Republic of the Philippines

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Regional Office V
Rawis, Legazpi City

NOEL G. DREU,
In his capacity as Sorsogon City Adm. Case No.D0520001020
Sangguniang Panlungsod Secretary; For:Grave Misconduct,dishonesty,
Project Manager of the City’s Clean and Grave abuse of authority; illegal
and Green Program, and de facto logging;
Deputy Administrator for Bacon District,
Sorsogon City
Respondent
x-------------------------------------------------x

COMMENT
(RE: ON THEVERIFIED ANSWER OF MR. NOEL G. DREU SR.)
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

01. One of the defenses raised by the respondent are the alleged fabricated
statements against him by the witnesses, particularly the statements made by
Julieta Rosas and others. To fabricate is to invent a story, or make up a testimony
with intent to deceive. Such is not the situation in this case. The statements of the
witnesses in this administrative complaint are based on facts and circumstances
gained through observation and first-hand information of events that transpired
during the occurrence of the acts complained of. They personally saw how the
respondent caused his men to cut down a considerable number of trees, many of
which were of hardwood species, in the Sorsogon City’s Eco-Tourism Park at
Cabarbuhan, Bacon district, transporting the sawn logs, upon the respondent’s
direction, to parts unknown, using the City’s dump trucks that were in his official
custody as de facto Deputy City Administrator.

02. Contrary to the deceptive allegation of the respondent, the subject

administrative case was filed with this Honorable Commission on March 9, 2020 at
around 11:40 AM and not March 10, 2020 which is the effectivity date of his
retirement. Hence, on the date of the filing of this case, respondent was still in the
government service.

03. While it is true that at the time he was ordered by this Honorable
Commission to file a counter-affidavit he is already separated from government
service, such a circumstance does not preclude the Commission to proceed with
the investigation of the case. This is clear from the provisions of CSC MC 38, series
of 1993 which states that: “An officer or employee under administrative
investigation may be allowed to resign pending decision of his case but it
shall be without prejudice to the continuation of the proceeding against him.
It shall be also without prejudice to the filing of any administrative case
against him for any act committed while still in service.” In a Resolution No. 97-
0223 dated January14, 1987 (Belagan, Allyson) the Commission ruled thus: “It is
noted that the act complained of was allegedly committed by respondent while still
in the service. The fact that he is already out of the service would not relieve him of
administrative liability. Clearly, the resignation or separation of government
 Page 2 of 4 pages

official or employee should not serve as an instrument to evade liability for

acts committed while he was still in service. This is so even if the complaint or
formal charge against him was filed after the approval of his separation”.

04. The respondent’s contention that this administrative case has become
moot and academic by reason of the cessation from office of the respondent, is
thus bereft of merit. In Pagano vs. Nazarro Jr.,1 “a case becomes moot and
academic only when there is no more actual controversy between the parties
or no useful purpose can be served in passingupon the merits of the case”.
The instant case is not moot and academic despite respondent’s separation from
the government service because the acts complained of were committed while the
respondent was still in service. “Cessation from office of respondent by
resignation or retirement neither warrants the dismissal of the administrative
complaint filed against him while he was still in the service nor does it render
the case moot and academic.” 2 The Supreme Court in the case of Baquerfo vs.
Sanchez 3 has held that “Resignation is not a way out to evade administrative
responsibility when a court employee is facing administrative sanction. It is
not even among the penalties which may be imposed on the erring public
official. Although dismissal from the service is no longer feasible in view of
respondent's resignation, his retirement and all other benefits, except
accrued leave credits, may still be ordered forfeited.”

05. In People vs. Valenzuela,4 citing People vs. Abiera,5 “the rule that the
resignation or retirement of a respondent Judge in an administrative case renders
the case moot and academic, is not a hard and fast rule. Each case is to be
resolved in the context of the circumstances present thereat. It was explained… the
jurisdiction that was ours at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint was
not lost by the mere fact that the respondent public official had ceased to be in office
during the pendency of the case”. For what remedy would the people have
against a judge or any public official who resorts to wrongful and illegal
conduct or from committing abuses and other condemnable acts knowing
fully well that he would soon be beyond the pale of law and immune to all
administrative penalties?”

06. To reiterate the words of the Supreme Court in Pagano vs Nazarro,

“even if the most severe of administrative sanctions ― that of separation from
service ― may no longer be imposed on the petitioner, there are other
penalties which may be imposed on her if she is later found guilty of the
administrative offenses charged against her; namely, the disqualification to
hold any government office and the forfeiture of benefits”.

07. The act of cutting trees by a government official or employee without

authority and without legal documents as required under P.D. 705 otherwise known
as the “Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines” constitutes grave misconduct. The
Supreme Court defines misconduct as “a transgression of some established and

1
G.R. N0. 149072, September 21, 2007.
2
Pagano vs. Nazaro, Jr., supra.
3
A.M. No. P-05-1974, April 6, 2005.
4
G.R. L-63950-60, April 15, 1985.
5
Admin Case No. 223-J, June 11, 1975; 64 SCRA 302.
 Page 3 of 4 pages

definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross

negligence by a public officer. As differentiated from simple misconduct, in
grave misconduct the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or
flagrant disregard of established rule must be present. ”6 In this particular case,
the criminal act of the respondent in cutting trees without authority and legal
documents falls within the definition of grave misconduct.

08. The complained act of the respondent is reprehensible as provided

under the Administrative Code of the Philippines.Superior and subordinate officers
as well; as department heads shall be held liable in case there is a showing of bad
faith, malice and gross negligence in the performance of their duties. Subordinate
officers shall be liable for willful or negligent acts done by him which are contrary to
law, morals, public policy and goodcustoms even if he acted under orders or
instructions of his superiors;

09. Finally, as regards, the counter-affidavits (mga sinumpaang salaysay) of

respondent’s witnesses, suffice it to state that the contents thereof consist only of
unsubstantiated denials, just like the contents of respondent’s counter-affidavit. “It is
settled that denial is inherently a weak defense. To be believed, it must be
buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, such denial is purely
self-serving and is with nil evidentiary value. Like the defense of alibi, a denial
crumbles in the light of positive declarations.” 7 Hence, their allegations of bare
denials can never prevail over the affirmative assertions of the witnesses against
them.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the foregoing comment be taken

into good account by this Honorable Commission in coming up with a just resolution
of this case.
Sorsogon City, Philippines, August 10, 2020.

ROBERTO T. LABITAG
City Legal Officer
G/F City Hall
Sorsogon City 4700
Roll No. 32924 (1984)
IBP O.R. No. 1070326 - 01.02.19
Sorsogon Chapter
PTR No. 326256 W - 11.28.18
MCLE Compliance No. VI-002619
05-20-2019
Mobile Phone No.+639153766286
E-mail: bretlab14@gmail.com

The Receiving Clerk/Record Officer

Greetings: Please submit the foregoing comment to the attention and

6
CSC vs. Ledesma, G.R. i54521, September 30, 2005. See also Bacbac-Del Isen vs. Molina, A.M.
No. P-15-3322, June 23, 2015; en banc.
7
A.M. No. P-08-2494, November 27, 2008, 3 rd Div., re: Alberto Salamat, Sheriff IV, RTC-Br.80,
Malolos City.
 Page 4 of 4 pages

appreciation of the Honorable Hearing Officer. Thank you very much, indeed.

ROBERTO T. LAB ITAG

COPY FURNISHED:
 By Registered Mail due to distance/lack of personal courier:
 By personal service:
 ATTY. MA. VIVENCIA C. LAYOSA
Counsel for the Respondent
Layosa Law Office
B. Flores St., Sorsogon City 4700