Republic of the Philippines

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City

IN RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT
OF ARMANDO ARIZALA
AGAINST DR. EMMANUEL T.
PILAR, DENR MEDICAL AND
DENTAL UNIT.
x-----------------------x

ORDER
1. Nature and Facts of the Case:

Before this Office is the undated Letter-Complaint 1 of Mr.

Armando Arizala (Arizala), Chairman of Nagkakaisang Maralita Laban
sa Kurapsyon (NMLK) against Dr. Emmanuel T. Pilar (Dr. Pilar) of
DENR Medical and Dental Unit for the alleged anomalous
transactions in the purchase of medicines.

The undated Letter-Complaint2 of Arizala allege the following:

xxx

Last February, it came to our attention that there

were anomalous transactions at the DENR's
Medical and Dental Unit. As a watchdog, we
diligently conducted our own investigation after
receiving information from several medical
representatives, who have been regularly visiting
your agency that the head of the said unit, Dr.
Emmanuel T. Pilar, had been involved in
questionable transactions especially in the
purchase of medicines.

The said medical representatives expressed their

readiness to appear in any investigative body or
forum to substantiate their claims. Their
willingness to expose the graft and corrupt
practices in the said department was initially
triggered after some of their colleagues
complained that they were sexually harassed and
continuously peppered with sexual advances by
Dr. Pilar in exchange for his most-sought

1
DENR Folder.
2
Id.
signature and approval for the purchase of
medicine.

According to our sources, Dr. Pilar would ask

between 7-10 percent cut in the purchase of
medicines, which are mostly cheapest in the
market, so he could keep the bulk of the budget,
to the detriment of the agency. Your office could
easily substantiate this claim if you compare the
prices of the medicines you have in your stock,
which Dr. Pilar keeps, and the actual market
price. Notice that most of those in your stock are
GENERIC drugs, which are purchased by said
doctor at a lower price and passed off, apparently
through cunning and manipulation, at a higher
cost.

Same sources expressed their readiness to testify

that said doctor had been purchasing medicines,
which are not distributed to DENR employees
and dependents, but used personally for his
family and charged from the budget of the clinic.
To verify this allegation, we urge you to
compare the purchase orders and official
receipts of purchase to the actual inventory of
medicines in the stocks available in the clinic.
Notice also the lack of transparency and the
absence of pertinent papers in the transactions
being entered into by the said doctor.

A couple of medical representatives came

forward to attest that Dr. Pilar had been asking
sexual favors from them, dangling the medical
purchase as a bargaining chips. Both medical
representatives also claimed that said doctor had
been successful in some instances in his advances
and had been bragging about it.

We would also like Dr. Pilar investigated on the

anomalous pullout of several bags of blood from
the blood bank where the DENR had a
Memorandum of Agreement with. Is it true that
he took the blood for personal use of one of his
children who had been sick?

We have nothing about his desire to save his sick

relative. The question being raised here, however,
is the fact that he had been using the
department's resources, albeit questionably, for
his own personal end.
Page 2 of 8
Because of these, we are requesting your office to
investigate on the above allegations. As
watchdog, we would like to know how much of
the DENR Medical and Dental Unit's budget
actually goes to the purchase of medicine and
how the transactions are being done. We would
also like to know if biddings were initiated in the
purchase of said medicines pursuant to the
provisions of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-
graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

In connection with this, we have attached this

same letter to the concerned departments of the
DENR, the Ombudsman, the Commission on
Audit (COA) and the Civil Service Commission
(CSC), precisely to ask them to look into the said
matter.

A public office is a public trust. The law is explicit

in its desire to weed the government of
unscrupulous public officials who use their office
for personal gains and self- aggrandizement, to
wit;

SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers - In

addition to acts or omissions of public officers
already penalized by existing laws, the following
shall constitute corrupt
practices of any public officer and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:

(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or

receiving gift, present, share, percentage, or
benefit for himself or for any other person, in
connection with any contract or transaction
between the Government and any other part,
wherein the public officer in his official
capacity has to intervene under the law.

