THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 206661. December 10, 2014.]

HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, in his capacity as Acting

Ombudsman, O ce of the Ombudsman; HON. ROGELIO L.
SINGSON, in his capacity as Department of Public Works and
Highways Secretary , petitioners, vs . JOSEFINO N. RIGOR , respondent.

DECISION

PERALTA , J : p

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court led by petitioners Orlando C. Casimiro, as Acting Ombudsman, and Rogelio L.
Singson, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH), assailing the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated July 4, 2012 and its
Resolution 2 dated March 27, 2013 in CA-G.R. SP 120708. The CA nulli ed and set aside
the Order 3 of the O ce of the Ombudsman (OMB), dated July 18, 2011, and reinstated its
Order 4 dated April 29, 2011, both in OMB-C-A-05-0123-C.
The factual and procedural antecedents are as follows:
Sometime in 2005, the General Investigation Bureau-A of the OMB (GIB-A-OMB)
conducted a lifestyle check on respondent Jose no N. Rigor, then the Regional Director of
the DPWH-National Capital Region (DPWH-NCR). Thereafter, the GIB-A-OMB led a
complaint against Rigor charging him criminally and administratively before the OMB for
alleged unexplained wealth and violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 5 and R.A. 1379. 6
Said complaint was mainly based on certain irregularities on Rigor's Statement of Assets,
Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs), allegedly failing to declare therein several properties,
business interests, and nancial connections. Its administrative aspect asserted that Rigor
committed Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Falsification of Official Documents. EaDATc

The complaint alleged that Rigor failed to declare in his 1999 SALN the following:
1) Fourteen (14) parcels of land located in Barrio Maluid, Victoria, Tarlac, covered
by Transfer Certi cate of Title (TCT) Nos. 223271 to 223284, which were
all issued by the Registry of Deeds for Tarlac province on August 21, 1989
in the name of Josefino Rigor, married to Abigail S. Rigor;

2) Seven (7) parcels of land located in San Roque and San Rafael, Tarlac City
covered by a single title, TCT No. T-240955 issued by the Registry of Deeds
for Tarlac Province on September 6, 1991 in the name of Jose no Rigor,
married to Abigail S. Rigor;

3) A parcel of land located in San Roque and San Rafael, Tarlac City covered by
TCT No. T-240956;

4) A two-storey commercial/residential building at 1722 G. Tuazon St., Sampaloc,

Manila covered by TCT No. 229634 issued by the Registry of Deeds for
Manila and was purchased from Jose N. Reyes for Nine Hundred Fifty
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Thousand Pesos (P950,000.00) on July 18, 1996;

5) A Toyota Rav 4 Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) with License Plate No. XPT-816
registered under Land Transportation O ce (LTO) MV File No. 1336-
115201 and sold by Toyota Shaw, Inc. on December 18, 1999 to Anastacia
Corpuz Rigor, Rigor's wife; cDTCIA

6) A Dodge Ram Road Trek 1995 model with license number UBA-898 registered
under the name of Rigor's wife, Anastacia C. Rigor. The same was sold by
Anastacia only on May 16, 2003 to George Mamonluk for P1,050,000.00;

7) Business interest in Jetri Construction Corporation which was incorporated in

November 1989 under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Reg.
No. 171720 with an authorized capital stock of P8,000,000.00 which was
primarily incorporated for construction business, in de ance of a possible
con ict of interest with Rigor, being a ranking DPWH o cial. Rigor's wife,
as one of the incorporators, has the biggest number of shares worth
P600,000.00; she made payment of P150,000.00 worth of capital stocks
and was the elected Treasurer of the Corporation; and

8) Business interest in Disneyland Bus Line, Inc. which was registered on March
30, 1994, primarily intended to operate as a transportation business with
an authorized capital stock of P10,000,000.00. Of the P2,500,000.00
subscribed capital stocks, Rigor subscribed to P1,125,000.00 while his wife
subscribed to P750,000.00. Both amounts of subscribed shares were
wholly paid up.

In 2000, Rigor allegedly failed to declare the following in his SALN: ScaATD

1) Fourteen (14) parcels of land located in Barrio Maluid, Victoria, Tarlac, covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 223271 to 223284;

2) Seven (7) parcels of land located in San Roque and San Rafael, Tarlac City
covered by a single title, TCT No. T-240955;

3) A parcel of land located in San Roque and San Rafael, Tarlac City under TCT
No. 132066 issued by the Registry of Deeds for Tarlac Province on
September 7, 1976 in the name of Josefino Rigor; and

4) A parcel of land located in San Roque and San Rafael, Tarlac City covered by
TCT No. T-240956.

