G.R. No. 176127 . September 11, 2007.
RODOMIEL J. DOMINGO, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, KATHRYN JOY B. PAGUIO, ALLAN JAY M. ESGUERRA, and NEIL PATRICK H. CELIS, Respondents.

FACTS

A complaint was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman by Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) officials against Barangay Chairman Rodomiel J. Domingo and Barangay Treasurer Fe T. Lao for malversation, falsification, dishonesty, and grave misconduct. Respondents alleged that petitioner misappropriated a cash advance from SK funds and submitted a falsified “Justification” supporting the 2003 Barangay Budget, which falsely declared that the barangay had no incumbent SK officials. Petitioner denied the allegations, asserted proper liquidation of funds, and claimed his signature on the Justification was forged. The Ombudsman dismissed the charges of misappropriation (as premature pending audit) and falsification (as requiring judicial determination) but found petitioner guilty of violating Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 (the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) for submitting the falsified Justification to the Manila Barangay Bureau, imposing a six-month suspension. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Rodomiel J. Domingo is administratively liable for violation of Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 for the submission of the allegedly falsified Justification.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Ombudsman and dismissed the charge against petitioner. The Court found the Ombudsman’s conclusion illogical, as it deferred ruling on the authenticity of the signature (and thus the falsification) but simultaneously assumed the document was falsified to hold petitioner liable for its submission. The Court also found no substantial evidence of petitioner’s culpability. The documentary evidence showed petitioner, in other official budget documents for 2003, recognized the SK’s existence and allocated funds for it, making it irrational for him to submit a Justification denying their existence. The Justification was a stray document inconsistent with the official records, and its submission could not be logically attributed to petitioner. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 enunciates an ideal norm of conduct for granting incentives, not a specific prohibited act that automatically warrants administrative sanction for its violation. The Implementing Rules list specific unlawful acts as grounds for discipline, and a mere failure to observe the norm of “professionalism” under Section 4(b) is not one of them.