GR 220700; (July, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 220700. July 10, 2017.
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, Petitioner, vs. EUFROCINA CARLOS DIONISIO and WINIFREDO SALCEDO MOLINA, Respondents.
FACTS
Spouses Editha and Eduardo Ponce, owners of Sariling Atin Drug Store, sought to lease a portion of the Barasoain Memorial Elementary School grounds. School Principal Eufrocina Dionisio advised them that following official DepEd rules would be complicated. Instead, Dionisio proposed a scheme where only a fraction of the agreed annual rent would be officially recorded as a donation to the school’s Teachers’ Association, with the excess to be handled separately. Dionisio, with the concurrence of Teachers’ Association President Winifredo Molina, facilitated a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The complainants paid P1,280,000, believing it was a valid lease and donation. They later discovered the MOA was illegal, as the school could not legally engage in such a commercial lease and the Teachers’ Association lacked juridical personality to contract. Dionisio also attempted to lease an adjacent area to another drugstore.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the Ombudsman’s finding of Grave Misconduct to Simple Misconduct and in reducing the penalty from dismissal to a three-month suspension.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the Ombudsman’s finding of Grave Misconduct with the penalty of dismissal. The legal logic proceeds from the nature of the respondents’ actions. Misconduct is grave if it involves corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of established rules. Here, respondents Dionisio and Molina, as public school officials, deliberately circumvented mandatory legal procedures. They entered into a commercial lease agreement without the required DepEd approval, misrepresented the nature of the payments, and used a non-juridical entity (the Teachers’ Association) as a party to the contract. These acts were not mere errors in judgment but a conscious design to ignore laws and regulations governing public property and procurement. This constitutes a flagrant disregard of established rules, which is a key element of Grave Misconduct. The Court emphasized that the Ombudsman’s factual findings are generally accorded respect, and its conclusion that the acts were attended by corruption and a willful intent to violate the law was supported by substantial evidence. The penalty of dismissal from service, with its accessory penalties, is therefore appropriate.