Proceso T. Domingo, Angelito D. Twaño and Susan M. Solo, Petitioners, v. Hon. Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Proceso T. Domingo, Angelito D. Twaño, and Susan M. Solo were appointed members of the Career Executive Service Board (CESB) in January 2010. In June 2010, the CESB convened and deliberated on applications for Career Executive Service Officer (CESO) ranks, which included the petitioners’ own applications for original appointment or rank adjustment. The Board subsequently passed Resolution Nos. 871 and 872, which contained recommendations for the petitioners’ appointments. Petitioners affixed their signatures to these resolutions, which were then forwarded to the Office of the President. Acting on these, the OP issued appointments upgrading the petitioners’ CESO ranks.
In 2012, the Executive Secretary directed petitioners to explain why no administrative action should be taken against them for violating ethical standards on conflict of interest under R.A. Nos. 3019 and 6713 by signing resolutions recommending their own appointments. Petitioners admitted signing but argued it was inadvertent, claiming they either inhibited themselves during deliberations or that their signatures were merely ministerial and immaterial as other votes were sufficient.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners are administratively liable for signing the CESB resolutions that recommended their own appointments or rank adjustments.
RULING
Yes, petitioners are administratively liable for simple negligence. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Office of the President and the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the fundamental ethical principle that public office is a public trust, enshrined in R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). This law mandates that public officials must uphold public interest over personal interest and avoid conflicts of interest at all times.
As CESB members, petitioners were part of a collegial body tasked with objectively assessing the qualifications of candidates for CESO ranks. By participating in the process that led to resolutions recommending their own promotions-culminating in their signatures on those very documents-they placed themselves in a clear conflict of interest situation. Their duty was to inhibit themselves completely from both the deliberations and the voting on matters concerning their own applications. Their claims of inadvertence or that their signatures were merely ministerial do not absolve them. The act of signing the resolution is a substantive, not a ministerial, act that signifies concurrence with the Board’s collective decision. Their failure to formally inhibit or to annotate “no part” beside their signatures constituted a breach of the high standard of conduct demanded of public officials. This breach, arising from a lack of due care and circumspection regarding a blatant ethical violation, properly constitutes simple negligence. The penalty of three-month suspension and the revocation of their improperly conferred CESO ranks were upheld as appropriate.
