Republic of the Philippines

Province of Bulacan
MUNICIPALITY OF GUIGUINTO
OFFICE OF THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN

KAGAWAD CRISPIN T. GALVEZ,

KAGAWAD CANDIDO M. MENDOZA,
KAGAWAD DANILO E. LANGI, KAGAWAD
CRISPIN B. MENDOZA, KAGAWAD
JOSELITO S. AGUSTIN AND KAGAWAD
EDILYN A CRUZ
Complainants,

ADMIN CASE NO. 02-SB-2022

-versus- For: DISHONESTY, OPPRESSION,
MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE, GROSS
NEGLIGENCE OR DERELICTION
OF DUTY, ABUSE OF AUTHORITY
AND SUCH OTHER LAWS AS MAY
BE PROVIDED IN THIS CODE AND
OTHER LAWS UNDER SEC. 60 (C)
(E) (H) OF THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CODE, ILLEGAL
USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
PROPERTY UNDER ART. 220 OF
THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND
SEC. 3 (E) (F) OF R.A. NO. 3019

BARANGAY CAPTAIN DANTE C.

SILLANO
Respondent.
x----------------------------------------------x

ANSWER
(With Compulsory Counter-Claims)

Respondent, BRGY. CAPT. DANTE C. SILLANO, through undersigned counsel

and unto this Honorable Office of Sangguniang Bayan of Guguinto, Bulacan respectfully
states that:

I
PREFARATORY STATEMENT

Herein complaint is a clear demolition job by disgruntled public officials who has
high aspirations of taking the position of herein respondent. It is geared towards
political vendetta in the hope to tarnish the credibility, accountability and dignity of the
respondent. Most of the allegations and complaints raised against him are subjective in
character while some are yet to be proven.

In any administrative case the quantum of evidence required is substantial

evidence, which the complaints failed miserably to prove with the evidence attached in
their complaint. These are mere allegations that are needed to be proven. Allegations
are mere allegations and not evidence by themselves.

One of the complaints against herein respondent is about the Commission on

Audit Report. Respondent is in the process of collating documents to answer the said
report and is expected to file it within the deadline given him. He will submit all
supporting documents to the Commission on Audit to answer the COA Report and
prove that no funds were ever mishandled or illegally used. The verdict of the
Commission on Audit is wanting to prove if herein respondent indeed has any liability
to speak of about the accusation connected to the COA Report.

To avoid inconsistencies and contradictory decisions, it is but proper to wait for

the decision of the Commission on Audit pertaining to the allegation of mishandling or
illegal use of public funds before the Honorable Office of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Guiguinto make a verdict to that particular complaint. Though all other complaints
imputed against the respondent may be decided right away.

In response to the Complaint against the respondent, this Answer is submitted

in compliance and respect to the Summon of the Honorable Office of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Guiguinto, Bulacan.

I
ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Complaint is admitted.

2. Paragraphs 3 to 16 are denied for deliberate distortion of true facts and for
lack of personal knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or
falsity thereof, the truth are set in respondent’s special and affirmative
defenses.

3. The existence of the COA Audit Observation Memorandum.

II

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Respondent hereby plead the foregoing allegations as integral parts hereof

and further states that:

4. This case is product of grand act of lies rooted from a false and distorted
story from the disgruntled, disturbed and resentful barangay officials. The
untruthful account and report of the troubled complainants is best typified in
their allegations.
5. It must be noted that the barangay captain is deemed the captain of the
ship within the barangay level and all his barangay kagawad, the
complainants, are his co-workers who are to help him maneuver the ship to
have a smooth sailing navigation. However, the complainants themselves
want to cause chaos that hinders progress and development in their
barangay. As the father of the barangay, the respondent has so much
responsibility and obligation that needs support from his Kagawad. However,
such is not the case as complainants try to pin down respondent in their
thrust to their own agenda and personal and political interest.

6. To respond one by one on the basis of the Complaint, below are the
answers and counterclaims of the respondent:

“3. Paglabag sa Sec. 60 (c), (e), at (h) ng Republic Act No. 7160 o ang
Local Government Code of 1991, Art 220 ng Act 3815 o ang Revised
Penal Code, at ng Section 3 (e) at (f) ng Republic Act No. 3019 o
ang Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.”

- Herein respondent cannot intelligently and specifically answer these

allegations as nothing in the complaint enumerates or mentions the act/s
complained of. They cannot just allege that respondent violated said laws
without mentioning the basis of the said violations.

