ANNEX F-1

Notice of Hearing of Pre-Hearing Conference

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004 Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  [email protected]  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

DOF,
Complainant,

FOR: SIMPLE DISCOURTESY IN

THECOURSE OF OFFICIAL
DUTIES

-versus -

XXXXX
City Treasurer
Dapitan City
Respondent

x-----------------------------x

NOTICE
OF PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE

Please be informed that the above entitled case is set for a pre-hearing
conference on _________ at ______________.

During the pre-hearing conference, the following matters and/or issues are to be
discussed and clarified, to wit:

1. Stipulation of facts;
2. Simplification of issues;
3. Identification and marking of evidence of the parties;
4. Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
5. Limiting the number of witnesses, and their names;
6. Dates of subsequent hearings, which preferably, shall be held within a
maximum period of seven (7) calendar days;
7. Submission of the position papers or memoranda by the respective
parties; and
8. Such other matters as may aid in the prompt and just resolution of the
case.

The failure of any party to attend the pre-hearing conference may cause the
submission of the case for decision based on available records upon appropriate
motion of the present party.

SO ORDERED.
(Date). (BLGF Address).

HEARING OFFICER
 ANNEX F-2a
Pre Hearing Order

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE
B UREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
th
8 Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004 Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  [email protected]  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

DOF,
Complainant,

FOR: SIMPLE DISCOURTESY IN

THECOURSE OF OFFICIAL
DUTIES

-versus -

XXXXX
City Treasurer
Dapitan City
Respondent

x-----------------------------x

PRE HEARING ORDER

In the pre-hearing conference conducted on (date) at (venue), the parties and

their respective counsels were present.
Given the nature of the charge the possibility of amicable settlement is therefore
unavailing.
The following are the respective admissions as to facts and foregoing
stipulations were agreed upon, hence:

1.
2. (Enumerate all the facts/stipulations agreed upon by the parties)
3.
With the preceding stipulations, the issue/s left to be tried/resolved for the
complainant on the one hand is/are as follows:
1. Whether or not….

On the other hand, the respondent would like the following issue/s to be
resolved, thus:
1. Whether or not….

Proceeding, the parties also marked their respective exhibits and the
corresponding objections are likewise noted hence:
EXHIBIT/S FOR THE COMPLAINANT
(Indicate the type of exhibit as marked and state the objection, if any)
 EXHIBIT/S FOR THE RESPONDENT
(Indicate the type of exhibit as marked and state the objection, if any)

For his part the complainant intends to present at least 2(two) witnesses, with
express reservation to present an additional corroborative witness, namely:

1. RICHARD BERUS;
2. DAVID CORONA, and
3. JOSELITO MARIA CHAN.

On the part of the respondent, the following witnesses will be presented:

1. The respondent himself (name);

2. The respondent’s officemate, Pakee Alamera;
3. Mr. Mandy Rigma, the Accountant.
DATE/S OF HEARING

With the agreement of the parties, the venue for the hearing will be at the (state
exact address of the venue) and the following dates are hereby set as the dates of
trial, hence:

1. (date) at (time);
2. (date) at (time);
3. (date) at (time).

The preceding agreement/ stipulations in this pre-hearing conference shall be

binding for the parties herein and they are also directed to abide by it.
If they so desire, the parties may file their respective pre-hearing briefs, copy
furnished the adverse party, before the date of the hearing.

SO ORDERED.

This ______ day of ____________ 2020, at ____________ Philippines.

HEARING OFFICER
 ANNEX F-2b
Pre Hearing Order (Submission of Position Paper)

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard,
1004 Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  [email protected]  +63 2 527 2780/
527 2790

Bureau of Local Government Finance

Department of Finance, Region II,
_________ City, Province
Complainant,

ADM. CASE NO. BLGF-AC-__-____

FOR: GRAVE MISCONDUCT
- versus -

ABCDEF,
Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer,
Municipality/City, Province,
Respondent.
PROMULGATED: Date

x-----------------------------x

PRE HEARING ORDER

In the pre-hearing conference conducted on (date) at (venue), the parties and

their respective counsels were present.
Given the nature of the charge the possibility of amicable settlement is therefore
unavailing.
The following are the respective admissions as to facts and foregoing
stipulations were agreed upon, hence:

1.
2. (Enumerate all the facts/stipulations agreed upon by the parties)
3.
With the preceding stipulations, the issue/s left to be tried/resolved for the
complainant on the one hand is/are as follows:
2. Whether or not….

