JANE LO-GUTIERREZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS LOCAL REVENUE OFFICER, TREASURER’S OFFICE, QUEZON CITY, PETITIONER, VS. HON. SIMEON MARCELO (IN HIS CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN), HON. MARGARITO …
CARANDANG, J.
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises being considered, respondent JANE LO-GUTIERREZ is found GUILTY of DISHONESTY and GRAVE MISCONDUCT and as such is hereby imposed the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service together with the accessory penalties of forfeiture of benefits and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government service pursuant to Section 52-A (1 & 3), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules of Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
Accordingly, the draft Decision prepared by GIPO Richard P. Palpal-latoc is DISAPPROVED.
SO ORDERED. (Rollo pp. 17-27)
Likewise impugned in this Petition is the Order dated February 17, 2005 denying petitioner’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration (Rollo pp. 28-33).
The relevant facts of the case are these:
Herein petitioner Jane Lo-Gutierrez (Gutierrez) is a public employee occupying the position of Local Revenue Collection Officer I at the Quezon City Treasurer’s Office. On July 1, 2002, Gutierrez received in her official capacity a UCPB Manager’s Check representing the amount of Php82,470.51 from taxpayer Jo-Nas International Philippines, Incorporated (Jo-Nas), as payment for the corporation’s real estate taxes (Rollo p. 81). In a performance audit conducted to check the July 1, 2002 transactions at the Quezon City Treasurer’s Office, the Commission on Audit found out from the Schedule of Real Property Tax Collection that Gutierrez did not report the UCPB Manager’s Check as payment for Jo-Nas’ real estate taxes. Instead, Gutierrez rendered a false report that Jo-Nas has supposedly made a tax payment in the sum of only Php6,033.04, which Gutierrez even made to appear as having been paid by Jo-Nas in cash. Too, and in violation of the prevailing policy to achieve orderliness in the collection and receipts of revenue payments, Gutierrez did not issue a single receipt to cover the worth of Jo-Nas’ supposed “cash” payment, but credited Jo-Nas with Php6,033.04 payment under Official Receipts Nos. 2365, 2366, 2367, 2368, 2369, 2370, 2371, and 2372 (Nos. 2365-2372). Consequently, the misdeclaration of payment resulted to an understatement of account as to Gutierrez’s revenue collections amounting to Php76,437.47, for what she actually received was Php82,470.51 in manager’s check, but what was officially declared as payment from Jo-Nas was only Php6,033.04 in cash. Further probe on the matter likewise revealed that Gutierrez wrote the words/phrase “G.P. Noel” at the back of Jo-Nas’ UCPB Manager’s Check, which is a transgression of the Quezon City Treasurer’s Office Order No. 2001-12, issued on October 4, 2001, which requires all revenue collection personnel receiving tax payments for the City by way of bank checks to make a notation of certain essential information at the dorsal portion of the check, such as; check number, date, name of the bank and its branch, drawer, payee, amount, official receipt number, property index number and name of taxpayer.
On August 14, 2002, Manolito Siguenza, an Administrative Support Assistant assigned at the Quezon City Treasurer’s Office, conducted an assessment of Jo-Nas’ real property tax payments for the 2nd and 3rd quarters of CY 2002. Siguenza discovered that Jo-Nas’ “stay-in” employee Evangeline Tan-Guanizo has in her possession nine (9) falsified official receipts covering supposed payment of real estate taxes. After due verification, the fake receipts were identified as Official Receipts Nos. 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377, 2378, 2379, 2380, 2381, and 2382 (Nos. 2374-2382), and the same have been issued to Jo-Nas as part of a series of other official receipts that supposedly covered its entire payment of Php82,470.51. The sum pertaining to the nine falsified receipts added up to Php76,437.47. Evidently, the amount covered by receipt Nos. 2365-2372 (authentic), when added to the sum under receipt Nos. 2374-2382 (falsified), will yield the total sum of Php82,470.51, which is the exact amount represented by the UCPB Manager’s Check. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that the genuine Official Receipts bearing numbers 2374 to 2382 were already issued to taxpayers other than Jo-Nas, to wit: Nos. 2374 to 2375 for Yu Anwie; Nos. 2376 for Cueto Ruben; and Nos. 2377 to 2382 for Marcris Realty.
