REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Central Office, Constitution Hills, Batasan Pambansa
Complex, Diliman, Quezon City
-o0o-

ARIEL B. CUAYCONG,
Appellant,

Case No. (D1720026921)

(Comment to the Appeal
Memorandum For Respondent-
Appellant in Admin.
Case No. ADM-20-005)
Re: Falsification of Official
Document; Serious Dishonesty

-versus-

HON. EUGENIO JOSE V. LACSON,

Provincial Governor of Negros Occidental
Appellee,
x--------------------------------------------x

COMMENT TO THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FOR

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT
(issued in Admin Case No. ADM-20-005)

Prologue

“A government employee is duty bound to indicate

the correct time of his arrival and departure from his
office. Otherwise, it constitutes an act of falsification
which reflects dishonesty and unfitness of the
government employee to continue serving the
public1”

Appellee, through the undersigned Counsel, and unto

this Honorable Commission, most respectfully submits this
Comment to the APPEAL MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT-
APPELLANT with the following submissions:

1. That on January 13, 2022, the counsel for the Appellee

Provincial Governor Eugenio Jose V. Lacson received a

1
Arabani, Jr., v Arabani AM No. SCC-10-14-p, (2017)

1|Page
 copy of the Civil Service Commission Order dated
October 27, 2021 with case Docket No. D1720026921
together with the attached copy of the Appellant’s
APPEAL MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT
dated April 20, 2021 in relation to the administrative
case for Falsification of an Official Document and Serious
Dishonesty;

2. The dispositive portion of the Civil Service Commission

Order dated October 27, 2021 of which reads, to wit:

-x-x-x-

“WHEREFORE, for the prompt and judicious disposition of

the case, Eugenio Jose V. Lacson, Provincial Governor of
Negros Occidental, is requested to submit his Comment
and the complete records of the case within ten (10) days
from receipt of hereof.”

-x-x-x-

3. The Appellee has gone through the Appellant’s APPEAL

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT dated
April 20, 2021 and, thus, is making this COMMENT TO
THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT-
APPELLANT;

4. The Appellee denies all the assertions contained in the

APPEAL MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT
dated April 20, 2021 of the Appellant on the ground that
such assertions are self-serving averments
unsubstantiated by relevant evidence;

TIMELINESS OF THE COMMENT TO THE APPEAL

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT

5. Copy of the Civil Service Commission Order dated

October 27, 2021 with case Docket No. D1720026921
together with the attached copy of the Appellant’s Appeal
Memorandum dated April 20, 2021 was received by the
Appellee last January 13, 2022;

6. Appellee has ten (10) days from receipt of the Civil

Service Commission Order together with the attached
copy of the Appellant’s APPEAL MEMORANDUM FOR
RESPONDENT-APPELLANT or until January 23, 2022
within which to file its Comment. Thus, the Appellee
2|Page
 manifests the timely submission of this Comment to the
APPEAL MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

FACTUAL ANTECEDENT

7. Based on the records of the case, an anonymous

complaint addressed to the Honorable Governor dated
August 30, 2019 was received by the Provincial
Administrator’s Office on the same day. The said
anonymous complaints covered the alleged tardiness and
absenteeism of several lawyers and legal staff of the
Provincial Legal Office including the herein Appellant
Atty. ARIEL B. CUAYCONG. The copy of the anonymous
complaint received by the Provincial Administrator’s
Office is already part of the records of this case.

8. These complaints of tardiness and absenteeism of several

lawyers and legal staff of the Provincial Legal Office in the
previous administration prompted the Honorable
Governor to order the Provincial Administrator to verify
the veracity of these complaints.

9. Sometime on September 2019, Atty. Rayfrando P. Diaz,

II, Provincial Administrator of Negros Occidental, ordered
Alvin Ian Lescano (Mr. Lescano for brevity),
Administrative Aide I of the Office of the Governor, to
install the CCTV Cameras fronting the (1) Provincial
Legal Office and the biometric machine nearby, (2) the
Provincial Administrator’s Office, and the (3) Office of the
Governor. In the same month, Atty. Diaz also directed
Mr. Lescano to keep an eye on the employees of the
Provincial Legal Office (PLO) through the viewing of the
CCTV Footages.

10. Sometime in October 2019, Mr. Lescano personally

reviewed the October CCTV Footages of the PLO lawyers
and staff which showed that Respondent Appellant
Cuaycong reported for work at the Provincial Legal Office
at 12:27 PM on October 25, 2019.