Lastly, he failed to include in his 2001 and 2002 SALNs the following properties,
business interests, and financial connections:
1) Four (4) parcels of land in San Sebastian Village, Tarlac City covered by TCT
Nos. 356610, 356611, 356612, and 356613, all in Rigor's name and
purchased from Allan M. Manalang;
2) The two-storey commercial/residential building at 1722 G. Tuazon St.,
Sampaloc, Manila covered by TCT No. 229634; ECcDAH

3) The Toyota Rav 4 Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) with License Plate No. XPT-816;

4) The Dodge Ram Road Trek 1995 model with license number UBA-898;

5) Business interest in Jetri Construction Corporation;

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 6) Business interest in Disneyland Bus Line, Inc.;

7) Business interest in Kontrata Construction and Development Corporation;

8) A parcel of land situated in Barrio Tibag, Tarlac City covered by TCT No.
249517 in the name of Rigor's son; and

9) Six (6) lots situated in San Sebastian Village, Tarlac City covered by TCT Nos.
330183, 327448, 326965, 326966, 326964, and 325284.

On July 28, 2006, the OMB issued a Decision nding Rigor guilty of Dishonesty, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
FOREGOING CONSIDERED, pursuant to Section 52 (A-1) Rule IV of the
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases (CSC Resolution No. 991936), dated
August 31, 1999, respondent JOSEFINO NACPIL RIGOR, Regional Director, DPWH-
NCR, 2nd St., Port Area, Manila, is hereby found guilty of DISHONESTY and is
meted the corresponding penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE, including
all its accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement
bene ts and perpetual disquali cation for reemployment in the government
service and without prejudice to criminal prosecution. cCESTA

Pursuant to the Memorandum Circular No. 01 dated April 11, 2006 issued
by the O ce of the Ombudsman, the Honorable HERMOGENES E. EBDANE, JR.,
Secretary, Department of Public Works and Highways, is hereby directed to
immediately implement this Decision, with the request to inform this O ce of the
action taken thereon and promptly submit to this O ce a Compliance Report
thereof.

SO ORDERED. 7

Subsequently, Rigor moved for a reconsideration, which the OMB granted on April
29, 2011. It thus ruled:
WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration of
the respondent is hereby GRANTED . The Decision dated September 23, 2010,
nding respondent JOSEFINO NACPIL RIGOR guilty of the administrative offense
is hereby MODIFIED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, respondent is adjudged GUILTY
of Simple Negligence and is hereby ned the amount of One Thousand Pesos,
with a warning that repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more
strictly.

The Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways is hereby

directed to implement this Decision within Ten (10) days from receipt hereof.

SO ORDERED. 8

The DPWH Secretary then led, through the O ce of the Solicitor General (OSG), an
Omnibus Motion (for Leave to Intervene and to Admit Motion for Reconsideration), praying
for its intervention in the case to be allowed. The DPWH argued that there existed strong
and compelling reasons for the reversal of the April 29, 2011 OMB Order. On June 7, 2011,
the OMB directed Rigor to file his Comment on said Motion. SCaEcD

On July 18, 2011, the OMB issued an Order with a decretal portion that states:
PREMISES CONSIDERED , the Motion for Reconsideration dated 23 May
2011 is GRANTED . Accordingly, the Order dated 29 April 2011 nding JOSEFINO
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 N. RIGOR guilty of Simple Negligence and imposing upon him the penalty of Fine
in the amount of One Thousand Pesos (PhP1,000.00) is hereby SET ASIDE .

JOSEFINO N. RIGOR, Regional Director, DPWH-National Capital Region, is

hereby found GUILTY of Serious Dishonesty and Falsi cation of O cial
Documents . The penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE is accordingly
imposed against him pursuant to Section 52-A, Rule IV of the Revised
Uniform Rules on Administrative Ca ses in the Civil Service, as amended ,
with the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of all bene ts,
except leave credits, and the perpetual disquali cation for reemployment in the
Government service.
This Order is immediately executory pursuant to Ombudsman
Memorandum Circular No. 01, Series of 2006, in relation to paragraph 1, Section
27 of R.A. 6770, and Section 7, Rule III, Administrative Order No. 7, Rules of
Procedure of the O ce of the Ombudsman, as amended, and in accordance with
the ruling of the Supreme Court in Ombudsman vs. Joel Samaniego.

