Republic of the Philippines

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Constitutional Hills, Batasang Pambansa Complex
Diliman, Quezon City

EULOGIO P. CAMAING, CSC-OLA ADM-08-

0574
Appellant,

x-------------------x

REPLY

Appellant, by himself, and unto this Honorable

Commission, most respectfully states:

It is the height of injustice when the legal officer who

twice endorsed the same complaint to the Office of the

Ombudsman, which by the act itself is a manifestation of

giving due course to the complaint and believing on its merit,

is also the same official who would recommend the order of

dismissal of the subject employee from the service. Prudence

and delicadeza would demand that the said official inhibit

himself from participating in the deliberation in a questionable

1
proceeding that resulted in arriving at a recommendation of

dismissal from the service.

Mayor Sherwin T. Gatchalian did not elaborate when

Atty. Vicente S. Bonaobra relinquished his functions as the

legal officer of the Valenzuela City to assume the post of vice-

chairman of the Valenzuela City Personnel Complaints and

Ethics Board, which body subsequently recommended that I

be dismissed from the service.

Mayor Gatchalian admitted in his Comment and/or

Opposition (at page 11) that when the Valenzuela City Legal

Office endorsed the complaint to the Ethics Board (in 2005),

the City Legal Officer in the person of Atty. Bonaobra was not

yet a member of the Ethics Board. However, when the

resolution ordering my dismissal from the service was

approved in July 2008, Atty. Bonaobra was already the Vice-

Chairman of the said body. As would be expected, Atty.

Bonaobra voted for my dismissal as he would not vote

otherwise.

Mayor Gatchalian harps on the purported observance of

due process of law by the Ethics Board. He asserts that my

2
participation in the meetings held by the Ethics Board and my

submission of a counter-affidavit would suffice to comply with

the due process of law.

Admittedly, I submitted a counter-affidavit to refute the

charges leveled against me. I likewise admit that I attended

the meetings called by the Ethics Board to verify for myself if

the complainant could substantiate his accusations against

me. I would not have done otherwise because I believe that I

did no wrong. At any rate, those actions cannot be construed

as submission to a bogus proceeding that is devoid of legality.

The fact that I attended the meetings called by the Ethics

Board is not tantamount to a waiver of the observance of due

process of law. A meeting is an act or process of coming

together; a gathering for business, social or other purposes

(Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, p. 1404).

This is precisely what took place in the assembly called

by the Ethics Board. It was just a gathering of personnel

involved in the complaint filed by Alberto Carlos, informal in

character and optional in nature. There was even no proper

notice to that meetings and an advice that the persons alluded

3
to in the complaint may bring a lawyer of their choice.

Further, if there was indeed a proceeding where I underwent

an investigation under a formal charge, certainly, there should

have been a transcript of stenographic notes where the whole

proceedings had been recorded. There is none, and this is so

because no formal charge was even filed against me.

The procedure where the livelihood of an employee

cannot be abbreviated. Precisely, procedures of law are laid

down to be followed strictly.

The Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil

Service (Resolution No. 991936) provides in part:

Section 11. Action on the Complaint. —

Upon receipt of a complaint which is sufficient in
form and substance, the disciplining authority shall
require the person complained of to submit a
Counter-Affidavit/Comment under oath within
three (3) days from receipt.

Section 12. Preliminary Investigation. — A

Preliminary Investigation involves the ex parte
examination of records and documents submitted
by the complainant and the person complained of,
as well as documents readily available from other
government offices. During said investigation, the
parties are given the opportunity to submit
affidavits and counter-affidavits. Failure of the
person complained of to submit his counter affidavit
shall be considered as a waiver thereof.

4
 Thereafter, if necessary, the parties may be
summoned to a conference where the investigator
may propound clarificatory and other relevant
questions.
Upon receipt of the counter-affidavit or
comment under oath, the disciplining authority may
now determine whether a prima facie case exist to
warrant the issuance of a formal change.

A fact-finding investigation may be conducted

further or prior to the preliminary investigation for
the purpose of ascertaining the truth. A preliminary
investigation necessarily includes a fact-finding
investigation.

For this purpose, preliminary investigation

may be entrusted by the Commission to lawyers of
other agencies pursuant to Section 79.

Section 13. Duration of the Investigation.

— A preliminary investigation shall commence not
later than five (5) days from receipt of the complaint
by the disciplining authority and shall be
terminated within thirty (30) days thereafter.

Section 14. Investigation Report. — Within

five (5) days from the termination of the preliminary
investigation, the investigating officer shall submit
the Investigation Report and the complete records of
the case to the disciplining authority.

Section 15. Decision or Resolution After

Preliminary Investigation. — If a prima facie case is
established during the investigation, a formal
charge shall be issued by the disciplining authority.
A formal investigation shall follow.

