FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 219876. October 13, 2021 ]
JAIME V. SERRANO, PETITIONER, VS. FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION BUREAU, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
The Case
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeks the review of the dispositions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 131258 entitled Jaime V. Serrano v. Fact-Finding Investigation Bureau, Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices, viz.:
1) Decision2 dated January 29, 2015, affirming the Joint Resolution dated December 19, 2012, and Joint Order dated July 8, 2013, of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-P-C-12-0503-G, finding petitioner Jaime V. Serrano guilty of grave misconduct and serious dishonesty; and
2) Resolution3 dated August 10, 2015, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The Proceedings Before the Ombudsman
By Affidavit-Complaint4 dated July 11, 2012, and Supplemental Affidavit5 dated July 17, 2012, the Fact-Finding Investigation Bureau of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (FFIB-MOLEO) charged several police officials and personnel with violation of Republic Act No. 7080,6 Republic Act No. 3019,7 Republic Act No. 91848 and malversation through falsification of public documents in connection with the repair and refurbishing contracts for twenty-eight (28) V-150 Light Armored Vehicles (LAVs) used by the Philippine National Police (PNP). It essentially alleged:
On August 14, 2007, PNP Director General Oscar C. Calderon sought the repair and refurbishing of ten (10) LAVs in furtherance of the capability build up program for the PNP's Special Action Force (SAF). Thereafter, Director General Avelino Razon, Jr. requested a supplemental budget for the repair and refurbishing of eighteen (18) additional LAVs. Upon favorable endorsement of Former Department of the Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo V. Puno, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo approved the PNP's request. Consequently, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) released P409,740,000.00 for the transport, repair, repowering, and refurbishing of the twenty-eight (28) LAVs of the PNP.9
On December 12, 2007, the PNP National Headquarters Bids and Awards Committee delegated the procurement of the repair and refurbishing contracts to its Logistics Support Service - Bids and Awards Committee (LSS-BAC). Based on the 2012 audit findings of the Commission on Audit (COA) and the report of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG), however, the whole procurement process was irregular and illegal:
- LSS-BAC did not provide bidding documents to possible bidders;
- There was no pre-procurement conference;
- Invitations to bid were published in Alppa Times News which is not a newspaper of general circulation and may not even exist;
- There was no pre-bid conference;
- The procuring agency did not require the bidders to submit their eligibility requirements and their technical and financial documents;
- There was no post-qualification;
- Award and payment were hurriedly made on December 27, 2007; and
- There were ghost deliveries10 of engines and transmissions.
Thus, it (FFIB-MOLEO) filed administrative and criminal complaints against the police officials involved in the highly irregular transaction. Petitioner, then COA Supervisor and Resident Auditor of the PNP, was also charged as an accessory for failing to observe all the requirements and conditions of Pre-Audit and other existing COA Rules and Regulations.
In his Counter-Affidavit11 dated August 17, 2012, petitioner riposted that he had no knowledge of the offenses charged. For one, COA Circular No. 95-006 totally lifted all pre-audit activities in all national government agencies, government-owned and controlled corporations, and local government units. Thus, he could not be faulted for failing to observe the conditions of pre-audit. For another, he was simply unable to focus and concentrate on the repair and refurbishing contracts due to his other equally important audit and official functions, as well as the sheer volume of complexity of PNP transactions and the agency's delayed submission of disbursement vouchers. At any rate, he already had an action plan for the year 2008 to stick to as approved by the COA Chairperson. Too, he had already instructed PNP Technical Audit Specialist Amor J. Quiambao (Quiambao) to conduct inspections and contract reviews of the LAV transactions and requested the PNP management to submit the necessary documents for evaluation.
In its Omnibus Reply/Position Paper12 dated October 29, 2012, FFIB-MOLEO countered that petitioner's excuses were flimsy, if not deliberate attempts to conceal anomalous transactions.
In his Position Paper13 dated November 8, 2012, petitioner reiterated his arguments in his counter-affidavit, highlighting the reality that a post-audit of all financial transactions of PNP was physically impossible. Equally important audit functions also consumed his time.
