Alfonso T. Yuchengco and Y Realty Corporation vs.

The Honorable
Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, Republic of the Philippines, Presidential
Commission on Good Government, estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda R.
Marcos, Prime Holdings Inc., Estate of Ramon Cojuangco
G.R No. 149802.
January 20, 2006
PUBLIC OFFICERS; Sandiganbayan (ON QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE)
In civil cases to recover or for restitution, reparation of damages, or
indemnification for consequential and other damages or any other civil actions under the
Civil Code or other existing laws filed with the Sandiganbayan against Ferdinand E.
Marcos, et al., the Sandiganbayan is not to look for proof beyond reasonable doubt, but
to determine based on the evidence presented, in light of common human experience
which of the theories proffered by the parties is more worthy of credence; Juries must
often reason, according to probabilities, drawing an inference that the main fact in
issue existed from collateral facts not directly proving, but strongly tending to prove, its
existence. The vital question in such cases is the cogency of the proof afforded by the
secondary facts. How likely, according to experience, is the existence of the primary fact
if certain secondary fact exist?
Meanwhile, in this case, the Sandiganbayan, in ruling that almost all the
documents offered by the Republic are photocopies and that same were unreliable
while omitting any discussion of the evidentiary weight of the Republics testimonial
evidence,

including

the

deposition-statement

of

Jose

Yao

misappreciated the weight of evidence presented by the Republic.

Campos,

grossly

Republic of the Philippines vs. Honorable Desierto, Ombudsman, Imelda R.

Marcos, Lucio C. Tan, Harry C Tan, Benjamin S. Jimenez, Leoncio M. Giron,
Fermin O Hebron and Joel C. Ibay
G.R No. 131397
January 31, 2006
It may be inferred that there are two modes of committing the offense, of
Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A 3019, thus (1) the public officer caused any undue injury
to any party, including the government or (2) the public officer gave any party
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.
Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgement or negligence, it imputes a
dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of
a sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill-will--- it partakes of the nature of fraud.
As a general rule, the Supreme Court cannot interfere with the investigatory and
prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman without any compelling reason.

Office of the Court Administrator vs Judge Ricardo P. Liwanag of the Municipal

Trial Court in Cities, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan; Clerk of Court J. Rogelio
T. Montero III and Court interpreter Ma. Corazon D. Espanola
A.M N. MTJ-02-1440.
February 28, 2006
DUTY: ON PROVISIONAL MANDATE
Republic Act No. 6713 enunciates the States policy of promoting a high standard
of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service.

Veterans Federation of the Philippines vs. Honorable Angelo T. Reyes in his

capacity as Secretary of National Defense; and Honorable Edgardo E. Batenga in
his capacity as Undersecretary for Civil Relations and Administration of the
Department of National Defense
G.R no. 155027
February 28, 2006
Public Office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by
which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating
power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the
government, to be excercised by him for the benefit of the public. The most important
characteristic which distinguishes an office from an employment or contract is that the
creation and conferring of an office involves a delegation to the individual of some of the
sovereign functions of the government, to be excercised by him for the benefit of the
public. That some portion of the sovereignty of the country, either legislative, executive
or judicial, attaches, for the time being, to be excercised for the public benefit.
The protection of the interests of war veterans is not only meant to promote
social justice, but is also intended to reward patriotism. The functions of VFP are
executive functions, designed to implement not just the provisions of Republic Act No.
2640 but also most importantly, the Constitutional Mandate for the State to provide
immediate and adequate carem benefits and other forms of assistance to war veterans
and veterans of military campaigns, their surviving spouse and orphans.
The constitution does not contain any prohibition, express or implied, against the
grant of control and/or supervision to the Secretary of National Defense over a civilian
organization. The Office of the Secretary of National Defense is itself a civilian office, its
occupants being an alter-ego of the Civilian Commander in-Chief, the manifestation of
the constitutional principle that civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the
military.

The power to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate has done
in the performance of his duties, or to see to it that subordinate officers perform their
duties in accordance with law, necessarily requires the ability of the superior officer to
monitor as closely as it desires, the acts of the subordinate.

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Analiza F. Breta (Court Stenographer),

Ferdinand S. Reyes (Process Server) and Eduardo M. Floresv(Court Aide), all of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, Manila
A.M No. P-05-2023
March 06, 2006
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 2-99 provides that the absenteeism
and tardiness even if such is not habitual or frequent shall be dealt with severely, and
any falsification of daily time records to cover up for such absenteeism or tardiness shall
constitute gross dishonesty or serious misconduct.

