compensation or
remuneration attached to an office.
- applies to Belo and Baradero.

+ Fact missed in the SC decision: Belo was subsequently paid a fixed salary, which
apparently rectified an otherwise anomalous situation.

+ Retirement benefits are in effect rewards for the government employees for
giving the best years of their lives to the service of the country. Basis for provision of
retirement benefits = service to government. While a government insurance system is
partly dependent on contributions made by the members, the fact that these
contributions are minimal when compared to the amount of retirement benefits actually
received shows that such contributions, while necessary, are not absolutely
determinative in drawing up criteria for those who would qualify as recipients of the
retirement benefit system.

+ Argument: They cannot avail themselves of the benefits of the policy because no
deductions were made from their salaries during the disputed periods.

SC: (Belo) She was not duly informed that the short period was not to be credited
in computing the length of her service for retirement purposes. She assumed all in good
faith that she continued to be covered by the GSIS insurance benefits considering that
the deductions are virtually mandatorily made from all government employees on an
essentially involuntary basis.

(Baradero) If he had been informed of the need to pay the required deductions,
he would have willingly paid the required sums.

- The contract between the GSIS and the government employee is done on a
take-it-or-leave-it basis = a virtual contract of adhesion which gives the
employee no choice but to involuntarily accede to the deductions made from
their oftentimes meager salaries.
 + Source of GSIS benefits not in essence merely contractual, but also a social
legislation clearly indicated in the whereas clauses of PD 11463.

+ Situation can be rectified by deducting a reasonable amount corresponding to the

contributions which should have been deducted from the retirement benefits.

- Grossly inequitable to permanently penalize them by ignoring the fact of

actual period of service to government with compensation, and deny them
the retirement privileges that they justly deserve.

QUIASON DISSENT

+ Raised a third issue: WoN respondents may avail of retirement benefits

notwithstanding his failure make contributions to the GSIS for the duration he was
receiving per diem as compensation.

+ First issue: GSIS has the power to determine what service is creditable, as PD 1146
vests such power to it.

+ Second issue: The nomenclature given to the basic salary paid a government
employee is not controlling in determining the service that is creditable for retirement
purposes; what is important is that the pay is given for full time work.

+ Third issue: The obligation to pay premiums is equally essential as the period
of services rendered.

- Prior to LGC, LGUs were not compulsorily covered by the GSI Act (RA 186).
However, RA 1573, amending RA 186, allowed the optional coverage under the
government insurance system, subject to certain requirements4.

- Belo never became a GSIS member during her term as VG, nor did she
contribute to the System. She had an option of continuing her membership by
complying with the requirements in Sec. 4(b), but she failed to do so.

+ GSIS only obligated to grant retirement benefits to its members. Obligation exists
where there is a contract of life or retirement insurance between GSIS and the
government employee, as evidenced by a GSIS policy.

+ Premiums payable by the members are the lifeblood of the retirement scheme.

- Unjust for Belo to compel GSIS to grant her the benefits when she never
remitted the employer’s and her share of contributions for the disputed period.

- Would result in an inequitable situation where GSIS is exposed to a risk

without the benefit of receiving any contribution or premium.

3 WHEREAS, provisions of existing laws that have prejudiced, rather than benefited, the government employee;
restricted, rather than broadened, his benefits, prolonged, rather than facilitated the payment of benefits, must now
yield to his paramount welfare;
WHEREAS, the social security and insurance benefits of government employees must be continuously re-examined and
improved to assure comprehensive and integrated social security and insurance programs that will provide benefits
responsive to their needs and those of their dependents in the event of sickness, disability, death, retirement, and other
contingencies; and to serve as a fitting reward for dedicated public service;
WHEREAS, in the light existing economic conditions affecting the welfare of government employees there is a need to
expand and improve the social security and insurance programs administered by the Government Service Insurance
Systems, specifically, among others, by increasing pension benefits, expanding disability benefits, introducing
survivorship benefits, introducing sickness income benefits, and eventually extending the compulsory coverage of
these programs to all government employees regardless of employment status.

