CARMENCITA A. BANAGAN, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND ROSARIO CIELITO F. ALZOLA, RESPONDENTS

Banagan versus Civil Service Commission

The Case

This is a petition for review filed by Carmencita A. Banagan, the incumbent Municipal Treasurer of Mauban, Quezon, against the Civil Service Commission and private respondent Rosario Cielito F. Alzola. Banagan asks the Supreme Court to annul and reverse the rulings of the Civil Service Commission finding her guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty and imposing on her the penalty of dismissal from service with its accessory penalties. The case matters because it fixes the standard for a collecting officer's duty to issue official receipts promptly, and because it draws the line between criminal and administrative liability, and between substantial compliance and plain dereliction.

Procedural History

The private respondent first filed a criminal complaint for malversation of public funds before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. The Provincial Prosecutor recommended dismissal, finding no proof that the petitioner used the disputed funds for her own benefit, and the Office of the Ombudsman concurred and approved that recommendation.

The private respondent then filed the present administrative complaint with the Civil Service Commission, accusing the petitioner of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty. The Commission formally charged her, and in its Decision dated October 6, 2010, found her guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty, imposing dismissal from service with cancellation of eligibility, bar from taking civil service examinations, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from employment in the government service. The Commission denied her motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated November 5, 2012.

The petitioner then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review, seeking the annulment and reversal of both rulings.

Facts

In the last part of October until the early part of November 1995, Typhoon Rosing struck the Philippines and ravaged the Municipality of Mauban. Among the properties affected was the municipality's eight-hectare coconut land in Sitio Tejero, Lual, which was then being rented by Andres Geguinto. Because the typhoon felled some of the coconut trees, Geguinto used the felled trees and sold them as coco lumber, earning Nine Thousand Pesos. Under the agreement between the municipality and Geguinto to divide any income from the plantation equally, Geguinto remitted Four Thousand Five Hundred Pesos to the petitioner in her capacity as Municipal Treasurer. Instead of issuing an official receipt, the petitioner issued only a temporary receipt in favor of Geguinto.

On August 5, 1999, the private respondent filed a criminal complaint for malversation of public funds, which was dismissed as already narrated. Undaunted, the private respondent filed the administrative complaint before the Civil Service Commission, centering on the petitioner's failure to issue an official receipt for the November 15, 1995 collection, her similar failure to issue official receipts in favor of Geguinto between 1995 and 1998, and her alleged erroneous computation of municipal licenses levied against certain corporations to the prejudice of the municipality's coffers.

The petitioner defended herself by saying that the former mayor had instructed her to use the remittance for emergency purchases in light of the devastation, and she presented Official Receipt Number 9473515 dated October 5, 1999 as proof of substantial compliance. The Commission found her guilty, noting the lapse of almost four years before the official receipt was issued, the discrepancies between the amounts in the Mauban Marketing Cooperative receipts issued to Geguinto and the official receipts belatedly presented, and the under-collection of municipal license fees. It rejected her defense as without factual basis.

Issues

• Whether or not the administrative complaint against the petitioner for grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty is substantiated by the facts and evidence on record.
• Whether or not the belated issuance of the official receipt, after almost four years, amounts to substantial compliance with the requirement to issue official receipts promptly.
• Whether or not the dismissal of the criminal complaint for malversation absolves the petitioner of administrative liability.
• Whether or not the petitioner's length of service and her reimbursement of the amount may mitigate the penalty of dismissal.

Applicable Provisions

Section 451, Chapter 3 of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual, Volume II, provides:

Section 451. Official Receipts. For proper accounting and control of collections, collecting officers shall promptly issue official receipts from all monies received by them. Official receipts may be in the form of numbered receipts (GR 13-A), stamps and tickets.

This is the exact rule the petitioner was found to have breached, and its word "promptly" is the measure against which her four-year delay was judged.

Section 52, Rule IV of the Civil Service Rules provides that gross misconduct is a grave offense punishable with dismissal for the first offense. This is the provision that fixes the penalty imposed on the petitioner.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition is devoid of merit and that the administrative charges are substantiated by substantial evidence, which it defined as such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It found a pattern of gross negligence and grave misconduct, and it defined misconduct as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer, which is grave if it involves corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or disregard of established rules.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the claim of substantial compliance. The lapse of almost four years from November 5, 1995 to October 5, 1999 is far from being prompt, and the Court held that the filing of the criminal charges prompted the petitioner to issue the receipt, making it a mere afterthought. It stressed that whether the receipts were belatedly issued and the amounts remitted, the breach of what was incumbent on her under Section 451 had already been consummated. It added that her personal reimbursement of the Four Thousand Five Hundred Pesos condemned her more, as it served as an admission.

On the third issue, the Court held that the dismissal of the malversation complaint does not absolve her of administrative liability, because the criminal aspect is separate and distinct from the administrative liability arising from the same acts, and administrative cases may proceed independently of criminal proceedings.

On the fourth issue, the Court refused to mitigate the penalty. While length of service is ordinarily considered in favor of an erring public officer, it is not considered where the offense is serious or grave, or where the length of service helped the offender commit the infraction. The Court also noted that the restitution was half-hearted, neither purely voluntary nor made out of good conscience, but triggered by fear of possible administrative penalties. It reminded that a public office is a public trust, and that the object of discipline is not punishment of the officer but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government.

Doctrine

A collecting officer must promptly issue official receipts for all monies received, and a delay of years is not substantial compliance but a consummated breach of Section 451 of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual. Misconduct is grave when it involves corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or disregard of established rules, and it is proved by substantial evidence, the quantum required in administrative cases. Criminal and administrative proceedings are separate and independent, so the dismissal of a criminal complaint does not bar or defeat administrative liability for the same acts. Length of service does not mitigate a grave offense, especially where the offender shows no remorse and the restitution came only from fear of penalty.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the Decision and Resolution of the Civil Service Commission were affirmed in toto, with no costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the breach of the duty to promptly issue official receipts is consummated whether or not the receipts are later issued and the amounts remitted. Examiners use this case on the independence of administrative from criminal liability, on substantial evidence in administrative cases, and on why length of service will not save a public officer guilty of grave misconduct.