On the other hand, the respondent would like the following issue/s to be
resolved, thus:
2. Whether or not….

Proceeding, the parties also marked their respective exhibits hence:

 EXHIBIT/S FOR THE COMPLAINANT
(Indicate the type of exhibit as marked)

EXHIBIT/S FOR THE RESPONDENT

(Indicate the type of exhibit as marked)

With the exhibits duly marked, and in view of the manifestation of counsel for
complainant/person complained of, noting no objections as to the evidence
presented and marked by the parties, and given that the issue in this matter can be
threshed out sans the conduct of clarificatory hearing, the parties herein agreed to
submit their respective position papers on the issues for resolution.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, order is hereby issued

directing the complainant and respondent to submit their respective position papers
on the issue/s as stipulated within a period of ten (10) days as agreed, from receipt of
this order.

SO ORDERED. This ___ day of ______, 2020. (Place of issuance/signing).

HEARING OFFICER
 ANNEX F-3
Order on Motion for Extension During FI

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004 Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  [email protected]  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

Bureau of Local Government Finance

Department of Finance, Region II,
_________ City, Province
Complainant,

ADM. CASE NO. BLGF-AC-__-____

FOR: GRAVE MISCONDUCT
- versus -

ABCDEF,
Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer,
Municipality/City, Province,
Respondent.
PROMULGATED: Date

x-----------------------------x

ORDER OF POSTPONEMENT

Pursuant to Section 37, Rule 8 of the 2017 Revised Rules on Administrative

Cases in the Civil Service, and finding the oral/written request for postponement to
be meritorious, the same is hereby granted.

Hearing is hereby set on _______________, (date), ________(time), at

___________(venue).

*Insert par 3, sec 37 of 2017 RACCS

SO ORDERED.

(Date). (BLGF Address).

(NAME)
HEARING OFFICER
 ANNEX F-4
Letter Informing the Parties on the
Extension of the Period to Conduct PI/FI

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004 Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  [email protected]  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

Bureau of Local Government Finance

Department of Finance, Region II,
_________ City, Province
Complainant,

ADM. CASE NO. BLGF-AC-__-____

FOR: GRAVE MISCONDUCT
- versus -

ABCDEF,
Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer,
Municipality/City, Province,
Respondent.
PROMULGATED: Date

x-----------------------------x

Dear Mr. /Ms. (Last Name of Complainant):

This refers to the complaint/case dated _____________ filed by (name of

complainant) against Mr./Ms. ___________, (Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer or
Assistant Treasurer, as the case maybe/Bureau personnel), for alleged (nature of the
offense).

Please be informed that due to (state the reason/s) the period within which to
conduct the preliminary/formal investigation as provided under 2017 Rules of
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS) is hereby extended.
For the information and guidance of all concerned.

Very truly yours,

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/REGIONAL DIRECTOR

 ANNEX F-5
Formal Investigation Report
Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004 Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  [email protected]  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

Bureau of Local Government Finance

Department of Finance, Region II,
_________ City, Province
Complainant,

ADM. CASE NO. BLGF-AC-__-____

FOR: GRAVE MISCONDUCT
- versus -

ABCDEF,
Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer,
Municipality/City, Province,
Respondent.
PROMULGATED: Date

x-----------------------------x

FORMAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

I.
PREFATORY STATEMENTS

The instant case stemmed from the Complaint-Affidavit of YYYY, resident of

Dapitan City and employee of the City Government of Dapitan as Local Treasury
Operations Officer III, under the Office of the City Treasurer, against XXXXX, the
incumbent City Treasurer of said City for Grave Misconduct, Discourtesy in the
Course of Official Duties, Oppression and Grave Oral Defamation/Slander. As
alleged, both complainants are under the supervision of respondent XXXXX.

The complaint dated August 12, 2016, was initially filed in this Office, copy of
which was furnished to the Office of the City Mayor, Dapitan City, Regional Director,
Civil Service Commission, Regional Director, Bureau of Local Government Finance
and Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, Davao City. Upon receipt of the
complaint, the same was referred to XXXXX with a directive to submit
Comment/Counter-Affidavit thereto.

Unknowingly, intervening event ensued, wherein the Office of the City Mayor
took cognizance of the case. As such, the city government thru the Personnel
Investigation Committee (PIC) conducted preliminary hearings and conferences and
issued a resolution finding prima facie evidence to file formal charge against
respondent for Simple Misconduct. However, during the preliminary mandatory
conference of the formal investigation, the issue on jurisdiction over the person of
XXXXX was raised. Hence, XXXXX, being a City Treasurer and upon instance of this
Office, the complaint was referred to this Office for appropriate action pursuant to
Section 471 of the Local Government Code and existing laws and jurisprudence.

