G.R. No. 247916. April 19, 2022
RADM CECIL R. CHEN PCG (RET.), PETITIONER, VS. FIELD INVESTIGATION BUREAU, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The Field Investigation Bureau of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (FIB-MOLEO) filed administrative complaints against 25 Philippine Coast Guard (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. The case stemmed from an anonymous complaint regarding the utilization of PCG funds based on a Commission on Audit (COA) Audit Observation Memorandum. COA found that cash advances granted to Special Disbursing Officers (SDOs) lacked required office orders designating the recipients, and validation of liquidation documents yielded denials from some establishments regarding the attached sales invoices/cash invoices/official receipts. The FIB-MOLEO alleged the cash advances were irregularly issued, violated COA Circular No. 97-002, Presidential Decree No. 1445, and Republic Act No. 9184, as they were released without prior liquidation of outstanding advances and were used for emergency procurement without proper justification. Specific transactions implicated petitioner as an SDO. For his defense, petitioner claimed he was duly designated as an SDO, relied on PCG’s Accounting Department, had no part in procurement practices, did not convert funds, invoked good faith, and questioned the authenticity of his signature on one transaction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the Office of the Ombudsman’s finding that petitioner is administratively liable for Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, affirmed by the CA, are supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner, as a Special Disbursing Officer, was an accountable officer responsible for the proper safeguarding and legal utilization of public funds. His defense of reliance on subordinates and good faith was unavailing. The Court found that petitioner failed to comply with auditing and procurement rules, particularly COA Circular No. 97-002 and Republic Act No. 9184, by approving disbursements for emergency procurement without the required justification and supporting documents. His actions constituted Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Since petitioner was already separated from the service, the penalty of dismissal was converted into a fine equivalent to one year’s salary with accessory penalties.