BATAAN HEROES COLLEGE

Module 3 : Oath of Office for Public Officers and Employees, and

Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards among
Government Officials and Employees.

Module Description

This module presents the Oath of Office for Public Officers and Employees, and
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards among Government Officials and Employees.

Objectives:

After studying this module, the student should be able to:

1. Explain the importance of an oath;
2. Analyze and understand the oath of office for public officer;
3. Explain the concept of Republic Act 6713;
4. Define and explain terms use in Republic Act No. 6713;
5. Familiarize norms of public officials and employees;
6. Enumerate duties of public officials and employees; and,
7. Enumerate and discuss each prohibited acts and transactions of public officers.

Read and Understand Me!

An oath of office is an oath sworn by an elected official, under which the person
accepts the responsibilities of office and undertakes to carry out the office in
accordance with law. 

Oath of Office for Public Officers

(Lawyer’s Oath)

“I, __________________, having been permitted to continue in the practice of

law in the Philippines. Do solemnly swear that I recognize the supreme authority of
the Republic of the Philippines, I will support its Constitution and obey the laws of as
well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities herein; I will do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the
same;

I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well as to
courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without
any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.”

REPUBLIC ACT 6713

Professional Conduct and Ethical Standards 1

Ria B. Lucero, Ph.D., JD.
BATAAN HEROES COLLEGE

AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL

STANDARDS
FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, TO UPHOLD THE TIME-
HONORED
PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING
INCENTIVES AND REWARDS FOR EXEMPLARY SERVICE,
ENUMERATING PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES

- This Act shall be known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees."
_ It was approved on February 20, 1989, and which took effect on March 25, 1989.

Declaration of Policies

It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in public service.
Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and shall
discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty,
act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over
personal interest.

Definition of Terms.

(a) "Government"

- includes the national government, the local governments, and all other
instrumentalities, agencies or branches of the Republic of the Philippines including
government-owned or controlled corporations, and their subsidiaries.

(b) "Public Officials"

- includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or

temporary, whether in the career or non-career service, including military and police
personnel, whether or not they receive compensation, regardless of amount.

(c) "Gift"

- refers to a thing or a right disposed of gratuitously, or any act or

Liberality (generosity), in favor of another who accepts it, and shall include a
simulated sale or an ostensibly onerous (burdensome) disposition thereof. It shall not
include an unsolicited gift of nominal or insignificant value not given in anticipation
of, or in exchange for, a favor from a public official or employee.

(d) "Receiving any gift"

- includes the act of accepting directly or indirectly, a gift from a person other
than a member of his family or relative as defined in this Act, even on the occasion of

Professional Conduct and Ethical Standards 2

Ria B. Lucero, Ph.D., JD.
BATAAN HEROES COLLEGE

a family celebration or national festivity like Christmas, if the value of the gift is
neither nominal nor insignificant, or the gift is given in anticipation of, or in exchange
for, a favor.

(e) "Loan"

- covers both simple loan and commodatum as well as guarantees, financing

arrangements or accommodations intended to ensure its approval.

(f) "Substantial stockholder"

- means any person who owns, directly or indirectly, shares of stock

sufficient to elect a director of a corporation. This term shall also apply to the parties
to a voting trust.

(g) "Family of public officials or employees"

- means their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of
age.

(h) "Person"

- includes natural and juridical persons unless the context indicates

otherwise.

(i) "Conflict of interest"

- arises when a public official or employee is a member of a board, an officer,

or a substantial stockholder of a private corporation or owner or has a substantial
interest in a business, and the interest of such corporation or business, or his rights or
duties therein, may be opposed to or affected by the faithful performance of official
duty.

(j) "Divestment"

- is the transfer of title or disposal of interest in property by

voluntarily, completely and actually depriving or dispossessing oneself of his right or

title to it in favor of a person or persons other than his spouse and relatives as defined
in this Act.

(k) "Relatives"

- refers to any and all persons related to a public official or employee within
the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, including bilas, inso and balae.

Professional Conduct and Ethical Standards 3

Ria B. Lucero, Ph.D., JD.
BATAAN HEROES COLLEGE

Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees

(a) Commitment to public interest

— Public officials and employees shall always uphold the public interest over
and above personal interest.

(b) Professionalism

— Public officials and employees shall perform and discharge their duties with
the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill.

