Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao
4th Floor H & C Bldg., Alvarez St., Sta. Ana, Davao City

MARILYN F. PARIDES
Complainant, Docket No: OMB-M-A-15-0377
-versus- For: Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
FELECITO G. TRUGILLO Interest of the Service; Failure to Act
Barangay Captain Immediately on the Public’s Personal
Barangay Tag-anito Transactions (Sec. 5 (D) of RA No.
Carrascal, Surigao del Sur 6713); Misconduct

Respondent
x -------------------------------x

HON. MARIA ILUMINADA S. LAPID-VIVA

Director, Evaluation and Investigation Bureau A
By Authority of the HONORABLE RODOLFO M. ELMAN,
Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao

Your Honor,

I, MARLYN F. PARIDES, complainant, respectfully SUBMIT this “POSITION

PAPER” as COMPLIANCE with the Order dated November 6, 2015, which undersigned
received on December 7, 2015 directing parties to submit VERIFIED POSITION PAPERS to
support their claims, state, that:

POSITION PAPER
STATEMENT OF FACTS

Stripped of unessential details, and avoiding repetition of submissions of facts in other pleadings,
the FACTS of this case are:

1. On October 9, 2013, complainant Marlyn Parides and one Murillo Estampa had a hearing
for conciliation/mediation with respondent herein as mediator being the Barangay
Captain. The parties had a heated exchange when suddenly respondent Brgy. Captain
Trugillo slapped complainant herein in the face twice, pulled her hair, and called the
tanods to arrest her (please see Annex B of complainant’s REJOINDER). Dismayed by
the apparent bias showed by respondent during that proceeding, she immediately went to
the doctor to have her medical certificate (see Annex C of complainant’s Rejoinder dated
Oct. 9, 2015).

2. After said incident, complainant filed an administrative case for Abuse of Authority
against same respondent before the Sanguniang Bayan of Carrascal, Surigao del Sur (see
Annex E of complainant’s Rejoinder). The case was dismissed provisionally because
 complainant, after talks with respondent, forgave him and chose to desist after they have
settled the matter amicably.

3. Complainant was shocked later when a case for Robbery was filed against her at the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Surigao del Sur. The private complainant was
Murillo Estampa, and the primary witnesses were respondent herein Brgy. Capt. Trugillo,
and Roberto Ruasa, chief of the tanods at the barangay. She was heart-broken by the
betrayal and clear bias shown by the respondent barangay captain against her. The case
was dismissed in her favor by the fiscal for lack of probable cause and lack of evidence.
It was clearly made just to harass her. (see Annex F of complainant’s REJOINDER dated
Oct. 9, 2015)

4. After all cases against complainant were dismissed, she went to the office of the
respondent to summon Murillo Estampa, but respondent Brgy. Captain Trugillo
REFUSED to assist her. She went to the Public Attorney’s Office in Cantilan, Surigao
del Sur to cause a demand letter to be sent to the barangay captain to assist her in filing
her complaint for damages pursuant to the Katarungang Pambarangay Law (see Annex A
of complainant’s REJOINDER).

5. In a one-page letter dated October 5, 2015, respondent put up the defense of denial
insisting that he did not refuse to assist complainant in filing a complaint against Morillo
Estampa. He alleges that complainant Marlyn Parides never came to this office to file the
same and had never tendered payment as filing fee for the complaint as required by a
Barangay Ordinance.

6. The truth of the matter is that complainant approached the office of respondent and tried
to pay the filing fee but was told by respondent himself that they cannot receive such
payment because they allegedly ran out of receipts and still need to obtain the same. The
same refusal of respondent to assist complainant is clearly borne out of a grudge against
her owing to another prior case referred to the barangay involving complainant and
Murillo Estampa. (see Annex E of complainant’s Rejoinder dated Oct. 9, 2015).

ISSUES

1. Whether or Not Respondent is Guilty and Should be Held Liable of Conduct Prejudicial
to the Best Interest of the Service;
2. Whether or Not Respondent is Guilty and Should be Held Liable for Failure to Act
Immediately on the Public’s Personal Transactions per Sec. 5 (d) of R.A. No. 6713;
3. Whether or Not Respondent is Guilty and Should be Held Liable for Misconduct.
 ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

The Series of Acts of Respondent Constitute Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service as They Tarnish the Integrity and Image of His Public Office.

Respondent showed clear bias in the performance of his functions during several
barangay mediation proceedings involving the complainant. By getting involved in the fight and
eventually slapping the face of complainant and causing her humiliation within the confines of
respondent’s office, he overstepped the conventions of good behaviour which every public
official light to project to preserve the integrity of public service. When confronted for what he
did, respondent befriended the complainant causing the desistance of the administrative case
against him, only to later on back-stab complainant in a case filed only to harass her person.
Other distasteful conduct shown by respondent, which are not part of his functions as a barangay
captain, constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

The respondent’s actions, to our mind, constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest
of the service, an administrative offense which need not be related to the respondent’s official
functions.⁠ In Pia v. Gervacio citing Avenido v. CSC, GR No. 177666 April 30, 2008,, the
Supreme Court explained that acts may constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service as long as they tarnish the image and integrity of his/her public office. (Emphasis
Supplied)

