ethical standards for government officials and employees

1. Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public
officers and employees must, at all times, be
accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and
efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and
lead modest lives.

2. Section 15. The right of the State to recover
properties unlawfully acquired by public officials
or employees, from them or from their nominees
or transferees, shall not be barred by
prescription, laches, or estoppel.

3. Section 16. No loan, guaranty, or other form of
financial accommodation for any business
purpose may be granted, directly or indirectly, by
any government-owned or controlled bank or
financial institution to the President, the Vice-
President, the Members of the Cabinet, the
Congress, the Supreme Court, and the
Constitutional Commissions, the Ombudsman, or
to any firm or entity in which they have controlling
interest, during their tenure.

4. 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.

5. Section 18. Public officers and employees owe
the State and this Constitution allegiance at all
times and any public officer or employee who
seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the
status of an immigrant of another country during
his tenure shall be dealt with by law.

6. Section 35. Ethics in Government. - All public
officers and employees shall be bound by a Code
of Ethics to be promulgated by the Civil Service
Commission.

8. This Act shall be known as the "Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees."

9.  It is the policy of the State to promote a high
standard of ethics in public service. Public
officials and employees shall at all times be
accountable to the people and shall discharge
their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity,
competence, and loyalty, act with patriotism
and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold
public interest over personal interest.

10.  (a) "Government" includes the National Government, the local governments, and
all other instrumentalities, agencies or branches of the Republic of the Philippines
including government-owned or controlled corporations, and their subsidiaries.
 (b) "Public Officials" includes elective and appointive officials and employees,
permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non-career service, including
military and police personnel, whether or not they receive compensation,
regardless of amount.
 (c) "Gift" refers to a thing or a right to dispose of gratuitously, or any act or
liberality, in favor of another who accepts it, and shall include a simulated sale or
an ostensibly onerous disposition thereof. It shall not include an unsolicited gift of
nominal or insignificant value not given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a
favor from a public official or employee.

11.  (d) "Receiving any gift" includes the act of accepting directly or indirectly, a
gift from a person other than a member of his family or relative as defined
in this Act, even on the occasion of a family celebration or national festivity
like Christmas, if the value of the gift is neither nominal nor insignificant,
or the gift is given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor.
 (e) "Loan" covers both simple loan and commodatum as well as
guarantees, financing arrangements or accommodations intended to
ensure its approval.
 (f) "Substantial stockholder" means any person who owns, directly or
indirectly, shares of stock sufficient to elect a director of a corporation.
This term shall also apply to the parties to a voting trust.

12.  (g) "Family of public officials or employees" means their spouses
and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age.
 (h) "Person" includes natural and juridical persons unless the
context indicates otherwise.
 (i) "Conflict of interest" arises when a public official or employee is a
member of a board, an officer, or a substantial stockholder of a
private corporation or owner or has a substantial interest in a
business, and the interest of such corporation or business, or his
rights or duties therein, may be opposed to or affected by the
faithful performance of official duty.

13.  (j) "Divestment" is the transfer of title or disposal
of interest in property by voluntarily, completely
and actually depriving or dispossessing oneself of
his right or title to it in favor of a person or persons
other than his spouse and relatives as defined in
this Act.
 (k) "Relatives" refers to any and all persons related
to a public official or employee within the fourth
civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, including
bilas, inso and balae.

15.  (a) Commitment to public interest. - Public officials and
employees shall always uphold the public interest over and
above personal interest. All government resources and
powers of their respective offices must be employed and
used efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically,
particularly to avoid wastage in public funds and revenues.
 (b) Professionalism. - Public officials and employees shall
perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree
of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill. They
shall enter public service with utmost devotion and
dedication to duty. They shall endeavor to discourage wrong
perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue
patronage.

16.  (c) Justness and sincerity. - Public officials and employees shall
remain true to the people at all times. They must act with justness
and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially
the poor and the underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the
rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law,
good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety
and public interest. They shall not dispense or extend undue favors
on account of their office to their relatives whether by consanguinity
or affinity except with respect to appointments of such relatives to
positions considered strictly confidential or as members of their
personal staff whose terms are coterminous with theirs.
 (d) Political neutrality. - Public officials and employees shall provide
service to everyone without unfair discrimination and regardless of
party affiliation or preference.