They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication to duty.

(c) Justness and sincerity

— Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times.

They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against
anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged.

(d) Political neutrality

— Public officials and employees shall provide service to everyone without

unfair discrimination and regardless of party affiliation or preference.

(e) Responsiveness to the public

— Public officials and employees shall extend prompt, courteous, and

adequate service to the public.

(f) Nationalism and patriotism

— Public officials and employees shall at all times be loyal to the Republic
and to the Filipino people, promote the use of locally produced goods, resources and
technology and encourage appreciation and pride of country and people.

(g) Commitment to democracy

— Public officials and employees shall commit themselves to the democratic

way of life and values, maintain the principle of public accountability, and manifest
by deeds the supremacy of civilian authority over the military.

(h) Simple living

— Public officials and employees and their families shall lead modest lives

Professional Conduct and Ethical Standards 4

Ria B. Lucero, Ph.D., JD.
BATAAN HEROES COLLEGE

appropriate to their positions and income.

Duties of Public Officials and Employees.

(a) Act promptly on letters and requests.

(b) Submit annual performance reports.

(c) Process documents and papers expeditiously.

(d) Act immediately on the public's personal transactions.

(e) Make documents accessible to the public.

Prohibited Acts and Transactions

(a) Financial and material interest

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto
(c) Disclosure and/or misuse of confidential information
(d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts

Statements and Disclosure

Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure

Activity 3.1

1. Read, analyze and digest the case below.

2. What is/are the case/s committed by the respondent (Estrelita Gumabon)?

Ombudsman vs. Forentina Santos

G.R. NO. 166116 : March 31, 2006

This case arose from a complaint filed by Estrelita L. Gumabon, Teacher III, Lagro
Elementary School, against the school Principal, respondent Florentina A. Santos,
before the Office of the Ombudsman on September 29, 1997. The complaint alleged
that respondent falsified her daily time record as her entries therein did not
match the entries of the school's security guard in their logbook. In particular, on
August 20, 1997, respondent indicated in her daily time record that she reported for

Professional Conduct and Ethical Standards 5

Ria B. Lucero, Ph.D., JD.
BATAAN HEROES COLLEGE

work at Lagro Elementary School the whole day, but she actually went to Golden
Child Montessori Dela Costa III Annex at 9:00 a.m., and later at 11:30 a.m. to its
Carissa II Annex. She left the premises of said school around one in the afternoon.
The complaint also pointed out that respondent was one of the
owners/incorporators of Golden Child Montessori and held the position of
President/Chairman of the Board. It was further alleged that respondent
exhibited rude and oppressive behavior not only to the teachers and personnel of
Lagro Elementary School, but also to the parents of their pupils. In a
supplemental complaint dated April 1, 1998, Gumabon also charged respondent
with taking several pieces of galvanized iron sheets used in the construction and
repair of some rooms and toilets at Lagro Elementary School. Respondent
allegedly ordered one Jose Sabalilag to take the galvanized iron sheets and deliver
them to her house, and even asked school janitress Pia Amparo to accompany
Sabalilag to show him the direction to respondent's house.

Answering the charges, respondent explained that it was her daily routine upon arrival
at the school to inspect its outer premises before entering the school grounds, to see if
the school fence is clean and garbage-free. The security guard only logs in the time of
respondent's entry into the school grounds as her arrival time. As regards the incident
on August 20, 1997, respondent stated that she sought permission from Mrs. Paz T.
Quejada, District Supervisor, School District X, to attend an activity at Golden Child
Montessori. She said that Mrs. Quejada did not object to her request. Respondent also
admitted being an owner/incorporator of Golden Child Montessori, but argued that it
did not violate any existing law. She denied all the other allegations in the complaint.
With respect to the taking of the galvanized iron sheets, respondent explained that
they were excess materials from the construction projects in the school and they were
sold to her by the project contractor at cost.

Hearings were conducted before Graft Investigation Officer Joselito P. Fangon at the
Administrative Adjudication Bureau, Office of the Ombudsman.

