Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

JECYROSE R. BUTAY-RAMOS CA G.R. SP 156589

Petitioner

FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE,

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

X-----------------------------------------------X

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

PETITIONER, through the undersigned counsel hereby states:

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

1. During the Arroyo regime, the National Agribusiness Corporation

(NABCOR) was granted a total fund allocation of Three Hundred
Million Pesos (Php 300,000,000.00) by the Department of
Agriculture (DA) for the implementation of the DA Ginintuang
Masaganang Ani (GMA) Program. To realize the project, a
Memorandum of Agreement was executed between DA and
NABCOR through its President Allan A. Javellana (JAVELLANA).

2. Out of the Three Hundred Million Pesos (P300, 000,000.00), Ninety

Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Thousand Pesos (P99, 900,000.00)
was allocated for the purchase of Twenty (20) packs of post-harvest
facilities and equipment.

3. On January 26, 2007 a Resolution was adopted by the Bids and

Awards Committee (BAC) of NABCOR adopting the scheme of
direct contracting in order to purchase the post-harvest facilities.
The BAC Members were: President Allan A. Javellana
(JAVELLANA) as Chairman, Encarnita-Cristina P. Munsod
(MUNSOD) as Vice Chairman and Dennis G. Lozada (LOZADA) as
member. At that time, petitioner JECYROSE BUTAY-RAMOS was
not yet a BAC Member considering that her Special Order as a BAC
Member came only on February 02, 2007. 1

1
As stated in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint

Page 1 of 9
 4. In justifying the adoption of direct contracting, NABCOR reasoned
out that the situation came within the purview of the exception in
Section 50 of the Procurement Law (RA 9184) which expressly
states that direct contracting can be resorted to if the goods are sold
by an exclusive dealer or manufacturer which does not have sub-
dealers at lower prices and for which no substitute can be obtained
at more advantageous terms to the government.

5. The petitioner started being employed in the NABCOR as

Accounting Assistant on January 01, 2007 with a monthly
compensation of FIFTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
FORTEEN PESOS (P15, 514.00) on a regular basis and was
continuously serving thereat until her employment was severed on
November 30, 2011.

6. After severing employment at NABCOR, she was hired in the

government service at Metropolitan Tuguegarao Water District on
January 30, 2014 as Clerk Processor with a Salary Grade of 6
earning a monthly gross income of __________.

7. The petitioner’s tour of duties are merely ministerial, clerical and

does not involve any decision making on her part. Her duty as a
BAC Member was in the exigency of service considering that such
was in addition to her duties and responsibilities then as
Accounting Assistant.

8. In her Special Order, the following were her terms of reference as

administrative assistant:

a. receive day-to-day communications on both letters, phone

calls an fax messages, arrange flight schedules of employees;
b. monitoring travel travel order numbers of employees
c. arrange attachments of payroll, pepares certifications of
communication bills, monitor phone calls;
d. prepares request for purchase supplies that were charged
against the corporate account;
e. arrange liquidations and reimbursements of superiors;
transmits agreements to be signed by the head and
f. other duties deemed necessary.

9. Thus, technically speaking, the petitioner was not a BAC Member

on January 26, 2017 when NABCOR adopted the direct contracting
scheme, she being an Accounting Assistant at that time doing an
ordinary clerical functions. Therefore, she should not have been
included as a co-respondent in the administrative complaint for

Alleged and proof thereof was attached in the Petition for Review

Page 2 of 9
 Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of
Service filed by herein respondent.

10. As a result of the scheme adopted by NABCOR, Agri

Component Corporation (AGRI COMP) through its President
Elmer A. Baquiran submitted a price quotation for each package of
post-harvest facilities.

11. Purchase Orders were prepared by MUNSOD on February 1, 2007

and JAVELLANA approved thereafter the Purchase Requests
adopting the price scheme submitted by AGRI COMP. Twelve
Purchase Orders with the same amount and specifications were
prepared by NABCOR.2

12. One day after or on February 02, 2007, MUNSOD, Roderica C.

Bitancor who was then the Accountant and JAVELLANA made a
down payment of P49, 950,000.00 to AGRI COMP through a series of
Nine (9) Disbursement Vouchers with dates from February 02, 2007
to June 13, 2008.

