G.R. No. 165776; April 30, 2008
Genevieve O. Gaas and Adelina P. Gomera, petitioners, vs. Rasol L. Mitmug, Regional Director, Region XII, Commission on Audit, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Genevieve O. Gaas and Adelina P. Gomera served as bookkeeper and senior clerk, respectively, in the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Bacolod, Lanao del Norte. A comprehensive cash audit in May 1990 revealed cash shortages in their possession—P19,483.20 for Gaas and P29,956.28 for Gomera—attributed to disallowed vales or chits issued to municipal officers and employees. Petitioners explained they acted under instructions from their superior, Assistant Municipal Treasurer Saturnino L. Burgos, who designated them as special disbursing officers to advance funds from collections for municipal expenses. They subsequently settled the shortages upon demand.
Based on the audit report, the Commission on Audit recommended disciplinary action. The Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao found petitioners guilty of gross neglect of duty for violating government accounting rules, emphasizing that vales or chits are never allowable cash items. They were ordered dismissed from service. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing their right to a speedy disposition of the case was violated due to procedural delays.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed a reversible error in finding petitioners guilty of gross neglect of duty and dismissing them from service, considering their defense of acting under orders and the alleged violation of their right to a speedy case disposition.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. On the substantive charge, the Court held petitioners accountable for gross neglect of duty. As custodians of government funds, they bore a non-delegable duty to ensure strict compliance with auditing rules and regulations. The Manual on Cash Examination explicitly prohibits vales, chits, or IOU’s under any circumstance. Their defense of following a superior’s unlawful instructions is untenable; they voluntarily accepted the incompatible task of handling disbursements and thereby assumed the concomitant responsibility to safeguard public funds according to law. Their actions constituted a breach of the public trust mandated by the Constitution.
Regarding the procedural issue, the Court found no violation of the right to a speedy disposition of cases. While there was an interval between the complaint’s filing and the order to submit counter-affidavits, petitioners failed to raise the issue promptly before the Ombudsman. By submitting their counter-affidavits without previously moving for a speedy resolution, they effectively waived the right and cannot invoke it for the first time on appeal. The delay was not vexatious or oppressive, and petitioners did not demonstrate prejudice from the period involved.