- This just shows that complainants, in their grand plan to pin down the
respondent, alleged general accusations without even mentioning the
acts complained of.

“4.1 Ang mga sasakyan ng Barangay ay ipinapahiram at nahihiram

lamang ng ilang piling tao na dapat ay para sa serbisyo ng lahat ng
mamayan ng Barangay Tiaong.”

- This is totally untrue and mere product of their distorted imagination. The
vehicles of the barangay are open for use by all constituents of Barangay
Tiaong and sometimes by the people of Guiguinto, Bulacan. Whoever
needs to use them, as long as they are available and usable, may borrow
the them. However, there are some instances that the vehicles are being
repaired and so they cannot be borrowed and used. There are some
instances that earlier constituents who requested to borrow them are
using the them and so they cannot be used by other constituents.

- Borrowing the barangay vehicles is
based on the gravity of the needs of
logbook for the use of the barangay
the vehicles are open for use by all
for chosen few.
on first come first serve basis and
the would be borrowers. There is a
vehicles. These logbooks prove that
individuals who need them and not
 - The logbooks would clearly belie the allegations of the complainants.
Attached as ANNEX “1” and series are copies of the logbooks of those
who borrowed and used the barangay vehicles.

“4.2 Na ang aming Punong Barangay ay nagpapakita ng kagaspangan

at hindi tamang pag-uugali sa ibang kawani ng barangay.”

“4.3 Na ang aming Punong Barangay ay sinasabihan ang ibang kawani

ng Barangay na umalis na sa kanilang mga tungkulin.”

“4.4 Na ang aming Punong Barangay ay nagmumura sa loob ng

kaniyang tanggapan habang nagsasagawa ng session.”

- These allegations are exaggerations. The allegations are manifestations

of complaints’ not wanting to be disciplined and corrected for their
mistakes and wrongdoings. It clearly shows their true intent to do things
on their own even without the consent of respondent or against the rules
and regulation of the barangay.

- As barangay officials and public servants, they cannot be thin skinned.

With these allegations, it shows that they are very sensitive to criticisms
and gets easily offended which is not what is required for any public
servant. Castigation and reprimand is due for those who do not do their
work well or does their work in a wrong way.

- As the captain of the ship, it is respondent’s obligation to correct erring

barangay officials specially if it is for the betterment of the barangay.
They would not be reprimanded if they never did anything wrong. It is
but proper to castigate them if they do not perform their duties and
responsibilities well. After all, that is among the bunch of responsibilities
of respondent.

- Respondent admits that there are heated moments during sessions but
not to the point that bad words are directed personally to the
complainants or to attendees of the sessions but to the wrong doings
done. There are instances that respondent would tell, “Bad trip naman
ang mga nangyayari, bakit ganito….” “Anak ng tokwa naman, gawin natin
ang trabaho natin….” “Magkanda leche leche tayo kapag ganito ang
trabaho natin…..”

- There was never an instance that respondent threw invective words

directly to a certain individual. If there be any unsavory words uttered by
respondent, it was uttered and happened due to his frustrations of the
way the barangay officials and workers are performing their duties. It
never occurred that respondent directly said expletive words to the
officials or barangay workers.
 - It is but proper to tell barangay workers and officials to better quit their
jobs if they are not doing their jobs properly despite repetitive
reprimands. Their repeated infractions would mean their lack of interest
to serve and lack of intention to do their duty correctly and based on
what is required of them.

“4.5 Ang pagpapakita ng pagkawalang tiwala sa mga empleyado sa

paghawak ng Petty Cash nang ipinagkatiwala niya sa aming
Barangay Administrator na si Noel Estrella ang paghawak ng Petty
Cash.”

- In the plight of respondent to safeguard the money of barangay and

make every possible way to monitor the flow of the petty cash, he indeed
transferred to the Barangay Administrator the safekeeping and
monitoring of the petty cash in February 2022.

- He did this after he noticed that the former coffer, barangay treasurer, of
the petty cash has some unexplainable and unaccountable expenditures
for the use of petty cash. Before February 2022, every week the treasurer
requested for a Php5,000.00 petty cash and weekly the petty cash was
spent and the petty cash was replenished. However, when the barangay
administrator started to handle the petty cash, the barangay only brings
out and spends the petty cash 2 to 3 weeks in a month.