11. Sometime in January, 2020, Mr. Lescano then prepared

the CCTV Footage Summary Report of the PLO employees
for the specific dates of October 25, 2019, October 28,
2019, October 29, 2019, November 7, 2019, November 8,
2019, December 2, 2019, December 3, 2019 and
December 6, 2019.
3|Page
12. On January 22, 2020, Mr. Lescano prepared an
Indorsement with the attached CCTV Footage Summary
Report and USB where the same footages are stored, and
was subsequently indorsed to Atty. Diaz.

The Affidavit of Alvin Ian Lescano, the Indorsement with

the CCTV Footage Summary Report of Respondent
Apellant, and the USB containing the CCTV Footage of
the attendance of the Respondent Appellant at the
Provincial Legal Office on October 25, 2019 with
printouts are already made part of the records of the
case.

13. Inspection of the DTR Civil Service Form No. 4 for

October 2019 of Respondent Appellant Cuaycong would
reveal that he certified that he arrived for work on
October 25, 2019 at the Provincial Legal Office at eight in
the morning (8:00 AM). The DTR Civil Service Form No.4
of Respondent Appellant Cuaycong for the month of
October is already part of the records of the case.

14. Cross-referencing the CCTV Footage Report and the DTR

Civil Service Form No.4 of the Respondent-Appellant
Cuaycong at the Provincial Legal Office can be summed
up as follows:

CCTV
FOOTAGE AS
PER DTR ACTUAL APPEARANCE AS
DATE ENTRY PER CCTV FOOTAGE

8:00:00 AM
10/25/201 (No
9 Appearance) 12:37:35 PM IN

15. On June 9, 2020, the Provincial Administrator, by

authority of the Governor, issued a Show Cause Order
against the Appellant which serves as a valid complaint
pursuant to Section 11 of the 2017 RACCS. The Show
Cause Order is also part of the records of the case.

16. The Appellant received the Show Cause Order on June

11, 2020. The Appellant then was required to explain in
writing, comment or submit a counter-affidavit under
oath within five (5) days from receipt of the Show-Cause

4|Page
 Order why no criminal, civil and administrative cases be
filed against him for the following acts:

a) That respondent incurred unauthorized absences

from duty at the PLO during office hours on October
25, 2019;

b) That respondent failed to report the actual hours of

work performed at the PLO by certifying a different
time of arrival and departure at the PLO on his DTR
for October 25, 2019; and

c) That respondent failed to indicate the actual time of

arrival and departure at the PLO on his DTR for
October 25, 2019;

17. On June 16, 2020, the Provincial Legal Office received

the copy of the Affidavit under oath signed by the
Appellant as response to the Show Cause Order. The
affidavit is also part of the records of the case.

18. On July 16, 2020, Appellant received the Investigation

Report (part of the case record) on the Show Cause Order
pursuant to Section 18 and Section 19 (Paragraph 2) of
Rule 4 (Preliminary Investigation) of the 2017 RACCS.
The Investigation Report finds that a prima facie case for
an administrative offense of Falsification of Official
Document and Serious Dishonesty exist against the
Appellant and recommends for the issuance of a Formal
Charge;

19. On July 16, 2020, Appellant received the Formal Charge

(part of the case record) from the Office of the Governor,
upon finding a prima facie case for an administrative
offense of Falsification of Official Document and Serious
Dishonesty;

20. In the said Formal Charge, Appellant was given an

opportunity to submit additional evidence or that of his
witnesses within three (3) days from receipt of the Formal
Charge. Moreover, Appellant was also directed to indicate
therein whether or not he elects a formal investigation or
the submission of a position paper. Appellant was further
notified of his right to the assistance of counsel of his
choice;

5|Page
21. On July 16, 2020, Appellant was placed under preventive
suspension (part of the case record) for sixty (60) days by
the Disciplining Authority pursuant to Section 85 of
Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of
1991 in relation to Section 41 of Presidential Decree No.
807 or the Organization of the Civil Service Commission,
and Section 31 and Section 29 of 2017 RACCS, taking
cognizance of the nature and gravity of the offenses of
which he was charged and in order to prevent
embarrassment or any untoward incident on his part,
and so as to avoid acts which might influence the
proceeding to ensure a fair and impartial investigation of
the case;

22. On July 20, 2020, the Provincial Legal Office received

Appellant’s “Additional Evidence/Discussions with an
Appeal for Reconsideration (Formal Charge against
Warlito B. Butalon)” dated July 20, 2020 signed by the
Appellant. In the said document, the Appellant chose to
submit additional evidence and asked for forgiveness and
prayed that the Disciplining Authority “find merit in the
documentary evidence and discussions I have presented”

“And like a father to any member of his family, may you

choose mercy.”

