Republic of the Philippines

TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Taguig City, Philippines

IN RE: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

for GRAVE MISCONDUCT

against

ISRAEL R. NAVORA,
Administrative Aide VI, RTC-La Union,
Respondent.
x--------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
(of Respondent)


RESPONDENT, assisted by the Public Attorney’s Office through the

undersigned Public Attorneys, unto this Honorable Office most
respectfully avers:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Respondent received a certified true copy of the Formal Charge for
Grave Misconduct dated August 16, 2017. In said formal charge, the
respondent was indicted for violation of civil Service rules specifically
Section 46 (A.3) of Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service (RRACCS), to wit:

“A prima facie case having been established after the corresponding

preliminary investigation was conducted by the Administrative
Complaints Committee (ACC), you are hereby FORMALLY
CHAGED with GRAVE MISCONDUCT penalized under Section
46 (A.3) of Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) promulgated by the Civil
Service Commission (CSC) committed as follows:

That on or about November 2016, while you were then

the Administrative Aide VI of the Regional Training
Center (RTC) – La Union, you willfully, knowingly
and unlawfully participated in the bidding for one

Position Paper of Israel Navora

Page 1 of 9
 (1) lot labor for the repair and maintenance of
Service Vehicle with Plate No. SFR-518 Revo and in
fact became the winning bidder thereof and had
been paid the amount of Five Thousand Pesos
(Php5,000.00) by TESDA-Cordillera Administrative
Region (CAR) for the services which you rendered
knowing that this is a prohibited transaction under
Section7 (2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise
known as the ‘Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees.’
This is to consider that you have not been
authorized by the Director General to engage in
such business.

Consequently, these acts constitute the administrative

offense of Grave Misconduct as defined and penalized
under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service (RRACCS).”

The formal charge also directed the respondent to file his Answer to the
above charges in writing under oath within ten (10) calendar days from
receipt.

Upon receipt of the Formal Charge, respondent complied with the

instruction written therein, filed his Answer to the Formal Charge dated
August 24, 2017. Copy of the said Answer is hereto attached as Annex “A”
for reference and making it an integral part of this position paper. A pre-
hearing conference was conducted and respondent was required to submit
his position paper, hence, this position paper.

THE PARTIES
Complainant TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND SKILLS
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TESDA) is a government agency tasked
to manage and supervise technical education and skills development
(TESD) in the Philippines. It was created by virtue of Republic Act 7796,
otherwise known as the “Technical Education and Skills Development Act
of 1994”.1

Respondent ISRAEL R. NAVORA is of legal age, Filipino and an

employee of the complainant, specifically, designated as Administrative
Aide VI assigned at the Regional Training Center of complainant
government agency located at San Fernando City, La Union where he may
be served with orders, notices and other processes of this Honorable Office.
1
http://www.tesda.gov.ph/About/TESDA/11

Position Paper of Israel Navora

Page 2 of 9
It is also worthy to note that respondent has been in the employ of TESDA
specifically the Regional Training Center – La Union for the last 33 years
now.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
To the recollection of the respondent, he never participated in any
bidding for one (1) lot labor for the repair and maintenance of Service
Vehicle with Plate No. SFR-518 Revo last November 2016 or any other date
for that matter. The respondent was shocked when he received his Formal
Charge for Grave Misconduct. Attached to the formal charge is a Price
Canvass dated November 14, 2016 attached to this position paper as Annex
“B” purportedly made by him. This is the reason for the said misconduct.
Without delay, respondent filed his answer to clear his name on the said
fictitious bidding incident.

On the other hand, respondent recalls that one Saturday morning of

November 2016, the exact date cannot be specified for time and memory
constraint, Mr. Renato Hernandez, a former colleague of respondent at
TESDA RO1, met with him. On said day, respondent was asked by Mr.
Renato Hernandez to perform repair works for a service vehicle of TESDA-
CAR, a Revo. Respondent agreed to carry out the request since it involves a
service car of agency which he works for and the one requesting is a former
colleague. It is an honest belief of the respondent that what he did is
nothing but a mere help to a former colleague and a call for duty since it
involves a service vehicle of TESDA. Respondent even called his
automotive trainees who were staying nearby as this can be an avenue for
learning.