Attached as ANNEX “2” and series are the listings of the petty cash
spent together with the complete receipts, vouchers and documents to
support the expenditures starting from the time respondent transferred
the handling and monitoring of the petty cash to the Barangay
Administrator.

- During the tenure when the barangay treasurer was handling the petty
cash the expenditures were more compared when the barangay
administrator started to handle it. The funds of the barangay were
secured and there were less expenditures.

- This action was for the good of barangay and not for the personal benefit
of the respondent. Complainants should be more grateful in this move of
the respondent as the barangay would have more savings at its disposal
for less use of the petty cash.

- There is nothing wrong in doing such action as no irregularity was ever

committed in doing so. No law, regulation or ordinance of barangay was
ever violated in transferring the handling and monitoring of the petty
cash to the barangay administrator.

- Maybe, the complainants are adamant in this move because they can no
longer directly go to the barangay treasurer and get funds for their
 personal use. Case at point are the many instances that complainant
Kagawad Danilo Langi went to PTT gas station to have his personal car
filled with gas without purchase order from the barangay and payments
of the gas fuel were deducted from the funds of barangay. The treasurer,
who cannot do anything but accede to the whims and caprices of the
complainants would just pay the billing of PTT gas station without
questioning the said billing.

- Now that the petty cash of the barangay are monitored and secured,
complainants are questioning it. It does not make any sense to question
such move as it was for the benefit and advantage of the funds of
barangay.

“4.6 Ang paggastos ng Punong Barangay sa pera ng Barangay na hindi

humihingi ng opinion at pagsang-ayon ng Konseho.”

- This is a total lie and complete distortion of true facts. Use of barangay
funds that require consensus of Brgy. Kagawad or committees are always
followed. There are signed disbursement voucher or documents by the
requisitioner whenever a fund of barangay is used.

- The barangay session is done only twice a month. In between the

sessions, there are needs of the barangay that require smaller
appropriation and respondent, with the conformity of Treasurer who is
complainants ally, sign voucher and purchase order. All are well
supported by necessary receipts and documents.

- There are some abrupt, unplanned and short notice activities and
programs of other government agencies like PNP, local government unit
and others that the barangay hosted and needed to be funded. Those
times where there are no sessions, complainants are apprised of such
activities and knew about them. They knew very well that the barangay
hosted the said activities and funds were required to conduct them.

- As the barangay chairman, respondent needed to decide right away and

needed not wait for the next session to ask for the minimal funds to be
used to support said unplanned, abrupt and short notices of other
government agencies. These are day-to-day decisions that respondent
needed to do to support the abrupt, unplanned and short notice activities
and programs of other government agencies that happen in their
barangay.

- Again, for any actions that require the consensus of complainants,

respondent always complied in getting their consensus via resolution or
documents signed by them. However, for any emergency, abrupt or
immediate concern where budget was required and there was no session,
respondent needed to act fast but with the conformity of the Barangay
Treasurer and complainants are thereafter informed about it.
“4.7 Ang pagsunod ng Punong Barangay sa kaniyang mga kagustuhan
ng walang pahintulot at pagsang-ayon ng Konseho.”

- This is a general accusation and allegation that cannot be intelligently and

specifically answered. The discussion in the allegation 4.6 is repleaded.

“4.8 Ang hindi pagsunod ng Punong Barangay sa tamang proseso ng

bidding process na naaayon sa batas kaya noong ika-25 ng Agosto
taong 2022, ay inilabas ng COA Regional Office No. III, Provincial
Satellite Auditing Office ang kanilang Audit Observation
Memorandum…”

- This issue is already with the office of Commission on Audit. Respondent

is given a period of time to Answer the COA Report and he is about to
submit his Answer to the said COA Report. Final determination about this
issue would only be made after the final verdict of COA. Nonetheless, to
Answer this accusations of the complainants, respondent would like to
convey the following:

- All elected kagawad of Barangay Tiaong are members of Biddings and

Awards Committee (BAC). The Chairman of Appropriation Department
who is no other than Kagawad Crispin Mendoza, a complainant in the
instant case, heads the BAC. All documents and bid proposals of bidders
are scrutinized by the BAC and not by herein respondent. Respondent
comes into picture only after there is a winning bidder, a resolution by
the BAC has been passed and respondent signs the resolution.

- Respondent has no control in the conduct of bidding and in fact not

present during the biddings. Bidding process starts from BAC and they
alone has the control on the bidding process.

