REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Province of Cagayan
Municipality of Solana
OFFICE OF THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN

HON. GEORGIE R. REMUDARO

HON. JOGIE C. BARIZO
HON. SENEN L. APALLA
HON. GERARDO D. SEDANO,
Complainants,

-versus- For: SERIOUS DISHONESTY

HON. EDUARDO M. APURA

MRS. JHOLITA MABBORANG
Respondents,
x---------------------------------------------x
ANSWER

TO THIS HONORABLE OFFICE, respondent HON. EDUARDO APURA through counsel

most respectfully files the foregoing Answer to the Formal Charge against him dated 16
January 2018 and alleges:

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. Respondent admits Paragraph 2 of the formal charge as it is true and correct that
there were series of checks issued by the barangay pertaining to the payment of
honoraria, projects and cash advances starting October 2017;

2. Respondent denies Paragraph 3 and 4 of the complaint as these checks and

disbursement vouchers were prepared, processed and issued in compliance with
pertinent accounting rules and regulations and in accordance with the regular
conduct of official business of the barangay;

3. Respondent denies having direct and active participation with the anomalous
transactions made by his co-respondent Jholita Mabborang as he does not have
personal knowledge of them and if the same were brought to his attention, he
would have taken measures to prevent their consummation;

4. To support this denial, this issue was raised during the Special Meeting of the
Barangay Council last November 26, 2017. A copy of the Minutes of Special
Session is hereby attached and made integral part of this Answer as Annex “A”.
An excerpt of which is hereby quoted, thus:

Page 1 of 7
 Punong Barangay (sic) open to the council about the problem regarding the
list of disbursement (sic) no vouchers remark of the accounting office to our
Barangay year 2016 and 2017. He asks treasurer Jholita Mabborang to
answer about this problem. Treasurer explains that (sic) 2016 (sic) went
to COA office for (sic) my audit Ma’am Lappy is the Auditor and (sic)
it is okay all my papers are cleared. I don’t know why the accounting
office has no record and maybe I forgot to give them a file copy. She
also said don’t worry I will settle everything next week.

5. Additionally, the same was admitted by respondent Mabborang during the Special
Meeting held by the council last January 17, 2018. A copy of the Minutes of
Session is likewise attached as Annex “B”. An excerpt is emphasized, to wit:

Kagawad Remudaro said it is okay to us (sic) treasurer to pay back because

of the additional cash bonus we received (sic) year 2016. She also said (sic)
Kapitan I have a question for you, is there a time that you signed a blank
check which is presented to you (sic) treasure Jholita (?). Kapitan answered
(sic) no, all (sic) check I signed is complete with amount. I myself don’t
know all (sic) this things.

6. In fact, respondent Mabborang has deposited a sum of money to the bank account
of the barangay amounting to Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P250,000.00)
duly receipted by the Cashier’s Office of the Municipality of Solana with the nature
of collection as Refund of Various Cash Advances of Centro Southeast. A
photocopy of the deposit slip and the Official Receipt No. CGYN 7801152 are
hereby attached as Annex “C” and Annex “C-1’ respectively;

7. Hence, a clear case of implied admission of guilt on the part of respondent

Mabborang. If indeed all of these transactions are made in accordance with
pertinent accounting and auditing procedures and with the conduct of official
transactions of the barangay, she should not have reimbursed the same;

8. Furthermore, to clear the good name and reputation of respondent Apura, it is

likewise necessary to state that there were no legitimate disbursement vouchers
prepared and particularly signed by the Punong Barangay and the Chairman of the
Committee on Finance and Appropriation in order to authorize the ‘double
withdrawals’ made by respondent Mabborang. A copy of the said disbursement
vouchers are made integral part of this Answer as Annex “D”, Annex “D-1, Annex
“D-2”, Annex “D-3”, Annex “D-4” and Annex “D-5”;

Page 2 of 7
 9. Likewise, a comparison of the signature of the Punong Barangay to the checks
duly issued and the unauthorized checks shows a glaring instance of forgery made
by respondent Mabborang. Pending the request for a copy of the involved checks
from the Municipal Auditor of Solana, Cagayan, a copy of the request letter is
hereto attached as Annex “E”;

10. To this, respondent Apura denies categorically in its strongest term that he has
granted imprimatur for the acts made by his co-respondent;

DEFENSES AND DISCUSSIONS

Firstly, this case finds application by analogy with the Doctrine of alter-ego or

Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency well-ingrained in our jurisprudence. Under this

doctrine which recognizes the establishment of a single executive, all executive and

administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the

various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and

except in cases where the chief executive is required by the Constitution or law to act in

person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious

executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and

through the executive departments, and the acts of the secretaries of such departments,

performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are unless

disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief

Executive. 1

It bears stressing to note that respondent Apura does not have a direct and

personal knowledge of the transactions made by his co-respondent in this administrative

charge.

