Samson v.

Restrivera 021
GR No. 178454, 1 Jan 1000, Villarama, Jr., J.
Digested by Ariadne Villanueva • Law 156 – PubOff

PET failed to return the P50,000 given by RESP for the registration of her land. RESP filed an
administrative complaint for grave misconduct or conduct unbecoming a public officer before the
Ombudsman. The Ombudsman, and subsequently the CA, found PET administratively liable for violating
Section 4(A)(b) of RA 6713 on professionalism. SC held that PET may not be penalized for violating of
Section 4(A)(b), as it is not ground for disciplinary action. But PET is still administratively liable and is
guilty of conduct unbecoming a public officer for her failure to return the P50,000 as promised.

FACTS
• PET Filipina Samson was a department head of the Population Commission, with office
at the Provincial Capitol, Trece Martirez City, Cavite.
• March 2001, PET agreed to help RESP Julia Restrivera register her land under the
Torrens System. PET said that registration would cost P150,000 and accepted P50,000 to
cover the initial expenses for the titling of RESP’s land.
o PET was unable to accomplished the task as the land turned out to be government
property.
• Because PET failed to return the P50,000, RESP sued PET for estafa, and filed an
administrative complaint for grave misconduct or conduct unbecoming a public officer
before the Ombudsman.
• Ombudsman found PET guilty of violating Section 4(b) of RA No. 6713 and suspended
her from office for 6 months (later reduced to 3 months) without pay.
o PET’s acceptance of RESP's payment created a perception that petitioner is a fixer. Her act fell short of the
standard of personal conduct required by Section 4(b), that public officials shall endeavor to discourage
wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage.
• CA affirmed the Order, as well as the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, even if the act
complained of was a private matter.
• Petitioner appeals, insisting that:
o The act complained of is not related to the performance of official duty, thus Ombudsman has no jurisdiction.
o CA committed GAD for for holding her administratively liable, as the estafa case was dismissed upon a
finding that she was not guilty of fraud or deceit. Even assuming that she is guilty of misconduct, she is
entitled to the benefit of mitigating circumstances such as the fact that this is the first charge against her in
her long years of public service.

ISSUES & HOLDING

• WON PET is administratively liable? – YES. PET is guilty of conduct unbecoming a
public officer, not for violating Sec. 4(b) of RA 6713 nor grave misconduct.

RATIO
• Ombudsman has jurisdiction over RESP’s complaint against PET although the act
complained of involves a private deal between them.
o Even if the complaint concerns an act of the public official or employee which is
not service-connected, the case is within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. The
 law1 does not qualify the nature of the illegal act or omission of the public official
or employee that the Ombudsman may investigate. It does not require that the act
or omission be related to or be connected with or arise from the performance of
official duty.
• It is settled that administrative cases may proceed independently of criminal proceedings,
and may continue despite the dismissal of the criminal charges.

PET may NOT be penalized for violation of Section 4(A)(b) of RA 6713. Failure to abide by
the prescribed norms of conduct is not a ground for disciplinary action.
• Both the Ombudsman and CA found the petitioner administratively liable for violating Section 4(A)(b) of
R.A. No. 6713 on professionalism. Said section was held to be broad enough to apply even to private
transactions that have no connection to the duties of one's office.
• In Domingo v. Office of the Ombudsman, the Court ruled that failure to abide by the
norms of conduct under Section 4(A)(b) of R.A. No. 6713, in relation to its implementing
rules, is not a ground for disciplinary action.
o Sec. 4(b) of RA 6713 merely enunciates “professionalism” as an ideal norm of
conduct to be observed by public servants, in addition to public interest, justness
and sincerity, political neutrality, responsiveness to the public, nationalism and
patriotism, commitment to democracy and simple living.
o Rule V of the Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees promulgated by the CSC provides for an
Incentive and Rewards System for public officials and employees who have
demonstrated exemplary service and conduct on the basis of their observance of
the norms of conduct laid down in Section 4 of RA 6713. On the other hand, Rule
X enumerates the grounds for administrative disciplinary action.
o Officials and employees who comply with the high standard set by law would be
rewarded, while those who fail to do so cannot expect the same favorable
treatment. However, the Implementing Rules does not provide that they will have
to be sanctioned for failure to observe these norms of conduct.
o Rule X of the Implementing Rules affirms as grounds for administrative
disciplinary action only acts "declared unlawful or prohibited by the Code".
§ At least 23 acts or omissions as grounds for administrative disciplinary
action are mentioned, but the failure to abide by the norms of conduct
under Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 is not one of them.
• There is no compelling reason to depart from the pronouncement in Domingo. In
reversing the CA and Ombudsman, the Court is merely applying the law and its
implementing rules issued by the CSC under the authority given to it by Congress.

1 Section13(1), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution states that the Ombudsman can investigate on its own or on complaint by any person any act

or omission of any public official or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, or improper.

Under Section 16 of R.A. No. 6770, or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance,
misfeasance, and nonfeasance committed by any public officer or employee during his/her tenure.

Section 19 of R.A. No. 6770 also states that the Ombudsman shall act on all complaints relating, but not limited, to acts or omissions which are
unfair or irregular.
PET is NOT guilty of grave misconduct.
• Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is
grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate
the law or to disregard established rules, which must be proved by substantial evidence.
• RESP failed to prove (1) PET’s violation of an established and definite rule of action or
unlawful behavior or gross negligence, and (2) any of the aggravating elements of
corruption, willful intent to violate a law or to disregard established rules.
• RESP’s allegation that petitioner meddled in an affair that belongs to another agency is a
serious but unproven accusation. There was no mention of what acts of interference were
done by PET, nor which government agency petitioner committed interference.
• Causing the survey of respondent's land can hardly be considered as meddling in the
affairs of another government agency by PET who is connected with the Population
Commission.
o The survey shows that PET contracted a surveyor, and started to work on her task
under their agreement. Thus, RESP’s allegation that PET received an amount for
undelivered work is not entirely correct. Rather, PET failed to fully accomplish
her task in view of the legal obstacle that the land is government property.

However, PET is still administratively liable. For reneging on her promise to return the
P50,000, PET is GUILTY of conduct unbecoming a public officer.
• In the aftermath of the aborted transaction, PET still failed to return the amount she
accepted. As aptly stated by the Ombudsman, if PET was persistent in returning the
amount of P50,000 until the preliminary investigation of the estafa case on September 18,
2003, there would have been no need for the parties' agreement that petitioner be given
until February 28, 2003 to pay said amount including interest.
o PET’s belated attempt to return the amount was intended to avoid possible
sanctions and impelled solely by the filing of the estafa case against her.
• PET should have complied with her promise to return the amount to RESP after failing to
accomplish the task she had willingly accepted. However, she waited until RESP sued
her for estafa, thus reinforcing the latter's suspicion that petitioner misappropriated her
money.
• Although the element of deceit was not proven in the criminal case, it is clear that by her
actuations, PET violated basic social and ethical norms in her private dealings.
• Even if unrelated to her duties as a public officer, PET's transgression could erode the
public's trust in government employees, more so because she holds a high position in the
service.

DISPOSITIVE
CA and Ombudsman decisions are SET ASIDE.
PET is GUILTY of conduct unbecoming a public officer and a FINE of P15,000 is imposed
upon her. PET is ordered to return to RESP the amount of P50,000 with interest.