In view of the patent anomalies that attended Gutierrez’s official transactions with Jo-Nas, Quezon City Treasurer Baltazar Endriga filed an Affidavit-Complaint before the PNP, Central Police District (Rollo pp. 90-92). Gutierrez then lodged a Counter-Affidavit, and by way of defense asserted that the charges against her are politically motivated considering that she is an appointee of the previous administration. Gutierrez likewise contended that neither Jo-Nas, nor the City Government, suffered damage and prejudice since the UCPB Manager’s Check was actually deposited in the latter’s name and account. Regarding her act of writing the word “G.P. Noel” at the back of the bank check, Gutierrez explained that the lapse was the result of mere inadvertence and oversight due to the heavy volume of work assigned to her (Rollo pp. 93-94). The PNP Central Police District requested the NBI to conduct an investigation to determine whether or not the nine falsified real property tax receipts were typed and printed from the TRICOM validating machine assigned to Gutierrez (Rollo p. 77). On March 31, 2004, the NBI submitted Questioned Document Report No. 546-802, with the conclusion that the fake receipts were not prepared and validated from Gutierrez’s validating machine (Rollo pp. 78-80). Collation of evidence by the PNP having been completed, the Central Police District forthwith endorsed the complaint to the Central Office of the Ombudsman.
On December 10, 2004, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer Richard P. Palpal-Latoc rendered a draft Decision finding Gutierrez guilty of simple Violation of Office Rules and Regulations, and thereby sanctioning her by mere reprimand. Dismissing the complaint against Gutierrez, GIPO Palpal-Latoc rationalized that since the falsified receipts were not typed from her validating machine per the report of the NBI, then it is clear that Gutierrez was not the source, nor that she had any participation, in the issuance of the fake receipts (Rollo pp. 34-41).
Upon review, the draft Decision of GIPO Palpal-Latoc was disapproved by Assistant Ombudsman Pelagio S. Apostol. In lieu of the draft Decision, Overall Deputy Ombudsman Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr., issued the herein impugned Order on January 28, 2005 finding Gutierrez administratively liable for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct, for which the penalty of dismissal from public service, including all the accessory penalties, was imposed upon Gutierrez.
Gutierrez thereafter lodged a Motion for Reconsideration on February 14, 2005 (Rollo pp. 42-50), but the same was denied via the Order dated February 17, 2005.
In disagreement, Gutierrez instituted the present Petition for Review to reverse and set aside the rulings of the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, and for this purpose assigns as errors that –
I. The Office of the Ombudsman clearly committed grave errors of facts prejudicial to the interest of the movant.
II. The Office of the Ombudsman gravely erred in finding that petitioner is guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct despite lack of substantial evidence to support it and denied her right to due process.
III. The Office of the Ombudsman has no direct authority dismiss the petitioner from the government service, more particularly in her position as Local Revenue Collection Officer I.
IV. The Order of the Office of the Ombudsman imposing the penalty of dismissal from the service is not immediately executory pending appeal.
The Petition for Review is devoid of merit.
By way of legal definition, the administrative offense of dishonesty connotes a disposition on the part of the public employee to lie, cheat, deceive, betray, conceal, or defraud. The term is likewise taken to mean untrustworthiness, lack of integrity, want of honesty or probity in principle, or want of straightforwardness and fairness (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Ibay, 393 SCRA 212). On the other hand, misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, an unlawful behavior that is willful in character, or any other improper or wrong behavior. Misconduct is to be considered grave or gross when the act was performed out of all measures, beyond allowance, or in a flagrant, shameful and inexcusable manner (Vidallon-Magtolis vs. Salud, 469 SCRA 439).
