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 (HRMD)
of the National Housing Authority (NHA)
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------x

I. POSITION PAPER OF THE COMPLAINANT

Undersigned Complainant, assisted by her counsel, unto the Honorable

Civil Service Commission – Quezon City, most respectfully avers that-

II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

An administrative case was anonymously filed against herein Appelllant, in

relation to her duties as a Project Manager of NHA for its Smoke Mountain
Project, which the above-named Respondents decided against her. Although their
resolution was timely questioned by the Complainant’s counsel’s through his
filing of a Motion for Reconsideration within the reglementary period, the
Respondents had proceeded to execute their suspension against the Complainant
even without any legal basis to do so.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The National Housing Authority – Permanent Investigating Committee

on Administrative Offenses, herein referred for brevity as NHA – PICAO, which
is being headed by the Respondents, Atty. Eleonor A. Balatbat, rendered its
Resolution on the Complainant’s administrative case on June 14, 2018, founding
her guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty, and penalizing her with one year suspension
from government service. Said resolution was received by the latter on 14
September 2018.

2. At that same date, the Complainant also received a Memorandum from

the Human Resources Management Department of the National Housing
Authority, signed by its Manager on 13 September 2018, herein Respondents
Elvira A. Sabado, which declares that the effectivity of the suspension order by
NHA – TICAO is immediately executory upon the Complainant’s receipt of the
same Memorandum.
 3. In view of that Memorandum, although the Complainant punctually
submitted to NHA – TICAO her Motion for Reconsideration, her suspension was
still not meted. She repeatedly pleaded at numerous instances that her suspension
be lifted, considering that the said motion was still pending before the
Investigating Committee, but to no avail. The Complainant was thus suspended
on October 2018.

4. After six months, NHA – TICAO issued its resolution on the

Complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration on 12 April 2019. In the said
Resolution, her suspension was decreased from one year to six months. Thus, the
Complainant was reinstated and ordered to immediately report back to work
again on May 2019.

5. Nevertheless, because the Complainant was forced to stop reporting for

work, devoid of any basis in whatever provisions of law, she missed tons of
opportunities she ought to grab during that period, including but not limited to:
receiving her salary for the months covered by her illegal suspension, availing for
an impending promotion, and missing out on the much awaited year end bonuses
for all government – employees, towards the end of 2018.

IV. ISSUE OF THE CASE

1. Firstly, the central issue tackled in this case is whether or not the Human
Resources Management Department and the Permanent Investigating Committee
on Administrative Offenses of the National Housing Authority were correct in
implementing the suspension of the Complainant in spite of her punctual filing of
a Motion for Reconsideration within the fifteen (15) – day period, as provided by
law.

2. Secondly, whether or not the Respondents are guilty of violating Section

3 of RA 3019 also needs to be determined.

V. DISCUSSION

1. Regardless of the nature of the case, either the one filed is criminal, or civil
or as what we are faced now, administrative, the established rule on this matter is
clear. A motion for reconsideration punctually submitted prevents a case from
attaining finality. Therefore, as to the first issue, NHA – PICAO and HRMD were
both wrong in executing the Complainant’s suspension, as ordered in the former’s
June 14, 2018 Resolution, without first deciding on the merits of the latter’s
motion for reconsideration.

2. Section 45, Rule IX, of the 2017 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases
in the Civil Service (RRACCS) provides that:

Section 45. Finality of Decisions. – A decision rendered by the

disciplining authority whereby a penalty of suspension for not more
than thirty (30) days or a fine in an amount not exceeding thirty (30)
days’ salary is imposed, shall be final, executory and not
appealable unless a motion for reconsideration is
seasonably filed. However, the respondent may file an appeal
when the issue raised is violation of due process.

If the penalty imposed is suspension exceeding thirty (30) days, or fine

in an amount exceeding thirty (30) days’ salary, the same shall be
 final and executory after the lapse of the reglementary period for
filing a motion for reconsideration or an appeal and no such pleading
has been filed.