- Regarding the COA Report, it just so happens that herein respondent was
the one notified by COA and as the Barangay Chairman has the
responsibility of answering it. Though worst comes to worst herein
respondent would ultimately be subject of complaint by COA once it
elevates the matter to Sandiganbayan or DILG.

- Complainants are raising issues they do not fully comprehend. Issues that
they themselves are part of it. They are likewise liable for it if ever COA
finds irregularity on the conduct of the bidding in question. It is just very
amusing that complainants are raising this issue where they themselves
should be the one answering the same being all members of the BAC.

“5. Na pagdating sa paggastos ng pera ng Barangay ay hindi na

hinihingi ng Punong Barangay ang opinion at pagsang-ayon ng
konseho, basta nagustuhan nya ay gagawin niya. Tulad noong
pagdagdag ng Punong Barangay sa halaga ng kaniyang mga
 pinagawang mga Barong na kaniyang ginamit sa inauguration ng
ating Punong Bayan…”

- It was complainants Kagawad Candido M. Mendoza, Crispin B. Mendoza,

Edilyn A. Cruz and Treasurer Gianne Gallego who negotiated and looked
for the store to sew and buy the said barong. The Barong were not solely
used and owned by the respondent but also by the complainants. It was
not ordered for respondent alone but also for the complainants and they
acceded to it.

- Again, the complainants new about these expenditures and they

themselves used the ordered clothes. They acceded in ordering them and
that was the reason why the same were bought.

- The Barong are now in possession of the respondent as well as the

complainants. He who comes to court must have clean hands. If they
were not amendable to have those nice and presentable Barong, they
would not have acceded to the plan and used them. The price of the
Barong are not that expensive compared to other Barong. That is the
reason why the barangay did not order ready-made Barong because it
was cheaper to have them sewed.

“6. Noong ika-25 ng Agosto taong 2022, ay inilabas ng Commission on

Audit Regional Office No. III, Provincial Satellite Auditing Office ang
kanilang Audit Observation Memorandum kung saan nakasaad ang
mga sumusuno:

“The disbursements of the 20% DF for CYs 2020-2021 totaling

P2,955,691.00 were illegal and/or irregular due to:

(a) Out of P612,920 intended for the construction of 50 units

of Solar Street Lights, the amount of P245,168.00 was
used for other purposes such as the construction of barrier
for the drainage of canal and repairs of barangay garbage
truck and other operating expenses contrary to COA
Circular 2012-003 dated October 29, 2012;

(b) Documentary deficiencies in the procurement process and

payments of labor were found on disbursements totaling
P3,280,958.00 contrary to Section 23 of 2016 Revised
Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of Republic
Act No. 9184, Paragraph 5.1.2 of the MFMB; and

(c) The Barangay failed to identify the PPAs and information

on the unutilized balances of previous year’s Continuing
Appropriations.xxx”

- Also, this issue is already with the office of Commission on Audit.

Respondent is given a period of time to Answer the COA Report and he is
about to submit his Answer to the said COA Report. Final determination
about this issue would only be made after the final verdict of COA.
 Nonetheless, to Answer this accusations of the complainants, respondent
would like to convey the following:

- No barangay funds were ever misused or malversed. All appropriated

funds were used for barangay projects. It is true that of the
Php612,920.00 intended for the construction of Solar Street Lights, the
amount of Php245,168.00 was used for other purposes such as
construction of barrier for the drainage canal and repairs of Barangay
garbage truck and other operating expenses such as payment of labor.

- It was a collective decision on the part of respondent and herein

complainants to do it as exigency arose. It was a decision made based on
the actual need of the barangay on that particularly time. It was a
difficult decision but needed to be done for the sake of the Barangay.

- Respondent has already collated and about to submit to COA documents

to support letter (b) and (c) of the abovementioned findings. Receipts
and other documents have been gathered to support that there was
proper use of the said funds and all are with supporting receipts and
documents.

- Attached as ANNEX “3” and series are copies of the said receipts and
documents to support the said expenses.

“7. Pagbibigay pondo sa mga gawain na hindi naman sapat sa inilaang

pondo ng Barangay ng Tiaong.”

“9. Ang hindi pagtugon ng Punong Barangay sa mga reasonableng

hiling ng mga Kagawad para sa kapakanan ng kanilang Komite.”

- Again, these are general accusations and allegations that cannot be

intelligently and specifically answered. However, to answer these generic
allegations all respondent can say is that all expenditures of the barangay
are based on available funds and projects for the betterment of the
barangay. No funds were ever used for respondent’s personal use.