Accordingly, let a copy of this Order be furnished to the Honorable

Secretary Rogelio L. Singson , Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH), for the implementation thereof against JOSEFINO N. RIGOR . TEHIaA

SO ORDERED. 9

Aggrieved, Rigor brought the case to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court, attributing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of the OMB. On July 4, 2012, the appellate court sustained Rigor
and rendered the herein assailed decision. Thus:
WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, the challenged Order dated 18 July
2011 of the O ce of the Ombudsman is hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE .
Accordingly, the Order dated 29 April 2011 is hereby REINSTATED .

SO ORDERED . 10

Thereafter, a Motion for Reconsideration was led but the same was denied for lack
of merit.
Hence, the OMB and the DPWH led the instant Petition for Review. It asserts that
the CA gravely erred in giving due course to Rigor's petition despite using the remedy of
the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65, instead of Rule 63, of the Rules of Court.
They likewise maintain that the DPWH could still intervene before the OMB and question
the April 29, 2011 OMB Order which found Rigor guilty of mere Simple Negligence and
reduced the penalty to a ne of only P1,000.00. They aver that there is su cient evidence
to hold respondent administratively liable for Serious Dishonesty and Falsi cation of
Official Documents. ScaEIT

Petitioners present the following arguments:

I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT A PETITION
F O R CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION IS AN IMPROPER REMEDY TO ASSAIL
RESPONDENT'S DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE.
II.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE DPWH CAN NO
LONGER INTERVENE BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND ASSAIL
THE APRIL 29, 2011 ORDER FINDING RESPONDENT ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE
ONLY FOR SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE.
III.

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE DPWH CAN NO
LONGER INTERVENE BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, DESPITE THE
PRESENCE OF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO HOLD RESPONDENT
ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE FOR SERIOUS DISHONESTY AND FALSIFICATION
OF OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. 11

There is merit in the petition. aADSIc

The Court shall rst delve on the procedural issues of the case. The OMB contends
that the CA should have dismissed Rigor's Petition for Certiorari for being an improper
remedy. Appeals from decisions in administrative disciplinary cases of the OMB should be
taken to the CA via a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Rule 43
prescribes the manner of appeal from quasi-judicial agencies, such as the OMB, and was
formulated precisely to provide for a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial
agencies. Rigor, in support of his petition for certiorari, argues that there was no other
plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy available to him. But it is settled that certiorari
under Rule 65 will not lie, as appeal under Rule 43 is an adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not
alternative or successive. 12 And even if the special civil action of certiorari were to be
allowed, Rigor still failed to show that the OMB committed grave abuse of discretion in
giving due course to the intervention of the DPWH.
Under Section 13 (8), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the OMB is authorized to
promulgate its own rules of procedure. As such, it likewise holds the power to amend or
modify said rules as the interest of justice may require. 13 The emerging trend of
jurisprudence is more inclined to the liberal and exible application of procedural rules.
Nonetheless, rules of procedure still exist to ensure the orderly, just, and speedy
dispensation of cases; to this end, in exibility or liberality must be weighed. Thus, the
relaxation or suspension of procedural rules or the exemption of a case from their
operation is warranted only by compelling reasons or when the purpose of justice requires
it. 14
Here, the records clearly show compelling and justi able reasons for the OMB to
allow the Omnibus Motion of the DPWH and, consequently, hold Rigor administratively
liable. Rigor alleges that the business interests in the Jetri Construction Corporation, the
two-storey building in Sampaloc, Manila, the Toyota RAV 4 SUV, and the Dodge Ram Road
Trek were all separate properties of his second wife, Anastacia, that was why he never
included the same in his SALNs. Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713, 15 however, requires him to
declare under oath even the assets, liabilities, and financial interests of his spouse, thus: TCacIE

Section 8. Statements and Disclosure. — Public o cials and employees

have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the
public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and nancial
and business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarried
children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.

