Category: Ethics and Public Service

SALN Compliance: Government’s Duty to Notify and the Consequences of Non-Compliance

The Supreme Court has affirmed that the government must adhere to a mandatory review and compliance procedure under Republic Act No. 6713 before holding public officials liable for errors or omissions in their Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs). This means that before any disciplinary action can be taken, officials must be informed of any deficiencies in their SALNs and given an opportunity to correct them. Failing to follow this procedure invalidates any subsequent charges related to SALN discrepancies, ensuring that public officials are afforded due process and a chance to comply with the law before facing penalties. This ruling underscores the importance of procedural fairness in enforcing ethical standards among public servants.

SALN Errors and Due Process: When Can Omissions Lead to Dishonesty Charges?

This case revolves around Jessie Javier Carlos, a Tax Specialist at the Department of Finance, who faced administrative charges for allegedly failing to disclose certain assets in his SALNs from 2000 to 2010. The Department of Finance – Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) investigated Carlos’ lifestyle and assets, leading to a complaint filed before the Office of the Ombudsman. Carlos was accused of not declaring a house and lot, a Toyota Innova, and his wife’s business interest. The central legal question is whether Carlos could be held liable for dishonesty based on these omissions, especially considering the government’s compliance, or lack thereof, with the review and compliance procedure mandated by Republic Act No. 6713.

The heart of the matter lies in Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6713, which outlines the Review and Compliance Procedure. This section mandates that designated committees within government offices establish procedures to review SALNs for timeliness, completeness, and proper form. If a statement is found deficient, the reporting individual must be informed and directed to take corrective action. This is not merely a procedural formality; it is a mandatory step that must be followed before any disciplinary action can be taken.

SECTION 10. Review and Compliance Procedure. — (a) The designated Committees of both Houses of the Congress shall establish procedures for the review of statements to determine whether said statements which have been submitted on time, are complete, and are in proper form. In the event a determination is made that a statement is not so filed, the appropriate Committee shall so inform the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action.

The Supreme Court emphasized that this review process is “absolutely mandatory,” providing a mechanism for review and an opportunity to rectify errors concerning the timeliness, completeness, and formal correctness of SALNs. A designated committee, typically appointed by the agency head, is tasked with reviewing SALNs to ensure compliance. This committee must then prepare a list detailing which officials and employees have filed complete, incomplete, or entirely missing SALNs. This list is crucial, as it forms the basis for informing individuals about any necessary corrective actions.

Following the review, the head of the office has a critical responsibility: to inform the official or employee of any identified deficiencies and direct them to take corrective action. This directive triggers a 30-day period within which the official or employee must comply. Only after this period, if the individual fails to comply, can disciplinary action be initiated. This step-by-step process underscores the importance of affording public officials the chance to rectify errors before facing sanctions.

SECTION 4. Sanction for Failure to Comply/Issuance of a Show Cause Order.

Failure of an official or employee to correct/submit his/her SALN in accordance with the procedure and within the given period pursuant to the directive in Section 3 hereof shall be a ground for disciplinary action. The Head of Office shall issue a show-cause order directing the official or employee concerned to submit his/her comment or counter-affidavit; and if the evidence so warrants, proceed with the conduct of the administrative proceedings pursuant to the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), CSC Resolution No. 1101502 dated November 8, 2011. The offense of failure to file SALN is punishable under Section 46 (D)(8) of Rule X thereof, with the following penalties:

The Court made it clear that without adhering to this mandated review and compliance mechanism, liability for errors or omissions in SALNs simply does not attach. The individual cannot be subjected to disciplinary action without being informed of the errors and given an opportunity to comply. Public officials and employees are considered non-compliant only if they fail to rectify their SALNs within the 30-day period. Absence of this process means there is no violation, and consequently, no liability.

This perspective aligns with the Court’s previous rulings, such as in Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon v. Salig, which held that public officials are not automatically liable without adherence to Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6713. Similarly, in Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service v. Office of the Ombudsman and Ramirez, the Court reiterated the government’s duty to issue a compliance order and the consequences of its failure to do so. These cases reinforce the principle that procedural fairness is paramount in enforcing SALN requirements.

Despite these clear precedents, there have been conflicting rulings, such as in Pleyto v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group and Carabeo v. Court of Appeals, which suggested that the review and compliance procedure is merely internal and does not apply when the Ombudsman is involved. However, the Supreme Court, in this recent decision, explicitly distances itself from these earlier rulings, emphasizing that the review and compliance procedure is a mandatory prerequisite, irrespective of who is conducting the investigation. To reinforce transparency and fairness, the Court recognized that strict compliance with Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6713 allows the government to distinguish between simple, correctable errors and deliberate attempts to conceal ill-gotten wealth.

In Carlos’s case, the Supreme Court found that he was not given the opportunity to correct the mistakes and omissions in his SALNs as required by Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6713. Because the review and compliance procedure was not followed, no liability could be attributed to him. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in finding Carlos guilty of dishonesty and imposing the penalty of dismissal. The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the crucial balance between enforcing ethical standards and ensuring due process for public officials. It underscores the need for government agencies to diligently follow the prescribed procedures before imposing sanctions for SALN discrepancies.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a public official could be held liable for omissions in their SALN without the government first complying with the review and compliance procedure outlined in Republic Act No. 6713, which requires notification and an opportunity to correct any deficiencies.
What is the Review and Compliance Procedure under RA 6713?	This procedure mandates that government agencies review SALNs to ensure they are timely, complete, and in proper form. If deficiencies are found, the official must be notified and given a chance to correct them before any disciplinary action is taken.
What happens if an official fails to correct their SALN after being notified?	If, after being notified of deficiencies and given 30 days to correct them, the official still fails to comply, they can then be subjected to disciplinary action, including potential administrative charges.
Does the Ombudsman have to follow the Review and Compliance Procedure?	Yes, the Supreme Court clarified that even when the Ombudsman is investigating SALN discrepancies, the Review and Compliance Procedure must still be followed to ensure due process.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Court ruled that Jessie Javier Carlos could not be held liable for dishonesty because he was not given the opportunity to correct his SALN as required by Republic Act No. 6713, reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision.
What is the consequence of failing to comply with RA 6713’s review process?	Failure to comply with the review and compliance procedure means that no liability can be attached to the public official for errors or omissions in their SALN, as the process is a mandatory prerequisite.
Why is the Review and Compliance Procedure important?	It ensures fairness and due process for public officials, preventing hasty or unwarranted disciplinary actions based on simple errors or omissions in their SALNs. It also distinguishes between honest mistakes and deliberate attempts to conceal wealth.
What earlier rulings did this case clarify or overturn?	This case clarified and effectively overturned earlier rulings, such as Pleyto v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, which suggested that the review process was not required when the Ombudsman was involved.

This ruling serves as a crucial reminder that procedural safeguards must be respected even when enforcing ethical standards in public service. It reinforces the importance of due process and fairness in administrative proceedings, ensuring that public officials are given a reasonable opportunity to comply with the law before facing potentially severe penalties.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Jessie Javier Carlos vs. Department of Finance – Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) and Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 225774, April 18, 2023

April 18, 2023

Accountability in Public Office: Defining Neglect, Misconduct, and Abuse of Authority

The Supreme Court’s decision in Humphrey T. Monteroso v. Special Panel No. 13-01-IAB underscores the high standards of conduct expected from public officials, particularly those in positions of authority. The Court found Monteroso, a former Deputy Ombudsman, guilty of simple neglect of duty, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, grave misconduct, and grave abuse of authority. This ruling serves as a reminder that public office is a public trust, and any deviation from ethical standards will be met with appropriate sanctions, ensuring accountability and preserving the integrity of public service.

Breach of Public Trust: When Does Inaction Become Misconduct?