Gumabon appeared to identify her affidavit, as well as the affidavits of her witnesses,
and the documentary evidence consisting of the photocopy of respondent's daily time
record for the months of February, March and August 1997, copy of the logbook of
security guard Willy Casauay, copy of the memo issued by respondent to the
Principals of the various annexes of Golden Child Montessori, the letters of several
parents of Lagro Elementary School pupils complaining about the attitude of
respondent towards them, and the copy of the police receipt showing that the police
recovered several galvanized iron sheets from Jose Sabalilag.

Hermelina de Vera, former Principal of Golden Child Montessori Dela Costa III
Annex, testified that respondent attended the Linggo ng Wika celebration at their
campus in San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan on August 20, 1997. Respondent arrived at
said campus around nine in the morning.

Professional Conduct and Ethical Standards 6

Ria B. Lucero, Ph.D., JD.
BATAAN HEROES COLLEGE

Zaida Zayde, Corporate Secretary and Principal of Golden Child Montessori Dela
Costa II Annex, testified that respondent is also one of the incorporators of said
school, and that respondent handles its finances, signs checks, keeps bank accounts,
and issues and signs memoranda for and in behalf of the school. She also stated that
she and respondent visited the Dela Costa III Annex of Golden Child Montessori
during the Linggo ng Wika celebration.

Juan S. Gambol, Police Inspector, Lagro Police Station, stated that on February 13,
1998, Gumabon reported the alleged missing pieces of galvanized iron at Lagro
Elementary School. They recovered around 40 pieces of galvanized iron sheets from
Jose Sabalilag on February 23, 1998 and issued a receipt therefor.

Jeorgia Loperez, one of the incorporators of Golden Child Montessori, testified that
respondent is the President and Chairman of the Golden Child Montessori, and that
she handles the finances, keeps the bank account, signs checks and issues memoranda
for and in behalf of the school.

Fructuosa C. Gavilan, Grade School Teacher, Lagro Elementary School, testified

that respondent has the habit of scolding her even in front of other people. She also
testified to an incident where she was marked absent despite being present, albeit late
on the particular date.

Sophia Amparo, Janitress at Lagro Elementary School, testified that on February 10,
1998, she was instructed by respondent to bring to the latter's house several pieces of
galvanized iron sheets.

Didith Sacueza testified that she used to sell food to the teachers at the Lagro
Elementary School. She said that she had an agreement with respondent that she
would be allowed to sell food in the school but she was required to give a certain
amount to the school. Then, one day, without any notice, Sacueza was refused entry
into the school. The guard informed her that it was the Principal's order. She wrote
respondent asking why she was no longer allowed to sell food in the school, but she
did not get any response.

Vicente Cue, Security Guard at Lagro Elementary School, testified that on September
5, 1999, his wife made an emergency call at the school but respondent refused to give
the call to him.

Willy Casauay, also a Security Guard at Lagro Elementary School, testified that a
certain Jose Sabalilag went to the Lagro Elementary School and, upon instruction of
respondent, took several pieces of galvanized iron sheets. Accompanied by Pia
Amparo, Sabalilag brought the same to respondent's residence. The incident was
noted in his logbook.

Professional Conduct and Ethical Standards 7

Ria B. Lucero, Ph.D., JD.
BATAAN HEROES COLLEGE

Jose Sabalilag, Benedict Guantero and Erlinda Dela Rosa, on the other hand, testified
for respondent.ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

Jose Sabalilag stated that sometime in February 1998, he was tasked to renovate a
comfort room at Lagro Elementary School. He used about forty (40) pieces of
galvanized iron sheets for the construction. There was an excess of about eight (8)
pieces of galvanized iron sheets which respondent ordered to be taken to her house.
He also said that he removed around forty-one (41) pieces of used galvanized iron
sheets which he took to their storage (bodega), but which he also returned to the
school the next day upon instruction of a Commission on Audit (COA) personnel.
While they were unloading the returned materials, Gumabon arrived, took some
pictures, and reported the incident to the police. Gumabon also made him sign an
affidavit stating that respondent was the one who ordered the taking of the galvanized
iron sheets.

Benedict Guantero, an employee of the COA, testified that respondent sought his
advice concerning the salvageable materials taken from two (2) school toilets which
underwent renovation.

Erlinda Dela Rosa, former Officer-in-Charge of Golden Child Montessori, testified

that Golden Child Montessori and its branches were being managed by their
respective Principals. She also testified that the payment of rentals for the school, the
payment of salaries of teachers and financial management of the school were
undertaken by the respective administrators.

