Mary Joy A.

Galolo, RND September 14, 2019

1. Provision of R.A. No. 6713

This case is specifically anchored to Section 4(b) of Republic Act (R.A) No. 6713,

as amended (or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and

Employees). This commands that “public officials and employees shall perform and

discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism,

intelligence and skill. Professionalism in 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.

2. Nature of the case

This case is entitled “Rodomiel J. Domingo, Petitioner, versus Office of the

Ombudsman Kathryn Joy B. Paguio, Allan Jay M. Esguerra, and Neil Patrick H. Celis,

Respondents”. Particularly, a complaint-affidavit was filed before the Office of the

Ombudsman by Sanguniang Kabataan (SK) Officials Kathryn Joy Paguio, Allan Jay

Esguerra and Neil Patrick Celis (respondents) against petitioner Rodomiel Domingo

as Barangay Chairman of barangay 686, Zone 75, District V, Manila, for malversation,

falsification of public document, dishonesty and grave misconduct. The petitioner filed

a motion for reconsideration which the Office of Ombudsman (OMB) denied. After

denial of his motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed a petition for review with the

Court of Appeals which was again denied. Hence, the petitioner sought recourse from

the Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the

decision of the OMB on the grounds that he cannot be held administratively liable for
any act beyond his control and knowledge under R.A. No. 6713 and that the imposition

of penalty is excessive.

3. Case argument

Herein, petitioner argues that the act for which he was indicted is clearly beyond

his knowledge and control. He stresses that he could not have possibly falsified his

own signature. He also maintains that he has no access or control over the submission

of documents relative to the release of funds for specific projects, as the responsibility

rests either with the Barangay Secretary or Treasurer. Finally, petitioner challenges

his suspension from office as excessive in view of the fact that no undue injury or

damage is done to the cause of public service or to respondents themselves.

Meanwhile, the sole evidence relied upon by the OMB in holding the petitioner liable

is the undated Justification containing the false declaration in relation with the 2003

barangay budget which, in this case, runs afoul of the conduct a public servant must

exhibit at all times such as a highest sense of honesty and integrity and it being a

violation of Section 4(b) of R.A. 6713. This conclusion is clearly non-sequitur and

illogical. The OMB cannot defer ruling on the issue of falsification and in the same

breadth not only assume the same document as falsified but, on that assumption,

proceed to hold petitioner liable.

4. SC Decision

The Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Office of Ombudsman and of the

Court of Appeals affirming in toto the said decision. Thus, the charge of violation of

Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 against petitioner is ordered dismissed. The Court

explained that if the Justification was intended for 2003, then there would have been

a gross inconsistency between the Justification and the documents relating to the 2003

budget submitted by the petitioner. Likewise, if the Justification was intended for 2004,
respondents should have presented the 2004 budget since the burden of proof is on

them to prove the charges against the petitioner. Meanwhile, Section 4(b) of R.A. No.

6713 commands that “public officials and employees shall perform and discharge their

duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court cited that there is a denial of due process in this case

which mandates that every accused be apprised of the nature and cause of charge

against him.

5. Point of view

In my own point of view no matter the position or number of years of service, for as

long as we are in the public service, we should need to perform our duties with

honesty, good faith and act with justice. People in or working with public should not be

bias and should best fit to adjust to any situations. Many situations I’ve seen that

people who are in power forgot to exercise the importance of transparency in

documents and in money. They should always observe strict rule in paper works and

legal matters to avoid any unfavorable situations.

It is good to know that public officials are keen in eyeing wrong doings of other

members. To tolerate bad actions is the same way of supporting their wrong doings.

No matter how strong the bond one should put righteousness on top. Being a public

official is accepting the responsibility of a good public figure. People will look up in you

or idolize you and so should always maintain good character. The world is harsh and

full of temptations and one should remain strong to face all the challenges with honesty

because serving the people means we are serving our country for a good cause.