The case of Humphrey T. Monteroso, former Deputy Ombudsman of the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao (OMB-MIN), presents a critical examination of the responsibilities and ethical obligations of public officials. Monteroso faced multiple complaints, including allegations of gross neglect of duty, gross insubordination, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, grave misconduct, and grave abuse of authority. The central legal question revolves around whether Monteroso’s actions and omissions constitute violations of the standards expected of a high-ranking public official, and what penalties are appropriate for such breaches of public trust. This case delves into the specifics of administrative offenses and the accountability of public servants.

The charges against Monteroso stemmed from two primary incidents. First, his alleged failure to act promptly on a complaint filed by Spouses Osabel regarding land title tampering, and his subsequent failure to respond to directives from superiors and the Office of the President. Second, allegations of exploiting his position by employing Emmanuel Arquellano as a personal aide while compensating him through OMB-MIN funds, and obstructing an investigation by preventing access to human resource files. These incidents formed the basis for the administrative complaints that ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

The Internal Affairs Board (IAB) initially found Monteroso liable for simple neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service concerning the delayed action on the Osabel complaint. This was due to his failure to promptly resolve the complaint, and his neglect to respond to official communications. The IAB also found him guilty of grave misconduct and grave abuse of authority for exploiting Arquellano and obstructing access to HR files, further escalating the charges against him. The Ombudsman approved these findings, imposing fines equivalent to six months’ salary in lieu of suspension or dismissal, given Monteroso’s expired term. However, Monteroso contested these decisions, leading to appeals and the eventual Supreme Court ruling.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman’s findings, reinforcing the gravity of Monteroso’s offenses. The appellate court emphasized that as Deputy Ombudsman, Monteroso had a primary duty to ensure prompt action on complaints and adherence to internal directives. His failure to do so constituted simple neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Court of Appeals further supported the findings of grave misconduct and grave abuse of authority, highlighting the exploitation of Arquellano and the obstruction of the IAB’s investigation. These affirmations solidified the need for accountability among public officials and the consequences of abusing their positions.

In its decision, the Supreme Court addressed several key issues. First, it clarified that the special panel members of the IAB were not disqualified from participating in the administrative cases against Monteroso. The Court emphasized that the panel acted as investigators rather than complainants, and therefore, were not subject to disqualification under Administrative Order No. 16-2003. This distinction was crucial in upholding the integrity of the investigation process.

The Court then delved into the specifics of Monteroso’s liability for the various charges. Regarding simple neglect of duty, the Court highlighted Monteroso’s failure to respond to official communications and directives, violating Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 6713, also known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The Court stated, “In other words, he failed to give proper attention to a task expected of him, signifying a disregard of his duty resulting from either carelessness or indifference. This constitutes simple neglect of duty.”

Concerning conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, the Court noted the significant delay in resolving the Spouses Osabel complaint. This delay necessitated interventions from higher authorities and tarnished the image of the OMB-MIN. The Court referenced Miranda v. CSC, emphasizing that such conduct need not be directly related to official functions but must tarnish the integrity of the public office. “As long as the questioned conduct tarnishes the image and integrity of his or her public office, the corresponding penalty may be meted on the erring public officer or employee.”

The Court further addressed the issue of grave misconduct, particularly Monteroso’s exploitation of Arquellano. The Court cited findings from the OMB, stating that Monteroso unfairly took advantage of Arquellano by making him perform household chores without proper compensation, using public funds to pay for services that benefitted Monteroso personally. This was deemed a clear abuse of power and a violation of ethical standards. “Undoubtedly, DO Monteroso unfairly took advantage of Arquellano when he made his subordinate perform household chores for him and his family during the latter’s tenure as a civil servant without proper compensation.”

The Court also found Monteroso guilty of grave abuse of authority for obstructing the IAB’s investigation. By berating and humiliating Chief Administrative Officer Peligro and restricting access to HR files, Monteroso acted in excess of his authority and undermined the investigation process. The Court noted that this constituted an attempt to suppress evidence and protect himself from scrutiny. “Evidently, he was using his authority to thwart the ongoing investigation of the cases against him especially the possible discovery of damaging evidence which his HR records might reveal.”

In light of these findings, the Supreme Court affirmed the penalties imposed by the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals. For simple neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, Monteroso was fined an amount equivalent to six months’ salary. For grave misconduct and grave abuse of authority, he was ordered dismissed from the service. Although his term had expired, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to six months’ salary plus accessory penalties, including forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of eligibility, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and a bar from taking civil service examinations.

This decision underscores the critical importance of accountability and ethical conduct in public service. It clarifies the scope of administrative offenses such as simple neglect of duty, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, grave misconduct, and grave abuse of authority. The ruling also highlights the measures that can be taken to enforce these standards, even when an official’s term has expired. This landmark decision provides a framework for upholding the integrity of public office and ensuring that public servants are held responsible for their actions.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Humphrey T. Monteroso, a former Deputy Ombudsman, committed administrative offenses including neglect of duty, misconduct, and abuse of authority. The Court examined his actions and omissions to determine if they violated the ethical standards expected of public officials.
What is simple neglect of duty?	Simple neglect of duty occurs when a public official fails to give proper attention to a task expected of them, indicating carelessness or indifference. In this case, Monteroso failed to respond to official communications and directives, constituting simple neglect of duty.
What constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service?	Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service involves actions that tarnish the image and integrity of a public office. Monteroso’s delayed action on a complaint and his failure to acknowledge official communications were found to have damaged the reputation of the OMB-MIN.
What is grave misconduct, as defined in this case?	Grave misconduct involves the transgression of established rules, particularly through unlawful behavior or gross neglect of duty, often with an element of corruption. Monteroso’s exploitation of Arquellano and misuse of public funds were deemed acts of grave misconduct.
What constitutes grave abuse of authority or oppression?	Grave abuse of authority, also known as oppression, involves a public officer wrongfully inflicting harm or injury under the color of their office. Monteroso’s actions towards Chief Administrative Officer Peligro, restricting access to HR files and berating her, constituted grave abuse of authority.
Were the IAB panel members disqualified from the case?	No, the Supreme Court clarified that the special panel members of the IAB were not disqualified from participating in the administrative cases. The panel acted as investigators, not complainants, and were therefore not subject to disqualification under Administrative Order No. 16-2003.
What penalties were imposed on Monteroso?	For simple neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, Monteroso was fined an amount equivalent to six months’ salary. For grave misconduct and grave abuse of authority, he was ordered dismissed from the service and fined an equivalent amount, along with accessory penalties.
What are the accessory penalties imposed?	The accessory penalties included forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of eligibility, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and a bar from taking civil service examinations. These penalties accompany the dismissal for grave misconduct and grave abuse of authority.
Why was a fine imposed instead of suspension or dismissal?	Since Monteroso’s term as Deputy Ombudsman had expired during the pendency of the administrative cases, the penalties of suspension or dismissal could no longer be implemented. As a result, the Ombudsman imposed a fine equivalent to his salary for six months in lieu of these penalties.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Monteroso case provides critical guidance on the standards of conduct expected from public officials. By defining the scope of administrative offenses and the measures that can be taken to enforce accountability, even after an official’s term has ended, this decision serves as a cornerstone in preserving the integrity of public service. It reinforces the principle that public office is a public trust, and any breach of that trust will be met with appropriate sanctions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: HUMPHREY T. MONTEROSO, PETITIONER, VS. SPECIAL PANEL NO. 13-01-IAB, REPRESENTED BY DONABEL ATIENZA, RESPONDENT., G.R. Nos. 235274-75, October 13, 2021

October 13, 2021

Reasonable Doubt Prevails: Acquittal in Bribery Case Due to Inconsistent Testimony

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted Carlos A. Catubao of direct bribery, underscoring the stringent standard of proof required in criminal cases. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Catubao, a former Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, received money in exchange for expediting a case. This decision highlights the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the presumption of innocence and demanding clear, consistent evidence before convicting individuals of corruption.

Conflicting Accounts: Did a Prosecutor Solicit a Bribe, or Was it Repayment and Gratitude?