4(1) the employee notifies the System in writing; (2) the employee complies with the requirements of the System
and that he is in government service when the insurance takes effect; and (3) after his admission, the
employee shall be eligible to either life or retirement insurance benefits, or to both, for which the rates of the
premiums or contributions shall be paid by him, including the share otherwise payable by his employer (Sec.
4[b]).
 - Only fair that GSIS be entitled to payment of premiums as soon as it is exposed
to the risk ensured against, whether it be life or annuity insurance.

+Most liberal application of ruling: Limit it to cases where the retiree has paid the
corresponding retirement premiums during said period.

FUNA VS. VILLAR

MARCH 28, 2013 ~ VBDIAZ

DENNIS A. B. FUNA, PETITIONER, VS. THE CHAIRMAN, COA, REYNALDO A.

VILLAR

G.R. No. 192791, April 24, 2012

FACTS: Funa challenges the constitutionality of the appointment of Reynaldo A. Villar

as Chairman of the COA.

Following the retirement of Carague on February 2, 2008 and during the fourth year of
Villar as COA Commissioner, Villar was designated as Acting Chairman of COA from
February 4, 2008 to April 14, 2008. Subsequently, on April 18, 2008, Villar was
nominated and appointed as Chairman of the COA. Shortly thereafter, on June 11, 2008,
the Commission on Appointments confirmed his appointment. He was to serve as
Chairman of COA, as expressly indicated in the appointment papers, until the
expiration of the original term of his office as COA Commissioner or on February 2,
2011. Challenged in this recourse, Villar, in an obvious bid to lend color of title to his
hold on the chairmanship, insists that his appointment as COA Chairman accorded him
a fresh term of 7 years which is yet to lapse. He would argue, in fine, that his term of
office, as such chairman, is up to February 2, 2015, or 7 years reckoned from February 2,
2008 when he was appointed to that position.

Before the Court could resolve this petition, Villar, via a letter dated February 22, 2011
addressed to President Benigno S. Aquino III, signified his intention to step down from
office upon the appointment of his replacement. True to his word, Villar vacated his
position when President Benigno Simeon Aquino III named Ma. Gracia Pulido-Tan
(Chairman Tan) COA Chairman. This development has rendered this petition and the
main issue tendered therein moot and academic.

Although deemed moot due to the intervening appointment of Chairman Tan and the
resignation of Villar, We consider the instant case as falling within the requirements for
review of a moot and academic case, since it asserts at least four exceptions to the
mootness rule discussed in David vs Macapagal Arroyo namely:

a. There is a grave violation of the Constitution;

b. The case involves a situation of exceptional character and is of paramount public

interest;
c. The constitutional issue raised requires the formulation of controlling principles to
guide the bench, the bar and the public;

d. The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

The procedural aspect comes down to the question of whether or not the following
requisites for the exercise of judicial review of an executive act obtain in this petition,
viz:

a. There must be an actual case or justiciable controversy before the court

b. The question before it must be ripe for adjudication;

c. The person challenging the act must be a proper party; and

d. The issue of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity and must be
the very litis mota of the case

ISSUES:

a. WON the petitioner has Locus Standi to bring the case to court

b. WON Villar’s appointment as COA Chairman, while sitting in that body and after
having served for four (4) years of his seven (7) year term as COA commissioner, is valid
in light of the term limitations imposed under, and the circumscribing concepts tucked
in, Sec. 1 (2), Art. IX(D) of the Constitution

HELD:

Issue of Locus Standi: This case before us is of transcendental importance, since it

obviously has “far-reaching implications,” and there is a need to promulgate rules that
will guide the bench, bar, and the public in future analogous cases. We, thus, assume a
liberal stance and allow petitioner to institute the instant petition.

In David vs Macapagal Arroyo, the Court laid out the bare minimum norm before the
so-called “non-traditional suitors” may be extended standing to sue, thusly:

a. For taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the
tax measure is unconstitutional;

b. For voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election
law in question

c. For concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of
transcendental importance which must be settled early; and

d. For legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes
their prerogatives as legislators.

On the substantive issue:

Sec. 1 (2), Art. IX(D) of the Constitution provides that:

(2) The Chairman and Commissioners [on Audit] shall be appointed by the President
with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without
reappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years,
one commissioner for five years, and the other commissioner for three years, without
reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired portion of
the term of the predecessor. In no case shall any member be appointed or designated in
a temporary or acting capacity.

