GR 209274; (July, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 209274 & 209296-97, July 24, 2019
THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and JOSE PEPITO M. AMORES, M.D., Petitioners, vs. ANGELINE A. ROJAS and ALBILIO C. CANO, Respondents.
FACTS
The Department of Health realigned funds for the rehabilitation of the Lung Center of the Philippines (LCP). LCP officials, including Executive Director Fernando Melendres and respondents Albilio C. Cano (Ancillary Department Manager) and Angeline A. Rojas (Budget and Accounting Division Chief), caused the deposit of these funds with the Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB) under an Investment Management Agreement (IMA) to earn interest, pending the fund’s utilization. This was done prior to receiving a definitive legal opinion from the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), which had requested more documents for evaluation. The officials subsequently authorized several roll-overs of the investment.
Jose Pepito M. Amores filed a complaint before the Ombudsman, alleging grave misconduct for misappropriation and for entering into a contract grossly disadvantageous to the government. The Ombudsman found Melendres, Cano, and Rojas guilty of grave misconduct and ordered their dismissal. The Court of Appeals reversed, absolving them, finding no bad faith or deliberate intent to misappropriate, and noting the act was later covered by a board resolution.
ISSUE
Whether respondents Cano and Rojas are administratively liable for grave misconduct.
RULING
No, they are not liable for grave misconduct, but they are liable for simple misconduct. The Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the Ombudsman’s finding of liability but modified the offense and penalty. Grave misconduct requires a corrupt intent or a willful intent to violate the law or disregard established rules, which elements were not proven. The respondents’ act of investing the funds without full compliance with OGCC requirements and prior to definitive board authority constituted a transgression of established rules, but the evidence showed their purpose was to safeguard the funds and earn interest for LCP during the rehabilitation delay, not to misappropriate.
Thus, their actions constituted simple misconduct, defined as a transgression of a prescribed rule of action, without corrupt intent. Applying the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, simple misconduct is a less grave offense punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense. Considering the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances and to align with the penalty imposed on their co-respondent Melendres in a related case, the Court meted a three-month suspension without pay.