In the absence of a prima facie case, the

complaint shall be dismissed.

Section 16. Formal Charge. — After a

finding of a prima facie case, the disciplining
authority shall formally charge the person
complained of. The formal charge shall contain a

5
specification of charge(s), a brief statement of
material or relevant facts, accompanied by certified
true copies of the documentary evidence, if any,
sworn statements covering the testimony of
witnesses, a directive to answer the charge(s) in
writing under oath in not less than seventy-two (72)
hours from receipt thereof, an advice for the
respondent to indicate in his answer whether or not
he elects a formal investigation of the charge(s), and
a notice that he is entitled to be assisted by a
counsel of his choice.

If the respondent has submitted his comment

and counter-affidavits during the preliminary
investigation, he shall be given the opportunity to
submit additional evidence.

The disciplining authority shall not entertain

requests for clarification, bills of particulars or
motions to dismiss which are obviously designed to
delay the administrative proceedings. If any of these
pleadings are interposed by the respondent, the
same shall be considered as an answer and shall be
evaluated as such.

Section 17. Answer. — The answer, which

is in writing and under oath, shall be specific and
shall contain material facts and applicable laws, if
any, including documentary evidence, sworn
statements covering testimonies of witnesses, if
there be any, in support of his case. It shall also
include a statement indicating whether or not he
elects a formal investigation.

xxx xxx xxx

Section 22. Conduct of Formal Investigation.

— Although the respondent does not request a
formal investigation, one shall nevertheless be
conducted by the disciplining authority where from
the allegations of the complaint and the answer of
the respondent, including the supporting
documents of both parties, the merits of the case
cannot be decided judiciously without conducting
such investigation.

6
 The investigation shall be held not earlier than
five (5) days nor later than ten (10) days from
receipt of the respondent's answer. Said
investigation shall be finished within thirty (30)
days from the issuance of the formal charge or the
receipt of the answer unless the period is extended
by the disciplining authority in meritorious cases.

For this purpose, the Commission may entrust

the formal investigation to lawyers of other agencies
pursuant to Section 78.

Section 23. Pre-Hearing Conference. — At

the commencement of the formal investigation, the
Hearing Officer may conduct a pre-hearing
conference for the parties to appear, consider and
agree on any of the following

a. Stipulation of facts;
b. Simplification of issues;
c. Identification and marking of evidence of
the parties;
d. Waiver of objections to admissibility of
evidence;
e. Limiting the number of witnesses, and
their names;
f. Dates of subsequent hearings; and
g. Such other matters as may aid in the
prompt and just resolution of the case.

The parties may submit position

paper/memoranda and submit the case for
resolution based on the result of the pre-hearing
conference without any need for further hearings.

Section 24. Continuous Hearing Until

Terminated; Postponement. — Hearings shall be
conducted on the hearing dates set by the Hearing
Officer or as agreed upon during the pre- hearing
conference.

Where no pre-hearing conference is conducted,

the parties, their counsel and witnesses, if any,
shall be given a notice of at least five (5) days before

7
the first scheduled hearing specifying the time, date
and place of the said hearing and subsequent
hearings. Thereafter, the schedule of hearings
previously set shall be strictly followed without
further notice. A party shall be granted only three
(3) postponements upon oral or written requests. A
fourth postponement may be granted only upon
written request and subject to the discretion of the
disciplining authority.

If the respondent fails or refuses to appear

during the scheduled hearings despite due notice,
the investigation shall proceed ex parte and the
respondent is deemed to have waived his right to be
present and to submit evidence in his favor during
those hearings.

Section 25. Preliminary Matters. — At the

start of the hearing, the hearing officer shall note
the appearances of the parties and shall proceed
with the reception of evidence for the complainant.

If the respondent appears without the aid of a

counsel, he shall be deemed to have waived his
right thereto.

Before taking the testimony of a witness, the

hearing officer shall place him under oath and then
take his name, address, civil status, age, and place
of employment.

A sworn statement of a witness(es) properly

identified and affirmed shall constitute his direct
testimony, copy furnished the other party.

Clarificatory questions may also be asked.

Section 26. Appearance of Counsel. — Any

counsel appearing before any hearing or
investigation shall manifest orally or in writing, his
appearance for either the respondent or
complainant, stating his full name, IBP receipt and
exact address where he can be served with notices
and other pleadings. Any pleading or appearance of

8
a counsel without complying with the above stated
requirements shall not be recognized.

Section 27. Order of Hearing. — Unless the

Hearing Officer directs otherwise, the order of
hearing may be as follows:
a. The prosecution shall present its evidence
subject to the pre-hearing agreement;
b. Cross-examination by the party;
c. There may be redirect and re-cross
examination;
d. The respondent shall then offer evidence
in support of his defense following the same order;
e. Rebuttal and sur-rebuttal, if any.