23. On July 27, 2020, Appellant received the Notice of Pre-

Hearing conference (part of the case record) which grants
the request for a Formal Hearing and thereby sets the
date on July 30, 2020;

24. On August 3, 2020, Appellant received the Resolution

from the Hearing Officer denying his Motion for Inhibition
(part of the case record) on the ground that perceived
partiality of the hearing officer is not a ground to inhibit
himself. On August 17, 2020, Respondent filed a Motion
for Reconsideration to the Resolution which was likewise
denied;

25. A Pre-Hearing Conference Order (part of the case record)

was issued by the Hearing Officer on August 18, 2020);

26. The Administrative hearing against the Appellant was

held on September 3, 2020, October 7, 2020, October 21,
2020, October 28, 2020. On the last hearing date, the
Hearing Officer issued an Order terminating the Formal

6|Page
 Investigation Hearing of the case and the submission of
the same to the Disciplining Authority for its decision.

Attached to this Comment are the Transcript of

Stenographic Notes for the aforementioned hearing dates.

27. The Disciplining Authority Provincial Governor Eugenio

Jose V. Lacson (Appellee) then issued its Decision dated
February 26, 2021 (part of the case record) in relation to
the Administrative Case of Appellant for Falsification of
Official Documents and Serious Dishonesty. The said
Decision was then served personally to the Counsel for
the Appellant on February 26, 2020;

28. In the said Decision, Appellant was found guilty of one (1)
Count of Falsification of Official Documents and one (1)
Count of Serious Dishonesty and was dismissed from
service;

29. On January 13, 2022, the Office of the Governor received

a copy of the Civil Service Commission Order dated
October 27, 2021with case Docket No. D1720026921
together with the attached copy of the Appellant’s
APPEAL MEMORANDUM dated October 20, 2020 in
relation to the Administrative case for Falsification of an
Official Document and Serious Dishonesty;

30. On the basis therefore of the preceding statements,

Appellee thereby issues the following opposition and
counter-arguments which opposes the allegation in the
Appellant’s APPEAL MEMORANDUM dated October 20,
2020:

OPPOSITION AND COUNTER-ARGUMENTS

AGAINST THE STATEMENT OF FACTS
OF THE RESPONDENT APPELLANT IN HIS APPEAL
MEMORANDUM

31. The statement of the Appellant in paragraph (I) in page 1

of his APPEAL MEMORANDUM is misleading, the truth
of the matter being that:

THE CONDUCT OF THE UNDERLYING

INVESTIGATION LEADING TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES AGAINST

7|Page
 APPELLANT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW
AND SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE ON
RECORD
31.1 The Show Cause Order dated June 09, 2020 is
NOT fatally defective as opposed to the claim
of the Appellant. In this case, Appellant
argued that the Show Cause Order must
emanate from the Office of the Governor which
is the proper disciplining authority over the
employees of the Province of Negros
Occidental;

31.2 A punctilious review of the records of the case

would show that on June 09, 2020, the
Provincial Administrator, by AUTHORITY of
the Governor, issued a Show-Cause Order
against the Appellant which served as a formal
complaint pursuant to Section 11 of Rule 3 of
the 2017 RRACCS. The complaint was based
on an Anonymous Complaint dated August
30, 2019 addressed to the Office of the
Governor and was likewise received by the
Provincial Administrator’s Office on the same
day;

31.3 In connection to the issuance of the Show-

Cause Order by the Provincial Administrator,
paragraph (bb) of Section 4 of Rule 1 of 2017
RRACCS in relation to Section 11 of Rule 2 of
2017, states that:

-x-x-x-

“bb. SHOW-CAUSE ORDER refers to the

written document requiring a person to explain,
or justify before the disciplining authority or its
duly authorized representative within a
given period why no disciplinary action be
taken against him/her.” (Emphasis supplied)

-x-x-x-

“Section 11. Requisites of a Valid

Complaint. -x-x-x- In cases initiated by the
proper disciplining authority or an authorized
representative, a show cause order is
sufficient…” (Emphasis supplied)
8|Page
 -x-x-x-

31.4 Based on the foregoing provision, we would

like to point out to this Honorable
Commission that the Provincial Administrator
was duly authorized by the Disciplining
Authority-Provincial Governor Eugenio Jose V.
Lacson through an Office Order dated. Hence,
being the authorized representative of the
Disciplining Authority, all his acts are in
accordance with law.