Ruling of the Ombudsman
By Joint Resolution14 dated December 19, 2012, the Ombudsman absolved Serrano of criminal charges but dismissed him from the service for grave misconduct and serious dishonesty, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the Panel:
x x x x
d) FINDING SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE against respondents x x x JAIME V. SERRANO, for Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty, they are DISMISSED from the government service with forfeiture of all benefits and perpetual disqualification to hold public office effective upon receipt of this Order. If the penalty of dismissal from the service can no longer be served by reason of resignation or retirement the alternative penalty of [a] FINE equivalent to ONE YEAR salary is imposed, in addition to the same accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification to hold public office;
x x x x
SO ORDERED.15
The Ombudsman held petitioner administratively liable for failure to observe the requirements and conditions of existing COA Rules and Regulations. Considering the hefty amount of P409,740,000.00 which the repair and refurbishing contracts entailed, it was his duty as COA Supervisor and Resident Auditor of the PNP to conduct a regular audit of such transactions. Lack of sufficient personnel was not a valid excuse. On the other hand, petitioner's inaction demonstrated his disposition to defraud, deceive or betray, and constituted malevolent transgression of law.
Petitioner moved for partial reconsideration16 on the ground that the FFIB-MOLEO did not even cite a single COA rule or regulation which he allegedly failed to observe as to render him liable for grave misconduct and serious dishonesty.
By Joint Order17 dated July 8, 2013, the Ombudsman denied petitioner's motion and enumerated the COA regulations he violated, viz.:
a. COA Memorandum No. 2005-027; COA Circular No. 87-278; COA Memorandum No. 87-480; and COA Circular No. 76-34 – petitioner failed to (1) conduct the necessary contract review within twenty (20) days from receipt of the advance copies of approved Purchase Orders and Work Orders from the PNP, and (2) conduct random inspections despite the presence of red flags and fraud indicators, as well as the amount of public fund involved.
b. COA Circular No. 95-006 – Though pre-audit had been lifted, agencies were required to submit certain documents such as the Monthly Report of Transactions by Disbursing Officer, Notice of Scheduled Deliveries of Procured Items, Pre-Repair Evaluation Report, Report of Waste Materials/Disposals, Schedule of Notice and Opening of Bids, and Notice of BAC Meetings. Non-submission of these documents and reports is a ground for the automatic suspension of payment of their salary until compliance with said requirements.
c. COA Circular No. 94-001 – Petitioner failed to prepare an Audit Observation Memorandum despite the glaring red-flags and presence of fraud indicators.18
Petitioner's claim that his office was understaffed was not an excuse for his failure to comply with the aforecited COA issuances. For the simple act of promptly reporting the red flags and irregularities to PNP management did not require additional COA personnel. The report, if timely prepared, would have forewarned PNP not to proceed with its repairs and refurbishing contracts.
The Proceedings before the Court of Appeals
On appeal,19 petitioner reiterated that his inaction did not constitute grave misconduct or serious dishonesty. He insisted that it was simply physically impossible to audit all transactions of the PNP; the volume of PNP transactions simply does not allow it, more so, since his functions and duties did not only involve audit activities. At that time, he was also saddled with several subpoenas from the Senate relative to the "Eurogenerals." In any event, he had already directed Quiambao to inspect the delivered items and requested the LSS-BAC to submit the documents relative to the repair and refurbishing contracts for his inspection and review.
In its Comment,20 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) defended the decision of the Ombudsman and implored that petitioner's defense be disregarded. Petitioner's instruction to Quiambao was not enough to protect government funds; he should have supervised the work and performed his duties with the government's interest in mind.
Decision of the Court of Appeals
By Decision21 dated January 29, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed.
First. Petitioner failed to observe all the requirements and condition of existing COA Rules and Regulations. As Resident Auditor, it was his sworn duty to conduct a regular audit of all PNP transactions. Further, considering the hefty sum involved in the LAV transactions which totaled P409,740,000.00, he should have prioritized the audit of these transactions and made follow-throughs on the same.
Second. Even with the limited number of staff in his office, petitioner could have easily brought the irregularities to the attention of the PNP management so that proper measures could have been implemented.