On July 23, 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman rendered a decision finding
respondent guilty of dishonesty, violation of Sec. 4 (c) of R.A. 6713 and grave
misconduct. It imposed upon respondent the penalty of dismissal from service
with forfeiture of benefits equivalent to twelve (12) months salary and temporary
disqualification for re-employment in the government for one (1) year from the
finality of said decision.

The Court of Appeals, however, reversed and set aside the decision of the
Ombudsman and ordered the dismissal of the complaint. It held that the findings of
the Office of the Ombudsman were not supported by substantial evidence.

Hence, this petition. Petitioner raised the following arguments:

1. Contrary to the appellate court a quo's [sic]the court from

which an appeal has been taken; ruling, the extant evidence on
record constitutes more than substantial evidence to establish the
administrative guilt of respondent.

Professional Conduct and Ethical Standards 8

Ria B. Lucero, Ph.D., JD.
BATAAN HEROES COLLEGE

2. Findings of fact of an administrative agency are generally accorded

not only respect but at times finality.

The petition is impressed with merit.

Administrative proceedings are governed by the "substantial evidence rule." A finding

of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as it is
supported by substantial evidence that the respondent has committed acts stated in the
complaint or formal charge. As defined, substantial evidence is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

A reading of the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman and a thorough

examination of the records of this case show sufficient evidence to prove respondent's
administrative liability. In its decision, the Office of the Ombudsman, through Graft
Investigation Officer Joselito P. Fangon, cites the pieces of evidence that support its
ruling. It discussed its findings thus:

Respondent FLORENTINA A. SANTOS stands administratively charged with,

among others, the falsification of her Form 48; of being one of the
Owners/Incorporators of a private school; of having oppressed and harassed
school teachers and employees; and of theft of school property.

With respect to the first charge, the complainant adduced as evidence the Daily
Time Record (Civil Service Form No. 48) of respondent SANTOS for the month
of August 1997 (Exhibit B, p. 0191, Records). Marked as Exhibit "B-1" (supra.)
is the entry for August 20, 1997 showing that respondent SANTOS reported for
work at Lagro Elementary School, Quezon City, at 6:45 in the morning and
departed at 7:15 in the evening. Likewise adduced as evidence is the testimony of
Hermelina de Vera x x x

On the basis of the foregoing, it has been substantially established that respondent
SANTOS actually reported for work at the Lagro Elementary School in Quezon City.
However, evidence shows that said respondent, instead of rendering the required
number of hours of work, went to a private school (to attend a school function) in San
Jose Del Monte, Bulacan. It is therefore clear that the respondent deliberately
made it appear that she reported for work on 20 August 1997, when in truth, she
attended a private function and was physically absent from school. The
respondent's act of punching her Daily Time Record constitutes Dishonesty for
making it appear that she was present for work when in fact she was absent
therefrom.

As against these, the respondent failed to present any evidence to counter the same,
and as such, her guilt has been adequately shown.

Professional Conduct and Ethical Standards 9

Ria B. Lucero, Ph.D., JD.
BATAAN HEROES COLLEGE

As to the charge against respondent of being an Owner/Incorporator of the Golden

Child Montessori School, we find the evidence to be inadequate to establish any
administrative liability.

Although the evidence tend to prove that the respondent is an Owner/Incorporator of

the said school, still, the complainant failed to show any conflict of interest on the part
of the respondent. Moreover, no evidence was presented to show that being an
Owner/Incorporator of a private school amounts to a violation of any law. Verily, the
charge against respondent on this score should be dismissed.

On the charge of Oppression/Harassment, witness VICENTE CUE testified that on 8

September 1997, his wife made an emergency call at Lagro Elementary School where
he works as a Security Guard. However, despite his presence thereat, respondent
SANTOS refused to give the call to him. On cross-examination, the testimony of
witness CUE was not rebutted by any evidence.

Hence, it has been fairly established that the respondent committed an

oppressive act against Vicente Cue. Her actuations definitely runs [sic] counter
to the established norms of conduct and ethical standards for public officials
who, "must act with justice and shall not discriminate against anyone".
Moreover, her action violates the standard of personal conduct, which mandates
all civil servants to "respect the rights of others, and to refrain from doing acts
contrary to good morals and customs". Accordingly, respondent SANTOS
appears to be liable for violation of Republic Act No. 6713.

