G.R. No. 238566 . February 20, 2019.
PHILIP JOHN B. MORENO, ACCOUNTANT III/DIVISION CHIEF II, PHILIPPINE RETIREMENT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Former Tenth Division) and OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Philip John B. Moreno was hired by the Philippine Retirement Authority (PRA) on February 1, 2001, and was later promoted to Finance Division Chief and Department Manager. On March 5, 2010, the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office charged him with Gross Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, later amended to include Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty. The complaint stemmed from Moreno’s act of signing Disbursement Vouchers (DVs) pertaining to the foreign travel cash advances of PRA Chairman Jose Antonio Leviste for the year 2003. In these DVs, Moreno certified that Leviste’s previous cash advances had been liquidated or accounted for when, in fact, they were not, in violation of Presidential Decree No. 1445 (Government Auditing Code). This allowed Leviste to secure subsequent advances without settling prior obligations. A State Auditor’s report found Leviste had failed to account for P151,358.42, with Moreno certifying the relevant DVs. In his defense, Moreno admitted signing the DVs but claimed he did so unwillingly due to pressure from PRA top management, who were reluctant to hinder the Chairman’s official activities. The Ombudsman found him administratively guilty of Grave Misconduct and ordered his dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling. In his petition before the Supreme Court, Moreno did not deny signing the DVs but argued the penalty of dismissal was too harsh, citing his good faith, admission of guilt, length of service, cooperation in the investigation, and the dismissal of the related criminal case by the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman and Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the penalty of dismissal is appropriate considering the circumstances of this case.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious. While Grave Misconduct ordinarily warrants dismissal even for a first offense under the Uniform Rules, the Court, applying Section 53 of the same Rules, considered the attendant mitigating circumstances to modify the penalty. The Court noted Moreno’s act of repeatedly falsely certifying the DVs was a serious infraction that facilitated the loss of public funds. However, it found the presence of mitigating factors: (1) Moreno acted in good faith and without wrongful intent, as he was pressured by superiors and there was no evidence of personal gain; (2) he admitted his infraction and cooperated in the investigation; (3) he had rendered nearly two decades of otherwise unblemished and exemplary service; (4) the related criminal case against him had been dismissed by the Sandiganbayan; and (5) the ultimate accountability for the unliquidated cash advances lay with Chairman Leviste, the approving authority. Balancing the constitutional principles of public accountability and social justice, the Court held that dismissal was too severe. The penalty was modified to suspension from government service for two (2) months without pay, after which Moreno shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights. He is not entitled to backwages for any period of preventive suspension during the appeal. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals were modified accordingly.