Peter T. Donton vs Edgardo S. Loria, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon
City, Branch 33
A.M No. P-03-1684
March 10, 2006
The sheriff is primarily responsible for the speedy and efficient service of all court
processes and writs originating from his court and its branches, and those that other
courts may assign to him.

Office of the Court Administrator vs Atty. Marta T. Cunanan

A.M. No. P-05-2050
March 10, 2006
Any employee shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness,
regardless of the number of minutes, ten (10) times a month for atleast two(2) months in
a semester or at least two (2) consecutive months during the year.
By reason of the nature and functions of their office, court officials and
employees must be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon
that public office is a public trust.

Rosalinda Pesongco vs Ernesto B. Estoya, Clerk of Court VI, Armando Lapor,

Sheriff IV, RTC-OCC, San Jose, Antique
A.M No. P-06-2131
March 10, 2006
Persons involved in the administration of justice ought to live up to the strictest
standard of honesty and integrity in the public service.

Ricardo A. Manaysay vs Pepito A, Samaniego, Process Server, Municipal Trial

Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cavite City
A.M. No. P-06-2133
March 10, 2006
The Revised Administrative Code of 1987 provides that a public employees
failure to pay just debts is a ground for disciplinary action.

Security Bank Corporation vs. Romeo C. Gonzalbo, Arturo A. Ramos and

Edilberto C. De Castro
A.M No. P-06-2139
March 23, 2006
The duty of the sheriffs in the execution of a writ issued by a court is purely
ministerial unless restrained by a court order, they should see to it that the execution of
a judgement is not unduly delayed.
The primary duty of sheriffs is to execute decisions and orders of the court to
which they belong. Sheriffs are duty bound to know the basic rules relative to the
implementation of writs of execution.
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Florentina Santos
G.R No. 166116
March 31, 2006
The rule is that all public officers and employees are prohibited from engaging in
the private practice of their profession, except when authorized by the Constitution or
law
Office of the Court Administrator vs Normalyn P. Nacuray, Clerk III, Office of the
Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Manila
A.M No. P-03-1739
April 07, 2006
Public servants are called upon to uphold public interest over personal needs,
personal problems cannot justify the misuse by any court employee of judiciary funds in
his custody.

The Supreme law of the land demands all public officers and employees to be at
all times accountable to the people; and to serve them with utmost dedication, honesty
and loyalty.
Noel Villanueva vs People of the Philippines and Yolanda Castro
G.R No. 160351
April 10, 2006
Uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger, with some provocation on the
part of the party constitutes only a light felony; A public official is hidebound to be an
exemplar to society against the use of intemperate language.
Complainants demeanor of refusing to sign the leave monetization of petitioner,
an otherwise valid claim, because of a political discord smacks of a conduct
unbecoming of a lady and a Vice-Mayor at that; Holding an esteemed position is never
a license to act capriciously with impunity.
Considering that the petitioner and complainant belong to warring political
camps, occasional gestures and words of disapproval or dislike are among the hazards
of the job.
Erneliza Z. Mamaril vs Civil Service Commission and Department of
Transportation and Communications
G.R No. 164929
April 10, 2006
The general proposition is that a public official is not entitled to any compensation
if he has not rendered any service.

Senate of the Philippines, represented by Franklin M. Drilon ,in his capacity as

Senate President vs. Eduardo R. Ermita, in his capacity as Executive Secretary
and alter-ego of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
G.R No. 169777
April 20, 2006
A transparent government is one of the hallmarks of a truly republican state;
History has been a witness to the fact that the power to withhold information lends itself
to abuse, hence, the necessity to guard it zealously.

Encarnacion E. Santiago vs. Commission on Audit and the Director of the

Commission on Audit, Regional Office No. V
G.R No. 146824
June 15, 2006
When any person is indebted to any government agency, the Commission on
Audit may direct the proper officer to withhold the payment of any money due such
person or his estate to be applied in satisfaction of indebtedness.

Carlos R. Gonzales vs. Civil Service Commission and Philippine

Amusement and Gambling Corporation
G.R No. 156253
June 15, 2006
Length of service does not necessarily entitle the erring employee to a reduction
of the penalty imposed on him. It is an alternative circumstance which can mitigate or
possibly even aggravate the penalty, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Godofredo S. Sison, in his capacity as Deputy Administrator, Social Security