17.  (e) Responsiveness to the public. - Public officials and employees shall extend
prompt, courteous, and adequate service to the public. Unless otherwise provided
by law or when required by the public interest, public officials and employees shall
provide information of their policies and procedures in clear and understandable
language, ensure openness of information, public consultations and hearings
whenever appropriate, encourage suggestions, simplify and systematize policy,
rules and procedures, avoid red tape and develop an understanding and
appreciation of the socio-economic conditions prevailing in the country, especially
in the depressed rural and urban areas.
 (f) Nationalism and patriotism. - Public officials and employees shall at all times be
loyal to the Republic and to the Filipino people, promote the use of locally produced
goods, resources and technology and encourage appreciation and pride of country
and people. They shall endeavor to maintain and defend Philippine sovereignty
against foreign intrusion.

18.  (g) Commitment to democracy. - Public officials and
employees shall commit themselves to the democratic way of
life and values, maintain the principle of public
accountability, and manifest by deeds the supremacy of
civilian authority over the military. They shall at all times
uphold the Constitution and put loyalty to country above
loyalty to persons or party.
 (h) Simple living. - Public officials and employees and their
families shall lead modest lives appropriate to their positions
and income. They shall not indulge in extravagant or
ostentatious display of wealth in any form.

19.  (B) The Civil Service Commission shall adopt
positive measures to promote (1) observance of
these standards including the dissemination of
information programs and workshops authorizing
merit increases beyond regular progression steps,
to a limited number of employees recognized by
their office colleagues to be outstanding in their
observance of ethical standards; and (2)
continuing research and experimentation on
measures which provide positive motivation to
public officials and employees in raising the
general level of observance of these standards.

21.  (a) Act promptly on letters and requests. - All public officials
and employees shall, within fifteen (15) working days from
receipt thereof, respond to letters, telegrams or other means
of communications sent by the public. The reply must
contain the action taken on the request.
 (b) Submit annual performance reports. - All heads or other
responsible officers of offices and agencies of the
government and of government-owned or controlled
corporations shall, within forty-five (45) working days from
the end of the year, render a performance report of the
agency or office or corporation concerned. Such report shall
be open and available to the public within regular office
hours.

22.  (c) Process documents and papers expeditiously. - All official papers and
documents must be processed and completed within a reasonable time from
the preparation thereof and must contain, as far as practicable, not more than
three (3) signatories therein. In the absence of duly authorized signatories, the
official next-in-rank or officer in charge shall sign for and in their behalf.
 (d) Act immediately on the public's personal transactions. - All public officials
and employees must attend to anyone who wants to avail himself of the
services of their offices and must, at all times, act promptly and expeditiously.
 (e) Make documents accessible to the public. - All public documents must be
made accessible to, and readily available for inspection by, the public within
reasonable working hours.

24.  A system of annual incentives and rewards is
hereby established in order to motivate and inspire
public servants to uphold the highest standards of
ethics. For this purpose, a Committee on Awards to
Outstanding Public Officials and Employees is
hereby created composed of the following: the
Ombudsman and Chairman of the Civil Service
Commission as Co-Chairmen, and the Chairman of
the Commission on Audit, and two government
employees to be appointed by the President, as
members.

25.  It shall be the task of this Committee to
conduct a periodic, continuing review of the
performance of public officials and employees,
in all the branches and agencies of
Government and establish a system of annual
incentives and rewards to the end that due
recognition is given to public officials and
employees of outstanding merit on the basis of
the standards set forth in this Act.

26.  The conferment of awards shall take into account, among other things, the
following: the years of service and the quality and consistency of
performance, the obscurity of the position, the level of salary, the unique
and exemplary quality of a certain achievement, and the risks or
temptations inherent in the work. Incentives and rewards to government
officials and employees of the year to be announced in public ceremonies
honoring them may take the form of bonuses, citations, directorships in
government-owned or controlled corporations, local and foreign scholarship
grants, paid vacations and the like. They shall likewise be automatically
promoted to the next higher position with the commensurate salary
suitable to their qualifications. In case there is no next higher position or it
is not vacant, said position shall be included in the budget of the office in
the next General Appropriations Act. The Committee on Awards shall adopt
its own rules to govern the conduct of its activities.

28.  (a) Financial and material interest. - Public
officials and employees shall not, directly or
indirectly, have any financial or material
interest in any transaction requiring the
approval of their office.

29. (b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public
officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:
(1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, employee,
consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any private
enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their office unless
expressly allowed by law;
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized
by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or
tend to conflict with their official functions; or
(3) Recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise which
has a regular or pending official transaction with their office.
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year
after resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except in
the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professional concerned
cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter before the
office he used to be with, in which case the one-year prohibition shall
likewise apply.