When the presentation of evidence has been

concluded, the parties shall formally offer their
evidence either orally or in writing and thereafter
objections thereto may also be made either orally or
in writing. After which, both parties may be given
time to submit their respective memorandum which
in no case shall be beyond five (5) days after the
termination of the investigation. Failure to submit
the same within the given period shall be considered
a waiver thereof.

xxx xxx xxx

Section 32. Records of Proceedings. —

Records of the proceedings during the formal
investigation may be taken in shorthand or
stenotype or any other means of recording

xxx xxx xxx

Section 35. Formal Investigation Report —

Within fifteen (15) days after the conclusion of the
formal investigation, a report containing a narration
of the material facts established during the
investigation, the findings and the evidence
supporting said findings, as well as the
recommendations, shall be submitted by the
Hearing Officer with the disciplining authority. The
complete records of the case shall be attached to the
Report of Investigation.

9
 The complete records shall be systematically
and chronologically arranged, paged and securely
bound to prevent loss. A table of contents shall be
prepared. Whoever is in-charge of the transmittal of
the complete records shall be held responsible for
any loss or suppression of pages thereof.

Section 36. When Case is Decided. — The

disciplining authority shall render his decision on
the case within thirty (30) days from receipt of the
Report of Investigation.

At the risk of being repetitive, I would like to stress here

that my attendance and participation in the meetings called by

the Personnel Complaints and Ethics Board, cannot take the

place of a preliminary investigation or a formal investigation

provided in the Civil Service Rules. There can be no

abbreviated proceeding when the employment of a civil servant

is at stake. The foregoing procedure cannot be cut short.

There should be an evaluation of the complaint and an action

on the complaint, preliminary investigation, investigation

report and decision or resolution after preliminary

investigation. It is only when this process is completed and

the body or board finds a prima facie case against respondent,

can there be a formal charge where the respondent may be

represented by a counsel of his choice.

10
 Evidently, the Ethics Board railroaded the process to

hastily terminate my employment.

In Armando Fabella, at al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,

G.R. No. 110379, November 28, 1997, the Supreme Court

declared:

In administrative proceedings, due process has

been recognized to include the following: i) the right
to actual or constructive notice of the institution of
proceedings which may affect a respondent’s legal
right; ii) a real opportunity to be heard personally or
with the assistance of counsel, to present witness
and evidence in one’s favor and to defend one’s
right; iii) a tribunal vested with competent
jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person
charged administratively a reasonable guaranty of
honesty as well as impartiality; and iv) a finding by
said tribunal which is supported by substantial
evidence submitted for consideration during the
hearing or contained in the records or made known
to the parties affected.

xxx xxx xxx

Indeed, in any proceeding, the essence of

procedural due process is embodied in the basic
requirements of notice and a real opportunity to be
heard.

xxx xxx xxx

This Court will never countenance a denial of

the fundamental right to due process, which a
cornerstone of our legal system.

11
 Hence, this Honorable Commission should never sustain

the action of a body that is not only partial but whose

members have as well a distorted concept of due process of

law.

It was a complete disbelief when Resolution No. 07,

Series of 2008 bearing the date July 2008 was issued ordering

my dismissal from the service. It was issued upon the

complaint dated April 22, 2005 of Alberto Carlos, who had

long withdrawn his complaint against me. The resolution was

issued after three year and in the absence of substantive

evidence presented against me in a valid proceeding.

I vigorously DENY the grave accusations against me

which at first glance would constitute extortion. The

accusations are not only a distortion of facts but malicious

and untruthful as well.

Based on the narration of the complainant, Alberto

Carlos, the instant complaint was instituted because he

begrudged the closure of Baryo VIP KTV & Disco. As will be

expounded below, the City Engineer’s Office, to which I belong,

12
has no authority to order the closure of any establishment

within the City of Valenzuela.

The truth of the matter is that I was part of the team that

inspected the Nikbet Music House (Rampa), but not the Baryo

VIP KTV & Disco, both establishments are owned by Carlos. In

the course of the inspection, Carlos was found to have failed to

comply with some electrical regulations, and his establishment

was discovered to have failed to meet the standard set by the

Electrical Engineering Code. When we make inspection on

Carlos’s establishment it is always official and strictly in the

course of the regular duty mandated on us.

