Gatchalian's Defense

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Constitutional Hills, Batasang Pambansa Complex Diliman, Quezon City CAMAING, EULOGIO Re : Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Interest of the Service and Violation of Reasonable Civil Service Rules and Regulation (Appeal) (CSC-OLA ADM-08-0574) x-----------------------------------------------------x REJOINDER COMES NOW, the Mayor of the City of Valenzuela, unto the Honorable Civil Service Commission, most respectfully states: 1.

The Reply which was filed by Appellant Camaing, after

reading the contents thereof, amused herein Respondent City Mayor for the simple reason that the allegations therein were mere rehash of his earlier allegations, which, as usual, overly relied on his claim that he was not afforded due process prior to his dismissal. 2.

With all due respect to the Honorable Office of the Civil

Service Commission, the issues raised in Camaing’s Reply are not new. As a matter of fact, they had already been more than sufficiently refuted in Respondent’s Comment/Opposition, thoroughly and scholarly. 3.

As borne out by the records of the case, the administrative

case subject of Camaing’s instant appeal emanated from an endorsement made by the City Legal Office to the Personnel Complaints and Ethics Board, sometime in April 2005. 4.

This

pendency

of

the

administrative

case

before

the

Personnel Complaints and Ethics Board was even recognized by the Honorable Office of the Ombudsman in its Order dated 07 November 2005, when it dismissed the administrative case pending before the

latter. To quote, the pertinent portion of the Order states: “WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint against Julito “Lito” Clarino, Edgardo “Ed” Pascual, Virgilio Lopez, Eulogio Camaing, Andres Augusto and Francisco Faustino, all from the Engineering Office, City Engineeer’s Office, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila, is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to the outcome of the administrative adjudication being conducted by the Personnel Complaint and Ethics Board of Valenzuela City.” (Emphasis supplied.) 5.

Further, Appellant Camaing himself admitted and recognized

the jurisdiction of the Personnel Complaints and Ethics Board over the aforementioned administrative case. This fact can be easily and clearly seen in the Honorable Office of the Ombudsman’s Resolution dated 23 June 2006.

In page 13 thereof, it states that:

“[t]hat respondents

claim that during the administrative proceedings of the case, the complainant admitted during the hearing on May 26, 2005 that he merely surmised that they were in the company of Mr. Camaing, their co-respondent, who allegedly benefitted from the money he gave”. 6.

As

what

had

been

already

stated

in

Respondent’s

Comment/Opposition, as early as the time when the City Legal Office endorsed the case to the Personnel Complaints and Ethics Board, all the City Government of Valenzuela’s employees named by Mr. Carlos in his Complaint-Affidavit, including Appellant Camaing, were duly notified of the said administrative case. This is the reason why, consequently, the Personnel Complaints and Ethics Board conducted a series of hearings regarding Mr. Carlos’s complaint. It was also during the pendency of the administrative case before said board that the employees involved therein, except Mr. Camaing, submitted their Joint Counter-Affidavit with said Board.

However, not longer after, Mr. Camaing belatedly

submitted his separate Counter-Affidavit on 16 May 2005. 7.

Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Board over the persons of

the employees charged before the Ethics Board was never questioned during that time.

Further, the holding by the Board of a series of

hearings was even acknowledged by Camaing in his so-called Appeal Memorandum (page 13 thereof) when he stated that: “Several charges were leveled against me.

But none of which was established by any

evidence during the meetings with City Legal Office/Ethics Board”. 8.

In other words, the actual presence and participation of

Camaing in the proceedings before the Personnel Complaint and Ethics Board, which include but not limited to the submission of his separate Counter-Affidavit with the said Board, negates his claim that he was deprived of his right to due process. 9.

It is very apparent that Mr. Camaing never questioned the

proceedings being conducted by the Board, at the very first instance. This is clear because he never raised such issue in his Counter-Affidavit. On the contrary, it cannot be overly emphasized that he even acquiesced

and

voluntarily

consented

to

the

conduct

of

proceedings by Board, especially when in his Counter-Affidavit, he prayed for an affirmative relief that is, to DISMISS HIS CASE. To be more specific, the undersigned hereby quotes in toto Mr. Camaing’s prayer as alleged in his Counter-Affidavit, to wit: “WHEREFORE, in view of the above and foregoing premises, it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Members of the Local Ethics Board that the baseless and unfounded accusation leveled by the complainant against me and my co-respondents for alleged violations of the provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, Local Government Code be DISMISSED for utter lack of merit and basis in fact and in law.” (Emphasis supplied.) 10.

Not receiving the affirmative relief her prayed for of the

Board, Camaing for the nth time, raises the issue of non-conformity by the Board with the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the conduct of administrative proceedings vis-à-vis Camaing’s case. As previously asserted by herein Respondent, this allegation stands on very flimsy and shaky ground.

11.

