G.R. No. 133490 ; February 27, 2002
MA. GWENDOLYN R. BELLEZA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REGION 7, CEBU CITY, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Ma. Gwendolyn R. Belleza was the Cashier II of the Registry of Deeds of Cebu Province. On June 28, 1996, an audit by the Commission on Audit (COA) Regional Office in Cebu City revealed a cash shortage of ₱568,337.98 in her account. The COA directed her in writing to produce the missing funds and explain the shortage within 72 hours. Petitioner received the demand but failed to comply. A follow-up audit on September 3, 1996, confirmed the same shortage, and a subsequent demand letter was likewise ignored.
Consequently, the COA filed an administrative complaint for dishonesty against petitioner with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), Visayas. Petitioner initially filed a motion for re-audit, disputing the audit’s regularity and claiming excluded documents could alter the result. This motion was denied. In her counter-affidavit, she maintained her good faith and revealed she had fully restituted the amount in installments from December 1996 to April 1997. The OMB found her administratively liable and, in a Resolution dated September 5, 1997, recommended her dismissal from service, which was approved. Her motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner from service for dishonesty.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld petitioner’s dismissal. The legal logic is clear: restitution does not absolve an accountable officer from administrative liability for dishonesty. The audit established a cash shortage for which petitioner, as the cashier, was directly accountable. Her failure to immediately produce the funds or offer a satisfactory explanation upon lawful demand constituted dishonesty. The Court emphasized that the element of personal misappropriation is not required to establish administrative dishonesty in such cases; the shortage itself and the inability to account for it suffice.
The Court found petitioner’s defense—that her payments were merely “undeposited collections”—to be inconsistent with her earlier challenge to the audit’s accuracy and an admission of the shortage. Her belated restitution over ten months only confirmed her culpability. Dishonesty is a grave offense under civil service rules, punishable by dismissal on the first offense, carrying penalties of forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from reemployment. The Ombudsman’s decision was thus in accordance with law and devoid of grave abuse of discretion.