Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
Legal Service
DAR Central Office, Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City
OLORVIDA, Feliciano T. ADM-P-9999-017-0916
Senior Agrarian Reform Program
Technologist (SG 14)
Department of Agrarian Reform-Municipal Office
Ormoc City
6541
x----------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
(For the Respondent)
Respondent, by himself, most respectfully submit and present this
Position Paper in the above-entitled case and aver that:
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A Letter-Complaint dated 12 January 2016 was filed before the
Office of the Regional Director, Regional Office No. VIII by Ms.
Leonilla Villanueva against Feliciano Olorvida for abuse of
authority by selling and disposing of a farm lot to SARECO
despite his knowledge that the said lot is owned by
complainant’s father Primitivo Guinarez.
On 1 August 2016, during the Clarificatory Hearing conducted
by the Personnel Discipline Unit of Regional Office No. VIII,
headed by Atty. Tet Chea Albotra, respondent admitted that he
personally knew Ms. Villanueva and that he has known that his
daughter Ms. Ruby Olorvida extended a loan to her and
received as collateral the farm-land awarded to her father in-
law, Rustico Fortunato.
Because of the above-stated information during the Clarificatory
Hearing, the Personnel Discipline Unit of DARRO No. VIII,
issued a Recommendation Report, noted by Atty. Sheila B.
Enciso, Regional Director of DARRO No. VIII.
A Transmittal dated 30 August 2016, from RD Sheila Enciso
referred to the Legal Service the said Recommendation Report
with attachments pertinent to the subject complaint, for its
appropriate action.
A letter- directive dated 01 February 2017, was issued by this
Office, requiring respondent to submit Counter – Affidavit to the
subject complaint within three (3) days from receipt thereof,
attaching therein supporting documents.
On 27 March 2017, this Office received respondent’s Counter –
Affidavit dated 21 March 2017, denying all allegations in the
complaint and claimed that he was maliciously implicated in the
transaction as alleged by the complainant. Respondent further
alleged that he had no capacity to sell the subject farmland
because he had no authority over the property.
On 6 June 2017, this Office issued a Notice of Preliminary
Conference, requiring respondent and Ms. Leonilla Villanueva
to attend and be present at the DAR Regional Office No. 8, Sto.
Nino Extension, Tacloban City on 4 July 2017 at 10:00 o’clock
in the morning.
After the Preliminary Conference, this Office found that a prima
facie case exists against respondent for Misconduct and
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service under
Rule 10, Section 46 A (3) and B (8) of the Revised Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, committed as follows:
a. That respondent is a permanent employee of the
Department of Agrarian Reform, occupying the position of
Senior Agrarian Reform Program Technologist (SARPT)
assigned in the Municipal Office of Ormoc, Tolosa, Leyte;
b. As SARPT, respondent is expected at all times to do his
duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
efficiency required of public / official / employee and shall
refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good
customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public
interest;
c. It was established by respondent’s own admission that he
allowed his daughter, Ms. Ruby Olorvida to become party to
a loan agreement with farm beneficiary, Mr. Rustico
Villanueva and to receive as loan collateral the farmland
located in Puertobello, Merida, Leyte. Respondent even
admitted signing his name in one of the loan transaction
receipts referring to the said farmland on behalf of his
daughter’s name.
That respondent’s act of influencing and allowing his daughter
to receive as a loan collateral, the CARP covered farmland with
issued CLOA’s to a loan agreement in favor of a farmer
beneficiary and signing his name in one of the loan transaction
receipts referring to the said farmland constitutes Misconduct
and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
II. ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF
MISCONDUCT AND CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO
THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE UNDER
RULE 10, SECTION 46 A(3) AND B(8) OF THE
REVISED RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN
THE CIVIL SERVICE
III. ARGUMENT
Respondent is not guilty of misconduct and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service under Rule 10,
Section 46 A(3) and B(8) of the Revised Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
IV. DISCUSSIONS
GOOD FAITH
That in the case of FLORENTINO, TROADIO and PEDRO, all
surnamed OCHOA, petitioners vs. MAURO APETA and APOLONIA
ALMAZAN, respondents (G.R. No. 146259 September 13, 2007) the
Supreme Court ruled that:
“Good faith is an intangible and abstract quality with no technical meaning
or statutory definition, and it encompasses, among other things, an honest
belief, the absence of malice and the absence of design to defraud or to
seek an unconscionable advantage. It implies honesty of intention, and
freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder
upon inquiry. The essence of good faith lies in an honest belief in the
validity of one’s right, ignorance of a superior claim and absence of
intention to overreach another.”