The case originated from a complaint filed against Carlos A. Catubao, then Fourth Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, alleging that he accepted P3,000.00 from Cornelio Ragasa to expedite the resolution of estafa cases pending before him. The Sandiganbayan initially found Catubao guilty, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision, focusing on inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution’s key witnesses, Ragasa and his lawyer, Atty. Fernando Perito. These inconsistencies cast doubt on whether the money was indeed a bribe or, as the defense argued, a partial repayment of a loan coupled with a gift of gratitude, commonly known as “balato”.

The core of the legal battle revolved around Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines direct bribery. The elements are clear: the accused must be a public officer, they must have received a gift or promise, this gift must be in consideration of committing a crime or an act related to their office, and this act must relate to their official functions. While Catubao’s position as a prosecutor and the fact that the resolution of the estafa cases fell under his duties were not in dispute, the critical question was whether the money was given with the intent to influence his decision.

The Supreme Court meticulously dissected the testimonies presented by the prosecution. Atty. Perito’s account of when and how Catubao allegedly solicited the money was riddled with contradictions. At one point, he claimed Catubao asked for money during corridor encounters at the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs), while at another, he stated the solicitation occurred in the Provincial Prosecutor’s office. Similarly, Ragasa’s testimony about the timing and location of Catubao’s alleged hint for money was inconsistent with Atty. Perito’s version of events. These discrepancies led the Court to question the credibility of their accounts.

“Q: Where?
A: It was… whenever we meet in the corridor, in the sala of the RTC judges, sir when we see each other, he would ask and I will warn him that I will file a case against you.”

The Sandiganbayan dismissed these inconsistencies as minor, asserting that they did not undermine the witnesses’ overall credibility. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that these inconsistencies were not trivial. They directly impacted the central question of whether the money was indeed a bribe. The Court underscored that the burden of proving each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt rests squarely on the prosecution. Any doubt, therefore, must be resolved in favor of the accused.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court gave weight to the defense’s argument that the money could have been a repayment of a previous loan and a “balato.” The Ombudsman’s Resolution during the preliminary investigation acknowledged that Catubao had indeed lent Atty. Perito P1,000.00, lending credence to the defense’s claim that at least part of the P4,000.00 was intended as repayment. This acknowledgment directly undermined the prosecution’s narrative that the entire sum was solely intended as a bribe.

[I]n all criminal prosecutions, the Prosecution bears the burden to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In discharging this burden, the Prosecution’s duty is to prove each and every element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein.”

The Supreme Court addressed the Sandiganbayan’s reliance on Section 7(d) of Republic Act No. 6713, also known as the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.” While acknowledging that public officials should refrain from accepting gifts, the Court clarified that the elements of a violation of RA 6713 are distinct from those of direct bribery under the Revised Penal Code. The ethical considerations of public service, while important, cannot substitute for the legal requirement of proving each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the money was given in consideration of Catubao performing an act related to his official duties. The inconsistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, coupled with the defense’s credible explanation regarding the repayment and “balato,” created a reasonable doubt that warranted acquittal.

This decision serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of credible evidence and the high standard of proof required in criminal cases, particularly those involving public officials. It also highlights the distinction between ethical considerations and legal requirements. While public officials are expected to maintain the highest standards of conduct, they cannot be convicted of a crime based on ethical lapses alone. The prosecution must prove each and every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution successfully proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Carlos A. Catubao received money in consideration for expediting estafa cases pending before him, thus constituting direct bribery.
What is direct bribery under the Revised Penal Code?	Direct bribery, as defined in Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, involves a public officer receiving a gift or promise in consideration of committing a crime, performing an act not constituting a crime, or refraining from doing something which is their official duty to do.
Why did the Supreme Court acquit Carlos A. Catubao?	The Supreme Court acquitted Catubao due to inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses, which created reasonable doubt as to whether the money he received was indeed a bribe.
What inconsistencies were found in the prosecution’s case?	The inconsistencies pertained to the timing, location, and circumstances under which Catubao allegedly solicited the money, with conflicting accounts from the key witnesses.
What was the defense’s argument?	The defense argued that the money Catubao received was a partial repayment of a previous loan he had extended to Atty. Perito, coupled with a gift of gratitude known as “balato.”
What is “balato”?	“Balato” is a Filipino term referring to a gift or token of appreciation given out of goodwill, often after receiving a windfall or winning a game.
How does this case relate to the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees?	While the Sandiganbayan cited the Code of Conduct, the Supreme Court clarified that ethical considerations, although important, cannot substitute for the legal requirement of proving each element of direct bribery beyond a reasonable doubt.
What is the significance of the reasonable doubt standard?	The reasonable doubt standard requires the prosecution to prove each element of the crime to such a degree that no reasonable person would doubt the accused’s guilt. If any reasonable doubt exists, the accused must be acquitted.

This case underscores the critical importance of ensuring that evidence presented in court is consistent and credible, especially when dealing with allegations of corruption against public officials. It reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, safeguarding the fundamental right to presumption of innocence.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: CARLOS A. CATUBAO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 227371, October 02, 2019

October 2, 2019

Upholding Ethical Standards: Dismissal Affirmed for Conduct Prejudicial to Public Service

The Supreme Court has affirmed that public officials found repeatedly engaging in conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service will face dismissal, reinforcing the strict adherence to ethical standards in public office. This decision underscores that even factors like length of service and commendations cannot override the mandatory penalties prescribed by law for repeated offenses. Ultimately, this ruling stresses the importance of maintaining public trust through exemplary conduct and reinforces the principle that public office demands the highest standards of integrity and respect for others.

When Defamation Leads to Dismissal: Reodique’s Case on Public Service Conduct

The consolidated petitions of Loida S. Villanueva and the Office of the Ombudsman challenged the Court of Appeals’ decision to modify the penalty against F/SInsp. Rolando T. Reodique, who was found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The case originated from an incident where Reodique allegedly shouted defamatory words and made offensive gestures towards Villanueva. This incident, coupled with a previous similar offense, led the Ombudsman to initially order Reodique’s dismissal. The Court of Appeals, however, reduced the penalty to a one-year suspension, prompting the petitions to the Supreme Court, which questioned the Court of Appeals’ decision to lessen the penalty.

The Supreme Court anchored its analysis on Section 46 (27), Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292) and Section 22(t), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, which explicitly address conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Court emphasized that this offense doesn’t necessarily need to relate directly to an officer’s official duties. Rather, it focuses on whether the conduct tarnishes the image and integrity of the public office.

The Court cited established jurisprudence, noting that acts like misappropriation of public funds, abandonment of office, and falsification of documents all fall under this category. The act must be against the law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety, and public interest. These precedents underscore the broad scope of what constitutes conduct prejudicial to public service. This ensures that public officials are held to a high standard of behavior both in and out of their official capacities.

In Reodique’s case, both the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals agreed that his actions constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Supreme Court concurred, finding no reason to overturn these factual findings. The Court highlighted the importance of respecting the factual determinations of administrative bodies, especially when supported by substantial evidence. The Court reiterated the standard that administrative decisions should only be overturned when there is grave abuse of discretion, fraud, or an error of law.

However, the Supreme Court strongly disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ decision to reduce the penalty from dismissal to suspension. Section 22(t) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 clearly stipulates the penalties for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The law prescribes suspension for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. The Court emphasized that the law does not allow for exceptions based on considerations like “disproportionateness” or “harshness.”

The Supreme Court firmly stated that courts are bound to apply the law as written, as long as it does not violate any constitutional provision. The Court referenced Morfe v. Mutuc, underscoring the principle that courts interpret and apply laws regardless of their perceived wisdom. The ruling underscored the strictness of Section 22(t) of the implementing rules of the Administrative Code, which does not allow mitigating factors such as years in service or commendations to supersede the mandatory penalties.

In Reodique’s case, the records clearly indicated that he had previously been found administratively liable for the same offense. The prior case, Judith O. Mon v. F/Insp. Rolando T. Reodique, resulted in a six-month suspension without pay for uttering defamatory words. The Court emphasized that the current case constituted Reodique’s second offense. The proper penalty, therefore, was dismissal, as mandated by Section 22(t). The court emphasized that the primary aim in disciplining public officials is to improve public service and maintain public confidence in the government.

