Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS)

Department of Agriculture RO-7.A. Compound
M. Velez St., Guadalupe, Cebu City

PASCUAL B. ARAOARAO OMB-V-A-16-0489

Complainant
For: violation of Section 5(a),
-versus R.A. 6713

ROGELIO BUNAO
Municipal Engineer
Municipality of Panglao,
Province of Bohol
Respondent

x---------------------------------------------
---/

POSITION PAPER

COMES NOW, Respondent ROGELIO BONAO in the

above-entitled case, and unto this Honorable Office, most
respectfully submits his Position Paper, in compliance with
the Order of this Honorable Office, dated July 5, 2017, and
does hereby aver that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

“An efficient and honest bureaucracy is never

inconsistent with the emphasis on and the recognition of
the basic rights and privileges of our civil servants or, for
that matter, the constitutional mandates of the Civil
Service Commission. In fact only from an enlightened
corps of government workers and an effective CSC grow
the professionalization of the bureaucracy. Indeed the
government cannot be left in the lurch; but neither could
we decree that government personnel be separated
from their jobs indiscriminately regardless of fault.
The fine line between these concerns may be difficult to
clearly draw but if we only exerted extra effort to rebel
against the allure of legal over-simplification, justice would
have been done where it is truly due.”1

1
CITY GOVERNMENT OF MAKATI CITY vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and EUSEBIA
R. GALZOTE, [G.R. No. 131392. February 6, 2002.]
 The Parties:

Complainant Pascual Araoarao is a resident of

Panglao, Bohol.

Respondent is the Municipal Engineer of the

Municipality of Panglao, Bohol with Salary Grade 24 as
prescribed under R.A. No. 6758 and the implementing
guidelines issued pursuant thereto;

Statement of the Facts of the Case:

Complainant Pascual Araoarao filed before the Office

of the Municipal Engineer a request for Certification to the
effect that there was no Building Permit issued on a
construction of a fence on a parcel of land covered by Tax
Declaration No. R-327.

Meanwhile, on February 10, 2016 the undersigned

Respondent was meted a three (3)-month suspension by
the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-V-C-14-0141 and
OMB-V-A14-0136 cases, (Annex “1”, Respondent’s Counter
Affidavit). This was implemented by the DILG Regional
Office No. VII via MEMORANDUM dated 24 February, 2016.

The Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-V-

A14-0136 was subsequently reversed (Annex “3” of
Respondent’s Counter Affidavit), after undersigned
respondent and his co-accused filed a Motion for
Reconsideration. As a result, herein respondent was
reinstated.

On the other hand, while herein respondent served

his suspension, the Municipality of Panglao did not appoint
an officer-in-charge of the Office of the Municipal Engineer.
As a result, the workload thereon remained unacted and
has piled up.

It was in this situation that complainant insisted that

his request be given priority above all other concerns in
the office.

Thus, this case.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS
SECTION 5(A) OF R.A.
6713 MUST NOT BE READ
IN ISOLATION

2|Page
 Basic is the rule that provisions of the law should be
read in relation to other provisions therein. A statute must
be interpreted to give it efficient operation and effect as a
whole avoiding the nullification of cognate provisions.
Statutes are read in a manner that makes it wholly
operative and effective, consistent with the legal maxim
ut res magis valeat quam pereat (that the thing may
rather have effect than be destroyed). Thus, Section 5 (a)
of R.A. 6713 should be read in relation to Section 5(d) also
of the same law. Section 5(d) states that 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.

In this case, Mr. Araoarao’s request for certification

would require our Office to dig up records from as far back
as six (6) months to the said request since it is possible
that construction can commence months after the
issuance of a permit and a permit has a validity of six (6)
months. Moreover, his request was made at a time when
the office accumulated a backlog because of herein
respondent’s suspension in another case (Annex “1”,
Respondent’s Counter Affidavit) and the office was put at a
standstill as respondent was temporarily incapacitated to
perform his duties and functions while serving the
suspension. Applying now the whole of Section 5 of RA
6713, all other clients of the Office of the Municipal
Engineer who filed applications for building permits and
other requests while respondent was temporarily
incapacitated likewise deserve the same degree of service
so demanded by Mr. Araoarao. Stated differently, Mr.
Araoarao is not the only client attended to by the office
and he has to wait for his turn because all the other clients
also has to be attended to by the office. The fact that there
was a lapse in the service of one client does not right away
make it an actionable infraction the employees. All other
factors must have to be considered like for example the
fact that there is only 5 personnel in the office including
herein respondent and also the fact that the Municipality of
Panglao has the most number of applications for building
permits in the Province of Bohol for past three (3) years.
RESPONDENT WAS NOT MOTIVATED
BY BAD FAITH