30.  (c) Disclosure and/or misuse of confidential
information. - Public officials and employees shall
not use or divulge, confidential or classified
information officially known to them by reason of
their office and not made available to the public,
either:
(1) To further their private interests, or give
undue advantage to anyone; or
(2) To prejudice the public interest.

31. (d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. - Public
officials and employees shall not solicit or accept,
directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor,
entertainment, loan or anything of monetary
value from any person in the course of their
official duties or in connection with any operation
being regulated by, or any transaction which may
be affected by the functions of their office.

32. As to gifts or grants from foreign governments, the Congress
consents to:
(i) The acceptance and retention by a public official or
employee of a gift of nominal value tendered and received as a
souvenir or mark of courtesy;
(ii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of a gift in
the nature of a scholarship or fellowship grant or medical
treatment; or
(iii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of travel
grants or expenses for travel taking place entirely outside the
Philippine (such as allowances, transportation, food, and
lodging) of more than nominal value if such acceptance is
appropriate or consistent with the interests of the Philippines,
and permitted by the head of office, branch or agency to which
he belongs.

33. Public officials and employees have an obligation
to accomplish and submit declarations under
oath of, and the public has the right to know,
their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial
and business interests including those of their
spouses and of unmarried children under
eighteen (18) years of age living in their
households.

34. (A) Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial
Disclosure. - All public officials and employees, except those
who serve in an honorary capacity, laborers and casual or
temporary workers, shall file under oath their Statement of
Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and a Disclosure of
Business Interests and Financial Connections and those of
their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18)
years of age living in their households.
The two documents shall contain information on the following:
(a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed
value and current fair market value;
(b) personal property and acquisition cost;
(c) all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in
banks, stocks, bonds, and the like;
(d) liabilities, and;
(e) all business interests and financial connections.

35. The documents must be filed:
(a) within thirty (30) days after assumption of
office;
(b) on or before April 30, of every year thereafter;
and
(c) within thirty (30) days after separation from
the service.

36. All public officials and employees required under this
section to file the aforestated documents shall also
execute, within thirty (30) days from the date of their
assumption of office, the necessary authority in
favor of the Ombudsman to obtain from all
appropriate government agencies, including the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, such documents as may
show their assets, liabilities, net worth, and also
their business interests and financial connections in
previous years, including, if possible, the year when
they first assumed any office in the Government.
Husband and wife who are both public officials or
employees may file the required statements jointly or
separately.

37. The Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the Disclosure
of Business Interests and Financial Connections shall be filed by:
(1) Constitutional and national elective officials, with the national office
of the Ombudsman;
(2) Senators and Congressmen, with the Secretaries of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, respectively; Justices, with the Clerk of
Court of the Supreme Court; Judges, with the Court Administrator; and
all national executive officials with the Office of the President.
(3) Regional and local officials and employees, with the Deputy
Ombudsman in their respective regions;
(4) Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval
captain, with the Office of the President, and those below said ranks,
with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions; and
(5) All other public officials and employees, defined in Republic Act No.
3019, as amended, with the Civil Service Commission.

38. (B) Identification and disclosure of relatives. - It
shall be the duty of every public official or
employee to identify and disclose, to the best of
his knowledge and information, his relatives in
the Government in the form, manner and
frequency prescribed by the Civil Service
Commission.

39. (C) Accessibility of documents. –
(1) Any and all statements filed under this Act, shall be
made available for inspection at reasonable hours.
(2) Such statements shall be made available for copying or
reproduction after ten (10) working days from the time they
are filed as required by law.
(3) Any person requesting a copy of a statement shall be
required to pay a reasonable fee to cover the cost of
reproduction and mailing of such statement, as well as the
cost of certification.
(4) Any statement filed under this Act shall be available to
the public for a period of ten (10) years after receipt of the
statement. After such period, the statement may be
destroyed unless needed in an ongoing investigation.

40. (D) Prohibited acts. - It shall be unlawful for any
person to obtain or use any statement filed under
this Act for:
(a) any purpose contrary to morals or public
policy; or
(b) any commercial purpose other than by news
and communications media for dissemination to
the general public.

41. A public official or employee shall avoid conflicts of interest
at all times. When a conflict of interest arises, he shall
resign from his position in any private business enterprise
within thirty (30) days from his assumption of office and/or
divest himself of his shareholdings or interest within sixty
(60) days from such assumption.
The same rule shall apply where the public official or
employee is a partner in a partnership.
The requirement of divestment shall not apply to those
who serve the Government in an honorary capacity nor to
laborers and casual or temporary workers.

42. (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.

