GR 173865; (August, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 173865 ; August 20, 2008
Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau, Office of the Ombudsman vs. J. Fernando U. Campaña
FACTS
The Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman filed an administrative case against respondent J. Fernando U. Campaña, a Senior Vice President of the GSIS. He was charged with Grave Misconduct and Falsification of Official Document for his role in the issuance and subsequent premium acceptance for a surety bond in favor of ECOBEL Land, Inc. The GSIS had initially issued the bond but later discovered the collateral offered was spurious, leading to internal cancellation notices. Campaña, stationed in London as the GSIS representative, was not informed of these cancellations. When ECOBEL made a loan drawdown and offered to pay the bond premium, Campaña, unaware of the bond’s invalidity, accepted the payment amounting to US$330,004. The Ombudsman found him guilty and imposed the penalty of dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the Ombudsman’s decision by reducing the penalty of dismissal from service to a one-year suspension without pay.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ modification. The Court upheld the factual findings of the Ombudsman regarding Campaña’s administrative liability. However, on the matter of penalty, the Court applied the principle that while dismissal is the prescribed penalty for Grave Misconduct, mitigating circumstances can warrant a reduction. The Court found several mitigating factors present: Campaña had no prior administrative record in his 34 years of service, he had received numerous awards, and his actions, while negligent, were not motivated by corrupt intent. Crucially, he was not privy to the internal cancellation of the surety bond when he accepted the premium payment. The Court emphasized that administrative penalties are intended to be corrective, not purely punitive. Considering his long, otherwise unblemished service and the absence of dishonesty or willful intent to violate the law, the Supreme Court ruled that the penalty of one-year suspension without pay was sufficient to serve the ends of administrative justice, thereby affirming the appellate court’s discretionary reduction of the penalty.