The Supreme Court underscored the importance of ethical standards for public officials and employees, referencing Republic Act No. 6713, also known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Section 4 of this Act mandates that public officials and employees must remain true to the people, act with justice and sincerity, respect the rights of others, and refrain from acts contrary to law and good morals. Any deviation from these norms, the Court asserted, constitutes conduct unbecoming of a government official or employee.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the Ombudsman’s decision to dismiss F/SInsp. Rolando T. Reodique for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, reducing the penalty to a one-year suspension. The Supreme Court addressed whether prior length of service can be considered for penalties.
What did F/SInsp. Reodique do that led to the complaint?	Reodique allegedly shouted defamatory words and made offensive gestures towards Loida S. Villanueva. This incident, combined with a prior similar offense, led to administrative charges.
What is “conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service”?	It refers to actions by a public official that tarnish the image and integrity of their office, even if those actions are not directly related to their official duties. Examples include misappropriation of funds, abandonment of office, and making false entries in public documents.
What penalty did the Ombudsman initially impose on Reodique?	The Ombudsman initially ordered Reodique’s dismissal from service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from holding public office. This was due to it being his second offense.
Why did the Court of Appeals reduce the penalty?	The Court of Appeals reasoned that dismissal was too disproportionate to the nature of the transgression, considering Reodique’s 26 years of service and commendations. But the Supreme Court stressed that the law did not make an exception.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the Ombudsman’s original penalty of dismissal. The Court emphasized that Section 22(t) of the Omnibus Rules mandates dismissal for a second offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Can prior offenses be considered in determining penalties?	Yes, prior offenses are critical in determining the appropriate penalty for administrative offenses. In this case, Reodique’s prior suspension for a similar offense was a key factor in the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold his dismissal.
What is the significance of Republic Act No. 6713 in this case?	Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, emphasizes the norms of conduct expected of public servants. The Court cited this law to underscore that public officials must act with justness, sincerity, and respect for the rights of others.
What happens if dismissal is no longer possible due to retirement or resignation?	If the penalty of dismissal can no longer be served due to retirement or resignation, the alternative penalty of a fine equivalent to the respondent’s salary for one year shall be imposed. This ensures there are penalties for the offense.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a powerful reminder of the high ethical standards expected of public officials. The ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to the prescribed penalties for administrative offenses, regardless of mitigating factors. This case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding public trust and ensuring accountability in government service.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Villanueva vs. Reodique, G.R. No. 222003, November 27, 2018

November 27, 2018

When Family Ties and Public Service Clash: Defining Grave Misconduct in Philippine Law

The Supreme Court ruled that Raquel A. De Castro, a municipal accountant, was guilty of grave misconduct for repeatedly approving transactions between her local government unit and businesses owned by her husband and daughter. This decision emphasizes that public officials must avoid any appearance of conflict of interest and upholds the strict standards of integrity required in public service, reinforcing that repeated violations, even without direct evidence of corruption, can constitute grave misconduct. It clarifies the responsibilities of local government employees regarding financial transactions and family-owned businesses.

The Accountant’s Dilemma: Family Business or Public Trust?

Raquel A. De Castro, a Municipal Accountant in Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro, faced administrative charges for transactions between the municipality and businesses owned by her husband and daughter. From 2006 to 2010, the Municipality of Bongabong engaged with Pink Plate’s General Merchandise, Pink Shop Computer Center, Pink Plate’s Bistro (owned by her husband), and Pink Splash Resort (owned by her daughter). The Field Investigation Unit (FIU) argued this violated Section 89 of the Local Government Code, which prohibits local officials from engaging in business transactions with their local government units. De Castro countered that she did not intervene in these transactions and merely certified the completeness of supporting documents. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon initially found her guilty of Grave Misconduct, but the Court of Appeals (CA) downgraded the charge to Simple Misconduct.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the CA, asserting that De Castro’s repeated actions constituted Grave Misconduct. The Court emphasized the legal definition of misconduct, distinguishing between simple and grave forms. Misconduct is grave when it involves corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of established rules. The critical question was whether De Castro’s actions rose to the level of grave misconduct, warranting a more severe penalty.

The Supreme Court cited critical provisions of Republic Act No. 7160, also known as the Local Government Code, to support its decision. Section 89 explicitly prohibits local government officials from engaging in business transactions with the local government unit they serve. According to the law:

Section 89. Prohibited Business and Pecuniary Interest. –

(a) It shall be unlawful for any local government official or employee, directly or indirectly, to:

Engage in any business transaction with the local government unit in which he is an official or employee or over which he has the power of supervision, or with any of its authorized boards, officials, agents, or attorneys, whereby money is to be paid, or property or any other thing of value is to be transferred, directly or indirectly, out of the resources of the local government unit to such person or firm;

Furthermore, Section 341 reinforces this prohibition, underscoring the administrative liability for local officers with any pecuniary interest in contracts or business dealings of their local government unit.

Section 341. Prohibitions Against Pecuniary Interest. -Without prejudice to criminal prosecution under applicable laws, any local treasurer, accountant, budget officer, or other accountable local officer having any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in any contract, work or other business of the local government unit of which he is an accountable officer shall be administratively liable therefor.

The Court referenced Imperial, Jr. v. Government Service Insurance System, which defined “flagrant disregard of rules” as a propensity to ignore established regulations. This includes open defiance of rules, repeated disregard of procurement rules, and arrogating responsibilities beyond one’s duties. These precedents emphasize that a pattern of disregarding rules, as manifested through consistent actions, constitutes flagrant disregard.

Flagrant disregard of rules is a ground that jurisprudence has already touched upon. It has been demonstrated, among others, in the instances when there had been open defiance of a customary rule; in the repeated voluntary disregard of established rules in the procurement of supplies; in the practice of illegally collecting fees more than what is prescribed for delayed registration of marriages; when several violations or disregard of regulations governing the collection of government funds were committed; and when the employee arrogated unto herself responsibilities that were clearly beyond her given duties. The common denominator in these cases was the employees propensity to ignore the rules as clearly manifested by his or her actions.

The Supreme Court found that De Castro’s repeated certifications of disbursement vouchers for transactions involving Pink Enterprises constituted a flagrant disregard of the law. Despite her claim that she merely certified the completeness of documents, the Court emphasized that her certification was a crucial step in the consummation of these transactions. This was highlighted by Chapter IV of R.A. No. 7160, Section 344.

Section 344. Certification, and Approval of, Vouchers. – No money shall be disbursed unless the local budget officer certifies to the existence of appropriation that has been legally made for the purpose, the local accountant has obligated said appropriation, and the local treasurer certifies to the availability of funds for the purpose. Vouchers and payrolls shall be certified to and approved by the head of the department or office who has administrative control of the fund concerned, as to validity, propriety, and legality of the claim involved. Except in cases of disbursements involving regularly recurring administrative expenses such as payrolls for regular or permanent employees, expenses for light, water, telephone and telegraph services, remittances to government creditor agencies such as GSIS, SSS, LDP, DBP, National Printing Office, Procurement Service of the DBM and others, approval of the disbursement voucher by the local chief executive himself shall be required whenever local funds are disbursed.

The Court emphasized that De Castro’s role as a local accountant required her to ensure compliance with legal requirements before obligating appropriations. Her repeated certifications, despite her awareness of the conflict of interest, demonstrated a clear disregard of these rules. De Castro’s actions were deemed not just simple misconduct but grave misconduct due to the repeated nature of the violations and the potential for public perception of corruption.

While considerations like length of service and good faith might mitigate penalties in some cases, the Court cautioned against their application when it could signal condoning the offense. In Japson v. Civil Service Commission, the Court emphasized that the damage to public service extends beyond financial losses to include the public’s perception of corruption and incompetence.

