ER XI: EFFECT OF RESIGNATION ont THE PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE, CHARGE ‘An officer or employee under investigation may be allowey | resign pending decision of his case without prejudice to the (entiation of the proceedings until nally terminated, (Om. fnbus Rules on. Appointments and other Personnel. Actions, Rule XI, Section 1) No offcer or employee under administrative investigation cer sme ie sas tig aint oe ree ed cme tion 8) ‘Removal or resignation from office is not.abar to a finding of administrative Labilty.! Rationale: ‘Clearly, the resignation of a government official or em- yee sbovid ot sere a8 an instrument to evade ial for acts committed while he was still in the service. This ts 50, even {f the complaint or formal charge against him was filed after the ‘approval of his resignation. In other words, resignation cannot be used as a tool to evade probable conviction and imposition of corresponding penalty should there be a finding of guilt on ‘the basis ofthe substantial evidence.? ‘The precipitate resignation of a government employee charged with an offense punishable by dismissal from the ser- ‘ice does not render moot the administrative case against him, 1 Office ofthe President and Presidential AntiGraft Comission v, Cataqutz, G.R. No. 189445, September 14, 2011 2 CSC Resolution No, 990298 dated January 29, 1999. 266 Erect oF REsionanion To tHe Pena ‘Absmastearive CHARGE 267 re at in any branch of the government or any of its agen- cies or instrumentalities, including -govemment ‘owned and controlled corporations 5 drawn and she was ordered dismissed from the ser- vice with forfeiture. of all separation benefits except earned leaves, if any, and with prejudice to re- employment in any branch or agency of the govern 3 Pagano v. Nazarro, Jr, G.R. No. 149072, September 21, 2007, 583 SCRA 622, ‘Re: (1) Lost Checks Issued to the Late Roderick Roy P, Melliza, omer Clerk Il) MCTC, Zaragga, Noto and (2) Dropping from the Rels of Ms, Esther T. Andres, A.M. No. 2005-26-SC, November 22, 2006, 507 SCRA.478, 5 Rodolfo T. Baquerfo v, Gerry ©. Sanchez, AM. No. P.05-1974, ‘arf 06, 2005.“AnyasisTRATWVE DISCIPLINARY AND, sno Aa ee Seen ment chung government-owned or cong | corporations. 4. In Zarate v, Romanillos*, respondent was eventually found guilty of serious misconduct which would ‘warrant his dismissal had he not resigned from the service. But, since he could no longer be dismissed, salary in lieu of suspension. “cctv Ma Las Lg end Dea C Fernandes AM, Xo. cota 82008 "Dre! eines of Norn D, gas, 460 SCRA 9 et Ba tn 7 So 7 a OCA bia 9k Oa sons 227 SORA 8 See ako Re Haba Abserdcts of Ms. Bie Rowena. Ypil, AM. No. 07-2-92-RTO, July 24, 2007. x Errect oF Resionamiov To THe PENDING 269 7, Ima case wherein respondent resigned during the pendency of the administrative case for dishonesty, the penalty imposed after being found? guilty was forfeiture of whatever benefits still due from the gov- ernment, except earned accrued leave credits, ifany, and disqualification from employment in any branch or instrumentality of the “Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.!! 8, In a’case. wherein ‘respondent was found guilty of disgraceful’ and immoral conduct, a P50,000:00 fine instead of suspension was imposed since respondent resigned ‘during the pendency of the case.!? 10. Ina case’ wherein respondent was found guilty of grave misconduct; the penalty imposed was forfe- ture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave "© Burgos v. Baes, AM. No. 05-2002, December 17, 2008, 574 SoRA59,Brrecr oF Restoxaron 70 m8 Pavone ai 270 Hosonoor o¥ AnumsarVE DISTURARY aD Ste aves Cases vee CNL Sexice Apsara Canna except accrued leave credits since respondent re- cris an uation fom em - signed during the pendency ofthe case.© aaiteeate: |. See, a cpaetionstiead ce armed 1 Woe misconduct the peas eet oe respondent already resigned during the peng! £220,000 fine instead of dismissal since respondent ey ofthe case.* Peng, cee aating be pe ne ea 11, Ina case wherein respondent was found gut ‘grave misconduct, the penalty imposed — 10,000.00 fine with forfeiture of all benefits accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejugee ®t reemployment in any branch or instrumentality“ the government, including government-ovmed) controlled corporations.!