Petitioner now asseverates the view that Sec. 1(2), Art. IX(D) of the 1987 Constitution
proscribes reappointment of any kind within the commission, the point being that a
second appointment, be it for the same position (commissioner to another position of
commissioner) or upgraded position (commissioner to chairperson) is a prohibited
reappointment and is a nullity ab initio.

The Court finds petitioner’s position bereft of merit. The flaw lies in regarding the word
“reappointment” as, in context, embracing any and all species of appointment. The rule
is that if a statute or constitutional provision is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it
must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.

The first sentence is unequivocal enough. The COA Chairman shall be appointed by the
President for a term of seven years, and if he has served the full term, then he can no
longer be reappointed or extended another appointment. In the same vein, a
Commissioner who was appointed for a term of seven years who likewise served the
full term is barred from being reappointed. In short, once the Chairman or
Commissioner shall have served the full term of seven years, then he can no longer be
reappointed to either the position of Chairman or Commissioner. The obvious intent of
the framers is to prevent the president from “dominating” the Commission by allowing
him to appoint an additional or two more commissioners.

On the other hand, the provision, on its face, does not prohibit a promotional
appointment from commissioner to chairman as long as the commissioner has not
served the full term of seven years, further qualified by the third sentence of Sec. 1(2),
Article IX (D) that “the appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired
portion of the term of the predecessor.” In addition, such promotional appointment to
the position of Chairman must conform to the rotational plan or the staggering of terms
in the commission membership such that the aggregate of the service of the
Commissioner in said position and the term to which he will be appointed to the
position of Chairman must not exceed seven years so as not to disrupt the rotational
system in the commission prescribed by Sec. 1(2), Art. IX(D).

In conclusion, there is nothing in Sec. 1(2), Article IX(D) that explicitly precludes a
promotional appointment from Commissioner to Chairman, provided it is made under
the aforestated circumstances or conditions.
The Court is likewise unable to sustain Villar’s proposition that his promotional
appointment as COA Chairman gave him a completely fresh 7- year term––from
February 2008 to February 2015––given his four (4)-year tenure as COA commissioner
devalues all the past pronouncements made by this Court. While there had been
divergence of opinion as to the import of the word “reappointment,” there has been
unanimity on the dictum that in no case can one be a COA member, either as chairman
or commissioner, or a mix of both positions, for an aggregate term of more than 7 years.
A contrary view would allow a circumvention of the aggregate 7-year service limitation
and would be constitutionally offensive as it would wreak havoc to the spirit of the
rotational system of succession.

In net effect, then President Macapagal-Arroyo could not have had, under any
circumstance, validly appointed Villar as COA Chairman, for a full 7- year appointment,
as the Constitution decrees, was not legally feasible in light of the 7-year aggregate rule.
Villar had already served 4 years of his 7-year term as COA Commissioner. A shorter
term, however, to comply with said rule would also be invalid as the corresponding
appointment would effectively breach the clear purpose of the Constitution of giving to
every appointee so appointed subsequent to the first set of commissioners, a fixed term
of office of 7 years. To recapitulate, a COA commissioner like respondent Villar who
serves for a period less than seven (7) years cannot be appointed as chairman when such
position became vacant as a result of the expiration of the 7-year term of the predecessor
(Carague). Such appointment to a full term is not valid and constitutional, as the
appointee will be allowed to serve more than seven (7) years under the constitutional
ban.

To sum up, the Court restates its ruling on Sec. 1(2), Art. IX(D) of the Constitution, viz:

1. The appointment of members of any of the three constitutional commissions, after the
expiration of the uneven terms of office of the first set of commissioners, shall always be
for a fixed term of seven (7) years; an appointment for a lesser period is void and
unconstitutional. The appointing authority cannot validly shorten the full term of seven
(7) years in case of the expiration of the term as this will result in the distortion of the
rotational system prescribed by the Constitution.

2. Appointments to vacancies resulting from certain causes (death, resignation, disability

or impeachment) shall only be for the unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor,
but such appointments cannot be less than the unexpired portion as this will likewise
disrupt the staggering of terms laid down under Sec. 1(2), Art. IX(D).