We are hoping that you would act on this

complaint and we will be closely monitoring the
developments. We know that Dr. Pilar is already
retiring and he will bring along with him the
secrets of his corruption while he was with the
agency.

We have already discussed this matter to at least

two progressive party-list members of the House
of Representatives who both expressed
willingness to look into the matter. However, we
Page 3 of 8
 have requested them to hold their horses until
such time that your office could come up with
your own full-blown investigation.

xxx

2. Issue:

Whether there is a prima facie case to administratively charge

Dr. Pilar for the acts alleged in the Letter-Complaint.

3. Ruling:

After a careful study of the allegations of Arizala, this Office

finds the Letter-Complaint without merit. 

Pursuant to Section 11 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC)

Resolution 1701077, promulgated on July 03, 2017, otherwise known
as the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017
RACCS) provides that:

Section 11. Requisites of a Valid Complaint. –No

complaint against an official or employee shall be
given due course unless the same is in writing,
subscribed and sworn to by the complainant.

xxx

The complaint shall be written in a clear, simple

and concise language and in a systematic manner
as to apprise the person complained of, of the
nature and cause of the accusation and to enable
the person complained of intelligently prepare a
defense or answer/comment. Should there be
more than one person complained of, the
complainant is required to submit additional
copies corresponding to the number of persons
complained of.

The complaint shall contain the following:

a. Full name and address of the complainant;
b. Full name and address of the person
complained of as well as his/her position and
office;
c. A narration of the relevant and material facts
which shows the acts or omissions allegedly
committed;
d. Certified true copies of documentary evidence
and affidavits of his/her witnesses, if any; and

Page 4 of 8
 e. Certification or statement of non-forum
shopping.

The absence of any of the aforementioned

requirements may cause the dismissal of the
complaint without prejudice to its refiling upon
compliance with the same. (underscoring and
emphasis supplied)

As shown in the records, Arizala failed to comply with the

foregoing. Although the Letter-Complaint was able to narrate the
relevant and material facts which shows the acts or omissions
allegedly committed, he failed to attach, in his Letter-Complaint,
copies of documentary or direct evidence, and certification of non-
forum shopping. These omissions created a doubt as to the truth of
the allegations in Arizala’s Letter-Complaint. 

As to Arizala’s failure to attach copies of documentary or direct

evidence and certification of non-forum shopping, the same are
grounds for dismissal. Section 11 of the 2017 RACCS is clear on this
matter that absence of any of the requirements may cause the
dismissal of the complaint. 

Bare allegations, which are not supported by any evidence,

documentary or otherwise, sufficient to support a claim, fall short to
satisfy the degree of proof needed. As such, surmises, suspicion, and
conjectures are not adequate bases of liability.

In Florencio Morales, Jr. v. Ombudsman Conchita Morales, et al.,3

the Supreme Court pronounced that the basic rule is that mere
allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges
based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given
credence. When the complainant relies on mere conjectures and
suppositions, and fails to substantiate his allegations, the complaint
must be dismissed for lack of merit.

Moreover, in the case of Government Service Insurance System, et

al. v. Mayordomo,4 as cited in the case of Department of Health,
Represented by Secretary Enrique T. Ona v. Gloria B. Aquintey, Eduardo F.
Mendoza and Agens N. Villanueva,5 the Supreme Court discussed the
required quantum of proof necessary in administrative proceedings,
to wit:

In administrative proceedings, the quantum of

proof necessary for a finding of guilt is
3
G.R. No. 208086, July 27, 2016.
4
G.R. No. 191218, May 31, 2011.
5
G.R. No. 204766, March 06, 2017.
Page 5 of 8
 substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as
a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. Well-entrenched is the rule
that substantial proof, and not clear and
convincing evidence or proof beyond reasonable
doubt, is sufficient as basis for the imposition of
any disciplinary action upon the employee. 