31.5 From the outset, it is very clear that the

Provincial Administrator was authorized by
the Disciplining Authority to issue the said
Show Cause Order. As such, the Show Cause
Order is NOT fatally defective as opposed to
the claim of the Appellant;

31.6 The “underlying investigation” being claimed

by the Appellant was conducted upon the
orders of the Disciplining Authority-Honorable
Governor to the Provincial Administrator’s
Office and the Governor’s subordinates at the
Governor’s Office in order to verify the veracity
of the allegations so that no Show Cause
Order shall be issued capriciously and without
basis.

31.7 The appellant’s statement that witness Mr.

Piquet Piquet is beholden to Atty. Diaz is a
mere conjecture and not supported by any
evidence. Furthermore, the receipt of Mr.
Pequit Pequit of documents does not show any
irregularity in the performance of his duties.

31.8 Mr. Lescano meanwhile is assigned as

Administrative Aide I at the Provincial
Economic Development Center (PEDIC) which
is directly under the Office of the Governor.

31.9 The fact of the matter is that Mr. Alvin

Lescano, the Administrative Aide 1 who
executed the CCTV Footage Report, has

9|Page
 repeatedly exhibited during the course of the
formal investigation hearing, his proficiency
and expertise in operating the CCTV
monitoring system. Mr. Lescano was directed
to show the CCTV footage of the subject time
and dates of this case during the investigation
proceedings and was able to identify the
appellant and the timeframe confirming his
presence or absence at the Provincial Legal
Office. Moreover, Mr. Lescano is qualified to
identify and operate the monitoring of the
CCTV Footage because he has been assigned
as a data encoder and Information Technology
troubleshooter of the Provincial Economic
Development and Investment Center of the
Governor’s Office;

31.10 The obvious attack on the character of

Mr. Alvin Lescano should not be a ground for
the invalidation of the CCTV footage. The fact
remains that there are disparities on
Appellant’s DTRs and the CCTV Report. The
Appellant’s failure to provide proof that he was
performing official functions despite his
physical absence is an indication that his
October 2019 DTRs is unrepresentative of the
truth;

31.11 Appellant further avers that the Atty.

Diaz transgressed the powers and duties of
the Provincial Legal Officer as mandated by
the Local Government Code of 1991. However,
perusal of the same provision would reveal
that the appellant went above and beyond the
letter of the law and imputed baseless
accusations against Atty. Diaz.

31.12 It should be pointed out again that Atty.

Diaz was merely an authorized representative
of the Disciplining Authority for the issuance
of a Show Cause Order. As stated above, a
Show Cause Order refers to the written
document requiring a person to explain, or
justify before the disciplining authority or its
duly authorized representative within a given
period why no disciplinary action be taken

10 | P a g e
 against him/her. Based on the foregoing,
there is no administrative neglect or
misconduct to be investigated yet at the Show
Cause Level since no Formal Charge for such
offenses has been issued to the appellant.

31.13 The provisions of Section 481(b)(3)(iv) of

the Local Government Code of 1991 have been
complied with by the Disciplining Authority
when it designated the Provincial Legal Officer
to conduct the Formal Investigation Hearing in
order to investigate the Formal Charge of the
appellant for administrative neglect or
misconduct which this case, are for
Falsification of an Official Document and
Serious Dishonesty.

31.14 The anonymous complaint from

concerned Negrenses initiated the
investigation on the attendance of the PLO
lawyers and staff at the Provincial Legal Office.
It is public knowledge here in the Province of
Negros Occidental that in the previous
administration, some lawyers and staff of the
PLO are notoriously known for being
habitually absent (one lawyer being absent for
6 months without leave and still received his
salary), for drinking liquor during office hours
in restaurants, for consistently neglecting to
cater to the needs of Negrenses, and acting
with impunity and thinking that they are
above the law.

31.15 For these reasons, it is not uncommon

that numerous concerned Negrenses clamored
for reforms to be implemented in the
Provincial Legal Office and thus submitted
anonymous complaints to the Honorable
Governor in order to address the issue. One
such anonymous letter-complaint, written in
English, was personally received by the
Provincial Administrator himself, Atty.
Rayfrando Diaz II, and attached the same to
the Show Cause Order issued to the
respondent-appellant. Another anonymous
letter-complaint, this time written in Tagalog,

11 | P a g e
 was submitted to the Provincial
Administrator’s Office and was received by Mr.
Mario Pequit-Pequit, Administrative Aide IV on
August 30, 2019 and forwarded to Ms.
Katherine Orola-Reyes, Secretary of the
Provincial Administrator, for filing purposes.