Let alone the fact that it was the sole and malicious activities made by respondent

Mabborang to defraud the government and ultimately the people at large.

1
Jose D. Villena v. Secretary of Interior
GR NO. L-46570 April 21, 1939

Page 3 of 7
 Necessarily, considering that such acts are not equated to as the acts of the

Punong Barangay, the liability should not be attributed therefore to respondent Apura as

the same does not arise from the regular conduct of business of the barangay but to his

co-respondent Mabborang alone who haphazardly refuses to abide with the order of this

Honorable Office to file an answer.

This is the last term of the respondent as Punong Barangay as he is holding the

public elective position for three consecutive terms and in his long years of dedicated

service, it is his first time to encounter this situation, probably because the barangay

treasurer has mastered the trick of forging his signatures in the issuance of checks for

and behalf of the barangay.

Emphatically, in all his orders and instructions to the barangay treasurer, there is

no instance wherein he permitted her to imitate his signature and never had he signed a

blank check which also authorizes his treasurer to fill-in the details.

That being the case, the exception to the Doctrine of Alter-Ego applies and the

acts therefore of the Secretary (in this case, the barangay treasurer) is not considered as

the act of the Chief Executive (or in this case the Punong Barangay).

Secondly, on the issue of forgery made by respondent Mabborang which she has

used to perpetuate her acts. Under Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, it

expressly provides, thus:

Section 23. Forged Signature; Effect of- When an instrument is forged or

made without the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be,
it is wholly inoperative, and no right to retain the instrument, or to give a
discharge thereof, or to enforce payment thereof against any party thereto,
can be acquired through or under such signature, unless the party against
whom it is sought to enforce such right is precluded from setting up the
forgery or want of authority.

In the instant case, it appears that respondent Mabborang had forged the signature

of the Punong Barangay when she issued the series of checks which were not supported

by disbursement vouchers duly signed by the authorized signatories of the barangay.

Page 4 of 7
 When a signature was forged in a check, it becomes a real or absolute defense on

the part of the account holder which means that the check becomes wholly inoperative

and the holder even if a holder in good faith and for value cannot take refuge on the

signature thereon. There can also be no right to retain the instrument or to give a

discharge thereof and to enforce payment of the instrument.

The drawee bank should have been very careful and prudent in evaluating whether

the signatures in the checks are genuine or not. In the usual banking practice, the account

holder is being called upon or notified by the drawee bank in order to ensure that the

drawer has indeed issued the check most especially if it involves a large sum of money.

With more reason that the same should have been done in this case considering that

these are government funds.

It is surprising to mention also that there were no disbursement vouchers for the

encashment of the said checks which is a primordial requirement in every government

transaction.

The respondent has not been remiss of his duty to remind the treasurer to prepare

the disbursement vouchers in every transaction and to diligently keep a record of all of

these documents but still she manages to be neglectful of her duties.

Absent any showing therefore of negligence on the part of respondent Apura to

fulfill his mandate in accordance with the law, he must therefore be exonerated of the

administrative charge imputed against him.

The respondent being a public elective official is presumed under the law to have

exercise his duties and functions regularly in the absence of negligence and bad faith.

In administrative cases, where the requirement of substantial evidence was not

complied, the scales of justice should be tilted in favor of the respondent.

Substantial evidence simply means as those facts and circumstances which

engenders a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

Page 5 of 7
Considering the aforementioned disquisitions, the case failed to meet such quantum of

evidence.

RELIEFS

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed to this Honorable Office to:

1. DISMISS this complaint against respondent Honorable Eduardo Apura for utter
lack of merit and

2. GRANT other reliefs consistent with law and equity, and for costs.

TUGUEGARAO CITY, CAGAYAN, FEBRUARY 28, 2018.

ATTY. ED ARMAND T. VENTOLERO

Roll of Attorneys No. 68849
IBP Receipt No. 026033 issued 01/09/2018
Professional Tax Receipt No. 2253752 issued 02/12/2018
Admitted to the Philippine Bar in 2017
Unit No. 02 Gumarang Building, Enrile Boulevard, Carig, Tuguegarao City
Counsel for the Respondent Hon. Eduardo Apura

Page 6 of 7
 NOTICE OF HEARING

TO THE SECRETARY
SANGGUNIAN BAYAN OF SOLANA, CAGAYAN

HON. JAMES C. MALLILLIN

Sangguniang Bayan Member
Chairman, Committee on Administrative Investigation

Greetings!

This is a notice that the foregoing is hereby submitted for the immediate
consideration of this Honorable Sangguniang Bayan and the Committee on
Administrative Investigation. Thank you.

ED ARMAND T.VENTOLERO

Page 7 of 7