Third. While petitioner may be correct in arguing that his office was not required to conduct an audit of all the financial transactions of the PNP given the tremendous volume thereof, this should not in any way mean that they can no longer prioritize those transactions of the PNP which involve considerable amounts of money.
Finally. The lifting of pre-audit by the COA under COA Circular No. 95-006 did not render his office useless in detecting anomalous transactions beforehand. Under said circular, agencies were still required to submit to their resident COA auditors certain documents and reports, non-submission of which is ground for automatic suspension of payment of the salaries of the erring officials. Here, petitioner admitted that the PNP failed to submit the documents enumerated under COA Circular No. 95-006. Consequently, he should have ordered the suspension of payment of the salaries of the erring PNP employees. The records reveal, however, that petitioner took no action on the PNP's non-compliance with COA Circular No. 95-006.
Petitioner's repeated and unjustified inaction in both pre-audit and post-audit displayed his willful and flagrant disregard of existing COA Rules and Regulations, rendering him administratively liable for grave misconduct. His attitude towards the audit of the repair and refurbishing contracts revealed an intentional disregard on his part of his bounden duty, as auditor of the COA, to ensure that government funds are properly expended. Likewise, there was malicious intent on the part of petitioner to conceal the truth, rendering him liable for serious dishonesty.
By Resolution22 dated August 10, 2015, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The Present Petition
Petitioner now seeks affirmative relief and prays that dispositions of the Court of Appeals be reversed and set aside. He reiterates his arguments below and relentlessly asserts that he has not committed any act which would constitute grave misconduct and/or serious dishonesty. At any rate, the penalty imposed was not commensurate to his alleged infraction. If he is truly administratively liable, his penalty deserves mitigation because of his thirty-seven (37) long years of public service without any administrative case.
In its Comment,23 OSG defends the decision of the Court of Appeals. It ripostes that grave misconduct and serious dishonesty warrants dismissal as a penalty and his length of service should be taken against him as he failed to exhibit the sense of duty required of him as COA Supervisor and Resident Auditor of the PNP.
Issue
Is petitioner administratively liable for his inaction as COA Supervisor and Resident Auditor of the PNP in connection with the agency's repair and refurbishing contracts?
Ruling
We deny the petition.
At the outset, there appears to be no factual issue here. Petitioner does not deny, as he in fact admits that he failed to perform either pre-audit or post-audit activities relative to the irregular procurement of the repair and refurbishing contracts. Specifically, petitioner failed to (a) prioritize the audit of the LAV transactions despite the staggering amount of P409,740,000.00 involved; (b) bring the non-submission of documents and reports to the attention of PNP management; (c) suspend the payment of salaries of the erring employees as required under COA Circular No. 95-006; and (d) notify his superiors that he could not conduct the audit of the repair and refurbishing contracts.
The core issue, therefore, is whether petitioner's inaction was justified.
Petitioner argues that his failure to conduct pre-audit and post-audit review on the repair and refurbishing contracts relative to the LAV transactions was due to "good and justifiable reasons." First, pre-audit activities had already been lifted under COA Circular No. 95-006. Second, post-audit of all transactions is not required and, in fact, physically impossible. Third, his office was understaffed and he had other equally important duties. Finally, he had already ordered the technical inspection of the LAVs and required the submission of pertinent documents for review.
We are not convinced.
First. Although pre-audit activities had already been lifted, as a rule, under COA Circular No. 95-006, the submission of certain documents and reports remains mandatory, viz.:
x x x x
6.0 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF AGENCY OFFICIALS
6.01 Pre-audit activities shall henceforth be considered as part of the agency's accounting and fiscal control process. Being a primary responsibility of the agencies, an adequate internal control system shall be instituted in order to achieve economy, efficiency[,] and effectiveness in the management and utilization of the agency resources.
6.02 The head of the government agency concerned shall define or delineate the duties and responsibilities of its officials and employees involved in financial transactions. The responsibility to request and/or issue clearances, notices, advises, or reports heretofore lodged in the Auditor in connection with the pre-audit of disbursement and countersigning of Treasury Warrants/Treasury Checks shall henceforth be assumed by the agency personnel concerned.