System vs. Court of Appeals and Dr. Concepcion O. Lim-Tan
G.R No. 124086
June 26, 2006
Public officials ought to

act with

the highest degree

of excellence,

professionalism, intelligence and skill, and for failure to act with such, a public official
may thus be held liable, in his personal capacity, for exemplary damages.
Rudigario C. Gatmaitan vs. Dr. Ricardo B. Gonzales, Office of the Ombudsman
and Court of Appeals
G.R No. 149226
June 26, 2006
Well entrenched in jurisprudence is the time honored principle that the law
bestows upon a public official the presumption of regularity in the discharge of his
official duties and functions.
Public Interest Center, Inc. vs Magdangal B. Elma, as Chief Presidential Legal
Counsel and as Chairman of Presidential Commission
G.R No. 138965
June 30, 2006
The crucial test in determining whether incompatibility exists between two offices
is whether one office is subordinate to the other, in the sense that one office has the
right to interfere with the other.
An incompatibility exists between the positions of the Presidential Commission
on Good Government (PCGG) Chairman and the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel
(CPLC). The actions of the PCGG Chairman are subject to review of the CPLC.

Marison C. Basuel vs. Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB)

represented by Director Agapito B. Rosales
G.R No. 143664
June 30, 2006
Findings made by an administrative body which has acquired expertise
are accorded not only respect but even finality by the Supreme Court; Absent a clear
showing of grave abuse of discretion, the findings of the Ombudsman, when supported
by substantial evidence, are conclusive and shall not be disturbed by the Court.

Elmer R. Bartolata,Regional Director, Civil Service Commission vs Felicia C.

Julaton, Clerk of Court and Juanita G. Tapic, Court Interpreter II, Municipal Trial
Court in Cities, Davao City, Branch 3
A.M.No. P-02-1638
July 06, 2006
Respondents machinations reflect their dishonesty and lack of integrity rendering
them unfit to maintain their position as public servants and employees of the judiciary.
Atty. Ernesto C. Jacinto vs Judge Lydia Q. Layosa and Clerk III Cheryl
Buenaventura
A.M. No. RTJ-02-1743
July 11, 2006
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action
more particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.
Respondent clerk failed to take appropriate steps and devise means to keep the
records taking into consideration the defective condition of the filing cabinet.

Doroteo Igoy vs. Atty. Gilbert F. Soriano

A.M. No. 2001-9-SC
July 14, 2006
Despite their dismissal from the service, government employees are entitled to
the leave credits that they earned during the period of their employment.
Dismissal from the service carries with it the cancellation of eligibility and
perpetual disqualification for re-employment in the government service.

Roberto M. Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals and House of Representatives,

represented by Roberto P. Nazareno
G.R No. 167726
July 20, 2006
To determine whether a public officer committed misconduct, it is necessary to
separate the character of the man from the character of the officer.
To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be
connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer; In
grave misconduct as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption ,
clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest.
Government employees engaged in illicit relations are guilty of disgraceful and
immoral conduct for which he/she may be held administratively liable.
Villanuevas offense is gravely immoral and reprehensible but it falls short of
grave misconduct as defined by law.

Re: Request of Assistant Court Administrator for Upgrading of their Ranl,

Salary and Privileges upon Effectivity of R.A 9282
A.M No. 03-10-05-SC
July 20, 2006
Presidential Decree No. 828 created the Office of the Court Administrator and
granted the Court Administrator the rank, privileges, and compensation as those of the
Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals.

Ismael G. Khan, Jr. and Wenceslao Malabanan vs Office of the

Ombudsman, Deputy Ombudsman Rosauro Torralba and Celestino Bandala
G.R No. 125296
July 20, 2006
The office of the Ombudsman shall have the power, to direct, upon complaint or
at its own instance, any govt. owned and controlled corporation with original charter, to
perform and expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent and correct
any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties .
The

office

of

the

Ombudsman

exercises

jurisdiction

over

public

officials/employees of GOCCs with original charters. The phrase with original charter
means chartered by special law as distinguished from corporations organized under the
Corporation Code.
A public officer is an individual invested with portion of the sovereign functions of
the government to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public.
Public officers are those endowed with the exercise of sovereign executive,
legislative or judicial functions.

Ma. Chona M. Dimayuga, Felipe Aguinaldo, and Noel C. Inumerable vs.