- Respondent cannot think of any instance that he did not respond to the
requests of the Committees headed by complainants. He always responds
to their requests either by denying their requests if the same were not for
the benefit of the barangay or he grants them if it were for the benefit of
the barangay.

“8. Ang paniniwala ng Punong Barangay na kaya niyang patakbuhin

ang barangay ng Tiaong kahit walang pagsang-ayon ang kaniyang
mga Kagawad.”

“10. Ang pagdesisyon ng Punong Barangay ng mga bagay para sa

kaniyang sariling kapakanan nang hindi sumasangguni sa Konseho”.
 - The same is true with the other allegations, abovementioned accusations
are again general allegations that cannot be intelligently and specifically
answered. Just the same, respondent would give his response to these
generic allegations.

- Respondent is one with the complainants that running the Barangay is

not a one-man show. Respondent needs every help from the
complainants to look after the welfare of Barangay Tiaong. That is the
reason why complainants head their own committees.

- Actions that require the consensus and decision of the complainants are
always complied with by the respondent. However, for actions that do not
require the consensus and decisions of the complainants specially for
those that require immediate decision, as the barangay chairman,
respondent needs to make good, reasonable and lawful decisions that is
for the best interest of the barangay.

“11. Na ang aming Punong Barangay ay nagpatira po sa isang tauhan

ng Barangay at nababalitang karelasyon niya na nag ngangalang
Cherry Ann Pring sa loob ng mismong Barangay Hall.”

“12. Na ang sinasabing tauhan na naninirahan sa Barangay Hall ay

ginawang tulugan ang mismong Tanggapan ng Punong Barangay.”

“13. Na ang sinasabing tauhan ay ginagawang mistulang sariling

bahay at tindahan ang Barangay Hall.”

- Respondent admits that he allowed Cherry Ann Pring, Clerk II of the

barangay, to temporarily stay at the barangay hall during the peak of
pandemic. However, he denies that he has any illicit relationship with her
other than being an employee of the barangay.

- The very reason that respondent allowed Cherry Ann Pring to temporarily
stay at the barangay hall during the peak of pandemic was because at
that time she was suffering from lupus, she got separated with her
common-law-partner and was kicked-out by her “hipag” in the house
where she was staying.

- The barangay hall is open to all who are in need of shelter whether
residents or non-residents of Barangay Tiaong so long as it is for
temporary period of time. The Barangay Hall is a public place that must
shelter anybody who needs it.

- Respondent denies that he has other relationship with Cherry Ann Pring
other than being her subordinate. The attached ANNEX “E” of the
complaint is against Republic Act No. 4200 or the Anti Wire-Tapping Law
and cannot be used as evidence for being fruit of a poisonous tree.
Complainants, in submitting this as evidence in this Honorable Office, are
 liable for violation of Anti-Wire Tapping Law and a criminal case against
the complainants are being prepared against them.

- Nonetheless, reading the chat conversation would not prove anything

against respondent and would not in anyway prove the alleged intimate
relationship between respondent and Cherry Anne Pring.

- Moreso, the allegation that Cherry Anne Pring used the office/room of
respondent as her bedroom during her temporary stay is a total lie.
Cherry Ann Pring used a room of the barangay hall other than the very
office of the respondent. Also, it is not true that the barangay hall was
used as a store by Cherry Ann Pring during her temporary stay there. The
photographs attached do not prove the allegations of the complainants.
The photographs can be interpreted in many different ways and thru the
malicious thinking of the complainants they chose to interpret it in a very
negative way.

“14. Na ang aming Punong Barangay as nagsosolicit sa mga

establisyemento na nasasakupan ng Barangay Tiaong para daw sa
gaganaping Team Building ng mga Kawani ng Barangay.”

“13. Na aming napag alaman na ang sinasabing Team Building ng mga

Kawani ng Barangay na ginanap sa Tomzen Beachfront sa Bauang,
La Union ay dinaluhan lamang ng mga kaalyado sa opisina ng
Punong Barangay.”

- The said Team Building was open to all barangay officials, barangay
volunteers and barangay employees. All of them were invited but the
same was an activity that was voluntary and not compulsory.
Complainants, who chose not to attend the said activity, now give
meaning and color to the said barangay activity. If ever they did not
attend, it was their choice. They were apprised about the said activity and
chose not to participate. Respondent himself chose not to attend the said
activity to look after the barangay.