6.03 Accountable officers shall submit the records receipts, disbursements, expenditures, operations, and all other transactions, together with the supporting documents, to the Chief Accountants in the manner and within the time frame prescribed in existing rules and regulations.
6.04 Disbursing officers[,] in particular[,] shall faithfully comply with Section 100 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 which require[s] them to render monthly reports of their transactions pursuant to existing auditing regulations not later than the fifth day of the ensuing month to the auditor concerned.
6.05 The official involved in the daily recording of transactions in the books of accounts shall turn over the receipts and the disbursement records with all paid vouchers and documents evidencing the transaction to the Auditor within ten (10) days from [the] date of receipt of said documents.
6.06 The official responsible for or in charge of accepting deliveries of procured items shall, within twenty-four (24) hours from such acceptance, shall notify the auditor of the time and date of the scheduled deliveries.
6.07 Where the period for submission of reports and documents prescribed in paragraphs 6.03 and 6.04 above cannot be met, as in the case of accountable officers stationed in other countries, the head of the agency concerned shall submit the corresponding request for exemption to the Chairman, Commission on Audit, thru the Auditor, stating the reasons therefor, and the recommended periods for such submission.
6.08 Pre-repair evaluation shall be performed by management, furnishing a copy thereof to the Auditor within five (5) days from [the] date of evaluation/inspection.
6.09 Inspection of consumable and perishable items, as well as unserviceable and disposable government property and others (sic) assets, shall be conducted by management. A copy of the report of inspection or its equivalent shall be submitted to the Head of the Auditing Unit within twenty[-]four (24) hours from acceptance of the items delivered and, in the case of unserviceable and disposable property/assets, immediately after inspection thereof by management.
6.10 Management shall furnish the Auditor with a copy of the schedule or notice of opening of bids and condemnation/destruction of government property and other disposable assets, as the case may be, at least five (5) days before the scheduled time.
6.11 The concerned officials of the local government units shall furnish the local auditor with a copy of the rules and procedures for prequalification, bids and awards, and notify the latter of the scheduled meetings of the local Prequalification, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) at least five (5) days before its meetings and opening of bids. (Emphases added)
x x x x
Non-compliance with the reportorial requirements warrants the suspension of payment of salaries of the erring employees:
x x x x
7.0 FAILURE TO SUBMIT REPORTS
7.01 Unjustified failure on the part of the official or employee concerned to submit the documents and reports mentioned herein shall be considered a ground for the automatic suspension of payment of this (sic) salary until he shall have complied with the aforesaid requirements, without prejudice to any disciplinary action that may be instituted against him.24
x x x x
Verily, the role of the Resident Auditor did not become passive and reactive by the mere lifting of pre-audit activities, as a rule, under COA Circular No. 95-006. It did not render Resident Auditors powerless when it comes to detecting and preventing irregular or anomalous transactions entered into by various government agencies. For control measures have remained in place to prevent the wastage, if not depletion of government coffers. Had petitioner implemented these control measures here, the PNP could have avoided wasting its funds on ghost deliveries and illegal contracts relative to the repairs and refurbishing of the twenty-eight (28) LAVs of the PNP.
Second. Even assuming that it is physically impossible to conduct post-audit of all PNP transactions, this is no reason to ignore a P409,740,000.00 transaction. To reiterate, petitioner did not perform either pre-audit or post-audit activities. It was as though he was completely hands-off insofar as the transaction was concerned. The sheer magnitude of the amount involved would have told him to at least give due attention to the transaction as the probability of wastage if not corruption bears proportionality thereto.
Third. Being undermanned is nothing new to public service. It is not something we can use as a convenient tool to wax negligence and failure. Time and again, the Court has held that having a heavy workload is not a valid excuse. Otherwise, every government employee charged with dereliction of duty would proffer such a convenient excuse to escape liability, to the great prejudice of the public.25 At any rate, he could have simply called the attention of PNP management as regards the irregularity with the contract and non-compliance with COA Circular 95-006. Surely, this did not require additional personnel.