3. Members of the Commission, e.g. COA, COMELEC or CSC, who were appointed for a
full term of seven years and who served the entire period, are barred from
reappointment to any position in the Commission. Corollarily, the first appointees in the
Commission under the Constitution are also covered by the prohibition against
reappointment.
4. A commissioner who resigns after serving in the Commission for less than seven years
is eligible for an appointment to the position of Chairman for the unexpired portion of
the term of the departing chairman. Such appointment is not covered by the ban on
reappointment, provided that the aggregate period of the length of service as
commissioner and the unexpired period of the term of the predecessor will not exceed
seven (7) years and provided further that the vacancy in the position of Chairman
resulted from death, resignation, disability or removal by impeachment. The Court
clarifies that “reappointment” found in Sec. 1(2), Art. IX(D) means a movement to one
and the same office (Commissioner to Commissioner or Chairman to Chairman). On the
other hand, an appointment involving a movement to a different position or office
(Commissioner to Chairman) would constitute a new appointment and, hence, not, in
the strict legal sense, a reappointment barred under the Constitution.

4. Any member of the Commission cannot be appointed or designated in a

temporary or acting capacity.

Cuevas et al. v. Bacal, [G.R. No. 139382. December 6, 2000]

14

OCT

FACTS

This case involves the appointment and transfer of career executive service officers
(CESOs). More specifically, it concerns the “appointment” of respondent Josefina G.
Bacal, who holds the rank of CESO III, to the position of Chief Public Attorney in the
Public Attorney’s Office, which has a CES Rank Level I, and her subsequent transfer,
made without her consent, to the Office of the Regional Director of the PAO because of
the appointment of Atty. Carina Demaisip to the position of Chief Public Defender
(formerly Chief Public Attorney). Atty. Bacal filed a petition for quo warranto ruled in
her favor by the Court of Appeals. Hence this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES

Whether:

(1) Bacal is entitled of security of tenure considering that she belongs to Career Service;

(2) security of tenure in the Career Executive Service is acquired with respect to the
position or to the rank the officer is holding;

(3) CESOs may be shifted from one position to another without violating their security
of tenure;

(4) Bacal’s unconsented transfer from Acting Chief Public Attorney to Regional Director
constitutes a demotion;

RULING
(1) No. The mere fact that a position belongs to the Career Service does not
automatically confer security of tenure on its occupant even if he does not possess the
required qualifications. Such right will have to depend on the nature of his appointment,
which in turn depends on his eligibility or lack of it. A person who does not have the
requisite qualifications for the position cannot be appointed to it in the first place or,
only as an exception to the rule, may be appointed to it merely in an acting capacity in
the absence of appropriate eligibles. Here, Atty. Bacal has a rank of CESO III
“appointed” to a position of CESO I. The appointment extended to him cannot be
regarded as permanent even if it may be so designated.

(2) Security of tenure in the career executive service is acquired with respect to rank and
not to position.The guarantee of security of tenure to members of the CES does not
extend to the particular positions to which they may be appointed a concept which is
applicable only to first and second-level employees in the civil service but to the rank to
which they are appointed by the President. Here, respondent did not acquire security of
tenure by the mere fact that she was appointed to the higher position of Chief Public
Attorney since she was not subsequently appointed to the rank of CESO I based on her
performance in that position as required by the rules of the CES Board.

(3) Yes. Members of the Career Executive Service may be reassigned or transferred from
one position to another and from one department, bureau or office to another;provided
that such reassignment or transfer is made in the interest of public service and involves
no reduction in rank or salary; provided, further, that no member shall be reassigned or
transferred oftener than every two years. If a CESO is assigned to a CES position with a
higher salary grade than that of his CES rank, he is allowed to receive the salary of the
CES position. Should he be assigned or made to occupy a CES position with a lower
salary grade, he shall continue to be paid the salary attached to his CES rank. Here, there
is a valid transfer of Atty. Bacal to the Regional Office as it was made in the interest of
public service and she is still compensated according to her CES rank.

(4) No. Respondent’s appointment to the position of Chief Public Attorney was merely
temporary and that, consequently, her subsequent transfer to the position of Regional
Director of the same office, which corresponds to her CESO rank, cannot be considered a
demotion, much less a violation of the security of tenure guarantee of the Constitution.
The rule that outlaws unconsented transfers as anathema to security of tenure applies
only to an officer who is appointed – not merely assigned – to a particular station. Such a
rule does not proscribe a transfer carried out under a specific statute that empowers the
head of an agency to periodically reassign the employees and officers in order to
improve the service of the agency.

