Republic of the Philippines

PROVINCE OF ORIENTAL MINDORO

Sangguniang Panlalawigan
Calapan City

MARICEL CALATON ROJAS,

Complainant-Appellant,

-versus- ADM CASE No. 002-2023

(ADM Case no. 2023-001
For Gross Neglect of Duty and
Grave Misconduct)

RAMEL S. EMONO
Respondent-Appellee.
x-----------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL

COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT, by counsel, to this Honorable

Body, most respectfully appeal RESOLUTION NO. 323 Series of 2023
entitled “A Resolution Adopting The Recommendations Of The
Committee on Law, Legal Matters, Ordinances, Rules And
Privileges In Administrative Case No. 2023-001, entitled as
“Maricel C. Rojas vs. Ramel S. Emono,” for Grave Misconduct and
Gross Negligence” dated 3 July 2023, a copy of which was received
on 27 July 2023, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered and after

thorough scrutiny, the Sangguniang Bayan finds Hon. Ramel
S. Emono ACQUITTED for gross negligence and grave
misconduct for lack of merit.

xxx

Adopted: 03 July 2023”

On 14 August 2023, Complainant-Appellant filed her Appeal

with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. On 21 September 2023, she
received an Order by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan ordering both
parties to submit their Verified Memorandum of Appeal fifteen days
from receipt of the Order. As such, complainant-appellant has until
the 6th of October 2023 within which to file her Memorandum of
Appeal. Thus, the timeliness of this Memorandum.

1
 Complainant-appellant is being assisted by the Public
Attorney’s Office in the prosecution of this case. Consequently,
pursuant to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9406 or the PAO Law,
complainant-appellant is exempt from payment of appeal fee, legal
research fee and other fees incident to the appeal.

Likewise, complainant-appellant has already caused the service

of this Appeal Memorandum to the respondent-appellee by
registered mail thru PAO Free Mail as evidenced by the registry
receipt written hereunder.

In support of his appeal, complainant-appellant respectfully

submits the following Appeal Memorandum:

PARTIES

Complainant-Appellant MARICEL CALATON ROJAS is of

legal age, married, Filipino and a resident of Calapan City. She may
be served with notices, orders and other processes of this Honorable
Body in the address herein stated and through the undersigned
Public Attorney.

Respondent-Appellee is also of legal age, married, Filipino and

a resident of San Mariano, Roxas, Oriental Mindoro where he may be
served with notices, orders and other processes of this Honorable
Court.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND

RELEVANT ANTECEDENT PROCEEDINGS

Complainant owns a commercial property in San Mariano, Roxas,

Oriental Mindoro.

While respondent is the incumbent barangay captain of San Mariano,

Roxas, Oriental Mindoro.

This case began on 27 March 2021 when a certain Mr. Edgar Quinton
illegally constructed a concrete commercial structure on a local road
directly at the edge of the complainant’s property located at the
corner of the national road and Santan-2 Street.

On 29 March 2021, complainant personally approached Mr. Quinton

to discuss the issue but he reasoned that the lot on which he erected

2
his stall is a barangay road and he had permission from Brgy.
Captain Ramel S. Emono.

To quote Mr. Quinton’s words: “Barangay Road naman ang tinayuan ko

at pinayagan ito ni Kapitan.”

Due to this revelation, on 30 March 2021 complainant then

approached Emono to complain about Quinton’s stall because it was
almost attached to her property wall. She also informed the barangay
captain of her intention to construct a gate on that side of her
property as ingress and egress for their private vehicle.

Rojas politely pleaded with the Emono to take action on the matter
but her pleas remained unheard. Emono merely responded, to wit:
“Hintayin niyo lang bumaba ang DILG para sila na ang mag-bulldoze ng
istruktura ni G. Edgar Quinton.” Two months have passed and still no
action was taken by the barangay. In fact, they allowed another stall
to be constructed on the area, one which belongs to Marilou Q.
Cardenes, the sister of Edgar Quinton.

On 26 May 2021, Rojas formally filed a complaint with the barangay

regarding the illegal construction.

More than three hearings were conducted that started from May 27,
2021 and lasted up to July 12, 2021. In the end, Emono decided that
the illegal structures of Quinton and Cardenes shall remain where
they are and shall only be removed as the barangay sees fit.

As such, complainant was constrained to elevate the matter to the

office of the DILG-MLGOO of Roxas, Oriental Mindoro.

On 26 August 2021, complainant received a letter from the Office of

the Municipal Mayor of Roxas inviting her to attend a mediation
proceeding with Mr. Emono.

Complainant attended the said mediation proceedings but

respondent Emono did not bother showing up, leaving the issue
unresolved yet again.

On 31 August 2021, an ocular inspection was conducted by the

MLGOO, MPDO and DPWH on the area. It was there that the Ms.
Charisse Ann W. Adriano (MLGOO), EnP. Benito Q. Ballesteros Jr.
and Engr. Manny Manalaysay saw the illegal structures and the
blatant neglect of the barangay in allowing these structures to be
constructed.

3
On 20 September 2021, a Barangay Session with the entire
Sangguniang Barangay of San Mariano was conducted with the
presence of Ms. Charisse Ann W. Adriano (MLGOO), EnP. Benito Q.
Ballesteros Jr. It was there decided that the illegal structures of
Quinton and Cardenes must be removed and that there were no
objections to said removal.

On 11 October 2021, complainant talked with Emono and it was then

that respondent said that he would be taking care of giving the
necessary notice to Mr. Edgar Quinton and his sister to remove their
illegal structures until 31 October 2021. But no dismantling or
removal has been done.

