JAIME V. SERRANO, PETITIONER, VS. FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION BUREAU, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman that petitioner Jaime V. Serrano (Serrano) is administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty. The ponencia modified this by holding Serrano liable for Grave Misconduct but not for Serious Dishonesty, finding no proof of malicious intent to conceal the truth. The dissenting opinion agrees there is no basis for Serious Dishonesty but argues Serrano should only be liable for Simple Misconduct. The case centers on Serrano’s failure, as Resident Auditor of the Philippine National Police (PNP), to conduct a post-audit of PNP transactions for the repair and refurbishing of light armored vehicles, despite the fact that pre-audit was no longer required under COA Circular No. 95-006. The Ombudsman and CA found this failure violated COA auditing rules. The dissenting opinion notes Serrano was acquitted of related criminal charges and that this was his first administrative case in 37 years of government service.
ISSUE
Whether Serrano’s failure to conduct a post-audit of the PNP transactions constitutes Grave Misconduct, as held by the ponencia, or only Simple Misconduct, as argued in the dissenting opinion.
RULING
The dissenting opinion rules that Serrano should only be held liable for Simple Misconduct, not Grave Misconduct. It holds that for misconduct to be considered grave, substantial evidence must show the public official acted with (1) corruption, (2) willful intent to violate the law, or (3) flagrant disregard of established rules, which entails bad faith. The opinion finds no such evidence. First, there is no proof Serrano benefited from the transactions or used his position to secure a benefit for another. Second, his failure does not amount to flagrant disregard of rules, as his 37-year unblemished record negates any propensity to ignore rules. Third, regarding willful intent, the opinion argues that Serrano’s partial efforts to conduct an audit, though insufficient, negate a clear intent to violate the rules. It cites that he issued Notices of Suspension and a Report of Cash Examination, and that his office was understaffed. Therefore, the elements to qualify the misconduct as grave are absent. The dissenting opinion concludes that, at most, Serrano is liable for Simple Misconduct, and even if liable for Grave Misconduct, the circumstances call for a mitigation of the penalty.