13. Finding the scheme irregular and non-compliant with the pertinent
provisions of the law particularly on the Procurement Law, the
Commission on Audit (COA issued Audit Observation Memorandum
(AOM) GMA-010 dated July 28, 2008 and earlier, AOM (GMA) 2009-
003 dated 14 January 2009.3

14. At this juncture, it must be emphasized that petitioner did not

sign any of these Disbursement Vouchers, Purchase Orders and
Purchase Requests for the said project as she was made to sign only
BAC Resolution No. 01-2007 on February 02, 2007 to which
surprisingly came later than the adoption of the scheme of direct
contracting which was on January 26, 2007.4

15. Hence, the respondent Field Investigation Office of the

Ombudsman filed on October 14, 2016 a Complaint against herein
petitioner and others, for violation of the Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act (Republic Act 3019) and an administrative complaint for Grave
Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service;

16. An order dated May 12, 2017 was issued by the herein respondent
requiring the herein petitioner and her co-respondents to submit her
Counter-affidavit and supporting documents in support of her
defense within ten days from receipt;

2
As stated in Paragraph 9-10 of the Complaint of the respondent
3
As stated in Paragraph 14-15 of the Complaint of the respondent
4
As stated in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint of the Respondent
As stated in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint that the Petitioner’s participation was only the signing of BAC
Resolution No. 01-2007

Page 3 of 9
 17. The herein petitioner in her defense stated among others that she
was in good faith in relying with the orders of her superiors
considering that as a subordinate, she was made to sign a BAC
Resolution in order to serve as a filler to the composition of NABCOR
BAC.

18. The petitioner likewise argued that she did not derive any material
or pecuniary benefit out of the transactions and she relied heavily on
the instructions and orders of her superiors knowing the moral
ascendency and influence they asserted over her in order to sign the
BAC Resolution.

19. The respondent issued another Order dated June 21, 2017 ordering
the respondents to submit their position papers and thereafter, the
case was submitted for decision.

20. On September 29, 2017, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a

Decision finding the herein petitioner liable for the offense of Grave
Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service.
The penalty of the dismissal from service was imposed against the
petitioner. The last portion of the decision was stated as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Office FINDS RODERICA C.

BITANCOR, MARIA NINEZ P. GUANIZO, DENNIS G.
LOZADA and JECYROSE R. BUTAY-RAMOS, all of the
National Agribusiness Corporation, GUILTY of Grave
Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of
the Service, and imposes upon him the penalty of Dismissal
from the Service with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of
retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding
public office and bar from taking civil service examinations.

In the event that the penalty of Dismissal from the

Service can no longer be enforced due to the respondent’s
separation from the service, the same shall be converted into
a Fine in the amount equivalent to respondent’s salary for one
(1) year, payable to the Office of the Ombudsman, and may be
deductible from respondent’s accrued leave credits and any
receivable from his office that is not otherwise forfeited, or
respondent may opt to directly pay the fine.
It shall be understood that the accessory penalties
attached to the principal penalty of Dismissal from the
Service shall continue to be imposed.
The administrative case against respondent ROMULO
M. RELEVO is DISMISSED for lack of administrative

Page 4 of 9
 jurisdiction since he was no longer a public official at the time
of the filing of the complaint.

SO ORDERED.

21. Petitioner filed her Joint Motion for Reconsideration on March 19,
2018, but the same was denied through the respondent’s order Joint
Order dated April 23, 2018. The denial of the motion for
reconsideration was due to the fact that the petitioner did not
seasonably file the motion on time or the same was belatedly filed
for a period of two days only.

22. A motion for extension of time to file the instant petition was filed
by the petitioner through counsel on July 03, 2018 and the same was
granted by this Honorable Court.

23. The instant Petition for Review was submitted on July 18, 2018
and the Honorable Court ordered the respondent to file its Comment
on November 07, 2018 and a Motion for Extension of Time to file its
Comment was filed by the respondent.

24. On March 29, 2019, the Honorable Court issued an Order requiring
the parties to submit their respective memoranda. A motion for
Extension of time of fifteen (15) days was filed by the petitioner
through counsel.

25. Aggrieved by the decision of the Ombudsman, herein petitioner

alleges among others that the respondent erred when it found
petitioner JECYROSE BUTAY-RAMOS guilty of administrative
charge of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of Service.

