MARIETTA B. BANGAWAN, PETITIONER, V. SONNY C. PACUNLA AND OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENTS.

Bangawan versus Pacunla

The Case

This is a petition for review filed by Marietta Bangawan, the former Municipal Treasurer of Diffun, Quirino, against Sonny Pacunla, the Municipal Agricultural Technologist of the same municipality, and the Office of the Ombudsman. Bangawan challenges the Ombudsman's finding that she is administratively guilty of Serious Dishonesty, the penalty of dismissal from the service imposed upon her, and the separate finding of probable cause to charge her with Falsification of Public Documents. The case matters because it tests the reach of the Ombudsman's disciplinary and investigatory powers against a local grievance committee, and because it shows how the Court treats the penalty of dismissal for dishonesty committed by an accountable officer who has served the government for many years.

Procedural History

Pacunla first filed a complaint against Bangawan and the disbursing officer before the Grievance Committee of the Municipality of Diffun, Quirino. The committee convened, no amicable settlement was reached, and it resolved to elevate the case to the higher concerned authority. Pacunla later filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman rendered a decision finding Bangawan guilty of Serious Dishonesty and imposing dismissal from the service, with cancellation of civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service. On the same day, the Ombudsman issued a resolution finding probable cause to hold her criminally liable for Falsification of Public Documents. Bangawan moved for reconsideration, which the Ombudsman denied in a joint order. She then filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court.

Facts

In the third week of March 2006, Pacunla went to the disbursing officer to claim his salary for March 1 to 15, 2006 in the amount of 3,700 pesos. The disbursing officer, Aida Sabigan, could not pay him because Bangawan had already drawn the amount. He was paid only on April 4, 2006. In the last week of June 2006, after returning from sick leave, Pacunla again claimed his salary for June 1 to 15, 2006 in the amount of 4,600 pesos. Sabigan told him that Bangawan had already drawn that salary and had affixed her initial on the payroll opposite his name. Despite repeated demands, the salary was not paid.

Pacunla filed a complaint before the municipal Grievance Committee and also asked the provincial auditor to investigate Bangawan's cash advances. The Commission on Audit team conducted an audit investigation and recommended that Bangawan be stopped from making illegitimate drawings of cash, noting that she deliberately caused the falsification of a date on an official receipt to make it appear that the unpaid claim of Pacunla was returned to her. A check covering the June salary was eventually issued to Pacunla in January 2007.

Pacunla then filed a complaint before the Ombudsman for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Malversation, Falsification, Perjury, and violation of the anti-graft law. The Ombudsman found Bangawan guilty of Serious Dishonesty and imposed dismissal, and separately found probable cause for Falsification of Public Documents. Bangawan's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting her petition before the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Ombudsman erred in taking cognizance of the complaint of Pacunla despite the prior proceedings before the municipal Grievance Committee.
• Whether or not the Ombudsman erred in finding Bangawan administratively liable for Serious Dishonesty and in imposing upon her the penalty of dismissal from the service.
• Whether or not the Ombudsman erred in finding probable cause to hold Bangawan criminally liable for Falsification of Public Documents.

Applicable Provisions

Section 21 of Republic Act Number 6770, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, defines the disciplinary authority of the Office of the Ombudsman:

Section 21. Official Subject to Disciplinary Authority; Exceptions. — The Office of the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including Members of the Cabinet, local government, government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, except over officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary.

This provision establishes that the Ombudsman shares concurrent disciplinary jurisdiction over Bangawan with the municipal government, which is the foundation of the first issue.

Section 52, Item A, Number 1 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service classifies dishonesty as a grave offense:

Section 52. Classification of Offenses. – Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service. A. The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties: 1. Dishonesty "1st offense – Dismissal"

This provision supports the penalty of dismissal even for a first offense, which answers Bangawan's plea that the penalty is too harsh.

Section 58, Item (a) of the same Rules states the accessory penalties of dismissal:

Section 58. Administrative Disabilities Inherent in Certain Penalties. a. The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it that of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service, unless otherwise provided in the decision.

This provision justifies the accessory penalties attached to the dismissal imposed on Bangawan.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Ombudsman did not err in taking cognizance of the complaint. The Ombudsman and the municipal government exercise concurrent administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over Bangawan. The Grievance Committee had already terminated its proceedings and elevated the case to the higher concerned authority before Pacunla filed his complaint with the Ombudsman. The body where the complaint is filed first, and which opts to take cognizance of the case, acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of other tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction. The Court also stressed that the Ombudsman is an activist watchman, not a passive one, vested with broad powers under the Constitution and Republic Act Number 6770.

On the second issue, the Court upheld the finding of Serious Dishonesty. It defined dishonesty as the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one's office or connected with the performance of one's duty. The records showed that Bangawan unlawfully withdrew Pacunla's salaries, misrepresented entries on the reports of disbursements and payrolls to show that the salaries were timely paid, and falsified official receipts to make it appear that a refund was made. As an accountable officer, she was held to strict accountability for funds entrusted to her in a fiduciary capacity. The quantum of evidence required in administrative cases is substantial evidence, and the Ombudsman's findings of fact, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive.

On the penalty, the Court held that dismissal is proper even for a first offense. Length of service is an alternative circumstance that may mitigate or aggravate depending on the factual milieu. Here, Bangawan's long years in public position helped her commit the offense, because her years of service earned her the position and the trust through which she unlawfully took the salaries, misrepresented documents, and falsified receipts. The gravity of the offense prevented the Court from appreciating her length of service as a mitigating circumstance.

On the third issue, the Court held that the Ombudsman did not err in finding probable cause for Falsification of Public Documents. The determination of probable cause belongs to the Ombudsman, and it requires only sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty. The audit team found that Bangawan deliberately caused the falsification of the date on one official receipt to pave the way for the insertion of an earlier date on another, making it appear that Pacunla's unpaid salary was returned to her. Whether the evidence will suffice to procure a conviction is a matter for the trial of the criminal case.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the Ombudsman has concurrent disciplinary jurisdiction over elective and appointive officials under Section 21 of Republic Act Number 6770, and where two disciplining authorities have concurrent jurisdiction, the body where the complaint is filed first, and which opts to take cognizance, acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others. Second, dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal even on the first offense under Section 52 of the Uniform Rules, and dismissal carries the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment under Section 58. Third, length of service is an alternative circumstance that may mitigate or aggravate, and it cannot be invoked to reduce the penalty where the offender's years of service enabled the commission of the offense. Fourth, the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause is a function committed to its broad discretion and will not be disturbed absent arbitrariness.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the Court upheld the Ombudsman's finding of Serious Dishonesty with the penalty of dismissal, as well as the finding of probable cause for Falsification of Public Documents.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the Ombudsman, as an activist watchman with concurrent disciplinary jurisdiction, may take cognizance of a case once the first forum has terminated its proceedings, and that dishonesty is punishable by dismissal even on the first offense. Examiners like to use this case on the Ombudsman's concurrent jurisdiction and on length of service as an alternative circumstance that cannot mitigate the penalty of dismissal for an accountable officer.