31.16 Although the languages of the two

anonymous letter-complaints are different, it
is patently clear that the tenor thereof is the
same: That the lawyers and staff of the PLO
are habitually absent, tardy, and neglectful in
catering to the needs of Negrenses. These
anonymous letter-complaints spurred the
Disciplining Authority to conduct an
Investigation on the attendance or non-
attendance of the PLO lawyers and staff at the
Provincial Legal Office. The investigation
ultimately yielded the CCTV Footage Report of
the PLO Lawyers and Staff executed by Mr.
Alvin Lescano which became the basis for the
issuance of Show Cause Orders against the
respondent appellant, and two other lawyers
and one staff, which serves as a valid
complaint pursuant to Section 11 of the 2017
RACCS.

31.17 In order to seek clarity, Appellee would

like to respectfully point out to the respondent
appellant that there is a glaring difference
between an Anonymous Complaint under
Section 12, Rule 3 of the 2017 RACCS and
a Show Cause Order under Section 11, Rule
3 of the 2017 RRACCS;

31.18 Respondent Appellant obviously mistook

that the Anonymous Complaint and Show
Cause Order are one and the same in his
Appeal.

31.19 The latter portion of the first paragraph of

Section 11, Rule 3 of the 2017 RRACCS
provides that:

Section 11. Requisites of a Valid

Complaint. …In cases initiated by the

12 | P a g e
 proper disciplining authority or an
authorized representative, a show cause
order is sufficient.

xxxx

31.20 Hence, the Show Cause Order issued by

the Provincial Administrator upon the
authority of the Provincial Governor against
respondent appellant is a valid complaint.

31.21 Furthermore, Section 12, Rule 3 of the

2017 RACCS provides that no anonymous
complaint shall entertained unless the act
complained of is of public knowledge or the
allegation can be verified or supported by
documentary or direct evidence.

31.22 In the case at hand, the allegations in the

anonymous letter-complaints that the PLO
lawyers and staff are habitually absent and
tardy are public knowledge since the previous
administration. Moreover, the allegations in
the Anonymous Letter were confirmed and
supported by the subsequent CCTV footage
report and the inconsistencies in the Daily
Time Record entries of the respondent
appellant with his attendance in the Provincial
Legal Office.

31.23 The glaring disparities between the

October 2019 DTRs and the CCTV Footage
Report, the respondent’s failure to provide
original or certified true copies of the following
documents to justify his absence in the
Provincial Legal Office: (1) Pass-Out Slips, (2)
Travel Orders, (3) Certificate of Appearance,
on October 25, 2019 are enough to support a
conclusion that there is substantial evidence
to hold respondent liable for Falsification of
Official Document and Serious Dishonesty.

31.24 In addition, the subject Daily Time

Records of this case are electronically
generated copies of the biometric entries made
by the Appellant. The said entries in the

13 | P a g e
 biometric reading could not be easily falsified
considering that it requires the fingerprint of
the Appellant. Furthermore, the repository of
such documents, the Provincial Human
Resources Management Office, has certified
the same to be the true and correct entries in
the biometric machines of the Provincial
Capitol;

31.25 The Daily Time Record that a public

official or employee must fill up is a public
document (Layug v. Sandiganbayan, 338
SCRA 156, 169). A public document, by virtue
of its official or sovereign character, or
because it is a public record of a private
writing authorized by law, is self-
authenticating and requires no further
authentication in order to be presented as
evidence (Republic v. Gimenez et al., G.R. No.
174673, January 11, 2016). The Daily Time
Records of the movant which are part of the
records of the case are official records of the
Provincial Government of Negros Occidental.
The stamp of the Provincial Human Resource
Office on the copies attached to the records
indicate that they are a true and faithful
reproduction of the Daily Time Records
submitted by the movant;

32. The statement of the Appellant in paragraph (II) of his

APPEAL MEMORANDUM is not true, the truth of the
matter being that:

THE HEARING OFFICER DID NOT ERR IN

NOT INHIBITING HIMSELF FROM
PRESIDING AND HEARING THE INSTANT
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE AGAINST
APPELLANT.

32.1 The assertion of the Respondent Appellant

that the Hearing Officer is equally liable for
verifying and signing his October 2019 DTR,
as the person in-charge of the PLO, thereby
attesting to the truth of the public documents
cannot be given any probative value since the

14 | P a g e
 Provincial Legal Officer stays in a different
office from that of the respondent appellant.

