CA clears CamNorte govin conduct unbecoming case

By Rhaydz Barcia

LEGAZPI CITY --- The First Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) has reversed and dismissed the administrative case for conduct unbecoming of a public official against Camarines Norte Governor Ricarte Padilla.

In a 15-page decision penned by Presiding Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and promulgated on May 29, 2026, the appellate court set aside the December 26, 2024 decision and July 29, 2025 order of the Office of the Ombudsman in Case No. OMB-L-A-SEP-23-0150, insofar as they held Padilla liable for conduct unbecoming of a public official under Section 4(A)(b) of Republic Act No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

The appellate court ruled that the Ombudsman’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence and was instead based on speculation, surmises, and conjectures, warranting the reversal of the decision.

The case stemmed from an administrative complaint filed on June 13, 2023 by Jestoni Q. Rafer against Padilla, Provincial Information Officer Sarah Marie P. Aviado, and broadcaster Jorge C. Dayaon. Rafer charged the respondents with grave misconduct, conduct

prejudicial to the best interest of the service, conduct unbecoming of a public official or employee, violation of Section 6, Article IX-B of the Constitution, Section 120 of the Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions (ORAOHRA), Section 94(b) of the Local Government Code, Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code, and Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019.

Following its investigation, the Ombudsman found Padilla administratively liable only for conduct unbecoming of a public official for allegedly violating Section 4(A)(b) of RA 6713. It imposed a six-month suspension without pay and warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

The Ombudsman, however, dismissed the other charges against Padilla—including grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violations of Section 120 of the ORAOHRA and Section 94(b) of RA 7160—for insufficiency of evidence.

The administrative complaints against Aviado and Dayaon were likewise dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.

Padilla subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, but the Ombudsman denied the motion. He then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, arguing that no evidence had been presented to prove that he appointed Dayaon as station manager of Radyo Pilipinas. According to Padilla, Dayaon merely served as a volunteer anchor for the station.

After reviewing the case, the appellate court ruled in favor of Padilla and dismissed the administrative charge.

In its decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 191909, the court held that Rafer failed to present sufficient evidence to support his allegation that Padilla appointed or favored Dayaon in connection with the operations of Radio Pilipinas, a local radio station in Camarines Norte.

The court noted that Rafer failed to present even a single documentary piece of evidence proving that Padilla had appointed Dayaon, relying instead on the theory that Dayaon’s appointment papers were deliberately concealed from the public to evade administrative liability.

“Absent any proof of the alleged appointment, petitioner cannot be said to have violated the norm of professionalism, as it is upon such factual allegation that his administrative liability was founded,” the appellate court said.

“Notwithstanding the utter lack of proof, the Ombudsman took respondent’s allegations hook, line and sinker. Consequently, it was misled to conclude that petitioner ‘created a wrong perception of his role as dispenser or peddler of undue patronage’ despite the sheer dearth of evidence that could have linked petitioner to Dayaon’s assumption as volunteer anchor and eventual appointment as station manager of Radyo Pilipinas. In so ruling, the Ombudsman ventured into surmises and conjectures which fall short of substantial evidence,” the court added.

The appellate court emphasized that while substantial evidence is the lowest threshold among evidentiary standards, administrative tribunals cannot rely on flimsy, unreliable, or conjectural evidence.

“Thus, if the Ombudsman’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence but is based on speculation, surmises, and conjectures, this is sufficient reason to overturn the decision,” the court said.

The appellate court likewise reminded the Ombudsman to exercise the utmost circumspection in its pursuit of justice.

Earlier CA ruling

The latest ruling came just months after another Court of Appeals division dismissed a separate administrative case against Padilla for lack of evidence.

In a 27-page decision promulgated on February 24, 2026, the CA’s 12th Division, chaired by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez, reversed the Ombudsman’s ruling that had found Padilla administratively liable for simple misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and conduct unbecoming of a public official.

The case arose from complaints filed by Nonilon P. Bercasio and Romeo J. Gaite, who questioned Padilla’s appointment of former Capalonga Mayor Senandro Jalgalado to the Governor’s Special Action Group (GSAG).

In 2024, the Ombudsman suspended Padilla for one year, ruling that Jalgalado’s appointment lacked legal basis and proper authorization.

The Ombudsman found Padilla guilty of simple misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and conduct unbecoming of a public official, citing violations of the ethical standards expected of government officials.

Padilla challenged the ruling before the Court of Appeals through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Ombudsman’s consolidated decision dated May 8, 2024 and consolidated order dated July 28, 2025 in Case Nos. OMB-L-A-Jan-23-0012 and OMB-L-A-May-23-0083.

After reviewing the records, the appellate court found that the complainants failed to authenticate the evidence they presented and failed to establish that Padilla had personal knowledge of Jalgalado’s alleged continued participation in GSAG operations during his suspension.

“Concomitantly, it was not proven that the incident posted in said Facebook account happened during the suspension of Jalgalado, that the Facebook account that was tagged was owned by Padilla, and that Padilla opened and saw the Facebook post showing Jalgalado performing public functions during his suspension,” the court said.

“There being no substantial evidence that petitioner Governor Padilla had personal knowledge of Jalgalado’s continuing participation in GSAG operations or performance of public functions during his suspension, this Court will no longer delve into the elements of the administrative charges against Padilla,” the decision added.

“In view of the foregoing, the petition for review is granted. The consolidated decision dated May 8, 2024 and consolidated order dated July 28, 2025 issued by the Office of the Ombudsman in Case Nos. OMB-L-A-Jan-23-0012 and OMB-L-A-May-23-0083 are reversed and set aside. The administrative complaints against petitioner Ricarte Padilla are dismissed for lack of evidence,” Associate Justice Perez said.