APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION ANSWER TO THE

FORMAL CHARGE DOCKETED AS ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. XXXX DATED 09

MAY 2023

I, the Undersigned, respectfully write to appeal from the Order of Preventive

Suspension issued by XXXX, pursuant to Section 28, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS), which provides:

Section 28. Remedies from the Order of Preventive Suspension. – The respondent
may file an appeal to the Commission within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.
Pending appeal, the same shall be executory. A motion for reconsideration from the
order of preventive suspension shall not be allowed.

The Respondent received the copy of the Order of Preventive Suspension (OPS)
on May 22, 2023 and has until June 06, 2023 within which to file this Notice of Appeal.
That Respondent respectfully submits the following arguments for your kind review and
reconsideration as well seeks to annul the Order of XXX (see Respondent’s OPS
marked as Annex A).

The ground for the charge of DISHONESTY as indicated in my OPS is misplaced

wherein in Ramos v. Rosell (G.R. No. 241363) dishonesty is defined, to quote:

“As an administrative offense, dishonesty is defined as the concealment or

distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one's office or connected with
the performance of his duty.26 It is the "disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or
defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity, lack of honesty, probity or integrity
in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud,
deceive or betray."27 Dishonesty requires malicious intent to conceal the truth
or to make false statements.28 In short, dishonesty is a question of intention.
Although this is something internal, we can ascertain a person's intention not
from his own protestation of good faith, which is self-serving, but from the
evidence of his conduct and outward acts.29”

“[D]ishonesty, like bad faith, is not simply bad judgment or negligence.

Dishonesty is a question of intention. In ascertaining the intention of a person
accused of dishonesty, consideration must be taken not only of the facts and
circumstances which gave rise to the act committed by the petitioner, but also
of his state of mind at the time the offense was committed, the time he might
have had at his disposal for the purpose of meditating on the consequences of
his act, and the degree of reasoning he could have had at that moment.”

To justify the ground for the charge of dishonesty, it must clearly show that I
maliciously intended to conceal the truth or to make false statements. Evidently, during
the conduct of the fact finding investigation by XXX Central Office Investigator it reveals
that intent on my part to conceal the truth or to make false statements is inexistent.
Moreover, I have truthfully and sincerely answered all the questions being asked as well
as fully disclosed all the facts and details that transpired pertaining to the transaction
which is the subject of investigation (see Respondent’s Free and Voluntary Sworn
Statement marked as Annex B).
 Similarly, the ground for the charge of GRAVE MISCONDUCT as indicated in my
OPS is likewise misplaced wherein in Domingo v. Civil Service Commission (G.R. No.
236050) grave misconduct is defined, to quote:

“Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action,

particularly, as a result of a public officer's unlawful behavior, recklessness, or gross
negligence. This type of misconduct is characterized for purposes of gravity and penalty
as simple misconduct.32

The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, clear
willful intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules, supported by
substantial evidence.33”

“In Grave Misconduct, as distinguished from Simple Misconduct, the elements of

corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules, must
be manifest and established by substantial evidence. Grave Misconduct necessarily
includes the lesser offense of Simple Misconduct. Thus, a person charged with Grave
Misconduct may be held liable for Simple Misconduct if the misconduct does not involve
any of the elements to qualify the misconduct as grave.”

Clearly the elements particular to grave misconduct were inadequately not

established to sustain the issuance of OPS. Having directly admitted that I have only
committed such acts base upon good faith and honest belief, albeit mistaken, as lawful
order of my immediate superiors that the same is a legitimate and within the ordinary
course of XXX operational transaction and more particularly is akin to a (TITO)
transaction since there were no physical and actual transfer. Furthermore, that I did not
unlawfully and wrongfully used my position to procure some benefit for myself as well as
no clear and convincing evidence to show that such acts had been made for my
personal or selfish ends.

Likewise, the OPS maybe issued provided that there exist conformity of
conditions provided under Section 26 (B), Rule 7 of the Revised Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS), which provides:

B) An order of preventive suspension may be issued to temporarily remove the

respondent from the scene of his/her misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance to
preclude the possibility of:

1. exerting undue influence or pressure on the witnesses against him/her, or

2. tampering with evidence that may be used against him/her.

Truth be told, that the conditions mentioned-above are clearly untenable that for
me to exert undue influence or pressure on the witnesses against me is unlikely
considering among the employees who are subject of the investigation I am the least as
to the status of rank, position and seniority. Furthermore, for me to tamper with the
evidence will prove futile since there is already an instruction to surrender all my
Accountable Forms and that I deposited the same to the Office since ________ (see
marked as Annex C).
 Verily, these arguments deserve adequate consideration and should be
countenanced by the Commission and that a complete and wholistic view must be taken
in order to render a just and equitable judgment.

Perforce, the Order of Preventive Suspension being not premised on any of the
conditions under Section 26 (A and B), Rule 7 of the Revised Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS), the Commission may declare the same to be null
and void on its face.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent most respectfully prays unto

this Commission that, the instant Order of Preventive Suspension be declared NULL
AND VOID on its face for lack of merit. Other forms of relief, just and equitable under
the circumstances, are likewise prayed for.

Signed this 29th of August 2023 at Santiago City.

XXXXX
Respondent