Office of the Ombudsman
G.R No. 129099
July 20, 2006
In deference to the virtually unlimited investigatory and prosecutorial powers
granted to the Ombudsman by the Constitution and by the law, the Court has
maintained a policy of non-interference with such powers.
Although COA report may aid the Office of the Ombudsman in conducting its
preliminary investigation, such report is not a pre-requisite.
Since the Office of the Ombudsman is granted such latitude, its varying treatment
of similarity situated investigations cannot by itself be considered a violation of any of
the parties rights to the equal protection of the laws.
Carlos C. Fuentes vs. Honorable Sandiganbayan, Second Division,
Hon. Simeon V. Marcelo
G.R No. 164664
July 20, 2006
Courts should not interfere with the Ombudsmans investigatory power, exercised
through the Special Prosecutor, and the authority to determine the presence or absence
of probable cause, except when the finding is tainted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
If the Special Prosecutor files a motion to dismiss the case or motion for leave to
file a motion to withdraw the information after a reinvestigation authorized by the Court,
the resolution of such motion rests on the sound discretion of the trial court.
Court may deny or grant such motion not out of subservience to the Special
Prosecutor but in the faithful exercise of judicial discretion and prerogative.

Brig. General Jose S. Ramiscal Jr. vs Sandiganbayan (4 th Division) and People

of the Philippines
G.R. Nos. 169727-28
August 18, 2006
As far as crimes are cognizable by the Sandiganbayan are concerned, the
determination of the probable cause during the preliminary investigation , or
reinvestigation for that matter, is a function that belongs to the Office of the
Ombudsman.
As a rule, courts should not interfere with the Ombudsmans investigatory power,
exercised through the Ombudsman Prosecutors, and the authority to determine the
presence or absence of probable cause. Probable cause need not be based on clear
and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond
reasonable doubt and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.
It implies probability of guilt and requires more than the bare suspicion but less than
evidence which would justify conviction; The Ombudsmans finding of probable cause
prevails over petitioners bare allegations of grave abuse of discretion.
The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure do not require cases to be set for
hearing to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of the
accused before any warrant may be issued. The Sandiganbayans determination of
probable cause is made ex-parte and is summary in nature, not adversarial.
Crimes committed by public officers and employees in relation to their offices
defined and penalized under the Anti-Graft Law do not exclude prosecution for felonies
defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code, and vice versa. One may be
charged of violation of R.A No. 3019 in addition to a felony under the Revised Penal
Code for the same delictual act, that is, either concurrently or subsequent to being
charged with a felony under the Code.

Ma. Imelda M. Manotoc vs. Honorable Court of Appeals and Agapita Trajano on
behalf of the Estate of Archimedes Trajano.
G.R No. 130974
August 16, 2006
Sherifffs are enjoined to try their best efforts to accomplish personal service on
defendant , and since the defendant is expected to try to avoid and evade service of
summons, the sheriff must be resourceful , persevering, canny and diligent in serving
the process on the defendant; Several attempts means atleast three(3) tries,
preferably on at least two different dates.
The sheriff must describe in the return of Summons the facts and circumstances
surrounding the attempted personal service. The efforts made to find the defendant and
the reasons behind the failure must be clearly narrated in detail in the return.
For the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by a sheriff,
the sheriffs return must show that serious efforts or attempts were exerted to personally
serve the summons and that said efforts failed; The presumption of regularity in the
performance of official functions by the sheriff is not applicable where it is patent that the
sheriffs return is defective.

Office of the Ombudsman vs. Rogelio Q. Tongson, Sanny Boy O. Oropel, Jaime
S.J Javellana and Court of Appeals-Cebu
G.R No.169029
August 22,2006
Factual issues may be delved into and resolved where the findings and
conclusions of the Office of the Ombudsman in its decision are frontally inconsistent
with those in the assailed Resolution of the Court of Appeals.

Public Officers failure to comply with P.D No. 1594 cannot be trivialized and
classified as a mere oversight. At the very least, it constitutes neglect of duty. Engineers
and employees of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) are expected
to render public service with utmost responsibility .
There can be no better evidence of the administrative liability of the respondents
than their own admission of a 1,341.75 sq. m shortfall in the road project.
Respondents must be reminded that government funds must be disbursed only
under the terms of the contract and upon compliance with the requirements provided by
law and the pertinent rules and regulations. Certainly, respondents certifying thr project
as 100% complete when in fact the contractor still had unfinished work denigrates their
integrity as public servants and mars the faith and confidence of the public in the
government. Their act is totally unacceptable.
Under the Civil Service Law and rules, there is no concrete description of what
specific acts constitute the grave offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service; The failure to use reasonable diligence in the performance of officially
designated duties has been characterized as simple neglect of duty.
As a final note, let it be emphasized that when an officer or employee is
disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such officer or employee but the
improvement of the public service and the preservation of the publics faith and
confidence in the government.

Venancio R. Nava vs. Honorable Justice Rodolfo G. Palattao

G.R No. 160211
August 28, 2006
The process of approval is not a ministerial duty of approving authorities to sign
every document that comes across their desks, and then point to their subordinates as
the parties responsible if something goes awry.