Atty. Ensign M. Icamen

Tag: Supreme Court of the Philippines

  • Collusion and Grave Misconduct by Public Officers and Employees

    Collusion and Grave Misconduct by Public Officers and Employees

    October 1, 2021

    Collusion and Grave Misconduct in Philippine administrative law involving public officials.

    Grave misconduct committed by a public officer that will warrant his/her dismissal from the service must not be a mere failure to comply with the law. Also, an allegation of collusion must be proved by clear and convincing evidence to justify removal of a public officer from service.

    Legal standards for proving Collusion and Grave Misconduct among government employees.

    The case of Jaspe, Noel T. and Araneta, Ma. Negenia vs. Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office and Agustin Sonza G.R. No. 251940, July 12, 2021 grave misconduct that may warrant dismissal of a public officer was defined as follows:

    “Grave misconduct is defined as the “wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.” It is not mere failure to comply with the law. Failure to comply must be deliberate and must be done in order to secure benefits for the offender or for some other person.”

    “For a charge of grave misconduct or any grave offense to prosper, therefore, the evidence against the respondent should be competent and must be derived from direct knowledge. Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions, as in this case, warrants the dismissal of the charge.”

    Likewise in the same case, it was pronounced that to warrant a dismissal of a public officer or employee from the service based on collusion with parties in a public bidding, the person charging collusion must prove it by clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that:

    “On this score, Desierto v. Ocampo pronounced that the complainant charging collusion must prove it by clear-and convincing evidence, thus:

    “Collusion implies a secret understanding whereby one party plays into another’s hands for fraudulent purposes. It may take place between and every contractor resulting in no competition, in which case, the government may declare a failure of bidding. Collusion may also ensue between contractors and the chairman and members of the PBAC to simulate or rig the bidding process, thus insuring the award to a favored bidder, to the-prejudice of the government agency and public service. For such acts of the chairman and the members of the PBAC, they may be held administratively liable for conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the government service. Collusion by and among the members of the PBAC and/or contractors submitting their bids may be determined from their collective acts or omissions before, during and after the bidding process. The complainants are burdened to prove such collusion by clear and convincing evidence because if so proved, the responsible officials may be dismissed from the government service or meted severe administrative sanctions for dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the government service.”

    Further, Desierto ordained that mere declaration of a lone winning bidder does not necessarily mean there was collusion, absent a showing that the BAC members were closely associated with the bidders, thus:

    “We believe that in this case, the complainants failed to prove that there was collusion by and among the contractors and the chairman and members of the PBAC. The PBAC may have erred in waiving the defects in the bids of Carwin Construction and Ed-Mar’s Construction on the belief that the defects were minor, but it does not follow that its members, including the respondent, conspired with the contractors to rig the bid process. Carwin Construction and Ed-Mar’s Construction may have, likewise, submitted defective bid documents but, absent any other evidence, it cannot thereby be concluded that there was conspiracy to rig the bid process to insure that PR T Construction would emerge the lone and winning bidder. The chairman and members of the PBAC may have, likewise, erred in the performance of their duties, but it does not necessarily mean that they did so in bad faith or with dishonesty.”

  • Notary Public’s Notarial Seal

    Notary Public’s Notarial Seal

    April 15, 2021

    Notary public reviewing documents with notarial seal on desk.

    A notary public should at, all times, safeguard his notarial seal. If somebody uses the notarial seal for any illegal act, the concerned notary public may be held administratively liable despite him/her having no knowledge of such illegal act.

    Legal evidence of misused notary public seal on fraudulent contract.

    In a very recent case, a lawyer was suspended from his law practice and was prohibited from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two years after a finding that he notarized consultancy service contracts between a certain local government and persons who are already deceased. In this case, the lawyer’s argument that his signatures in the said contracts were a forgery did not convince the Supreme Court. The lawyer showed the wide disparity between such signatures in the consultancy service contracts and the specimen signature he submitted to the Notarial Section of Manila Regional Trial Court but such was not enough.

    The Supreme Court noted the striking dissimilarity between the signature appearing on the consultancy service contract and the specimen signature he submitted to the Notarial Section. Further, the high court noted that the consultancy service contract was not among the notarized document submitted to the Notarial Section by the lawyer as a Notary Public. Nonetheless, the consultancy services contract which the lawyer claims he did not notarize bore his notarial seal. Thus he could not be exculpated because he failed to safeguard his notarial seal. Let’s read the Supreme Court’s decision:

    “The act of notarization is not an ordinary routine but is imbued with substantive public interest. A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common of which are the acknowledgment and affirmation of documents or instruments. In the performance of these notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal affixed on documents. The notarial seal converts a document from a private to a public instrument, after which it may be presented as evidence without need for proof of its genuineness and due execution. A notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Thus, a notary public should observe utmost care in performing his duties to preserve public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents.