Assuming ex gratia argumenti that the Board had overlooked

the procedure as enunciated in the URACC, may it be noted however that, as enunciated by the Supreme Court, “administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in the strict judicial sense” (Ocampo vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 114683, January 18, 2000). 12.

It has been enunciated by the Supreme Court time and

again, that in administrative proceedings, a certain amount of latitude and discretion is given to administrative bodies in observing due process, as long as the element of fairness and fair play is not ignored by the body conducting the administrative proceedings.

The Supreme Court has

consistently applied this doctrine every time the question of compliance to the due process requirement is raised.

For example in the case of

Adamson vs. Amores, 152 SCRA 237, the Supreme Court ratiocinates, to wit: “The standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain latitude as long as the element of fairness is not ignored; even in the absence of previous notice, there is no denial of due process as long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard.” (Emphasis supplied.) 13.

It would mean then that the compliance with the due

process requirement in the conduct of administrative proceedings, at the very least, merely entails an opportunity to be heard. In the case of Mr. Camaing, what transpired could already be described as more than sufficient compliance with due process for he was not only given an opportunity to be heard, he himself participated in the proceedings by: a) filing of his Counter-Affidavit; b) seeking affirmative relief from the Board; c) appearing in the meetings and/or hearings of the Board; and, d)

citing the proceedings with the Board in his pleadings and papers

filed with the Honorable Office of the Ombudsman. 14.

Thusly, Mr. Camaing cannot monotonously ad infinitum

claim that his right to due has been denied or trampled upon by the

Board. 15.

In the said Reply, Camaing again attacked the City Legal

Office and leveled against said office several malicious accusations. Unfortunately, Respondent will not belabor glorifying said accusations, for to do so, Respondent would be to going down to Camaing’s level of reasoning. 16.

Instead, to properly refute the issue, Respondent hereinafter

respectfully repleads the following: “x x x

xxx

x x x.

“17. May it be strongly emphasized that when the case was referred to the Board by the City Legal Office, Atty. Vicente S. Bonaobra II, then was not yet a member of said Board. As stated above, the endorsement by the City Legal Office to the Board, as well as, to the Office of the Ombudsman was merely done in the performance of his function as stated in the 1991 Local Government Code, that is to cause to be investigated any local official or employee for administrative neglect or misconduct in office. The endorsement, by any stretch of any conceivable imagination, could not be construed as an act which resulted to the violation of the right of Mr. Camaing to due process. “18. With all due respect, the undersigned takes strong exception to the repeated reference of Mr. Camaing to the Board as a conduit of the City Legal Office or vice versa. If ever Atty. Bonaobra would later become a member of the Board, the same could not in any way be construed as a violation of his right to due process. For his office has also the function of INVESTIGATING any local official or employee for misconduct in office. This function, of course, is different from his function to CAUSE TO INVESTIGATE. Under pain of being repetitive, the specific provision of the 1991 Local Government Code is hereunder quoted again for clarification, to wit: “SECTION 481. x x x. (3) In addition to the foregoing duties and functions, the legal officer shall: “x x x

xxx

x x x.

“(iv) Investigate or cause to be investigated any local official or

employee for administrative neglect or misconduct in office, and recommend appropriate action to the governor, mayor or sanggunian, as the case may be; “x x x (Emphasis supplied.)

xxx

x x x.”

“19. The power to investigate by the City Legal Officer merely coincides with the power of the City Mayor to create a committee for purposes of conducting administrative investigations. These functions should not be perceived to be contradictory nor means to trample on the right of a person’s right to due process, but should be treated as complimentary functions with one aim, that is to conduct investigation with the requirements of due process as the guiding force. It should be noted that Section 86 of the 1991 Local Government Code provides: “SECTION 86. Administrative Investigation - In any local government unit, administrative investigation may be conducted by a person or a committee duly authorized by the local chief executive. Said person or committee shall conduct hearings on the cases brought against appointive officials and employees and submit their findings and recommendations to the local chief executive concerned within fifteen (15) days from the conclusion of the hearings. x x x.” “20. Verily, the power of the Board, based on the afore-quoted provision, including that of the City Legal Officer, is only recommendatory. In other words, such power is only limited to gathering of pieces of evidence coupled with confirmation of facts. That was what happened in the case of Mr. Camaing. The later addition of the City Legal Office to the Board only enhances his function that is “to investigate”. 17.

As repeatedly asserted by herein Respondent, it cannot be

gainly said therefore that the right of Mr. Camaing to due process has been violated. 18.