43. (b) In order to carry out their responsibilities under
this Act, the designated Committees of both Houses
of Congress shall have the power within their
respective jurisdictions, to render any opinion
interpreting this Act, in writing, to persons covered by
this Act, subject in each instance to the approval by
affirmative vote of the majority of the particular
House concerned.
The individual to whom an opinion is rendered, and
any other individual involved in a similar factual
situation, and who, after issuance of the opinion acts
in good faith in accordance with it shall not be
subject to any sanction provided in this Act.

44. (c) The heads of other offices shall perform the
duties stated in subsections (a) and (b) hereof
insofar as their respective offices are concerned,
subject to the approval of the Secretary of
Justice, in the case of the Executive Department
and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in
the case of the Judicial Department.

45. (a) 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 a fine not exceeding the equivalent
of six (6) months' salary or suspension not exceeding one (1)
year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense after
due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. If the
violation is punishable by a heavier penalty under another law,
he shall be prosecuted under the latter statute. Violations of
Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall be punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not
exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000), or both, and, in the
discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction,
disqualification to hold public office.

46. (b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper
administrative proceeding shall be sufficient
cause for removal or dismissal of a public official
or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is
instituted against him.

47. (c) Private individuals who participate in
conspiracy as co-principals, accomplices or
accessories, with public officials or employees, in
violation of this Act, shall be subject to the same
penal liabilities as the public officials or
employees and shall be tried jointly with them.

48. (d) The official or employee concerned may bring
an action against any person who obtains or uses
a report for any purpose prohibited by Section 8
(D) of this Act. The Court in which such action is
brought may assess against such person a
penalty in any amount not to exceed twenty-five
thousand pesos (P25,000). If another sanction
hereunder or under any other law is heavier, the
latter shall apply.

51. Petitioner is a government employee, being a department head
of the Population Commission with office at the Provincial
Capitol, Trece Martirez City, Cavite.
Sometime in March 2001, petitioner agreed to help her friend,
respondent Julia A. Restrivera, to have the latter’s land located
in Carmona, Cavite, registered under the Torrens System.
Petitioner said that the expenses would reach 150,000 and
₱
accepted 50,000 from respondent to cover the initial
₱
expenses for the titling of respondent’s land. However,
petitioner failed to accomplish her task because it was found
out that the land is government property. When petitioner failed
to return the 50,000, respondent sued her for estafa.
₱
Respondent also filed an administrative complaint for grave
misconduct or conduct unbecoming a public officer against
petitioner before the Office of the Ombudsman.

52. The Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of violating Section
4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 and suspended her from office for six
months without pay. The Ombudsman ruled that petitioner
failed to abide by the standard set in Section 4(b) of R.A. No.
6713 and deprived the government of the benefit of committed
service when she embarked on her private interest to help
respondent secure a certificate of title over the latter’s land.
Upon motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman, in an
Order5 dated March 15, 2004, reduced the penalty to three
months suspension without pay. According to the Ombudsman,
petitioner’s acceptance of respondent’s payment created a
perception that petitioner is a fixer. Her act fell short of the
standard of personal conduct required by Section 4(b) of R.A.
No. 6713 that public officials shall endeavor to discourage
wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of
undue patronage. The Ombudsman held:

53. x x x [petitioner] admitted x x x that she indeed received
the amount of 50,000.00 from the [respondent] and
₱
even contracted Engr. Liberato Patromo, alleged Licensed
Geodetic Engineer to do the surveys.
While it may be true that [petitioner] did not actually deal
with the other government agencies for the processing of
the titles of the subject property, we believe, however, that
her mere act in accepting the money from the
[respondent] with the assurance that she would work for
the issuance of the title is already enough to create a
perception that she is a fixer. Section 4(b) of [R.A.] No.
6713 mandates that public officials and employees shall
endeavor to discourage wrong perception of their roles as
dispenser or peddler of undue patronage.

54. 1. Does the Ombudsman have jurisdiction over a case
involving a private dealing by a government employee
or where the act complained of is not related to the
performance of official duty?
2. Did the CA commit grave abuse of discretion in finding
petitioner administratively liable despite the dismissal
of the estafa case?
3. Did the CA commit grave abuse of discretion in not
imposing a lower penalty in view of mitigating
circumstances?

