Good Faith in Public Office Appointments: A Shield Against Grave Misconduct

Omar Erasmo G. Ampongan v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 248037, June 28, 2021

Imagine a newly elected vice-mayor, eager to serve his community, faced with the daunting task of filling a crucial position within the local government. His actions, intended to be in the best interest of his city, are scrutinized, and he finds himself accused of grave misconduct and dishonesty. This is not just a hypothetical scenario but the real story of Omar Erasmo G. Ampongan, whose case before the Supreme Court of the Philippines sheds light on the delicate balance between good faith and procedural adherence in public office appointments.

The case revolves around Ampongan, a former Vice-Mayor of Iriga City, who appointed Edsel Dimaiwat as Secretary of the Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) without following the required Personnel Selection Board (PSB) screening process. The central legal question was whether Ampongan’s actions constituted grave misconduct and dishonesty, or if his good faith efforts to fill the position mitigated his liability.

In the Philippines, public office appointments are governed by strict civil service rules designed to ensure fairness and meritocracy. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) oversees these appointments, mandating that positions be filled through a transparent and competitive process. Key to this process is the role of the PSB, which is responsible for screening and evaluating applicants to ensure the most qualified individual is selected.

Under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 3, s. 2001, and CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, s. 1998, appointments must adhere to specific guidelines, including public advertisement of vacancies and evaluation by the PSB. These rules aim to prevent favoritism and ensure that public offices are staffed by competent individuals. For example, if a city needs a new treasurer, the position must be advertised, and a PSB must review all applicants to select the best candidate based on merit, not political affiliations or personal connections.

Omar Erasmo G. Ampongan’s journey began when he learned of the vacancy for the SP Secretary position following the retirement of the incumbent. Ampongan, unfamiliar with the appointment process as a first-time vice-mayor, took steps he believed were necessary to fill the position. He requested the Human Resource Management Officer (HRMO) to publish the vacancy, but upon discovering the HRMO’s inaction, he personally ensured the position was advertised.

Despite his efforts, Ampongan faced resistance from the PSB members, who did not attend the scheduled evaluation meeting. Believing further attempts would be futile due to political motivations, Ampongan proceeded with the appointment of Dimaiwat, whom he deemed qualified. This decision led to accusations of grave misconduct and dishonesty, as Ampongan had certified that Dimaiwat was screened by the PSB, which was untrue.

The Ombudsman found Ampongan guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty, imposing a one-year suspension. Ampongan appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing he acted in good faith. The CA upheld the Ombudsman’s decision, dismissing Ampongan’s good faith defense due to his failure to ensure compliance with appointment rules.

Finally, the Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on Ampongan’s intent and actions. The Court noted:

“First of all, petitioner showed that he had no willful intent to violate the law when he invited the private respondents who were members of the Personnel Selection Board, for a meeting set immediately after the regular session to ensure complete attendance, to assist him in the evaluation of the applicants to the position of Secretary of the SP.”

The Court also considered:

“It is clear from his acts that he did not have any intention to distort the truth because he attached the Minutes of the PSB Evaluation which narrated the events that transpired before and during the supposed PSB meeting.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court modified the penalty, finding Ampongan guilty of simple misconduct rather than grave misconduct and dishonesty. The Court imposed a three-month suspension, recognizing Ampongan’s good faith efforts despite procedural lapses.

The Ampongan case sets a precedent for how good faith can mitigate the severity of administrative penalties in public office appointments. Future cases involving similar issues may be influenced by this ruling, emphasizing the importance of intent over strict procedural compliance. Public officials must still adhere to appointment procedures, but the Court’s decision suggests that genuine efforts to follow the law can be considered in assessing liability.

For public officials, the key lesson is to diligently follow appointment procedures while documenting all efforts to comply with legal requirements. If faced with resistance or non-cooperation, officials should exhaust all avenues to ensure a fair process before proceeding with appointments.

Key Lessons:

• Understand and follow civil service appointment procedures to avoid administrative liability.
• Document all efforts to comply with legal requirements, especially when facing obstacles.
• Good faith can mitigate penalties, but it does not excuse procedural lapses entirely.

Frequently Asked Questions:

What is the role of the Personnel Selection Board in public office appointments?

The PSB is responsible for screening and evaluating applicants for public office positions to ensure the most qualified individual is appointed based on merit.

Can good faith be a defense against charges of misconduct in public office?

Yes, as demonstrated in the Ampongan case, good faith can mitigate the severity of penalties for misconduct, though it does not excuse procedural non-compliance.

What should public officials do if they face resistance in following appointment procedures?

Public officials should document their efforts to follow procedures and seek alternative solutions, such as rescheduling meetings or seeking guidance from the Civil Service Commission.

How can a public official ensure compliance with civil service rules?

By familiarizing themselves with relevant CSC memorandum circulars and ensuring all steps, including public advertisement and PSB evaluation, are followed.

What are the consequences of not following appointment procedures?

Non-compliance can lead to administrative liability, ranging from simple to grave misconduct, with penalties such as suspension or fines.

ASG Law specializes in administrative law and public office appointments. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.