G.R. No. 178021 : January 25, 2012

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

Petitioner,v.MINERVA M.P. PACHEO, Respondent.

MENDOZA, J.:

FACTS:

Pacheo was a Revenue Attorney IV, Assistant Chief of the Legal Division of the Bureau
of Internal Revenue(BIR) in Revenue Region No. 7 (RR7), Quezon City. The BIR issued
Revenue Travel Assignment Order (RTAO)No. 25-2002, ordering the reassignment of
Pacheo as Assistant Chief, Legal Division from RR7 in Quezon City to RR4 in San
Fernando, Pampanga.

Pacheo questioned the reassignment through her Letter addressed to Rene G. Banez,
then Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR). She considered her transfer from Quezon
City to Pampanga as amounting to a constructive dismissal.

Due to the then inaction of the BIR, Pacheo filed a complaint before the CSC- National
Capital Region (CSC-NCR), praying for the nullification of RTAO No. 25-2002. The BIR,
through its Deputy Commissioner for Legal and Inspection Group, Edmundo P.
Guevara (Guevara), denied Pacheos protest for lack of merit. It contended that her
reassignment could not be considered constructive dismissal as she maintained her
position as Revenue Attorney IV and was designated as Assistant Chief of Legal
Division.

Pacheo appealed to the CSC where the latter granted the same. However, the CSC held
that rules and so holds that the withholding by the BIR of her salaries is justified as she
is not entitled thereto since she is deemed not to have performed any actual work in the
government on the principle of no work no pay. Still not satisfied, Pacheo moved for
reconsideration. She argued that the CSC erred in not finding that she was
constructively dismissed and, therefore, entitled to back salary. However, the motion
was dismissed.

Undaunted, Pacheo sought recourse before the CA via a petition for review. The CA
reversed the CSC decision, stating that Pacheo was constructively dismissed. Hence, this
petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that Pacheo was constructively dismissed
and entitled to backwages

HELD: No.

Political Law- transfer or assignment of personnel cannot be done when the same is a
preliminary step toward his removal or a scheme to lure him away from his permanent
position.

While a temporary transfer or assignment of personnel is permissible even without the

employee's prior consent, it cannot be done when the transfer is a preliminary step
toward his removal, or a scheme to lure him away from his permanent position, or when
it is designed to indirectly terminate his service, or force his resignation. Such a transfer
would in effect circumvent the provision which safeguards the tenure of office of those
who are in the Civil Service.

Significantly, Section 6, Rule III of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, series of 1998,
defines constructive dismissal as a situation when an employee quits his work because
of the agency heads unreasonable, humiliating, or demeaning actuations which render
continued work impossible. Hence, the employee is deemed to have been illegally
dismissed. This may occur although there is no diminution or reduction of salary of the
employee. It may be a transfer from one position of dignity to a more servile or menial
job.

The CSC, through the OSG, contends that the deliberate refusal of Pacheo to report for
work either in her original station in Quezon City or her new place of assignment in San
Fernando, Pampanga negates her claim of constructive dismissal.
It is clear, however, from E.O. 292, Book V, Title 1, Subtitle A, Chapter 5, Section 26 (7)
that there is no such duty to first report to the new place of assignment prior to
questioning an alleged invalid reassignment imposed upon an employee. Pacheo was
well within her right not to report immediately to RR4, San Fernando, Pampanga, and to
question her reassignment.

Reassignments involving a reduction in rank, status or salary violate an employees

security of tenure, which is assured by the Constitution, the Administrative Code of
1987, and the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations. Security of tenure covers
not only employees removed without cause, but also cases of unconsented transfers and
reassignments, which are tantamount to illegal/constructive removal.

Having ruled that Pacheo was constructively dismissed, is she entitled to reinstatement
and back wages? The Court agrees with the CA that she is entitled to reinstatement, but
finds Itself unable to sustain the ruling that she is entitled to full back wages and
benefits. It is a settled jurisprudence that an illegally dismissed civil service employee is
entitled to back salaries but limited only to a maximum period of five (5) years, and not
full back salaries from his illegal dismissal up to his reinstatement.