55. On the first issue, we agree with the CA that the Ombudsman has
jurisdiction over respondent’s complaint against petitioner although the
act complained of involves a private deal between them. Section
13(1),13 Article XI of the 1987 Constitution states that the Ombudsman
can investigate on its own or on complaint by any person any act or
omission of any public official or employee when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, or improper. Under Section 1614 of R.A.
No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, the
jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance,
misfeasance, and nonfeasance committed by any public officer or
employee during his/her tenure. Section 1915 of R.A. No. 6770 also
states that the Ombudsman shall act on all complaints relating, but not
limited, to acts or omissions which are unfair or irregular. Thus, even if
the complaint concerns an act of the public official or employee which is
not service-connected, the case is within the jurisdiction of the
Ombudsman. The law does not qualify the nature of the illegal act or
omission of the public official or employee that the Ombudsman may
investigate. It does not require that the act or omission be related to or
be connected with or arise from the performance of official duty. Since
the law does not distinguish, neither should we.

56. On the second issue, it is wrong for petitioner to say
that since the estafa case against her was dismissed,
she cannot be found administratively liable. It is
settled that administrative cases may proceed
independently of criminal proceedings, and may
continue despite the dismissal of the criminal
charges.
For proper consideration instead is petitioner’s
liability under Sec. 4(A)(b) of R.A. No. 6713.
We quote the full text of Section 4 of R.A. No. 6713:
SEC. 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and
Employees. -

57. Both the Ombudsman and CA found the petitioner
administratively liable for violating Section 4(A)(b) on
professionalism. "Professionalism" is defined as the conduct,
aims, or qualities that characterize or mark a profession. A
professional refers to a person who engages in an activity with
great competence. Indeed, to call a person a professional is to
describe him as competent, efficient, experienced, proficient or
polished.18 In the context of Section 4 (A)(b) of R.A. No. 6713,
the observance of professionalism also means upholding the
integrity of public office by endeavoring "to discourage wrong
perception of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue
patronage." Thus, a public official or employee should avoid any
appearance of impropriety affecting the integrity of government
services. However, it should be noted that Section 4(A)
enumerates the standards of personal conduct for public
officers with reference to "execution of official duties."

58. In the case at bar, the Ombudsman concluded that petitioner
failed to carry out the standard of professionalism by devoting
herself on her personal interest to the detriment of her solemn
public duty. The Ombudsman said that petitioner’s act deprived
the government of her committed service because the
generation of a certificate of title was not within her line of
public service. In denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration, the Ombudsman said that it would have been
sufficient if petitioner just referred the respondent to the
persons/officials incharge of the processing of the documents
for the issuance of a certificate of title. While it may be true that
she did not actually deal with the other government agencies
for the processing of the titles of the subject property,
petitioner’s act of accepting the money from respondent with
the assurance that she would work for the issuance of the title
is already enough to create a perception that she is a fixer.

59. Evidently, both the Ombudsman and CA interpreted Section 4(A) of R.A.
No. 6713 as broad enough to apply even to private transactions that
have no connection to the duties of one’s office. We hold, however, that
petitioner may not be penalized for violation of Section 4 (A)(b) of R.A.
No. 6713. The reason though does not lie in the fact that the act
complained of is not at all related to petitioner’s discharge of her duties
as department head of the Population Commission.
In addition to its directive under Section 4(B), Congress authorized19
the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to promulgate the rules and
regulations necessary to implement R.A. No. 6713. Accordingly, the CSC
issued the Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees (hereafter, Implementing
Rules). Rule V of the Implementing Rules provides for an Incentive and
Rewards System for public officials and employees who have
demonstrated exemplary service and conduct on the basis of their
observance of the norms of conduct laid down in Section 4 of R.A. No.
6713

60. In Domingo v. Office of the Ombudsman,20 this
Court had the occasion to rule that failure to
abide by the norms of conduct under Section 4(A)
(b) of R.A. No. 6713, in relation to its
implementing rules, is not a ground for
disciplinary action, to wit:

61. The charge of violation of Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 deserves further comment. The
provision commands that "public officials and employees shall perform and discharge their
duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill." Said
provision merely enunciates "professionalism as an ideal norm of conduct to be observed by
public servants, in addition to commitment to public interest, justness and sincerity, political
neutrality, responsiveness to the public, nationalism and patriotism, commitment to
democracy and simple living. Following this perspective, Rule V of the Implementing Rules of
R.A. No. 6713 adopted by the Civil Service Commission mandates the grant of incentives and
rewards to officials and employees who demonstrate exemplary service and conduct based on
their observance of the norms of conduct laid down in Section 4. In other words, under the
mandated incentives and rewards system, officials and employees who comply with the high
standard set by law would be rewarded. Those who fail to do so cannot expect the same
favorable treatment. However, the Implementing Rules does not provide that they will have to
be sanctioned for failure to observe these norms of conduct. Indeed, Rule X of the
Implementing Rules affirms as grounds for administrative disciplinary action only acts
"declared unlawful or prohibited by the Code." Rule X specifically mentions at least twenty
three (23) acts or omissions as grounds for administrative disciplinary action. Failure to abide
by the norms of conduct under Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 is not one of them. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Consequently, the Court dismissed the charge of violation of Section 4(A)(b) of R.A. No. 6713
in that case.