- With regard the alleged solicitation, respondent deny that he had any
personal participation on the said solicitation. Some of the barangay
volunteers and employees have admitted having done it.

“16. Noong bago dumating ang eleksiyon ng Punong Bayan at sa

darating na Barangay Election at para sa kanyang pansariling
interes ay mahigpit na ipinagbilin ng Kapitan ng aming barangay na
huwag magbigay ng Certificate of Indigency o iba pang
mahahalagang sertipikasyon sa mga humihiling nito kung hindi
kaalyado.”
 - This is a total lie. This never happened. This malicious imputation against
the respondent is a clear manifestation of the grand plan of complainants
to destroy the name of respondent.

- The issuance of the said Certificates was previously under the Treasury
Department headed by Brgy. Treasurer Gianne Gallego under the
supervision of the head of Committee on Appropriation Kagawad Crispin
B. Mendoza, one of the complainants. How would complainant Kagawad
Crispin B. Mendoza allege that respondent ordered the employee of the
Barangay not to issue the said Certificates to non-allies if he was the one
was in control for the issuance of the said Certificates?

- The issuance of the said Certificates was only transferred to the

Administrative Department on 2nd of June 2022 though payments would
still be under the Treasury Department. Administrative Department only
handled the issuance of the said Certificates after the 2022 national and
local elections. This alone belies the claims and allegations that
respondent issued an order to dispense the Certificates only to
constituents who are allied to him.

- Attached as ANNEX “4” and series are copies of the Information Slips
by all applicants who requested and were issued Barangay Clearances,
Certificate of Barangay Indigency, Certificate of Residency, Certificate of
Barangay Scholarship, Barangay Identification Cards and Business
Clearance by the Office of Barangay Tiaong, Guiguinto, Bulacan.

- These documents would clearly contradict the accusation of the

complainants that respondent ordered employees of the barangay to
issue the mentioned certificates to allies of respondent only.

7. The quantum of evidence required in administrative cases is substantial

evidence.  The landmark case Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial
Relations (G.R. No. L-46496) laid down the guidelines for quasi-judicial
administrative proceedings, including the following:

xxx(4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or

conclusion (City of Manila  vs. Agustin, G. R. No. 45844, promulgated
November 29, 1937, XXXVI 0.G. 1335), but the evidence must be
“substantial.” (Washington, Virginia& Maryland Coach Co. v. National
Labor Relations Board, 301 U. S.142, 147, 57 S. Ct.648, 650, 81 Law.
ed. 965.) “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla.
It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”  (Appalachian
Electric Power v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 93 F. 2d 985,
989; National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson Products, 6 Cir., 97
F. 2d 13, 15; Ballston-Stillwater Knitting Co. v. National Labor
Relations Board, 2 Cir., 98 F. 2d 758, 760.) The statute provides that
‘the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not
be controlling.’ The obvious purpose of this and similar provisions is to
free administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so
 that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed
incompetent in judicial proceedings would not invalidate the
administrative order. (Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194
U. S. 25, 44, 24 S. Ct. 563, 568, 48 Law. ed. 860; Interstate
Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 227 U. S. 88,
93, 33 S. Ct. 185, 187, 57 Law. ed. 431; United States v. Abilene &
Southern Ry. Co., 265 U. S. 274, 288, 44 S. Ct. 565, 569, 68 Law. ed.
1016; Tagg Bros. & Moorhead v. United States, 280 U. S. 420, 442, 50
S. Ct. 220, 225, 74 Law. ed. 624.) But this assurance of a
desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go
so far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having
rational probative force. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or
rumor does not constitute substantial evidence. (Consolidated
Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 59 S. Ct. 206, 83 Law.
ed. No. 4, Adv. Op., p. 131.) “

(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented

at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and
disclosed to the parties affected. (Interstate Commence
Commission vs. L. & N. R. Co., 227U. S. 88, 33S. Ct. 185, 57 Law. ed.
431.) Only by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence
disclosed to the parties, can the latter be protected in their right to
know and meet the case against them. It should not, however, detract
from their duty actively to see that the law is enforced, and for that
purpose, to use the authorized legal methods of securing evidence
and informing itself of facts material and relevant to the controversy.
Boards of inquiry may be appointed for the purpose of investigating
and determining the facts in any given case, but their report and
decision are only advisory. (Section 9, Commonwealth Act No. 103.) x
x x.  (Emphasis supplied.)