Finally. We agree with the Court of Appeals that petitioner's instruction to Quiambao was a mere afterthought, an attempt to exculpate himself of administrative liability. Offering such a flimsy excuse trivialized his role as a COA Supervisor. Given the amounts involved and his bounden duty as COA auditor to ensure that government funds are properly expended, he should have exercised a higher degree of care and vigilance in the discharge of his duties in relation to the repair and refurbishing contracts. Had he faithfully executed his duties, the highly irregular transactions would have been discovered earlier. Instead, petitioner was unmindful of his duties as COA Supervisor and Resident Auditor of PNP and allowed the P409,740,000.00 transaction to slip through the cracks with ease.
Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, (Justice Caguioa) nevertheless, posits that petitioner be made liable only for simple misconduct as there was allegedly no total inaction on petitioner's part regarding the PNP's repair and refurbishing contract amounting to P409,740,000.00. This conclusion is hinged on petitioner's instruction to Quiambao to submit to him the relevant documents.
With due respect, however, petitioner's supposed "action" is clearly more for a show than for real. The Court of Appeals keenly noted:26
The defense of petitioner that his failure to conduct a post[-]audit on the LAV Transactions is completely understandable given the shortage of manpower in his office is untenable. We agree with the Ombudsman that even with the alleged limited number of staff in his office, it would have still not been beyond petitioner's control to conduct a post-audit on the LAV transactions as he could have easily brought up to the attention of his superiors his office's lack of personnel in order that proper measures can be made to solve such problem. The record of the case, however, does not reveal that there was ever any instance wherein petitioner voiced out to his superiors his office's insufficient lack of staff. It would thus appear that the Ombudsman was correct in its contention that the said excuse is merely an afterthought on the part of petitioner to exculpate himself from the administrative offenses presently being charged against him. Furthermore, no matter how poorly manned petitioner's office is, considering the staggering amount involved in the LAV transactions which amounted to Four Hundred Nine Million Seven Hundred Forty Thousand Pesos (Php409,740,000.00), it would have been prudent on petitioner's part to order his office to prioritize the audit of the LAV transactions in order to make sure the same were valid. While petitioner maybe correct in contending that his office is not required to conduct an audit on all the financial transactions of the PNP given the tremendous volume thereof, this should not in any way mean that they can no longer prioritize those transactions of the PNP which involve considerable amounts of money. Petitioner's inability to do anything regarding the audit of the fraudulent LAV transactions is just clearly unjustifiable.
Moreover, in view of the total lifting of pre-audit by the COA under COA Circular No. 95-006, as the conduct thereof became the duty of the government agencies concerned, the said agencies were required in the said circular to submit to the COA auditors certain documents and reports, such as the Monthly Report of Transactions by Disbursing Officer, Notice of Scheduled Deliveries of Procured Items, Pre-Repair Evaluation Report, Report of Waste Materials/Disposals, Schedule of Notice and Opening of Bids, and Notice of BAC Meetings. Under COA Circular No. 95-006, the non-submission of these documents and reports by the government employees concerned shall be a ground for the automatic suspension of payment of their salary until they have complied with the aforesaid requirements.
A quick look at the documents requested by Mr. Quiambao for petitioner to obtain in order for him to perform a technical review and inspection of the LAV transactions shows that these are basically the same documents enumerated under COA Circular No. 95-006. Hence, it would appear that even prior to the request made by Mr. Quiambao, there was already non-submission by the PNP of the documents enumerated under COA Circular No. 95-006 which, in turn, should have prompted petitioner to order for the suspension of payment of the salaries of the erring PNP employees. The record, however, reveals no action was also taken by petitioner for the said non-submission.
This non-submission of the said documents was repeated when the PNP did not comply with petitioner's indorsement letters to the LSS-BAC Director of the PNP requesting for the documents specified by Mr. Quiambao. Once more, petitioner failed to take any measures against such inaction and did not order the suspension of the salaries of the concerned employees of the PNP. Neither did he bring the non-submission of the said required financial documents to the attention of the PNP Management. Lastly, petitioner also characteristically did not do anything for his office to acquire the documents specified by Mr. Quiambao following the PNP's inaction. His allegation that tracers were sent by him to the PNP to follow up the submission of the required documents cannot be considered by this Court, as the same were not substantiated by any evidence. We reiterate the rule in this jurisdiction that mere allegation is not evidence, and is not equivalent to proof.
x x x x
Verily, the documents which petitioner supposedly instructed Quiambao to review and require from the PNP to produce were exactly the same documents required for him to be able to perform his duty as COA Supervisor and Resident Auditor vis-a-vis COA Circular No. 95-006. As it was though, despite petitioner's supposed instruction to Quiambao, the documents were not submitted. But instead of compelling compliance, petitioner simply and quietly did nothing more. In fact, he did not even disapprove the payment for this otherwise undocumented transaction though it is basic that the total absence of supporting documents renders any public contract outrightly irregular, anomalous, and unlawful. When petitioner did not disapprove the contract in question, albeit he had the sworn duty to do so, it meant he tacitly approved it.
Justice Caguioa also points out that petitioner purportedly reported the failure of PNP to submit the relevant documents covering the questionable transaction in the PNP Annual Audit Report for 2008. Petitioner even quoted this observation in his counter-affidavit before the Ombudsman, thus:27
34. Significantly, PNP's delayed submission of the financial reports and disbursement vouchers was among my adverse audit findings for the year 2008. The pertinent portion of the 2008 Annual Audit Report, particularly Finding No. 25 thereof, reads:
25. Submission of financial reports was not made in accordance with section 122 of PD 1445. This always hampers the timeliness of audit/review of the agency's financial transactions.
x x x x
But the report only speaks of supposed documents which were submitted late. Hence, it could not have referred to the relevant documents asked of Quiambao that were never submitted at all. Whichever, petitioner should have disapproved the payment just the same. The transaction being undocumented is the strongest ground to disapprove its payment outright. But he never did. Had petitioner done his job by outrightly disapproving the transaction, he never even had to complain in his annual report about documents supposedly submitted late to his office.
In any event, the lack of specificity and vagueness of his report, i.e., on which financial reports or documents or which contracts he exactly meant, hardly allows us to draw the conclusion that petitioner acted on the repair and refurbishing contracts. No one, as in no one would be able to imagine that the report covered the undocumented transaction worth P409,740,000.00 which he unlawfully failed to act on.
This unlawful transaction worth P409,740,000.00 of people's money easily got lost because petitioner, as COA Supervisor and Resident Auditor of the PNP, intentionally neglected to disapprove it. The inculpatory evidence against him is too glaring to ignore. How then could he just be guilty of simple misconduct? Downgrading petitioner's liability to simple misconduct will be sending the wrong message that corruption as huge and serious as this one would only deserve a slap on the wrist.
All told, the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that petitioner's inaction was unjustified. But we nevertheless find that petitioner, though guilty of grave misconduct, should be absolved of the charge of serious dishonesty.
FFIB-MOLEO v. Jandayan28 defines grave misconduct and serious dishonesty, thus:
As defined, "[m]isconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. As an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. It is considered grave where the elements of corruption and clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule are present."
On the other hand, dishonesty has been defined as:
"x x x disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness, lack of integrity," is classified in three (3) gradations, namely: serious, less serious, and simple. Serious dishonesty comprises dishonest acts: (a) causing serious damage and grave prejudice to the government; (b) directly involving property, accountable forms or money for which respondent is directly accountable and the respondent shows an intent to commit material gain, graft and corruption; (c) exhibiting moral depravity on the part of the respondent; involving a Civil Service examination. irregularity or fake Civil Service; (d) eligibility such as, but not limited to, impersonation, cheating and use of crib sheets; (e) committed several times or in various occasions; (f) committed with grave abuse of authority; (g) committed with fraud and/or falsification of official documents relating to respondent's employment; and (h) other analogous circumstances. x x x
x x x x
Here, the Court finds that petitioner's inaction does not constitute serious dishonesty. The records are bereft of any proof that there was malicious intent on the part of petitioner to conceal the truth and make false statements which could render him liable for serious dishonesty. To be sure, even the Ombudsman found that petitioner did not conspire with nor act as an accomplice to the principal accused in the corruption charges in relation to the repair and refurbishing contracts.
