Chen v. Field Investigation Bureau
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The case originated from an anonymous complaint concerning the utilization of Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) funds, specifically the liquidation of cash advances and reimbursement of expenses in 2014. An Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) from the Commission on Audit (COA) highlighted that cash advances totaling P689,640,806.06 were granted to 21 Special Disbursing Officers (SDOs). COA's verification revealed a lack of required office orders designating these individuals as SDOs, and some business establishments listed on liquidation documents could not be found at the indicated addresses, with some denying the issuance of the supporting sales invoices or official receipts. The Field Investigation Bureau of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (FIB-MOLEO) subsequently filed 25 complaints against 25 PCG officials for Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, alleging irregular issuance and release of cash advances, lack of documentary support, and violations of COA Circular No. 97-002, Presidential Decree No. 1445, and Republic Act No. 9184. 2. Procedural History: The FIB-MOLEO filed 25 complaints against 25 PCG officials, including petitioner Radm Cecil R. Chen PCG (Ret.), for Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. After an investigation, the Office of the Ombudsman Special Panel rendered a Consolidated Decision on July 19, 2017, finding all concerned officials, including the petitioner, guilty of the administrative charges and meting the penalty of dismissal. This decision was approved by the Ombudsman on July 24, 2017. Motions for reconsideration filed by the officials were denied by the Ombudsman Special Panel through a Consolidated Order dated November 6, 2017, which was also approved by the Ombudsman. Petitioner then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for review under Rule 43. On July 30, 2018, the CA dismissed the petition for review, affirming the Ombudsman's Consolidated Decision and Order. Petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on June 20, 2019. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Radm Cecil R. Chen PCG (Ret.) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the CA's decision and resolution. The petition raises two main issues: first, whether the CA erred in finding the petitioner liable for the alleged irregular grant of cash advances despite his claim of simply signing a report of disbursement after it was certified as true and correct by the PCG's Chief Accountant and after liquidating previous advances; and second, whether the CA erred in finding him administratively liable for Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, despite his assertion that he had no involvement in the canvassing, preparation, purchase, and receipt of supplies. Petitioner argues that he relied on his subordinates and the Accounting Department, that his actions were regular on their face, and that he was made to sign documents without full knowledge of irregularities. The respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General, contends that the Court's jurisdiction is limited to errors of law, that the CA did not commit reversible error, and that substantial evidence supports the findings of guilt.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave reversible error in concluding that the petitioner is liable for the alleged irregular grant of cash advance in his capacity as designated SDO notwithstanding proof that he simply signed a report of disbursement after it had been certified as true and correct by the PCG's Chief Accountant, and after having liquidated all previous cash advances. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave reversible error in finding that petitioner is administratively liable for the offenses of Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service despite proof that he had no hand in the canvass, preparation, purchase, and receipt of supplies for the PCG.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Decision dated July 30, 2018, and the Resolution dated June 20, 2019, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 153865 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of liability for irregular grant of cash advance and the petitioner's defense of reliance on subordinates and accounting personnel: The Court affirmed the findings of the Ombudsman and the CA that the petitioner is liable. The Court emphasized that petitions for review under Rule 45 are limited to questions of law, and it is not a trier of facts. The findings of fact of the Ombudsman, when affirmed by the CA, are conclusive and binding upon the Court, provided they are supported by substantial evidence. The petitioner failed to present original and full copies of office orders designating him as an SDO, relying instead on an "Extract" which fell short of the standard set by COA Circular No. 97-002. Furthermore, the certification that he had liquidated all cash advances from 2011-2014 did not prove compliance with the requirement that previous cash advances must be settled or properly accounted for before additional ones are released, as mandated by PD 1445 and COA CN 97-002. The Court found his defense of reliance on subordinates and PCG procedures unpersuasive, stating that he, as head of office, was aware of his responsibilities and should have exercised circumspection, especially when the documents were irregular on their face. On the issue of administrative liability for Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and the petitioner's claim of no participation in procurement: The Court found no reason to rule differently, upholding the findings of the Ombudsman and the CA. The Court noted that the resort to emergency procurement for office supplies and IT equipment was unjustified, as these were regular office expenses that should have been procured through competitive bidding. The use of "Shopping" as a procurement method was also found to be improper, as the amounts exceeded the thresholds set by Section 52 of RA 9184 and its 2009 IRR, and there was no evidence of unforeseen contingency or unavailability from the Procurement Service. The petitioner's signatures on documents like the certificate of emergency purchase and abstract of canvasses contradicted his claim of non-participation in the procurement process. The Court reiterated that public officers must perform their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence, and skill, and cannot escape liability by passing the buck to subordinates or claiming to be forced by the system. The presumption of regularity does not apply when official acts are irregular on their face, and the petitioner's careless reliance on subordinates betrayed his diligence and good faith, especially given the large sums of public funds involved. The Court concluded that the petitioner's actions constituted Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, warranting dismissal, which was commuted to a fine due to his retirement.
Main Doctrine
Public officers are expected to exercise utmost care and diligence in the performance of their duties, especially concerning the disbursement of public funds. Blind reliance on subordinates or adherence to flawed internal systems does not absolve them of liability when irregularities are apparent on the face of documents or when established rules are flagrantly disregarded. The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty does not apply when official acts are irregular on their face.