Loreño v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A Complaint was filed against Ma. Luisa R. Loreño (Loreño), a Teacher I at Andres Bonifacio Integrated School (ABIS), for violation of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. An Audit Observation Memorandum from the Commission on Audit (COA) revealed a cash shortage of P263,515.96 in the cash accounts of ABIS. A demand letter was issued to Loreño and the former principal, Juanita P. Valle (Valle), to produce the amount. Subsequently, a complete examination of cash accounts, including Loreño's, resulted in a finding of a cash shortage amounting to P171,240.01, representing the balance of collections from authorized school contributions/fees and school operating funds. Loreño failed to produce the missing funds despite demand. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) found Loreño guilty of Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, imposing dismissal from service and accessory penalties. Loreño's Motion for Reconsideration was denied. She appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing she was not an accountable officer and the shortage was not supported by substantial evidence. The CA affirmed the Ombudsman's decision, holding Loreño as an accountable officer and that her failure to produce the shortage constituted prima facie evidence of personal appropriation. Loreño's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Loreño filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the CA Resolutions. She reiterated that she was not an accountable officer, her role was merely to count and turn over collections to Valle. She also argued that the audit was irregular and lacked substantial evidence, and that the shortage was based on assumptions. She denied committing the offenses charged.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the CA erred in finding Loreño as an accountable officer as defined under the law. Whether or not the CA erred in finding Loreño guilty of Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The Court denied the petition and affirmed the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, upholding the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman. Petitioner Ma. Luisa R. Loreño is dismissed from service for Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, with the accessory penalties of cancellation of civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement and other benefits (except accrued leave credits), perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any government agency, and being barred from taking civil service examinations.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Loreño is an accountable officer: The Court held that Loreño is an accountable officer within the contemplation of the law. The nature of the duties, not the nomenclature of the position, determines if an officer is accountable. Loreño was designated as Acting Collecting Officer of ABIS and was bonded in the amount of P45,000.00. Although she claimed her role was merely to count money and turn it over to the principal, the records showed otherwise. Her denial is a weak defense against the findings of the Ombudsman and COA auditors. The Court reiterated that an accountable officer is required to be bonded pursuant to Section 101 of PD 1445, and Loreño met this requirement. On the issue of whether Loreño is guilty of Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service: The Court found that the offenses charged were substantially proven. The COA's Report of Cash Examination indicated that Loreño collected a total of P9,803,353.80 during the period of April 16, 2007, to May 30, 2008. After deducting credits of accountability and cash in bank, Loreño incurred a shortage of P171,240.01. Her failure to account for this discrepancy and her inability to return the amount upon demand constitute prima facie evidence that she appropriated the money for herself. Furthermore, she violated rules on keeping accounts and recording transactions by failing to submit required reports. These actions demonstrate a lack of honesty, integrity, and probity expected of an accountable officer, thus proving the charges of Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
Main Doctrine
A public officer designated as Acting Collecting Officer, who is bonded and fails to account for collections upon demand, is presumed to have appropriated the funds for personal gain, constituting Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.