THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 168309. January 29, 2008.]

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN , petitioner, vs . MARIAN D. TORRES and

MARICAR D. TORRES , respondents.

DECISION

NACHURA , J : p

This is a petition 1 for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
led by petitioner O ce of the Ombudsman seeking the reversal of the Decision 2
dated January 6, 2004 and the Resolution 3 dated May 27, 2005 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 69749.
The case arose from an administrative complaint for Dishonesty, Grave
Misconduct, and Falsi cation of O cial Document led before the O ce of the
Ombudsman (docketed as OMB-ADM-0-00-0926) by then Barangay Chairman
Romancito L. Santos of Concepcion, Malabon, against Edilberto Torres (Edilberto),
Maricar D. Torres (Maricar), and Marian D. Torres (Marian), then Municipal Councilor,
Legislative Staff Assistant, and Messenger, respectively, of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Malabon. Maricar and Marian are daughters of Edilberto.
Maricar was appointed as Legislative Staff Assistant on February 16, 1995, while
Marian was appointed as Messenger on May 24, 1996. At the time of their public
employment, they were both enrolled as full-time regular college students — Maricar, as
a full-time student at the University of Santo Tomas (UST) and Marian as a dentistry-
proper student at the College of Dentistry of Centro Escolar University. During the
period subject of this case, they were able to collect their respective salaries by
submitting Daily Time Records (DTR) indicating that they reported for work every
working day, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EHTSCD

After due proceedings held in the O ce of the Ombudsman, Graft Investigation

O cer (GIO) Moreno F. Generoso, in the Decision 4 dated November 9, 2001, found
Maricar and Marian administratively guilty of Dishonesty and Falsi cation of O cial
Document and recommended the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from the
service. The charge against Edilberto was dismissed, having become moot and
academic in view of his re-election on May 14, 2001 in accordance with the ruling in
Aguinaldo v. Santos 5 that "a public o cial cannot be removed for administrative
misconduct committed during a prior term, since his re-election to o ce operates as a
condonation of the o cer's previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right
to remove him therefor." Upon recommendation of Deputy Special Prosecutor Robert E.
Kallos, Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto a rmed the ndings of GIO Generoso but
tempered the penalty to one (1) year suspension from service without pay.
Aggrieved, Maricar and Marian went to the CA via a petition 6 for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
In a Decision dated January 6, 2004, the CA granted the petition. While a rming
the ndings of fact of the O ce of the Ombudsman, the CA set aside the nding of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 administrative guilt against Maricar and Marian ratiocinating in this wise:
It is undisputed that petitioners are confidential employees of their father.
As such, the task they were required to perform, is upon the instance of their
father, and the time they were required to report may be intermittent. To our
mind, the false entries they made in their daily time records on the specific dates
contained therein, had been made with no malice or deliberate intent so as to
constitute falsi cation. The entries made may not be absolutely false, they may
even be considered as having been made with a color of truth, not a downright
and willful falsehood which taken singly constitutes falsi cation of public
documents. As Cuello Calon stated: "La mera inexactud no es bastante para
integrar este delito." In the present case, the daily time records have already
served their purpose. They have not caused any damage to the government or
third person because under the facts obtaining, petitioners may be said to have
rendered service in the interest of the public, with proper permission from their
superior. aCIHAD

