G.R. No. 229882. February 13, 2018.
Camilo L. Sabio, Petitioner, vs. Field Investigation Office (FIO), Office of the Ombudsman, Respondent.

FACTS

The Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman charged Camilo L. Sabio, former Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The charges stemmed from three acts: first, incurring excess monthly cellular phone charges beyond the authorized cap; second, failing to deposit cash advances and remittances from sequestered corporations, totaling ₱10,350,000.00, into the Agrarian Reform Fund as required by law; and third, failing to liquidate a cash advance of ₱1,555,862.03 despite demand.
Sabio defended himself by claiming the PCGG’s confidential funds were never released, forcing him to use the sequestered corporations’ remittances for operations. He also argued that foreign litigation necessitated hefty legal fees. The Ombudsman found substantial evidence against him, adjudging him guilty of all charges and imposing the penalty of forfeiture of all retirement benefits, with prejudice to re-employment. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision finding Sabio guilty of the administrative offenses.

RULING

The petition is denied. The Supreme Court upheld the factual findings of the Ombudsman, as affirmed by the CA, noting they are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence. The Court found the evidence of Sabio’s administrative culpability overwhelming. On the first charge, his mere general denial failed to refute the documented excess cellular phone charges. On the second charge, his act of personally encashing checks from sequestered corporations and using the funds for PCGG operations, instead of remitting them to the Bureau of Treasury as mandated by Republic Act No. 6657, constituted technical malversation. These funds were legally appropriated for the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and were not discretionary operational funds for the PCGG.
On the third charge, his failure to liquidate a substantial cash advance despite demand created a prima facie presumption that the amount was put to personal use. Collectively, these acts—involving misappropriation, violation of specific rules, and failure to account for government funds—constituted Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty, which by their very nature also constitute Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The penalty of forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from re-employment was proper, especially since the penalty of dismissal was rendered moot by his separation from service.