This provision has to be read in relation to Section 56, Rule XI of RRACCS,

which states the following:

Section 56. Filing. – The party adversely affected by the decision may
file a motion for reconsideration with the disciplining authority
who rendered the same within fifteen (15) days from receipt
thereof. A motion for extension of time to file a motion for
reconsideration is not allowed.

3. Stated differently, whether the suspension imposed to the accused public

officers is within (30) days, or beyond that period of time, and even if the
computed fine that they are penalized with is equivalent to their thirty (30) days’
salary or not, a motion filed within fifteen (15) days by the same praying for the
reconsideration of the resolution of the quasi – judicial body that rendered a
decision against them prevents the administrative case involving those public
officers from attaining finality.

4. The Supreme Court explained in the case of Barrio Fiesta Restaurant v.

Beronia, that the decisions regarding a case can still be modified as long as an
appeal or a motion for reconsideration was timely filed. The Court mentioned
that:

It is well-settled that judgments or orders become final and

executory by operation of law and not by judicial declaration. The
finality of a judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the
reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected or no
motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed. (G.R. No.
206690, 1 July 2016, 796 SCRA 257)

5. In the same vein, it has been held in Guzman v. Guzman and Montealto
(G.R. NO. 172588) that a decision becomes final and executory, only when the
case becomes "immutable and unalterable, and can no longer be modified in any
respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an
erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is
attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land."
(706 Phil. 319). All court orders therefore become fixed and unchangeable when
neither an appeal nor a motion for reconsideration was filed during the
reglementary period provided under the relevant procedures. Hence, since the
questioned administrative is still not final, it is the duty of NHA -TICAO and
HRMD to withhold the execution of the former’s suspension order due to the
properly filed motion for reconsideration of the Complainant. However, as
revealed above in the narrated facts, the two offices failed to accomplish that.

6. Therefore, NHA – TICAO and HRMD both erred in suspending the

Complainant before resolving the motion for reconsideration that she submitted
to the same Investigating Committee within the fifteen (15) day – period when she
was legally permitted to file it.

7. With regard to the second issue, regarding the substantive matters of this
complaint, the Respondents’ suspension of the Complainant following the
former’s decision on the administrative complaint filed against her is a strident,
irrational and negligent disregard of the law motivated by wrong intentions
against the latter.

8. The Respondents’ acts constitute 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.

9. 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.

10. As to the first issue, it is an evident fact that the persons involved in this
case – both the Complainant and the two Respondents, are all legitimate officers
of the government during the narrated events, as it is undisputed that the three
are regular, plantilla employees of the different offices within the NHA.

11. To further explain the second element, the Supreme Court in Plameras
v. People, declared the following:

"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.”

12. Due to the use of the word “or”, the Respondents only need to perform
one of the three components enumerated therein in order to satisfy the said
element. Nevertheless, they have jointly accomplished all those components
thereby causing injury to the Complainant.

13. They have shown manifest partiality when they proceeded to hear the
anonymous complaint sent to them, when under the pertinent rules of civil
service, particularly, Rule III or RRACCS, to entertain such anonymous letters are
generally not allowed.

14. NHA – TICAO and HRMD showed evident bad faith and gross
inexcusable negligence when they proceeded to suspend the Complainant in spite
of the timely Motion for Reconsideration she filed. The stipulation in the
Memorandum from HRMD stating the immediate effectivity of NHA – TICAO’s
first resolution upon receipt of the former document shows their perverse motive
to unlawfully suspend the Complainant, and the absence of any degree of caution
in the proper execution of the duties and responsibilities they received from their
public office.

15. Due to the Respondents’ failure to respect the right to due process of the
Complainant, this caused damages to her, which should be rightfully
compensated by the former.

VI. PRAYER

Since all the elements of Section 3 (e)115 of RA 3019 are satisfied, the
Respondents are therefore liable of violating the said provision against the
Complainant. It is therefore humbly prayed before this Honorable Office of the
Ombudsman in Quezon City that the issues enumerated in this pleading be ruled
in my favor.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affixed my signature this 4th day of

May 2022, at Quezon City, Philippines.

JULIETA P. SAN MIGUEL

Complainant

Assisted by:

COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT

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

the same person, before me this 4th day of May 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.