As a revenue collection officer, Gutierrez sits at the frontline of the City’s tax collection program. Being a frontliner, Gutierrez owes it to herself and to the public service to discharge her tasks in an orderly and honest manner, always mindful and observant of the basic rules and policies that govern tax collection, for at the end of the day, her official performance shall make the City’s revenue collection program orderly and well-coordinated at the very outset, if she is faithful to her job. Conversely, if Gutierrez has the propensity to pervert the truth and violate the rules on proper tax receipting and recording, then confusion and disorderliness shall necessarily follow, not to mention that it shall open the City’s revenue collection program to fraud and malversation. Along this line, We agree with the Overall Deputy Ombudsman that the infraction of Gutierrez relative to the false reporting and recording of the tax payment that she received from Jo-Nas, which is apparently willful in character, for a dishonest purpose and constituting grave misconduct warranting dismissal from public service. It is undisputed that Gutierrez received a UCPB Manager’s Check from Jo-Nas covering the amount of Php82,470.51. Gutierrez cannot deny that instead of reporting the entire amount of the check as real estate tax payment for Jo-Nas, she made it appear that the tax payment was for cash and for a lesser amount of Php6,033.04 under receipts Nos. 2365 to 2372. Too, Gutierrez omitted to make a notation of the basic data relative to the name of the actual taxpayer but instead wrote the words “G.P. Noel” at the dorsal portion of the check.
Under the circumstances, while only Gutierrez can fathom the reason behind the false and improper declaration of Jo-Nas’ revenue payment, We nonetheless hold that her conduct betrays her disposition to lie and conceal the true facts regarding her daily collections. When she deliberately made a false and misleading report of her revenue collections from Jo-Nas, Gutierrez virtually opened the floodgates of fraud and malversation, for true enough, the recording of a smaller amount of payment, and declaring the same as having been made in cash instead of check, resulted into understatement of collections, as found by the COA Auditor (Rollo, pp. 85-88). Something was amiss and highly suspicious with the manner by which Gutierrez handled and reported Jo-Nas’ bank check. Indeed, how could Gutierrez explain why she credited Jo-Nas for a supposed “cash” deposit of merely Php6,033.04, whereas the corporation’s payment was actually Php82,470.51 other than for a clear dishonest purpose. It is likewise difficult for Gutierrez to rationalize her act of misdeclaring Jo-Nas’ payment in check as a cash payment. Curiously enough, the balance of Jo-Nas’ payment (Php76,437.47) even coincided exactly with the sum covered by the nine falsified receipts. Analyzing the acts of Gutierrez, We are of the well-considered view that she willfully misdeclared Jo-Nas’ check for no other reason but to provide for an opportunity to defraud the City by understating collections and pocket the difference.
In the process of tax collection, the most basic established policy commands all revenue collectors to issue an official receipt for every amount received as tax payment, thus, P.D. No. 1445, Section 68 (1) provides that – “No payment of any nature shall be received by a collecting officer without immediately issuing an official receipt in acknowledgment thereof.” On the other hand, it is likewise a definite rule under Order No. 2001-12 of the Quezon City Treasurer’s Office that a tax collection personnel receiving tax payment by way of bank check is required to make a notation of certain information at the back portion of the check. These basic rules are addressed to all revenue collection officers like Gutierrez, and thus there is practically no reason for her to be oblivious of such. Undisputedly, however, Gutierrez failed to observe these basic rules. Gutierrez did not issue official receipt/s for Jo-Nas’ payment in check amounting to Php82,470.51. Moreover, Gutierrez omitted make a note on the check with even a single data regarding Jo-Nas, but instead wrote “G.P. Noel” at the dorsal portion of the check thus resulting to a confusion regarding the true identity of the issuer of the check. Predicated upon the fact that Gutierrez’s transgression of established rules endangered the integrity and security of the City’s revenue collections, We hold that her misconduct in office is inexcusable, thus rendering the offense grave in nature.
Concededly, the falsified receipts may not have been typed and prepared from Gutierrez’s TRICOM validating machine. Nevertheless, the circumstances surrounding the case, taken together, lead to a fair and reasonable conclusion that Gutierrez is the author of the falsification, or that she may have a direct participation in the production of the fake receipts, at the very least. Gutierrez personally received Jo-Nas’ UCPB Manager’s Check, and thus she must acknowledge payment by issuing receipts. But she issued eight official receipts (Nos. 2365-2372) and credited Jo-Nas with a cash payment for only Php6,033.04, thus leaving a balance of Php76,437.47 from Jo-Nas’ actual payment. Significantly, this Php76,437.47 remainder is the exact amount covered by the nine falsified receipts issued to Jo-Nas. Under the premises, no other person could have probably committed the falsification, except for Gutierrez who was the recipient of the check, and this conclusion is further bolstered by the fact that Gutierrez did not enter the check as payment by Jo-Nas, whom she made to appear to have paid in cash in the amount of Php6,033.04.
