Bauzon v. Municipality of Mangaldan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Office of the Municipal Mayor of Mangaldan, Pangasinan, received Audit-Observation Memoranda (AOM) from the Commission on Audit (COA) regarding the non-submission of payrolls and liquidation documents for 2011 cash advances amounting to ₱29,362,148.95. Further observations noted non-compliance with basic requirements in the disbursement process. Notices of Disallowance were issued for cash advances for payrolls from January to March 2011, May to December 2011, and January to March 2012. These notices indicated that Marilyn D. Gonzales (Assistant Municipal Treasurer), Evelyn L. Bernabe (Municipal Accountant), and Susana P. Bauzon (Municipal Treasurer) were liable as accountable officer, internal auditor, and official directly responsible for check preparation, respectively. The folders for disallowed payrolls showed alterations and increases in the total amounts to reflect incorrect, larger sums. A total of ₱1,959,155.00 was returned. Bernabe and Bauzon appealed the Notices of Disallowance. Procedural History: On May 15, 2012, then Mayor Herminia A. Romero filed a Complaint for Grave Misconduct, Gross Dishonesty, Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service against Aquino, Gonzales, Bernabe, and Bauzon. The CSCRO I found a prima facie case against Gonzales, Bernabe, and Bauzon, dismissing the charge against Aquino. After formal investigation, the CSCRO I, in its Decision No. 14-0066 dated June 26, 2014, found Bernabe, Gonzales, and Bauzon guilty of Grave Misconduct and dismissed them from service. The CSC, in its Decision No. 140931 dated December 5, 2014, affirmed the CSCRO I ruling, finding substantial evidence to hold Bauzon guilty of Grave Misconduct. The CSC denied Bauzon's motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals (CA), in its Decision dated March 20, 2017, affirmed the CSC ruling. The CA denied Bauzon's motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition for review. The Petition: Petitioner Susana P. Bauzon argues that the respondent failed to discharge its burden of proving that she committed the acts complained of.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA committed reversible error in affirming the CSC's decision and resolution regarding the appreciation of evidence. Whether the CA erred in finding and holding that the petitioner is guilty of grave misconduct, considering her responsibilities as Municipal Treasurer and the evidence of negligence and deliberate disregard for public service.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated March 20, 2017, and the Resolution dated July 4, 2017, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 139707 are affirmed. Petitioner Susana P. Bauzon is found guilty of Grave Misconduct and is ordered dismissed from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and -controlled corporations.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the CA committed reversible error in affirming the CSC's decision and resolution: The Court held that the grounds raised by the petitioner regarding the appreciation of evidence by the CSC and CA are questions of fact, which are beyond the Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari, especially when the CA and CSC were uniform in their findings. On the issue of whether the CA erred in finding and holding that the petitioner is guilty of grave misconduct: The Court defined misconduct as wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate, or intentional purpose, and gross misconduct as conduct that is flagrant and shameful. The evidence on record demonstrated a pattern of negligence and gross misconduct on the part of the petitioner, satisfying the standard of substantial evidence. As Municipal Treasurer, petitioner was charged with the responsibility to verify the correctness of checks submitted for signature and to exercise the highest degree of care over the custody, management, and disbursement of municipal funds. The Court found it unbelievable that petitioner, as Municipal Treasurer, could not have noticed the alterations in the payrolls, which were perpetrated for almost the entire year of 2011 and the early months of 2012. Her failure to notice these alterations and to take action gave credence to the admissions of her subordinate, Gonzales. The disallowed payrolls clearly showed that the total amounts were altered and increased, paving the way for illegal check padding. The Court emphasized that even with a system of apportioning tasks, petitioner remained the head of her office and her subordinates were under her direct supervision and control. Her failure to ensure the correctness of the amounts indicated in the documents she signed demonstrated a wanton and deliberate disregard for the demands of public service. The Court cited previous cases such as Gonzales v. Civil Service Commission, Civil Service Commission v. Almojuela, and Hallasgo v. Commission on Audit (COA) Regional Office No. X et al., to support its ruling that such omissions constitute grave misconduct, a grave offense punishable by dismissal.
Main Doctrine
Public officers, particularly those in custody of public funds, are held to the highest standards of ethical behavior and are expected to uphold the public interest over personal interest at all times. Failure to exercise proper management and custody of funds, even if tasks are delegated, constitutes grave misconduct.