8. Furthermore, the complainants have the burden of proving by substantial

evidence the allegations in their complaint. The basic rule is that mere
allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on
mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given credence. Hence,
when the complainants rely on mere conjectures and suppositions and fails
to substantiate their allegations, the administrative complaint must be
dismissed for lack of merit. (Manalabe v. Cabie, A.M. No. P-05-
1984, July 6, 2007, 526 SCRA 582, 589; See also Adajar v. Develos,
A.M. No. P-05-2056, November 18, 2005, 475 SCRA 361, 376-
377; Ong v. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1538, October 22, 2004, 441
SCRA 150, 160; Datuin, Jr. v. Soriano, A.M. No. RTJ-01-
1640, October 15, 2002, 391 SCRA 1, 5.)

9. Clearly, complainants have no cause of action against the respondent. All

accusations imputed against the respondent are all lies and mere
fabrications of distorted and untruthful stories. Complainants have no other
proof or evidence to show and present to support their malicious claim. All
complainants have are subjective interpretations and questionable,
untruthful and allegations.

10. Anent the issue about the COA Report, the same is now under investigation
and respondent awaits the final verdict of COA. If there be any irregularity
 about the said funds the final verdict of COA would be the determining
factor. Respondent is answering the said accusation in the proper forum.

11. Respondent’s reputation/name has been tarnished because of this

complaint. He has been the talk in their barangay and this greatly affected
him causing him and his family many sleepless nights.

12. All told, this case must be dismissed for lack of merit and cause of action.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that this

Answer be duly noted and considered.

Other just and equitable remedies are likewise prayed for.

7 November 2022. Guiguinto, Bulacan.

DOMICIANO A. PAGULAYAN
Counsel for Respondent
Unit25B GD Plaza, 8002 McArthur Highway
Ilang-Ilang, Guiguinto, Bulacan
PTR. No. 7744661/01-03-22/ Balagtas, Bulacan
IBP Lifetime No. 022554
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0016701
Roll No. 56556
attydompagulayanlawoffice@gmail.com
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN )S.S.

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION
I, BRGY. CAPT. DANTE C. SILLANO all of legal age, Filipino, married and
with mailing address at 0253 Tiaong Labas, Tiaong, Guiguinto, Bulacan hereby depose
and state that:

1) I am the respondent in the instant Complaint.

2) I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer and the allegations
in it are true and correct based on my personal knowledge and based on
authentic documents.
3) The Answer is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay or needless
increase the cost of litigation. The factual allegations therein have
evidentiary support or if specifically so identified will likewise have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
4) I hereby certify that I have never commenced any action or filed any claim
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency
and no such other action or claim is pending therein and if I should
thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding pending, we shall
inform this court within five calendar days therefrom.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our signature this 7 th of

November 2022 here at Guiguinto, Bulacan.

BRGY. CAPT. DANTE C. SILLANO

Respondent
SSS ID No. 33-3231367-9

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 7th of November 2022 at

Malolos City, Bulacan. Affiant exhibiting to me his valid identification document written
below his name.

Doc. No. ___; RYAN T. ESCALANTE

Page No. ___; Notary Public
Book No. ___; Capitol Compound, Guinhawa, Malolos City, Bulacan
Series of 2022. PTR No. B8523690 01/04/2022 Malolos City, Bulacan
IBP No. 174698 01/04/2022 Pasig City
Roll No. 71295
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0002610

COPY-FURNISHED

KAGAWAD CRISPIN T. GALVEZ

Complainant
85 Tiaong, Guiguinto, Bulacan
KAGAWAD CANDIDO M. MENDOZA
Complainant
0990 Purok 4, Tiaong, Guiguinto, Bulacan

KAGAWAD DANILO E. LANGI

Complainant
Tiaong, Guiguinto, Bulacan

KAGAWAD CRISPIN B. MENDOZA

Complainant
765 Tiaong, Guiguinto, Bulacan

KAGAWAD JOSELITO S. AGUSTIN

Complainant
Tiaong, Guiguinto, Bulacan

KAGAWAD EDILYN A. CRUZ

Complainant
0636 Tiaong, Guiguinto, Bulacan

EXPLANATION

The foregoing Answer is filed before the Honorable Office by personal service
and served to the complainants by licensed courier due to lack of personnel to make
personal delivery of the same.

DOMICIANO A. PAGULAYAN