Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

QUEZON CITY

JULIETA P. SAN MIGUEL

Project Manager
NCR – South Sector 1
National Housing Authority (NHA),
Complainant,

-versus- Case No.:

For: Violation of RA 3019 (Section 3)
and Grave Misconduct
ATTY. ELEONOR A. BALATBAT,
Former Head of Legal Services and
Current Chairperson of the Permanent Investigating Committee
on Administrative Offenses (PICAO) of the National
Housing Authority (NHA); and,

ELVIRA A. SABADO
Manager
Human Resource Management Department of
the National Housing Authority (NHA)

Respondents.
x-----------------------------------x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

Undersigned Respondent, assisted by counsel, unto the Honorable Office

of the Ombudsman – Quezon City, most respectfully avers that-

1. She is the respondent – lawyer in the above-entitled case;

2. In order to controvert the allegations of the herein complainant in her

Complaint-Affidavit, the Respondent hereby submits this Counter-
Affidavit;

3. Accordingly, the Respondent’s suspension of the Complainant

following the former’s decision on the administrative complaint filed
against her is a blatant, mindless and negligent disregard of the law
motivated by ill motive against the latter;
4. Complainant alleges that this constitutes a corrupt practice of a public
officer, and therefore a violation of Section 3, Paragraph (e) of RA
3019, otherwise known as the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;

5. It is the humble submission of the Respondent that the above-entitled

case could not be prosecuted for lack of merit and should be
dismissed;

6. In the case of Presidential Commission on Good Government v.

Navarro-Gutierrez, the elements of violation of Section 3 (e)115 of RA
3019 are provided as follows, to wit:

(a) that the accused must be a public officer discharging

administrative, judicial, or official functions (or a private
individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers);

(b) that he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or

inexcusable negligence; and,

(c) that his action caused any undue injury to any party,
including the government, or giving any private party
unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge
of his functions.

7. In the instant case, the second and third elements, which would lead
to the liability of the Respondent for violating the same provision, are
both absent;

8. As enunciated by the Supreme Court in Plameras v. People,

"Manifest partiality" exists “when there is clear, notorious, or plain

inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than
another. "Evident bad faith" connotes not only bad judgment but also
palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral
obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will.
"Evident bad faith" contemplates a state of mind affirmatively
operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill
will or for ulterior purposes. "Gross inexcusable negligence" refers to
negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting
or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference
to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.”;
9. From the facts and circumstances of the administrative case involving
herein complainant, it is apparent that she failed to closely supervise
the activities of the Interim Water Services Group, particularly the
remittance of the water dues to the NHA. After a review of the
anonymous complaint, her answer, the applicable law and
jurisprudence on the matter, and all other relevant documents
submitted by both parties, she was found guilty of gross neglect of
duty;

10. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the respondent was biased
towards the anonymous complainant when she merely decided the
case based on the strength of the evidence and arguments given by
the opposing parties. Considering that the complainant in that case,
who attached supporting documents in an anonymous letter
transmitted to the NHA, was able to substantiate his or her claim
better than the defenses of herein Complainant, it becomes therefore
the duty of the Respondent to rule on the matter against the latter;

11. Furthermore, to rule that the respondent arrived at an erroneous and

inherently unethical conclusion in the same case has no basis because
there was a strong evidence supporting the conviction of the above-
named Complainant. To resolve that case in favor of her is a flagrant
disrespect of justice and the people;

12. Lastly, no negligence was committed by the Respondent in the

discharge of her duties. In fact, she promptly acted on the complaint
which was anonymously filed, but properly corroborated, against the
herein Complainant;

13. On the matter of wrongly suspending the Complainant, in accordance

to the resolution of NHA – PICAO dated July 10, 2018, in spite of her
timely filing of a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary
period of fifteen (15) days, the proper persons to be held liable are the
concerned officers from the Accounting Department and the Human
Resources Department of the NHA who proceeded to execute said
decision without authority from the Respondent. As a lawyer, the
Respondent is aware of the rule that a motion for reconsideration
punctually submitted prevents a case from attaining finality.
Therefore, any order of the court should not be executed without
having first resolved the said motion. Documents attached herewith
 proves the fact that the Respondent never signed the order
suspending the complainant;

14. In view of that, there exists in this case no proof showing manifest
partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence in any of
the Respondent’s acts;

15. As regards the third element, it cannot be said that the Respondent
gave unwarranted benefits to the unidentified complainant by deciding
on the merits of his or her letter. To entertain such anonymous letters
are generally not allowed. However, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) allows the same if
either “there is obvious truth and merit to the allegations therein” or if
it “is supported by documentary or direct evidence”. Considering that
said anonymous complainant attached pieces of documents to
strengthen the allegations mentioned thereat, the same administrative
case is therefore within the exemption laid down at Rule 3 of RRACCS.
The Respondent, clearly, did not give undue preference to the
unknown letter sender. She just did what she had to do.

16. Without the second and third elements of Section 3 (e)115 of RA 3019,
the Respondent cannot therefore be held liable against the
Complainant’s allegations. It is humbly prayed before this Honorable
Office of the Ombudsman in Quezon City that the above-entitled case
be outrightly dismissed for lack of merit;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affixed my signature this 28th day of

April 2022, at Quezon City, Philippines.

ATTY. ELEONOR A. BALATBAT

Respondent/Affiant

Assisted by:

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

Subscribed and sworn to before me by the Respondent, known to me to

be the same person, before me this 28th day of April 2022, at Tomas Morato
Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines. This is to further certify that I have personally
examined the Respondent, who avowed under penalty of law to the whole truth
of her declarations in this instrument.