DISCUSSION

The following issues are to be resolved and discussed:

1. THERE IS NO
SUBSTATIAL
EVIDENCE TO PROVE
THAT THE PETITIONER
IS GUILTY OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFENSES

2. THE PETITIONER IS IN
GOOD FAITH AND
Page 5 of 9
 SHOULD NOT BE HELD
LIABLE FOR GRAVE
MISCONDUCT AND
CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL
TO THE BEST INTEREST
OF SERVICE AS SHE
WAS ACTING UNDER
DURESS, FORCE OR
FEAR BY HER
SUPERIOR WHEN SHE
SIGNED NABCOR BAC
RESOLUTION NO. 001-
2007

3. THE PENALTY OF
DISMISSAL FROM
SERVICE IS TOO HARSH
TO IMPOSE IN THIS CASE

26. In administrative cases, the quantum of evidence required is

substantial evidence before a respondent can be administratively
liable. In a long-line of cases decided by the Supreme Court,
substantial evidence is defined as

27. In the case at bar, the respondent accused the petitioner of Grave
Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service
in view of her alleged participation in a procurement of post-harvest
facilities that blatantly did not comply with the pertinent provisions
of the Procurement Law which facilitated to the disbursement of
government funds through direct contracting.

28. Misconduct is defined as transgression of some established and

definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behaviour or
gross negligence by a public officer. It becomes grave if any of the
additional element of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or
to disregard established rules, which be established by substantial
evidence.5

29. To warrant dismissal from the service, the misconduct must be

grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The
misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of
judgment and must also have a direct relation to and be connected

5
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Apolonio, G.R. No. 165132 March 07, 2012

Page 6 of 9
 with the performance of the public officer's official duties amounting
either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or failure
to discharge the duties of the office. In order to differentiate gross
misconduct from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption,
clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established
rule, must be manifest in the former6

30. Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service is explained by

the Supreme Court in this wise:

The corresponding penalty for conduct prejudicial to the best

interest of the service may be imposed upon an erring public
officer as long as the questioned act or conduct taints the
image and integrity of the office; and the act need not be
related to or connected with the public officer’s official
functions. Under our civil service laws, there is no concrete
description of what specific acts constitute conduct prejudicial
to the best interest of the service, but the following acts or
omissions have been treated as such: misappropriation of
public funds; abandonment of office; failure to report back to
work without prior notice; failure to safe keep public records
and property; making false entries in public documents;
falsification of court orders; a judge’s act of brandishing a gun,
and threatening the complainants during a traffic altercation;
a court interpreter’s participation in the execution of a
document conveying complainant’s property which resulted in
a quarrel in the latter’s family; selling fake Unified Vehicular
Volume Program exemption cards to his officemates during
office hours; a CA employee’s forging of receipts to avoid her
private contractual obligations; a Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS) employee’s act of repeatedly
changing his IP address, which caused network problems
within his office and allowed him to gain access to the entire
GSIS network, thus putting the system in a vulnerable state
of security;33 a public prosecutor’s act of signing a motion to
dismiss that was not prepared by him, but by a judge and a
teacher’s act of directly selling a book to her students in
violation of the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers7

31. To warrant dismissal from service,

6
Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon vs Dionisio and Molina, G.R. No. 220700, July 10, 2017
7
Catipon Jr. Vs. Japson, G.R. No. 191787 June 22, 2015

Page 7 of 9
 Tuguegarao City, 15 May 2019.

ATTY. ED ARMAND T. VENTOLERO

Roll of Attorneys No. 68849
PTR No. 2469779/01/05/2019
IBP No. 062442/ 01/09/2019
MCLE Compliance Certificate No. VI-0018760
23 Provincial Road, Bagay, Tuguegarao City,
Cagayan
Counsel for the Petitioner

EXPLANATION

Copy of the foregoing Memorandum was filed to the respondent

through registered mail due to distance.

ATTY. ED ARMAND T. VENTOLERO

Copy Furnished:

FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE

Office of the Ombudsman
4th Floor Ombudsman Building
Agham Road, North Triangle

Page 8 of 9
1101 Diliman, Quezon City

Page 9 of 9