Ms. Bocar was hired by the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) to perform the duties and responsibilities of a Graft Investigation Officer under a Contract of Services for the period covering June 1, 2007 to August 31, 2007. During such period, she was supposed to be under probation and to be evaluated on areas covering integrity, work ethics, performance and that result of evaluation shall be used as basis if her contract would be renewed.

As PAGC investigator, one of the cases assigned to her was the ZTE contract, which at that time has already been docketed for investigation.

Ms. Bocar's contract was pre-terminated on June 22, 2007 for violation of Section 6 of Executive Order No. 531, s. 2006  (EO 531), which provides that "(t)he Commission and its personnel shall not disclose or make public any record or information in connection with any investigation, when such disclosure would deprive the respondent of his/her right to a fair and impartial disposition of the case. Only the Chairperson may disclose any information to the public; provided, that any such disclosures shall be balanced, fair and accurate."

On June 18, 2007, PAGC discovered that Ms. Bocar committed an unauthorized disclosure of confidential information through her act of sending an electronic mail to columnist Jarius Bondoc about the ZTE case, which was published by the latter in his June 18, 2007 column.

Ms. Bocar, acted with haste, never even bothering to consult her team leader on her action thus displaying her apparent disregard of Sec. 6 of EO 531, thereby causing the preemptive disclosure to the public of a confidential motu propio investigation being conducted by PAGC.

Said unwanted disclosure thus prompted Chairman Constancia P. De Guzman to indorse the matter to the Administrative Discipline Committee (ADC) of PAGC for appropriate action and to accord Ms. Bocar due process.

Ms. Bocar was asked to submit her explanation in writing. Afterwards, a hearing was conducted by the ADC on the same day that the article came out.

After the hearing, the ADC deliberated on the issues, and on June 19, 2007, it submitted its recommendation to Chair De Guzman. The recommendation was to pre-terminate Ms. Bocar's contract of services.

It is clear under Section 6 of EO 531 that PAGC personnel are prohibited from disclosing any information in connection with any investigation. This is to ensure that the Presidential appointee being investigated is afforded the benefit of presumption of regularity in his performance of his duties and responsibilities. To further ensure the confidentiality of the investigation, the same disclosure clause provides that it is ONLY the Chairperson who may disclose any information to the public.

It is by virtue of this provision that any form of communication wherein there is disclosure to the addressee that an investigation is being conducted against a Presidential appointee, be it a letter or subpoena, the signatory therein is the PAGC Chairman or the Officer-In-Charge whenever the Chairman is not around . This is to ensure that all information coming from the Commission is properly screened as to propriety and for monitoring purposes. Ms. Bocar failed to do all of these.

The e-mailed letter of Ms. Bocar to Mr. Bondoc was never approved of, much less known by the only authorized person to disclose the fact of investigation, the Chairman.

Her actions exhibited not only her ignorance of the very law governing the Commission; she also exhibited her disregard for authority and observance of established rules and operating procedures.

In addition, she should have exercised the necessary caution in the present situation since her addressee is a journalist who earns his living making information known to the general public. This he clearly exhibited when Mr. Bondoc published Ms. Bocar's letter. He even introduced the same as a letter from the Commission for better impact to his readers.

No doubt her intentions were noble, but the execution of the same cannot be countenanced. Not only did she violate the disclosure clause. She likewise failed to observe standard procedures when she sent the letter without the knowledge and approval of the Commission, her superiors, and most importantly the Chairman. This is evidenced by her signing the letter in her own name and sending the same using an e-mail account not maintained by the Commission.

The terms of Ms. Bocar's contract state that she shall perform the duties and responsibilities of a Graft Investigation Officer. As such, it is incumbent upon her to abide with the laws, rules, and regulations governing the Commission, which she failed to do in the instant case. Her violation is tantamount to a breach of contract on her part or she failed to perform/deliver the duties and responsibilities expected of a Graft Investigation Officer.

Hence such breach of contract was used by the Commission as a ground for terminating her contract pursuant to Article 1191 of the New Civil Code, to wit: " (t)he power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.."

Still, in Article 229 of the Revised Penal Code, it makes punishable the act of a ny public officer who shall reveal any secret known to him by reason of his official capacity, or shall wrongfully deliver papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which should not be published, shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, perpetual special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos if the revelation of such secrets or the delivery of such papers shall have caused serious damage to the public interest; otherwise, the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 50 pesos shall be imposed.