●Both the Ombudsman and CA interpreted Section 4(A) ofR.A. No. 6713 as broad enough to apply even to privatetransactions that have no connection to the duties of one’soffice. oHowever, that petitioner may not be penalized forviolation of Section 4 (A)(b) of R.A. No. 6713. oIn Domingo v. Office of the Ombudsman, thisCourt had ruled that failure to abide by the normsof conduct under Section 4(A)(b) of R.A. No.6713, in relation to its implementing rules, is not aground for disciplinary action. oNevertheless,forreneging on her promise toreturn aforesaid amount, petitioner is guilty ofconduct unbecoming a public officer. oIn Assistant Special Prosecutor III Rohermia J.Jamsani-Rodriguez v. Justices Gregory S. Ong,etal.,unbecomingconductmeansimproperperformance and applies to a broader range oftransgressions of rules not only of social behaviorbut of ethical practice or logical procedure orprescribed method.  W/N Samson can still be held administratively liable. –YES.●The Constitution itself says: o“SECTION 1. Public office is a public trust. Publicofficersandemployeesmustatall times beaccountabletothepeople,servethemwithutmostresponsibility,integrity,loyalty,andefficiency, act with patriotism and justice, andlead modest lives.” ●Petitioner should have complied with her promise to returnthe amount to respondent after failing to accomplish thetask she had willingly accepted. oHowever, she waited until respondent sued herfor estafa, thus reinforcing the latter’s suspicionthat petitioner misappropriated her money. oAlthough the element of deceit was not proven inthe criminal case respondent filed against thepetitioner,itisclearthatbyheractuations,petitioner violated basic social and ethical normsin her private dealings. oEven if unrelated to her duties as a public officer,petitioner’s transgression could erode the public’strust in government employees, more so becauseshe holds a high position in the service. ●As re: penalty, the fact that she has been in governmentservice for 37 years and this is her first offense is amitigating circumstance. RULING The Court finds petitioner GUILTY of conduct unbecoming a publicofficer and impose upon her a FINE of P15,000.00 to be paid at theOffice of the Ombudsman within five (5) days from finality of thisDecision. The Court also ORDERS petitioner to return to respondent theamount of P50,000.00 with interest thereon at 12% per annum fromMarch 2001 until the said amount shall have been fully paid. DISPOSITIVE: SO ORDERED.