Prejudice to the service is not only through wrongful disbursement of public funds or loss of public property. Greater damage comes with the public’s perception of corruption and incompetence in the government.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Raquel A. De Castro’s actions constituted grave misconduct or simple misconduct, considering her role in approving transactions involving her family’s businesses and the Municipality of Bongabong.
What is the definition of grave misconduct?	Grave misconduct is defined as an intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior by a government official, characterized by elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules.
What law did De Castro violate?	De Castro violated Section 89 of Republic Act No. 7160, also known as the Local Government Code, which prohibits local government officials from engaging in business transactions with the local government unit they serve.
Why did the Supreme Court reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision?	The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals because it found that De Castro’s repeated certifications of disbursement vouchers, despite her conflict of interest, constituted a flagrant disregard of established rules, thus meeting the criteria for grave misconduct.
What is the significance of Section 344 of the Local Government Code in this case?	Section 344 highlights the role of the local accountant in obligating appropriations, making De Castro’s certification a crucial step in the transactions. It underscored her responsibility to ensure compliance with legal requirements, which she failed to do.
How does this case define “flagrant disregard of rules”?	The case, citing Imperial, Jr. v. Government Service Insurance System, defines “flagrant disregard of rules” as a propensity to ignore established regulations, which includes open defiance of rules, repeated disregard of procurement rules, and arrogating responsibilities beyond one’s duties.
Can length of service and good faith mitigate penalties in administrative cases?	While these factors can be considered, the Court is cautious about mitigating penalties if doing so would condone the offense or diminish the seriousness of the misconduct.
What are the implications for public servants in the Philippines?	The decision reinforces the high standard of integrity required of public servants and emphasizes that repeated violations of rules, even without direct evidence of corruption, can lead to severe penalties, including dismissal from service.

This case serves as a strong reminder of the importance of ethical conduct and adherence to legal standards for public officials. It underscores the principle that public service demands the highest level of integrity and that even indirect conflicts of interest can lead to severe consequences if not properly managed. This ruling clarifies the obligations of local government employees and reinforces the importance of avoiding situations where personal or familial interests could compromise their public duties.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: FIELD INVESTIGATION UNIT-OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON v. RAQUEL A. DE CASTRO, G.R. No. 232666, June 20, 2018

June 20, 2018

SALN Non-Disclosure: Intent Matters in Administrative Penalties for Public Officials

The Supreme Court clarified the standard for dishonesty and grave misconduct charges against public officials who fail to fully disclose assets in their Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs). In Daplas v. Department of Finance, the Court ruled that a mere failure to declare all assets does not automatically constitute dishonesty or grave misconduct. It emphasized that intent to deceive or conceal is a crucial element. Consequently, the Court reduced Concepcion C. Daplas’s penalty from dismissal to a fine, finding her guilty only of simple negligence because the prosecution failed to prove malicious intent.

When a Simple Oversight Isn’t Grave Misconduct: The Case of Concepcion Daplas

Concepcion C. Daplas, while serving as the City Treasurer of Pasay City and concurrently as the OIC Regional Director of the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) Region VII, faced administrative complaints for allegedly violating Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. These complaints stemmed from her failure to disclose certain assets in her SALNs, including a Mitsubishi Galant sedan registered under her late husband’s name and her stock subscription in KEI Realty and Development Corp (KEI).

The Office of the Ombudsman initially found Daplas guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and violation of Section 8 (A) of RA 6713, imposing the penalty of dismissal. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld this decision. However, the Supreme Court took a different view, emphasizing the necessity of proving intent to commit a wrong for offenses like Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct.

The requirement to file a SALN is enshrined in Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution:

Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.

This constitutional mandate aims to promote transparency and deter government officials from enriching themselves unlawfully. RA 6713 further implements this by requiring public officials to fully disclose their assets, liabilities, and net worth.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, distinguished between simple negligence and the more severe offenses of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct. Dishonesty requires intentional falsehood or deception, while Grave Misconduct involves intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule of law with elements of corruption or a clear intent to violate the law.

The court emphasized that:

Dishonesty is committed when an individual intentionally makes a false statement of any material fact, practices or attempts to practice any deception or fraud in order to secure his examination, registration, appointment, or promotion. It is understood to imply the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, betray or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; and the lack of fairness and straightforwardness.

And that:

Misconduct is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be manifest.

In Daplas’s case, the Court found no substantial evidence of intent to deceive. Her admission of the business interest in KEI in her counter-affidavit contradicted any malicious intent to conceal. The Ombudsman’s finding that her children had the financial capacity to establish KEI further weakened the claim of unexplained wealth.

The Court referenced previous rulings where the source of undisclosed wealth was properly accounted for, deeming it “explained wealth” not subject to penalty. The Court also considered Daplas’s claim that the Galant sedan was purchased with her husband’s personal funds and registered in his name, although this alone wasn’t conclusive proof, there was no sufficient evidence to prove Daplas was motivated by bad faith in not disclosing.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that Daplas’s actions constituted Simple Negligence rather than Dishonesty or Grave Misconduct. Simple Negligence, in this context, is akin to Simple Neglect of Duty, a less grave offense. Consequently, the Court reduced the penalty to a fine equivalent to one month and one day of her last salary, considering her resignation and the absence of bad faith.

This case underscores the importance of distinguishing between honest mistakes and intentional wrongdoing in administrative cases involving SALN disclosures. While public officials are expected to be diligent in fulfilling their disclosure obligations, penalties should be proportionate to the nature and severity of the offense, with due consideration given to the official’s intent and the presence of any mitigating circumstances.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Concepcion Daplas’s failure to disclose certain assets in her SALNs constituted Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, or merely Simple Negligence. The Supreme Court focused on whether there was intent to deceive or conceal.
What is a SALN?	A Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) is a document that government officials and employees are required to file annually, disclosing their assets, liabilities, and net worth, as well as those of their spouses and dependent children. It promotes transparency and helps prevent corruption.
What is the difference between Dishonesty and Simple Negligence in this context?	Dishonesty requires intentional falsehood or deception, implying a disposition to lie or cheat. Simple Negligence, on the other hand, involves a failure to exercise the diligence required by the circumstances, without any malicious intent.
What did the Ombudsman initially rule in this case?	The Ombudsman initially found Concepcion Daplas guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and violation of Section 8 (A) of RA 6713 and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service.
Why did the Supreme Court reduce the penalty?	The Supreme Court reduced the penalty because it found no substantial evidence of intent to deceive or conceal, which is a necessary element for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct. The court found Daplas guilty only of simple negligence.
What was the final penalty imposed by the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court imposed a fine equivalent to one month and one day of Concepcion Daplas’s last salary, considering her resignation and the absence of bad faith.
What assets did Daplas fail to declare in her SALNs?	Daplas failed to declare a Mitsubishi Galant sedan registered under her late husband’s name and her stock subscription in KEI Realty and Development Corp.
What is the legal basis for requiring public officials to file SALNs?	The legal basis for requiring public officials to file SALNs is found in Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act No. 6713, also known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

This case highlights that while SALN compliance is crucial for maintaining public trust, penalties should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense, taking into account the intent and circumstances of the public official. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that not all omissions in a SALN constitute dishonesty or grave misconduct, especially when there is no intent to deceive and the source of wealth can be explained.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Concepcion C. Daplas v. Department of Finance, G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017

April 17, 2017

Defining Misconduct in Public Service: Faller’s Case on Administrative Liability

In Office of the Ombudsman v. Faller, the Supreme Court clarified the distinctions between grave misconduct, simple misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service within the context of administrative liability for public officials. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding Rolando B. Faller guilty of simple misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, stemming from his receipt of unauthorized disbursements. This case underscores the importance of adherence to established rules and the impact of a public official’s actions on public trust, even in the absence of clear intent to violate the law.