In another occurrence, this Office was furnished with a copy of Notice of

Conference issued by BBBBB, Acting Director, Public Assistance and Corruption
Prevention Office-Mindanaon of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao,
Davao City, directing the parties to attend a scheduled conference before a certain
WWWW of the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao last February 24, 2017.

Anxious of the situation and entertaining the possibility that the Office of the
Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao might have taken cognizance of the case, this
Office was prompted to seek information as to its status in so far as the Office of the
Ombudsman is concerned and to serve as guidance in initiating appropriate further
action over the complaint.

In the letter-reply dated July 25, 2017, of VVVVV, Chief Administrative Officer,
Records Division, Case Records Evaluation Monitoring and Enforcement Bureau
(CREMEB), she informed that the complaint is already closed and terminated. Prior,
however, to the receipt of the said letter, a representative of the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon called the region thru phone informing that the conference
was intended to assist the parties to agree amicably and not to take cognizance of
the case for a full blown investigation. She then advised this Office to proceed with
the investigation of the case since both parties have not reached a settlement
agreement.

Thus, this Office proceeded with the conduct of preliminary/fact-finding

investigation over the complaint to determine the existence of a prima facie case.
Thereafter, a Report of Investigation was furnished to the Bureau recommending for
the filing of formal charge against XXXXX for Simple Discourtesy in the Performance
of Official Duties. Correspondingly, this Office was directed by the Bureau in its 2 nd
Indorsement dated 22 February 2018 to file the appropriate formal charge.

Respondent XXXXX in a letter dated April 10, 2018 then filed his answer
adopting his previously submitted Sinumpaang Salaysay and Sinumpaang Salaysay
of his witness, Mrs. NNNN. Further, XXXXX elected not to have a formal
investigation and opted not to have a counsel. As such, this Office proceeded with
the ex parte evaluation of the case based on the documents on record.

II
STATEMENT OF FACTS

That on August 12, 2016 at around 8:45 in the morning at the Office of the
City Treasurer, complainants, together with two other employees were invited by
ZZZZ to take some snacks and eat for a while before proceeding to their respective
designations in the market. The invitation of ZZZZ is a way of commending the good
performance in the license and stall section personnel and that she will go on leave
of absence. XXXXX, the head of the unit was also present at that time because
everyone is free to join the short get together, since it is also a supposed surprise
celebration of one of their officemates.
 That while the complainants were busy preparing foods, they were talking and
laughing which according to them is natural and done in a cordial manner being
aware that they are in a public office.

That when they are about to take the food, suddenly, their head, XXXXX, in
an extremely loud voice shout at the complainants saying “Okinnayo! Nagtatagari
kayo! Kasla kayo lang nga baboy! Okinnayo! Ar-aramiden yo nga kasla
beerhouse! Okinnayo! Nu kayat yo, agdidinnanugan tayo!!!” (Putang Ina! Ang
iingay niyo! Para kayong mga baboy! Putang Ina niyo! Ginagawa niyong parang
beerhouse! Putang Ina niyo! Kung gusto niyo, magsusuntukan tayo!!!)

III
COMPLAINANTS ALLEGATIONS

The words (XXXXX) were clearly directed to the complainants because he

was looking at them while shouting the alleged defamatory/slanderous words.
XXXXX even took an eye to eye contact with QRSTU while angrily shouting at them;

Complainants were shocked by such undesirable and animal like behavior

that XXXXX had shown;

XXXXX’s utterances were heard by everyone in the office and he was clearly
prompted not by sense of moral duty but by personal ill-will, spite, and/or malice with
the object of discrediting and ridiculing the complainants as individuals before the bar
of public opinion and contempt;

That after such incident, complainants observed that their head, XXXXX on
his way in going out of the office was even proudly telling the people outside about
what he just said;

Complainant was so devastated and distressed that very moment, that they
can no longer enjoy the meals they are supposed to take;

The ill-effects of the malicious utterances made by XXXXX against the

complainants are shown by negative responses around them, expressing belief in his
baseless allegations as shameful, heinous, and unequivocally barbaric-all to the
damage and prejudice of the complainants;

That by reason of the incident, complainants suffered sleepless nights,

wounded feelings, moral and social embarrassment which XXXXX should
compensate by way of damages;

That XXXXX should be charged criminally for violation of Article 353 in

relation to Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines or for GRAVE
ORAL DEFAMATION/SLANDER in the proper forum;

That XXXXX be also administratively charged for GRAVE MISCONDUCT,

DISCOURTESY IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES, and OPPRESSION.

