MARILOU T. TOLOSA, PETITIONER, VS. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, RESPONDENT.
ABDULWAHID, J.:
Petitioner was designated as Accountant III and assigned as Accounting Head of the DepEd RO IX. Petitioner was responsible for the accounts of Personnel Services, Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE), and Trust Funds of the Office. Sometime in 2000, the DepEd RO IX implemented the Belgian Integrated Agrarian Reform Support Program (BIARSP) funded by the Government of Belgium. The funds were deposited in the Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB), Zamboanga City Branch with Special Account No. 02801-000527-3 (BIARSP Account). The BIARSP project was terminated in 2003.[3]
On August 13, 2007, petitioner requested the PVB for the closure of the BIARSP Account and the transfer of the remaining balance to the Trust Fund account to prevent the Office from incurring bank charges.[4] Although the BIARSP Account was already closed as of 2003, it appeared that on November 29, 2007, Regional Director Jesus L. Nieves and Administrative Officer V (Cashier III) Virginia A. Montero of the DepEd RO IX, authorized the PVB to transfer the amounts of P6,347,354.76 and P6,164,424.43 funds from the ATM Payroll Account to the BIARSP Account. On the same date, Nieves drew PVB Check Nos. 000206804 and 000206803 for P6,347,354.76 and P6,164,424.43, respectively, payable to the order of Montero. Check No. 000206804 was withdrawn on the same date, while Check No. 000206804 was encashed on December 3, 2007.[5]
The foregoing transactions amounting to P12,571,779.19 were not supported by Disbursement Vouchers and were not recorded in the Books of Accounts or Reports of Checks Issued (RCI), thus rendering them highly irregular.[6]
On May 6, 2008, Elizabeth B. Tatel, Chief Administrative Officer of Finance, reported the anomaly to then DepEd Secretary Jesli A. Lapuz, who immediately conducted a fact-finding investigation. Nieves, Montero and petitioner submitted their Joint Counter-Affidavit[7], while petitioner submitted a Supplemental Counter-Affidavit[8]. Petitioner alleged that as Head of the Accounting Unit in their Regional Office, all bank charges of their Office passed through her. Accordingly, she took it upon herself to close the BIARSP Account to prevent their Office from incurring bank charges even if the project was already terminated. She further averred that she had no knowledge or any involvement in the alleged transfer of P6,347,354.76 and P6,164,424.43 from the ATM Payroll Account to the BIARSP Account. She is not the account officer responsible for the BIARSP Account. It was monitored by the accountant-in-charge Benedict Inoferio in accordance with the Memoranda[9] dated March 21 and July 11, 2005, and July 18, 2007.
After the fact-finding investigation was concluded, Secretary Lapuz formally charged Nieves and Montero with administrative offenses of grave misconduct and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and petitioner with gross neglect of duty and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service.[10]
On May 11, 2012, the DepEd rendered a Decision,[11] finding substantial evidence of guilt against petitioner, Nieves and Montero. The fallo of the judgment reads, as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Jesus L. Nieves is hereby found GUILTY of the offenses of GRAVE MISCONDUCT (5 Counts) and CONDUCT GROSSLY PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE and meted the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service. Accordingly, his retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, are FORFEITED. His Civil Service eligibility is CANCELLED and he is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED for reemployment in the government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Respondent Virgina A. Montero is hereby found GUILTY of the offenses of GRAVE MISCONDUCT (6 counts), CONDUCT GROSSLY PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE, and SERIOUS DISHONESTY and meted the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service. Accordingly, her retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, are FORFEITED. Her Civil Service eligibility is CANCELLED and she is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED for reemployment in the government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Respondent Marilou T. Tolosa is hereby found GUILTY of the offenses of CONDUCT GROSSLY PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE and GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY (2 Counts) and meted the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service. Accordingly, her retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, are FORFEITED. Her Civil Service eligibility is CANCELLED and sher is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED for reemployment in the government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
With respect to respondent Jeses L. Nieves, the Records Division of this Department is hereby directed to provide the Office of the President of the Republic of the Philippines a copy of this Decision with copies of the records of the case, for confirmation, pursuant to Sections 1 and 43 of DepED Order No. 49, s. 2006.