When Good Faith Isn’t Enough: Questioning Ethics in Public Fund Management

The case revolves around Rolando B. Faller’s involvement in the disbursement of funds from a Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS) Foreclosure Project, while he was serving as Chief of Staff and Head Executive Assistant in the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC). The central issue emerged when Faller received funds earmarked as attorney’s fees and for the purchase of reading materials, which were later found to be irregular and lacking proper documentation. This led to an administrative complaint against Faller, questioning his liability for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

At the heart of the matter was whether Faller’s actions constituted grave misconduct, which requires elements of corruption or willful intent to violate the law. The Ombudsman initially found Faller guilty of grave misconduct, but the Court of Appeals (CA) modified this decision, finding him guilty only of simple misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Supreme Court then took up the case to determine whether the CA erred in its assessment of Faller’s administrative liability.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by defining the key terms in question. Misconduct, according to established jurisprudence, is a transgression of an established rule, particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. For misconduct to be considered an administrative offense, it must relate to the performance of official functions. The crucial distinction lies in the presence of additional elements:

The misconduct is considered as grave if it involves additional elements such as corruption or willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be proven by substantial evidence; otherwise, the misconduct is only simple.

Corruption, in this context, involves an official unlawfully using their position to procure benefits for themselves or others, contrary to their duty. Dishonesty, on the other hand, involves the concealment or distortion of truth relevant to one’s office. The Court emphasized the need for substantial evidence to prove these elements in order to establish grave misconduct or dishonesty.

The Court concurred with the CA’s finding that Faller should not be held liable for grave misconduct or dishonesty. While violations of established rules were evident, such as the disbursement of attorney’s fees contrary to OGCC guidelines and the failure to comply with documentation requirements under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1445, the evidence did not sufficiently prove that Faller acted with corruption or willful intent to violate the law. His receipt of the funds, while irregular, was based on the assumption that they were legitimate compensation for his work on the GSIS Foreclosure Project.

Furthermore, the Court noted that there was no clear indication that Faller intended to deceive or lie, which would be necessary to establish dishonesty. Affidavits presented suggested that the reading materials, for which Faller received funds, did indeed exist in the OGCC premises. However, the Court did find Faller liable for simple misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, citing his failure to exercise due diligence in complying with OGCC and procurement rules.

Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, as defined by jurisprudence, includes acts that tarnish the image and integrity of a public office. Faller’s mistakes and the irregularities surrounding the disbursements he received resulted in an anomaly that negatively impacted public perception of his office, thereby subjecting him to administrative liability.

In light of these findings, the Court modified the CA’s decision regarding the amount Faller was required to restitute. Since P30,000.00 was used to purchase reading materials that existed in the OGCC premises, Faller was only liable to return the P180,000.00 he received as attorney’s fees. The Court also upheld the penalty of suspension for one year, along with the accessory penalty of disqualification from promotion during that period, in accordance with the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Rolando B. Faller was administratively liable for grave misconduct, dishonesty, or only simple misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. This stemmed from his receipt of unauthorized disbursements while working at the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC).
What is the difference between grave and simple misconduct?	Grave misconduct involves elements of corruption or willful intent to violate the law, which must be proven by substantial evidence. Simple misconduct is a transgression of an established rule without these additional elements.
What does “conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service” mean?	This refers to actions that tarnish the image and integrity of a public office, even if they don’t involve corruption or dishonesty. It encompasses behavior that diminishes public trust in government service.
Why was Faller not found guilty of grave misconduct?	The court found no substantial evidence to prove that Faller acted with corruption or willful intent to violate the law. His receipt of the funds, while irregular, was based on the assumption that they were legitimate.
Why was Faller not found guilty of dishonesty?	There was no clear evidence that Faller intended to deceive or lie. The reading materials, for which he received funds, were found to exist in the OGCC premises.
What penalty did Faller receive?	Faller was suspended for one year and was directed to restitute P180,000.00 to the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel Trust Liability Account. He also received the accessory penalty of disqualification from promotion for the one-year period of suspension.
What was the basis for ordering restitution?	Restitution was ordered because Faller received attorney’s fees to which he was not entitled, given that the GSIS Foreclosure Project did not involve any court litigation, contrary to OGCC Office No. 006, series of 2004.
What is the significance of this case?	This case clarifies the standards for administrative liability of public officials and highlights the importance of due diligence, adherence to rules, and maintaining public trust in government service. It emphasizes that even without corrupt intent, officials can be held accountable for actions that tarnish the image of their office.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Office of the Ombudsman v. Faller serves as a reminder to public officials of the importance of upholding ethical standards and adhering to established rules in the management of public funds. While the absence of corrupt intent may mitigate the severity of administrative liability, officials are still accountable for their actions and must exercise due diligence to maintain public trust and confidence in government service.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS. ROLANDO B. FALLER, G.R. No. 215994, June 06, 2016

June 6, 2016

Public Officials and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service: Defining the Boundaries

The Supreme Court clarified that a public official’s actions, even if not directly related to their official duties, can constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service if those actions tarnish the image and integrity of their office. The Court emphasized that involving an elite police team like SWAT for personal matters constitutes an abuse of power, warranting administrative sanctions. This ruling serves as a reminder that public officials must maintain a high standard of ethical conduct, both on and off duty, to preserve public trust and confidence in government service.

When Personal Affairs Meet Public Office: Crossing the Line of Ethical Conduct

The case of Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas v. Castro revolves around Mary Ann T. Castro, an Assistant City Prosecutor, who was found to have used her position to involve a Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team in a personal dispute involving her brother and sister-in-law. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether Castro’s actions constituted simple misconduct, as the Court of Appeals (CA) had ruled, or the more serious offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, as argued by the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas. The resolution of this issue hinged on whether Castro’s actions, though not directly related to her official duties, nevertheless tarnished the image and integrity of her public office.

The factual backdrop involves a dispute over a vehicle purchased on credit. When the buyer, Castro’s brother, sought to return the vehicle, Castro allegedly used her influence to involve the police, specifically the SWAT team, to pressure the seller. The Ombudsman initially found Castro guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, but the CA modified this to simple misconduct, reducing the penalty. The Supreme Court, however, sided with the Ombudsman, clarifying the distinction between misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

The Court emphasized that **misconduct in office** must directly relate to the performance of official duties. As Justice Tuazon elucidated in Lacson v. Lopez, “Misconduct in office has a definite and well-understood legal meaning. By uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct such as affects his performance of his duties as an officer and not such only as affects his character as a private individual.” In contrast, **conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service** need not be connected to official functions but must tarnish the image and integrity of the public office. The Court in Pia v. Gervacio underscored this point, stating that actions may constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as long as they tarnish the image and integrity of the public office. This distinction is crucial in determining the appropriate administrative liability of public officials.

The Supreme Court drew a clear line, stating that Castro’s act of involving the SWAT team for a personal matter, unrelated to her prosecutorial duties, fell squarely under the definition of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Court noted that Castro’s actions created the impression that public officials could exploit the police force for personal gain, thereby undermining public trust in the integrity of the government. This ruling reinforces the principle that public officials are held to a higher standard of conduct, even in their private affairs, to maintain the public’s confidence in the impartiality and fairness of the government.

The Court also addressed Castro’s claim that she was denied due process. The Court found that Castro was indeed given the opportunity to respond to the allegations against her, and she submitted a counter-affidavit refuting the claims. The Court cited Avenido v. CSC, stating, “The charge against the respondent in an administrative case need not be drafted with the precision of an information in a criminal prosecution. It is sufficient that he is apprised of the substance of the charge against him; what is controlling is the allegation of the acts complained of, not the designation of the offense.” Since Castro was informed of the charges and had the chance to defend herself, the Court concluded that her right to due process was not violated.