It has never come to the mind of respondent to ask his former

colleague to solicit for any remuneration of the repair he made on the
service vehicle of TESDA-CAR. It is also worthy to note that it has been the
practice of the respondent to immediately render help and assistance to all
employees of TESDA who requests assistance from him involving repair of
vehicles without any compensation. This administrative charge came as a
great surprise to the respondent.

ISSUE

Position Paper of Israel Navora

Page 3 of 9
 The sole issue to be resolved in this case is WHETHER ISRAEL R.
NAVORA COMMITTED GRAVE MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF
CIVIL SERVICE RULES.

DISCUSSION
Misconduct is defined as an intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate
violation of a rule of law or standard of behaviour, especially by a
government official.2 On another, it is the transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful
behaviour or gross negligence by a public officer.3 The conduct is grave if
it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to
violate the law or to disregard established rules which must be proved
by substantial evidence.4 (Emphasis supplied)

To begin with, the offense charged arose from a bidding initiated and
conducted by TESDA-CAR involving the repair and maintenance of one of
its service vehicle for which the respondent allegedly participated in. The
Price Canvass (Annex B) allegedly prepared by the respondent as it bear
his name and signature is the evidence presented by TESDA to prove its
claim. Participation in government sponsored bidding per se is not a
misconduct but the charge said that it is misconduct and grave at that
because it violates Section 7 (2) of Republic Act No. 6713 otherwise known
as the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees”, to wit:

“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:

(a) Financial and material interest. - Public officials and

employees shall not, directly or indirectly, have any financial or
material interest in any transaction requiring the approval of their
office.
(b) Outside employment and other activities related
thereto. - Public officials and employees during their
incumbency shall not:

2
Vertudes v. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 153166, December 16, 2005, 478 SCRA 210, 233
3
National Power Corporation v. Olandesca, G.R. No. 171434, April 28, 2010, 619 SCRA 264, 273-274.
4
Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, G.R. No. 154521, September 30, 2005, citing BIR v. Organo, 424 SCRA 9 and
CSC v. Lucas, 361 Phil. 486 (1999).

Position Paper of Israel Navora

Page 4 of 9
 (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.

- xxx - ” (Emphasis supplied)

Admittedly, respondent is a government employee being in the employ of

TESDA. As a government employee, one is bound by the highest degree
conduct and ethics as enunciated in Republic Act No. 6713. With this,
respondent agrees with TESDA that the act imputed on him constitutes
grave misconduct but respondent refutes the accusation against him as it is
baseless and insufficient.

Respondent categorically denies the accusation against him and

contests the evidence presented by TESDA as to his alleged participation in
the bidding as manifested in a Price Canvass dated November 16, 2016
(Annex A) as spurious and questionable. It has and it is the continuous
assertion of the respondent that he was and has never been a participant in
any bidding activity whether that be private or public sponsored bidding
in whatever capacity it is. It came as a surprise to respondent the presence
of the Price Canvass (Annex A) as allegedly prepared and submitted by
him to TESDA-CAR. But then again, said Price Canvass (Annex A) is
patently false or a falsified one. The Price Canvass (Annex A) is a prepared
form which requires only certain entries of which any person can prepare.
It is worthy to emphasize that the Price Canvass (Annex A) was not
prepared by respondent. This can be readily checked by scrutinizing the
signature above a line over the printed text “Signature of Supplier” and

Position Paper of Israel Navora

Page 5 of 9
beside “Quoted By:” on the Price Canvass (Annex A). The signature
appearing therein is not the signature of the respondent. Attached herewith
are certified true copies of the Daily Time Record for October 2016, Payroll
for the period October 1-31, 2016 and an Inspection and Acceptance Report
tagged as Annexes C, D and E, respectively, making them an integral part
of this position paper. All of the aforementioned documents are official and
public documents from TESDA RO1 which contain the signature of
respondent. Comparing the signature of respondent in these official
documents vis-a-vis the Price Canvass (Annex A) allegedly prepared by
the respondent, one would easily conclude even one is not an expert in
handwriting that the signature appearing on Price Canvass (Annex A) is
not the signature of the respondent. Again, it is worthy to emphasize that
the Price Canvass (Annex A) can easily be prepared by any person.
(Emphasis supplied)

It is also the contention of TESDA that respondent was the winning

bidder and as such he received money in the amount of Php 5,000.00. The
Abstract of Canvass marked herein as Annex “F” was attached by TESDA
in its Formal Charge against respondent proving the same. It is noteworthy
to emphasize that TESDA did not attach any document proving that
respondent indeed received the amount of Php 5,000.00 pesos as a result of
his winning in the alleged bidding. Nonetheless, respondent notes that
even if there is, it is again conjured similar to the Price Canvass (Annex A).
This can be the result of the effort of corrupt people in government service
who would want gain for themselves by using other people’s name.
Respondent denounces such an act and decries that he is a victim of this.

With the above articulated arguments, we are of the position that

respondent is not liable for the offense charged. In cases filed before
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if
it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable man might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. 5
In administrative proceedings such as this case, substantial evidence or
that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion is required. 6 Considering that the only
basis of the charge against respondent is the Price Canvass (Annex A)
which is obviously forged as the signature appearing therein is entirely
different from the signature of the respondent, we maintain that there is no
adequate proof to support the finding of guilt of respondent on the charge
of grave misconduct. Moreover, said piece of document as a basis for the
offense charged can be prepared by anybody as noted. There is no evidence
on record to show that indeed it was prepared by respondent and that he
did sign the same or it was he who submitted the same. The proof on
record therefore lacks that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable

5
Rule 133, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.
6
Resngit-Marquez v. Llamas, Jr., 434 Phil. 124 (2002); Mariano v. Roxas, 434 Phil. 742 (2002).

Position Paper of Israel Navora

Page 6 of 9
man might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. This charge must
necessarily fail.

Respondent is a lowly government employee being employed as an

Administrative Aide. Respondent has been in the government service for a
very long time now. He was never involved in any malicious activity that
would tarnish his name as well as his reputation as a public servant.
TESDA should know that he has no previous administrative case filed
against him to date aside from this one.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Office to dismiss the administrative case for grave misconduct
against Israel Navora.

Other just and equitable reliefs under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this January 29, 2018 at San Fernando

City, La Union for Taguig City, Philippines.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

San Fernando City (LU) District Office
Justice Hall, Sevilla
San Fernando City, La Union
Counsel for the Respondent
By:

GILBERT R. HUFANA
Public Attorney II
Roll No. 61392; March 27, 2012
IBP No. 1068461; December 27, 2017; IBP La Union Chapter
MCLE Compliance No. V-0002509; May 29, 2014

JEFFREY M. AGTARAP
Public Attorney III/
District Public Attorney - SFCLU DO
Roll No. 55673; May 2, 2008; Manila
IBP No. 01819; January 5, 2018; IBP Baguio-Benguet Chapter
MCLE Compliance No. V-0005062; December 22, 2014

Position Paper of Israel Navora

Page 7 of 9
Republic of the Philippines)
Province of La Union ) S.S
City of San Fernando )

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

Position Paper of Israel Navora

Page 8 of 9
 I, ISRAEL R. NAVORA, single, of legal age, Filipino and a resident
of Brgy. Pagdalagan Norte, San Fernando City, La Union, Philippines, after
having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and
state that:

1. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Position Paper, the

contents of which are supplied by me and are all true and correct
upon my personal knowledge, information and belief, the allegations
therein are true and correct and were based on authentic documents
at hand;

2. That I further certify that: (a) I have not theretofore commenced any
other action or proceeding or filed any claim involving the same
issues or matter in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and,
to the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending
therein; (c) if I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action
or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, I
undertake to report such fact within five (5) days therefrom to the
court or agency wherein the original pleading and sworn certification
contemplated herein have been filed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this January 29,

2018 in San Fernando City, La Union, Philippines.

ISRAEL R. NAVORA
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before this January 29, 2018at San

Fernando City, La Union, Philippines.

Position Paper of Israel Navora

Page 9 of 9