* 18. In g case wherin respondent was found gully of dishonesty and grave misconduct, the penalty Imposed was 40,000 fine with forfeiture of what- ‘ment-owned or controlled corporations.” 14, Ina case wherein respondent was found guilty of grave misconduct, the penalty imposed was 'P40,000 fine plus forfeiture: of retirement benefits, 3 Sanins, rv. Mangahas, AM. No. P-09-2720, April 17, 2012. 8 Clerk of Court Ari A. Hermano v, Edun D. Carden, AM. No. P-12-8086, June 20, 2012, 2 Malabanan v. Metrillo, AM. No. P-04-1875, February 6, 2008, Judge Pelagia Dalmaciovoagutn v. Nicomedes Dela Cruz, Bula- S44 SCRA 1. an, AM. No. P-08-2241, July 10, 2012. Pastor C. Punlac v. Oscar T. Hamas, AM. No, P-10-2781, No- "Rojas, Jr. v Mina, A.M, No. P-10-2867, June 19, 2012. Yember 24, 2010,CHAPTER XU: EFFECT OF RETIREMENy TO THE PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE, CHARGE In case of compulsory rtizement, the [administrative] stall contin o-be-ivestgated for purposes. of determines tcp lene SEDs The dap ing aul ity shall decide the case within 90 days. (0; Rls Implementing Book V of B.0. 292, Rule XVII, Section i? Cessation from office ofa respondent by resignation or re. tirement does not warrant the dismissal of an administrative ‘complaint fled while he or she was still in the service nor does it render the administrative case moot and academic.! ‘The settled rule in this jurisdiction is that cessation fom | office by reason of resignation, death, or retirement does not ‘warrant the dismissal of the administrative case filed against a are accountable to the people.? § Atty. Vioriano &. Muring, Jr. v. Atty. Manuel T. Gateho, tal, AM. No, CA.05-10-P, August 31, 2006. 2 Largo v. Court of Appedis. C.R. No. 177244, November 20, 2007, 587 SCRA 721. 272, Errect or Renemenr-to mis PEXOKG 273 ‘Abmmasmeanve CHasce }, Ina case wherein respondent retired prior to being found guilty of simple misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, the penalty eventually imposed was forfeiture of six (6) of suspension for six (6) months and one (I) day which is the minkmum of the graver offense of conduct prejudicial. 2. In a case involving simple neglect of duty. the penalty eventually Imposed was fine equivalent to ts already retired during the pendency of the adminis- trative case.® 364 SCRA 302. “CSC v,.Florelio U. Manzano, G:R No. 160195, October 30, 206, 5 Judge Leonardo P. Carreon v: Eric Anthony S, Ortega, AM. No. 705-1979, November 27, 2006; Stlgrove v. Sabas, AM. No. P-08- 2257, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 28.Errecr or Renmewenr 10 Tu: Pexpaio ar Huasonoor on AbunwsTramiVe DISCIPLINARY AxD ‘Apwnuseamive Chance y 214 Seal Hasassuear Cases THe Civ. Sevice | Ina case of simple misconduct, respondent was duct, the penalty imposed was fine equivalent to gi ducted from his retirement benefits instead of sus- {@ months’ salary instead of dismissal singe pended because he already reached the mandatory spondent already retired prior to the decision,¢ retirement age during the pendency of the adminis. 4, Ina case wherein respondent reached the manga. trative case." toy retirement age during the pendency of the at Ina case wherein respondents were found guilty of ministrative case for simple neglect of duty, the % gross neglect of duty, a 240,000.00 fine for cach penaly eventually Imposed aes having been foun ‘was meted instead of their dismissals since they euly was a. supa cae Raa to reached the mandatory retirement age during the t f a ever leave and retirement benefls/privileges he may RENE TS She cate be entitled to.” | 10. Ina cage whercin respondent was found ay of Sina case wher respondent sted Port beng Foon 0b wes trposcd ance epaven task found gul P to the : best interest of the service, the penalty imposed A eae ee mmebig: unt the pedeney ‘was a #50,000.00 fine to be deducted from respon radars Gent's retirement benefits instead of suspension for 1. Ina case wherein respondent was found guilty of ‘si (6) months and one (1) day. Mh Grave misconduct, the penalty maproct we oie, 6 Ina case of simple neglect of duty, respondent ture of disability retirement benefits in lieu of dis- ‘was subjected to a 5,000.00 fine instead of being missal given that