This case has significant implications for public officials and the standards of conduct expected of them. It reinforces the idea that public office is a public trust, and officials must act in a manner that promotes and preserves the integrity of the government. The ruling serves as a reminder that the abuse of power or influence, even in personal matters, can have serious consequences. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of maintaining ethical conduct and avoiding actions that could tarnish the image of public service.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the respondent’s actions constituted simple misconduct or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. This hinged on whether her actions, though personal, tarnished the image of her public office.
What is the difference between misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service?	Misconduct must relate to the performance of official duties, while conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service need not be connected to official functions but must tarnish the image and integrity of the public office.
Why was the respondent found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service?	The respondent was found guilty because she involved the SWAT team in a personal matter, creating the impression that public officials can exploit the police force for personal gain, thereby undermining public trust.
Did the respondent have the opportunity to defend herself?	Yes, the Court found that the respondent was given the opportunity to respond to the allegations against her and submitted a counter-affidavit, thus satisfying the requirements of due process.
What was the final penalty imposed on the respondent?	The Supreme Court imposed a penalty of suspension from service for six (6) months and one (1) day.
What does this case imply for other public officials?	This case implies that public officials are held to a higher standard of conduct, even in their private affairs, to maintain the public’s confidence in the impartiality and fairness of the government.
Can an action be considered as ‘conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service’ even if it’s not related to the official’s job?	Yes, the Supreme Court made it clear in this case that the act does not need to be related to their official functions to constitute the offense, as long as it tarnishes the image of the public office.
Is there a specific law that the respondent violated?	While the respondent’s actions were evaluated in light of administrative offenses, the ruling underscores the principles embodied in laws like R.A. 6713, which promotes ethical standards for public officials.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas v. Castro serves as a critical reminder that public office demands a high standard of ethical conduct, both in and out of official duties. This ruling reinforces the boundaries of acceptable behavior for public officials and underscores the importance of maintaining public trust in the integrity of government service.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-VISAYAS VS. CASTRO, G.R. No. 172637, April 22, 2015

April 22, 2015

Grave Misconduct in Public Office: Upholding Ethical Standards in Government Service

The Supreme Court ruled in Office of the Ombudsman v. Mallari that public officials can be held administratively liable for grave misconduct even after retirement, emphasizing the importance of upholding ethical standards in government service. This decision reinforces the principle that public office is a public trust, and those who violate this trust will be held accountable, regardless of their current employment status. The ruling serves as a stern warning to government employees to act with integrity and diligence in the performance of their duties, ensuring that they do not abuse their authority or engage in corrupt practices.

Breach of Trust: Can a Public Officer Evade Liability by Retiring?

This case revolves around the administrative liability of Amalio A. Mallari, a former Senior Vice-President of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), for grave misconduct. The core issue is whether Mallari should be held accountable for irregularities in the issuance of a surety bond to ECOBEL Land, Inc., despite his subsequent retirement from GSIS. The Office of the Ombudsman found Mallari guilty of grave misconduct, leading to an order for his dismissal from service, cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from government employment. The Court of Appeals (CA), however, exonerated Mallari, prompting the Ombudsman to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s analysis hinged on the principle that public office is a public trust, and public officials must discharge their duties with utmost diligence and integrity. The Court emphasized that even after retirement, a public official remains accountable for actions committed during their tenure. The central question was whether Mallari’s actions constituted grave misconduct, warranting the penalties imposed by the Ombudsman. The Court examined the evidence presented, including the GSIS policies and procedures, to determine if Mallari had indeed violated established rules and regulations.

At the heart of the matter was the issuance of a US$10,000,000.00 surety bond to ECOBEL Land, Inc. The Ombudsman’s investigation revealed several irregularities in the processing and approval of this bond. First, the bond was issued without the required counter-bond and sufficient collateral, violating GSIS Policy and Procedural Guidelines (PPG). Second, as a high-risk bond, it required approval from the GSIS Board of Trustees, which was not obtained. Third, the bond was issued before ECOBEL paid the corresponding premium. Fourth, the bond was initially issued to Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB) as the obligee, but ECOBEL later used it with Bear and Stearns International Ltd. (BSIL), a foreign funder. These irregularities raised serious concerns about Mallari’s conduct as a high-ranking GSIS official.

The Supreme Court highlighted that Mallari played a crucial role in the approval and issuance of the ECOBEL bond. He presented a proposal to the GSIS Investment Committee (INCOM) to grant the guaranty payment bond to ECOBEL. He then endorsed the bond application, stating that it was “fully secured” despite lacking sufficient collateral. He also signed the ECOBEL bond without ensuring compliance with GSIS policies and procedures. These actions, the Court found, constituted a flagrant disregard of established rules and a failure to protect the interests of GSIS.

Moreover, the Court noted that Mallari had misrepresented the financial viability of ECOBEL. He stated that dollar funding was assured based on the Fil-Am markets in the U.S. and Europe, without sufficient basis. He also made it appear that PVB was the obligee when he knew that ECOBEL had a foreign funder. These misrepresentations, coupled with the hasty approval and issuance of the bond, indicated bad faith and a willful intent to disregard established rules. The Supreme Court referenced key GSIS policies to underscore the gravity of Mallari’s violations, citing PPG No. 16-76 and PPG No. 64-80-A, which outline the strict underwriting guidelines and the need for thorough evaluation of risks.

The Court emphasized that administrative liability can still attach even after retirement. The Ombudsman’s disciplinary authority extends to officials who committed violations while in government service, regardless of their current employment status. As such, Mallari’s retirement from GSIS did not shield him from the consequences of his actions. Furthermore, the penalties associated with grave misconduct, such as cancellation of eligibility and perpetual disqualification from government employment, remain applicable even after retirement. This principle ensures that public officials are held accountable for their actions, regardless of when those actions come to light.

The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of the required quantum of evidence in administrative cases. The Court reiterated that substantial evidence is sufficient to establish administrative liability. Substantial evidence is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In Mallari’s case, the Court found that the Ombudsman had presented substantial evidence to prove that he was guilty of grave misconduct. This evidence included the findings of the GSIS Legal Services Group, the GSIS Internal Audit Services, and the testimony of witnesses, all of which pointed to irregularities in the issuance of the ECOBEL bond.

In its analysis, the Court highlighted the core elements of grave misconduct: a transgression of an established rule of action, coupled with corruption or a willful intent to violate the law. The Court found that Mallari’s actions met this definition. He violated established GSIS policies and procedures, misrepresented facts to the INCOM, and acted with a willful disregard for the interests of GSIS. His conduct, the Court concluded, constituted grave misconduct, warranting the penalties imposed by the Ombudsman. The court quoted its prior decisions on misconduct, highlighting that grave misconduct involves corruption or a clear intent to violate the law.

The Supreme Court contrasted its ruling with the decision of the Court of Appeals, which had exonerated Mallari. The CA argued that there was no substantial evidence to hold Mallari administratively liable and that the bond did not legally come into existence because PVB did not agree to be the obligee. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the CA had failed to give due weight to the findings of the Ombudsman. The Court emphasized that the findings of fact and conclusions by the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence.