No documentary evidences submitted by the Complainants.

IV
PERSON COMPLAINED OF DEFENSES
 XXXXX in his “Respectful Submission” dated October 3, 2016, in compliance
with the Order of this Office, manifested that his “Sinumpaaang-Kontra Salaysay”
previously submitted to the Personnel Investigation Committee be likewise adopted
by this Office as his Comment/Counter-Affidavit, wherein he raised the following
defenses (Quoted in Filipino):

“x x x

3. Aking mariing itinatanggi and mga paratang sa akin ni YYYYY sa

kanyang Complaint-Affidavit dahil walang katotohanan, pawang mga kathang
isip lamang at walang basehan ang mga ito;

4. Ang katotohanan ay ang mga sumusunod:

a. Noong ika-12 ng August taong 2016 dakong ika-walo at

Apatnapu’t lima (8:45) ng umaga at oras pa ng regular na pag-
oopisina. Dahil oras ito ng trabaho noong oras na iyon tinatapos
ko and isang Communication Letter at inihahabol ko itong tapusin
sa kadahilanang deadline na ito noong araw na iyon;

b. Dahil oras pa ng trabaho noon ay nagulat ako ng biglang

maglabas ng pagkain and grupo ng mga nagrereklamo na sina
YYYYY at QRSTU at dalawa pa nilang kasamahan. At kahit hindi
pa oras ng meryenda ay kumain sila sa loob ng opisina at
maingay pa sila habang kumakain;

c. Napilitan akong punahin ang kanilang ginagawa dahil sa mali ito

sa lahat ng anggulo at oras pa mandin ito ng trabaho at higit sa
lahat ay nagdudulot ng ingay na nakakaperwisyo sa ibang mga
empleyado ng treasurer’s office na abalang-abala sa kanilang
mga trabaho dahil sila ay nagtatawanan na parang wala silang
kasamang tao sa opisina ng ingat-yaman;

d. Pinagsabihan ko sila sa maayos na paraan upang itigil ang

kanilang pagkain at pag-iingay ng wala sa tamang oras bilang
nakakataas sa kanila at para na din hindi na ako lalo pang mairita
ako ay kusa na lang lumabas ng opisina upang ibaling ang aking
atensyon sa ibang bagay;

5. Kung babasahing mabuti and Complaint-Affidavit na ginawa ng

mga nagrereklamo ay madaling mapapansin ang pag-amin ng
mga nagrereklamo na naganap ang insidenteng kanilang
inerereklamo ng 8:45 ng umaga, sa oras pa ng trabaho. Ang
pinipunto ko lang naman dito ay ang pagkakaroon ng salo-salo
hindi naman talaga lubusang pinagbabawal subalit dapat ito ay
nasa tamang oras at lugar. Dapat ay isina-alang-alang din ng mga
nagrereklamo na sila ay public servant at ang kanilang sinusweldo
ay galing sa buwis na binabayad ng mga tao. Kaya sila ay dapat
nagtatrabaho sa oras ng trabaho at hindi sila dapat kumakain o
nagiingay sa oras ng regular na trabaho;

6. Hindi din totoo na ang ginawa nilang salo-salo noong ika-12 ng

Agosto 2016 na isang “surprise celebration” para sa kaarawan ni
Luningning Pobre dahil ang kanyang kaarawan ay August 13, 2016
pa;
7. Sinasabi din nila sa kanilang Complaint-Affidavit na ako ay
nanggagalaiti sa galit, may mapangahas na itsura at sila ay aking
sinigawan ay pawang mga gawa-gawa, kathang isip lamang at
pagmamalabis ng mga totoong nagyari ng mga nagrereklamo dahil
mahinahon kong pinuna ang kanilang ginagawa noong mga oras
na iyon. Pinuna ko ang kanilang mga gawain na hindi karapat
dapat dahil ito ay nakakaabala sa akin at sa aking mga katrabaho.
Ang aking pagpuna ay hindi nadirekta lamang sa mga
nagrereklamo at ito ay para sa pangkalahatan wala man lang
akong binanggit na pangalan noong pinuna ko ang kanilang maling
ginawa;