62. But is petitioner nonetheless guilty of grave
misconduct, which is a ground for disciplinary
action under R.A. No. 6713?

63. Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action,
more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The
misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption,
willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be
proved by substantial evidence. Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple
Conversely, one cannot be found guilty of misconduct in the absence of
substantial evidence. In one case, we affirmed a finding of grave misconduct
because there was substantial evidence of voluntary disregard of established
rules in the procurement of supplies as well as of manifest intent to disregard
said rules. We have also ruled that complicity in the transgression of a
regulation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue constitutes simple misconduct
only as there was failure to establish flagrancy in respondent’s act for her to be
held liable of gross misconduct. On the other hand, we have likewise dismissed
a complaint for knowingly rendering an unjust order, gross ignorance of the law,
and grave misconduct, since the complainant did not even indicate the
particular acts of the judge which were allegedly violative of the Code of
Judicial Conduct.

64. In this case, respondent failed to prove (1)
petitioner’s violation of an established and definite
rule of action or unlawful behavior or gross
negligence, and (2) any of the aggravating elements
of corruption, willful intent to violate a law or to
disregard established rules on the part of petitioner.
In fact, respondent could merely point to petitioner’s
alleged failure to observe the mandate that public
office is a public trust when petitioner allegedly
meddled in an affair that belongs to another agency
and received an amount for undelivered work.

65. True, public officers and employees must be guided by the principle
enshrined in the Constitution that public office is a public trust.
However, respondent’s allegation that petitioner meddled in an affair
that belongs to another agency is a serious but unproven accusation.
Respondent did not even say what acts of interference were done by
petitioner. Neither did respondent say in which government agency
petitioner committed interference. And causing the survey of
respondent’s land can hardly be considered as meddling in the affairs
of another government agency by petitioner who is connected with the
Population Commission. It does not show that petitioner made an illegal
deal or any deal with any government agency. Even the Ombudsman has
recognized this fact. The survey shows only that petitioner contracted a
surveyor.1ihpwa1 Respondent said nothing on the propriety or legality of
what petitioner did. The survey shows that petitioner also started to
work on her task under their agreement. Thus, respondent’s allegation
that petitioner received an amount for undelivered work is not entirely
correct. Rather, petitioner failed to fully accomplish her task in view of
the legal obstacle that the land is government property.

66. However, the foregoing does not mean that petitioner is
absolved of any administrative liability.
We agree with the common finding of the Ombudsman
and the CA that, in the aftermath of the aborted
transaction, petitioner still failed to return the amount she
accepted. As aptly stated by the Ombudsman, if petitioner
was persistent in returning the amount of 50,000 until
₱
the preliminary investigation of the estafa case on
September 18, 2003,28 there would have been no need
for the parties’ agreement that petitioner be given until
February 28, 2003 to pay said amount including interest.
Indeed, petitioner’s belated attempt to return the amount
was intended to avoid possible sanctions and impelled
solely by the filing of the estafa case against her.

67. For reneging on her promise to return aforesaid amount,
petitioner is guilty of conduct unbecoming a public officer. In
Joson v. Macapagal, we have also ruled that the respondents
therein were guilty of conduct unbecoming of government
employees when they reneged on their promise to have
pertinent documents notarized and submitted to the
Government Service Insurance System after the complainant’s
rights over the subject property were transferred to the sister of
one of the respondents. Recently, in Assistant Special
Prosecutor III Rohermia J. Jamsani-Rodriguez v. Justices
Gregory S. Ong, et al., we said that unbecoming conduct means
improper performance and applies to a broader range of
transgressions of rules not only of social behavior but of ethical
practice or logical procedure or prescribed method.

68. Petitioner should have complied with her promise to return
the amount to respondent after failing to accomplish the
task she had willingly accepted. However, she waited until
respondent sued her for estafa, thus reinforcing the
latter’s suspicion that petitioner misappropriated her
money. Although the element of deceit was not proven in
the criminal case respondent filed against the petitioner, it
is clear that by her actuations, petitioner violated basic
social and ethical norms in her private dealings. Even if
unrelated to her duties as a public officer, petitioner’s
transgression could erode the public’s trust in government
employees, moreso because she holds a high position in
the service.