Considering that Carlos was required to submit an

electrical plan for the Barrio VIP KTV & Disco (the

establishment which I did not inspect), as a result of the

inspection of the said establishment sometime in

2004, a friend of Carlos, Mr. Boy Papa, likewise an employee

at the Valenzuela City Hall, approached me and asked me to

look for someone who could do the electrical plan. In my

desire to assist Papa, being a co-employee, and considering

that I know of a person who makes electrical plans, I told Papa

that I would try to help, without however promising him or

13
guaranteeing to him that there is someone I know, as I do not

want to burden and commit my friend to execute the required

plan, in the event that he is not available. Thereafter, I

consulted this friend and he agreed to execute the plan. A few

days after, Papa approached me again and it was on that

occasion that I told him that there was someone who was

willing to execute the plan. Papa asked me how much, and I

told Papa that I have no idea and even suggested to him that

he talk to this person personally. I was at that time reluctant

to get involve in the transaction, knowing that it is not part of

my job and I might be placed in a bad light for acting as an

agent for my designer-friend. However, Papa dismissed my

suggestion and casually informed me to just settle it with my

friend giving me authority to negotiate with my friend. I talked

with my friend and he quoted me the amount of Five

Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) which includes design location,

schedule of loads, computation, legends, and sign and seal. I

relayed this information to Papa. The next day, Papa handed

me a check worth P5,000.00 issued in my name. I refused to

accept the check because it was issued in my name. I told

Papa that he knew that the check was not meant to be paid to

me but for my friend who would execute the electrical plan.

Papa did not insist that I accept the check. Not long

14
thereafter, my friend called me up asking whether the job

would push through, and I said he could execute the plan as

agreed upon. A few days after, my friend went to me bringing

along the plan.

I immediately handed to Papa the electrical plan for the

Barrio KTV, and in return, Papa gave me a check “Pay to

Cash.” I again inquired him why it was in the form of a check.

Papa assured me that there was no problem with me accepting

the check since Carlos is allegedly his “compare.” Thereupon,

I gave the check to my friend, but my friend requested me to

encash the check as he would not want to encounter any

difficulty in encashing a check. Since I consider this a

legitimate transaction between my friend and the complainant,

and in my desire again to be of service to my friend and to

settle finally the problem of Carlos, I heeded to my friend’s

request, and using my office identification card, I encashed the

“pay to cash” check. I immediately gave the whole amount to

my friend, who acknowledged its receipt. Thereupon, I

considered the transaction closed. I felt that I helped my friend

and solved Carlos’s problem.

15
 Little did I know that Carlos would twist the story to

implicate me for something that is far from the truth. I would

not jeopardize my good name and reputation and that of my

colleagues’ for a measly sum of Five Thousand Pesos. In

addition, I am just a draftsman in the office, and my job is to

conduct inspection on the establishments within the City of

Valenzuela. We make the appropriate report after each

inspection, and it is my superior who makes the

recommendation, based on our report, to the City Legal Office.

Our Office has no authority to order the closure of any

establishment within our jurisdiction, that authority legally

belongs to the City Legal Office which is clothed with power to

order the closure of any establishment in the City of

Valenzuela. The City Legal Office, in the course of their

evaluation of the City Engineer’s Office recommendation, may

disregard, reverse, modify or affirm the said recommendation.

If assuming, without however, admitting that there was an

extortion that occurred, it is not in our office, for the simple

reason that we neither have any power nor authority to order

the closure of any establishment. To reiterate, our mandate is

to ensure that the establishments comply with and meet the

standards according to the Electrical Engineering Code.

16
 Moreover, it is a complete falsity that I encashed two (2)

checks for my benefit or pecuniary gain, as insinuated by

Carlos. The circumstances relating to the encashment of the

check paid to cash were already explained above, while I

VEHEMENTLY DENY any knowledge with respect to the

issuance of the other check in my name.

During one of the meetings called by the Ethics Board,

Papa admitted having received a check from Carlos as

payment for the electrical plan and which check he handed to

me. And my friend, Danilo Santiago, who executed the

electrical design submitted an affidavit corroborating my

avowals that I did not benefit from the Five Thousand Pesos

paid by Carlos. Consequently, on the basis of the electrical

plan, Carlos was allowed to pay the permit for Baryo VIP KTV

and the said establishment had resumed business operations.

Withal, the recommendation of the Personnel Complaints

and Ethics Board to dismiss me from the services and its

approval by Mayor Sherwin T. Gatchalian are clearly devoid of

factual and legal bases.

17
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed that this Honorable Commission declare Resolution No.

07, Series of 2008 of the Personnel Complaints and Ethics

Board NULL AND VOID and order my reinstatement to my

former position with payment of back salaries and benefits.

Other reliefs which are just and equitable are likewise

prayed for.

February 2, 2009, City of Valenzuela, Metro Manila.

EULOGIO P. CAMAING
Appellant

Copy furnished:

The Personnel Complaints and Ethics Board

Thru Atty. Anicia C. Marquez
Chairman
Valenzuela City

Honorable Sherwin T. Gatchalian

Valenzuela City Mayor
Executive Building,
Government Center,
MacArthur Highway,
Karuhatan, Valenzuela City
Metro Manila

18
19