Dear Atty. Gab,

Musta Atty! I hope you can enlighten me on a situation I’m facing at work. I’m Gregorio Panganiban, currently working as a division chief in a regional office of a national government agency here in Cebu City. For the past few months, during lunch breaks and sometimes after office hours, I’ve been offering some locally sourced delicacies – dried mangoes, otap, rosquillos – for sale to my colleagues and subordinates within our division. It started small, just helping out a relative’s small business, but it became quite popular.

Recently, our HR head called me in regarding an anonymous complaint. Apparently, someone felt pressured to buy from me because I am their superior. They also mentioned an old office memorandum discouraging employees from engaging in private business within office premises, though I haven’t seen it myself and wasn’t aware it was strictly enforced. The complaint alleges ‘conduct unbecoming of a public official’.

I never forced anyone to buy, Atty. Gab. It was always voluntary, and I made sure it didn’t interfere with our official work. I feel this is unfair. Can my actions really be considered misconduct? I wasn’t using government resources, just offering products during our free time. Could this lead to suspension or other penalties, even if I argue I didn’t violate any specific major rule and nobody was forced? I’m quite worried about how this could affect my career. What are my rights and potential liabilities here?

Hoping for your guidance.

Sincerely,
Gregorio Panganiban

Dear Gregorio,

Thank you for reaching out. I understand your concern regarding the complaint about selling goods within your office and the potential implications for your position as a division chief. It’s unsettling when actions perceived as harmless are suddenly questioned, especially within a government setting.

The core issue here revolves around the standards of conduct expected from public officials and employees. Even if you did not explicitly force anyone to purchase items, your position of authority inherently carries influence. Actions that could potentially tarnish the image and integrity of public service, or even appear to do so, can fall under administrative scrutiny, potentially as ‘Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service’, regardless of direct coercion or interference with official duties.

Navigating Ethical Lines in Public Service

The situation you described touches upon important principles governing the conduct of public officials and employees in the Philippines. While you may not have intended any wrongdoing or directly violated a major regulation you were aware of, administrative liability often hinges on broader ethical standards and the potential impact of one’s actions on the public trust and the integrity of the service.

A key concept here is Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. This administrative offense does not require the violation of a specific law or rule. Instead, it concerns acts that, while perhaps not illegal, tarnish the image and integrity of one’s public office. The determination rests on whether a reasonable person would perceive the act as damaging to the reputation and trustworthiness of the government agency and its personnel. The standard is about maintaining public confidence.

The law mandates high ethical standards for those in government. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713) provides a general framework. It emphasizes promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in public service.

Section 4(c) of the Code commands that “[public officials and employees] shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.”

This provision underscores the broad duty to act properly and ethically, beyond merely avoiding criminal acts. Engaging in private business within the office, especially involving subordinates, could potentially be viewed as contrary to good customs or public interest, depending on the specific circumstances and agency rules.

Furthermore, the element of moral ascendancy is often considered in such cases. As a division chief, you hold a position of authority over your subordinates. Even if you did not exert direct pressure, your position itself can create an implicit expectation or pressure for subordinates to comply with your requests or offers, including purchasing items.

As established in jurisprudence regarding similar situations involving authority figures, “It is of no moment that the [subordinates] were not forced to buy… It stands to reason that the respondent [as a superior], exercises moral ascendancy over [them], such that an offer made by [him] directed to the [subordinates], to buy something from [him], operates as a compulsion which the [subordinates cannot] easily avoid.”

This principle highlights that the lack of overt force doesn’t automatically negate the potential impropriety. The mere existence of the superior-subordinate relationship introduces a dynamic where transactions might not be perceived as purely voluntary by the subordinate or by observers.

Additionally, the existence of an office memorandum discouraging such activities, even if old or seemingly unenforced, can strengthen an administrative case against you. Public officials are generally expected to be aware of and abide by internal regulations. Ignoring or being unaware of such policies is usually not considered a valid defense. Your actions, when viewed alongside this policy and your position, could be interpreted as prioritizing personal interests over the expected professional conduct.

It’s also important to understand how administrative charges work. The specific label of the offense in the initial complaint is not always final.

The designation of the offense or offenses with which a person is charged in an administrative case is not controlling, and one may be found guilty of another offense where the substance of the allegations and evidence presented sufficiently proves one’s guilt.

This means that even if the initial complaint mentioned ‘conduct unbecoming,’ the investigating body could potentially find you liable for ‘Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service’ if the facts warrant it. The focus is on the substance of the actions alleged, not just the initial label. The level of proof required in administrative cases is substantial evidence, which is defined as “that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.”

(See: Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court)

This is a lower threshold than proof beyond reasonable doubt required in criminal cases, meaning that evidence pointing towards the likelihood of the misconduct could be sufficient for an administrative finding.

Practical Advice for Your Situation

• Cease the Activity: Immediately stop selling any items within office premises or to colleagues/subordinates, regardless of whether it’s during or after office hours, to prevent further complaints or complications.
• Locate and Review Office Policies: Actively search for and carefully read the specific office memorandum mentioned by HR, as well as your agency’s general Code of Conduct or ethical guidelines regarding private business dealings or conflicts of interest.
• Consult Your HR/Legal Department: Proactively seek clarification from your agency’s HR or legal unit about the rules on employees engaging in personal business activities, especially those involving colleagues or subordinates.
• Prepare a Formal Response: If required, submit a written explanation addressing the complaint. Acknowledge the activity but emphasize the lack of coercion, the timing (non-office hours), and perhaps your unawareness of the specific memo (though this may not be a strong defense). Focus on your commitment to ethical service.
• Gather Supporting Information (Carefully): While affidavits from colleagues stating they weren’t forced might seem helpful, remember the principle of moral ascendancy. Relying heavily on these could be counterproductive if perceived as using your influence again. Focus more on demonstrating that work was never compromised.
• Understand Potential Consequences: Be aware that Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service can carry penalties ranging from reprimand to suspension, depending on the severity, frequency, and circumstances.
• Seek Formal Legal Counsel: Given the potential impact on your career, consider consulting a lawyer specializing in administrative law to guide you through the formal investigation process, help draft responses, and represent your interests.
• Reflect on Ethical Boundaries: Use this as an opportunity to reassess the strict ethical boundaries required in public service, particularly concerning the use of one’s position and interactions with subordinates.

Navigating administrative investigations requires careful attention to both the specific rules and the broader ethical principles governing public service. While your intentions might have been benign, the perception of impropriety linked to your position of authority is a critical factor.

Hope this helps!

Sincerely,
Atty. Gabriel Ablola

For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.