GR 172580; (July, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172580; July 23, 2008
LOURDESITA M. BIBAS, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS) and COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VI, Respondents.
FACTS
Lourdesita M. Bibas, a Disbursing Officer II in Silay City, was found to have a cash shortage of P989,461.10 after an audit on November 6, 2002. In her written explanation, she admitted the shortage was due to her misplacement of two bundles of paid payrolls in November 2000, attributing it to her own carelessness and negligence. She requested to settle the amount through salary deductions. The Commission on Audit (COA) forwarded the case to the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), which initially found her liable for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and imposed a six-month suspension.
Upon COA’s motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman modified its decision, finding Bibas guilty of Dishonesty and ordering her dismissal. Bibas filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it on procedural grounds, including the use of the wrong remedy and late filing of the motion for reconsideration. Bibas then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner guilty of Dishonesty and dismissing her from service.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the Ombudsman’s finding of Dishonesty. The Court ruled that the Ombudsman’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Bibas’s admission in her November 25, 2002 letter that the shortage resulted from her “carelessness and negligence” in misplacing the payrolls, coupled with her failure to satisfactorily account for the missing funds, constituted substantial evidence of dishonesty. The Court emphasized that dishonesty, as a grave offense, implies a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud, and Bibas’s failure to liquidate her cash advances and account for the shortage over a significant period fell within this definition.
The Court further held that the procedural missteps before the Court of Appeals did not warrant a remand, as the core issue was already ripe for resolution. It found no merit in Bibas’s claim that the amended audit letter was a scheme to incriminate her, noting the consistency in establishing her accountability. The Ombudsman’s factual findings, being supported by substantial evidence, are generally accorded respect and finality. Thus, the penalty of dismissal from service, with its accessory penalties, was affirmed as commensurate to the offense committed.