(A) Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure. — All

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 public o cials and employees, except those who serve in an honorary capacity,
laborers and casual or temporary workers, shall le under oath their Statement of
Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and a Disclosure of Business Interests and
Financial Connections and those of their spouses and unmarried children under
eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.
The two documents shall contain information on the following:

(a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and
current fair market value;

(b) personal property and acquisition cost;

(c) all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks,
bonds, and the like;
(d) liabilities, and;
(e) all business interests and financial connections. CTaSEI

xxx xxx xxx 16

Dishonesty, as juridically understood, implies the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or

defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty or probity in principle; lack of
fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray. It is a
malevolent act that puts serious doubt on one's ability to perform duties with the integrity
and uprightness demanded of a public o cer or employee. The requirement of ling a
SALN is enshrined in the Constitution to promote transparency in the civil service and
serves as a deterrent against government o cials bent on enriching themselves through
unlawful means. By mandate of law, every government o cial or employee must make a
complete disclosure of his assets, liabilities and net worth in order to avoid any issue
regarding questionable accumulation of wealth. The importance of requiring the
submission of a complete, truthful, and sworn SALN as a measure to defeat corruption in
the bureaucracy cannot be gainsaid. Full disclosure of wealth in the SALN is necessary to
particularly minimize, if not altogether eradicate, the opportunities for o cial corruption,
and maintain a standard of honesty in the public service. Through the SALN, the public can
monitor movement in the fortune of a public o cial; it serves as a valid check and balance
mechanism to verify undisclosed properties and wealth. The failure to le a truthful SALN
reasonably puts in doubts the integrity of the o cer and normally amounts to dishonesty.
17

In the case at bar, Rigor deliberately and wilfully omitted his wife's business
interests in the Jetri Corporation, the two-storey building in Sampaloc, the Toyota RAV 4,
and the Dodge Ram Road Trek in his SALNs for 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, despite being
required by law to do so. Anent his wife's alleged business interests in Disneyland Bus Line,
Inc., and Kontrata Construction & Development Corporation, his belief that he was no
longer under obligation to declare the same as they had already become dead
corporations, deserves scant merit. He and Anastacia had paid-up capital stocks in the
bus line amounting to P1,125,000.00 and P750,000.00, respectively, and P100,000.00 and
P330,000.00 in the construction rm, respectively. Since the bus line was incorporated in
1994 and the construction rm in 1995, Rigor should have nonetheless declared in his
SALNs their interests therein, until the time the corporations have been dissolved. While
said corporations may be considered as dead corporations, dissolution and liquidation are
still necessary. Also, Rigor's SALN for 1999 has two (2) versions. Though it appears that
both SALNs contain the same property values and liabilities, his networth in the SALN
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 which he submitted to OMB-Luzon is substantially higher than that in the SALN submitted
to DPWH-Region 1, on account of the declared accumulated depreciation in the amount of
P5,898,181.00. True, no liability can be attributed to him for submitting two (2) different
SALNs for a calendar year, as his real purpose, behind it cannot be ascertained with
accuracy, but such act still manifests Rigor's predilection to misrepresent a fact. Since
there are two (2) versions of a SALN which appear to have been subscribed on the same
date before the same administering o cer, it cannot, therefore, be determined which of
these two versions represents his real networth. cIEHAC

Rigor, moreover, alleged that he had no obligation to declare the fourteen (14)
parcels of land in Victoria, Tarlac because these properties were actually owned by
Riyacorp Piggery Farm, Incorporated, a family corporation which his parents owned. He
was merely authorized to mortgage these properties and was never the owner of the same
prior to the subsequent transfer to Metrobank, the present owner. However, the
annotations on the Memorandum of Encumbrances of the titles showed that said
properties were the subject of a Deed of Sale in favor of the Associated Bank way back in
1987. The ownership over these properties was also consolidated in the name of said
bank in the same year and new TCTs were consequently issued. Thus, in all likelihood, the
owner of the properties prior to Rigor was Associated Bank and not Riyacorp, and the
latter could not have possibly authorized Rigor to mortgage the properties. This proves
that Rigor was, in fact, the owner of the lots and not merely Riyacorp's authorized
mortgagor. As such, he was under obligation to declare the same from 1989 to 2000,
before the consolidation of ownership in favor of Metrobank in 2001.
Lastly, as to the twenty-nine (29) copies of his SALNs from 1972 to 1998, he knew
that the Administrative Division did not have le copies of his SALNs because of the re
that gutted the DPWH Legal O ce where its employees' SALNs were kept. Instead of
admitting and informing the Administrative Division of DPWH-Region 1 that copies of his
old SALNs were no longer available, he reconstituted them and made it appear that said
reconstituted SALNs were the very same documents which he executed from 1972 to
1998. He even put the blame on the fact- nding investigators of the OMB for maliciously
forcing him to reproduce his SALNs by virtue of a subpoena. He could not, however, justify
his misrepresentation by this assertion as the one who was actually directed by the
subpoena to reproduce the SALNs was the Chief of the Administrative Division, DPWH-
Region 1. In addition, Rigor's SALNs do not have markings or stamps of receipt as proof of
ling and give an impression that these had all been accomplished on a single occasion.
These facts indubitably show that Rigor should likewise be held liable for Falsi cation of
Official Documents. EHTCAa