8. Wala ding katotohanan na narinig ng mga ibang empleyado sa

aming opisina ang ginawa kong pagpuna sa kanilang ginawa dahil
mahinahon ko lang itong sinabi sa kanila. Mapapatunayan ito ng
Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Ginang Elenita Cabrito na aking ka-
opisina na nandoon din noong nangyari ang sinasabi nilang
insidente. Bagkus, ang nagrereklamong si YYYYY pa nga ang
nagsalita ng masasamang bagay tungkol sa akin noong ako ay
palabas ng aming opisina para magpalipas ng aking pagkairita sa
kanilang ginagawa at narinig mismo ito ni Ginang Elenita Cabrito.
Aking ilalakip dito sa aking Sinumpaang Kontra-Salaysay at
mamarkahan ang kopya ng Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Elenita
Cabrito bilang Annex-“1”;

9. Ginawa ko lang ang nararapat, ang punahin ang mga bagay na

hindi maganda sa paningin ng ibang tao lalo na at nasa sekto ng
pampublikong serbisyo ang aming trabaho. Kung hindi ko sila
pupunahin, makikita ito ng mga mamamayan ng Lungsod ng
Santiago na may transaksyon sa aming opisina noong mga oras na
iyon. Alam naman natin lahat na ang mga opisina sa City Hall ay
naka salamin lang at kitang kita ng taongbayan ang mga ginagawa
ng mga empleyado sa loob. Isa pa, karapatan ko din silang
punahin bilang City Treasurer for Operations ng Opisina ng
Panglungsod na Ingat-Yaman;

10. Wala din akong nakikitang Grave Misconduct at Discourtesy in

the Course of Official Duties sa aking ginawang pagpuna sa
kanilang pag-iingay at pagkain sa loob ng opisina sa oras ng
trabaho dahil isa ito sa aking tungkulin dahil noon pa man ay may
direkta na ang Human Resource Department ng Lungsod ng
Santiago na ipinagbabawal ang pagkain sa loob ng opisina
tuwing oras ng trabaho. Higit sa lahat, walang oppression sa
aking mga ginawa dahil ginawa ko lang ang aking trabaho na
punahin ang hindi tamang ginagawa ng mga nagrereklamo;

11. Bilang isang empleyado ng Gobyerno alam ko ang mga bagay na

hindi ginagawa na makakamali sa aking trabaho. Ako ay
magtatalumput-tatlong (33) taon na sa serbisyo publiko at wala
akong inagrabyadong tao sa tagal ko sa serbisyo. Ito and unang
reklamo na aking sasagutin patungkol sa aking trabaho. Wala
akong sinaktang damdamin, kung meron man wala akong
intensiyon na makasakit ng kapwa ko;
 12. Kung nakapagmura man ako ng Putang-ina gaya ng sinasabi nila
sa kanilang Complaint-Affidavit, hindi din naman ito papasok ng
Grave Oral Defamation/Slander dahil matagal na panahon na
nadesisyunan ng Korte Suprema noong taong 1969 sa kasong
Reyes vs. People. G.R. Nos. 21528 and L-21529, March 28, 1969
na kung saan sinasabi dito na ang “putang-ina mo” ay napaka
komon na salita na hindi ginagamit sa paraan ng paninira ng puri
kundi isa lamang itong expresyon ng galit at pagkayamot. Sa
katunayan, ito ay masamang salita na pang diin lamang sa
expresyon ng kalapastanganan. Ang Aktuwal na desisyon ng
Korte Suprema ay ganito ang sinasabi”, “We ruled that the
expression putang ina mo is a common enough utterance in
the dialect that is often employed, not really to slander but
rather to express anger or displeasure. In fact, more often, it
is just an expletive that punctuates ones expression of
profanity”.

13. Kaya kung mararapatin ng Opisina ng Personnel Investigation

Committee ay dapat dismissin na sana ang kanilang reklamong
“Grave Misconduct, Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties,
Oppression and Gravel Oral Defamation/Slander” dahil wala itong
basehan, mapa batas man o desisyon ng Korte Suprema. Ginawa
ko lang aking trabaho ng matapat at naayon sa aking mga
tungkulin bilang Assistant City Treasurer for Operations na pigilan
o punahin ang kanilang maling ginagawa sa oras ng trabaho.

x x x”

Respondent submitted as documentary evidence the

“Sinumpaang Kontra-Salaysay” of Mrs. Elenita Cabrito.