32.2 Respondent then surmised that the Hearing

Officer has already predisposed of the case
against the Appellant based on the
aforementioned statement. However, the
Respondent appellant merely ignored the fact
that a full blown formal investigation hearing
was conducted wherein evidence from both
parties were received and scrutinized and that
the respondent appellant failed to provide
convincing evidence that his physical absence
was authorized and that he was performing
official duties, the presumption remains that
his absence was not authorized, that he was
not in the performance of his duty during the
subject time and date, and therefore made an
untruthful entry in his October 2019 DTR.

32.3 During the hearing it was apparent from the

viewing of CCTV Footage that the offices of the
Provincial Legal Officer and that of the PLO
lawyers are entirely different rooms separated
by a hall where the Office of the Governor and
the Office of the Provincial Administrator are
also located. Hence, it would be impossible for
the Provincial Legal Officer to monitor the
physical presence of the respondent appellant
at all times.

32.4 As to the last contention of the respondent

appellant in paragraph (II), the Provincial
Legal Officer is aware that the documents he
signs and the consequences of signing the
same form part of official public records.
Hence, it must be treated with utmost respect
and importance. Before affixing his signature
to the October 2019 DTR of the respondent
appellant, the Provincial Legal Officer
employed good faith in verifying his number of
hours worked by inspecting the Office Logbook
wherein he wrote his time and arrival at the
PLO and certified the same by affixing his
signature after every entry.

15 | P a g e
 That in both his DTR Civil Service Form No. 4
and Office Logbook Entries respondent
appellant certified that he arrived for work at
the Provincial Legal Office at eight o’clock in
the morning (8:00 AM) on October 25, 2019.

Considering the disparities on respondent

appellant’s DTR and the CCTV Report, it is
thus patently clear that respondent appellant
falsified his DTR Civil Service Form No. 4 for
the months of October 2019 by making
untruthful statements therein when he
certified on his honor that he arrived for work
at the Provincial Legal Office at eight o’clock
in the morning (8:00 AM) on October 25,
2019, when in truth and in fact, he reported
for work at the Provincial Legal Office at
twelve thirty-seven o’clock in the afternoon
(12:37PM) on October 25, 2019.

Respondent’s penchant for deceit and

dishonesty was also evident when he
reinforced his falsified entry in his DTRs with
falsified entries in the Office Logbook of the
PLO.

33. The statement of the Appellant in paragraph ((III) of his

APPEAL MEMORANDUM is not true, the truth of the
matter being that:

THE VERIFICATION AND SIGNATURE IF

THE PROVINCIAL LEGAL OFFICER ON THE
DTR OF APPELLANT RESPONDENT FOR
OCTOBER 2019 CANNOT BE GIVEN
PROBATIVE VALUE SINCE IT WAS
ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT THE COURSE
OF THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION
HEARING THAT HE WAS DISHONEST IN
PREPARING THE SAME.

33.1 While it is true that the Provincial Legal

Officer did in fact sign the Daily Time Record
of the respondent appellant, it must be
pointed out that the disputed issue at hand is
the act of the respondent appellant in

16 | P a g e
 falsifying the said Daily Time Record. In which
case, the Provincial Legal Officer has no
personal knowledge nor did not participate on
the alleged serious misconduct.

33.2 The respondent appellant was not able to

refute what was established through the
showing of the October 25, 2019 CCTV footage
that the respondent appellant first appeared
and reported for work at the Provincial Legal
Office at 12:37PM of the same day and not at
8:00AM or anytime close to the 8:00AM
timeframe. While the CCTV footage was being
examined, the image of the respondent was
confirmed by witness Lescano at the 12:37PM
timeframe. Furthermore, at the examination of
the 8:00AM timeframe, or anywhere near the
said time, the image of the respondent was
nowhere to be found.
33.3 There being no evidence from the respondent
appellant to justify his unauthorized absence
at the Provincial Legal Office from 8:00AM to
12:37PM on October 25, 2019, it can be
concluded that the respondent knowingly
falsified the time entries in his DTR or Civil
Service Form No. 4 for the aforementioned
date.
33.4 Likewise, the signing of the Payroll of the
respondent appellant will not shift the tides
when there is a glaring evidence of disparities
on the respondent appellant’s DTRs and the
CCTV Report. The said Payroll will not
exculpate the respondent appellant from his
Administrative Case for Falsification of an
Official Document and Serious Dishonesty.