The respondent was also accused of having misappropriated government property. On

this point, Sophia Amparo, janitress, Lagro Elementary School, testified x x x

It is clear from the foregoing that at the instance of the respondent, several galvanized
iron sheets which appear to be the property of the government were taken out of
Lagro Elementary School and delivered to the residence of the respondent.

The respondent then presented her witnesses, namely: JOSE SABALILAG and
BENEDICT GUANTERO, to rebut the allegation of theft, however, the same proved
insufficient to counter the evidence against her.

xxx

It is therefore clear from the testimony of JOSE SABALILAG that at least eight (8)
galvanized iron sheets (which were purportedly new) were taken by the respondent
and which remain unaccounted for. This bolsters the finding that the respondent was
responsible for having taken several galvanized iron sheets which were government
property.

Professional Conduct and Ethical Standards 10

Ria B. Lucero, Ph.D., JD.
BATAAN HEROES COLLEGE

With respect to BENEDICT GUANTERO, a witness for the respondent, the basis for
his testimony, which is a purported Affidavit was not formally offered as evidence in
the present case. Hence, the allegations therein can not be possibly considered in the
resolution of the instant case.

All told, it has been substantially established that the respondent took
government property for her own personal benefit which constitutes Grave
Misconduct, and for which the respondent may be held liable.

As a general rule, factual findings of administrative bodies are accorded great respect
by this Court. We do not see any reason to depart from this policy, except as regards
respondent's liability for holding the position of President/Chairman of the Board of
Golden Child Montessori and managing the affairs of said school. Contrary to the
Ombudsman's ruling that such act does not violate any provision of law, Section 7 (b)
(2) of R.A. 6713 prohibits all public officials and employees from engaging in the
private practice of their profession, thus:

SECTION 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. ' In addition to acts and omissions of
public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws,
the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official
and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

xxx

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public

officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:

(1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, employee,

consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any private
enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their office unless
expressly allowed by law;

(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized

by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not
conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions; or

(3) Recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise

which has a regular or pending official transaction with their office.

These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after
resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except in the case of
subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professional concerned cannot practice his
profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with, in
which case the one-year prohibition shall likewise apply.

Professional Conduct and Ethical Standards 11

Ria B. Lucero, Ph.D., JD.
BATAAN HEROES COLLEGE

The rule is that all public officers and employees are prohibited from engaging in the
private practice of their profession. The exception is when such private practice is
authorized by the Constitution or law. However, even if it is allowed by law or the
Constitution, private practice of profession is still proscribed when such practice will
conflict or tends to conflict with the official functions of the employee concerned.
Indeed, public servants are expected to devote their undivided attention to their
public duties, to give the tax payers the competent and excellent service that they
deserve. In fact, Section 4 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees enjoins said officials and employees to always
uphold public interest over and above personal interest. By actively participating
in the management of Golden Child Montessori, a private school, while serving
as Principal of Lagro Elementary School, a government school, respondent has
transgressed the provisions of Section 7 (b) (2) of R.A. 6713.

We affirm all the other findings of the Office of the Ombudsman. The testimonial and
documentary evidence contained in the records constitutes substantial evidence to
prove the administrative liability of respondent, as discussed by the Ombudsman.

We now go to the penalty. Section 11 of R.A. 6713 provides that violations of Section
7 of said law shall be punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a
fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the
court, disqualification to hold public office. Hence, we deem it appropriate to impose
a fine of five thousand pesos (P5,000) upon respondent in addition to the penalty
imposed upon her by the Office of the Ombudsman.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE. The decision of the Office of the
Ombudsman in OMB-ADM-0-98-0307 dated July 23, 2001
is REINSTATED with MODIFICATION that an additional FINE of FIVE
THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) is imposed upon respondent. SO ORDERED.

Assessment:

1. Explain the concept of declaration of policies under Republic Act 6713.

2. Differentiate and give two (2) examples of each of the following:

a. public officials and employees;

b. Natural and juridical person; and,
c. Relatives by consanguinity and affinity.

3. Explain how conflict of interest occurs? Cite an example.

4. Explain briefly why Public office is a public trust, then, cite an example.

Professional Conduct and Ethical Standards 12

Ria B. Lucero, Ph.D., JD.