In Manhit v. Office of the Ombudsman (Fact Finding & Intelligence Bureau) 559 Phil
251 (2007),⁠ the Court had the occasion to define “gross” and “prejudicial” in connection with
the offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, as follows:
The word “gross” connotes “something out of measure; beyond allowance; not to be excused;
flagrant; shameful” while “prejudicial” means “detrimental or derogatory to a party;
naturally, probably or actually bringing about a wrong result.”[Emphasis Supplied]⁠

In Mariano v. Roxas⁠ 434 Phil 742 (2002), the Court ruled that the offense committed by a
CA employee in forging some receipts to avoid her private contractual obligations, was not
misconduct but conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service because her acts had no
direct relation to or connection with the performance of her official duties

Notably, the Court has also considered the following acts or omissions, among others, as
constituting conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service: misappropriation of public
funds, abandonment of office, failure to report back to work without prior notice, failure to
safekeep public records and property, making false entries in public documents and falsification
of court orders. [⁠ Espina v. Cerujano, et al, 573 Phil. 254, 263 (2008)]
Respondent Should Be Held Liable for Violation of Sec. 5 (a) & (d) of R.A. 6713, for Failure
to Act Immediately on the Public’s Transactions.

Section 5 (a) and (d) of RA 6713 reads:

Section 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees. - In the performance of their
duties, all public officials and employees are under obligation to:

(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.

xxx xxx xxx

(d) Act immediately on the publics 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 expeditious

There is no question that respondent is guilty of the above provisions of the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Respondent ignored the “letter demand”
of the Public Attorney’s Office (Annex A of complainant’s Rejoinder) and failed to respond or
reply or advise of the action taken on such demand. The same clearly reminds respondent of his
duties under the applicable Katarungang Pambarangay Law, but chose to ignore the same since
he is adamant in refusing to assist the complainant for personal reasons. Respondent also
without a doubt failed to act immediately on the public’s personal transactions. Complainant
went to respondent’s office several times to avail of the services of the office, but she was
ignored. No prompt or expeditious service can be talked of because there was none given at all.

Respondent Should be Held Liable for Misconduct; There was Unlawful Behavior in
Performing the Functions of His Office.

Misconduct is “a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more

particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.”⁠ [See Civil Service
Commission v. Ledesma, 508 Phil. 569, 579 (2005)] In grave misconduct, as distinguished from
simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant
disregard of established rules, must be manifest and established by substantial evidence. Grave
misconduct necessarily includes the lesser offense of simple misconduct. Thus, a person charged
with grave misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct if the misconduct does not
involve any of the elements to qualify the misconduct as grave.⁠

We point out that to constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or

be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer⁠. The
respondent in the present case, in several instances, performing the functions of his office,
engaged in unlawful behavior. For instance, acting as the chairman of the Lupong
Tagapamayapa, he should appear neutral and in fact be neutral to the parties during the hearing.
He showed clear bias when he engaged complainant and slapped her face twice, humiliating her
and wounding her honor.

In Manuel v. Judge Calimag, Jr. [367 Phil 162 (1999)], the Court explained that:
x x x Misconduct in office has been authoritatively defined by Justice Tuazon in Lacson v.
Lopez in these words: “Misconduct in office has a definite and well-understood legal meaning.
By uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct such as affects his performance of his duties as an
officer and not such only as affects his character as a private individual. In such cases, it has been
said at all times, it is necessary to separate the character of the man from the character of the
officer x x x It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance warranting removal from
office of an officer must have direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official
duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to
discharge the duties of the office x x x.”

Respondent’s Liability Established by Substantial Evidence

In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is

substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.⁠ The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable
ground to believe that a person is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such
evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant.
In this case, there is more than reasonable ground to believe that the respondent is
responsible for the misconduct complained of. Every claim in the complaint is supported by
documentary evidence (see original/certified true copies of Annexes A-F of complainant in her
Rejoinder). On the other hand, respondent chose to respond via a one-page letter using only a
general statement of denial. The supporting documents attached to the complaint were not
denied nor attacked. His statements are even uncorroborated. There is therefore compliance
with substantial evidence as quantum of proof in this administrative case.

RELIEF

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that the instant VERIFIED

POSITION PAPER be admitted and considered for the decision in the case pursuant to the Rules
of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman in Administrative Cases.
FURTHER, it is respectfully prayed that after due notice, deliberation, evaluation and
investigation by the Office, judgment be rendered declaring Respondent Brgy. Captain Felecito
G. Trugillo GUILTY of the charges brought against him and ordered DISMISSED from service.
 Other relief and remedies justifiable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading this 17th of December 2015 at Cantilan,
Surigao del Sur, Philippines.

MARILYN F. PARIDES
Complainant

Assisted by:

ATTY. JO EDWARD F. YECYEC

Public Attorney I
Assisting Counsel
Roll No. 63079
Pursuant to RA 9046

Copy furnished:

Hon. Felecito G. Trugillo

Barangay Captain
Tag-anito, Carrascal
Surigao del Sur

EXPLANATION

A copy of this position paper is being furnished to plaintiff not by personal service but by
registered mail due to time constraint, lack of manpower, and the distance involved.