Petition Denied

79. Pastor vs City of Pasig, G.R. No. 146873, May 9, 2002

Doctrine: Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, 26(7) of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the
Administrative Code of 1987, provides:

Reassignment. An employee may be reassigned from one organizational unit to another in the
same agency: Provided, That such reassignment shall not involve a reduction in rank, status, or
salary.

It has been held that a reassignment that is indefinite and results in a reduction in rank, status,
and salary is in effect a constructive removal from the service

Facts: Petitioner Remedios Pastor is Budget Officer of the Municipality (now City) of Pasig. In
1992, she was reassigned to the Office of the Municipal Administrator pending investigation of
reports against her concerning the issuance of Advice of Allotments by her. In 1995, after three
years with no case filed against her, she asked for reinstatement to her former position. But she
was instead reassigned to another unit of the now city government. Upon her complaint, the Civil
Service Commission ordered her reinstatement as Budget Officer of the City of Pasig. However,
on appeal of the city government, the Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the Civil Service
Commission (CSC).

Issue: Whether or not the reassignment of the petitioner is valid?

Held: No.It has been held that a reassignment that is indefinite and results in a reduction in rank,
status, and salary is in effect a constructive removal from the service.[21] In this case, contrary to
the ruling of the Court of Appeals, petitioners reassignment to different offices in the local
government of Pasig City is indefinite. Petitioner has been on virtual floating assignments which
cannot but amount to a diminution of her rank, hence impermissible under the law.[22] As already
noted, her reassignment began in 1992 with her detail to the Office of the (now) City
Administrator pending investigation of reports that she had issued Advice of Allotments without
sufficient cash collections. However, no investigation appears to have ever been conducted on
the said charge. To justify her continuing reassignment, respondent City Mayor claimed that the
same was due to petitioners long years of experience in finance which especially fitted her for
studies regarding the citys revenues.

For the same reason, petitioners reassignment to various offices should be considered more than
merely a temporary one. For all intents and purposes, her reassignment, lasting nearly ten years
now, is a removal without cause as Budget Officer of the City of Pasig.

In contrast, as head of the Pasig City Hall Annex, petitioners budget proposals for the same will
be subject to review by the City Budget Officer. Moreover, the position of City Budget Officer is
created by statute, while that of the head of the Pasig City Hall Annex is created by mere
ordinance.
We agree with the CSC that petitioner should now be returned to her original position for her
indefinite detail to other positions would amount to her removal without cause from the position to
which she has been permanently appointed. As we said in Cruz v. Navarro:[26]

There is no question that we recognize the validity and indispensable necessity of the well
established rule that for the good of public service and whenever public interest demands, [a]
public official may be temporarily assigned or detailed to other duties even over his objection
without necessarily violating his fundamental and legal rights to security of tenure in the civil
service. But as we have already stated, such cannot be undertaken when the transfer of the
employee is with a view to his removal and if the transfer is resorted to as a scheme to lure the
employee away from his permanent position because such attitude is improper as it would in
effect result in a circumvention of the prohibition which safeguards the tenure of office of those
who are in the civil service.

GSIS v VELASCO NO DIGEST

G.R. No. 170132 December 6, 2006

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) and WINSTON F. GARCIA, in his capacity as
GSIS President & General Manager, petitioners,
vs.
KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA GSIS, respondents.

FACTS: Forming a huge part of the October 4 to October 7, 2004 mass action participants were
GSIS personnel, among them members of the herein respondent Kapisanan Ng Mga
Manggagawa sa GSIS (“KMG” or the “Union”), a public sector union of GSIS rank-and-file
employees.

On or about October 10, 2004, the manager of the GSIS Investigating Unit issued a
memorandum directing 131 union and non-union members to show cause why they should not
be charged administratively for their participation in said rally. In reaction, KMG’s counsel, Atty.
Manuel Molina, sought reconsideration of said directive on the ground, among others, that the
subject employees resumed work on October 8, 2004 in obedience to the return-to-work order
thus issued. The plea for reconsideration was, however, effectively denied by the filing, on
October 25, 2004, of administrative charges against some 110 KMG members for grave
misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

KMG filed a petition for prohibition with the CA against these charges. The CA granted the
petition and enjoined the GSIS from implementing the issued formal charges and from issuing
other formal charges arising from the same facts and events.