Copies of this Decision shall be provided to the Regional Director of DepED Region IX to be served to respondents Virgina A. Montero and Marilou T. Tolosa and implement the same.
The Office of the Ombudsman shall likewise be provided with the complete records of the case for the filing of criminal cases against the respondents.
All moneys under the official accountabilities of the respondents which are not liquidated and/or accounted for by them shall be charged or deducted from the terminal leave benefits and/or other benefits may be due them.
Petitioner elevated the case to the CSC via an appeal. However, in its July 12, 2013 Decision12, the CSC affirmed with modification the decision of the DepEd. It ruled that petitioner as head of the Personnel Services, including the ATM Payroll Account, is presumed to have knowledge of the irregular actions coming from the account under her control. Thus, despite petitioner’s argument that she was not aware of the transfer of the funds from ATM Payroll Account to BIARSP Account, the DepEd held that petitioner is guilty of gross negligent in the performance of her duty to oversee the transactions coming to and from the account under her control. The dispositive portion of the decision reads, as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Appeal of Marilou T. Tolosa, Accountant III, Department of Education (DepEd), Regional Office No. IX, Zamboanga City, is hereby PARTLY GRANTED. The Resolution dated September 17, 2012, affirming the Decision dated May 11, 2012 issued by Secretary Armin A. Luistro, same agency, finding Tolosa guilty of two (2) counts of Gross Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and imposing upon her the penalty of dismissal from the service with all its necessary penalty is hereby MODIFIED in so far as Tolosa is found guilty only of one (1) count of Gross Neglect of Duty. Nevertheless, the imposition of penalty of dismissal with its accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of Civil Service eligibility and perpetual disqualification from holding public office, is AFFIRMED. The accessory penalty of bar from taking Civil Service examination is likewise deemed imposed.
Copies of this Decision shall be furnished the Commission on Audit-DepEd, Regional Office No. IX, Zamboanga City, Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), Office of the Ombudsman, and the Integrated Records Management Office (IRMO), this Commission, for appropriate action.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied in the CSC Resolution[13] dated November 5, 2013.
Undaunted, petitioner filed the instant petition, premised on the lone issue, to wit:[14]
WHETHER PETITIONER IS GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY.
Petitioner insists that she cannot be held liable for the offenses charged. It was not her duty to handle the BIARSP Account as she is not the accountant-in-charge for the said account, but Benedict Inoferio. She merely requested the PVB to close the BIARSP Account to prevent their Office from incurring bank charges after the BIARSP project was concluded. She also contends that while she was the one who received bank statements from the PVB, she never opened them, instead distributed them to the respective controllers for the preparation of bank reconciliation. Petitioner further avers that even if it was proven that she neglected her duty to prevent or report the anomalous transactions regarding the BIARSP Account, such neglect would only constitute simple neglect of duty.[15]
The petition is bereft of merit.
Petitioner, being Accountant III and Head of the Accounting Unit of DepEd RO IX, has the following duties and responsibilities, to wit:[16]
Under general supervision:
- Reviews accounts documents and statements of the signature of the Department Chief Accountant.
- Analyzes, verifies and consolidates financial data of field offices under the Department.
- Assists in the preparation of financial reports of the Department.
- Assists in coordinating the activities of the accounting sections under the Department.
- Gives instructions and guidance in work methods and procedures of lower level accounting clerk.
- Analyzes and verifies financial statements and other data.
- Does related work.
Petitioner admitted that she was the one who requested for the closure of the BIARSP Account to prevent their Office from incurring bank charges. She also admitted that despite closing the account she continuously received bank statements from the PVB after the BIARSP Account was closed, albeit she immediately turned them over to the controller of the account. Certainly, the bank statements sent to her after the closure of the BIARSP Account would have raised on her part curiosity if not suspicion about the transactions involving the BIARSP Account. It is noteworthy that from August 2007, except in November 2007, petitioner received bank notices from the BIARSP Account.[17] Yet, she did not even raise slightest suspicion as to why she was given such notices. On the contrary, she admitted not bothering to open the notice envelopes nor did she inquire from Inoferio as to the contents of the notices.