Further, a complaint shall only be given due course if a prima

facie case is established during the preliminary investigation or an ex
parte examination of the records and documents submitted by the
parties. In the case Robert Wa-acon vs. People of the Philippines, 6 the
Supreme Court defined a prima facie case, to wit: 

xxx evidence good and sufficient on its face. Such

evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is
sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or
chain of facts constituting the party’s claim or
defense, and which if not rebutted or
contradicted, will remain sufficient. Evidence
which if unexplained or uncontradicted, is
sufficient to sustain a judgment in favor of the
issue it supports, but which may be contradicted
by other evidence (emphasis supplied).

Consequently, in the absence of a prima facie case, the complaint

shall be dismissed pursuant to Section 22 of the 2017 RACCS:

Section 22. Decision or Resolution After

Preliminary Investigation. – if a prima facie case is
established after preliminary investigation, the
disciplining authority may issue either a formal
charge or a notice of charge/s pursuant to Rule 5
of these Rules.

In the absence of a prima facie case, the

complaint shall be dismissed. [emphasis
supplied]

Absent a valid complaint, as in this case, there can be no basis

for determining whether there is a prima facie case against the persons
complained of, as to cause the issuance of a formal charge or notice of
charge. As such, the Letter-Complaint filed by Arizala shall be
dismissed, as there is no ground to administratively charge the
official complained of. Hence, there is no choice but to dismiss such
Letter-Complaint.

6
G.R. No. 164575, December 6, 2006.
Page 6 of 8
In addition, Department Secretaries or Heads of Agencies and
Instrumentalities have administrative and disciplinary jurisdiction
only over officers or employees under their jurisdiction. Section 47,
Title 1(A), Book V of Executive Order (EO) No. 292, otherwise known
as the Administrative Code of 1987, provides as follows:

Sec. 47. Disciplinary Jurisdiction. xxx.

(2) The Secretaries and heads of agencies and

instrumentalities xxx shall have jurisdiction to
investigate and decide matters involving
disciplinary action against officers and
employees under their jurisdiction. xxx.
(underscoring and emphasis supplied)

Also, Section 9 of the 2017 RACCS provides that:

Section 9. Jurisdiction of Disciplining

Authorities. The disciplining authorities of
agencies and local government units shall have
original concurrent jurisdiction with the
Commission over their respective officers and
employees. xxx (underscoring and emphasis
supplied)

Thus, this Office can only file administrative cases against its
officers or employees if they are still connected with the Office.
Administrative and disciplinary jurisdiction can be exercised only if
the respondents are still officers or employees of such department or
agency upon commencement or institution of the administrative
cases.

Furthermore, those who are no longer connected with the

Office because of resignation, retirement, or death are not considered
as officers or employees. This Office loses administrative and
disciplinary jurisdiction over its former officers and employees, and
the former cannot subsequently file administrative cases against the
latter because they are no longer considered public servants.

In this case, it should be noted that Dr. Pilar is no longer an

employee of this Department because he has already reached
compulsory retirement on January 12, 2012. For this reason, this
Office has already lost its administrative and disciplinary jurisdiction
over him.

Page 7 of 8
 WHEREFORE, the undated Letter-Complaint of Mr. Armando
Arizala against Dr. Emmanuel T. Pilar of Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Medical and Dental Unit is
DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Philippines _______________________.

By Authority of the Secretary:7

NORLITO A. ENERAN, LL.M, CESO III

Director for Legal Affairs Service

Copy Furnished

Mr. Armando Arizala

Chairman, Nagkakaisang Maralita Laban
sa Kurapsyon (NMLK)

Dr. Emmanuel T. Pilar

#89 Don Victorino St., Don Antonio Heights,
Quezon City.

The Undersecretary
Legal, Administration, Human Resources
and Legislative Affairs
DENR Central, Visayas Ave.,
Quezon City

7
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Administrative Order (DAO) No. 2020-05,
Approving Authorities on Decisions, Resolutions, and Orders on Appealed Environment and Natural
Resources Cases, Administrative Cases, and Filing Before Courts and Quasi-Judicial Bodies.
Page 8 of 8