    Official notarial seal design and notary public rules from the 2004 Notarial Rules.

    A notarial seal is a mark, image or impression on a document which would indicate that the notary public has officially signed it. Section 2, Rule VII of the 2004 Notarial Rules states that every notary public shall have his own notarial seal, which shall have the name of the city or province and the word “Philippines,” and his own name on the margin and the roll of attorney’s number on its face. The said seal shall only be possessed by the notary public, to wit:

    Section 2. Official Seal. – (a) Every person commissioned as notary public shall have a seal of office, to be procured at his own expense, which shall not be possessed or owned by any other person. It shall be of metal, circular in shape, two inches in diameter, and shall have the name of the city or province and the word “Philippines” and his own name on the margin and the roll of attorney’s number on the face thereof, with the words “notary public” across the center. A mark, image or impression of such seal shall be made directly on the paper or parchment on which the writing appears.

    x x x x (Emphases supplied)

    Further, the 2004 Notarial Rules is explicit on the duties and obligations of the notary public, which include the duty to secure and safeguard his notarial seal so that no unauthorized persons can have access thereto, viz.:

    Section 2. Official Seal.- x x x

    x x x x

    (c) When not in use, the official seal shall be kept safe and secure and shall be accessible only to the notary public or the person duly authorized by him.

    x x x x (Emphasis and italics supplied)

    “In this case, Atty. X denied having authored or notarized the consultancy contracts and claimed that his signatures therein as notary public were forged. Although the IBP observed that Atty. X’s signatures in the subject contracts were strikingly dissimilar to his specimen signatures on file before the Notarial Section of the RTC, and while it may likewise be true that said contracts were not included in the notarial reports he submitted thereto, he cannot claim full deniability and be exculpated from administrative liability because the contracts bore his notarial seal.

    “Instead of offering any plausible explanation as to how the Consultancy contracts came to be stamped with his notarial seal, Atty. X merely insisted that he never notarized nor authored said contracts, that his signatures therein were forgeries, and that said contracts were not included in his notarial reports.”

  • Greed for Power and the Party-list System

    Greed for Power and the Party-list System

    February 16, 2025

    Marginalized groups protesting for representation through partylist system.

    At the onset of the partylist groups’ participation in the Philippine politics and elections, all partylist groups are members of marginalized sector. They were very few that even if they join together their voice and position on a particular issue could hardly be heard or recognized. But I think they were real non-conformist.

    Powerful political clans dominating the partylist system in modern Philippine politics.

    When the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Atong Paglaum, Inc., represented by its President, Mr. Alan Igot, Petitioner, vs. Commission on Elections, Respondent G.R. No. 203766, April 02, 2013 was promulgated, the partylist system became a free for all enterprise that was opened to all. Now, the partylist system has been flooded by politicians who belong to the powerful and wealthy families. Some belong to political clans that dominate the geographical district representations, and some are members of prominent and powerful business families. The system became a haven for politicians whose occupation of their respective positions has been cut by term limitations set by the constitution or the law. The system is likewise being used to expand the number of family members occupying a political position at particular period or term. They are already dominant political clans, and they keep on expanding like a flourishing business. Party-list congressmen today dominate the halls of congress. Some are holding powerful committees, like the committee on appropriations which is chaired by partylist representative who is a prominent businessman and strong ally of the administration. Almost all of them are allied to the administration. I hope people will realize that the partylist representations belong to the groups who have real and truthful advocacies for the people.

    Following is the portion of the decision in the case of Atong Pag Laom that confirms that partylist system is not limited to the marginalized sectors of the society.

    “Under the partylist system, an ideology-based or cause-oriented political party is clearly different from a sectoral party. A political party need not be organized as a sectoral party and need not represent any particular sector. There is no requirement in R.A. No. 7941 that a national or regional political party must represent a “marginalized and underrepresented” sector.It is sufficient that the political party consists of citizens who advocate the same ideology or platform, or the same governance principles and policies, regardless of their economic status as citizens.

    “Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941 states that “the sectors shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.” The sectors mentioned in Section 5 are not all necessarily “marginalized and underrepresented.” For sure, “professionals” are not by definition “marginalized and underrepresented,” not even the elderly, women, and the youth.  However, professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth may “lack well-defined political constituencies,” and can thus organize themselves into sectoral parties in advocacy of the special interests and concerns of their respective sectors.”

    The conflict between the partylist law’s intent and its exploitation for political power.

    Unfortunately to the Filipino people, this system is being used by some to satisfy their cravings for supremacy and authority. The Supreme Court has spoken, the partylist system is not limited to the marginalized sector, but I am certain the Supreme Court did not mean to sanction the current practice of some powerful and privileged individuals of using the system to feed their insatiable greed for power and dominance.