In her defense, petitioner incessantly argues that it is not her duty to monitor the transactions in the BIARSP Account. She insists that there is a decentralized system of accounting in DepEd RO IX and that her duty is only to account for the Personnel Services, MOOE and Trust Funds; the duty to monitor the BIARSP Account is within the direct control of Benedict Inoferio.[18]
The foregoing claim of petitioner is untenable. As evidenced by the three separate Memoranda[19] dated March 21, 2005, July 11, 2005 and July 18, 2007, petitioner as Head of the Accounting Unit of DepEd RO IX, is responsible for the ATM Payroll Account which is under the Personnel Services Fund. As such, petitioner should have been aware of the transactions in her area of responsibility, including the funds that were allegedly taken from the ATM Payroll Account and transferred to the BIARSP Account. While she may feign ignorance of the BIARSP Account, she cannot turn blind eye to the fact that she has a duty to supervise the accounts that are directly under her control. Noted from the aforementioned memoranda, the offices headed by the respective officials shall function independently from each other. However, this does not preclude the concerned officials to exercise collaborative and coordinative functions between different units in order to have a smooth and transparent flow of financial functions.
Ergo, petitioner cannot claim that she has no concern to interfere with the BIARSP Account, not being under her authority. As she earlier admitted, she took the initiative to close the BIARSP Account, out of diligence and good faith. If this is so, it was expected of her to inform the accountant-in-charge of BIARSP Account and asked why after she had closed it, PVB continued sending their Office bank notices. What is more perplexing is that petitioner always mentioned one Benedict Inoferio as the one supposedly in charge of the BIARSP Account and should be answerable for the questioned transfer of funds from the ATM Payroll Account to the BIARSP Account. However, Inoferio’s testimony was never taken for the purpose of verifying petitioner’s statements. In fact, Inoferio was not held liable for the illegal transfer of funds for the simple reason that his task as an accountant-in-charge for the BIARSP Account ceased upon the termination of the BIARSP project in 2003. Thus, starting 2007, it was petitioner, as Head of the Accounting Unit of DepEd RO IX who took the initiative to close the BIARSP Account.
Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless persons never fail to take on their own property.[20]
By failing to properly coordinate and collaborate with officials in-charge of the BIARSP Account concerning the transfer from the ATM Payroll Account of the money constituting public funds despite receiving bank notices thereof, petitioner violated the trust reposed in her as Head of the Accounting Unit of DepEd RO IX. Her failure to inform her superior of the anomalous transactions concerning her assigned unit leaves us with no choice but to hold her liable for gross neglect of duty, and to affirm her dismissal from the service.
Administrative proceedings are governed by the “substantial evidence rule.” A finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the respondent has committed the acts stated in the complaint or formal charge. As defined, substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[21]
All told, we find that the CSC committed no error in finding substantial evidence for the charges against petitioner Marilou T. Tolosa, warranting her dismissal from the service.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision and Resolution promulgated on July 12, 2013 and November 5, 2013, respectively of the Civil Service Commission, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
Cruz,R.A., and [*]Inting, S.B., JJ., concur.
[*] Vice J. Romeo F. Barza, per Office Order No. 2138-14-ABR dated May 23, 2014.
[1] Rollo, pp. 27-36.
[2] Id. at 39-47.
[3] Id. at 222.
[4] Id. at 143.
[5] See CSC Decision, Rollo, p. 32 and DepEd Decision, Rollo, p. 222.
[6] See DepEd Decision, Rollo, p. 222.
[7] Rollo, pp. 146-152.
[8] Id. 156-160.
[9] Id. at 140-142.
[10] Id. at 222-225.
[11] Id. at 221-239.
[12] See Note 1.
[13] See Note 2.
[14] Rollo, p. 9.
[15] Id. at 10-20.
[16] Id. at 139.
[17] See DepEd Decision, Rollo, p. 237, citing the Certification dated July 22, 2008 of receipt of Bank Statement Accounts from October to February 2008, issued by Norma C. Cabato, Branch Manager, PVB.
[18] Rollo, pp. 8-12.
[19] See Note 9.
[20] Golangco vs. Fung, 504 SCRA 321 (2005).
[21] Velasquez vs. Hernandez, 437 SCRA 357, 369 (2004).