Moreover, the Court rejected Mallari’s defense that he had been reassigned and had no involvement in the subsequent use of the bond. The Court noted that even after his transfer, Mallari continued to promote the use of the bond and facilitated the loan agreement between ECOBEL and BSIL. His continued involvement, despite the suspension of guarantee payment bonds, further demonstrated his disregard for established rules and procedures. The Court also dismissed Mallari’s claim of good faith, noting that his actions and misrepresentations indicated a lack of integrity and a failure to uphold the interests of GSIS.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Office of the Ombudsman v. Mallari underscores the importance of ethical conduct and accountability in public service. The Court’s ruling serves as a reminder that public officials must act with integrity and diligence, and that violations of established rules and procedures will be met with appropriate sanctions. The decision also clarifies that retirement does not shield public officials from administrative liability for actions committed during their tenure. The Supreme Court emphasized the gravity of grave misconduct, noting that such behavior undermines public trust and confidence in the government. By reinstating the Ombudsman’s decision, the Court reaffirmed its commitment to upholding ethical standards in government service.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a public official could be held administratively liable for grave misconduct even after retirement, for actions committed during their time in office. The Supreme Court ruled that retirement does not shield officials from accountability.
What is grave misconduct?	Grave misconduct involves a transgression of established rules, coupled with corruption or a willful intent to violate the law. It is a serious offense that undermines public trust and confidence in government.
What evidence did the Ombudsman present against Mallari?	The Ombudsman presented evidence of irregularities in the issuance of a surety bond to ECOBEL Land, Inc., including violations of GSIS policies and procedures, misrepresentations, and a failure to protect the interests of GSIS. This included findings from GSIS Legal Services and Internal Audit.
What did the Court of Appeals rule, and why did the Supreme Court reverse it?	The Court of Appeals exonerated Mallari, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision. The Supreme Court emphasized the conclusive nature of the Ombudsman’s findings when supported by substantial evidence and that Mallari’s actions constituted a breach of public trust.
What are the penalties for grave misconduct?	The penalties for grave misconduct include dismissal from service, cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from government employment. These penalties aim to maintain the integrity of public service.
Why was Mallari held liable even after retirement?	Mallari was held liable because his actions constituting grave misconduct occurred during his tenure as a public official. The principle is that retirement does not shield individuals from accountability for actions committed while in government service.
What is the significance of GSIS policies and procedures in this case?	GSIS policies and procedures, such as PPG No. 16-76 and PPG No. 64-80-A, were crucial in determining whether Mallari violated established rules. The Court relied on these policies to assess the gravity of his misconduct.
What is substantial evidence in administrative cases?	Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is a lower standard than preponderance of evidence (civil) or proof beyond reasonable doubt (criminal).
How does this case affect public officials?	This case serves as a reminder to public officials that they must act with integrity and diligence, and that they will be held accountable for their actions, regardless of their employment status. It reinforces the principle that public office is a public trust.

In conclusion, Office of the Ombudsman v. Mallari underscores the importance of accountability in public service and reinforces ethical standards for government officials. The Supreme Court’s decision sets a clear precedent that public servants will be held responsible for their actions, ensuring that public trust is maintained and that the government operates with integrity.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS. AMALIO A. MALLARI, G.R. No. 183161, December 03, 2014

December 3, 2014

The Duty to Disclose: Accrued Interest in SALNs and the Limits of Administrative Liability

In Marquez v. Ovejera, the Supreme Court clarified the extent of disclosure required in the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) for public officials. The Court ruled that public officials must declare not only the principal amount of investments but also any accrued interest. This ruling underscores the importance of transparency and full disclosure in public service, reinforcing the ethical standards expected of government employees.

Unveiling Hidden Gains: When a Sheriff’s SALN Sparked Scrutiny

This case arose from an administrative complaint filed against Judge Venancio M. Ovejera and Sheriff IV Lourdes E. Collado. While the initial complaint involved allegations of abuse of authority and disregard of due process, the focus shifted to Collado’s failure to fully disclose her assets in her SALN. Specifically, the issue revolved around time deposits with the Moncada Women’s Credit Corporation (MWCC) and whether Collado adequately reported the accrued interest on these deposits.

The complainants alleged that Collado violated Republic Act No. 6713 (RA 6713), also known as the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees,” by not disclosing certain time deposits in her SALN for the years 2004 and 2005. These time deposits included amounts such as P200,100.00, P300,100.00, P400,100.00, P500,100.00, P600,100.00 and P800,100.00 invested at various times. Collado admitted to declaring the initial capital but not the accrued interest, believing that the interest only needed to be declared upon conversion of the time deposits to cash.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initially investigated the matter and recommended re-docketing the case as a regular administrative case. The case was then referred to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for further investigation. The Executive Judge recommended the dismissal of the complaint, finding that Collado had declared the initial capital and had no intent to falsify her SALN. However, the OCA later found that Collado had also failed to submit her SALN for the years 2000 and 2001, based on a certification from the Office of Administrative Services (OAS).

The Supreme Court then had to determine whether Collado should be held administratively liable for violating the provisions on SALN submission. The Court focused on Section 8 of RA 6713, which mandates full disclosure of all assets, including investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds, and the like. The critical question was whether the accrued interest on the time deposits fell within the scope of “all other assets” that must be declared.

The Court emphasized that the requirement of SALN submission is crucial for curtailing corruption and maintaining honesty in public service. By requiring full disclosure, the public can monitor the affluence of public officials and verify their undisclosed properties or sources of income. The Supreme Court referenced its stance on SALN requirements as a mechanism against corruption, quoting:

Verily, the requirement of SALN submission is aimed at curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for official corruption, as well as at maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service. With such disclosure, the public would, to a reasonable extent, be able to monitor the affluence of public officials, and, in such manner, provides a check and balance mechanism to verify their undisclosed properties and/or sources of income.

The Court found that Collado’s failure to disclose the accrued interest in her SALN for 2004 and 2005 constituted a violation of Section 8 of RA 6713. Although she declared the original amount of the time deposits, she did not disclose the additional income generated from the interest. Therefore, she did not fully comply with the legal requirement of declaring all assets.

However, the Court also addressed the OCA’s finding that Collado failed to submit her SALN for the years 2000 and 2001. The Court held that it could not hold Collado administratively liable for this omission because she was not given an opportunity to be heard on this matter. This highlights the importance of due process in administrative proceedings.

Regarding the appropriate penalty, Section 11 of RA 6713 provides for a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six months’ salary, depending on the gravity of the offense. The Court, citing existing jurisprudence, imposed a fine of P5,000.00. This decision was influenced by the fact that this appeared to be Collado’s first offense and that there was no evidence of bad faith or fraudulent intent.

The Supreme Court determined the penalty in this case and invoked Section 11 of RA 6713:

Any public official or employee, regardless of whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing any violation of this Act shall be punished [with, among others,] a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months’ salary x x x depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency.

The Court also dismissed the allegations that Collado violated the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), as there was no substantial basis for this claim. Similarly, the complaint against Judge Ovejera was dismissed for lack of evidence. The dismissal of AMLA allegations underscore the high burden of proof required to substantiate such serious claims.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a public official’s failure to disclose accrued interest on time deposits in their SALN constitutes a violation of Republic Act No. 6713. The court ruled that such omission does violate the law.
What is a SALN?	SALN stands for Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth. It is a document that public officials and employees are required to file under oath, disclosing their assets, liabilities, and net worth, as well as those of their spouses and unmarried children under 18 years of age living in their households.
Why are SALNs required?	SALNs are required to promote transparency and accountability in public service. They help to curtail corruption by allowing the public to monitor the financial interests and wealth of public officials.
What assets must be disclosed in a SALN?	Public officials must disclose all real and personal properties, including investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds, and other similar assets. This includes the acquisition cost, assessed value, and current fair market value of real properties.
What was the Court’s ruling on Collado’s failure to disclose interest?	The Court ruled that Collado’s failure to disclose the accrued interest on her time deposits in her SALN for 2004 and 2005 constituted a violation of Section 8 of RA 6713. This established that such omission is administratively liable.
What penalty did Collado receive?	The Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00, which was to be deducted from her retirement benefits, considering her compulsory retirement on June 11, 2011. This penalty took into account that this was her first offense and that there was no evidence of bad faith.
What happened to the other charges against Collado?	The Court dismissed the charges that Collado violated the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) due to a lack of substantial basis. The Court also refused to consider claims that Collado failed to submit her SALN for years she was not noticed regarding the deficiency.
What was the outcome for Judge Ovejera?	The administrative complaint against Judge Venancio M. Ovejera was dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence. This highlights that proper evidence is important in administrative cases.

The Marquez v. Ovejera case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to ethical standards in public service. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes that public officials must be transparent and fully disclose their assets, including accrued interest on investments, in their SALNs. This ruling reinforces the principle that public office is a public trust, requiring the highest standards of honesty and integrity.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ANGELITO R. MARQUEZ et al. VS. JUDGE VENANCIO M. OVEJERA, A.M. No. P-11-2903, February 05, 2014

February 5, 2014