Falsi cation of an o cial document such as the SALN is considered a grave

offense. It amounts to dishonesty. Both falsi cation and dishonesty are grave offenses
punishable by dismissal from the service, even for the rst offense, with forfeiture of
retirement bene ts, except accrued leave bene ts, and perpetual disquali cation from
reemployment in government service. The act of falsifying an o cial document is in itself
grave because of its possible deleterious effects on government service. At the same
time, it is also an act of dishonesty, which violates fundamental principles of public
accountability and integrity. Under Civil Service regulations, falsi cation of an o cial
document and dishonesty are distinct offenses, but both may be committed in one act, as
in this case. The constitutionalization of public accountability shows the kind of standards
of public o cers that are woven into the fabric of our legal system. To reiterate, public
o ce is a public trust, which embodies a set of standards such as responsibility, integrity
and e ciency. Unfortunately, reality may sometimes depart from these standards, but our
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 society has consciously embedded them in our laws so that they may be demanded and
enforced as legal principles, and the Court is mandated to apply these principles to bridge
actual reality to the norms envisioned for our public service. 1 8
Administrative proceedings are governed by the "substantial evidence rule," meaning
a nding of guilt in an administrative case may and would issue if supported by substantial
evidence that the respondent has committed the acts stated in the complaint. Substantial
evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally
reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise. Its absence is not shown by stressing that
there is contrary evidence, direct or circumstantial, on record. Here, the pieces of evidence
met the quantum of evidence required in administrative cases to justify Rigor's dismissal
from service. 1 9 Not only did he fail to declare in his SALN the separate properties of his
wife, as required by law, he likewise failed to satisfactorily explain the other glaring
irregularities involved with his SALNs. These facts certainly constitute su cient and
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to sustain a nding
of guilt against Rigor for Serious Dishonesty and Falsi cation of O cial Documents, for
which the penalty of Dismissal from Service is imposed pursuant to Section 52, Rule IV of
the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, as amended. aDCIHE

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the petition is GRANTED . The Decision of the

Court of Appeals dated July 4, 2012 and its Resolution dated March 27, 2013 in CA-G.R. SP
120708 are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE . The Order of the O ce of the Ombudsman
dated July 18, 2011 in OMB-C-A-05-0123-C nding Jose no N. Rigor guilty of Serious
Dishonesty and Falsi cation of O cial Documents, and ordering his Dismissal from
Service, is hereby REINSTATED .
SO ORDERED .

Velasco, Jr., Villarama, Jr., Mendoza * and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
* Designated Acting Member, in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per Raffle dated
September 24, 2014.

1. Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De

Leon and Angelita A. Gacutan; concurring; rollo, pp. 40-51.

2. Id. at 53.
3. Id. at 486-499.
4. Id. at 432-449.
5. Entitled ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT.
6. Entitled AN ACT DECLARING FORFEITURE IN FAVOR OF THE STATE ANY PROPERTY FOUND
TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED BY ANY PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AND
PROVIDING FOR THE PROCEEDINGS THEREFOR.
7. Rollo, p. 406.
8. Id. at 448. (Emphasis in the original)

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 9. Id. at 498-499. (Emphasis in the original)
10. Id. at 50. (Emphasis in the original)
11. Id. at 17-18.

12. Balbastro v. Junio, 554 Phil. 548, 557 (2007).

13. Section 27, R.A. No. 6770, AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE FUNCTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL
ORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
14. Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company, Inc., G.R. No. 188051, November 22, 2010.
15. Entitled AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR
PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, TO UPHOLD THE TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLE OF
PUBLIC OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING INCENTIVES AND REWARDS FOR
EXEMPLARY SERVICE, ENUMERATING PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
16. Emphasis ours.
17. Flor Gupilan-Aguilar and Honore R. Hernandez v. Office of the Ombudsman, represented by
Hon. Simeon V. Marcelo; and PNP-CIDG, represented by Dir. Eduardo Matillano, G.R. No.
197307, February 26, 2014.
18. OCA v. Kasilag, A.M. No. P-08-2573, June 19, 2012, 673 SCRA 583, 589.
19. Flor Gupilan-Aguilar and Honore R. Hernandez v. Office of the Ombudsman, represented by
Hon. Simeon V. Marcelo; and PNP-CIDG, represented by Dir. Eduardo Matillano, supra
note 17.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com