LEONARDO D. DUROG, MUNICIPAL BUDGET OFFICER, DANGCAGAN, BUKIDNON, PETITIONER, VS. EDITHA PACAMALAN, ASSISTANT MUNICIPAL TREASURER, DANGCAGAN, BUKIDNON, RESPONDENT.

Durog versus Pacamalan

The Case

This is the story of Leonardo Durog, the Municipal Budget Officer of Dangcagan, Bukidnon, against Editha Pacamalan, the Assistant Municipal Treasurer of the same town. Pacamalan filed an administrative complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman in Mindanao, accusing Durog of using government vehicles and claiming travel allowances for trips that were really personal in nature. The case matters because it draws a clean line between an official trip and a private errand dressed up as official business, and because it reminds every public officer that a disciplinary finding of dishonesty needs only substantial evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Procedural History

Pacamalan filed her affidavit of complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman in Mindanao, and the case was docketed there. After proceedings, the Office of the Ombudsman rendered its decision on 11 February 2013, finding Durog guilty of simple dishonesty and imposing suspension for four months. Durog then went up to the Supreme Court by a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, asking that the Ombudsman's decision be reversed and set aside. The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit.

Facts

Pacamalan had earlier filed an administrative complaint against Durog before the Civil Service Commission in Cagayan de Oro City, for grave misconduct, discourtesy, and violation of the ethical standards law. That complaint arose from incidents at the office, including Durog's angry outbursts against her over vouchers and deductions. Preliminary conferences in that Commission case were set, one on 9 July 2009 and another on 22 December 2009.

On 9 July 2009, Pacamalan personally saw Durog arrive at the Commission office in a government vehicle, a van with plate number SHN 407, driven by a government employee. The trip ticket for that day listed Durog among the authorized passengers and was certified by him as an official business trip. On top of that, Durog claimed and received traveling expenses of 2,180 pesos for the same trip, supported by an obligation request, a disbursement voucher, an itinerary of travel, and a travel order stating the purpose as attending a conference and preliminary conference. Pacamalan also noted that Durog had previously been found guilty of simple misconduct in an earlier Ombudsman case and suspended for one month and one day.

On 22 December 2009, Pacamalan again saw Durog and his counsel arrive at the Commission office in a government vehicle, a red Isuzu pick-up with plate number SKA 438, driven by a job order worker. Durog admitted riding that vehicle but said it was only for a short distance of about 500 meters, from his counsel's apartment to the Commission office, and that he was on official leave that day. The Ombudsman found him guilty of simple dishonesty, and he brought the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not Durog's attendance at the preliminary conferences before the Civil Service Commission was an official business trip, such that his use of a government vehicle and his claim for travel allowances were proper.
• Whether or not Durog is guilty of simple dishonesty for misrepresenting a personal trip as an official travel.
• Whether or not the penalty of suspension for four months is proper.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the definition of dishonesty as a ground for administrative liability, which the Court quotes from its own jurisprudence:

Dishonesty means the concealment of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one's office or connected with the performance of his duties. It is an absence of integrity, a disposition to betray, cheat, deceive or defraud, bad faith.

This definition bears directly on the case because Durog's act of declaring a personal trip as official travel is precisely a concealment of a fact connected with the performance of his duties.

The decision also quotes the standard of evidence required in administrative cases:

Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

This standard governs the review of the Ombudsman's findings, which the Court upheld.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Durog's attendance at the Civil Service Commission proceedings was not official business. The Court explained that what determines the nature of a cause of action are the allegations in the complaint, and a reading of Pacamalan's affidavit showed that the case against Durog was purely personal to him, even if the acts charged happened at the office during office hours. The Court defined misconduct as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer, and held that the acts complained of affected Durog's personal standard of behavior, not his official functions. His attendance at the Commission was therefore a personal matter, and he had no reason to use a government vehicle or claim a per diem for it.

On the second issue, the Court found that Durog concealed the truth by making it appear that his 9 July 2009 trip to Cagayan de Oro was official. The travel order referred to a conference and a preliminary conference, and the Court inferred that the conference was his 8 July 2009 meeting for local budget officers at the provincial capitol in Malaybalay, while the preliminary conference was the Commission proceeding. The Court also noted that Durog raised the defense that the Commission case was work-related only for the first time on petition, and that defenses not pleaded below may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Even if he later returned his supposed fare, the Court held that this did not relieve him of administrative culpability, because the fact remained that he was untruthful in declaring the purpose and nature of his travel.

On the third issue, the Court found the penalty of suspension for four months proper, and denied the petition for lack of merit.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, in administrative cases, only substantial evidence is required, meaning such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Second, dishonesty means the concealment of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one's office or connected with the performance of his duties, and it is an absence of integrity, a disposition to betray, cheat, deceive or defraud, bad faith. Third, whether a trip is official business depends on the nature of the cause of action as alleged in the complaint, not on the label given by the party. Fourth, defenses not pleaded in the answer may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Fifth, the return of an allowance does not erase the administrative liability for the untruthful declaration.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the finding of the Office of the Ombudsman that Durog is guilty of simple dishonesty, with suspension for four months.

Remember This

Remember the line that dishonesty is the concealment of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one's office, and that a personal trip dressed up as official travel is dishonesty even if the allowance is later returned. Examiners like to use this case to test the substantial evidence standard in administrative cases and the rule that defenses not raised below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.