Respondent believed in good faith that the land used as collateral
by Ms. Villanueva when she loaned a sum of money from respondent’s
daughter is not a CARP covered land. In fact, upon knowing that the said
transaction involved a CARP awarded land, he immediately facilitated the
return of the said land which was precisely the reason why he signed in the
receipt to be sure that the land was already returned.
If he was in bad faith, he would not have signed on the redemption
receipt knowing that he would be implicated in an invalid transaction and
being a DAR employee at that.
Respondent has been in service with the DAR for more than 30 years
and received various performance awards and recognitions. He would not
do any act that would prejudice his good name and service.
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF FUNCTIONS
That in the case of ANUNCIO C. BUSTILLO, EMILIO SUMILHIG, JR.,
and AGUSTIN BILLEDO, JR., Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent(G.R. No. 160718 : May 12, 2010) the
Supreme Court ruled that:
“In sum, the petitioners have in their favor the presumption of regularity in
the performance of official duties which the records failed to rebut. The
presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative
evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption,
however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing
evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption in rebutted, it
becomes conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support
of the presumption and in case of doubt as to an officers act being lawful or
unlawful, construction should be in favor of its lawfulness.”
The act of signing the redemption receipt alone cannot justify an act
of irregularity of respondent as a government employee. It is very clear
that he was just in good faith in signing the said document. That if he
committed an act of irregularity, he would not sign that document
knowing that he would be implicated as a DAR employee in giving his
consent to an illegal transaction. He signed the document to ensure
that his daughter had already returned the CARP awarded land.
MISCONDUCT IS WANTING
“Misconduct is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule
of law or standard of behavior. To constitute an administrative
offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the
performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. In
grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the
elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant
disregard of an established rule must be manifest.”( ROLANDO
GANZON, Petitioner,
vs. FERNANDO ARLOS, Respondent. G.R. No. 174321 October 22, 2013)
There is no misconduct since there was no showing that there
was an intent to commit wrong or a deliberate violation of a rule of
law or standard of behavior. In fact, respondent made an effort to
correct a wrong transaction and ensured the return of the possession
to the mortgagor of the CARP awarded land which was used as a
collateral on the loan.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that
this Honorable Office issue and order:
1. DISMISSING the Complaint for lack of merit
Other reliefs as are just and equitable under the circumstances are
likewise prayed for.
________________________________,2022
FELICIANO T. OLORVIDA
Respondent/SARPT
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, FELICIANO T. OLORVIDA, of legal age, Filipino, married, and
with office address at DARMO Ormoc, Dona Feliza Mejia Subd., Ormoc City,
after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose
and state that:
1. That I am the respondent of the above-entitled case;
2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing
Position Paper;
3. That I have understood the allegations contained therein and
the same are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and
based on authentic records;
4. That I have not commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency and to the best of my
knowledge no such other action is pending therein;
5. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding
has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I hereby
undertake to report such fact within five (5) days therefrom to
this Honorable Court.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
___________ day of ____________________ 2021 in Tacloban City.
FELICIANO T. OLORVIDA
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____________________, in
Tacloban City, affiant having exhibited their competent proofs of identity.
Copy furnished:
Leonilla G. Villanueva
Proper I, Brgy. Puertobello, Merida, Leyte
___________________________________