CA equated the right to form associations with the right to engage in strike and similar activities
available to workers in the private sector. In the concrete, the appellate court concluded that
inasmuch as GSIS employees are not barred from forming, joining or assisting employees’
organization, petitioner Garcia could not validly initiate charges against GSIS employees waging
or joining rallies and demonstrations notwithstanding the service-disruptive effect of such mass
action.

ISSUE: WON the strike conducted by the GSIS employees were valid

HELD: NO

The 1987 Constitution expressly guaranteeing, for the first time, the right of government
personnel to self-organization to complement the provision according workers the right to
engage in “peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law.”. It
was against the backdrop of the aforesaid provisions of the 1987 Constitution that the Court
resolved Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals. In it, we held, citing MPSTA v. Laguio, Jr., that
employees in the public service may not engage in strikes or in concerted and unauthorized
stoppage of work; that the right of government employees to organize is limited to the
formation of unions or associations, without including the right to strike.

Specifically, the right of civil servants to organize themselves was positively recognized in
Association of Court of Appeals Employees vs. Ferrer-Caleja. But, as in the exercise of the rights
of free expression and of assembly, there are standards for allowable limitations such as the
legitimacy of the purpose of the association, [and] the overriding considerations of national
security.

As regards the right to strike, the Constitution itself qualifies its exercise with the provision “in
accordance with law.” This is a clear manifestation that the state may, by law, regulate the use
of this right, or even deny certain sectors such right. Executive Order 180 which provides
guidelines for the exercise of the right of government workers to organize, for instance,
implicitly endorsed an earlier CSC circular which “enjoins under pain of administrative sanctions,
all government officers and employees from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves,
walkouts and other forms of mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption
of public service” by stating that the Civil Service law and rules governing concerted activities
and strikes in government service shall be observed.

Public employees going on disruptive unauthorized absences to join concerted mass actions may
be held liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

With the view we take of the events that transpired on October 4-7, 2004, what respondent’s
members launched or participated in during that time partook of a strike or, what contextually
amounts to the same thing, a prohibited concerted activity. The phrase “prohibited concerted
activity” refers to any collective activity undertaken by government employees, by themselves
or through their employees’ organization, with the intent of effecting work stoppage or service
disruption in order to realize their demands or force concessions, economic or otherwise; it
includes mass leaves, walkouts, pickets and acts of similar nature. Indeed, for four straight days,
participating KMG members and other GSIS employees staged a walk out and waged or
participated in a mass protest or demonstration right at the very doorstep of the GSIS main
office building. The record of attendance for the period material shows that, on the first day of
the protest, 851 employees, or forty eight per cent (48%) of the total number of employees in
the main office (1,756) took to the streets during office hours, from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m.,leaving the
other employees to fend for themselves in an office where a host of transactions take place
every business day. On the second day, 707 employees left their respective work stations, while
538 participated in the mass action on the third day. A smaller number, i.e., 306 employees, but
by no means an insignificant few, joined the fourth day activity.

In whatever name respondent desires to call the four-day mass action in October 2004, the
stubborn fact remains that the erring employees, instead of exploring non-crippling activities
during their free time, had taken a disruptive approach to attain whatever it was they were
specifically after. As events evolved, they assembled in front of the GSIS main office building
during office hours and staged rallies and protests, and even tried to convince others to join
their cause, thus provoking work stoppage and service-delivery disruption, the very evil sought
to be forestalled by the prohibition against strikes by government personnel.

To petitioner Garcia, as President and General Manager of GSIS, rests the authority and
responsibility, under Section 45 of Republic Act No. 8291, the GSIS Act of 1997, to remove,
suspend or otherwise discipline GSIS personnel for cause. At bottom then, petitioner Garcia, by
filing or causing the filing of administrative charges against the absenting participants of the
October 4-7, 2004 mass action, merely performed a duty expected of him and enjoined by law.
Regardless of the mood petitioner Garcia was in when he signed the charge sheet, his act can
easily be sustained as legally correct and doubtless within his jurisdiction.