Fajardo v. Corral
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Mario J. Corral, Officer-in-Charge (OIC) Manager of the Treasury Department of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), filed a Complaint-Affidavit against petitioner Angelica Fajardo, OIC, Division Chief III of the Prize Payment (Teller) Division of the PCSO Treasury Department. Fajardo was responsible for instituting procedures in prize payments, conducting checks, counting paid winning tickets, and requisitioning cash for distribution. She was authorized to draw cash advances and was bonded for her accountability. A spot audit conducted by the PCSO Internal Audit Department revealed a shortage of PhP 218,461.00 in Fajardo's custody. Subsequently, a second cash count, conducted in the presence of Fajardo and representatives from the Internal Audit Department and the Commission on Audit, discovered a total shortage of PhP 1,877,450.00 in cash and checks, along with unprocessed paid winning sweepstakes tickets dating back to 2004. Procedural History: Following the discovery of the shortages, Fajardo failed to report for work and provide a satisfactory explanation. The PCSO Internal Audit Department sealed her vault and steel cabinet. After repeated requests for her to explain the shortage and be present for the opening of her vault, Fajardo requested an extension but failed to return to work. A letter was issued to Fajardo demanding the production of the missing funds and an explanation, which she failed to provide. In a subsequent letter, Fajardo admitted her mistake and offered to settle her accountability. However, in her Counter-Affidavit, she denied the regularity of the spot audits and claimed she was forced to sign documents. The Office of the Ombudsman found Fajardo guilty of Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service, meting out the penalty of dismissal. Fajardo's motion for reconsideration was denied. She then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition and affirmed the Ombudsman's ruling. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA. The Petition: Petitioner Angelica A. Fajardo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. Fajardo contends that there was no substantial evidence to support the findings of her administrative liability. She argues that the spot audits were not conducted according to established rules and that she was not given the opportunity to properly balance her books. Furthermore, she claims she was forced to sign certifications acknowledging the shortage. The Supreme Court, however, found no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the Ombudsman and the CA, emphasizing that questions of fact are generally not reviewable under Rule 45. The Court affirmed that Fajardo's failure to account for the substantial shortage of funds, coupled with her inability to provide a satisfactory explanation despite opportunities, constituted substantial evidence supporting the charges of serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service.
Issue(s)
Whether or not Fajardo is guilty of Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service due to her failure to account for PCSO funds.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner Angelica A. Fajardo was dismissed from service, with all its accessory penalties.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Guilt for Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service: The Supreme Court held that Fajardo's actions constituted serious dishonesty, as they involved money for which she was accountable and demonstrated an intent to commit material gain, graft, and corruption. Grave misconduct was committed by her failure to keep and account for the funds entrusted to her, despite being provided with a vault and being bonded, with corrupt intention evident in her failure to explain the missing funds. Lastly, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service was established because her actions tarnished the image of the PCSO, particularly the discovery of unpaid winning tickets dating back to 2004, which should have been liquidated or replenished, further eroding public trust in the agency. The Court reiterated that evidence of actual misappropriation is not required; the existence of the shortage and the failure to satisfactorily explain it are sufficient to prove guilt. The factual findings of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals are considered conclusive and binding, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion, and the Court found no reason to deviate from these findings in the present case. A finding of guilt in an administrative case is sustained if supported by substantial evidence, which was present in this case, including signed certifications, demands, and Fajardo's admission of accountability.
Main Doctrine
The findings of fact of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court, absent grave abuse of discretion. Substantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt in administrative cases, and the existence of a shortage of funds coupled with a failure to satisfactorily explain the same is sufficient to establish dishonesty and misconduct.