Respondent was not motivated by bad faith in his

dealings with Mr. Araoarao. What happened was an honest
mistake due to the unusually high volume of workload at

3|Page
that time brought about by the above-discussed reasons.
In Araullo vs. Aquino III,2 it was held:
In Soriano v. Marcelo,3 citing Collantes v. Marcelo,4 Court
emphasizes the necessity of the presumption of good faith, thus :

Well-settled is the rule that good faith is always

presumed and the Chapter on Human Relations of the
Civil Code directs every person, inter alia, to observe
good faith which springs from the fountain of good
conscience. Specifically, a public officer is presumed to
have acted in good faith in the performance of his
duties. Mistakes committed by a public officer are
not actionable absent any clear showing that
they were motivated by malice or gross
negligence amounting to bad faith. "Bad faith"
does not simply connote bad moral judgment or
negligence. There must be some dishonest purpose or
some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong,
a breach of a sworn duty through some motive or
intent or ill will. It partakes of the nature of fraud. It
contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating
with furtive design or some motive of self-interest or ill
will for ulterior purposes.

The law also requires that the public officer's action

caused undue injury to any party, including the
government, or gave any private party unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of
his functions. . . . (emphases ours)

In fine, errors and lapses, when honestly committed is

an indication of sincerity. They are natural concomitants to
human limitations. As the sun, although appearing to us as
the greatest miracle in the universe, is not spotless,
human beings cannot absolutely be free from faults. This is
true even with the choicest paragons of the human
species. And public employees such as herein respondent,
like any mortal, have his own eccentricities and are subject
to human limitations which everyone is heir to. Well-
intentioned mistakes cannot, without more, plausibly be
the subject of an administrative complaint.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, it is most

respectfully prayed to this Honorable Office that this
instant case be DISMISSED for being totally bereft of
merit.
2
G.R. Nos. 209287; 209135; 209136; 209155; 209164; 209260; 209442; 209517;
209569; February 3, 2015
3
G.R. No. 160772, July 13, 2009, 592 SCRA 394.
4
G.R. Nos. 167006-07, 14 August 2007, 530 SCRA 142.

4|Page
 All other reliefs and remedies consistent with justice
and equity are likewise prayed for.

Tagbilaran City, Bohol, Philippines. July 27, 2017.

ROGELIO S. BONAO
Respondent

VERIFICATION

I, ROGELIO S. BONAO, Filipino, of legal age, under

oath, depose and say that:

1. I am the same named respondent of this case;

2. I caused the preparation of this Position Paper;

3. The facts stated herein are true and correct of our

own personal knowledge and based on authentic
records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my

signature this July 27, 2017 at Tagbilaran City, Bohol.

ROGELIO S. BONAO
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 27 th day

of July, 2017 at the City of Tagbilaran, Bohol, Philippines.

PAUL ELMER M. CLEMENTE

Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas
Office of the Ombudsman
Cebu City

5|Page
 -thru-

ATTY. JANE AGUILAR

OIC, Evaluation and Investigation Officer-B
Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas

Madam:

Kindly submit the foregoing Position Paper to the

Honorable Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas for his
consideration.

ROGELIO S. BONAO

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, ROGELIO S. BONAO, Filipino, married, and a resident

of Bil-isan, Panglao, Bohol, Philippines after having been
duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and
say that:

1. I am one of the respondent in the above-entitled

case;

2. I hereby certify that on _____________, I furnished a

copy of the foregoing Position Paper to the
complainant by registered mail due to absence of
messengerial personnel; and

3. I execute this Affidavit of Service in compliance

with the Order of this Honorable Office dated
November 7, 2016.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my

hand this ________________ at Tagbilaran City, Bohol,
Philippines.

ROGELIO S. BONAO
Respondent

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this

____________________ at Tagbilaran City, Bohol, Philippines.

6|Page
Personally appeared and exhibiting _______________as his
proof of identity.

Copy furnished by registered mail

Pascual B. Araoarao
Daorong, Danao
Municipality of Panglao, Bohol

7|Page