the application for disability re- ‘Suspended because respondent already reached the tirement was approved during the pendency of the mandatory retirement age during the pendency of case.!4 ‘the agenppigirative case: 12, In a case involving simple neglect of duty, the 7. Ina case wherein respondent was found guilty of penalty imposed was a 5,000.00 fine instead of gross neglect of duty, a 215,000.00 fine was meted suspension owing to respondent's compulsory re- instead of dismissal since respondent reached the tirement during the ofthe case.!8 mandatory retirement age during the pendency of tae mandatory re age 13, In a case wherein respondent was found guilty of gross inefficiency and gross neglect of duty, the penalty imposed was forfeiture of retirement benefits ¢ Re: Report on Judea and Financial Audit Conducted in the Mu except accrued leave credits instead of dismissal in ipa Trial Court in Cites, Koronadlal City, AM No. 02-9-233-MTCC, ‘April 27, 2006. 7 Rome Flores v, Juan C. Marquez, A.M. No. P-06-2277, Decem- es, ber 6, 2008, 0 Leyrt v. Solas, A.M. No. P-08-2567, October 30, 2009. § Menor v.Gullermo, A.M. No, 8-08-2587, December 18, 2008. "8 Aqutno-Simbulan ¥. Bartolome, A.M: No, MTJ-05-1588, June 5, © ntouse Pana duit Condacted on the Books of ccs ie ' Femandez v. Vasquez, No, RTJ-11-2261, July 26, 2011. ee Neb aoe Re Vilas. Rose, AM. No MI-O8-1727, Mareh 2,201. "8 OCA v. Cruz, A.M. No, P-11-2988, December 12, 2011.Haxopo0k 08 ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY AxD 376 Sosa Havssvent Cases THE Ci. Sexvice view of respondents compulsory retirement dugg the pendency of the case. "° 14, Ina case wherein respondent retired rior to being found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best i terest of the service, the penalty imposed was fut cqutvaent to six (6) months salary, to be deducteg from his retirement benefits in eu of his suspen: sion.!” 15, Ina case wherein respondent retired prior to being found guilty of simple misconduct, the penalty int posed was fine equivalent to six (6) months salary {o be deducted from her retirement benefits in lieg of suspension. 6 OCA v.Lometflo, AM. No. P-08-2697, March 29, 2011, Largo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 177244, November 20, 2007, 587 SCRA 72, "8 Offer of the Ombudsman v, Nellle R. Apolonio, G.R. No. 165182, March 7, 2012. cp PTER XII: EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINANT TO THE PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE ‘The withdrawal of the complaint does not necessary dis- the respondent from any administrative abikiy. Where eg covious truth or merit to the charges or complaint, the BEF should be gven due course, (Omnis Rules plement oq V of EO 292, Rule XV, Section 6 ‘The withdrawal of the complaint does not result in its out Rationale: In an administrative case, the com : sass and therefore, regardless af ther motions te ae Tbifer to withdraw the complaints, the proceedings thereon tay continue ® Celis v. Marquez, 138 SCRA.256 citing CSC Resolution No. 96- om. a775 Hawoeook o8 OFFENSES, PENALTIES. AND ‘ProceDure 1k Tae URACCS rut ER XIV: EFFECT OF ADMISSION Indeed, proceedings against a public officer or emp part for misconduct, malfeasance, or misfeasance cannot. just pe OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED ‘wthdrawn anytime bythe complainant nor should they dene on compliant’ whims and caprees because the complaint ‘rhe following cases ilustrate the effects of admitting the {sina real sense, only a witness . gene ate Examples: 1, IMOCA v. Stris!, respondent admitted altering some 1. In a case involving willful failure to pay jus entries in her Daily Time: Record (DTR) to make it debts, i was held that disciplinary proceedings st appear that she obtained the required leave credits this nature do not involve purely private or personal ‘to support her application for a Joan with the Su- matters. For this reason, it cannot be made to de ppreme Court Savings and Loan Associaton (SCSLA) pend upon the will ofthe parties.5 ‘Thereafter, she was found guilty of falsification of However, the Section 55 of the RRACCS allows the ofteigh cecumest ond Sishoneate, settlement/compromise of an administrative case In imposing the penalty of suspension in lieu of dis- for