70. Petitioner is a registered Professional Teacher stationed at S.
Aguirre Elementary School, East District, Jose Panganiban,
Camarines Norte, while respondent is a Barangay Rural Health
Midwife assigned at the Municipal Health Office of Jose
Panganiban, Camarines Norte.
It appears that on 10 January 1992, petitioner married
respondent Ligaya Delos Santos-Puse at the Municipal Trial
Court (MTC) of Daet, Camarines Norte before the Hon. Judge
Oscar T. Osorio.2 He had two (2) children with her, and had a
church wedding before respondent found out that petitioner
was already married. Respondent discovered that petitioner
had already gotten married to Cristina Pablo Puse at the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Laoag City, Ilocos Norte on 27
December 1986. Respondent likewise learned that he has two
(2) children with his first wife.

71. Thus, on 2 August 2005, respondent filed a
letter-complaint with the Director of the
Professional Regulation Commission (PRC),
National Capital Region, Manila, through the
Director, PRC, Lucena City, seeking assistance
regarding her husband against whom she had
filed a criminal case for "Bigamy" and
"Abandonment." She alleged that her husband
has not been giving her and their children
support.

72. In a letter dated 16 August 2005, petitioner was directed by the
PRC of Lucena City to answer the complaint for immorality and
dishonorable conduct filed by respondent.5 Per directive,
petitioner submitted his Compliance dated 31 August 2005
denying the charges against him. He adopted his counter-
affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses, Jocelyn Puse
Decena and Dominador I. Blanco, which were submitted in
Criminal Case Nos. 7228 and 7229 before the MTC of Jose
Panganiban, Camarines Norte. He argued that if respondent’s
allegations were true, she herself would be equally guilty of
immorality and dishonorable conduct, as she was fully aware
that petitioner was already married when she married him. He
added he has not abandoned respondent or their children and
continually gives support for their children.

73. In her Reply to Answer/Compliance dated 6 September 2005,
respondent said she married petitioner in good faith, unaware that he
was already married to Cristina N. Pablo. When she learned of
petitioner’s deception regarding his marital status, she filed a case for
Bigamy before the MTC of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, which
found probable cause to hold petitioner for trial. She found petitioner’s
explanation "Na ako ay wala ng balita o komunikasyon sa aking unang
asawa at ang paniwala ko ay siya ay patay na at ang aking kasal ay
nawala ng saysay" to be lame and insufficient to justify his contracting a
subsequent bigamous marriage. She claimed that petitioner should
have instituted in court a summary proceeding for the declaration of
presumptive death of his first wife before contracting a subsequent
marriage. In the absence of such declaration, her marriage to petitioner
is bigamous and void ab initio. She added that the affidavits of his sister
and close friend should not be given weight.

74. After due consideration of the complaint, affidavits,
supporting documents and pleadings filed, the
Board of Professional Teachers, PRC, Lucena City,
found a prima facie case for Immorality and
Dishonorable Conduct against petitioner, and
directed respondent to pay docket and legal
research fees.9 The case was docketed as Adm.
Case No. LCN-0016.
On 16 February 2007, the Board of Professional
Teachers (Board), PRC, Manila, found petitioner
administratively liable of the charges and revoked
his license as a Professional Teacher.

75. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
VALIDATING THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE BOARD FOR
PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS OF PRC-MANILA DESPITE THE LACK OF
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE SAME AND ITS PATENT
NULLITY FOR HAVING BEEN ISSUED OUTSIDE OF ITS
JURISDICTION AND IN VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT OF YOUR
PETITIONER TO DUE PROCESS

76. On the first issue, petitioner argues that the proper forum
to hear and decide the complaint was either the CSC
pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 991936 (Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service) or the DepEd
pursuant to Rep. Act No. 4670 (Magna Carta for Public
School Teachers). Since the charge was for violation of the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
and Employees, the complaint should have been brought
before the CSC.
We do not agree. An administrative case against a public
school teacher may be filed before the Board of
Professional Teachers-PRC, the DepEd or the CSC, which
have concurrent jurisdiction over administrative cases
such as for immoral, unprofessional or dishonorable
conduct.

77. Concurrent jurisdiction is that which is possessed over the same
parties or subject matter at the same time by two or more separate
tribunals. When the law bestows upon a government body the
jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving specific matters, it is to
be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be proved that
another body is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which
case, both bodies have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter. The
authority to hear and decide administrative cases by the Board of
Professional Teachers-PRC, DepEd and the CSC comes from Rep. Act
No. 7836, Rep. Act No. 4670 and Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 807,
respectively.
Under Section 23 of Rep. Act No. 7836, the Board is given the power,
after due notice and hearing, to suspend or revoke the certificate of
registration of a professional teacher for causes enumerated therein.
Among the causes is immoral, unprofessional or dishonorable conduct.