It may be true that a daily time record is an o cial document. It is not

falsi ed if it does not pervert its avowed purpose as when it does not cause
damage to the government. It may be different in the case of a public document
with continuing interest affecting the public welfare, which is naturally damaged
if that document is falsi ed when the truth is necessary for the safeguard and
protection of that general interest. The keeping and submission of daily time
records within the context of petitioners' employment, should be taken only for
the sake of administrative procedural convenience or as a matter of practice,
but not for reason of strict legal obligation.
Assuming that petitioners are under strict legal obligation to keep and
submit daily time records, still we are disposed to the view that the alleged false
entries do not constitute falsi cation for having been made with no malice or
deliberate intent.
The following pronouncement in the case of Lecaroz vs.
Sandiganbayan may serve as a guidepost, to wit: "[I]f what is proven is mere
judgmental error on the part of the person committing the act, no malice or
criminal intent can be rightfully imputed to him. . . . . Ordinarily, evil intent must
unite with an unlawful act for a crime to exist. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens
sit rea. There can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting. As a general
rule, ignorance or mistake as to particular facts, honest and real, will exempt the
doer from felonious responsibility. The exception of course is neglect in the
discharge of duty or indifference to consequences, which is equivalent to
criminal intent, for in this instance, the element of malicious intent is supplied
by the element of negligence and imprudence. In the instant case, there are clear
manifestations of good faith and lack of criminal intent on the part of
petitioners."
As a nal note, there may be some suspicions as to the real intention of
private complainant in instituting the action before public respondent, caution
should be taken to prevent the development of circumstances that might
inevitably impair the image of the public o ce. Private complainant is a
government o cial himself, as such he should avoid so far as reasonably
possible, a situation which would normally tend to arouse any reasonable
suspicion that he is utilizing his o cial position for personal gain or advantage
to the prejudice of party litigants or the public in general. For "there may be
occasion then where the needs of the collectivity that is the government may
collide with his private interest as an individual".
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 In closing, it must be borne in mind that the evident purpose of requiring
government employees to keep a daily time record is to show their attendance in
o ce to work and to be paid accordingly. Closely adhering to the policy of no
work no pay, a daily time record is primarily, if not solely, intended to prevent
damage or loss to the government as would result in instances where it pays an
employee for no work done. The integrity of the daily time record as an o cial
document, however, remains untarnished if the damage sought to be prevented
has not been produced. The obligation to make entries in the daily time records
of employees in the government service is a matter of administrative procedural
convenience in the computation of salary for a given period, characteristically,
not an outright and strict measure of professional discipline, e ciency,
dedication, honesty and competence. The insigni cant transgression by
petitioners, if ever it is one, would not tilt the scales of justice against them, for
courts must always be, as they are, the repositories of fairness and justice. 7 HACaSc

Petitioner moved to reconsider the reversal of its Decision by the CA, but the
motion was denied in the CA Resolution dated May 27, 2005. Hence, this petition based
on the following grounds:
I

THE FILLING-UP OF ENTRIES IN THE OFFICIAL DAILY TIME RECORDS (DTRs)

IS NOT A MATTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURAL CONVENIENCE, BUT
RATHER REQUIRED BY CIVIL SERVICE LAW TO ENSURE THAT THE PROPER
LENGTH OF WORK-TIME IS OBSERVED BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND
EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES LIKE HEREIN PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS. THE FALSIFICATION OF DTRs WOULD RENDER THE
AUTHORS THEREOF ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE FOR DISHONESTY AND
GRAVE MISCONDUCT FOR THE DAMAGING FALSE NARRATION AND THE
COLLECTION OF FULL COMPENSATION FOR INEXISTENT WORK.

II

THE ELEMENT OF DAMAGE TO THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A REQUISITE FOR

ONE TO BE HELD ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE FOR DISHONESTY AND
MISCONDUCT. ASSUMING IT IS FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE, DAMAGE WAS
CAUSED THE GOVERNMENT WHEN PRIVATE RESPONDENTS FALSIFIED THEIR
DAILY TIME RECORDS IN ORDER TO COLLECT THEIR SALARIES.

III
THE ELEMENT OF INTENT OR MALICE APPLIES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION,
NOT TO AN OFFENSE OF DISHONESTY AND MISCONDUCT. 8
Petitioner's rst submission is that the lling-up of entries in the o cial DTR is
not a matter of administrative procedural convenience but is a requirement by Civil
Service Law to ensure that the proper length of work-time is observed by all public
o cials and employees, including con dential employees such as respondents. It
argues that DTRs, being representations of the compensable working hours rendered
by a public servant, ensure that the taxpaying public is not shortchanged. To bolster
this position, petitioner cited Rule XVII on Government O ce Hours of the Omnibus
Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil
Service Laws, to wit: SHacCD