As stated though, the Court agrees that petitioner's inaction indeed amounted to grave misconduct. Based on his own defenses, petitioner does not deny failing to perform his duties as Resident Auditor of the PNP insofar as the repair and refurbishing contracts are concerned. He did not lift a finger for this transaction. More, such omission appears to have been willful and intentional, thus, constitutive of misconduct. His offense was qualified by his clear and deliberate intent to disregard established rules as embodied in the various COA Circulars he violated.
Under Section 52(A)(3) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service29 which was still in force when the offense was committed, grave misconduct is a grave offense punishable by dismissal from the service even for the first infraction, thus:
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 |
| 2. |
Gross Neglect of Duty
1st offense - Dismissal |
| 3. |
Grave Misconduct
1st offense - Dismissal |
x x x x
What baffles the Court most is petitioner's display of sheer arrogance in claiming that he did nothing wrong. If this is how petitioner sees his inaction, there is serious moral depravity and lack of judgment on his part as he cannot distinguish between right and wrong despite his thirty-seven (37) years in service in the COA. Thus, we agree with the OSG that his length of service should be taken against him as he failed to exhibit the sense of duty required of him as a COA Supervisor and Resident Auditor of the PNP. After serving as a State Auditor for thirty-seven (37) years, he should have known better than ignore a P409,740,000.00 transaction.
So must it be.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 29, 2015, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 131258 and its Resolution dated August 10, 2015, are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Petitioner JAIME V. SERRANO is GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT and DISMISSED from the service. His civil service eligibility is CANCELLED, and his retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, are FORFEITED. He is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from holding public office, re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including any government-owned or controlled corporations, and from taking the civil service examinations.
SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, C.J., and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.
Caguioa, J., see dissenting opinion.
M. Lopez, J., on official leave.
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 9-18.
2 Id. at 39-53.
3 Id. at 54-55.
4 Id. at 68-77.
5 Id. at 102-120.
6 An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder, approved July 12, 1991.
7 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, approved August 17, 1960.
8 An Act Providing for the Modernization, Standardization and Regulation of the Procurement Activities of the Government and for other Purposes, approved January 10, 2003.
9 DBM allowed the release of P144,940,000 to procure logistical equipment for the repowering/refurbishing of 10 LAVs and the procurement of forty tires for the said vehicles. DBM issued Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) Numbers D-07-06813 and D-07-09829 dated August 30, 2007, and December 17, 2007, respectively, to the PNP. The PNP Directorate for comptrollership then issued Notice of Fund Availability (NFA) No. 000-219-357-2007 on August 31, 2007, to the Logistics Support. Later, DBM also released an additional amount of P264,800,000 to support the transportation, delivery expenses, repair, and maintenance of the 18 other remaining LAVs, id. at 40-41.
10 PNP Crame and SAF Headquarters revealed that the engines of the said vehicles do not carry the brand name "Detroit" but rather "Commando" which were manufactured way back in 1987. There was also no Record of Inventory, Inspection Report of Unserviceable Property, and Waste Material Report pertaining to the repair of [twenty-eight] 28 LAVs to indicate that the engine and parts of the said vehicles have been actually replaced, id. at 41-42.
11 Id. at 276-294.
12 Id. at 323-470.
13 Id. at 471-477.
14 Id. at 478-588.
15 Id. at 583.
16 Id. at 586-595.
17 Id. at 608-671.
18 Id. at 658-661.
19 Id. at 676-700.
20 Id. at 1398-1416.
21 Id. at 39-53.
22 Id. at 54-55.
23 Id. at 1450-1470.
24 COA Circular No. 95-006, May 18, 1995.
25 See Seangio v. Parce, A.M. No. P-06-2252, July 9, 2007, 533 Phil. 697 (2007), citing Antimaro v. Amores, A.M. No. P-05-2074, September 16, 2005; See also Laguio, Jr. v. Amante-Casicas, A.M. No. P-05-2092, November 10, 2006, citing Alcover, Sr. v. Bacalan, A.M. No. P-05-2043, December 7, 2005, and Salvador v. Serrano, A.M. No. P-062104, January 31, 2006.
26 Rollo, pp. 46-50.
27 Id. at 284.
28 G.R. No. 218155, September 22, 2020.
29 CSC Resolution No. 991936, September 14, 1999.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
