o REPIJI}t IC OF'I]IE PI,IILIPPINES

r.rf FAiITMENT OF TI{E INTERICIT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

o
Ff.tn( isco Gdrl Ci)n(l()minium ll
Edsa C.rr Mapagmahat St., Diliman
Quezon {_taly

|.ESALSERVICE
Drr4 oPrqroN No- 03 s. 20lr
tra..^ .
ruAN z 4 2U111
MR. ROMEO T. ABITRIA
1890 Calamba St.
Sampaloc, Manila

Dear Mr. Abitria:

This has reference to your earlier letter asking the Department's legal
opinion regarding the misrepresentation of three (3) persons in your barangay,s
Development Plan by signing therein as representatives of non-governmenlal
organizations (NGOs) and the accountability, if any, of the punong Barangay for
allowing these persons affix their signatures therein.

Per your letter, you represented that three (3) persons signed your
.barangay's Development Planover the acronym NGo when in truth and in fact,
these persons are not members of any non-governmental organizations within
your community. According to you, this was a deliberate misrepresentation.
Thus, you are also asking the Department as to the liability, if any, of the
Punong Barangay who allowed the three (3) non-accredited members of NGO
sign the Barangay Development plan.

In this regard, since your Barangay Development plans for Fy 2008 and
2009 were already duly accomplished by the signatories therein, said documents
should be given binding legal effect and all persons whose signatures appear in
the aforesaid documents are presumed to have been duly authorized to sign
therein applying peftinent laws. Accordingly, the three (3) persons who signec
over the acronym NGO are presumed to have been duly selected, in accordance
with Sections 107 and 108 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) anc
Afticle 64 (d) of its Implementing Rules and Regulations.

This principle of giving them such presumption is intended for the

protection of the transacting public who are expected and supposed to rely on
their authority as represented to the public.

He, who alleges that these three (3) persons are not bona fide members
of NGOs has the burden of proving it by filing an appropriate action before the
proper forum. Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the
facts in issue necessary to prove the truth of his claim or defense by the amount
of evidence required by law. Let it be noted that mere allegations that these
three (3) persons are not members of any NGO in your community is not
evidence.

As to the liability of your Punong Barangay, please be informed that the

presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duties is also
accorded to him. However, if there are pieces of evidence that will prove that
your Punong Barangay has pafticipated in the deliberate and capricious
manipulation to represent the aforesaid three (3) persons as members of NGOs,
when in truth and in fact they are not, an administrative case for abuse of

eaAa*'g 2A ?/e4a4 o/ r'oal /4at6*414.4 to tlo P6iltSSzaea,

authority and a criminal case based on the AntFcraft and conupt practices Act
(RA 3019) may be filed against him.

As to the lssue on whether the photocopy of the Barangay Development

Plan for FY 2008 and 2009 may be used as evldence for filing criminal or
administative complaint with the ffice of the Ombudsman, please be informed
that jurisprudence ls replete of cases that a xerox copy of a document, wlthout
the original copy, is not a credible evidence against the respondent.

We hope we have addressed your concern accordingly.

Very truly yours,

ATTY. JESUSS. DO UE IV
Dircctor III

LS:u
av fumished:
/opy

RD Renato L. Brion
DILG-NCR

CLGOO
DILeManlh