With all due respect to the Honorable Office of the Civil

Service Commission, the more substantial issue of whether or not Mr. Camaing has indeed committed an infraction worthy of dismissal from

service, should not be forgotten as the more crucial one. Rather than dwelling on mere trivial matters, Camaing should categorically state that he did not commit the act or acts being complained of. But he just can’t. The pieces of evidence are overwhelming. In the Honorable Office of the Ombudsman’s Resolution dated June 23, 2006, which incidentally found that probable exists against Camaing, it was conclusively found, to wit: “Respondent Camaing admitted in his CounterAffidavit that he received the subject “Pay to Cash” check dated March 3, 2000, as evidenced by China Bank Check No. HLDA0000157168, in the amount of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (Php5, 000.00), and encashed the said check using his office identification card. Not withstanding his justification that he received the check in behalf of his contractor friend, Danilo Santiago, in consideration for the Electrical Plan made by the latter, still Respondent Camaing may be held liable for illegal solicitation under the above mentioned provision.

“Respondent Camaing is a member of the inspection team of the Valenzuela City Engineer Office that conducted the inspection on the Complainant establishment, the operation of which is being regulated or which may be affected by the function of the said office. Thus, he is supposed to possessed outmost prudence and/or delicadesa in dealing with its owner (herein Complainant), who was found to have committed Electrical wiring violations. He should have declined or refused any request to look for a contractor who can designed on electrical plan for the complainant, to avoid suspicion that he had pecuniary interest in the transaction. While it may be true that he is not a member of the team that inspected BARYO VIP KTV, however, his supposed client, herein Complainant, is also the owner of NIKBET, the establishment that Respondent Camaing inspected. It must be stressed that no less than the Constitution sanctifies the principle that a public office is a public trust, and enjoins all public officers and employees to served with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. Repondent Camaing clearly failed to live up to these Constitutional mandate.

“Regarding the Complainant’s desistance, as a rule, recantation or an Affidavit of Desistance is viewed with suspicion and reservation. Affidavit as regarded as exceedingly unreliable, because it can easily be secured from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration. The filling of the Affidavit of Desistance by the Complainant, on the basis that he said the case arouse merely from pure misunderstanding and

misapprehension of the true facts, does not ipso facto result in the termination of Criminal Investigation.

“With respect to the other Respondents, namely Julito Clarino, Ed Pascual, Virgilio Lorenzo, Andres Augusto and Francisco Faustino, this office is constrained to dismiss the charges against them, due to lack of probable cause. Their participation on the alleged transaction has not been duly ascertained.

“Wherefore, this Office finds probable cause to indict public Respondent Eulogio Camaing, draftsman, Engineering Office, Office of the City Engineer, Valenzuela City, for violation Section 7 (d) of R. A. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.”

19.

May it be underscored that the findings of the Honorable

Office of the Ombudsman yielded an almost identical finding with that of the Board or vice versa. 20.

It should be stressed that the only required quantum of

proof in holding a person administratively liable, is “Substantial Evidence”. “Substantial evidence” is defined as that “amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion” (Alcaraz vs. Lindo, 444 SCRA 393). 21.

In the instant case, there is more than enough substantial

evidence that would conclusively state that indeed Camaing, undeniably and beyond an iota of doubt, is administratively liable and should be dismissed from government service. This finds support in a fairly recent case of R & E Transport, 422 SCRA 698, with the Supreme Court declaring that: “when supported by substantial evidence, factual findings made by quasi-judicial and administrative bodies are accorded great respect and even finality by the courts”. 22.

What evidence could be more glaring than the act of

receiving checks from a taxpayer and later, encash the same? This is true in this case, regardless of the amount.

23.

Lastly, as regards the charge of Grave Misconduct to which

Mr. Camaing was found to be guilty of, the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Office of the Court vs. Canete, 441 SCRA 512, squarely falls within the ambit of Mr. Camaing’s act/s, which states: “In an action for grave misconduct, there must be substantial evidence showing that the acts complained of are corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or constitute flagrant disregard of wellknown legal rules – the evidence should be competent and be derived from direct knowledge.” (Emphasis supplied.) 24.

Based on the foregoing premises and as what the legal

profession would commonly invoke in cases when the evidence is so glaring……Res ipsa loquitor.

PRAYER ACCORDINGLY, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed by herein Respondent, Mayor Sherwin T. Gatchalian, that the instant appeal filed by Appellant Camaing be dismissed for utter lack of merit. Other relief and remedies deemed just and equitable under the foregoing premises are likewise prayed for. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Valenzuela City for Quezon City, 27 February 2009.

SHERWIN T. GATCHALIAN City Mayor City Government of Valenzuela 3rd Floor Executive Building, Government Center, McArthur Highway, Karuhatan, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila

EXPLANATION

The foregoing Rejoinder has been filed with the Honorable Civil Service Commission and a copy hereof has been served to the other party both through registered mail due to time constraint, unpredictable traffic situation, distance and lack of available office messengers to effect personal service.

SHERWIN T. GATCHALIAN City Mayor Copy furnished: Mr. EULOGIO P. CAMAING 4 St. Thomas Street, LFS, Veinte Reales, Valenzuela City