G.R. No. 248819. January 13, 2021
GRACE CRISILDA A. PANTALEON, PETITIONER, VS. OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO, RESPONDENT.
INTING, J.:
dated September 29, 2016 of the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao
(Ombudsman) in OMB-M-A-15-0569 fmding Grace Crisilda A. Pantaleon
(petitioner) administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and Serious
Dishonesty.
The following facts are not disputed:
Petitioner previously served as Revenue Clerk II of the Municipal Government of Barobo, Surigao del Sur.
On October 8, 2015[,] a Joint Affidavit Complaint for the criminal
and administrative charges was filed by State Auditors Cheryl
Cantalejo-Dime and Pamela Grace A. Arayan of the Commission on Audit –
Regional Office No. XIII (COA), against petitioner before the Deputy
Ombudsman.The Complaint alleged that on June 23, 2013, the COA conducted an
examination of the petitioner’s cash and accounts for the period of
December 18, 2012 to June 26, 2013. The audit revealed a cash shortage
in the aggregate amount of P436,748.45. A demand letter was not issued
as petitioner was able to restitute the full amount on September 6,
2013. On October 8, 2015, the COA instituted the complaint against”
petitioner before the Deputy Ombudsman.In her Counter-Affidavit, petitioner admitted [the] cash shortage but
denied to having converted the same for her personal use and benefit.
She claimed she lent the money to her co-workers who had financial
problems. She stressed that she had already restituted the full amount
even before a demand was issued.[5]
On September 29, 2016, the Ombudsman rendered a Decision,[6] the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the Office finds respondent Grace Crisilda A.
Pantaleon GUILTY of Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty. She is
meted out the penalty of DISMISSAL from service, including the accessory
penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement
benefits, and the perpetual disqualification for re employment in the
government service. Considering that respondent is found guilty of two
charges, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the
most serious charge and the other shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.In the event that the penalty can no longer be enforced due to
respondent’s separation from service, it shall be converted into a Fine
in the amount of her salary for one year, payable to the Office of the
Ombudsman, and may be deducted from her retirement benefits, accrued
leave credits or any receivable from the government.Mayor Felixberto S. Urbiztondo of the Municipal Government of Barobo,
Surigao del Sur, is directed to implement the penalty meted out against
respondent, within ten days from receipt hereof, and to submit to the
Office, within the same period, a Compliance Report indicating the
docket number of this case.Further, the COA- Regional Office No. XIII, Butnan City is directed
to conduct a special audit investigation on the alleged practice in the
Municipal Government of Barobo, Surigao del Sur, of allowing employees
to borrow from its tax collections, and to file complaints against
responsible officials before the Office, if the evidence so warrants.
Let the COA – Regional Office No. XIII, Butnan City be furnished a copy
of this Resolution.SO ORDERED.[7]
In the Decision[8] dated
February 1, 2019, the CA affirmed the Ombudsman. Petitioner moved for
reconsideration, but it was denied on July 18, 2019.[9]
Hence, this petition.
The principal issue is whether there exists substantial evidence to
hold petitioner administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and Serious
Dishonesty.
The Court’s Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
As a general rule, factual findings of the Ombudsman are conclusive
when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and
weight, especially when affirmed by the CA.[10]
In the present case, petitioner is charged with Grave Misconduct and
Dishonesty before the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found her guilty of Grave
Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty, and imposed on her the penalty of
dismissal from govermnent service with all its accessory penalties. On
appeal to the CA, it affirmed the ruling of the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman and the CA correctly found petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty.
The Court does not find merit in petitioner’s contentions that she
had made full restitution of the cash shortage before the formal demand
by the Commission on Audit; that she did not personally use the
municipal funds as she merely lent them to her co-workers; and that her
length of service, unblemished record, and good faith should be
considered as mitigating circumstances.
Misconduct “means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.”[11] It is “intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior.”[12]
To constitute an administrative offense, the misconduct should relate
to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and
duties of a public officer.[13]
Misconduct is a “transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a
public officer.”[14]
In Grave Misconduct, the “elements of corruption, clear intent to
violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be
manifest.”[15]
Dishonesty, on the other hand, is defined as the “disposition to
lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness, lack of integrity.”[16]
Under Section 3 of the Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 06-0538
or the Rules on the Administrative Offense of Dishonesty, Dishonesty is
considered serious when any of the following circumstances is present:
the respondent is an accountable officer, the dishonest act directly
involves property; accountable forms or money for which he is directly
accountable; and respondent shows intent to commit material gain, graft
and corruption;
respondent employed fraud and/or falsification of official documents in
the commission of the dishonest act related to his/her employment;
dishonest act involves a Civil Service examination irregularity or fake
Civil Service eligibility such as, but not limited to, impersonation,
cheating and use of crib sheets; andOther analogous circumstances.[17]
Both Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty are classified as grave
offenses with the penalty of dismissal even for first time offenders.[18]
Here, petitioner herself admitted that she loaned the public funds
entrusted to her to her co-workers without any legal authority to do so.