78. THE HONORABLE BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS OF THE
PRC-MANILA GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE PETITIONER
GUILTY OF IMMORALITY AND DISHONORABLE CONDUCT AND
SUBSEQUENTLY REVOKING HIS TEACHER’S LICENSE AS A
PENALTY NOTWITHSTANDING THE LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE SUSTAINING THE COMPLAINT, WHICH IN EFFECT
VIOLATED THE RIGHT OF YOUR PETITIONER TO DUE PROCESS OF
LAW

79. But was there substantial evidence to show that
petitioner was guilty of immoral and dishonorable
conduct? On this issue, we likewise find against
petitioner.

80. Petitioner claims good faith and maintains that he married respondent
with the erroneous belief that his first wife was already deceased. He
insists that such act of entering into the second marriage did not qualify
as an immoral act, and asserts that he committed the act even before
he became a teacher. He said that for thirteen (13) years, he was a good
husband and loving father to his children with respondent. He was even
an inspiration to many as he built a second home thinking that he had
lost his first. He wanted to make things right when he learned of the
whereabouts of his first family and longed to make up for his lost years
with them. He maintains that he never violated the Code of Ethics of
Professional Teachers but embraced it like a good citizen when he opted
to stop his illicit marriage to go back to his first family. He adds that
respondent knew fully well he was married and had children when they
contracted marriage. Thus, she was also at fault. Lastly, he claims there
was no substantial proof to show that his bigamous marriage contracted
before he became a teacher has brought damage to the teaching
profession

81. However, the issues of whether petitioner knew his
first wife to be dead and whether respondent knew
that petitioner was already married have been ruled
upon by both the Board of Professional Teachers and
the Court of Appeals. The Board and the appellate
court found untenable petitioner’s belief that his first
wife was already dead and that his former marriage
was no longer subsisting. For failing to get a court
order declaring his first wife presumptively dead, his
marriage to respondent was clearly unlawful and
immoral.

82. Neither is there merit to petitioner’s contention
that because he contracted the bigamous
marriage before he even became a teacher, he is
not required to observe the ethical standards set
forth in the Code of Ethics of Professional
Teachers

83. In the practice of his profession, he, as a licensed
professional teacher, is required to strictly adhere to,
observe and practice the set of ethical and moral
principles, standards and values laid down in the aforesaid
code. It is of no moment that he was not yet a teacher
when he contracted his second marriage. His good moral
character is a continuing requirement which he must
possess if he wants to continue practicing his noble
profession. In the instant case, he failed to abide by the
tenets of morality. Petitioner kept his first marriage secret
to his second wife. Unfortunately for him, his second wife
discovered his true marital status which led to the filing of
the administrative and criminal cases against him

84. In Santos, Jr. v. NLRC, a case involving a teacher dismissed
from work on account of immorality, we declared:
On the outset, it must be stressed that to constitute
immorality, the circumstances of each particular case
must be holistically considered and evaluated in light of
the prevailing norms of conduct and applicable laws.
American jurisprudence has defined immorality as a
course of conduct which offends the morals of the
community and is a bad example to the youth whose
ideals a teacher is supposed to foster and to elevate, x x x
Thus, in petitioner’s case, the gravity and seriousness of
the charges against him stem from his being a married
man and at the same time a teacher.

85. As a teacher, petitioner serves as an example to his pupils,
especially during their formative years and stands in loco
parentis to them. To stress their importance in our society,
teachers are given substitute and special parental authority
under our laws.
Consequently, it is but stating the obvious to assert that
teachers must adhere to the exacting standards of morality and
decency. There is no dichotomy of morality. A teacher, both in
his official and personal conduct, must display exemplary
behavior. He must freely and willingly accept restrictions on his
conduct that might be viewed irksome by ordinary citizens. In
other words, the personal behavior of teachers, in and outside
the classroom, must be beyond reproach.

86. Accordingly, teachers must abide by a standard of personal
conduct which not only proscribes the commission of
immoral acts, but also prohibits behavior creating a
suspicion of immorality because of the harmful impression
it might have on the students. Likewise, they must observe
a high standard of integrity and honesty.
From the foregoing, it seems obvious that when a teacher
engages in extra-marital relationship, especially when the
parties are both married, such behaviour amounts to
immorality, justifying his termination from employment.