Ombudsman v. Delos Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Leovigildo Delos Reyes, Jr., as Chief of the Marketing and On-Line Division of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), was responsible for overseeing lottery terminals and the proceeds generated. Following a surprise audit in June 2001, auditors found the cash and cash items under his control to be in order but recommended that lotto proceeds be deposited in a bank on the next working day rather than kept in his office safe. A subsequent account validation in August 2002 revealed unremitted collections amounting to P387,879.00 from May 21, 2001, to June 3, 2001. The investigation indicated a deliberate delay in submitting sales reports and partial remittances, with the unremitted collections attributed to Lottery Operations Assistants and the Assistant Division Chief, Elizabeth Driz. The PCSO Legal Department recommended formal charges against Delos Reyes and Driz for dishonesty and gross neglect of duty. Procedural History: Formal administrative charges were filed against Delos Reyes and Driz on May 14, 2003, leading to their preventive suspension. On June 8, 2004, the PCSO filed an affidavit-complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, charging both with malversation of public funds or property and administratively with dishonesty and gross neglect of duty. The Office of the Ombudsman, in a decision dated June 10, 2006, found Delos Reyes and Driz guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty, ordering their dismissal from service. Delos Reyes' motion for reconsideration was denied on November 15, 2007. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which, on March 1, 2013, reversed the Ombudsman's decision and ordered Delos Reyes' reinstatement with backwages. The Court of Appeals denied motions for reconsideration from the Office of the Ombudsman and PCSO in a resolution dated August 29, 2013. This Court, in a Resolution dated October 13, 2014, granted the petition for review on certiorari filed by the Office of the Ombudsman, reversing the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstating the Ombudsman's dismissal order. The Petition: This resolution addresses a Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Leovigildo Delos Reyes, Jr., assailing this Court's October 13, 2014 Resolution, and a Manifestation and Motion for Clarification filed by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO). Delos Reyes argues that there was no substantial evidence to find him guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty, asserting that Elizabeth Driz was the one who misappropriated funds and that his duties did not extend to verifying her deposits. He also contends that the Court of Appeals correctly allowed his petition for certiorari in the interest of substantial justice. The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the Office of the Ombudsman, argues that Delos Reyes' motion is pro-forma and reiterates arguments already considered, asserting substantial evidence supported the Ombudsman's findings and that the Court of Appeals erred in entertaining the certiorari petition under Rule 65 instead of Rule 43. The PCSO seeks clarification regarding the consequences of Delos Reyes' dismissal, particularly concerning back salaries paid pursuant to the Court of Appeals' decision before this Court's reversal.
Issue(s)
Whether there is substantial evidence to warrant the finding that respondent Leovigildo Delos Reyes, Jr. is guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty. Whether the Court of Appeals was correct in allowing the petition for certiorari in the interest of substantial justice. Whether respondent Leovigildo Delos Reyes, Jr. is entitled to back salaries and benefits despite his dismissal from service and the reversal of the Court of Appeals rulings.
Ruling
The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY. The Resolution dated October 13, 2014, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Respondent Leovigildo Delos Reyes is not entitled to payment of back salaries and is hereby ordered to return any amount received as back salaries and benefits covering the period of November 8, 2008, to November 10, 2013, from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty: The Court reiterated that findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. Respondent Delos Reyes, as Chief of the Marketing and On-Line Division, was accountable for the vault and the lotto proceeds therein. His duty included monitoring, checking, and reconciling daily lotto proceeds reports. While the personal deposit of proceeds fell under Driz's responsibility, Delos Reyes had the incumbent duty to ensure that the deposited proceeds corresponded to the reports and were deposited promptly. His willful disregard of the auditors' recommendations for prompt deposit and his complete reliance on Driz's representations constituted gross neglect of duty. Furthermore, the Court found substantial evidence of grave misconduct, as Delos Reyes flagrantly disregarded rules and acted with willful intent to violate the law. His authorization was required for Driz's deposits, and he could have discovered the lapping of funds had he performed his duties by checking deposit records against reports and reconciled sales proceeds. The Court emphasized that even if the duty was not explicitly in his job description, his position of control and supervision over subordinates made him accountable for ensuring adherence to office protocols, as established in Land Bank of the Philippines v. San Juan, Jr.. On the issue of the Court of Appeals' allowance of the petition for certiorari: The Court reiterated that liberal application of rules cannot justify a flagrant disregard of procedural rules. Appeals of decisions from the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be filed under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is only tenable when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. Therefore, the CA erred in entertaining the petition for certiorari when an adequate remedy under Rule 43 was available, and the strict application of procedural rules was warranted. On the issue of entitlement to back salaries and benefits: The Court clarified that the Office of the Ombudsman's decision dismissing Delos Reyes was immediately executory. PCSO's reinstatement of Delos Reyes and payment of back salaries were based on the CA rulings, which were subsequently reversed by this Court. The general rule is that public officials are entitled to compensation only if they render service. Back salaries are awarded only if the public official is exonerated or the dismissal is found to be illegal. In this case, Delos Reyes was found guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty, and his dismissal was reinstated. Therefore, he is not entitled to back salaries for the period he did not render service. The Court ordered him to return the amounts received as back salaries and benefits from November 8, 2008, to November 10, 2013, as his separation from work pending appeal remained valid until this Court's final resolution.
Main Doctrine
A public officer is accountable for the funds under their control and is expected to exercise due diligence in monitoring and reconciling reports, even if the direct handling of funds is delegated to a subordinate. Failure to do so, especially when auditors' recommendations for prompt deposit are ignored, constitutes gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct. Furthermore, reinstatement and payment of back salaries are contingent upon exoneration or a finding that the dismissal was illegal; otherwise, public officials are not entitled to compensation for services not rendered.