wiliful failure to pay Just debts for the first of. missal, respondent's admission was deemed as one fense ony. of the mitigating reumstances The ober creun- 2, In acase involving dishonesty and grave miscon stances were her sincere apologes, promise to re duct, the complainant's affidavit of desistance was Top poe the ret faye Gremnstance not recognized citing Section 10 of the URACCS and 2, Ina case involving falsification of official docu- because there were pieces of evidence that may es- ment and dishonesty, the penalty imposed was tablish respondent's guilt even without complain- suspension for three (3) months without pay instead ants testimony.6 of dismissal because respondent acknowledged her 3, Ina case Involving dishonesty and conduct preju- offense, apologized and promised to reform her dicial to the best interest of the service, the ways? complainant's affidavit of desistance was not recog 3, In a case involving inefficiency, habitual absen- — teeism, and conduct prejudicial to the best in- 4. Incase involving conduct prejudicial to the best terest of the service, the penalty imposed was sus- interest of the service, the respondent was sus- pension for three (3) months without pay taking into pended for one (1) year despite the complainant’ af account the following: (a) that respondent was con- ‘dav of desistance.® fronted with a passionately dificult family problem due to the discovery. that her unwed, student 4 Perez lara, 385 SCRA 1. [awe ® Vilasefor x De Leon, 398 SCRA 942 citing the case of Pere. 410 ScRA'35. ‘ari, 385 SCRA 1. 2 Re: Falsification of daily time records of Mata Fe P, Brooks and CSC Resolution No: 01-820 dated March 15, 2001. ‘névia Forteza-Crisostomo, AM. No. P-05-2086, October 20,2005. 1 Re: Decetl Conduct of Ignacio S. Del Rosario, A.M. No, 201° 05-3, September 6, 2011 * Dane G, Sonido, Josefina G, Hcso. AM, No, P-10-2784 dune 1, 2011. * Se 279Ee mo daughter is pregnant; (b) that sald daughter sup, relapse after giving birth resulting in. respondents Sheence (© that respondent unabashedly admitcs the charges: and () that this was respondent's fyst offense. CHAPTER XV: EFFECT OF THE pENDENCY OF AN’ADMINISTRATIVE CASE TO AN APPLICATION 4, ImGSC Resolution No. 990239 dated January 2) FOR PROMOTION ‘When.an employee has a pending administrative case he, be ied for_promotion during the pendency Saminaon. Inher anderen answer to ee | 3 oeetbas Kale ipementing Bent Ya dane spondent was found guilty of the charges,” trate Code of 1987, Rule V1, Section 14) In holding her guilty, the CSC took into account However, Section 42 of the RRACCS provides that: sald confession and cited People vs. Montiero, (248 “Bffects of the Pendency of an Adminis- ere Gaeen ens: trative Case.—Pendency of an. administrative -We reiterate the rule that a confession case shall not disqualify respondent for promo- cre ents a eho tion and other personnel actions or from caim- supported prestim| Resalty/caternity benches no person of normal mind would deliber. Le rwbioonien atdy and knowingly confess toa crime For this purpose, a pending administrative unless prompted by’ truth and, his con- case shall be construed as such when the dsc science. It is admissible until the accused plining authority has issued a formal charge or a successfully proves that.it was given as a notice of charge/s to the respondent.” promise of a reward or leniency.” 5. In Franelsoo T: Duquelllv.' Florentino’ Veloso, re spondent's admission ‘of the acts ‘constituting dis- much as it was ‘made two (2) years after the com rission of the offense and after the administrative complaint was fled. 6. See Chapter 9 for more examples-of cases wherein admission was used as a mitigating circumstance. ° Judge Leah Domingo Regala v. Ma. Donna Y. Sultan, A.M. No. P- 05-1940, February 28,2008. *G.RNo, 196201, June 19,2012.CHAPTER XVII: EFFECT OF RESPONDENT'S DEATH TO THE PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE In CSC Resolution No. 10-0941 dated 24 Februar, 2010, the Civil Service Commission adopted the following auldelines reatve to the effects of respondent's death in af administrative case, viz: 1, Im situations where the death occurred while the case is pending formal investigation: formal charge or has waives his/her right to file the same (as this is the stage when re- spondent has been afforded the opportunity to explain his/her side). 