In the matter of the anonymous

administrative complaint against (PERSON

COMPLAINED OF), (DESIGNATION),
(ADDRESS), for alleged violation of
(ACTS/LAW/DEPED ORDER VIOLATED,
otherwise known as the
______________________________)
x-----------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

For resolution is the anonymous administrative complaint against

________________________, (SDS/ASDS [POSITION] ______) Schools Division
Superintendent, DepEd-Division of _______________, ADDRESS, for alleged put
the violation or acts being complained of.

On 01 January 2017, an anonymous email/letter complaint from

____________________, dated 01 January 2017 was received by this Office on
_________________, through the (DEtxt Action Center, action@deped.gov.ph or
Office of the Ombudsman/Office of the President/Civil Service Commission,
ADDRESS[if from OMB, OP or CSC].

The email/letter complaint, filed by anonymous complainant against SDS

_____________ alleged that the latter narrate what is being complained of or
committed in the email/letter. (ex. demanding money from the teachers or from
the school canteen to buy gifts for the officials of the division office. The
complaint also alleged that SDS _________ misappropriated the MOOE fund to
promote active participation to the boy scout activities).

SDS/ASDS (POSITION) NAME, in his/her comment, dated 01 January

2017, belied the allegations set forth in the letter and contended that he/she
does not _______________________________________________. (ex. solicit any gift
from the schools. In fact, his office made a directive not to accept any gift
especially during festivities or by reason of any transaction therein. He also
denied having knowledge of any solicitations made by district supervisors).

Moreover, SDS ________ negate PUT ADDITION DEFENSE STATED IN

THE COMMENT. (Ex.misappropriating MOOE funds and using it to promote
mandatory membership to the Boy Scouts of the Philippines as well as to the
activities of the same. He insisted that promotion of membership is not
mandatory and likewise MOOE fund is utilized based on their order of
priorities).

ISSUE
The pivotal issue to be resolved in this complaint is whether or not a
prima facie case exists warranting the issuance of a Formal Charge against
SDS/ASDS (POSITION) _________________.

DISCUSSION

This Office carefully pored over the records of the case, and it was
evident that the anonymous email/letter complaint miserably failed to
discharge the foregoing onus.

In administrative complaints, the quantum of proof necessary for a

finding of guilt is substantial evidence or such evidence as a reasonable mind
may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The complainant has the
burden of proving substantial evidence the allegations in the complaint. 1 That
is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, what will prevail is that
respondent has regularly performed his or her duties. Reliance on mere
allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint
with no leg to stand on and charges based on mere suspicion and speculation
cannot be given credence.2

It is noteworthy too that mere allegation is not evidence and is not

equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise
cannot be given credence. Hence, when the complainant relies on mere
1 Concerned citizen vs. Maria Concepcion M. Divina, A.M No. P-07-2369; Rule 138, Section 5 of the Rules of Court

2 Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Morales, A.M. Nos. P-08-2519 & P-08-2520, [November 19, 2008], 592 PHIL 102-129
conjectures and suppositions, and fails to substantiate his allegations, the
administrative complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.3

While it is true that public office is a public trust and public officers and
employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and
justice, and lead modest lives.4 However, it is also a well-settled rule that public
officer enjoys the presumption of regularity of official acts that may be rebutted
by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The
presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption is rebutted,
it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of
the presumption and in case of doubt as to an officers act being lawful or
unlawful, construction should be in favor or its lawfulness.5

Applying the foregoing in the herein complaint, the email/letter

complaint, although anonymous, should have presented quantum of proof
necessary to show that SDS _______ has committed any irregularity in the
performance of his duties. However, in the absence of any substantial evidence,
then the presumption of regularity in the performance his/her duty prevails. In
fact, the herein complaint had not shown any prima facie evidence that SDS
_______ had place the acts being complained here. (ex. allowed solicitation and
consented the unlawful expenditure of Schools MOOE).

The acts being complained of is based on mere suspicion and speculation

which this Office cannot give credence. The herein anonymous complainant
relied on mere conjectures and suppositions, and failed to substantiate its
allegations against SDS Name. It is clear that the allegation does not hold water
against SDS Name to warrant the filing of an administrative charge. Thus, the
accusations set forth does not constitute prima facie case against him/her.

Lastly, Section 8 (a) of DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2006 provides that the
disciplining authority concerned shall dismiss outright a complaint on its face,
there is obviously no truth or merit to the allegations therein.
3 Dr. Castor De Jesus vs. Rafael D. Guerrero, et. al., Gr. No. 171491, September 4, 2009

4 Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

5 Anuncio Bustillo, et. Al vs People of the Philippines, Gr. No. 160718, May 12, 2010
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant complaint is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of prima facie case and merit.

SO RESOLVED.

Done this 15th March 2017, Pasig City, Philippines.

Recommending Approval:

Undersecretary

Approved:

Secretary

Copy Furnished: