10.

In paragraph 10 of this Reply, the complainant reiterates his stand that the
respondent unduly presided over the alleged proceeding. To support this, the
complainant questioned the credibility of the allegations of the respondent that the
latter did not intend to participate in the proceeding against the complainant, more
so, to effectively preside thereon. The complainant is of the opinion that the act of
the respondent in expressing his concerns without asking permission first from the
presiding officer is tantamount to an act of presiding. Clearly, this argument by
the complainant should not have been brought out had he made reference to
and considered the respondent’s defense alleging that there was no official
proceeding in progress when the latter aired his concerns. Again, it is to be
emphasized that what transpired during that particular moment is a simple follow-
up of the complainant’s request for barangay clearance. The official business
to discuss the penalty of the complainant was already terminated and coupled with
the fact that the members of the council were already leaving their seats only
proves that the proceeding was over. Following this contention, the respondent, in
his point of view and honest belief, he found it unnecessary to seek permission
from the presiding officer to butt in and air his concerns for the very reason that
the official proceeding had already concluded. Thus, it only signifies that he has
no intention to disrespect either the latter’s authority or any official proceeding
which the complainant claims to have been hi-jacked.

With respect to the argument of inconsistency between the act of the

respondent in confirming with Mr. Dabalos of PENRO about the rule on salvage
zone and the respondent’s claim that the he is merely expressing his concern; the
latter is utterly confused. The respondent gave his opinion on the matter and
thereafter, the complainant refuted the figures given by the former. Then it was just
logical for the respondent to verify the matter with an expert. If there is one thing
which was proven by this subsequent act of the respondent in confirming the rule,
it was a sign of good faith. The respondent clearly desires to, once and for all, let
him, the complainant and the punong barangay be properly informed on the matter
considering that it was relevant to the concerns regarding the issuance of barangay
clearance. In light, the respondent does not see any incompatibility between his act
of expressing his concerns and attempt to find clarity on the point of dispute.

11. With respect to the allegations of the complainant that the act of the respondent
in uttering the words “Imbestigaan da ka ti DENR” was considered as a threat, and
thereafter, he made good of such threat, these should not be given credence. First,
the respondent denies uttering these words exactly the way it has been phrased by
complainant in his Complaint to suggest that the former has the capacity to
influence, command or exert undue pressure to the PENRO in making their own
decisions. It should be noted that at the time the heated altercation between the
complainant and respondent occurred, the Punong Barangay was already having
doubts as to whether or not the respondent’s establishment near the beach violated
the salvage zone rule. In fact, at the moment the complainant requested for a
barangay clearance and thereafter, the Punong Barangay refused to issue the same,
she was already planning to ask the assistance of the PENRO to confirm the
existence or absence of any violation of the complainant’s business establishment.
The Punong Barangay has categorically stated that she is still waiting for the
findings of the PENRO before issuing the barangay clearance. Hence, it was
already understood that very moment by the parties, including the complainant,
that an investigation is about to commence. In short, it was not the “threat”,
treated by the complainant as such, which initiated the idea of the complainant’s
business to be investigated. If such words were indeed uttered, it may have been
stated in way informing the complainant of the plan to conduct an investigation.
There was no threat but rather a mere confirmation of such fact. Thus, the words
which were allegedly said by the complainant and the phone call made to Mr.
Dabalos are insufficient to readily prove that he indeed induced the PENRO. The
respondent finds it very difficult to comprehend the reason why the complainant
keeps insisting that the investigation by the PENRO was unduly initiated for some
ulterior motive, when in truth, the only reason why they are being investigated is
because of the fact that there have been numerous violations of the salvage zone
rule by various beach business establishment owners in Pagudpud. We also cannot
erase nor should ignore the fact that PENRO has made a resolution finding the
complainant’s violation of the aforementioned rule.

The respondent agrees with the contention of the complainant that hierarchy
of offices should be respected and considered. However, this doctrine should not
be construed as to unduly punish any concerned citizen, public official or any
person for that matter who reports violations of laws before an office which is
tasked to enforce and protect the same. In relation with the hierarchy of Courts,
when a party erroneously or prematurely files a petition before a higher Court
violating the principle of hierarchy, said Court dismisses the same. The Court has
its own discretion whether or not to entertain the pleading initiated by a party. It
has its own independent judgment which if mistakenly exercised, it shall bear its
own liability, and definitely not the party who initiated or filed the same. Said
party should only suffer the pain of not having his pleading entertained by the said
Court. The same holds true when applying hierarchy of offices in the case at bar.
The complainant is finding fault with the respondent for allegedly inducing the
PENRO to conduct an investigation and in the process, it bypassed the function of
the MENRO. However, assuming that such hierarchy of offices is strictly
recognized and followed by the PENRO, is it not the job of the PENRO to refer
the matter to the MENRO or at least advise the requester to consult them
first? Is it also not within the discretion of PENRO to simply inform the
person that such request shall not be entertained since it is violative of the
principle of hierarchy? The act of the PENRO in conducting an investigation
despite this alleged violation of principle hierarchy is not short of an attack against
the PENRO itself for its alleged indiscretion and the person who made such
requested should not be the one suffering from such imprudence.

Moreover, the complainant should not carelessly relate the words “request”
and “induce”. Assuming that the complainant is the one who requested for an
investigation, it does not automatically follow that he has the capacity to “induce”
or “influence” the PENRO in making its own decisions. A successful request for
investigation does not necessarily mean existence of an undue inducement. It
has already been explained above that PENRO has a mind of its own to act on a
request for investigation. If it finds that the request contains probable cause of
possible violations, in its own independent judgment, it shall cause the conduct of
investigation. In the absence of any probable cause or if it is of the opinion that the
request has no or unfounded basis, the PENRO may refuse to entertain the same –
unless an undue inducement was made for it to decide otherwise. Such accusation
of inducement should not be entertained and its veracity should not be resolved
unless the concerned government agency which was allegedly induced be
impleaded or be made to explain. There should also be allegations of influence,
be it in the form of financial interest, relationship, friendship or position which
could support the fact of undue inducement. The PENRO/CENRO could not have
been unduly induced without any other cited reason other than a mere request for
investigation. In the Complaint, allegations to that effect are wanting, while the
explanation and statement of the CENRO/PENRO were not even included, hence
the allegation of inducement must fail.
Assuming that the inducement was effectively made by the respondent, the
complainant fails to prove that such was done out of pure malice. The question that
needs to be answered is “Was the request for investigation maliciously made?”.
Since there are no exact jurisprudences which can be applied to determine whether
a request for PENRO investigation is maliciously made or not, the respondent finds
it appropriate to cite the requisites of malicious prosecution in criminal cases.
While it is true that criminal and administrative cases are different, it must be
emphasized that it is the quantum of evidence in which they mostly vary. However,
similarity of the requisites may be recognized as they are the very elements of the
particular offense or imputation. The elements of malicious prosecution are (1)
malice and (2) absence of probable cause. With respect to the second element, it
must be proven that the filing of a criminal complaint was done without any
probable cause to engender a well-founded belief regarding the commission of the
crime charged. By analogy, a request for DENR investigation can be said
malicious for the satisfaction of this Honorable Body, if, aside from the
existence of malice, it should have been made without any probable cause of
possible environmental violations. The second requisite is necessary in order
to give the respondent the benefit of the doubt, especially when presumption
of regularity and public trust are always taken into consideration first. Simply
put, for one to be held administratively liable, there should be no other reasons
other than the requester’s malice for the filing of a request for investigation. The
punong barangay, which happens to be the wife of the respondent, or the responent
himself, assuming arguendo one of them initiated the complaint, would have
several reasons why they should ask for a ground investigation. Several reports of
actual violations of the salvage zone rule were made known not only to the
respondent nor his wife, but to the whole Pagudpud community. In fact, some
business owners were already ordered to remove parts of their properties within the
salvage zone. DENR Secretary Cimatu have already reminded Barangay Captains
of their obligation to exercise vigilance in the issuance of barangay clearance for
prospective and existing beach establishment owners as they are the first line of
defense against any infraction of coastal easement rules. If these do not amount to
a probable cause to justify a request for environmental investigation, then it would
be very difficult for the DENR to enforce the laws on the fear that every concerned
citizen or public official may be prosecuted or be held administratively liable for
doing such. Would the mere existence of personal quarrel between a public
officer and a business owner automatically deprive the former of his right to
enforce the laws and exercise his function? And one more thing, it goes without
saying that probable cause, in the scale of quantum of proof, is less than the
actual finding by the PENRO that the complainant has indeed made certain
environmental violations. In order to charge a public official of undue and
malicious inducement, it is not sufficient to prove malice, and in this case, personal
grudge. It must also be shown that the inducement, or more specifically, the
request for investigation was made without any probable cause or reasonable
ground. If the respondent in his defense proves reasonable grounds, the same
should be substantially refuted and controverted by the complainant. What the
complainant in his complaint focuses on is proving that the acts of the respondent
were malicious without sufficiently refuting the probable causes which were the
bases for the respondent’s wife’s actions. In this instant case, the request for
investigation, could not have been made purely out of malice as the
complainant claims to be but rather are founded on real and actual bases.

12. The complainant in paragraph 14 made numerous factual allegations

regarding the events which transpired explaining the delayed issuance of barangay
clearance. This Honorable Body should not dwell on the matter as the issue on
the delayed issuance of barangay clearance is attributable/chargeable to the
Punong Barangay and not in any manner related to the official function of
complainant as a Sangguniang Bayan Member. Noteworthy, the only
averment which is the basis of one of the administrative charges against the
complainant regarding this issue of delayed issuance of clearance is the
allegation of inducement. More specifically, the complainant claims that the
primary and sole reason why the Punong Barangay refused to issue the clearance
was the fact that she was admonished by her husband, the complainant. That is not
the case. For the information oFRTgf the Punong Barangay, on these incriminating
allegations are already discussed in the Verified Answer and need not be repeated
in this Comment. At any rate, whether or not the non-issuance of barangay
clearance was justified or not, such should not be attributed to the complainant
who has no influence whatsoever with such function of the Punong Barangay. It is
to be presumed, in the absence of convincing evidence, that the Punong Barangay
had exercised her authority regularly and more importantly, independently.

13. Anent to paragraph 15 of the reply, the complainant further reiterates

that the structure which is the subject of the barangay clearance is not violative of
any environmental law. The complainant in making such reiteration suggests that
since the very purpose for seeking such clearance is for the erection of the said
structure, and that the said construction is compliant with the law, the punong
barangay had no justification to refuse the issuance thereof. This contention of the
complainant clearly shows again his lack of knowledge regarding the essence of a
barangay clearance. A barangay clearance does not only certify that the future
course/s of action of the applicant within its territorial jurisdiction is compliant
with the laws and ordinances, rather it also verifies that at the time of the
application, the applicant has no pending legal obligations and violations. The fact
that the punong barangay believed that there exists a violation of the salvage zone
rule by the complainant’s business establishments should be considered in
justifying the deferment of the issuance of barangay clearance, despite the claim of
the complainant that the very purpose of such clearance is for a certain structure
which construction is compliant with existing laws. A barangay clearance is
dependent on an applicant’s current legal compliance with respect to all of his
properties and not only with respect to future ones. The complainant should have
read the contents of the barangay clearance issued to him for him to be enlightened
with its true purpose.