V.
ISSUE

A perusal of the records of the case would reveal that the issue to be resolved
are the alleged acts and utterances made by XXXXX, the herein person complained
of.

Thus, stated otherwise: Whether or not the herein person complained of

committed the administrative offense Simple Discourtesy in the Course of
Official Duties?

VI.
FINDINGS

At the outset, it must be clarified that this Office could not take cognizance of
the criminal and civil liability of the person complained of, the same being vested and
under the jurisdiction of regular courts.

With regards, however, to the administrative offense of “Discourtesy in the

Course of Official Duties”, while it is true that XXXXX is the City Treasurer for
Operations and exercising, to a certain extent, administrative supervision over the
complainants, such is not a license to make unwanted utterances over them, the
 Supreme Court in the case of Domingo v. Quimson (G.R. No. L-34081 August 19,
1982), held, that:

“x x x Holding an esteemed position is never a license to act

capriciously with impunity. The fact that there was a squabble
between petitioner and complainant, both high-ranking local public
officials, that a verbal brawl ostensibly took place, speaks very poorly
of their self-control and public relations. For this, they both deserve to
be censured and directed to conduct themselves in a more composed
manner and keep their pose as befits ranking officials who officially
deal with the public x x x”.

In another case, the high court ruled that:

“x x x As a public officer, respondent is bound, in the

performance of her official duties, to observe courtesy, civility, and
self-restraint in her dealings with the public. Above all, the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
directs all public officials to extend prompt, courteous, and adequate
service to the public, and at all times to respect the rights of others
and refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good
customs, public order, public policy, public safety, and public interest.

To be worthy of respect, one must act respectably,

remembering always that courtesy begets courtesy. (Punzalan-
Santos v. Arquiza, 244 SCRA 527 (1995).

This Office agree with the Respondent that the expression “Putang-Ina mo”
was not held to be libelous where the Court said that: This is a common enough
expression in the dialect that is often employed, not really to slander but rather to
express anger or displeasure.
However, and in light of the fact that there was a perceived provocation
coming from complainants, respondent’s acts and utterances constitutes simple
discourtesy, following the afore cited case of Reyes vs. People.

VII.
RECOMMENDATION

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that a DECISION be issued

finding respondent XXXXX guilty of the offense of Simple Discourtesy in the Course
of Official Duties and the penalty of REPRIMAND be imposed being his first offense.

January 28, 2019.

NAME
Hearing Officer
 ANNEX F-6a
Memorandum Submitting the FIR to
BOPIR/SOF

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
th
8 Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004 Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  [email protected]  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

MEMORANDUM

FOR : SOF

THRU : USEC (Name)

Revenue Operations Group

BOPIR

FROM : (Name)
Executive Director

SUBJECT : Formal Investigation Report

DATE :

This is to respectfully submit the herein Formal Investigation Report in the case of
(cite case title).

Likewise attached are the complete records of the case with table of contents
systematically and chronologically arranged, paged, and securely bound to prevent
loss

For the Secretary’s consideration.

 ANNEX F-6b
Memorandum Submitting the FIR to ED

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
th
8 Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004 Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  [email protected]  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

MEMORANDUM

FOR : SOF

THRU : USEC (Name)

Revenue Operations Group

BOPIR

FROM : (Name)
Executive Director

SUBJECT : Formal Investigation Report

DATE :

Submitted herewith is the Formal Investigation Report in the case of (cite case title).

Likewise attached are the complete records of the case with table of contents
systematically and chronologically arranged, paged, and securely bound to prevent
loss

For your consideration.

 ANNEX F-7
Letter Informing the Parties on the
Extension of the Period for Rendition of Decision

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
8th Floor EDPC Building, BSP Complex, Roxas Boulevard, 1004 Manila
www.blgf.gov.ph  [email protected]  +63 2 527 2780/ 527 2790

Bureau of Local Government Finance

Department of Finance, Region II,
_________ City, Province
Complainant,

ADM. CASE NO. BLGF-AC-__-____

FOR: GRAVE MISCONDUCT
- versus -

ABCDEF,
Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer,
Municipality/City, Province,
Respondent.
PROMULGATED: Date

Relative to the above entitled case, please be informed that due to (state the
reason/s) the period within which to render a decision as provided under our rules is
hereby extended. After which a decision shall be rendered and copies thereof shall
be sent/transmitted accordingly.

For your information and guidance.

Very truly yours,

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR