REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

CITY OF CALOOCAN
SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD
COMMITTEE ON GOOD GOVERNMENT AND JUSTICE

Hon. RONALDO DE JESUS MATIAS

Complainant,

SPAC CGGJ 021-099

For: GRAVE MISCONDUCT
and GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY
-versus-

Hon. JAN MICHAEL VINCENT “CHAN”

IBARRA, SK Chairman, Barangay 175,
Hon. DONY RAYMOND R. BERNALDEZ,
SK Chairman, Barangay 146, Hon. RYAH
ROSETTE D. SANTOS, SK Chairman,
Barangay 13, Hon. JOHNNEILLY D.
NARVASA, SK Chairman, Barangay 25,
and Hon. JOHN EDISON EUGENIO,
SK Kagawad, Barangay 98,
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINANT’S POSITION PAPER

COMES NOW COMPLAINANT by himself and to this

HONOROBLE OFFICE most respectfully submits this
POSITION PAPER in compliance with its ORDER dated
______________ which he received on _____________________.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case is an administrative case of Grave Misconduct

and Gross Neglect of Duty filed by the COMPLAINANT against
Hon. Jan Michael Vincent “Chan” Ibarra, SK Chairman of
Barangay 175, Hon. Dony Raymond R. Bernaldez, SK
Chairman of Barangay 146, Hon. Ryah Rosette D. Santos, SK
Chairman of Barangay 13, Hon. Johnneilly D. Narvasa, SK
Chairman of Barangay 25, and Hon. John Edison Eugenio SK
Kagawad of Barangay 98.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

The facts as gathered from the “Sinumpaang Salaysay ng

Paghahabla” presented by the complainant that on February
5, 2021 at around 3:00 in the afternoon while the herein
complainant was in Pag-asa, Brgy. 175, Caloocan City,
reminding the residents of Pag-asa, Brgy. 175 to observe
health protocols based on the guidelines issued by the Inter-
Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging and
Infectious Diseases (IATF-MEID), one of Barangay 175’s
volunteer staff called the complainant in order to inform him
that there was an event currently happening in Camarin
Residences III (in front of Bldg. 19), Brgy. 175, Caloocan City
which was a “Game” sponsored by Congressman Edgar “Egay”
Erice (Congressman Erice).

Immediately upon receiving the aforesaid information,

the complainant went to the said location at Camarin
Residences III in order to stop the said event but it was too
late as the said event was already concluded and the people
who violated the pertinent IATF protocols and Caloocan City
Ordinances pertaining to the health and safety protocols to
mitigate if not contain the spread of COVID-19 were also gone.

It came to complainant’s knowledge that the said “Game”

has a recorded video of which was uploaded on the official
Facebook Page of Congressman Erice. However, it should be
noted that the link that the complainant presented in his
“Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Paghahabla”,
https://www.facebook.com/264503911037068/videos/18867
9095951399 has been removed online for some unknown
reason. Hence, a copy of the said video is being presented
including its screenshots as Annex “A” as a substitute of
complainant’s previous evidence.

Significantly, when the complainant had seen the said

recorded video, the complainant confirmed that the said
“Game” is an “Obstacle Course Game” for the contest entitled
Barangay Sereyna which the same is being sponsored by
Congressman Erice. The complainant also confirmed from the
said video that the two (2) hosts of the said “Obstacle Course
Game” are Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Chairmen from
different barangays of Caloocan City of which the said two (2)
hosts have been later identified as Jan Michael Vincent “Chen”
Ibarra, SK Chairman of Barangay 120 and Dony Raymond
Bernaldez, SK Chairman of Barangay 146. They were also
accompanied by another SK official named Ryah Rosette D.
Santos, SK Chairman of Barangay 13.

Moreover, the complainant confirmed that the two (2)

hosts stationed at the studio who are accomplices of the two
(2) hosts of the said Obstacle Course Game are also SK
Officials named, Jhonneilly Narvasa, SK Chairman of
Barangay 25 and John Edison Eugenio, SK Kagawad of
Barangay 98.
 Based also on the said recorded video, there were more or
less one hundred (100) people in the location where the said
Obstacle Course Game was being held of which some of them
are children below fifteen (15) years of age. It is also
noteworthy to mention that as seen in the recorded video,
there were people in the location who failed to wear face mask
including the two (2) hosts, failed to observe social or physical
distancing and evidently there was a mass gathering.

The aforesaid occurrence was jointly testified in writing

by Earl Denver A. Hechanova and Josefino G. Enciso. It was
also testified in writing by the National Housing Authority
(NHA) personnel, stating the fact that the same attempted to
stop the ongoing Obstacle Course Game but to no avail.

ISSUE

Whether the herein respondents namely JAN MICHAEL

VINCENT “CHAN” IBARRA, DONY RAYMOND R. BERNALDEZ,
RYAH ROSETTE D. SANTOS, JOHNNEILLY D. NARVASA and
JOHN EDISON EUGENIO be held administratively liable for
Grave Misconduct and Gross Neglect of Duty.

DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENT

THE HEREIN RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE FOR GRAVE

MISCONDUCT

The complainant humbly submits that the herein

respondents are liable for grave misconduct and gross neglect
of duty.

Misconduct is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate

violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. 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. In grave misconduct, as
distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of
corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard
of an established rule must be manifest. 1

Section 8(f) of the Republic Act No. 10742 otherwise

known as the “Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act of 2015”
explicitly provides that:

1
Narvasa v. Sanchez, Jr., G.R. No. 169449, March 26, 2010.
 SEC. 8. Powers and Functions of the
Sangguniang Kabataan. – The Sangguniang
Kabataan shall:

Xxx

(j) Exercise such other powers and perform

such other functions as may be prescribed
by law or ordinance, or delegated by the
Sangguniang Barangay or the Commission.
(Emphasis Supplied)

Respondents in their Joint Verified Answer stated that

the facts and circumstances have no relation with their duty
or office as SK Officials. The complainant submits otherwise.

In the case at bar, assuming arguendo that the

respondents’ claim of which the activity complained of was
conducted under a volunteer organization is true, the herein
respondents cannot deny the fact that they remain SK Officials
and bound by the existing laws or ordinances, particularly
Republic Act No. 11469 or the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act,
IATF Protocols, Caloocan City Ordinance No. 0862 s. 2020
otherwise known as “An Ordinance Requiring all Persons to
Wear Face Masks at all times in Public Places within the City of
Caloocan during Effectivity of the Community Quarantine to
Abate the Spread of COVID-19, providing for Penalties for
Violation Thereof and for other Purposes”, and City Ordinance
No. 0863 s. 2020 or “An Ordinance Mandating the Strict
Implementation of Social or Physical Distancing of People and
other Relevant Measures to Curb the Spread of COVID-19
Disease in the City of Caloocan, Providing Penalties for Violation
thereof and other Purposes”.2

It is also noteworthy to mention that if it was true that

the activity complained of is not in any way directly or
indirectly connected with their office as SK Officials, they
should have not mentioned or broadcasted their designation
as the SK Chairman of their respective barangays during the
said activity as evidently seen in the recorded video. 3

At the outset, the complainant has discussed the

meaning of Grave Misconduct of which the elements of
corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant
disregard of an established rule must be manifest of which
is clearly present in this case. (Emphasis Supplied)

It should be noted that the herein respondents already

admitted in their Joint Verified Answer that indeed they have

2
Annex “D” of Complainant’s Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Paghahabla.
3
Annex “A”, (as substituted) of Complainant’s “Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Paghahabla”
conducted a mass gathering on the aforesaid date, time and
location because it was clearly stated therein that they were
scouting a place where they can hold the activity being
complained of. As earlier mentioned, being SK Officials who
are lawfully bound to comply with the existing laws and City
ordinances, patently disregarding the existing safety and
health protocols constitutes grave misconduct on their part.

Further, the clear disregard of an established rule

particularly the existing safety and health protocols was
evidently seen in the recorded video as the hosts in the
aforestated location and those who were in the studio were
actually not wearing face mask contrary to the herein
respondents’ claim in their Joint Verified Answer.

CONSIDERING THAT THE HOSTS OF THE AFORESTATED

OBSTACLE COURSE GAME AND HOSTS IN THE STUDIO
HAVE INTENTIONALLY FAILED TO ABIDE BY THE
EXISTING LAWS, CITY ORDINANCES, RULES AND
REGULATIONS, THE HEREIN RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE
FOR GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY

“Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence ‘refers to

negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by
acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to
act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a
conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as other
persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care that
even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their
own property.’ It denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or
unwillingness of a person to perform a duty. In cases involving
public officials, gross negligence occurs when a breach of duty
is flagrant and palpable.”4

Gross Neglect of Duty is characterized by want of even

the slightest care, or by conscious indifference to the
consequences, or by flagrant and palpable breach of duty. 5

Applying the aforestated definitions of Gross Neglect of

Duty in the present case, the herein respondents deliberately
breached their duty to obey the national government policies
and directives in imposing quarantines 6 as they indifferently
conducted the activity complained of without regarding the
consequences in conducting the same.

4
Office of the Ombudsman v. de Leon, G.R. No. 154083 (2013), citing Fernandez v. Office of the
Ombudsman, (2012) and Philippine Retirement Authority v. Rupa, 415 Phil. 713, 720-721 (2001).
5
GSIS vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 208979, September 21, 2016
6
Section 6 ng R.A. 11469 or the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act.
 As a matter of fact, among the consequences in
conducting the aforestated Obstacle Course Game are: (1)
people including children not authorized to go outside their
residences during community quarantine were attracted to
watch and gather around the venue where the activity
complained of was being held; (2) there was a mass gathering
which resulted to non-observance of physical or social
distancing; and (3) possible spread of the COVID-19 among
the residents of the said location because some of the
residents who were outside during the aforesaid date and time
were not wearing face mask.

The obstinate desire to hold an activity that resulted to a

mass gathering irrespective whether there was a permit or not
is of no moment because the fact that the activity complained
of was successfully held despite that there are existing laws
and City ordinances prohibiting such mass gathering is a clear
breach of the respondents’ duty and thus, constitutes gross
neglect of duty on the part of the herein respondents.

WRONGFUL ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF A PUBLIC OFFICER

MAY GIVE RISE TO CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY

The "threefold liability rule" holds that the wrongful acts

or omissions of a public officer may give rise to civil, criminal
and administrative liability. This simply means that a public
officer 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 officer may
be held civilly liable to reimburse the injured party. If the law
violated attaches a penal sanction, the erring officer may also
be punished criminally. Finally, such violation may also lead
to suspension, removal from office, or other administrative
sanctions.7

As a matter of fact, the action that may result for each

liability under the aforesaid “threefold liability rule” may be
filed and the same may be proceeded independently of one
another as each liability has a distinct quantum of evidence
required.

Hence, the contention of the herein respondents that

Ordinance No. 0862 or otherwise known as “An Ordinance
Requiring all Persons to Wear Face Masks at all times in Public
Places within the City of Caloocan during Effectivity of the
Community Quarantine to Abate the Spread of COVID-19,
providing for Penalties for Violation Thereof and for other
7
Ramiscal Jr. vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 213716, October 10, 2017.
Purposes”, and City Ordinance No. 0863 s. 2020 or “An
Ordinance Mandating the Strict Implementation of Social or
Physical Distancing of People and other Relevant Measures to
Curb the Spread of COVID-19 Disease in the City of Caloocan,
Providing Penalties for Violation thereof and other Purposes” are
penal in nature and not administrative is bereft of merit.

Considering that the herein respondents patently violated

the aforestated City Ordinances not to mention that they are
public officers, it is proper for them to be administratively
sanctioned.

THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT ADMINISTRATIVE

AGENCIES ARE NOT BOUND BY THE TECHNICAL RULES
ON EVIDENCE8

The general rule is that administrative agencies or quasi-

judicial bodies such as the COMMITTEE ON GOOD
GOVERNMENT AND JUSTICE of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod ng Caloocan is not bound by the technical rules
on evidence. It can accept documents which cannot be
admitted in a judicial proceeding where the Rules of Court are
strictly observed. It can choose to give weight or disregard
evidence, depending on its trustworthiness. 9

Evidence as defined by the Revised Rules on Evidence

refers to the means, sanctioned by the Revised Rules on
Evidence, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact. (Emphasis Supplied)

The Civil Service Commission (CSC), for example,

investigates for the purpose of ascertaining the truth without
necessarily adhering to the technical rules of procedure
applicable in judicial proceedings. As elucidated in the case of
CSC v. Colanggo, the Supreme Court validly appreciated
certain documents in resolving the formal charge against
respondent notwithstanding the fact that the said documents
were not duly authenticated but its contents were disputed by
respondent and whose only objection was that they were not
duly authenticated.

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.10 (Emphasis supplied)

8
Sugar Regulatory Administration v. Tormon, G.R. No. 195640, December 4, 2012.
9
Ibid.
10
Department of Health v. Aquintey et.al., G.R. No. 204766, March 06, 2017
 Applying the abovementioned jurisprudence in the case
at bar and in consideration of attending facts and pieces of
evidence presented before this Honorable Office, point to no
other conclusion than the administrative liability of the herein
respondents for Grave Misconduct and Gros Neglect of Duty.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed that this position paper including the copy of the video
and its corresponding screenshots be included in the records
of the herein case, and after evaluation, for this Honorable
Office to render a finding of guilty against respondents.

Complainant prays for other reliefs just and equitable under

the premises.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Caloocan City, Philippines, May ____, 2021.

RONALDO DE JESUS MATIAS

Complainant
 VERIFICATION

I, RONALDO DE JESUS MATIAS, of legal age, married,

Filipino, with address at 1060 Samano Road, Area A, Camarin,
Barangay 175, Caloocan City, after having been duly sworn to
in accordance with law hereby depose and state:

1. That I am the Complainant in the above-titled case;

2. That I caused the foregoing Position Paper to be
prepared;
3. That I have read and understood the same; and
4. That all allegations stated therein are true and correct of
my own knowledge and information based on authentic
documents in my possession.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

_____ day of May, 2021 at Caloocan City, Philippines.

RONALDO DE JESUS MATIAS

The affiant whose name and personal circumstances are

stated above personally appeared before me this ____ day of
May, 2021 in Caloocan City presented the foregoing
verification signed the same in my presence and affirmed
under oath to the correctness of the contents and allegations
of the same.

The affiant personally known to me and he exhibited to me his

_____________________ issued on __________________ in
________________________.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No. ______;

Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of 2021.