Deposit by the City Government of the manager’s check tendered Jo-Nas issued in the name and account of the City Treasurer did not mean that Gutierrez was not guilty of any wrongdoing. For what could have happened was that the co-mingling of daily revenue collections of cash and bank checks, gave Gutierrez the opportunity to enter and report the Jo-Nas’ check as payment for some other taxpayers, and making it appear that Jo-Nas paid in cash but only for Php6,033.04. And it became clear later on that Jo-Nas has a deficiency payment of real estate taxes for the second and third quarters of CY 2002 to the prejudice of said taxpayer.
Gutierrez placed heavy reliance upon the findings of the NBI that the falsified receipts were not typed from her TRICOM validating machine. According to her, this finding demonstrates that she has no participation in the issuance of the fake receipts. We are unconvinced. The falsified receipts must necessarily be prepared from a validating machine other than the one issued to Gutierrez, for true enough, if the source of the nine receipts found to be fake, is her validating machine, then Gutierrez must necessarily declare the payment and account therefore, thus rendering the understatement of payment practically impossible. Under the circumstances, Gutierrez needed to utilize other validating machines in order for her to avoid accountability for the actual payment of Jo-Nas.
The penalty of dismissal from government service, as imposed by the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, is the appropriate sanction vis-à-vis the infraction committed by Gutierrez. Pursuant to Section 52 (A) (1 and 3), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, grave misconduct and dishonesty are classified as grave offenses, and thus the same are punishable by the extreme sanction of severance from public service, even if the erring public employee is just a first time offender (OCAD vs. Bucoy, 235 SCRA 588; OCAD vs. Ibay, supra).
On the second assigned error, it is clear that the demands of due process were fully satisfied considering that Gutierrez was afforded ample opportunity to expound on her line of defense. Withal, Gutierrez’s theory in order to escape administrative liability was fully addressed and considered, although the same was eventually brushed aside by the Ombudsman. It is doctrinal that the essence of due process in administrative proceedings is not akin to that observed in ordinary civil suits where more stringent rules are applied, but merely requires that a party must be given an opportunity to explain his side of the legal controversy or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the adverse action or ruling complained of. Corollarily, deprivation of due process may not be successfully invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard on his motion for reconsideration, for in such case, he was afforded the opportunity to ventilate his side of the legal dispute, albeit just by way of pleadings (Aquinas School vs. Magnaye, 278 SCRA 602; Paat vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 167; Go vs. NAPOLCOM, 271 SCRA 447). In the case at bench, the record of the case is clear that Gutierrez, at each and every turn of the proceedings, had the adequate chance to defend herself from the charges hurled against her. Gutierrez first lodged a Counter-Affidavit to the complaint, then a Comment on the factual findings and conclusions of the NBI, and later a Position Paper to explain her side. Gutierrez likewise filed a motion for reconsideration after the Overall Deputy Ombudsman has issued the adverse January 28, 2005 Order. Under the circumstances, the submission of these pleadings before the Ombudsman, and the fact that Gutierrez was heard through her motion for reconsideration to impugn the first assailed Order is demonstrative that Gutierrez’s right to due process was not trampled upon, but on the contrary was duly observed and respected throughout the administrative proceedings.
Finally, relative to the third and fourth assigned errors, the Supreme Court pronounced in the recent case of Edgardo Estarija vs. Edward F. Ranada and the Ombudsman (G.R. No. 159314, June 26, 2006) that the powers of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. On the contrary, the Office of the Ombudsman was given teeth to render said constitutional body not merely functional, but likewise effective. Thus, under R.A. No. 6770 and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove from government service an erring public official.
WHEREFORE, premises viewed in the proper perspectives, the Petition for Review is DENIED. Accordingly, the herein assailed Orders of the Overall Deputy Ombudsman dated January 28, 2005 and February 17, 2005 are hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
SO ORDERED.
Dacudao, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.