1.2 If the respondent dies before he/she could ent of due process: 2. In situations where the death occurred after re spondent has perfected his/her appeal before the Commission, the appeal shall continue until ts f 286 BrrectorResrownrsDemronePaomc 287 -ApsanisTRATIVe Caro " nal determination. In the event the deceased re- spondent-appellant wins the appeal, . material and/or pecuniary benefits arising from the case, if any, shall accrue to the legal heirs of the deceased respondent-appellant subject to the Law on Sueces- sion. In case the material benefit is covered by a special law (¢.g. the GSIS Law) which specifies the ‘one who Is entitled to receive the benefit of the de- ceased, the same shall be applied, (emphasis sup- with respect to employees of the judiciary, the respon- dent's deaths bas not prevented the [Supreme] Court om ‘cing administrative cases on the merits:in order to exonerate caper the charges and clear his name or to mete the proper Maly. Suspension or dismissal from the service Is no afer all, the only penalty that may be imposed if respondent is found guilty warranting such penalty, His retirement and other benefits may likewise be forfeited.’ ‘The settled rule in this jurisdiction is that cessation from 7 Largo v. Courtsof Appeals, G.R: No. 177244, November 20. 2007, 837 SCRA 721.288 HanpBook oN ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY AND ‘SexvAL Harassment Cases IN THE CiviL SERVICE Examples: ih In Elemar G. Bote v. Judge Geminiano A. Eduardos, respondent was found guilty of negligence in the performance of duties and was fined. However, re. spondent was already dead when found guilty, thus, the penalty could no longer be, imposed. For this reason, the complaint was deemed dismissed, closeq and terminated. In Judge Abraham D. Cafia vs. Roberto B. Gebusion*, respondent was dismissed after having been found guilty of being notoriously undesirable, being physically or mentally incapacitated due to q vicious habit, going on AWOL for five months, and for serious misconduct. However, the penalty of dismissal could no longer be imposed since respon- dent died prior to the issuance of the decision, For this reason,’ respondent's death benefits and other privileges to which his heirs may be entitled were instead forfeited. 3AM Nn MTIL04-1594 Feb~CHAPTER XXI: OTHER MATTERS A. PRESCRIPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENg | provement of the public service and the preser- ‘ation ofthe public's faith and confidence in our sovernment." B. RES JUDICATA 1, C80 Resolution No, 000827 dated March 28, 2000 discussed res judicata as such: ‘The term res judicata is equivalent to, or ts other- ‘wise known as estoppel by sudgm concept, the rule means that when ‘comm petent jurisdiction has determined, on its merits, @ Iitgated cause, the judgment entered until reversed, 4s, forever and under all circumstances, final and 1 Melchor v, Gronella,G.R. No. 151198, February 16, 2008, 451 SORA 476. 296 (One Marrens 297 conclusive as between the parties to:the suit and ‘their’ previes, in respect to every: fact which: might properly be considered tn reaching a’ judicial deter- ‘mination of the controversy, and in all respect to all points of law there adjudged as those points relate directly to the cause of action in litigation and affect the fund (sic) or other subject matter then before the ‘court. simply put, the following are the requisites for a judgment to be res judicater 1. The Judgment must be final (executory) and not merely interlocutory; 2. The Judgment must have been rendered by a ‘court having jurisdiction over the subject mat- ter/and parties and nature of the suit; 3. The Judgment must be on the merits, or at Teast have the effect of an adjudication on the merits; and 4, ‘There must be between the first and second 2. In Social Security Commission v, Rizal Poultry and ‘Livestock Association, Inc2,'the Supreme Court dis- cussed the two concepts of res judicata, viz. “Res judicata embraces two concepts: (1) dure; and (2) conclustveness of judgment in Rule 89, Section 47(¢). There is “bar by prior Judgment” when, as between the first case where the judgment was ee *G.R.No. 167050, Junie 1, 