33.5 Respondent-Appellants reliance on the CSC

Resolution No. 062120 of November 28, 2006
is an admission on his part that making false
entries in the DTR can make any public
employee liable for Dishonesty, Falsification of
an Official Document and Grave Misconduct.
It has been established in the preceding
paragraphs that the respondent appellant
employed deceit when he reinforced his
17 | P a g e
 falsified entry in his DTR with falsified entries
in the Office Logbook of the PLO.

33.6 The truth of the matter is that in order to be

consistent with the reforms being initiated by
the Honorable Governor at the Provincial
Capitol, the Provincial Legal Officer
recommended that the Authority to Engage in
Private Practice and Avail of Flexible Working
Hours of the lawyers under the PLO be
cancelled so that they can concentrate on
their duties and responsibilities under the
Provincial Government.

As such, absent any field assignments, all

lawyers and staff under the PLO are required
to be present at the Provincial Legal Office in
order to render eight working hours a day for
five days a week, or a total of 40 hours a week
excluding time for lunch as per Civil Service
Rules. The normal working hours are from 8
AM to 12 NN, and 1 PM to 5 PM.

In order to verify their attendance, all lawyers

and staff are required to log-in at the
biometric machine near the entrance of the
Provincial Legal Office and also manually log-
in their attendance in the Office logbook.

33.7 Respondent’s Appellant statement that

employees were reluctant to testify is bereft of
merit since the Provincial Government has
continually informed him of its power to issue
subpoenas for the production of witness and
documents in his favor. In fact, the
respondent-appellant has repeatedly made use
of such throughout the course of the formal
investigation proceedings.
33.8 Respondent-apellant’s statement that the
Provincial Legal Officer (PLO) made it clear
that he will not issue or require any pass as
long as they are without the PLO premises for
official business is an outright lie. The one
and only meeting conducted by the PLO on
July 2019 was for the sole purpose of
establishing the policy of this administration
that results should be delivered to
18 | P a g e
 stakeholders of the Province of Negros
Occidental. The PLO never made any
statement averred by the respondent appellant
in his Appeal Memorandum and has never
condoned fraud and deceit in misrepresenting
their attendance at the Capitol.
33.9 Respondent appellant’s contention that the
PLO should have conducted a meeting and
apprised the personnel of the new
administration’s policies is pointless since as a
lawyer and government employee of close to
15 years, he should be more than aware that a
government employee is duty bound to
indicate the correct time of his arrival and
departure from his office. Otherwise, it
constitutes an act of falsification which
reflects dishonesty and unfitness of the
government employee to continue serving the
public.
33.10 Respondent appellant’s statement in his
Appeal Memorandum that “the administrative
case was filed against the Appellant to exert
undue pressure upon him to resign from
employment” is entirely baseless and untrue.

33.11 The fact of the matter is that respondent

appellant was dismissed from the service
because of (1) the glaring disparities between
the October 2019 DTR and the CCTV Footage
Report, (2) the respondent appellant’s failure
to provide original or certified true copies of
Pass-Out Slips, Travel Orders, Certificate of
Appearance to justify his absence at the
Provincial Legal Office on October 25, 2019, to
justify his absence on the aforementioned
date, are enough to support a conclusion that
there is substantial evidence to hold
respondent liable for Falsification of Official
Document and Serious Dishonesty.

34. The statement of the Appellant in paragraph (IV) of his

APPEAL MEMORANDUM is not true, the truth of the
matter being that:

19 | P a g e
 THE DECISION DATED FEBRUARY 26,
2021, WAS RENDERED WITHIN THE
PRESCRIBED PERIODS UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE 2017 RACCS.

34.1 In connection to the issuance of the Decision

by the Disciplining Authority, Section 48 of
Rule 9 of 2017 RRACCS, states that:

-x-x-x-

“Section 48. When Case is decided. The

disciplining authority shall decide the case
within thirty (30) days from receipt of the Formal
Investigation Report
-x-x-x-

34.2 To emphasize, the Decision was rendered

thirty (30) days upon receipt of the Formal
Investigation Report of the Hearing Officer on
January 27, 2021, which is within the
allowable thirty (30) day period pursuant to
the 2017 RACCS.
34.3 Respondent Appellant himself quoted the
pertinent provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of
Rule 9 of the 2017 RACCS and should be
mindful that the Formal Investigation Report
shall only be submitted by the Hearing Officer
to the Disciplining Authority. Furthermore,
Section 47 states that the complete records of
the case shall be attached to the report of
investigation and shall be treated with
confidentiality.