SECTION 1. It shall be the duty of each head of department or

agency to require all o cers and employees under him to strictly observe the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 prescribed o ce hours. When the head of o ce, in the exercise of discretion
allows government o cials and employees to leave the o ce during the o ce
hours and not for o cial business, but to attend socials/events/functions
and/or wakes/interments, the same shall be re ected in their time cards and
charged to their leave credits.
SEC. 2. Each head of department or agency shall require a daily time
record of attendance of all the o cers and employees under him including
those serving in the eld or on the water, to be kept in the proper form and,
whenever possible, registered in the bundy clock.
Service "in the eld" shall refer to service rendered outside the o ce
proper and service "on the water" shall refer to service rendered on board a
vessel which is the usual place of work.
SEC. 3. Chiefs and Assistant Chiefs of agencies who are appointed
by the President, o cers who rank higher than these chiefs and assistant chiefs
in the three branches of government, and other presidential appointees need not
punch in the bundy clock, but attendance and all absences of such o cers
must be recorded.
SEC. 4. Falsi cation or irregularities in the keeping of time records
will render the guilty o cer or employee administratively liable without
prejudice to criminal prosecution as the circumstances warrant.
SEC. 5. O cers and employees of all departments and agencies
except those covered by special laws shall render not less than eight hours of
work a day for ve days a week or a total of forty hours a week, exclusive of
time for lunch. As a general rule, such hours shall be from eight o'clock in the
morning to twelve o'clock noon and from one o'clock to ve o'clock in the
afternoon on all days except Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays.
SEC. 6. Flexible working hours may be allowed subject to the
discretion of the head of department or agency. In no case shall the weekly
working hours be reduced in the event the department or agency adopts the
flexi-time schedule in reporting for work.
SEC. 7. In the exigency of the service, or when necessary by the
nature of the work of a particular agency and upon representations with the
Commission by the department heads concerned, requests for the rescheduling
or shifting of work schedule of a particular agency for a number of working
days less than the required ve days may be allowed provided that government
o cials and employees render a total of forty hours a week and provided
further that the public is assured of core working hours of eight in the morning
to five in the afternoon continuously for the duration of the entire workweek.
ACcEHI

SEC. 8. O cers and employees who have incurred tardiness and

undertime regardless of minutes per day exceeding [at least] ten times a month
for two (2) consecutive months or for 2 months in a semester shall be subject to
disciplinary action. 9
Petitioner posits that, by reason of the above provisions, making false entries in the
DTRs should not be treated in a cavalier fashion, but rather with a modicum of
sacredness because the DTR mirrors the fundamental maxim of transparency, good
governance, public accountability, and integrity in the public service pursuant to the
constitutional precept that "public o ce is a public trust". Consequently, the o cer or
employee who falsifies time records should incur administrative liability.
On its second and third submissions, petitioner assailed the position of the CA
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 that respondents cannot be held guilty of falsi cation because they did not cause any
damage to the government and there was no intent or malice on their part when they
made the false entries in their respective DTRs during the questioned period of service.
According to petitioner, respondents were not criminally prosecuted for falsi cation
under the Revised Penal Code, but were being held administratively accountable for
dishonesty, grave misconduct, and falsi cation of o cial documents; thus, the
elements of damage and intent or malice are not prerequisites. It further claimed that
for this purpose, only substantial evidence is required, and this had been strongly
established. Petitioner also argued that, even if the element of damage is mandatory,
respondents had caused damage to the government when they received their full
salaries for work not actually rendered.
In their Comment, 1 0 respondents claimed that the CA correctly dismissed the
administrative charges against them as the integrity of their DTRs had remained
untarnished and that they acted in good faith in making the entries in their DTRs. They
said that the CA clearly elaborated the legal basis for its ruling in their favor. They even
argued that the administrative charges lodged by Romancito Santos were based on
mere conjectures and conclusions of fact, such that it was not impossible for college
students to work eight (8) hours a day and attend classes. They further claimed that
petitioner failed to prove that they actually attended their classes which they were
enrolled in.
Respondents also argued that petitioner erred in not having dismissed outright
the administrative charges against them because, at the time the complaint was led,
the charges had already prescribed under Section 20 (5) of Republic Act No. 6770 (The
Ombudsman Act of 1989), to wit:
(5) The complaint was led after one year from the occurrence of the
act or omission complained of.CacHES

They said that the acts complained of occurred in 1996 to 1997, while the case was
filed only on February 2000, or after the lapse of more or less three (3) years.
Respondent Maricar also asseverated that the doctrine laid down in Aguinaldo v.
Santos 1 1 should also apply to her considering that she was elected as City Councilor
of Malabon City in the 2004 elections. She also claimed that the instant case adversely
affected their lives, particularly in her case, for while she graduated from the University
of the East College of Law in 2004, she was only able to take the bar examinations in
2005 due to the pendency of the administrative case against her. She also cited the
fact that the criminal case involving the same set of facts was dismissed, insinuating
that, as a result of this, the administrative case should have likewise been dismissed.
The petition is impressed with merit.
At the outset, it must be stressed that this is an administrative case for
dishonesty, grave misconduct, and falsi cation of o cial document. To sustain a
nding of administrative culpability only substantial evidence is required, not
overwhelming or preponderant, and very much less than proof beyond reasonable
doubt as required in criminal cases. 1 2 Substantial evidence means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
The following facts are borne out by the records: (1) Maricar was appointed as
Legislative Staff Assistant in the O ce of then Councilor of Malabon, Edilberto Torres,
on February 16, 1995; 1 3 (2) Marian was appointed as Messenger in the same o ce on
May 24, 1996; 1 4 (3) at the time of Maricar's appointment to and employment in her
position (1995-1997), she was a full-time regular college student at UST; 1 5 (4) at the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 time of Marian's appointment and employment as messenger in her father's o ce
(1996-2000), she was a full-time regular dentistry-proper student at the College of
Dentistry of Centro Escolar University; 1 6 (5) during the employment of respondents in
government service, they submitted DTRs indicating that they religiously reported for
work from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during work days; 1 7 (6) by reason thereof,
respondents collected their full salaries during the entire time of their employment in
their respective positions; 1 8 and, (7) these all occurred with the full knowledge and
consent of their father. 1 9
It is also worthy to note that the factual nding made by petitioner, i.e., that
respondents made false entries in their respective DTRs for the period subject of this
case, was affirmed by the CA in the assailed Decision dated January 6, 2004. 2 0 HTCAED

On the basis of these established facts, petitioner was correct in holding

respondents administratively guilty of dishonesty and falsi cation of o cial document.
Dishonesty is de ned as the "disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud;
untrustworthiness, lack of integrity." 2 1 Falsi cation of an o cial document, as an
administrative offense, is knowingly making false statements in o cial or public
documents. Both are grave offenses under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases
in the Civil Service, which carry with it the penalty of dismissal on the first offense. 2 2
Falsi cation of DTRs amounts to dishonesty. 2 3 The evident purpose of requiring
government employees to keep a time record is to show their attendance in o ce to
work and to be paid accordingly. Closely adhering to the policy of no work-no pay, a
DTR is primarily, if not solely, intended to prevent damage or loss to the government as
would result in instances where it pays an employee for no work done. 2 4 EDATSC