Indeed, as Municipal Revenue Clerk, petitioner had the sworn duty to
safely keep the public funds and to disburse them only in accordance
with the law and rules.[19]
Petitioner’s position as Revenue Clerk involved a proprietary function
that is imbued with trust and confidence. She being an accountable
officer and despite being fully aware of the duties and responsibilities
attendant to her position as Revenue Clerk of the Municipality of
Barobo, Surigao del Sur, petitioner’s improper and unauthorized act of
lending the municipality funds to her co-workers showed not only her
intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule,
but also her disposition to lie, deceive, or defraud;
untrustworthiness; and lack of integrity.
Under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,
Serious Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct are grave offenses punishable
by dismissal from the service.[20]
Hence, there is no other penalty that should be imposed on petitioner
than the penalty of dismissal. The penalty of dismissal from service
carries with it the following administrative disabilities:
disqualification from reemployment in any government agency or
instrumentality, including any government-owned and -controlled
corporation or government financial institution; and
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
February 1, 2019 and the Resolution dated July 18, 2019 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 07780-MIN are AFFIRMED.
Accordingly, petitioner Grace Crisilda A. Pantaleon is hereby found GUILTY of Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty, and is thus, DISMISSED from the service. Accordingly, her civil service eligibility is CANCELLED, and her retirement and other benefits, except accrued leave credits, if any, are FORFEITED. Further, she is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED
from reemployment in any government agency or instrumentality,
including any government-owned and -controlled corporation, or
government financial institution, and BARRED from taking the civil service examinations.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, J., (Chairperson), Hernando, Delos Santos, and Rosario, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 10-33.
[2] Id. at
36-52; penned by Associate Justice Loida S. Posadas-Kabulugan with
Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon,
concurrring.
[3] Id. at 65-67;
penned by Associate Justice Loida S. Posadas-Kabulugan with Associate
Justices Edgardo A. Caruello and Oscar V. Badelles, concurring.
[4] Id. at 73-79;
signed by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Modesto F.
Onia, Jr.; reviewed by Officer-in-Charge Marco Anacleto P.
BuenEvaluation and Investigation Bureau-B; and approved by Deputy
Ombudsman for Mindanao, Rodolfo M. Elman.
[5] Id. at 37-38.
[6] Id. at 73-79.
[7] Id. at 77-78.
[8] Id. at 36-52.
[9] Id. at 65-67.
[10] Office of the Ombudsman, et al. v. PS/Supt. Espina, 807 Phil. 529, 540 (2017), citing Cabalit v. Commission on Audit-Region VII, 679 Phil. 138, 157-158 (2012).
[11] Office of the Ombudsman v. Magno. et al., 592 Phil. 636, 658 (2008).
[12] Ganzon v. Ados, 720 Phil. 104, 113 (2013).
[13] Id.
[14] Amit v. Commission on Audit, et al., (COA), 699 Phil. 9, 26 (2012).
[15] Ganzon v. Arlos, supra, citing Narvasa v. Sanchez, Jr., 630 Phil. 577, 581-582 (2010).
[16] Light Rail Transit Authority v. Salvaña. 736 Phil. 123, 151 (2014).
[17] See Re: Alleged Dishonesty and Falsification of Civil Service Eligibility of Mr. Samuel R. Ruñez, Jr., A.M. No. 2019-18-SC, January 28, 2020.
[18] Section 46(A)(1) and (3). Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS). See Office of the Ombudsman. et al. v. PS/Supt. Espina, supra note 10.
[19] Rollo, p. 47.
[20] Section 46(A)(1) and (3), Rule 10, RRACCS reads:
Section 46. 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 grave offenses shall be punishable by dismissal from
the service:
1. Serious Dishonesty;
xxx
3. Grave Misconduct;
xxxx
[21] See Office of the Court Administrator v. Fuenasalida, A.M. No. P-15-3290, September 1, 2020; Section 52(a), Rule 10, RRACCS.