It was then that complainant has decided to file a formal complaint

with the Sangguniang Bayan of Roxas, Oriental Mindoro.

The complaint of Mrs. Rojas was acted upon by the Sangguniang

Bayan Committee on Laws, Legal Matters and Ordinances, Rules and
Privileges. The Committee resolved the issue by recommending to
the Presiding Officer that the obstruction clearing team of Roxas must
strictly implement the DILG Memorandum Circular No. 2019-121.

Despite this recommendation however, there was no determination

made as to the administrative liability of barangay captain Ramel S.
Emono. He was neither admonished nor ordered to do right by
complainant and to settle the matter of dismantling the illegal
structure, once and for all.

Moreover, despite the fact that complainant already filed a formal

complaint, subscribed and sworn to in accordance with law and in
conformity with the form prescribed by the Rules, the Sangguniang
Bayan has been insisting on mediating the matter between Mrs. Rojas
and Mr. Emono instead of following the procedure in handling
administrative complaints as laid out in Chapter 4 of the Local
Government Code of 1991.

Hence, Rojas filed another administrative complaint against Emono

which was the basis for the Assailed Resolution dated 3 July 2023 and
of this Appeal.

GROUNDS FOR REVIEW

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE SANGGUNIANG

BAYAN COMMITTED ERRORS IN FINDING THAT
COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT SHOULD NOT BE HELD

4
ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE FOR GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY
AND GRAVE MISCONDUCT;

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

A plain reading of the complaint and the pieces of evidence

submitted by complainant-appellee would show that she has
sufficiently proven the grave misconduct and the grossly negligent
behavior of barangay captain Emono.

Gross Neglect of Duty is understood as the failure to give proper

attention to a required task or to discharge a duty, characterized by
want of even the slightest care, or by conscious indifference to the
consequences insofar as other persons may be affected, or by flagrant
and palpable breach of duty.1 It is the omission of that care which
even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own
property. In cases involving public officials, there is gross negligence
when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. Under the law, this
offense warrants the supreme penalty of dismissal from service.2

In the instant case, the failure to give proper attention to discharge a

duty was evident in the fact that despite several hearings in the
barangay, respondent still failed to take action and have the illegal
structure removed from the public road. Respondent likewise
exhibited conscious indifference to the consequences of his neglect
when he tolerated and allowed the food stall to remain in operation
on the public road despite the fact.

Meanwhile, Grave Misconduct is defined as the transgression of

some established and definite rule of action, more particularly,
unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer coupled
with the elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to
disregard established rules.3

In the instant case, respondent Emono’s grave misconduct was

present when he ignored the recommendations of the Sangguniang
Bayan Committee on Laws, Legal Matters and Ordinances,
Rules and Privileges on 3 January 2022 that the obstruction/illegal
1
Office of the Court Administrator v. Umblas, A.M No. P-09-2649, August 1, 2017, 833
SCRA 502, 511; and Civil Service Commission v. Rabang, 572 Phil. 316, 322-323
(2008), citing Golangco v. Atty. Fung, 535 Phil. 331, 341 (2006).
2
Civil Service Commission v. Rabang, id. at 323, citing Golangco v. Fung, id.
3
Office of the Ombudsman v. Apolonio, G.R. No. 165132, March 7, 2012.

5
construction of food stall be cleared in compliance with DILG
Memorandum Circular No. 2019-121.

It is also worth noting that respondent Emono himself also has illegal
structures constructed along the local road of San Mariano which, to
appellant’s mind, is the very reason why he could not admonish the
other illegal occupants of the local roads of San Mariano. Instead of
setting an example, appellee himself is the instigator of unlawful acts
in his own jurisdiction.

Second, contrary to item number 10 of the Resolution, this issue is not

a private matter involving a simple property dispute. Nowhere in the
complaint did complainant-appellee lay claim over the ownership of
the area on which the illegal construction was erected. Complainant-
appellee’s complaint was hinged on the fact that food stall of Mr.
Quinton was erected on public property and that this was permitted
and tolerated by barangay captain Emono. It just so happened that
the property beside the public road was the private property of the
complainant-appellee and this obstruction affected her property the
most. This is an issue regarding the lack of prompt action on the part
of barangay captain Ermeno in dealing with the illegal
construction/obstruction on the public road in his barangay.

Third, it is interesting how the Honorable Committee has

recommended that respondent be admonished as this was his first
infraction and in the same vein asserted that respondent has not been
remiss in the performance of his duties as barangay captain.

All the foregoing considered, it is evident that the defendant-

appellants were able to prove by preponderance of evidence that
Emono should be held administratively liable for Grave Misconduct
and Gross Neglect of Duty.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed unto this Honorable

Office that judgment be rendered in favor the complainant-appellee.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

6
 Roxas for Mansalay, Oriental Mindoro, October 5, 2023.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Department of Justice
Roxas, Oriental Mindoro
(Counsel for the Conplainant-Appellant)

By:

ATTY. DEVEE MAE O. VILLAMIN

Public Attorney I
Roll of Attorneys No. 69236
IBP O.R. No. 185426
MCLE Compliance NO. VII-0027350
valid until 4/14/2025

Copy furnished:

RAMEL S. EMONO
San Mariano, Roxas
Oriental Mindoro

EXPLANATION

Copy of this Memorandum of Appeal was served to the other

party by registered mail (PAO Free Mail) due to lack of personnel to
effect personal service.

DEVEE MAE O. VILLAMIN