Respondents' claim of good faith, which implies a sincere intent not to do any
falsehood or to seek any undue advantage, cannot be believed. This Court pronounced
—
Good faith, here understood, is an intangible and abstract quality with no
technical meaning or statutory de nition, and it encompasses, among other
things, an honest belief, the absence of malice and the absence of
design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage. An
individual's personal good faith is a concept of his own mind and,
therefore, may not conclusively be determined by his protestations
alone . It implies honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of
circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. The essence of good
faith lies in an honest belief in the validity of one's right, ignorance of a superior
claim, and absence of intention to overreach another. . . . 2 5
In this case, respondents knew fully well that the entries they made in their
respective DTRs were false considering that it was physically impossible for them to
have reported for full work days when during those times they were actually attending
their regular classes, which undoubtedly would take up most of the daytime hours of
the weekdays. With this knowledge, respondents did not bother to correct the DTR
entries to honestly re ect their attendance at their workplace and the actual work they
performed. Worse, they repeatedly did this for a long period of time, consequently
allowing them to collect their full salaries for the entire duration of their public
employment as staff members of their father.
Respondents' protestations that petitioner failed to prove their actual attendance
in their regular classes and thus, suggest that they may not have been attending their
classes, is preposterous and incredible, simply because this is not in accord with the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 natural course of things. The voluminous documentary evidence subpoenaed by
petitioner from UST and Centro Escolar University showing the schedule of classes of
respondents during the questioned period, along with the certi cates of matriculation
painstakingly perused by GIO Generoso, strongly militates against this claim. It would
be the height of absurdity on the part of respondents to voluntarily enroll in their
respective courses, pay school fees, and not attend classes but instead report for
work. Even if this was remotely possible, such a situation would be irreconcilable with
the respondents having graduated from their respective courses.
Without doubt, the scrutiny of the numerous school documents, the DTRs
submitted, and the payrolls from the o ce of the then Municipal Accountant of
Malabon overwhelmingly revealed that the classes in which respondents enrolled for
several school years were in stark con ict with the time entries in the DTRs, and several
payroll sheets showed that respondents collected their full salaries corresponding to
the DTR entries. These ndings of fact made by petitioner, being supported by
substantial evidence, are conclusive; 26 more so that the nding of false entries in the
DTRs was affirmed by the CA. cSTDIC

Thus, the CA gravely erred when it exonerated respondents from administrative

guilt based on the ndings of fact of petitioner which it even a rmed. The
jurisprudence 27 adopted by the appellate court in laying the legal basis for its ruling
does not apply to the instant case because said cases pertain to criminal liability for
Falsification of Public Document under the Revised Penal Code. The element of damage
need not be proved to hold respondents administratively liable.
But it cannot even be said that no damage was suffered by the government.
When respondents collected their salaries on the basis of falsi ed DTRs, they caused
injury to the government. The falsi cation of one's DTR to cover up one's absences or
tardiness automatically results in nancial losses to the government because it enables
the employee concerned to be paid salaries and to earn leave credits for services which
were never rendered. Undeniably, the falsi cation of a DTR foists a fraud involving
government funds. 28
Likewise, the existence of malice or criminal intent is not a prerequisite to declare
the respondents administratively culpable. What is merely required is a showing that
they made entries in their respective DTRs knowing fully well that they were false. This
was evident in the many documents viewed and reviewed by petitioner through GIO
Generoso.
On the issue of prescription, we agree with petitioner's contention that the O ce
of the Ombudsman is given by R.A. No. 6770 a wide range of discretion whether or not
to proceed with an investigation of administrative offenses even beyond the expiration
of one (1) year from the commission of the offense. 2 9
Likewise, the dismissal of the criminal case involving the same set of facts
cannot bene t respondents to cause the dismissal of the administrative charges
against them. As we held in Tecson v. Sandiganbayan 3 0 —
[I]t is a basic principle of the law on public o cers that a public o cial
or employee is under a three-fold responsibility for violation of a duty or for a
wrongful act or omission. This simply means that a public o cer may be held
civilly, criminally, and administratively liable for a wrongful doing. Thus, if such
violation or wrongful act results in damages to an individual, the public o cer
may be held civilly liable to reimburse the injured party. If the law violated
attaches a penal sanction, the erring o cer may be punished criminally . Finally,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 such violation may also lead to suspension, removal from o ce, or other
administrative sanctions. This administrative liability is separate and distinct
from the penal and civil liabilities. . . .
IDSETA

