University of the Philippines College of Law

AF BRESNAN D2022
Case Name SAMSON v. RESTRIVERA
Topic Control of Administrative Action
Case No. | Date GR No. 178454| March 28, 2011
Ponente VILLARAMA JR., J.
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 accepted P50,000 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 P50,000, 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. Petitioner insists that where the act complained of is not related to the performance of official
Case Summary
duty, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction. The SC disagreed with this stating that even if the complaint
concerns an act of the public official is not service-connected, it is still within the jurisdiction of the
Ombudsman (See Doctrine)

Ombudsman and CA found her guilty of Section 4 (A) (b) of RA No. 6713. SC reversed this following the IRR issued by
the CSC and the ruling in Domingo v. Office of the Ombudsman, 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. However,
petitioner was found administratively liable to conduct unbecoming of a public officer.
Decision CA REVERSED, petitioner found GUILTY, fine imposed.
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 16 14 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 19 15 of R.A. No. 6770 also states that the
Doctrine Ombudsman shall act on all complaints relating, but not limited, to acts or omissions which are unfair or
irregular.

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.
RELEVANT FACTS
• 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 P150,000 and accepted P50,000 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 P50,000, 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.

• 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. CA affirmed Ombudsman’s order. HENCE, this petition.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
AF BRESNAN D2022

• Petitioner insists that where the act complained of is not related to the performance of official duty, the Ombudsman has no
jurisdiction. Petitioner also imputes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA for holding her administratively liable.
She points out that the estafa case was dismissed upon a finding that she was not guilty of fraud or deceit, hence misconduct
cannot be attributed to her. And even assuming that she is guilty of misconduct, she is entitled to the benefit of mitigating
circumstances such as the fact that this is the first charge against her in her long years of public service.

RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
W/N the Ombudsman YES, the Ombudsman has jurisdiction.
has jurisdiction over a The Supreme Court agreed with the CA that the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over respondent's
case involving a private complaint against petitioner although the act complained of involves a private deal between them.
dealing by a government Section 13 (1), 13 Article XI of the 1987 Constitution states that the Ombudsman can investigate
employee or where the on its own or on complaint by any person any act or omission of any public official or employee
act complained of is not when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, or improper.
related to the
performance of official
Under Section 16 14 of R.A. No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, the
duty?
jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and
nonfeasance committed by any public officer or employee during his/her tenure. Section 19 15 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.
W/N Samson can be NO.
held administratively It is wrong for petitioner to say that since the estafa case against her was dismissed, she cannot be
liable for violating found administratively liable. It is settled that administrative cases may proceed independently of
Section 4 (A) (b) of RA criminal proceedings, and may continue despite the dismissal of the criminal charges.
No. 6713.
The Supreme Court stated that it needed to discuss petitioner’s liability under Sec. 4 (A) (b) of R.A.
No. 6713
SEC. 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. — (A) Every public official and employee shall
observe the following as standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties:
(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.

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. 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."
 University of the Philippines College of Law
AF BRESNAN D2022
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.

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.

The Civil Service Commission was authorized by Congress to promulgate the IRR of RA 6713, and
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. On the other hand, Rule X of the Implementing Rules
enumerates grounds for administrative disciplinary action.

In such IRR, the list of the grounds for disciplinary action have already been enumerated and as
held in Domingo v. Office of the Ombudsman, 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:
“Indeed, Rule X of the Implementing Rule 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.”
The Court found no compelling reason to depart from their pronouncement in Domingo v. Office
of Ombudsman. HENCE, they reverse the CA and Ombudsman’s ruling that the petitioner is
administratively liable under Section 4 (A)(b) of RA 6713.

“In so ruling, The Supreme Court do no less and no more than apply the law and its implementing
rules issued by the CSC under the authority given to it by Congress. Needless to stress, said rules
partake the nature of a statute and are binding as if written in the law itself. They have the force
and effect of law and enjoy the presumption of constitutionality and legality until they are set
aside with finality in an appropriate case by a competent court.”
W/N petitioner is guilty NO.
of grave misconduct, Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly,
which is a ground for unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is grave if it involves any
disciplinary action under of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established
RA.6713 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 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
 University of the Philippines College of Law
AF BRESNAN D2022
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.

W/N Samson could be YES, guilty of conduct unbecoming of a public officer.

held admiratively liable
for conduct unbecoming For reneging on her promise to return aforesaid amount, petitioner is guilty of conduct unbecoming
of a public officer 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.

The Constitution itself says:

“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.”
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.

In re: penalty, the fact that she has been in government service for 37 years and this is her first
offense is a mitigating circumstance. And since petitioner has earlier agreed to return the amount
of P50,000 including interest, we find it proper to order her to comply with said agreement.
Eventually, the parties may even find time to rekindle their friendship.
WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the Decision dated October 31, 2006 of the Court of Appeals and its Resolution dated June 8, 2007 in
CA-G.R. SP No. 83422, as well as the Decision dated January 6, 2004 and Order dated March 15, 2004 of the Ombudsman in OMB-
L-A-03-0552-F, and ENTER a new judgment as follows: We find petitioner GUILTY of conduct unbecoming a public officer and
impose upon her a FINE of P15,000.00 to be paid at the Office of the Ombudsman within five (5) days from finality of this Decision.
We also ORDER petitioner to return to respondent the amount of P50,000.00 with interest thereon at 12% per annum from March
2001 until the said amount shall have been fully paid. With costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.