2011.Huarnoook on ApunistRAmVE DISCIPLNAREY AND Sonn Harassunxr CASES Iv THe Cv Seieice conclusive ness of judgment.” Stated differently, any right, fact or matter in: issue directly adjudicated o necessarily involved in the determination of an, their privies, whether or not the claim, de- ‘mand, purpose, or subject matter of the two ac- tions is the same. ‘Thus, if particular point or question is in ie in the first suit. Identity of cause of action is not required but merely identity of issue.” Example: In Apolinario v. Flores®, an employee of the National Food | Authority (NFA) was charged before the Office of the Ombuds- man with an administrative complaint for dishonesty and 4 °GR No. 152780, January 22; 2007, 512 SCRA 113. (Onmer Mares 209 ‘complaint for estafa thru falsification of public-docu- ced on her act of falsifying her daily time records. Sub- | siren. the criminal complaint was dismissed because the ‘ewesion report was sl under evaluation bythe NFA Re onal ‘Thereafter, respondent prayed for the dismissal of the ad- strate complaint on the ground that her constittional ee against double jeopardy had been violated and that dismissal of the criminal complaint is now res judicata, be barring the Ombudsman from hearing the administrative foplaint ‘The ‘sues are: (1) whether the dismissal of the criminal canplaint amounted to res Judicaia thereby’ foreclosing the ‘inuation’ of the administrative action and (2) whether the Suim of double Jeopardy is meritorious. (On the first tssue, it was ruled that there was no res judi catabecause there is no identity of causes of action. Itus settled that the elements of res judioata are: (1) there ust be.a final judgment or, order; (2). ihe court, rendering it ‘aust have Jurisdiction over the subject matter and the partes; @ there must be between the two cases, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action. In this case, the administrative offense {s for dishonesty whi the criminal complaint. was for estafa thr falsification of public document. ‘Thus, the dismissal of the criminal complaint did not nec- essarily foreclose the continuation of the administrative action cr carry with it relief from, administrative ably. The Office of the Ombudsman did ‘not err when it proceeded with the deter- TBination of respondent's administrative lablity despite ‘the lsmissal of the criminal complaint. On thie Second issue, it was ruled that the claim of double ‘opardy has no merit. Double jeopardy attaches only: (1) upon. a valid ndict-300 Hanpn0ok ON ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY AND ‘SeXUAL HarassMenT Cases IN THE CrviL SERVICE when a valid plea has been entered; and (5) when. the defen. dant was acquitted or convicted or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the ac- cused, None of these applies to the present case. The Om. budsman only conducted a preliminary investigation in ‘the criminal charge, Hence, double jeopardy will not lie. Res judicata was applied to the following cases: (1) Borlongan v, Buenaventura, G.R. No. 167234, Fe. bruary 27, 2006, 483 SCRA 405. (2) Atty. De Vera v. Judge Layague, A.M. No. RTJ-93. 986. September 26, 2000. (3) Executive Judge Basilia v. Judge Becamon, A.M. No, MTJ-02-1438, 22 January 2004, 420 SCRA 608, (4) Roque C. Facura and Eduardo F. Tuason v. CA, GR. No. 166495, February 16, 2011. Res judicata was invoked but not given weight to the fol- lowing cases: (1) Montemayor'v. Bundalian, G.R. No. 149335, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 264. (2) Hon, Waldo Q. Flores v. Atty. Antonio. F, Montemayor, G.R. No. 170146, June 8, 2011. C. ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT No, anonymous. complaint. shall, be entertained ,unless there is obvious truth,or merit.to the allegations. therein. or supported by documentary or direct evidence, in, which case the. person complained of may be required. to. comment, (Sec- tion 11, RRACCS) An anonymous complaint is always received with great caution, originating as it does from an, unknown. author, Such a complaint, however does not justify outright dismissal for be- ing baseless or unfounded for the allegations therein may be easily verified and may, without much difficulty, be substanti- ated and ‘established by other competent ‘evidence. Indeed,