Hence, there was no impropriety committed by petitioner when it conducted the

administrative investigation which led to the finding of guilt against respondents.
As regards the applicability of Aguinaldo, our pronouncement therein is clear that
condonation of an administrative offense takes place only when the public o cial is re-
elected despite the pendency of an administrative case against him. In the case of
Maricar, prior to her election as Councilor of now Malabon City, she held an appointive,
not an elective, position, i.e., Legislative Staff Assistant, appointed by her very own
father, then Councilor Edilberto Torres.
As mentioned above, falsi cation of a DTR (an o cial document) amounts to
dishonesty. Thus, respondents should be held administratively liable. While dismissal
was originally recommended for imposition on respondents, the penalty was eventually
tempered to suspension of one (1) year without pay.
We agree with the imposition of the lower penalty considering that respondents'
public employment with the then Sangguniang Bayan of Malabon, even while they were
regular college students, was of a con dential character, and the arrangement was with
the full knowledge and consent of their father who appointed them to their positions.
While this Court recognizes the relative laxity given to con dential employees in
terms of adjusted or exible working hours, substantial non-attendance at work as
blatant and glaring as in the case of respondents cannot be countenanced. Collecting
full salaries for work practically not rendered is simply, downright reprehensible.
Inevitably, this leads to the erosion of the public's faith in and respect for the
government.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated January 6, 2004 and the Resolution dated May
27, 2005 of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the Decision of the
Office of the Ombudsman dated November 9, 2001 is REINSTATED. aHESCT

SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Corona * and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 10-37.
2. Id. at 39-45.
3. Id. at 48-52.
4. Id. at 219-232.
5. G.R. No. 94115, August 21, 1992, 212 SCRA 768, 773.
6. Rollo, pp. 181-197.
7. Id. at 42-44.
8. Id. at 17-18.
9. Id. at 22-23.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 10. Id. at 169-180.
11. Supra note 5.
12. Apolinario v. Flores, G.R. No. 152780, January 22, 2007, 512 SCRA 113, 119; Resngit-
Marquez v. Judge Llamas, Jr., 434 Phil. 184, 203 (2002), Mariano v. Roxas, 434 Phil.
742, 749 (2002), and Liguid v. Camano, Jr., 435 Phil. 695, 706 (2002).
13. Finding of fact of petitioner and not denied (therefore, admitted) by respondents. aECSHI

14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Id.
18. Id.
19. Id.
20. The Court of Appeals stated, "We may agree with the findings of fact made by
public respondent , but the inference made in relation to the offense committed that
will merit suspension from service is manifestly mistaken." Rollo, pp. 41-42. (Emphasis
supplied) ESHAcI

21. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. (1990).

22. CSC Resolution No. 991936 (1999), Rule IV, Section 52 (A) (1) & (6).
23. Re: Falsification of Daily Time Records of Maria Fe P. Brooks, A.M. No. P-05-2086,
October 20, 2005, 473 SCRA 483, 488; Administrative Circular No. 2-99 (Re: Strict
Observance of Working Hours and Disciplinary Action for Absenteeism and Tardiness),
item II, 15 January 1999, viz.:
Absenteeism and tardiness, even if such do not qualify as "habitual" or "frequent" under
Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 1991, shall be dealt
with severely, and any falsification of time records to cover up for such
absenteeism and/or tardiness shall constitute gross dishonesty or serious
misconduct. (Emphasis supplied)
24. Beradio v. Court of Appeals, 191 Phil. 153, 168 (1981).
25. PNB v. de Jesus, 458 Phil. 454, 459-460 (2003).
26. R.A. No. 6770, Section 27, 5th paragraph.
27. Beradio v. Court of Appeals, supra note 24; Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan, 364 Phil. 890
(1999).
28. Flores v. Layosa, G.R. No. 154714, August 12, 2004, 436 SCRA 337, 353.
29. Section 20. Exceptions. — The Office of the Ombudsman MAY not conduct the
necessary investigation of any administrative act or omission complained of if it
believes that:
xxx xxx xxx

(5) The complaint was filed after one (1) year from the occurrence of the act or omission
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 complained of. (Emphasis supplied)
30. 376 Phil. 191, 198-199 (1999).
* In lieu of Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario per Special Order No. 484 dated
January 11, 2008.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com