34.4 As discussed in the Resolution for the Motion

for Reconsideration of the respondent
appellant dated March 30, 2021, perusal of
the records of the case shows that there has
been an extension in the issuance of a Formal
Investigation Report which was reasonable in
light of the COVID-19 pandemic, work
overload, long holiday periods during the
month of December 2020, not to mention the
thorough scrutiny of the identity of the
respondent-appellant in the CCTV footage –
material evidence which was heavily disputed
in the course of the Formal Investigation.
20 | P a g e
 34.5 As such, the extension of the submission of
the Formal Investigation Report was done so
as not to prejudice the rights of the
respondent-appellant since the material
evidence was closely scrutinized before any
recommendation was released to the
disciplining authority.

34.6 Lastly, the undersigned maintains that there

is no irregularity in the conduct of the
investigation against the respondent
appellant. Due process and compliance with
the provisions of the 2017 RACCS have been
maintained throughout the proceedings.

35. All things considered, the Appellant had not shown any
satisfactory reason which would reverse the Decision of
the Disciplining Authority.

36. Finally, based on the above discussions, it is

respectfully submitted that Appeal Memorandum (Issued
in Admin Case No. ADM-20-005 Negros Occidental) by the
Respondent-Appellant dated April 20, 2021 must be
dismissed by this Honorable Commission.

EPILOGUE

“Public service requires integrity and discipline. For this

reason, public servants must exhibit at all times the
highest sense of honesty and dedication to duty. By the
very nature of their duties and responsibilities,
government employees must faithfully adhere to, hold
sacred and render inviolate the constitutional principle
that a public office is a public trust; that all public officers
and employees must at all times be accountable to the
people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,
loyalty and efficiency.”

Concerned Litigants vs. Araya, Jr., A.M. No. P-05-1960,

January 26, 2007

PRAYER

21 | P a g e
 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, it is
most respectfully prayed that this Honorable Commission
issue an Order:

1. DISMISSING the Appeal Memorandum by the

Respondent-Appellant dated April 20, 2021; and

2. The Decision dated February 26, 2021 be UPHELD

AND GIVEN DUE COURSE.

Other reliefs just and equitable under these premises are

likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Bacolod City for Quezon City, Philippines. January 20,

2022.

Provincial Legal Office

Province of Negros Occidental
Provincial Capitol Building, Gatuslao St., 6100 Bacolod City
Telephone No. 433-0409
plonegrosocc@gmail.com

By:

ALBERTO P. NELLAS, JR.

Provincial Legal Officer
Province of Negros Occidental
Attorney’s Roll No. 62864
IBP Lifetime No. 012731
PTR No. 4267310 Jan. 03, 2022, Province of Negros
Occidental
MCLE Compliance No. VI–0015277

Copy Furnished:

Atty. ED OLIVER Y. TAN

Counsel for the Appellant
Unit 7, PACE II Building
Galo-Locsin Streets, Bacolod City 6100
Negros Occidental

22 | P a g e
 EXPLANATION

Due to the recent classification of Bacolod City and

Negros Occidental to Alert Level 3 wherein there is a recent
spike of Covid-19 cases in Bacolod City and Negros
Occidental, and the observance of social distancing, which
make personal service and filing impracticable, copy of this
Comment to the Appeal Memorandum for Respondent-Appellant
will be served to the Appellant and thereafter, copies will be
filed to this Honorable Commission, at the aforementioned
address, by registered mail through the Bacolod City Post
Office.

ATTY. ALBERTO P. NELLAS, JR.

23 | P a g e
 VERIFICATION

I, EUGENIO JOSE V. LACSON, of legal age, Filipino and

a resident of San Carlos City, Philippines after being duly
sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and say that:

(1)That I am the Appellee in the above-entitled case;

(2)That I have caused the preparation and filing of the
foregoing Comment to the Appeal Memorandum for
Respondent-Appellant;

(3)That I have read and fully understand the contents of

the foregoing Comment to the Appeal Memorandum for
Respondent-Appellant and I attest that the allegations
hereof are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and based on authentic records;

(4)The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary

delay, or needlessly increase cost of litigation;

(5)The factual allegations therein have evidentiary

support or, if specifically so identified, will likewise
have evidentiary support after reasonable opportunity
for discovery.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my

signature this 20th day of January 2022 in the City of Bacolod,
Philippines.

EUGENIO JOSE V. LACSON

Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20th day of
January 2022 at the City of Bacolod, Philippines, the affiant
exhibited to me his Passport No. P3720940B issued at Bacolod
City.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No. _________;

24 | P a g e
Page No. _________;
Book No. _________;
Series of 2022.

25 | P a g e